Good read about camo patterns and their effectiveness at night.

http://www.hyperstealth.com/c3/

Very intetesting, I didnt think about it until now but camoflauge at night is a different problem, and interesting

This is a very interesting and controversial subject.  Seeing how the best parts are still classified, it makes it harder to discuss.

In this day and age, it's very hard to find anyone without some kind of agenda; the lone pilgrim seeking the truth is very rare these days.  I don't know this guy at hyperstealth from Adam; he could be testing to the best of his ability.  Who knows.

My own observations are with gen III -14's, usually outside, in the US southeast.  Probably the best camo I have seen, personally, in a field setting is Brit DPM, followed closely by Brit Desert DPM.  It didn't look as good in his testing pics for whatever reason.  I was just using my mark 1 mod 0 eyeball.

My own opinion on the subject is, at any practical distance, which I would define as the edge of visual detection at night (say 100-50m), you only really need a two color pattern, which has enough contrast to break up and blend your shape with your surroundings.  Insisting on a full 4-color palette in a close-up image is irrelevant, IMHO.  At any practical distance, at night, under NV, you will see a shape, or movement, or noise WAY before you go "hey no shit, look at the 4-color palette on that dude's cammies".  So I think any pattern with large, dark, disruptive shapes, such as DPM, or even old US Woodland works better than the patterns with the smaller dark shapes (most digitals and OCP) and/or no stark contrast between colors under NV (such as ATACS).

So the guy gets one thing right.  There are patterns that excel in day light and there are patterns that excel in NIR.  This kinda begs the question.  Should we be looking at different light spectrums versus all the emphasis on daylight terrain values?  Was the old desert night pattern a step in the right direction that was just OBE with all the new digitals that came out?

Personally I use a mix of OCP and MTP because I think it works reasonably well and it relatively cheap and available.  I am also of the opinion that the best camo in the world is useless without good fieldcraft.  So discussing this subject in an academic vacuum like this can be misleading, IMHO.

I think if all these testers and SME's went to the bush and did a mini-ranger school over say, a period of 4-6 weeks, they would be much enlightened as to what is really important out there, and what is just fascinating but irrelevant bullshit.  Hanging up motionless swatches on tree limbs and such is very interesting but largely useless to really seeing what it going on out there.  Until you have been up several weeks, with little sleep, little food, sleeping out on the hard cold ground, and trying to pay attention to your surroundings, you really don't have any fucking clue what camo patterns do or do not have any impact on.

I don't have much time to post and link from work right now but Diz you make really good points as always and I agree with most. You are dead on with your comments about field craft vs hypothetical testing. Very well said and right on.

In my so far hypothetical testing at the range, I've got an initial somewhat slightly different view of the macro pattern results you mention comparing the older Soviet/Russian NV against new Russian Gen 3 and US PVS14 Gen 3 systems ... and some of the results are interesting in the first few rounds of testing.

I generally assume a movement to contact with NV or using NV from a defensive position where you see the enemy approaching vs seeing them in their own hide position: I.E. large parts of the silhouette are visible. The testing is not to verify if you can hide from within 5m for example, it is to simulate rifle engagement distances at night. I did this to get a baseline in the first few rounds of testing to see the immediate similarities and differences between the various devices I own.

The macro patterns like you describe seem to be much easier to pick out under NV but this is highly dependent on background of course. One observation is that many daylight camo patterns do not separate well at night and end up looking darker as a whole than they do in the day. This seems to be especially likely the older the NV devices, and what happens is that the silhouette can often appear black or completely and therefore really stand out against the background

So the daylight patterns we are familiar with often seem stand out like a sore thumb under NV ... but this is highly dependent on the scenario they are viewed in as I mentioned. In the open with random East Texas backgrounds (dirt berms, small trees, open fields with trees in the background) the macro patterns, particularly NATO woodland are very easy to spot within 100m. At 300m depending on the light and the background they can also be really easy to spot

