How does camouflage science work? What do a group of intellects

>>30181739
If it looks cool its good camo

t. Army board of procurement

>>30181739
>How does camouflage science work?

It doesn't.

>>30183657
it does but not if PEO soldier is in charge of practicing these sciences

>>30181739
I thought they picked materials and colours with low levels of specularity to show up less on IR/NV imaging, for one. As for the digital pattern, IIRC it's made by blowing up dozens of pictures of flora till they're granular and compositing the image together into one bleh pattern.

>>30181739
camoflage
>break up silhouette
>have average of gamut of color be representative of back ground environment.
>color fast
>warm or cold enough for range or temps found in deployment zone.
>distinguishes from enemy combatants at close range
I have no idea what im talking about

> i do know that color has a way of washing our at range. I couldn't tell you the science behind it though.

They actually hide a bunch of soldiers with different camo on and have a bunch of other soldiers come in and try to spot the hidden soldiers

File: a-humble-opinion.png (158KB, 1851x487px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1851x487px

>>30181739
Level 1: Albedo
Is the level of reflectivity of the fabric similar to the environment? Camouflage patterns that fail the reflectivity test will either appear as very shiny masses or very dark masses. Urban patterns fail this level.

Level 2: Blending
Does the color closely mimic the colors of the environment? Natural coloration is broad, but typically stays within the rungs of light sand tan to dark jungle green. Patterns that fail this test are ones that are rare or semi-fluorescent in appearance. An example of this is North Korean Type 05 camo.

Level 3: Break Up
Pattern shapes are properly colored, but have contrast in order to provide a breakup of lines. Patterns that fail this test have colors that are too close to each other in appearance or shapes that are too small or too large. An example is Digital Flora from the Russian Federation.

Level 4: NIR Concealment
Pattern has contrast in the visual spectrum and under night vision and retains ability to break up the wearer even after washing. Most patterns are POOR with regard to NIR concealment. Yes, even UCP. The claim that UCP is good under night vision is false. So, an example of a pattern that is good under night vision is US4CES Woodland.

Level 5: Versatility
This consideration could literally be number one depending on the intended role for a pattern. An example is a force which could be deployed anywhere in the world within a matter of hours (pilots of long-range bombers for example) and have no clue what environment they'll be in. Patterns that fail this test are area specific such as MultiCam Tropic.

Level 6: Coolness
Does the pattern look badass? This should be the absolute last consideration for anyone who is serious about camouflage. Patterns that fail this test make your unit look tryhard. An example of a pattern that passes this test with flying colors is Vietnam era Tiger Stripe.

Note: UCP fails literally every single level.

Source: I test camo for work.

u can't see me

>>30185854
thanks anon

File: tiger-camo.jpg (37KB, 592x398px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 592x398px

>>30185854
>An example of a pattern that passes this test with flying colors is Vietnam era Tiger Stripe.
my nigga

>>30181752
...b, but ucp doesn't look cool at all.

>>30185854
What do you think of us4ces and kryptek?

http://www.hyperstealth.com/US4CES-ALPHA/

File: download-1.jpg (76KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 720x480px

>>30181752
Best camo.

>>30185854
>The claim that UCP is good under night vision is false
[citation needed]

>>30181739

Everybody in the office puts on a full suit of each pattern in consideration, then they all go out back and play hide-and-seek. Whoever is found last gets their pattern chosen for adoption.

>>30189860
UCP looks similar under infrared as it does under normal light: White and washed out with a barely visible pattern. Under the same lighting conditions, vegetation looks wildly different from this pattern.

Also, I have six separate UCP uniforms and every one of them looks like shit under infrared. Even ALPENFLAUGE that's older than me works better.

>>30190006
I bet you washed them with brighteners like tide. It literally says in the manual that this will ruin the camo. Seriously fuck ups like you are the reason we can't have nice things.

File: UCP-VS-Woodland-Patterns-NIR.jpg (133KB, 591x705px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 591x705px

>>30189860
http://www.hyperstealth.com/c3/
Pic related.

>>30189498
The only one my company tested was US4CES Woodland, but pulled it after it was announced that Mexico would be adopting it. It tested very well.

Kryptek Mandrake and Nomad tested at about the upper middle range for all patterns in their intended environment. Highlander, if I even remember correctly, had a high albedo. It's really more of an arid pattern that a transitional one.

All the Kryptek patterns were trash for NIR, but hey, so are MultiCam, Pencott, and just about everything else out there.

