Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/21/2002 11:35:14 PM EDT
New Army Camouflage Patterns Evaluated Variations of "all over brush", "shadow line" and "track" patterns in four combinations of colors, along with the all-purpose "Crye", are in the running for the next generation of Army camouflage clothing. These patterns for woodland, desert, urban and a combination of desert and urban terrains are undergoing evaluation by the Materials Integration Team at the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Mass. If selected and approved, up to four new patterns will help conceal soldiers wearing the Army's future Advanced Combat Uniform and the Objective Force Warrior's Scorpion uniform. Woodland camouflage has been fielded since 1981, with desert camouflage arriving about a decade later. The Army has never fielded an urban camouflage uniform but is interested in adding that capability. "Woodland camouflage is still based on the European threat of the Cold War. There are new threats today, and there's always room for improvement," said Anabela Dugas, a textile technologist. "Until we do an evaluation, we don't know if there's a better alternative." Camouflage allows a soldier to blend into his environment. Better matching of the color and pattern to the background yields better concealment. "Trying to get one uniform that blends for everything is the toughest part of the job," Dugas said. "It really is background dependent. What gets lost in one background stands out in another." She said the Army had a goal for its next generation uniform to be one pattern, but it would be difficult to develop because vegetation has a reflectance that's off the scale compared to rocks and sand. Instead, Dugas along with Kellie Zupkofska, also a textile technologist, and Richard Cowan, a chemist, are working on the best compromise across the variables. "Woodland camouflage is the easiest because you can hide in vegetation," Dugas said. "Desert is complicated because you are out in the open, but urban is really complicated because you're so close." In all the designs, soldiers can expect to see a common color so that the gear is interchangeable with the uniform. To generate fresh ideas, the team contracted a designer to draw new patterns on paper using information based on decades of camouflage research at the Soldier Systems Center. Seven initial designs in color printouts were reduced to three after benchtop testing in the Camouflage Evaluation Facility at Natick. "It's a quick way to eliminate the least effective patterns before field testing," Zupkofska said. "All over brush" has swirls of shapes and colors, and strays from the more conventional "shadow lines," which has horizontal lines and "track," which has vertical lines to its elements. "Crye" is the camouflage intended for all environments that's now being modeled by Objective Force Warrior and was included in evaluations. Each of the three designs was printed on a nylon and cotton blend fabric from an ink jet printer. Enough material was printed to fabricate a helmet cover and Battle Dress Uniform shirt and trousers for the first field evaluation at Fort Benning, Ga., in August. Urban camouflage evaluation was conducted at the McKenna Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) site while woodland patterns were evaluated in the adjacent woods. Twelve trained military observers evaluated soldiers posing in the experimental uniforms against different backgrounds at a range of distances and in several positions. The observers then answered a questionnaire rating blending, contrast, shape and pattern. The best four out of nine woodland and four out of 13 urban uniforms were selected. The same process for the desert uniforms was conducted at several locations at Fort Irwin, Calif., in October. These desert sites were carefully selected and were analogous to locations in the Middle East. Of the 10 choices, four were selected. "We wanted to look at every possible yet realistic combination of color and pattern, including the current patterns," Dugas said. After the Product Optimization and Evaluation Team at Natick analyzes the data based on the surveys, Dugas said the next step is to fine-tune the shape and color before examining infrared properties. Night testing with evaluators wearing night vision goggles is scheduled for February at Fort Polk, La., and at Fort Irwin. The final designs could be selected for recommendations as soon as April 2003.
Link Posted: 12/21/2002 11:43:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 12:23:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2002 12:24:29 AM EDT by voilsb]
Originally Posted By 82ndAbn: I wonder if this'll be better than that MARPAT stuff I've been donating to the homeless shelters.
View Quote
although your joke made me laugh, it's a good question. I wonder how this will compare to marpat. on a related note, I wonder if there are pictures of this stuff we can look at (and I'm too lazy to go look for some). I also wish they'd change the uniforms a little less often, though, because it gets expensive replacing all that stuff when you don't get a basic issue. then again, I did manage to get two Class A jackets and a full set of dress blues for free a couple weeks ago ... edited because I'm trigger happy and posted too soon.
