Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

hyperstealth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 309 posts

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#271

Post by raxxorraxor »

denton-scratch wrote: post #37

I was hoping to learn why the pixelated designs started appearing. Author says they work; but what led anyone to think that those designs might work? Why did they try them in the first place? And actually, why do they work? I find it bizarre that this is all done by private companies, competing in public competitions, with royalties to be paid for the chosen design. And I'm quite surprised that some designs were foun…

I doubt they have to be pixelated. They have a higher resolution than the other patterns which introduces more noise, which is probably good. But I would guess that smooth patterns would work too. It just doesn't matter since it would look the same from longer distances.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#272

Post by numpad0 »

samstave wrote: post #255
akerl_ wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re basically describing “muzzle brakes and flash suppressors, but with more components to refill/repair” Separately, using the force of the round (either via a gas tube or via direct rearward motion) to propel the action of the firearm isn’t really an AK47 thing, it’s common to all semi automatic rifles and predates the AK47 by quite a while.

I know. " propel the action of the firearm isn’t really an AK47 thing, it’s common to all semi automatic rifles and predates the AK47 by quite a while. " Kalashnikov invented the easiest way to manufacture this behavior... This is the reason its the most heinous of weapons. I am talking about something different. And thats OK. - I am talking about a specific method of funneling muzzle output to funnel through your su…

AK47 isn’t the first rotating bolt gas piston carbine with muzzle devices with booster effect, it’s just an evolution of Sturmgewehr concept and one of the first generation assault rifle so retroactively categorized.

I’ll skip over lubed suppressor concept as I don’t know more than Google tells us :p

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#273

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

ncmncm wrote: post #220
bendur_ wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For deer (with guns), yes. For things like turkeys, ducks, geese, deer with bows, etc they do not. In hunter safety they really stressed to be careful hunting turkeys.

You seem to be saying that fowl have good color vision, so hunters of those need to avoid the orange stuff, and other hunters can't rely on seeing it to avoid shooting one another. But where does "deer with bows" come into that?

Well, obviously, if deer in your area have guns (or bows) then you'd better wear some camo.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#274

Post by nmeofthestate »

chasebank wrote: post #63
yboris wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WWI & WWII related: the Dazzle Camouflage for ships! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

Thanks! That was interesting! Now I know where the phrase razzle dazzle came from!

Dazzle is a word - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dazzle

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#275

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

spicymaki wrote: post #9

Today's camo is so much better than the red coats the British were wearing in the 18th century. chuckle

I wonder if the goal of bright, flashy uniforms was not the psychological effect that it has both on enemy and friends.

There's a long history of armies going into battle bedecked in attire calculated to test the enemy's resolve and bolster their own. Skyclad Celtic warriors and extravagantly feathered Eagle Warriors. Spartans with red chitons and Samurai with monstrous faceplates. My favourite example is the Parthian geneal Surena's flamboyant manoeuver at the Battle of Carrhae (in 53 BC):

The Parthians went to great lengths to intimidate the Romans. Firstly, they beat a great number of hollow drums and the Roman troops were unsettled by the loud and cacophonous noise. Surena then ordered his cataphracts to cover their armour in cloths and advance. When they were within sight of the Romans, they simultaneously dropped the cloths and revealed their shining armour. The sight was designed to intimidate the Romans.[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae#Battle

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#276

Post by numpad0 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #204
samstave wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a really odd thought cross my head and want to just document here before I forget it: The way rifles work with recoils driving the expulsion of a shell after firing and using that force to load the next round to chamber (the famous AK47 design) -- Would there be a method of attaching a compressed water bottle with valve with a donut nozzle with vents out at angles to the optimal suppression of the muzzle f…

In all honesty, there isnt much room to improve the actions of modern assault rifles. There are dozens of post-stoner improvements that have bern tried. Millions have been spent on them. They have all been shelved as to complex or cumbersome. The gas-operated rotating bolt is so elegant, so reliable, that fundimental improvements are hard to imagine. Adding water to the equation? Rust, mud, weight, boiling ... you wo…

I suspect there should be a lot of room for improvements, just that we are not able to perceive them without first- or second-world war going on.

I remember reading about importance of a newfangled barrel free-floating construction on carbines, soon after the Afghan war started. The examples used at that time were kludgy top-rail secured things supposedly used by mysterious SEALs guys. Later I saw Crane stock for the pair of chemical lights.

