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

291–300 of 309 posts

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

#291

Post by bumby »

ncmncm wrote: post #290
bumby wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be more direct: Can you substantiate your claim that the DoD missions did not need those specs? You haven't provided anything other than an opinion at this point. Because to a laymen, that's an unverifiable claim since those details appear to be classified. Meaning that opinion doesn't amount to much. It's plausible, but I'd need a little more than your opinion to believe it.

I have, of course, no opinion: this is purely a matter of fact. I merely echo complaints by NASA insiders. I may speculate that their requirements were such as to be able to loft the NSA equivalent of Hubble into a polar orbit, but that by the time STS was flying, they had retired that design and were using rather smaller birds.

In other words, you can't substantiate it. It is therefore not "purely a matter of fact" any more than someone else saying "I heard a guy who heard a NASA guy say those requirements were necessary." At least the latter instance can point to requirements that at least show an intent to do so, your claim is on shakier ground.

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

#292

Post by imwillofficial »

jcranmer wrote: post #188
imwillofficial wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Space force is still in many ways still a child of the Air Force, and follow Air Force uniform refs.

Space Force does have its own dress uniforms.

Yup, but these things take time. I’d imagine they’d keep most things in alignment with the AF however

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

#293

Post by int_19h »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #280
int_19h wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't know the specifics when it comes to the physics of it, but analog NV amplification simply has more sensitivity than digital image sensors. Of course, you can still analog-amplify an image onto a camera sensor for further digital processing, but I don't think that's common.

The particular case that you describe - automatically adjusting to ambient light - is handled adequately by analog circuits; this is called "auto-gating", and is pretty much standard nowadays.

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

#294

Post by ncmncm »

bumby wrote: post #291
ncmncm wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have, of course, no opinion: this is purely a matter of fact. I merely echo complaints by NASA insiders. I may speculate that their requirements were such as to be able to loft the NSA equivalent of Hubble into a polar orbit, but that by the time STS was flying, they had retired that design and were using rather smaller birds.

In other words, you can't substantiate it. It is therefore not "purely a matter of fact" any more than someone else saying "I heard a guy who heard a NASA guy say those requirements were necessary." At least the latter instance can point to requirements that at least show an intent to do so, your claim is on shakier ground.

It is a matter of fact in that either there were zero missions of such a nature, or there were one or more. I.e., you can refute it by identifying even just one such mission. Posting a list of random DoD missions is not a substitute for that.

People employed at NASA for decades, in a position to know and report even facts not published, that they have had no reason to lie about, say it is true. No one has come forward to say not.

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

#295

Post by bumby »

ncmncm wrote: post #294
bumby wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, you can't substantiate it. It is therefore not "purely a matter of fact" any more than someone else saying "I heard a guy who heard a NASA guy say those requirements were necessary." At least the latter instance can point to requirements that at least show an intent to do so, your claim is on shakier ground.

It is a matter of fact in that either there were zero missions of such a nature, or there were one or more . I.e., you can refute it by identifying even just one such mission. Posting a list of random DoD missions is not a substitute for that. People employed at NASA for decades, in a position to know and report even facts not published, that they have had no reason to lie about, say it is true. No one has come forwa…

That’s my point. Note I said it was unverifiable. Only one of us is pretending it’s a verifiable fact. I also know manny people who work at NASA, going back from the 1970s to present day. Some were astronauts. Many worked on the shuttle program directly. We seem to have very different ideas about what constitutes a “fact”.

But again, none of that matters unless you can verify your claim. We can just leave it as a known unknown and stop pretending it’s anything different.

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

#296

Post by ncmncm »

bumby wrote: post #295
ncmncm wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a matter of fact in that either there were zero missions of such a nature, or there were one or more . I.e., you can refute it by identifying even just one such mission. Posting a list of random DoD missions is not a substitute for that. People employed at NASA for decades, in a position to know and report even facts not published, that they have had no reason to lie about, say it is true. No one has come forwa…

That’s my point. Note I said it was unverifiable. Only one of us is pretending it’s a verifiable fact. I also know manny people who work at NASA, going back from the 1970s to present day. Some were astronauts. Many worked on the shuttle program directly. We seem to have very different ideas about what constitutes a “fact”. But again, none of that matters unless you can verify your claim. We can just leave it as a kno…

Then ask them.