>>30189860
>>30190006
Well, I don't know about others here, but I know from personal use that it sucks dick day and night. The whole "durr you used whiteners" shit is retarded because it sucked straight out of the packaging and only got better with dirt and grime.

>durr citation needed

How about comparing our uniforms to regular ass bdus that the Afghanis were wearing under nods?

File: image.png (298KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 600x512px

>>30190023
>ruin the camo
>ucp

>>30189860
BS. Mother fuckers light up like Christmas trees under NODs. It's not any better during the day.


Only times UCP ever looked decent that I've seen:

>after 3 weeks of jungle school
>against gravel, from far away
>grandma's couch

>>30190323
>>30190312
Hive mind

File: GEDC1502.jpg (2MB, 3456x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3456x1944px

>>30190331
Get fucked.

>>30190032
Thank you for the info. Whats your favorite camo?

File: opsec.jpg (215KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 720x540px

>>30181739
>M05
>The basis of the planning of the new pattern are various photographs of Finnish forests taken by the Finnish Forest Research Institute. The photographs were then digitally edited by the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland's Information Technology Institute and concentrated into a 4-colour pattern representative of a Finnish forest. Dark charcoal grey, was added to the pattern in order to represent shadowed areas in a forest.
>The pattern was field tested several times, leading to small changes. The new pattern was considered to be significantly better than the old M62 and M91 camouflage patterns.

>>30185854
What are you favourite camouflages? For example, top five issued by some military and top five overall?

File: 95[1].jpg (56KB, 600x552px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x552px

>>30190877

Favorite camo? Probably Arid Fleck. It's snowflake status is unrivaled because it isn't in production. To be clear, this is my favorite. Not the one that I think works the best.

>>30191280
What patterns then work the best?

>>30181739
US Army camo really is terrible at the moment. Too desert-biased, will never work in woodland.

>>30185854
tiger stripe/ tadpole best camo ever.

>>30191296
Id like to know too.

>>30191278
>For example, top five issued by some military and top five overall?
I'm not really sure bro. I just test camo using some very expensive software and punch numbers from actual outdoor tests with test subjects. I'm not a camo expert. My company is just looking into it for a potential market. I'm pretty sure if I gave you a top 5 it could come back to me.

I can say that American issued camouflages tested well for their intended environments. So, Scorpion W2 tested very well in transitional environments, MARPAT Woodland in woodland environments, and Arid in arid environments. I guess there's no big surprise there.

>>30191296
>>30191378
>What patterns then work the best?
Well, it's pretty all over the place. It's crazy, you get a pattern that works fucking amazing in an environment, but you look at the same thing through NVGs and it sucks ass. I can say that the most impressive NIR camouflaged stuff was from Hyperstealth.

>>30191454
Interesting. Have you tested the Desert Night Camouflage or any snow patterns? Thoughts on the M05?

>>30191533
>Desert Night Camouflage
Naw, I can say that we are testing stuff that would be good to put on products that are not textiles. I can also say that they need to be marketable to the public, so probably not older obscure stuff. Also, if they failed initial testing for Level 6 they were scrapped before effectiveness testing.

>M05
One of the few issued patterns that does pretty well for the NIR spectrum.

>>30191633
>Also, if they failed initial testing for Level 6 they were scrapped before effectiveness testing.
Splittermuster must be tested in that case.

>One of the few issued patterns that does pretty well for the NIR spectrum.
That's a relief to hear and also interesting that you have had the chance to test it.

File: murrica.jpg (19KB, 500x537px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x537px

>>30181739
> How does camouflage science work?

The Pentagon puts out a request for new camo uniforms.
Manufacturers then bribe generals and politicians with cash, hookers and promises of post-military/political civilian gigs.
Generals and politicians pick the camo from whoever bribed them the most

>>30191783
No thats camouflage acquisition :^)

The science is measuring people's reaction times to the pattern out in the wild. Here's your reminder that Rhodesian Brush is pretty great.

>>30185854
is intimidation factor ever taken into consideration?

File: 12311432433.jpg (1MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1536px

>>30193120
Ever? Probably for cops or whatever. My guess is that's why "urban" patterns still get produced because they test like absolute dogshit. My company has no criteria for intimidation though.

File: 2015-09-29-Strip_402_SKATEPAT_web.jpg (178KB, 700x355px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 700x355px

>>30190323
>>30190312