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 12:28:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 12:37:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2002 1:10:57 AM EDT by StormSurge]
There are photos of the patterns in a recent ARMY Times newspaper (don't know the date). Believe me, they look absolutely terrible! They are all grossly inferior to MARPAT; even the current woodlands are much better! The "overall brush" pattern looks like a broad paint brush was whacked back and forth over the background color, and the "track" patten has what looks like big black "Z"s or "N"s plastered all over it! I don't know what morons came up with these patterns, but let's all hope they never see the light of day! I kid you not, they are really that bad!
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 12:39:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 82ndAbn: [url]http://www.exponent.com/practices/techdev/images/ACU01.jpg[/url]
View Quote
you must be pretty bored to be up this late hunting down pictures of experimental camo. thanks. they don't look that good, though. I can't even tell they're camo. I don't see any swirly, vertical, or horizontal patterns. they look pretty solid-color to me. I hope it's just my monitor, but I don't think since it doesn't seem to blend into the background very well. maybe that's the mout pattern?
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 12:41:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By StormSurge: There are photos of the patterns in a recent ARMY Times newspaper (don't know the date). Believe me, they look absolutely terrible! They are all grossly inferior to MARPAT; even the current woodlands are much better! The "shadow lines" pattern looks like a broad paint brush was whacked back and forth over the background color, and the "track" patten has what looks like big black "Z"s or "N"s plastered all over it! I don't know what morons came up with these patterns, but let's all hope they never see the light of day! I kid you not, they are really that bad!
View Quote
well, my parents get army times, and I'll be visiting them in a couple days, so I'll look for it there. I hope you're wrong, but I doubt you are.
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 12:52:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2002 1:02:17 AM EDT by StormSurge]
[url]http://www.armytimes.com[/url]= [url]http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/armycover.jpg[/url]=
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 1:13:36 AM EDT
Notice that on the main article above you can see the pattern and VOTE for the best one! Please vote; the WORST pattern is winning!
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 1:33:11 AM EDT
Why dont they contact the major civilian camo manufactures in this country and see what they have to offer? They have plenty of patterns to sort through and they have already done thier own reserch develpment on these products. Hell if really want to make a new pattern send bids out to camo makers to come up with a new pattern for the army? OK i gotta know what the army will embroider into thier uniform to make them special and to ensure the future of flame wars for the next 10 years over who has the right to wear it?
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 2:09:18 AM EDT
As a tanker I'd be pleased with an overall brown/gray OD color (IE IDF) and a green OD for jackets, vests, caps, etc. Face it, no matter what camo they give us, if we have to disembark and fight with our M9s were pretty screwed.
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 3:22:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 4:56:05 AM EDT
Man also stands up and lays down...the patterns have to accomadate both verticle and horizontal blending... Light mud brown would probably work the best for overall color in every terrain except snow..but the brass wouldnt like it cause it would look like shit on the parade field and the wives would complain about the way the troops look on post...and once the general wife starts complaining ...heads will roll..:) My pop was a provost marshall on a large military installation...I remember overhearing some of my folks conversations..made you wonder who was actually in charge
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 5:21:55 AM EDT
I guess I have bad taste. I liked all the brush type patterns. It looked alittle better than the Marine type stuff.But thats on looks alone . What it looks like in real time operation is whats really matters.Not the cool factor.I think for jungle type camo or uniform the standard OD green was a great choice. WD
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 8:01:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By StormSurge: Notice that on the main article above you can see the pattern and VOTE for the best one! Please vote; the WORST pattern is winning!
View Quote
haha ... did anyone notice marpat was one of the patterns to vote for? I betcha the army's version won't have the seagull on a fishhook, though.
