Digital Camouflage Advantage?

[Carter]

I was recently reading over on strategeypage.com that the new Digital Camouflage reduced 'detection by 50%'... whatever that means.

I hadn't read of any changes in TACOPS with regards to a digital Camouflage advantage.

MajorH, will there be any updates to TACOPS detection range for digital camo troops?

Just Curious...

Thanks in Advance.

[Redwolf]

Link?

[Carter]

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTMURPH.HTM

"THE WAY THINGS REALLY WORK: Why Digital Camouflage Patterns Matter

August 26, 2004: Back in 2001, the U.S. Marines introduced a radical new camouflage pattern that used “pixels” (little square or round spots of color, like you will find on your computer monitor if you look very closely), instead of just splotches of different colors. Naturally, this was called “digital camouflage.” This new pattern proved considerably more effective at hiding troops than older methods. For example, in tests, it was found that soldiers wearing digital pattern uniforms were 50 percent more likely to escape detection by other troops, than if they were wearing standard green uniforms. What made the digital pattern work was the way the human brain processed information. The small "pixels" of color on the cloth makes the human brain see vegetation and terrain, not people. One could provide a more technical explanation, but the “brain processing” one pretty much says it all.

However, the Canadian army quickly chimed in that they had been developing digital camouflage since 1996. Shortly thereafter, some old timers in the U.S. Army noted that they had seen digital camouflage in the 1970s. And they had. It turns out that Lieutenant Colonel Timothy R. O’Neill, a West Point professor of engineering psychology, had first noted the “digital camouflage effect.” It was never adopted for use in uniforms, but was used for a camouflage pattern on armored vehicles of the U.S. Army 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Europe from 1978 to the early 1980s. Why hadn’t the army adopted it for uniforms back in the 1970s? It seems that the key army people (uniformed and civilian) deciding such things in the 1970s could not grasp the concept of how digital camouflage worked on the human brain, and were not swayed by field tests. Strange, but true, and it’s happened before. In 2003, the U.S. Army decided to use digital camouflage patterns for their new field uniforms. China and Finland have also decided to use digital camouflage for new field uniforms.

New ideas are often slow to catch on in the military, and digital camouflage was one of them."

[Redwolf]

Doesn't sound exiting at all, not to mention that

"One could provide a more technical explanation" calls for an instant dismissal of this particular writeup.

In any case, the TacOps model already gives very pretty good concealment by default, if the terrain around the unit is right, and as long as the unit doesn't move or fire.

[Carter]

Reading from another website, the Candians digital camo (CADPAT) had test results as follows:

"The Canadian studies show there is a 40 percent less chance of being detected from 200 meters away with CADPAT Versus Olive Drab."

http://www.hyperstealth.com/CADPAT-MARPAT.htm

"Canadian CADPAT is 30% more effective than Olive Drab in field testing. The CADPAT soldiers could get 30% closer than the minimum ID range for a user wearing OD."

...This digital effect generates a dithering effect between colors (no solid lines) and works well within 100 yards of an adversary. However, this advance in camouflage is minimal as the colors tend to blend into each at farther distances...

http://www.hyperstealth.com/fracture/

[ August 30, 2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Carter ]

[Carter]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

Doesn't sound exiting at all, not to mention that

"One could provide a more technical explanation" calls for an instant dismissal of this particular writeup.

About halfway down the page is your detailed explaination:

http://www.hyperstealth.com/fracture/

I think you're being close minded on this considering the Marines, US Army, and now other countries are adopting digital camo.

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

>MajorH, will there be any updates to TACOPS

>detection range for digital camo troops?

No.

In my experience, after three or four days in the field most infantrymen automatically and completely unintentionally assume the color of whatever the local dirt is.

[ August 30, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: MajorH ]

[Michael Dorosh]

[ October 11, 2004, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Tory the Magnus]

I actually think that the Macro/Micro pattern is much harder to see than just the Macro one from your picture. I would also like to point out that the picture doesn't really do either of the camoflage types justice as the APC is sitting out in the open and not in cover where it's camoflage would be most effective.

[tar]

What bothers me most about all these reports is that the new camouflage seems to have its effectiveness only reported against a pretty lame straw man: Single color uniforms.

The new US digital is supposedly 50% better than "standard green uniforms" and the Candadian was 30% better than "Olive Drab".

The interesting question is how does the new pattern compare against the current pattern? But nobody seems to be publishing that answer.

[Dennis Grant]

My own experience:

1) At the right range (a medium distance) the new CADPAT actually works pretty well. Once you get far enough away, shadow, shape, and silloette start to become more predominant (remember: The Six "S"'s and The Cookie Monster Never Pisses) but in the middle distance, a motionless soldier in CADPAT is actually pretty tough to see.

2) The decision to take rank off the shoulders and place it centre of mass on the chest has to be one of the stupidest things ever done. It is now impossible to figure out someone's rank from behind or from an oblique angle.

3) That the infanty tend to assume the colour of their surroundings is certainly true. That the process is unintentional is pure fiction. I've never met a Pongo that was happy clean.

DG