If you really honestly think that whether NASA launched any of a certain specific sort of mission is a matter of opinion, I don't know what to say.

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

#297

Post by bumby »

ncmncm wrote: post #296
bumby wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s my point. Note I said it was unverifiable. Only one of us is pretending it’s a verifiable fact. I also know manny people who work at NASA, going back from the 1970s to present day. Some were astronauts. Many worked on the shuttle program directly. We seem to have very different ideas about what constitutes a “fact”. But again, none of that matters unless you can verify your claim. We can just leave it as a kno…

Then ask them . If you really honestly think that whether NASA launched any of a certain specific sort of mission is a matter of opinion, I don't know what to say.

The issue I'm pointing to is the veracity of your claim that they did not. You stated it with certitude that, by the very nature of it being classified, you likely do not have. So either you're out over your skis regarding your certainty or the person you talked to willfully disclosed classified information.

It's no different than if somebody on here said with certainty that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll. Because, you know, they have a source at the CIA who said so. But we can't verify it because they classified the information. But trust them. They know a guy.

Of course in both cases there is truth that supersedes opinion. Whether or not anyone should believe one claim over another is a different story. Just because you say something with conviction doesn't make it true and just because you "know a guy" doesn't make it credible.

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

#298

Post by rtkwe »

jcranmer wrote: post #185
rtkwe wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to things other people have said there's a lot of roles that aren't combat so increasing the number of women who can qualify can fill out those roles (logistics, the reams of sundry clerical work, maintenance, etc) where physical strength isn't as critical helps fill out a volunteer army.

There's a concept called 'tooth-to-tail ratio' which is the ratio of combat personnel to non-combat personnel in an army. The modern US army has a tooth-to-tail ratio of about ~1:8. This isn't necessarily a great correlation to physically demanding versus not-physically-demanding jobs, it does illustrate how tiny the front-line portion of the military actually is.

That was the concept I was gesturing at but I couldn't remember the name. Militaries in general but the US in particular are predominantly logistics organizations with a lethal last mile delivery focus. It's part of why they're so good for responding to natural disasters in far flung island countries, they're used to delivering goods with little infrastructure at the destination.

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

#299

Post by yencabulator »

danielvf wrote: post #58
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…

It's not really so much about the pixels being square as the fractal-ish nature of mordern pixel camos that result in a "scale invariance" effect. There's details and contrast at the level of the small pixels, and there's details and contrasts are medium levels, and then again at large levels. Previous US army camo mostly had detail at only one scale level. As jcranmer says, there's more details on the reasons it wor…

But that by itself doesn't explain why Flecktarn wasn't as good. Plenty of detail there, just organic looking not pixelated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flecktarn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uniforme_militar,_ej%C3%A...

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

#300

Post by yencabulator »

rtkwe wrote: post #238
Sharlin wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Finn, my conception of warfare is probably biased towards a specific type that happens in woodlands with short sightlines and lots of natural concealment. Direct-fire engagement distances tend to be short, infantry tactics are informed by the desire to get as close as possible without being seen, and by unit movement (possibly under aerial surveillance) while giving away as little information as possible. I do t…

Yeah mine is probably colored by being from the US and it's recent wars where overall stealth wasn't a huge consideration because the force disparity was so great Finland also has some interesting doctrine in anti-tank which leads to fun images like [0] of people absolutely COVERED in anti-tank mines or launchers. Part of being next to a much larger country I guess. [0] https://twitter.com/jmkorhonen/status/150401633…

Those things are hellishly heavy and being "that guy" that has to carry them is a form of punishment too.

These particular photos look like comic relief.

Those yellow anti-tank mines are 10 kg each, which means that dude would be hauling at least 160 kg = 353 lbs extra weight. Doable perhaps but definitely not used in combat.

Max loadout is more like 4 of those anti-tank mines hanging off your gear and carrying 4 in your hands, and that will guaranteed wipe you out. Hauling 4 total any longer distance is the usual amount.

Max loadout of the APILAS anti-tank rocket launcher thing is usually two on your back, and that'll practically immobilize you in Finnish terrain.

Post reply on HN