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 8:11:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 8:17:16 AM EDT
[size=4][b]Damn did they sit around smoking crack looking at Monet and VanGoh shit at a art studio before they designed that shit?[/b][/size=4] [beer]
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 8:21:53 AM EDT
I voted for MARPAT on the two that had it as a choice. Sorry, Jarheads..... Scott [:D]
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 8:24:29 AM EDT
Y'all right about it being ugly as sin, I don't think hunters will wear these, let's hope they're still in development [puke] [url]www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-swatchpoll.php[/url]
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 8:25:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2002 8:26:35 AM EDT by Arock]
You gotta love whoever named this pattern... [img]http://www.militarycity.com/survey/swatch/4.jpg[/img] ...wait for it... [b]Woodland Marine[/b]. Nah nobodys gonna say anything about that. My choice... [img]http://www.militarycity.com/survey/swatch/5.jpg[/img] but I still like current 3-Color Desert Day better. Take the test... [url]www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-swatchpoll.php[/url]
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 9:23:29 AM EDT
Ahh yes, the old "not invented here" syndrome. Rhodesian, anyone? A while back my buddy and I evaluated a whole mess of camo patterns, in both desert and forested environments, and Rhodesian was the hands-down winner. Anybody else out there ever checked that stuff out? -Eric
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 10:26:29 AM EDT
I had an original set of Rhodesian's I played paintball in as a teenager (15+ years ago). The pattern worked really well everywhere. They even had a pink/purple and brown/black pattern for night use. My stuff all said manufactured in South Africa on the tags.
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 10:30:29 AM EDT
[img]http://www.tridentmilitary.com/new-photos10/bdf-b.jpg[/img] Bhoputatswana Defence Force camo
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 10:33:00 AM EDT
[img]http://www.tridentmilitary.com/new-photos10/rho-jacket-b.jpg[/img] Rhodesian Pattern Camo
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 10:39:38 AM EDT
For urban camouflage, maybe they should just issue cheap, oversized clothing in bright colors, along with baseball caps (to be worn backwards) and cheap imitiation gold jewelry. Make the troops look like da clueless boys in da hood. Of course, they'd have to camouflage all their equipment as well. Ever seen chrome 22.5 inch rims on a lowered HMMWV sporting a fade paint job? Paint EVERYTHING in prismatic paints, too! CJ
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 12:07:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2002 12:08:39 PM EDT by Derek45]
I always thought the Vietnam era Tiger stripe looked cool. [img]http://www.imsplus.com/images/VNtiger.JPG[/img] I hate the way every third world army has copied our woodland pattern.
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 1:42:43 PM EDT
IB- Both those patterns are eerily similar to current use PLA stuff.
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 2:28:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 2:46:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 2:57:29 PM EDT
Well I haven't read the whole danged thread, but MARPAT was designed in an ARMY research lab. Why don't we just field the same pattern w/o the EGA? PONY_DRIVER
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 3:03:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Derek45: I hate the way every third world army has copied our woodland pattern.
View Quote
Uh, you DO know that many third world countries that use camo in a US type pattern are actually using US issued camo, right? It's the real thing! In general, if we have any advisors in country to help train their troops, they wear US camo and often are fully equipped with US gear. Incidentally, the newly raised Afghan national army is issued US woodland camo when they're recruited. It's almost funny, as woodland camo doesn't exactly work well in a country that really doesn't have any woodlands. Desert tricolor would have been a more sensible choice, or even Gulf War era desert camo. By the way, why is it that most of the field gear our troops carry is only available in woodland camo? Desert tricolor works pretty well in the desert, but if you're also wearing your LBE, the camouflage effect is pretty much shot to hell because I don't think I've ever seen desert tricolor LBE or pack gear. CJ
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 3:13:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: Here's why most of these patterns suck: [url]www.whitetail.com/camo1.html[/url] What makes good camo? Light backgrounds and large, high-contrast shapes. -Troy
View Quote
Thanks for posting that link Troy. I was just about to go hunting for it. One statement in the original post really stood out. [b]Camouflage allows a soldier to blend into his environment. Better matching of the color and pattern to the background yields better concealment.[/b] I believe this statement is grossly incorrect. Good camoflage does not make one "blend" into the environment. Good camoflage breaks up your silhouette through high contrast patterns so that the eye does not easily pick out the form of a human outline. With that said, many times the color is a very small factor in the overall effectiveness of the camoflage pattern.
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 3:20:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: Here's why most of these patterns suck: [url]www.whitetail.com/camo1.html[/url] What makes good camo? Light backgrounds and large, high-contrast shapes. -Troy
View Quote
that's a pretty darn good review. it would have been nice to see some reviews when it wasn't so snowy, though. I've seen some photos of the marpat looking pretty good, though. I need to get a set of knockoffs (or the real thing, if cheap enough) and compare it to my woodland. just take out some sets, lay it down on some brush, and take a picture.