What seems to be difficult at any distance are the new digital patterns...and interestingly a monocolor uniform against a monocolor background (Like OD green against an even colored tan or green background). The upside can be really good blending against the right background, the downside is standing out pretty obviously against a varied background. I need more testing on this, it was a surprise discovery a few months back and I need to follow up

The digital patterns really do seem to do a good job at blending against many backgrounds and are quite impressive so far. They seem to do well against monocolor backgrounds and varied backgrounds, which is slowly making me lean toward a good digital pattern for day or night. As I'm sure you remember my fascination with SURPAT...the more I test against it the more I am sold on daylight and night camo effects. Other digital patterns like MARPAT woodland are also doing very well

Sorry for the wall of text and no photos. I am working on an NV writeup as time permits when I am in the States.

I have 1PN34, 1PN51, 1PN58, 1PN93, 1PN114, PN22K, PN23 and my amazing TNVC PVS14 to baseline against (as far as head to head goes, PN22K and PN23 are really really close to the PVS14. Really close indeed)

Will let you guys know when I am done with it

Z

It's good to see you weigh in here.  I would also like to hear your opinions on the various combloc patterns.  I always found the camo effect of those Gorka smocks fascinating.  Using the contrast between the camo areas and the solids in big block shapes was an interesting concept.  Kinda like having a macro pattern mixed in with a micro to break up the overall shape/size.

Here's the thing with me and this debate over macro vs micro pattern.  In a meeting engagement, which we can use as a good example of what camo is trying to do, i.e., delay the onset of recognition, I have either heard something crunch or snap, seen movement or an outline of something moving behind the bush, or even smelled something funny.  Sometimes it just got real quiet and the hair on the back of my neck stood up.  In other words, many other target indicators were present before any disruptive camo pattern came into play.  The guy could have had a solid green or brown on and it wouldn't have made any difference.  Now granted, most of my experience was in jungles, and dense woodland areas.  And most of the time we moved at night.  So yeah terrain and situation.  Texas is probably gonna look a lot different!

But here's the kicker.  I've had my buddies patrol towards me slowly, taking frequent security halts, just like old sarge taught us.  What you would see is some dude getting up slowly and see a dark outline moving.  By the time you could discern a camo pattern, you could also see a face, a rifle, and bunch more shit you should be worried about.  Again this is the US southeast, in rolling woodland terrain.

So maybe the upshot of all this is to test it yourself, in whatever terrain you might find yourself in.  You don't have to use a "universal" pattern that works everywhere; you can tailor it to your area.  Now there's a concept.  I like the big, disruptive shapes on DPM and woodland camo.  We all mother-fucked it cuz the snipers looked through their 40x spotting scopes and derided the "dog bones" and "shoot me" double U's.  Well, I think a typical situation, at night, isn't going to be a guy crawling up to a final firing point, with the oppo scoping him out with high-powered optics.  That's a corner of the envelope that was exaggerated way out of proportion to a typical meeting engagement.

But more importantly, don't look at camo recognition in a vacuum; have live opponents patrol in on you, under different conditions, and see what happens for yourself.  A nice warm night, when you're well rested and fed, is a far cry from cold, drizzling rain, where you're half-sick, exhausted, and trying to stay awake.  Day optics vs NV.  Woodland terrain vs wide open.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  I think a lot of this camo mania we've gone through in the last few years has more to do with branch distinctiveness, rather than real camo value.  I think the old school woodland camo is making a comeback in some circles because it works a hell of a lot better than a lot of folks give it credit for, and they are tired of all these rotating camo patterns of the month being touted as superior to it, when in reality it matters very little.  Just about anything you wear for two weeks straight in the bush is gonna blend in, I almost guarantee it.

Regardless of what you wear, it's still good fieldcraft.  Terrain masking, proper movement technique, good personal camo (overall, not just clothing), light and noise discipline, and so forth.  I2 and Thermal are still just line of sight.  If we practiced this as much as we worry about camo, we'd all be ninjas.