It is currently Sat May 27, 2017 5:13 am


All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:33 am 
Not completely useless

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:14 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
There's no doubt that camouflage is also a personal responsibility when it comes to the user. However, if the case was solely that solid colors work as well as camouflage patterns than the billions of dollars spent on the new US Army trials would not be warranted.

I see what you mean about colors blending over distance, and I agree that they do come together as a certain color. However, I have personally seen the effects of camouflage at close distances vs. solid colors and I feel the camouflage always fairs better.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:55 am 
I can't work for assholes
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:36 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Norway
I thought it became blatantly obvious that camouflage was little more than a fashion statement after the entire U.S. Army went for a motherfucking BLUE camo pattern?

Granted, camo patterns have their merit, of that there is no doubt, - but from what I've experienced when playing soldier on the weekends; When being conscious of how you move and silhouetting, plain clothes can be just as effective in most cases. Thus the reason why I've worn RG Cryes and a gray TAD Gear Spectre jacket for the last eighteen months or so.

_________________
Feel free to check out my Facebook Page for more photos and info on shiny gear and sexy Ranger Green stuff.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:42 pm 
I can't work for assholes
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:18 am
Posts: 975
Location: Back in 'Murica...
The Army never had a blue camo pattern. That's the Navy. And it's a fashion statement/utility uniform/drowning hazard, not for tactical reasons.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:55 pm 
I can't work for assholes
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:36 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Norway
Pedantic as it may be, the socalled "Urban Gray 501" is a blue hue, and in most cases I've seen lends it's hue to the overall pattern.

_________________
Feel free to check out my Facebook Page for more photos and info on shiny gear and sexy Ranger Green stuff.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:58 pm 
I need to get out more

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:06 pm
Posts: 722
Quote:
I see what you mean about colors blending over distance, and I agree that they do come together as a certain color. However, I have personally seen the effects of camouflage at close distances vs. solid colors and I feel the camouflage always fairs better.


Well, okay then. :roll:

What constitutes close distances? How far away do you expect a pattern to render you "invisible" to the human eye?

You either did not read my post thoroughly, or you did not comprehend what I wrote.

I said that a solid color uniform satisfies 80-90% of the COLOR requirement of camouflage. I also said that patterns have an effect, but how big of an effect is hard to quantify in real life.

The biggest issue with colors is contrasting, ie appearing darker or lighter than the background you are viewed against.

Here is a link to the Photosimulation Camouflage Detection Test done by Natick from March 2007 to March 2009.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19823845/Phot ... ction-Test

The test measured how fast soldiers could locate a standing individual in a picture, wearing different patterns, at different distances. This gives a good estimate on visual detection probability wearing different patterns, while standing upright. Strangely enough, desert patterns did not work very well in woodland areas, and woodland patterns were crap in desert terrain.

Their conclusion:

Quote:
The data clearly show that environment-specific patterns provide the best camouflage, i.e., lowest probability of detection, in their respective environments. These data clearly indicate that two pattern types, woodland and desert/urban, will provide the best camouflage to the Soldier with missions in these specific environments.


The point is that many users put too much emphasis on the color and pattern part, although UCP really is crap, instead of focusing on the entire scope of camouflage.

Camouflage is so much more than just the color of the gear and the uniform. Even the "best" pattern is ineffective if the fundamentals are not applied properly (target indicators on gear, highlighted against background, not breaking up shapes, not changing out natural vegetation based on freshness and local flora regularly, improper use of terrain/staying in positive areas etc).

Another aspect here is an individuals ability of observation. Most people are clueless as to the proper method of observing, and how psychological factors play a part in how we see things. Many people look, but they do not observe anything. To hide from people who know how to observe, color is but one aspect of a very difficult skill.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:10 am 
I can't work for assholes
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:18 am
Posts: 975
Location: Back in 'Murica...
Pkekyo wrote:
Pedantic as it may be, the socalled "Urban Gray 501" is a blue hue, and in most cases I've seen lends it's hue to the overall pattern.


