How Not To Be Seen
Posted on 10/30/2016 8:54:55 AM PDT by SandRat
In a shocking move, Army officials have confided in Soldier Systems Daily that they plan to abandon the Camouflage Improvement Effort that has left Soldiers without an effective camouflage pattern despite several years and tens of millions of dollars.
(Excerpt) Read more at soldiersystems.net ...
uummm..April fool’s joke from 2013.
Date of the article is April 1, 2013.
I’m sure the new uniforms will be just “fabulous.”
You have got to be kidding me!
Under President Trump the new uniform will be decided on early and under budget.
I heard a mini-lecture recently on the art of camouflage. It raised a number of interesting points that I’d never considered — not surprisingly, because few of us not in the business have ever given this much thought. The bottom line is that there is no simple right and wrong answer; if there were, this would have been settled long ago. Apparently a lot depends on the range at which you need camouflage to be effective, and of course, local ground cover and terrain, which requires judgments about the tactical environment of some indeterminate future engagement. The “right” answer also depends on the balance you strike between day and night operations. The Army and Marines are always guessing about their next war.
Don’t know about the Army, but whenever the Marine Corps gets a new Commandant, the first thing he does is change the uniform regulations.
Obviously, the best camouflage would be complete invisibility, but I suspect the Romulans are the only ones capable of that.
FABULOUS! Are they mostly pink?
What you said makes perfect sense. It’s so easy to see that the current work uniform simply does not fit all cammo requirements.
A particular pet peeve of mine, is our local Army recruiters all wear this disgusting cammo crap (you guessed it, I don’t like it). They used to wear Class A’s, which I thought made them look quite professional. I asked a recruiter one day why they abandoned the Class A at the recruiting stations, he said: “because they intimidate potential recruits”.
Dress ‘em up like democrats at a Hillary rally. No on will see them then./snicker
I’ve always wondered about the early choices that came after the pointed hats and festooned garb militaries around the world sported. What color? What pattern?
The Germans (whom I’ve always respected for their expertise and innovation) chose that grey color. Our side chose OD and variations thereof. The US marines were the first on our side to ‘localize’ to uniforms suited to the surrounding prevalent environment in the pacific in my book.
But the Germans......grey? Then I came to the answer looking out to the surrounding scape on one island I was stationed at through at least two winters. Between the local land visage and the scene out in the ocean on a lot of days on a shitty winter day, a grey-masked soldier wouldn’t be all that visible even if there was lush green on land around him. Why? because the grey murky, cloudy winter sky gave him a balance factor to force personal scrutiny of color to what is the most prevalent - and that would be the other brightly colored things around him. That’s must my crazy idea, but that’s what it is nonetheless.
Late on, the experts coloring out fighters and aircraft settled on sky blue, or international orange or whatever variation. Then it all got back to that same color grey - first on the bottom but soon became all over.
I served (1968-76). I remember OD and Khaki, fatigues, bus-driver shirts and pants and those caps we couldn’t tell ladies what they’re referred to amongst men.
I got finished with 8 years before the uni’s got all cool with digi-camo and velcro and made everybody look like a musket combat badge soldier (even my Air Force alma mater).
They have gone many routes in this “human factor/human recognition” maze to no end; gulf war BRD-birdshit speckled, digicamo, micro-digicamo with USMC or whatever micro embellished and a host of other human factors horseshit.
NONE of that makes a difference. NONE of that makes sense. And NONE of that will be effective UNLESS we ARM these troops to protect themselves, cause damage to the enemy and the ABILITY of them to protect those among around them.
The design and color of the uniform isn’t the problem. Giving them the tools and authority to engage is the crux of the matter.
dRESS TEHEM ALL AS HILLARY; YOU’LL SCARE THEM LIKE H***.
When broken down, the calculations become very complicated. To begin with, does an opponent even know you are out there, somewhere? How closely is he watching? In patrol and ambush situations, good camouflage may enable you to move undetected longer and at closer ranges than would otherwise be possible. When seconds matter, how quickly can an observer pick you out against the local background? Good camouflage can, as you suggest, blur boundaries. It can also confuse observers, at least momentarily, on size and direction. And what is effective at 100 meters is very different from what works at 1,000 meters. There is no one right answer.
I recall the camo exercises in Basic at Ft Gordon (1967). We sat in some bleachers staring into a wooded area where we were directed to use peripheral vison to try an recognize targets. I always thought it interesting.
I was able to pick out one of about ten targets.
Good, maybe they’ll bring back the old khaki Class B. That was a sharp looking uniform.
I’ll never forget back in the mid 80s, when a friend of mine was leaving the Army, and offered to give me 4 brand new sets of BDUs. So I being Air Force, asked my First Sergeant if he thought we may be going to BDUs, too.
Well, he pitched a fit. Got visibly pissed off and started raving about “How the Army needs to hide behind rocks and bushes, but why the BLANK would the Air Force have to? That’s so stupid. Maybe we should have camouflage that looks like tires and asphalt?! That is the stupidest question you’ve ever asked! We’ll NEVER go to BDUs, and you can take that to the F’n bank, dumbass.”
So, my bud gave them to someone else. One year later, the USAF adopted the BDU uniform.
I thought so to. Even the permanent press ones that were wash-n-wear. They were great for traveling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.