Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/8/2005 8:20:03 AM EDT
Looking to learn about camo, what's best, digital vs. regular, woodland vs. urban vs. all terrain.

Are there any websites available with explainations of the different kinds, other than those looking to sell clothing?

Thanks
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 8:23:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 8:24:27 AM EDT by VooDoo3dfx]
Arfcom Lesson 1.

Don't repeat the dreaded "M" type.


www.hyperstealth.com/

I like that website.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 8:31:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VooDoo3dfx:
Arfcom Lesson 1.

Don't repeat the dreaded "M" type.


www.hyperstealth.com/

I like that website.



Thank for the link (and fast, too) but what the heck are you talking about "M type?"
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 8:44:04 AM EDT
MUhahahhaha...I beat the M*rp*t!!!


IBTM.....



Link Posted: 9/8/2005 8:48:27 AM EDT
save your time and just buy some MARPAT.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 8:50:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BeckettOfNevada:
save your time and just buy some MARPAT.



Link Posted: 9/8/2005 8:51:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BeckettOfNevada:
save your time and just buy some MARPAT.



Link Posted: 9/8/2005 8:54:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By maddog_enigma:
Thank for the link (and fast, too) but what the heck are you talking about "M type?"



There are some, shall we say, "sightly high-strung", people here on the board who feel that MARPAT should only be worn by Marines.

It usually degenerates into a locked thread.

I don't care if you put MARPAT on your dog, just don't try to pass it off as a Marine.

Av.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 8:56:22 AM EDT
Somewhere, damned if I know where now though, is a website done by this guy who took a picture of himself in color and black and white to show the effectiveness of various camo types at range.

This was before the current crop of digital stuff, but it gives you an idea of what works and what's crap. Hint: the "busy" stuff sold as hunting camo is mostly crap.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 8:58:41 AM EDT
this is the part that gets me.....So before marines wore MARPAT only marines should have worn the old BDU's now im not arguing im just trying to figure this buisness out. Me i love my marine issuid MARPAT pants and jacketts...like wearing good camoed PJs.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 9:11:46 AM EDT
I just spent some time Googling on this subject FWIW. The hyperstealth site is an ok place to start, particularly this page and other content regarding the work of Lt. Col. Timothy R. O’Neill, Ph.D., United States Army (Ret.). Just remember you are looking at a marketing document.

Until CADPAT, I understand British DPM consistently won NATO camo trials/competitions. Canada's process for developing CADPAT was particularly interesting. They started with thousands of digital images of the temperate regions where Canadian soldiers might be called upon to serve. Those images were the basis for the pattern and colors - not the personal preference of some designers. Later they developed Arid Regions and Winter/Arctic versions.

There's a huge debate about whether the Marines ripped off the Canadians or not. I'm inclined to believe Ken Henley's account about 1/3 of the way down this page. I understand the marines picked their colors first, then selected their patterns and then tested them against each other.

Both CADPAT and MARPAT were designed with night vision imaging in mind.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 9:18:38 AM EDT
In particular, digital woodland vs. digital all-terrain... isn't the all terrain the same, minus the black?
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 9:20:58 AM EDT
Also check out Multicam by Crye Precision. It's a very nice camo pattern, or at least looks that way from the pictures I've seen. I'd love to do some testing with it against the camo that shall not be named.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 9:24:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 9:25:33 AM EDT by green-grizzly]
Extreme Mossy Oak Break-Up. At least no one will threaten to kick your ass with that pattern.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 10:37:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 10:39:49 AM EDT by Manic_Moran]
I think the move to digital patterns (CADPAT/MARPAT/ACUPAT/DOGPAT) is simply a case of form following function.

Regardless of fashion preferences of the different cultures, everyone's eyes work the same way, so it stands to reason that any pattern that works well for the Germans would work just as well for the Luxembougs, the British and the Americans, at least in similar terrain.

As time progresses and patterns evolve towards 'perfection', there should be little reason why they all shouldn't start looking like each other. The concept of 'little dots' appears to have started with the Flecktarn of Germany, the digital PATs are just evolutions of the concept. They're not even new, I've seen photos of US Army M60A1s in digital camo. (2nd ACR had it as their default camo: They repainted their M60A3s the same way when they got them)



Really, the only thing that easily distinguishes MARPAT from anything else of equivalence is the EGA that occasionally shows up.

NTM
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 11:47:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:
Also check out Multicam by Crye Precision. It's a very nice camo pattern, or at least looks that way from the pictures I've seen. I'd love to do some testing with it against the camo that shall not be named.



To bad it costs an arm, a leg, and a toe...
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 12:21:59 PM EDT
Another good read over at militarymorons.com

www.militarymorons.com/misc/camo.html

username-mm
password-mm
To see full size pictures
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:25:15 PM EDT
http://www.multicampattern.com/
this camo is interesting..
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:59:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NewbHunter:
Also check out Multicam by Crye Precision.