That is pedantic. I stare at ACUs every day. They're not blue. Check your eyes.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:36 am 
Earning his keep

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 5:26 am
Posts: 274
Location: Idaho and Green Bay, WI
Seriously dude, its ok, ACU is blue and gay, just like ABUs except we at least got tiger stripe. No one is blaming you.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:45 am 
I can't work for assholes
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:21 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Canada
Fish wrote:
ACU is blue and gay

I'm wondering if that was a pretty funny typo or if it was on purpose :lol:

Anyway, as it was said before, part of why the choice will be based on the "professionalism" the camo transpires (not sure if that's the right word in english?)
In other words, Kryptek and Brookwoods don't look sharp enough -in my opinion and fail on that aspect.

_________________
This link isn't porn.

"Inspirational quote. "
- Celebrity


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:24 am 
Earning his keep

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 5:26 am
Posts: 274
Location: Idaho and Green Bay, WI
No typo.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:12 am 
Not completely useless

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:14 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
I believe the Krpytek camouflage may still hold a place in the running in terms of professionalism. Although, it may be ahead of its time.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:47 pm 
Part of the furniture
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:14 am
Posts: 465
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Fish wrote:
Seriously dude, its ok, ACU is blue and gay, just like ABUs except we at least got tiger stripe. No one is blaming you.
Interesting, I wear UCP ACUs every day and they've never looked blue to me. One of the colors is a "foliage green" which is a color t-shirt I wore on deployment. It looks a grey-green in color to me. The other colors look grey and tan, nothing blue. But I suspect it's the grey-green color that looks blue to you.

There is a good comparison on this page and both the ACUs and ABUs just look simply like grey camo to me.
http://www.acu.com/

Here's a comparison between the Army and Navy camo. The Navy camo definitely looks blue.
http://rbaz.tripod.com/pics/uniform_tes ... e?i=32&s=1


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:11 pm 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:41 am
Posts: 625
Location: Minnesota
Why would you quote a site to defend your point when this is the first line.

Quote:
ACU vs Navy blue

light blue background (notice how the ACU blends in.)


Anyways, UCP being blue or grey is starting to get off topic.

_________________
Hey everybody its me, Jim, Tall, Queer, Handsome as ever!"


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:28 am 
Part of the furniture
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:14 am
Posts: 465
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
It wasn't what was written on the site, it was the side by side of the Navy vs. Army ACU I liked.

I must be color blind or something then, because UCP does not look blue to me at all. Though, one aspect I've heard about UCP is that it is supposed to trick the eyes into changing the hue of its color. Looking more green in the woods and more tan in the desert. Though I'm not sold on that one.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:38 am 
Part of the furniture
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:14 am
Posts: 465
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Now, back on topic for me, I'm a huge fan of MC and I'm trying to figure out what is it the Army doesn't like that they just won't go with it. I guess I like all the choices, as much as I can judge from the pictures. The Kryptex looks very strange to me and would take some getting used to. But it's probably very effective and is very much a departure from traditional camo. Though it does kind of remind me of futuristic real tree.

As was mentioned earlier, I'd like to see the Army go back to OD Green for the Garrison fatigues instead of UCP. I mean, if they're going to issue you all new FR ACUs any frickin way when you deploy, it doesn't much matter what the CONUS fatigues are. I thought the OD Green looked properly military.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: US ARMY Camouflague 2012
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 3:45 pm 
Part of the furniture
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:34 pm
Posts: 565
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
One color camo would be the shit... if it was possible to simutale terain textures...
That should be the focus.

Color should be as flat as possible.
And the patterns should be as versatile as possible.

They should have a flanell pattern that is impossible to focus your eyes on ;)

_________________
AM-GEARWHORE

Nomex flight gloves work with the iPhone touch display!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net & kodeki