I am wondering if there have ever been any studies testing the actual effectiveness of olive drab green vs different types of camo like the “traditional” woodland camouflage that was used by the US army for many years, or the new MARPAT camo. The Israeli and Russian army still use regular olive drab green for their uniforms which makes me wonder if modern camo is any more effective or if most army’s just use it becasue it “seems” more hi tech and modern.
See doorhinge’s comments in this previous thread on the even newer patterns: New Scorpion Pattern Uniforms
The NATO doesn’t look like it’s to the correct scale at all.
I am but a civilian, but I can “see” the value in MARPAT because it really breaks up the wearer’s silhouette, even in the pharmacy where I first saw someone wearing it. It was uncanny. However, up close it still looks like the bastard child of Call of Duty and Tetris, and I’m sick of how slack our generals look giving press conferences while wearing it. Do enlisted people even get issued a proper, you can tell that it’s been ironed, uniform for more formal occasions, like being seen by the public? Everybody seems to be wearing the same earthtone pajamas, from raw recruits to top generals.
That’s still way better than the utterly bizarre blue abomination that the Navy has come up with.
I’ve read that the only sensible explanation for the Navy’s current work uniform is that grease spots don’t show up on it. That was the ONLY flaw with every Coasties’s favourite work uniform, Dungarees*.
Back in the day, I dug into my own pocket, went out on the local economy, and bought fatigues in tiger stripe. There was a study going around in Stars & Stripes that said tiger stripe was better than solid green (this was before the days of woodland camouflage) in the jungle, but black was the best of all. It figured, Charlie already had claimed black.
*Dungarees = Blue denim bell-bottom pants with 4 patch pockets and a zipper fly. Short sleeved light blue chambray shirt. It was comfortable and at the time, could pass for civilian clothing. Except for the crow stenciled or ironed on your left sleeve and your name stenciled over the right breast pocket.
Deer are colorblind. Blaze orange might be indistinguishable from certain shades of green even though it stands out for us (don’t wear blue though). But a solid orange vest is going to be visible to deer compared to an orange that is broken up with a black leaf or branch pattern as it’s a big solid field.
That MARPAT picture about seems to be very specifically setting the scale of the pattern vs. the background, but point is made. The NATO pattern at that scale and distance would be on like a 30 foot soldier.
There’s all kinds of formal dress, but it’s cheaper to create a uniform pattern instead of having to stock a bunch of different ones. Because if the military is about anything, it is about frugality. 
I do find it odd that the brass is looking like one of the men. That has its uses in not getting sniped, but still seems like someone’s dad trying and failing to be cool to the kids.
There are really 2 components to camo- having the same color and brightness as the background, and having the pattern break up your shape.
OD green fatigues or khaki uniforms cover the vast, vast majority of situations that soldiers find themselves in, as far as the first is concerned. But neither do anything at all for breaking up your shape.
Breaking up your shape with a pattern is totally dependent on distance and background By that, I mean that at 300 yards, your spiffy MARPAT uniform is just going to blur together into a single color anyway. You’d really need 6’-8’ pattern elements to be effective at that distance.
Similarly, a big pattern like that would stand out like crazy up close- it would break up your shape, but it would stand out in its own right. Most patterns are aimed at some sort of middle-ground distance where you’re far enough away to not immediately just stand out as a man, but not so far that you’re hard to spot regardless. Supposedly the digital patterns are intended to kind of trick your eyes and brain a bit by basically dithering the pattern edges, making the pattern itself harder to identify as a pattern. The actual square pattern is a historical relic- the first digital patterns were generated in the 1970s by hardware that could only render square pixels. Since then, they’ve just taken it and run with it, but there’s nothing inherently better about square pixels. MARPAT is pretty similar to the old Woodland pattern, except with a different pattern and about the same color. German Flecktarn accomplishes the same dithering action, only without digital patterning, and does a better job of having micro/macro patterns- MARPAT’s pattern is too tight and apparently tends to blur together at a closer range than is really useful.
Patterns like MultiCam/OCP/Scorpion W2 are NOT digital patterns; they rely on color gradients and a disruptive pattern to make you blend in.
I meant more are there any “formal” studies done by the army or other groups testing camo vs olive drab green. For example having 10 people wearing people olive drab green and other camo uniforms standing at different distances away from a observer group of 30 people and seeing how many people can see the different uniforms better at different distances.
That link doesn’t work.
Since most fighting nowadays is going to be done in urban locations I fail to see the sense in green or even camo anymore.
Problem with camo is that what is useful in one terrain, yells “shoot me” in another. If you are in a theater with varied terrain (like say Afghanistan) then I do really wonder about the effectiveness of camo over Khaki and Olive green drab, which are useful in most places.
That site doesn’t like hotlinking. If you refresh afterwards, you’ll get the image.
You know what the best cammo is? Dirt. Roll around on the ground a few times, rub some mud on your face, and you’ll be as invisible as you’ll ever be.
Or maybe you just can’t see it!
FYI
Duffelblog Disclaimer -
We are in no way, shape, or form, a real news outlet. Everything on this website is satirical and the content of this site is a parody of a news organization. No composition should be regarded as truthful, and no reference of an individual, company, or military unit seeks to inflict malice or emotional harm.
All characters, groups, and military units appearing in these works are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, or actual military units and companies is purely coincidental.
Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/disclaimer/#ixzz3A5lfeOcX