+1

The best of the civie patterns and what the Army should have picked over ACU.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:22:08 PM EDT
that crye shit is the biggest rip off known to man. The army made a wise choice going with ACU. Not as wise as the marines with MARPAT though.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:24:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BeckettOfNevada:
that crye shit is the biggest rip off known to man. The army made a wise choice going with ACU.



Have you tried them both in your AO to see which is the more effective pattern?
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:34:24 PM EDT
I went hunting last year with a buddy of mine who got out of the Navy. He was a corpsman from 1-5 weapons company. He wore his MARPAT. I really had trouble seeing him. That stuff works really good.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:46:55 PM EDT
yup, the ACU works really really well in the sagebrush out here sense its really grey in the winter. The desert marpat works well for the winter and the woodland for the summer. the crye never really works well anytime. plus the price alone would drive me away.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 2:52:50 PM EDT
Yup. The Marines and Canadians both concluded one "universal" pattern would not do. I bet the Army eventually follows suit. At a minimum, you need arid and temparate, IMO, with over whites for the winter.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 5:05:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 8:36:17 AM EDT




Thanks for finding the link. I love hawaiian shirts
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 11:23:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
I think the move to digital patterns (CADPAT/MARPAT/ACUPAT/DOGPAT) is simply a case of form following function.

Regardless of fashion preferences of the different cultures, everyone's eyes work the same way, so it stands to reason that any pattern that works well for the Germans would work just as well for the Luxembougs, the British and the Americans, at least in similar terrain.

As time progresses and patterns evolve towards 'perfection', there should be little reason why they all shouldn't start looking like each other. The concept of 'little dots' appears to have started with the Flecktarn of Germany, the digital PATs are just evolutions of the concept. They're not even new, I've seen photos of US Army M60A1s in digital camo. (2nd ACR had it as their default camo: They repainted their M60A3s the same way when they got them)

www.uniteddynamics.com/dualtex/M60_DUAL.JPG

Really, the only thing that easily distinguishes MARPAT from anything else of equivalence is the EGA that occasionally shows up.

NTM



[Ed McMahon] You are correct, Sir ! [/Ed McMahon]

The US Army pioneered digital pattern camouflage in the mid-1970s and continued with the concept. The Canadians and the USMC both took their cue from the US Army Natick Soldier Support Center and even sent representatives to the facility in order to complete their own designs.

Personally, I like the USMC solution better, but I haven't seen details about visual or IR testing of either.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 12:10:02 PM EDT
More interesting info on CADPAT HERE including some on IR treatment. If you want info on the IR or thermal properties of a pattern, just Google the name of the pattern and "IR" or "thermal" - there's tons of info out there.

IIRC the Marines are also trying to patent MARPAT. Last time I looked for it at the Patent Office site I didn't find anything. I look forward to reading the application and/or patent if/when I can find it.

I remember seeing 2ACR vehicles with the camo pattern made up of squares approximately 2" accross.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 12:18:55 PM EDT
Crye Multicam works best in my neck of the woods. Gear in MC isn't really that much more expensive than OD green (maybe $5-10). The Crye manufactured clothing is pricey, but it's light years beyond other BDUs regarding functionality. Sometimes you pay for R&D
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 12:29:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2005 12:30:04 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
I think the move to digital patterns (CADPAT/MARPAT/ACUPAT/DOGPAT) is simply a case of form following function.

Regardless of fashion preferences of the different cultures, everyone's eyes work the same way, so it stands to reason that any pattern that works well for the Germans would work just as well for the Luxembougs, the British and the Americans, at least in similar terrain.

As time progresses and patterns evolve towards 'perfection', there should be little reason why they all shouldn't start looking like each other. The concept of 'little dots' appears to have started with the Flecktarn of Germany, the digital PATs are just evolutions of the concept. They're not even new, I've seen photos of US Army M60A1s in digital camo. (2nd ACR had it as their default camo: They repainted their M60A3s the same way when they got them)

www.uniteddynamics.com/dualtex/M60_DUAL.JPG

Really, the only thing that easily distinguishes MARPAT from anything else of equivalence is the EGA that occasionally shows up.

NTM



[Ed McMahon] You are correct, Sir ! [/Ed McMahon]

The US Army pioneered digital pattern camouflage in the mid-1970s and continued with the concept. The Canadians and the USMC both took their cue from the US Army Natick Soldier Support Center and even sent representatives to the facility in order to complete their own designs.

Personally, I like the USMC solution better, but I haven't seen details about visual or IR testing of either.



