This article includes a photo of a rocky hillside with two elite Israeli army assassins blending into the landscape. Very impressive for* pre-1990’s* tactics.
However, if the guards merely scanned the area with a thermal imaging camera or high tech binoculars wouldn’t these “elite trained” troops stand out like neon signs? For that matter, isn’t thermal heat a standard part of any military sensor, alarm system?
Is camouflaged training that useful anymore in modern military tactics? I understand the average soldier still wants a standard issue camo uniform. The days of the British Redcoats are long over. Battlefield snipers are too accurate these days. But, do elite teams that infiltrate need the elaborate camo training that was so essential pre 1990?
That assumes that the enemy has such equipment. Most hi-tech warfare these days is asymmetrical, with rich well equipped countries fighting poor & badly equipped groups, often not even other actual soldiers. Those Israeli soldiers aren’t going to be fighting America or the UK.
Also, some uniforms have features to make them less visible to IR.
Lastly, even in first world militaries, not every soldier has such equipment and they don’t use it all the time. Even if they did, using IR on camouflaged soldiers is still not as easy/fast/simple as using your eyes on non-camouflaged troops.
The Three C’s (camouflage, cover and concealment) are still important today. You can’t shoot what you can’t see. Also, as Der Trihs and MichaelEMouse point out, most troops do not have IR gear.
First of all, those aren’t “assassins”, they’re soldiers. Not that I expect any better from the Daily Mail.
Second, I don’t know if wearable IR devices are even available. All the IR I’m familiar with is either heavy, tripod-based gear, or mounted on tanks. It certainly isn’t something regular infantrymen are just walking around with, even in technologically-advanced countries.
And third of all, that pic shows that you don’t need fancy-schmancy digital cammo schemes to be effective. Good old fashioned army green can be just as good.
A bunch of angry guys with AK47s versus a trained group of soldiers with the latest kit are likely to get their asses handed to them (so to speak).
However, in an asymmetric conflict situation, any casualties among the soldiers, even if they are vastly outnumbered by “young guns” casualties, they may consider a victory.
Yes it works fine. IR imaging needs a temperature difference between objects it doesn’t matter which is hotter or cooler.
FLIR works at any time of day. The only real issue with IR is when the temperature of the object you’re looking for cools or warms to the same temperature as the background. When I was doing airborne surveillance for Customs, this was an issue when looking at boats around dusk and dawn. In general IR is best in cool dry climates, but we were operating in the tropics and could see small wooden boats about 10nm away. Large merchant vessels could be seen 40-50nm or more.
I’ve often wondered about camouflage. The Israelis seem to get by without it-their army uniforms are olive green (much like the USA of WWII). Yet, one would think that the camouflage patterns uniforms would be vastly better.
I find it amusing that the gun-toting solders in the New York subways and train stations are wearing jungle camouflage. Shouldn’t they be dressed as bricks or glass, or something?
In the past, waiting to attack under cover of darkness was sometimes advantageous. In the IR world of future warfare, I wonder if waiting for that perfect 98.6-degree day to launch one’s attack will become a useful tactic?
If they’re totting heavy weapons its beneficial to the public that they are very clearly identified as soldiers and not some random thug/nut. I would would be running if I ever saw a baggy trousers/gold chain/tattoos guy carrying an M16.
As others have noted above IR devices are far from equipping every troop in even modern armies, and is somewhat cumbersome to use. You also have the problem of aiming - I’ve only tried aiming a soft gun once with IR googles so no real experience, but you lose some sense of perspective and distance, and using the aiming device of a weapon (be it optics or iron sights) become harder.
Therefore, I’d still prefer camouflage,if for no other reason than forcing the enemy to use IR devices and thus lose some flexibility.
You are way out of date. Someone already linked to a somewhat affordable FLIR device that you can get on Amazon. There are, of course, ruggedized versions of those for the military. Commercial IR cameras exist that you can easily hide in a closed hand and can be hooked up to a little lightweight toy helicopter and provide excellent daytime images. They’re a common option in some luxury automobiles. In the not so distant future, they’ll be a very affordable commodity item.
One of the benefits of camouflage patterns is that it breaks up your silhouette. Even if the pattern doesn’t blend in with the background very well, it does actually make it harder to tell you’re person-shaped at a glance, especially in the confusion of a fight. Of course, some camo patterns work better than others, and sometimes the whole point is just to distinctively identify who you are (the grey tigerstripe uniforms we wear in the Air Force nowadays are famous for not really blending in with anything, but I guess it’s easier to tell us apart from the Army guys now.)
And most of the newer camo uniforms being used in the US at least are designed in such a way as to be harder to see on IR cameras. There was a big deal when the uniforms were first introduced when they weren’t sure which laundry detergents we could use to wash our uniforms lest we ruin that property. Presumably they decided that wasn’t a risk, or that our likelihood of running into the Predator in the jungles of Afghanistan were slim and thus the IR masking treatments in our uniforms were not that important after all.
But most importantly, IR gear is expensive. That limits its use on the battlefield considerably if you could spend that money on other things like ammo or food.
Battlefield snipers are too accurate these days. But, do elite teams that infiltrate need the elaborate camo training that was so essential pre 1990?