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 3:29:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Arock: You gotta love whoever named this pattern... [url]http://www.militarycity.com/survey/swatch/4.jpg[/url] ...wait for it... [b]Woodland Marine[/b]. Nah nobodys gonna say anything about that.
View Quote
That is [b]NOT[/b] called "Woodland Marine". That is what the pukes call it. It is the MARPAT camo we have been talking about..... Scott [img]http://www.dixienet.org/images/animated/ani-csa-flags/new_3rdcsa_ani.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 5:47:58 PM EDT
Look at this cr@p! [url]http://militarycity.com/survey/swatch/1.jpg[/url] [url]http://militarycity.com/survey/swatch/2.jpg[/url] [url]http://militarycity.com/survey/swatch/3.jpg[/url] [url]http://militarycity.com/survey/swatch/5.jpg[/url] [url]http://militarycity.com/survey/swatch/6.jpg[/url] [url]http://militarycity.com/survey/swatch/7.jpg[/url] [url]http://militarycity.com/survey/swatch/8.jpg[/url] [url]http://militarycity.com/survey/swatch/9.jpg[/url] [url]http://militarycity.com/survey/swatch/10.jpg[/url] [url]http://militarycity.com/survey/swatch/11.jpg[/url] [url]http://militarycity.com/survey/swatch/12.jpg[/url] [url]http://militarycity.com/survey/swatch/13.jpg[/url] Now, here's the best! [url]http://militarycity.com/survey/swatch/4.jpg[/url]
Link Posted: 12/22/2002 7:26:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt:
Originally Posted By Arock: You gotta love whoever named this pattern... [url]http://www.militarycity.com/survey/swatch/4.jpg[/url] ...wait for it... [b]Woodland Marine[/b]. Nah nobodys gonna say anything about that.
View Quote
That is [b]NOT[/b] called "Woodland Marine". That is what the pukes call it. It is the MARPAT camo we have been talking about..... Scott [url]http://www.dixienet.org/images/animated/ani-csa-flags/new_3rdcsa_ani.gif[/url]
View Quote
Fuck you very much but follow the link... [url]http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-swatchpoll.php[/url]. ArmyTimes can call it what the fuck ever they want without your permission. Arock
Link Posted: 12/23/2002 11:30:19 AM EDT
It doesn't matter AT ALL how the patterns look in a swatch photographed from a foot away, what matters is how the camouflage works when you are attempting to conceal yourself against the environment, from combat distances. 50 feet is too friggin' close. The camo needs to work from 300 meters in to about ambush distances. If it works close up, great. Most commercial camouflage fabrics, like Realtree, Advantage, Mossy Oak, Treebark, etc. are designed for hunting is specific conditions and environments. Realtree Hardwoods won't work that well in a leafy green environment because it is developed around autumn oak forests. Advantage Timber has a bit more green in it, but it's really for mid-fall use when All the oaks aren't done turning yet. They are also optimized for people taking cover from animals at a very short distance. Poor hunting technique that silhouettes you against brighter light, the skyline, etc. will leave you exposed regardless of camouflage. So will poor tactical techniques. BTW, it's not that animals see in black and white (actually it's pretty difficult to determine what animals actually see since interpretation of signals takes place in the brain, not the eye. We can surmise what makes us more or less visible to them however. Ultraviolet colors are a big giveaway, which is why hunting clothing detergents do not contain the UV brighteners that standard detergents use to enhance the brightness of colors. Large fields of color will contrast a person with their background, thus a solid blaze orange garment will show up quite well against everything except the sky or a field of snow. Which is a good reason why blaze orange garments are increasingly broken up with darker patterns so they will better fit in in the snowy woods or standing in a treestand. Pattern and shading are critical. Since the military cannot pick and choose seasons and local vegetation, they need to select a camouflage that is a generalized performer. in terms of both color and pattern. For military purposes camouflage isn't actually all that useful when you are moving. Eyes are drawn to movement and while effective camouflage will make it difficult to identify, range and engage a moving target, you will certainly notice it. Effective camouflage involves the art of trying not to be seen through use of effective cover, dead-ground, supplementary environmental materials, and careful movement.
Top Top