I think this is the part of the show where I point out that the Danish pattern, issued in 1984, is one of the first of the "modern" dot patterns - and it pretty much identical to the german pattern.

The German "flecktarn" pattern was issued a year or two after the Danish pattern was issued, and is exactly the same - except for different colors. Of course, much older (WW-2) german patterns were part of the process by which the Danes designed their pattern, so it's very much debatable who developed it.

But the notion of using "dots" is definitely an old one, going easily back to WW2 and possible even back to WW1 (I've been told).

If anyone's interested, here's a pic from the late 1980s.

Link Posted: 9/9/2005 12:57:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
I think the move to digital patterns (CADPAT/MARPAT/ACUPAT/DOGPAT) is simply a case of form following function.

Regardless of fashion preferences of the different cultures, everyone's eyes work the same way, so it stands to reason that any pattern that works well for the Germans would work just as well for the Luxembougs, the British and the Americans, at least in similar terrain.

As time progresses and patterns evolve towards 'perfection', there should be little reason why they all shouldn't start looking like each other. The concept of 'little dots' appears to have started with the Flecktarn of Germany, the digital PATs are just evolutions of the concept. They're not even new, I've seen photos of US Army M60A1s in digital camo. (2nd ACR had it as their default camo: They repainted their M60A3s the same way when they got them)

www.uniteddynamics.com/dualtex/M60_DUAL.JPG

Really, the only thing that easily distinguishes MARPAT from anything else of equivalence is the EGA that occasionally shows up.

NTM



[Ed McMahon] You are correct, Sir ! [/Ed McMahon]

The US Army pioneered digital pattern camouflage in the mid-1970s and continued with the concept. The Canadians and the USMC both took their cue from the US Army Natick Soldier Support Center and even sent representatives to the facility in order to complete their own designs.

Personally, I like the USMC solution better, but I haven't seen details about visual or IR testing of either.



I think this is the part of the show where I point out that the Danish pattern, issued in 1984, is one of the first of the "modern" dot patterns - and it pretty much identical to the german pattern.

The German "flecktarn" pattern was issued a year or two after the Danish pattern was issued, and is exactly the same - except for different colors. Of course, much older (WW-2) german patterns were part of the process by which the Danes designed their pattern, so it's very much debatable who developed it.

But the notion of using "dots" is definitely an old one, going easily back to WW2 and possible even back to WW1 (I've been told).

If anyone's interested, here's a pic from the late 1980s.

photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=41433



They got their camo from impressionist artists.
We got ours from a computer.

The US Army was testing "dots" on tanks in the 1970s.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:34:35 PM EDT
I was going to point it out, but it seems that DK beat me to it Its amazing how much the "new" camo looks a lot like the old Waffen-SS camo used half a century ago. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:43:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
uote]

They got their camo from impressionist artists.
We got ours from a computer.

The US Army was testing "dots" on tanks in the 1970s.





Actually, I talked to some of the guys at the danish "Army Combat School" where the new pattern was developed in the 70s, and they claimed that it was partly done with computers - although they did admit that they used some aspects of the older german patterns as a starting point.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:48:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
uote]

They got their camo from impressionist artists.
We got ours from a computer.

The US Army was testing "dots" on tanks in the 1970s.





Actually, I talked to some of the guys at the danish "Army Combat School" where the new pattern was developed in the 70s, and they claimed that it was partly done with computers - although they did admit that they used some aspects of the older german patterns as a starting point.



I actually like the flectarn-type camo.
I've got a few smocks in variuos shades and it was pretty creative.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 2:03:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2005 2:03:23 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
uote]

They got their camo from impressionist artists.
We got ours from a computer.

The US Army was testing "dots" on tanks in the 1970s.





Actually, I talked to some of the guys at the danish "Army Combat School" where the new pattern was developed in the 70s, and they claimed that it was partly done with computers - although they did admit that they used some aspects of the older german patterns as a starting point.



I actually like the flectarn-type camo.
I've got a few smocks in variuos shades and it was pretty creative.



I've still got two full sets of the Danish camo The new desert type (developed for Afghanistan and Iraq) are pretty cool too, but I don't have any of that.

It's fascinating to me to see how many different types there are of the dot-based camo now. When I was in the army in the late 80s and early 90s, I believe Denmark and Germany were the only countries to use that type.

Now, it's not just the Candians and Americans, but I beleive the Japanese (and possibly another couple of small Euro countries) also use some kind of dot pattern.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 2:19:52 PM EDT
.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 2:59:41 PM EDT
Wasn't there an old German (WW2 era) night camoflage that was a dark and light green boxes in a grid?
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 3:01:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:
Wasn't there an old German (WW2 era) night camoflage that was a dark and light green boxes in a grid?



The US night desert pattern (used in GW1)
Top Top