Today, those are slim M-LOK with rail on top and secured to the barrel nut, HEL-STARs, and MOE SL stocks. Oh and Russian Army standard infantry rifles are now cheap AKs with f*’ng buffer tubes, and G36 now has short aluminum mounts to avoid floppy carrying handle issues(“polymer degradation” fiasco).

What caused all those changes were clearly the wars.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#277

Post by Steve44 »

yboris wrote: post #52
chasebank wrote: post #51

Tangentially related - Arguably the most famous golf course architect, Dr. Alister MacKenzie (Augusta National, Cypress Point, Pasatiempo, etc), was a civilian physician in WWI and became interested in camouflage design during the war. He made significant contributions to the British military camouflage during his tenure. He later based his golf course architecture, primarily the bunkering, from camouflage design pri…

WWI & WWII related: the Dazzle Camouflage for ships! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

There was a ship moored on the Thames in London for a few years painted in a modern interpretation of Dazzle. Sadly it was only there for a few years, I used to love seeing it.

https://www.1418now.org.uk/commissions/dazzle-ship-london-2/

> The HMS President (1918), one of only three surviving Royal Navy warships from the First World War, was ‘dazzled’ by the German sculptor Tobias Rehberger. One of the most respected European artists of his generation, Rehberger is a German sculptor whose work blurs the boundaries between design, sculpture, furniture-making and installation.

and https://www.flickr.com/photos/royreed/18228263075

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#278

Post by bumby »

jessaustin wrote: post #251
bumby wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s odd that you would find the same type of constraints, such as limiting the evaluation to the single dimension of close air support, to support your view while saying the same constraints are unreasonable in your next response. I would like you to consider that we likely don’t disagree. I never said that money should be spent on the military or even by the government for that matter. The fact that was how you int…

I only offered CAS as a sop to the arcane MIC theology seen in this thread. All this prattle about per-unit basis, "Reformers", airframes, base rates, when the Pentagon can't even be audited. I don't particularly care about CAS; we shouldn't be there in the first place. Either you agree, or you don't. If I can't figure it out, I can't care about it.

You brought up the A10 and the POGO's report to support your point. All my replies have literally been responses to the evidence you've provided for your position, so it's odd that you now think those points are irrelevant.

We probably have the same qualms with the MIC. I just don't think the evidence you use to support your claim is particularly valid, and tends to point towards ignorance on the subject. Combined with the circular logic presented and an inability to state what it would take to change your mind, it makes your position more dogmatic than rational. It’s not just a binary “we agree or don’t”, but the thought process that led it because that’s what will ultimately make me rethink my position. My issue isn't the conclusion, it's the way you came to it.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#279

Post by bumby »

ncmncm wrote: post #252
bumby wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generalization (not specialization) was it’s strong point as well as it’s weakness. The reason why it was a design boondoggle was because it had to meet the requirements of many masters. People forget it has a number of DoD missions in addition to the more publicly known NASA missions.

The DoD missions its design was compromised for did not happen.

There were plenty of joint NASA/DoD missions that were performed using the Shuttle. Why do you think NASA, an agency built upon freely sharing scientific information, occasionally had classified payloads aboard the Shuttle?

"Between 1982 and 1992, NASA launched 11 shuttle flights with classified payloads, honoring a deal that dated to 1969, when the National Reconnaissance Office—an organization so secret its name could not be published at the time—requested certain changes to the design of NASA’s new space transportation system."[1]

NASA has a long history of working with the military. The first astronauts were all military test pilots (Armstrong gave up his military commission so NASA wouldn’t appear overtly militarized).

[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/secret-spa...

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#280

Post by spywaregorilla »

int_19h wrote: post #247
spywaregorilla wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard the javelin missile launchers have been great in ukraine because they can double as night / thermal vision. This concept seems similar to me. Never been on a battlefield but I guess it seems dubious that most modern soldiers don't have some form of digital aid?

Night vision is not digital, usually (digital NV exists, but it's not as good at amplifying as gen3 analog NV). Thermal has digital screens, but it's far less widespread than NV.

Why is that? I would assume digital night vision would be vastly superior catching a lot of edge cases like bright likes becoming blinding?
Post reply on HN