CENTCOM is headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, so one sees a lot of military personnel around town, especially nowadays. For a couple of years now I’ve been noticing camouflage fatigues on a new pattern, one that seems to be based on rectangular computer pixels. (Every time I see it, I think, “Are we invading Cyberspace next?”) Is there some reason why this camouflage would be harder to see than the older patterns?
Hmm, I recall reading about these some time ago, maybe on Time magazine?
I think it has somethign to do with the fact that the pixelated designs break up the pattern of the soldier better than traditional designs.
And that’s all camouflage does anyway, it breaks up the human form, or pattern which we can easily pick out.
If you want to see some interesting camoflage patterns, you should check out some of the stuff that Navy ships have used during wartime. I saw an example from WWII somewhere where a ship was painted with all sorts of red, black, white and grey jaggy patterns (Designed to make it difficult for enemy submarine commanders to judge the distance to the ship, especially if you had a nice ocean spray going)
If anyone wants to Google while we wait for a camouflage expert to sneak up on is, the stuff is called “digital camouflage”
In the same vein as the jaggy patterns used on ships, automakers use a lot of tape or vinyl overlays to hide their new designs while they’re out on the road for testing.
Raguleader is referring to Dazzle camouflage, used during World War I.
Not an expert but I have some garments (for paintball). The US patterns are called MARPAT, here’s a link to the history of the stuff.
The disruptive pixellation is known as CADPAT (the later US version was MARPAT):
Some history of the pattern from Stars and Stripes.
my understanding is the new camouflage is being used because the old stuff still had patterns in it. No matter how hard designers tried to make the old stuff not have patterns, it did. The new digital type camouflage is trying to avoid those patterns
It is actually part of a secret government contingency plan in case of an invasion by swarms of Tetris blocks.
-
-
- Heh, Guy Cramer seems to be onto the bright idea of patenting digital camoflage by simply copyrighting every possible color and pattern combination.
What a genius. :rolleyes:
~
- Heh, Guy Cramer seems to be onto the bright idea of patenting digital camoflage by simply copyrighting every possible color and pattern combination.
-
The old US Army BDUs definitely had tons of repeating paterns. In BASIC, I noticed several recurring designs, shapes and patterns. I think it’s a combination of how my brain works and having to stand behind other soldiers, staring at their cammo patterns for hours at a time… Man I hated Basic. I just figured there was only one set cammo design on a large roll of fabric. And that roll of fabric was cut and made into uniforms.
I saw a squadron of Navy Reserve F/A-18s painted in a similar pattern, but I don’t know if they keep that for when they get called up for front-line duty or if it’s just them goofing around (at the same base there was a squadron of Marine Corps Reserve F/A-18s painted with Dallas Cowboys style paintjobs.)
Slate wrote an article on The US Army’s New Clothes last year:
From the article:
Unlike the old camo, digital camo suggests shapes and colors without actually being shapes and colors—like visual white noise. While it may serve a hunter well to appear to be part of a tree, a contemporary soldier needs to be on the move, and so his camouflage must help him blend into the “flow of space.”
[Jabba voice] “You weak-minded fool! It’s a Jedi mind trick!” [/Jabba voice]
~
How can you tell when it is dirty and needs to be cleaned? 
When they smell you coming!
(My first thought on reading scm1001’s post was, “Brilliant! If ll my clothes were made of that, I’d never have to do laundry!” It’s true. I’m a slob.)
Huh?
So back in ,say, WW II, “non-contemporary” soldiers didn’t need to move?
And “blending into the flow of space” sounds like a bad lecturer trying to explain modern art.
( Sorry–I don’t know nuttin’ 'bout camouflage. But I like the English language, and
prefer to see it used rationally. Carry on.)
When the bright green/yellow/pink marks all over destroy the effectiveness of the camoflage 
Off topic, I was looking through my Cabela’s catalogs and they carry camoflage jumpers for little kids. What a great idea…“Honey, I put Junior down on the lawn and now I can’t find him! Help!”
Well, camoflage, like Stealth (discussed in another thread a few months back) is an evolving thing. What was considered to be very good camoflage in the French and Indian War (in the case of some British and colonial troops, dark green uniforms) wouldn’t be considered such today. Also, troops in WWII did wear camoflage, just not the same kind they do now. You ever see pictures of British troops fighting in Western Europe in the light tan safari uniforms? Or fighting in Africa in dark green clothes?
Random amusing aviation camoflage story (yeah, I have a few of these):
The Air Force used to paint all of their bombers olive green to act as camoflage, until they realized that there isn’t anything at 20,000 feet for the planes to blend in with that was even remotely greenish in color. That, and the contrails from 100+ bombers made it pretty hard for a formation to blend in even if there was anything green to blend in with.
For clarification, the bombers in my previous post were bombers in World War II.