camouflage effectivity

File: 834a6e521f7e982b4fa5cd27d30922ca--military-soldier-military-veterans.jpg (166KB, 736x1108px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 736x1108px

Wasn't the idea with the UCP that it would work effectively when dirty?
Unfortunately in practice nobody will let their uniforms get so dirty that they would function well as camouflage and the fabric wasn't all that good for collecting dirt.

File: S W A G.gif (4MB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x480px

>>34387185
Oh, yeah. I spent a week shitting into a pair of DCUs and then walked right through the middle of Atlanta. Not a single nigger noticed me.

Picking up some dirt to match the surroundings might not be the worst thing that could happen, but you need to keep enough contrast to break up your shape.

>>34387311
I meant more in the line of fading due to use, rather than rolling around in dirt when deployed in your fresh gear.

>>34387185
i have a few pieces of camo of which i own a newer and a more worn one, and imo the older ones seem to be more able to blend in as the colors are more faded and thus less contrasting

File: 1487891753090 (1).jpg (573KB, 3696x2456px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 3696x2456px

>>34387185
>camouflage effectivity
You mean efficacy

>Is it true that a camouflage pattern is more effective when the clothes/gear are well worn from use?
Yes. One of the basic things you're told is get it a little dirty, it helps get you toned closer to the local soil, foliage, etc. etc. Well worn gear may be more natural or faded in pattern/color. However....

>Blending and milding the pattern edges more
Note on that. Yes, that's part of it, but you still need contrast. Camouflage isn't designed to make you an invisible ninja, it's designed to make your silhouette blend, and, if seen, break up so they don't know what they're seeing exactly. The whole point of those funny Israeli hats is to make it look like just another rock or odd feature of the environment, not a helmet; you pop your collar for camo to make your neck not look like a neck.

It isn't an excuse to go out with decrepit, damaged gear and entirely washed-out patterns. It is a function of how camo works, to a point, but not the focus. If the gear is entirely worn out, it'll lose some efficacy.

File: C455F694-CF33-4235-B778-59CA3B83DF85-5866-0000030DE2EF2CD7.jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>34387260
That and the SNCOs who were super anal about grooming standards.

Dirty UCP is honestly a pretty solid mountain/rocky desert pattern

>>34387260
Anything works well when dirty, unless they're superfabrics made specificaly not to get dirty. Because the dirt is on top and you can't what's underneath any more.

The uniform is the canvas, the grass is the brush and the mud is the paint

What a squaddie mate told me about camoflage

>>34387276
I can believe that.

>>34387260
>Wasn't the idea with the UCP that it would work effectively when dirty?

No, it's yet another military myth that's baseless and has been picked up by bizarre UCP apologists. You design a camo to work out of the box, full stop. UCP is the result of corruption via jammed through contracts being handed out by PEO Generals last minute before they retired. It had literally no official testing before being issued.

It is trash. Multicam and other brown based transitional camo outperform it in every environment, and environment specific patterns outperform all transitional patterns in their appropriate environments.

>>34387185
Gear picking up some local color may help if the gear is not well matched to the area. See guys wearing woodland uniforms in the desert where some local dirt browns them up and mitigates the green, or UCP where literally any dirt that covers up the camo is an improvement. If the camo is well matched for the area, like Multicam for Afghanistan, then getting it a little dirty really doesn't help much one way or the other. Get it too dirty and washed out and you lose all the contrast provided by the camo.

>milding the pattern edges more

When it gets to the point where the uniform starts getting monocolored, you lose effectiveness. The whole reason camo patterns are issued instead of flat colors is for the pattern breakup.

TBQH, this is all sort of not seeing the forest for the trees. If a camo pattern is proper for the area, then things like camouflaging accessories like flat black rifles, pouches or straps and adding 3d camo to break up silhouette are much more important than autisming over the precise shade of brown in a pattern.

You can have an excellent camo pattern uniform, but if you're silloutting yourself on a ridge or in a window, or making a fuckload of noise, your camo doesn't really matter.