Summoning Camobro

>>31543752
He's explaining fieldcraft and how camouflage is only a part of it.
Here: http://www.solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/library/camouflage-and-concealment-basic-art-of-field-craft.pdf

Another PDF on SERE tactics, which involve camouflage and evasion: http://www.equipped.com/multiservice_ser_manual_1999.pdf

File: fm3-21-75_img_67[1].jpg (66KB, 788x452px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 788x452px

>>31544078
I really think the doctrinal method of applying face paint in the US Army is gimmicky as hell. "Paint the high portions with dark colors and the low with light". What? How about just painting your face with some irregular splotches in colors that surround you.

Pretty sure they did this so privates wouldn't paint smiley faces and shit.

File: image.jpg (35KB, 249x304px)

35KB, 249x304px

>>31544175
Let's be honest, it could get out of hand pretty quick if left up to privates.

File: 224323423.gif (1023KB, 400x193px) Image search: [Google]

1023KB, 400x193px

>>31544233
How effective would just being black be for face concealment?

>>31544389
Pretty effective, actually. To the point where nigs don't often paint their faces.

>>31544441
Don't they have to?

>>31544456
Skin is shiny and so is black skin. They still need to paint if they don't want to shine

>>31544509
>>31544456
>>31544441
>>31544389

I seem to be incapable of finding an image with a black soldier wearing camo face paint. Is this a unicorn of sorts?

>>31544509
If the shine of your skin reveals you, then you've got some damn shiny skin.

>>31544540
Their skin is already dark and blends innawoods. No real need to paint it.

>>31544546
It is more shiny than you realize. Look up hand signals at distance. Almost always calls ffor taking off gloves. White shows up farther and brighter (pale glow) but dark skin is decidedly more shiny than the uniform leaves and dirt and can be picked out more easily. Now is this used much anymore no not unless it is doing some top tier sneaky shit but fun stuff to learn

File: Camouflage-Soldier[1].jpg (1MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1600px

>>31544556
>Their skin is already dark and blends innawoods
Nigger, facepaint isn't just black. There's greens, tans, and browns. It combines colors to break up the shape of the face.

>>31544664
This. Also note how much more visible the hand is in comparison to the face

File: 1396863122969.jpg (480KB, 2048x1065px)

480KB, 2048x1065px

>>31544632
Finnish jägers pretty much always wear facepaint in combat though. But then again, there's a massive focus on camouflage and unnoticeability in the FDF.

>>31544664
Yes, but by far the most important aspect of it to the average grunt is to remove the pale colour of one's skin, which shines like the sun from the middle of dark bush. If you're a sneakytroop though, then the importance of it rises, naturally.

>>31544741
>Finnish jägers pretty much always wear facepaint in combat though.
What combat? The Finns haven't been in combat in a very long time.

File: 1462732563839.png (542KB, 622x521px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 622x521px

>>31544813
Doctrine. What's done in training will be done in combat as well.

File: 1461777065831.jpg (2MB, 3072x2304px)

2MB, 3072x2304px

>>31543752
Yeah, I was in that thread. Things that I remember:

>Micro and macropatterns in a pattern makes it more effective
>"urban" camo patterns are complete bullshit
>something about how brightness of patterns is overlooked (showed a picture of a blue backpack being more hidden than a black one at night just because it was the same brightness as the forest)
>talked about some ghillie suit stuff that I don't remember
>covering lens glass
>a lot of old camo patterns suck dick

One thing that really stuck out to me was him explaining the importance of blending versus break-up. He compared wearing a solid color uniform that was perfectly matched to the area and a perfectly contrasted black and white zebra stripe uniform. He was explaining that matching color is almost always more important unless it was dazzle camo or some shit.

>>31544977
Why did he say old patterns were bad?

File: 1463142175441.jpg (411KB, 1920x1033px)

411KB, 1920x1033px

>>31545023
The science has advanced and modern patterns are computer generated from thousands of different images, perfectly designed to suit certain terrains. No such capability in the past.

>>31545023
Basically he said that dpm, m81, tiger stripe, and all that shit was super dark with a lot of black for no reason. Also the old patterns weren't as complicated with micropatterns and shit. H pretty much shilled for a bunch of newer camo patterns.

Actually I think he said he thought a couple older ones were good, but I can't remember which.

>>31545083
>>31545057
I see. And you say you don't remember what he said about ghillie suits?

File: 1435923208713.jpg (968KB, 1377x1836px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 1377x1836px

>>31545115
No, but incidentally I did save one of his pictures. He showed the process of trying to make UCP usable.

>>31545159
Oh man, that is gold.

>>31545115
Not what he said, but ghillies in general break the human outline perfectly, turning the person into the shape of a random hummock, blend into the surroundings with their colours and form very natural looking shadows within the suits shapes and strips. It's honestly nearly impossible to spot an immobile ghillie suit from a forest floor unless you know specifically where to look or have optics. Photographs don't really do them any justice.

File: 1474343339488.gif (1MB, 299x363px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 299x363px

>>31543752
I seem to remember the thread being derailed by idiots having a flamewar over the kommando store Rhodie cam debacle.