U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013) • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by olalonde » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:30 PM UTC

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #8

causi wrote: post #3

It appears that someone circumnavigated the scientific process and forced UCP in. That would be whoever benefitted financially from the decision to fuck our soldiers over.

Having worked (as a civilian contractor) for the military it's equally plausible that the decision was screwed up for other reasons. High up decision makers that "trust their gut" over what the data tells them or who arbitrarily decide that a certain pattern looks silly to them. It's absolutely not intuitive that the digital looking blocky camouflage patterns [1] are going to perform better than the blob style camo p…

Hanlon's razor strikes again.

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

#22

Post by furyg3 » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:31 PM UTC

causi wrote: post #3

It appears that someone circumnavigated the scientific process and forced UCP in. That would be whoever benefitted financially from the decision to fuck our soldiers over.

I mean, there is an obvious (gigantic) budgetary and logistical advantage of having one form of camouflage for all situations over more than one.

If it works, of course, which it doesn't.

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

#23

Post by chrisseaton » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:31 PM UTC

bloqs wrote: post #19

Random but does anyone know where to buy a official Crye precision multicam texture for game dev? Their website gives the impression they just sell fabrics to the US market

Sounds expensive.

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

#24

Post by alexb_ » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:32 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #17

If I'm reading this correctly, the decision process that resulted in the horribly-ineffective UCP pattern amounts to: "We want one pattern. So let's pick one color from the best camo patterns in every environment [the only one that has good NIR performance], and the result will somehow work well!" Which is... yowzers. (For what it's worth, the Multicam pattern, which is slightly modified to the OCP pattern now in use…

I'm in the Air force, and while not relevant to actual camouflage ability, I can personally say that OCPs look much nicer than the uniforms before. A lot of the old camo patterns looked painfully ugly. And the ability to camouflage isn't too relevant for me anyways, unless I'm trying to blend into chairs/desks.

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

#25

Post by JoelMcCracken » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:32 PM UTC

I feel like eventually they'll be back to highland plaids as being the optimal pattern.

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

#26

Post by dotancohen » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #17

If I'm reading this correctly, the decision process that resulted in the horribly-ineffective UCP pattern amounts to: "We want one pattern. So let's pick one color from the best camo patterns in every environment [the only one that has good NIR performance], and the result will somehow work well!" Which is... yowzers. (For what it's worth, the Multicam pattern, which is slightly modified to the OCP pattern now in use…

  > the decision process  that resulted in the horribly-ineffective UCP
  > pattern amounts to: "We want one pattern

Just wait until you read how the F-35 was procured. "We want one airplane for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. Oh, and it had to include parts from almost all NATO allies, even those who we won't sell it to."

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

#27

Post by function_seven » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #13

spicymaki wrote: post #9

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

The British red coats were a kind of dazzle camouflage, making it hard to see individuals within the group. People weren't stupid back then - they just had different design goals to what we have now.

"Lieutenant! We're sticking out like sore thumbs here! Why did we go with bright-fucking-red as our uniform colour? The enemy can clearly see us coming!"

"Corporal, your job is to bang on that drum as we march, not complain about military fashion."

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

#28

Post by omginternets » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #13

spicymaki wrote: post #9

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

The British red coats were a kind of dazzle camouflage, making it hard to see individuals within the group. People weren't stupid back then - they just had different design goals to what we have now.

In addition, C2 was not what it is today, so an important design goal for military uniforms was to distinguish friend from foe on the battlefield.

In the same vein, modern militaries often attach IR strobes to personnel and vehicles to identify them at night. This will likely appear silly in a few years when night optics are pervasive (if that hasn't happened already).

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

#29

Post by biofox » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #15

Now I want to show up at our Zoom meetings in full camo. Doctors and soldiers get such cool uniforms, but us programmers are just business casual. Plus then you could convince a few of your coworkers to show up in camo with you and make your manager nervous you’re about to do a hostile takeover of the company.

I go for the classic 'Big Blue' look and wear a suit and tie. Helps me to mentally separate work and relaxation time, with the added benefit of getting better treatment from management.

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

#30

Post by _tomcat_ » Mon, Aug 01, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

some_random wrote: post #12

_tomcat_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

idk, but it seems to undermine national security. Maybe in here somewhere, "Various statutes supplement the provisions of Chapter 37 to criminalize activities that jeopardize the national defense or national security." IANAL ;)

I'm sure the senior military officials pushing UCP through were doing so to intentionally handicap the organization they spent their entire life working for. Rather than just making a mistake based on overestimating their own knowledge. If that's criminalized, all of HN is going behind bars.

thats a weird take, very defensive. But, since youre sure about it I guess everyone should be too.

I'm sure no one is trying to destroy US democracy either or stage insurrections, etc. oh wait...

If I had to guess, I'd say it was intentional and all about money. That could make it illegal. Even if they didn't intend to lose in combat, it still gave US soldiers a handycap.