Camouflage

joeshredd, you probably heard correctly, black may not occur in nature, but it occurs to the human eye. Look at a treeline with the naked eye...you see a solid wall of grey and black...then look at it again through a yellow lens. Big difference, great depth perception.
 
"Solid" black = bad
Black spots/stripes/dots = good

About orange color.
It happen work well on most ground mammals. Ground animals see movement very well, but rely a lot on smell. It is often considered they see the world mostly black and white.

That explain why blaze orange camo works to some extend:
blaze orange camo

That said I've seen some studies studies stating that animals (bucks) can actually recognize orange. That's possible, but for some reasons they don't recognize it as a threat.
On the other hand blue is generally considered to be scaring animals away.

On the other hand, birds (see birds bright colors) and animals living in trees, eating fruits and berries (monkeys...) are know for being able to differentiate colors. That might explain why man is able to see colors.
 
Some people here have suggested that you should smear your face with mud in lack of camo cream. I dont get it. Is american mud somehow different?

Back here a thin layer of mud dries and turns very light coloured, lighter then your skin. Do you always use some special mud?

Has anyone here actually used mud as camopaint?
 
I believe the theory behind using mud is:
1. Even though it is light in color, it is a color that is found in that area.
2. It is way less reflective than skin.
 
I've used it, playing war games. No, thank you, American mud is not different ;) It's black creek mud. The idea is to cut the shine off my white face.
 
SkunkWerX said:
Tigerstripe, been there done that. Too dark. Maybe you would get away with it in a murky swamp in Louisiana, otherwise it was designed for the tropics.
It was fine in Vietnam. It was replacing ODs, so, how could it go wrong.
Wouldn't touch it in NorthAmerica. It sticks out badly when the background colors are lighter than it is, which is most of the time. Tigerstripe, it was thought, did have some possibility that it helped hide movement, due to it's horizontal line approach.

There is active and passive. The World War 1 example that Coldwood used is a Passive Disruptive pattern. It disrupts the silhuoette, in an effort to break the edges, and is passive because it trying to make the object blend with it's background. Military camo is typically passive and most likely edge disruptive.

Multicam is strange. the places it works, it works very well. One place where we do NOT like it is, frankly, in the woods! It works better in an urban setting or grassy plain, meadow, desert, etc. Also, their website shows it in specific places with specific lighting. And the cost is just prohibitive. For me, the jury is still out on Multicam.

As for the various other patterns, such as Flecktarn, (Flectar) they use the older principals such as US Woodland and Tigerstripe. They work OK in the region they were designed for. I've tried Flectarn in the fall, when the leaves are changing.

With the exception of Multicam, I own a set of just about everything.
Woodland, Flacktarn, Austrian Dot, DPM, Tigers, 6-color deserts (Chocolate chip cookie).

What do I wear? MARPAT. All the way. It's not a gimmick, it works.
Click to expand...

I've seen multicam do some great stuff... You might want to look more into it (militarymorons.com has a lot of pics). Its been used everywhere form Iraq to Africa w' pretty good effects. I definitely agree price-wise though, it shouldn't cost an arm and leg for a descent pattern. THE new digital tiggerstripes look good but they aren't in production :( MARPAT is awesome i must agree but its a little hard to find the real deal. flecktarn is pretty good but a little to specific in some areas
 
Ravaillac said:
"Solid" black = bad
Black spots/stripes/dots = good

About orange color.
It happen work well on most ground mammals. Ground animals see movement very well, but rely a lot on smell. It is often considered they see the world mostly black and white.

That explain why blaze orange camo works to some extend:
blaze orange camo

That said I've seen some studies studies stating that animals (bucks) can actually recognize orange. That's possible, but for some reasons they don't recognize it as a threat.
On the other hand blue is generally considered to be scaring animals away.

On the other hand, birds (see birds bright colors) and animals living in trees, eating fruits and berries (monkeys...) are know for being able to differentiate colors. That might explain why man is able to see colors.
Click to expand...


Deer see orange as gray
 
Has anybody here thought about painting their own patterns, since we all have lot of different ideas about what works and doesn't work? It seems to me it would be a lot cheaper than buying expensive fabrics. Especially since we're only likely to make up one overshirt and one pair of pants, maybe a hat. For paint, I would recommend acrylic artist colors, extremely durable, waterproof, and can be blended into an infinite amount of shades.
 
There was an article by the late Jeff Cooper (Cooper's Cornor) a few years ago. He asserted that the trend towards newer and better camo patterns by the .mil was (for the most part unnecesary). It was his claim that if one was close enough to see the pattern, the could see you. He believed that traditional OD was just fine. He also took aim at face painting as being more theatric than practical. He believed that white hands were more likely to expose a combatant, and those need more attention. He also believed that one's weapon (long gun) needed to be broken up (think tape) to keep it from outlining and exposing one's position. To each their own.
 
Has anybody here thought about painting their own patterns, since we all have lot of different ideas about what works and doesn't work? It seems to me it would be a lot cheaper than buying expensive fabrics. Especially since we're only likely to make up one overshirt and one pair of pants, maybe a hat. For paint, I would recommend acrylic artist colors, extremely durable, waterproof, and can be blended into an infinite amount of shades
Click to expand...
I would not go through the effort of making my own clothes patterns. That just isn't worth it. I doubt you could come up with anything much better than what is currently on the market. Also, the concept of painting cloth seems to have an aura of cheapness to it, and I would question its longevity. I have seen people with those cheap pasint your shirt kits from the big box store (think something your kids might make as a "gift", or something that might make aneat family reunion momento)- and they don't usually look good after going through the wash a few times.
 
mp510 said:
There was an article by the late Jeff Cooper (Cooper's Cornor) a few years ago. He asserted that the trend towards newer and better camo patterns by the .mil was (for the most part unnecesary) (...)
Click to expand...
Mil camo concept has many flows:
uniform is supposed to be worn in all sorts of activities in all environnement (forests, plain, urban...) during most seasons so it has to be some sort of jack-of-all-trades. Plus militaries, aside from special forces, and particularly in today's assymetric warfare are not really serious about camo-ing themselves: during initial phase of Iraq invasion Marines wore woodland in the desert, remember?
The camo face paint is some kind of warpaint: a psychologic thing. Many special forces prefer baclava or camo head net.

Let's say military uniform has to be of some color. Most mil camo patterns are better then, say, bright red.
 
MP, thank you for your comments, your points are well taken.

However: I think I could come up with a whole bunch of things that are better than what's on the market. I can paint a whole better bunch of camos: I've already stated my preference for broken black...meet you in the field, see who shows up first :D

MP, I looked at the link, I didn't see anything there that gave me any new information...nothing surprising...what was your point?
 
1. COL Cooper was partly right. Military face cammo is for two reasons, (1) to break up the recognizable features of the human face (put light in the sunken areas like eyes, dark on the prominent features like noses), and (2) to cut down on the "shine" of face oils, whether you have dark or light skin! Black faces shine just like lighter skin colors do.

2. When using face cammo in the military, you either also cammo up your hands, or wear gloves.

3. The Army doesn't use three color because they're cheap or otherwise cost restricted to few colors. Lot's of development work goes into the process of cammo development and the decisions are not always what "we" might think they should be, but are usually right on.
 
I like boonie hats, bdu's and lightweight gloves. I've been using el cheapo brown garden gloves with the rubber dots on the palms. I found a German flecktar camo headnet that's almost too big (better than too small) and works great; kind of a poor man's ghillie. No way do I want to mess around with makeup. Besides, the net cuts a lot, if not all of the glare from my specs.
My current bdu's are tiger stripe; I confess this is mainly an asthetic decision... although there are a lot of thick pine forests in my area, where it works really well. Otherwise I think it's about a horse apiece between tiger and woodland, either turns into a big dark green shape pretty quick. I had my girlfriend take some comparison pics of me in the woods last summer (yes, she thinks I'm crazy) and I was surprised how dark the cammies are compared to the background. When mine wear out I think I'll replace them with OD ones and paint some broad grey slashes on them, like Coldwood is talking about.
About mixing and matching patterns: I don't see any reason why not, as long as none of the colors involved contrasts with the area. It may even help.
I'm not too convinced by the commercial real-woods type patterns either... especally the newer ones, they're basically a photograph of the woods. I'm sure they work perfect in a stand or blind, but I don't spend much time like that. Nor am I convinced by the digital patterns... the square shapes stick out like a sore thumb to me. Anyone know any websites with good comparison pics?
Regardless, people snuck up on game and each other for thousands of years without fancy shmancy camo patterns. As nearly everyone has mentioned, cover and movement are more important. Also, depending on who you're hiding from, it might not be advisable to look like a paramililtary killer if you are spotted... there's something to be said for carhart's and flannels ;)
 
Originally posted by GibsonFan: "Regardless, people snuck up on game and each other for thousands of years without fancy shmancy camo patterns. As nearly everyone has mentioned, cover and movement are more important. Also, depending on who you're hiding from, it might not be advisable to look like a paramililtary killer if you are spotted... there's something to be said for carhart's and flannels"

Too right. As original hunter/gatherers, we were probably too greasy and dirty to need camos. And who would suspect a guy wearing Carharts? An honest American in honest clothes.
 
I think it was in the book "Dispatches" where I read about US troops in VN gearing up and then hitting their uniforms, web gear and packs with splotches of flat black spray paint before going out on night patrols.

How many "S"s are there
Shape
Shine
Shadow
Silhouette

More?

Here are some of my favorites
German winter poncho (background)
evo_snow.jpg


Italian Army (background)
allthreebayo.gif
 
Just my input:

While turkey hunting this year I set up on a point where two 2-tracks intersect. About mid-day one of the guys that farm the property come by on a tractor. he was within 20 feet of me and never saw me. I was wearing Cabelas Seclusion 3D cammo head-to-toe.

My point is that if someone is looking for you they'd have a better chance of spotting you than one would if they were just passing through without expecting to come across an individual.
 
j33psrule and Rupestris, very good points.

However, i will politely take exception to some of your points ;) J33psrule, you're right, true black does not normally occur in nature, although there are some really black squirrels from Ontario. But what I see here in the woods of northern New York, black or dark shadows are dominant. And they are the areas that are probably the least noticed by the human eye. People tend to look at the highlights, not the shadows.

One of our biggest game animals here, besides the black bear, is the white-tailed deer. They are brown, very elusive, very hard to spot. Until they go on the run, then that white tail flies up, a dead giveaway. It's a danger, during hunting season, for anybody to venture into the woods wearing white. It's not a common color and is easily spotted and targetted.

Having said all this, in northern New York, I would still go for broken black or charcoal grey because it is a shade least noticed (I'm not talking about solid black...probably a woodland pattern swatched with broad patterns of black or dark grey paint). That still would be my choice, and I would stay in the shadows. Black mud and dirt and green cedar boughs on my rifle would be good additions.

Movement, skylining or profiling, and white hands and faces are not good.

Otherwise it's obvious, your camo should match your terrain. What works in northern New York is not going to work in Arizona.

Rupertis, I think you're right. If someone is purposefully looking for you, they might actually spot you even if you are wearing camo. However, a casual passerby may not even notice you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top