Camouflage

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by karch:

Hmm. Considering that, at least after 1943, there were more P-51s in the theater than P-47s, I confess myself sceptical of that observation. Now if you mean a higher percentage of P-47s were painted, you might have a case. But even there you could be mistaken. I think the vast majority of the bubble hood Jugs were delivered without paint, based on the photos I've seen.

Michael

[themaltese]

Warmaker and Gyrene. Check out this link on the USMC website. It shows the new uniform camo pattern!

USMC new camo

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by themaltese:

Warmaker and Gyrene. Check out this link on the USMC website. It shows the new uniform camo pattern!

USMC new camo

Thankfully, they will be making the bill of the floppy hat smaller, it's freaking huge as it is.

Gyrene

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by Richard Morgan:

My ten penny's worth on the subject. Snipers then and now are/were cammed up to such an extent that in most cases they would not be spotted unless the enemy tripped over them! This does not seem to be modelled in CMBO: the sharpshooter appears merely to be a marksman (or expert if you come from America) with a scoped rifle.

Nowadays, infra red film is used in recce and paints and uniform dyes have been developed to counter this. Scrim formed from ripped sacking shows up black (as I have seen) and has to be mixed with other material.

However, I am not 'current' on all this, having been out a goodly number of years. Can any serving member of this board add to what I have stated?

Regards,

Richard. (Old soldiers never die, they only smell that way.)

I'm no longer serving, but I can tell you that the state of the art in thermal imaging makes any conventional camouflage completely useless.

FLIR can see right through most types of camouflage today, including a dug in sniper hide.

Gyrene

[Brian]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Bare metal aircraft were a performance issue - the weight of the paint used for camouflage would rob an aircraft of in the neighbourhood of 20 to 30 mph off their top speed; with the demise of the Luftwaffe's ability to reach out and touch Allied airbases, there was no need to paint the planes green as camouflage and it was decided to take advantage of the increase in performance.

Weight was only one consideration, and actually a pretty neglible one, Michael. Much worse was friction.

The RAF higher-ups insisted that all camouflage had to be matt, to make it effective. They were correct but in doing so, they robbed their aircraft of between 20-30 mph. Something which was noted by the squadrons who fought against the matt decision. Various alternatives were tried, from making the leading edges gloss to putting wax on and polishing it. In the end, it was decided that because of the marginal speed performance of most fighters against the Fi-103 V1, fighters engaged on "Diver" patrols would have gloss or semi-gloss finishs. Many individual pilots had their aircraft unofficially polished and others had wax applied to the leading edges and smoothed.

While the weight of paint might be an issue on a very large aircraft like an airliner, on an aircraft the size of most WWII fighters, it was only in the tens of pounds, not the hundreds.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by themaltese:

Warmaker and Gyrene. Check out this link on the USMC website. It shows the new uniform camo pattern!

USMC new camo

Thankfully, they will be making the bill of the floppy hat smaller, it's freaking huge as it is.

Gyrene</font>

[Warmaker]

The new USMC cammies will have to be purchased by members already in the fleet. However, every serviceman gets an annual clothing allowance for upkeep of your uniforms (Marines are however prone to using this allowance for, *ahem* "emergency beer money"). So, no fleet Marine can ever complain to the Sergeant Major about not getting enough money to maintain his uniform... unless he wants a good ass chewing.

MCRD's San Diego and Parris Island should be starting to issue the new cammies to recruits this month, if not next. I'll give it a month, and I'll go and pick up a used set of these cammies from the exchange at MCRD San Diego. Why? There's always a good number of washouts from boot camp so all their used cammies end up in the used pile at the exchange. They've been "I.P'ed" really well for starters Inspection ready to start with!

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by Brian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gyrene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by themaltese:

Warmaker and Gyrene. Check out this link on the USMC website. It shows the new uniform camo pattern!

USMC new camo

Thankfully, they will be making the bill of the floppy hat smaller, it's freaking huge as it is.

Gyrene</font>

[Affentitten]

Brian,

My brother-in-law is in the RAN. They get one set of dress uniform issued when they join. That has to last them until whenever they quit. If you get too fat, too thin, too dirty or the stuff gets too worn, then any subsequent clothing has to be purchased. My BIL has been in 13 years now and got commissioned a couple of years ago. The parade with all his fellow up-from-the-ranks-now-behind-a-desk boys was hilarious, with half of them barely fitting into the dress jackets they'd been issued as 17 year olds.

I'm not sure what the story is with everyday uniform, like overalls and so forth.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

The SS "pea" pattern and the modern West German dot pattern it resembles aren't all that effective. I have a West German camouflaged field jacket in the dot pattern that I use to play paintball with, and while it's very well made and cool looking it doesn not work all that well as camouflage, granted that it's not being used in the terrain it was designed for.

I have to object. The Bundeswehr-Flecktarn-Camo is very effective if used in appropriate terrain. To draw a conclusion like "it isnt effective but i never tried in in the right terrain" is, in my opinion, just wrong.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gyrene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by themaltese:

Warmaker and Gyrene. Check out this link on the USMC website. It shows the new uniform camo pattern!

USMC new camo

Thankfully, they will be making the bill of the floppy hat smaller, it's freaking huge as it is.

Gyrene</font>

[Frw Koslov]

I have to object. The Bundeswehr-Flecktarn-Camo is very effective if used in appropriate terrain. To draw a conclusion like "it isnt effective but i never tried in in the right terrain" is, in my opinion, just wrong.

Mike, you are right. Look at cammo patterns from the world and you will see what their native terrain looks like.

Thought the new Canadian stuff was interesting as it showed a change from force projection into Europe (ie Brit style DPM) to something that I think is more "Canadian" home defence suitable.

When is the next Canadian/American war scheduled for ?

Koslov

[MikeyD]

One reason why the Germans and not the Allies used Camou might have something to do with air superiority. The Allies had it and the Germans didn't. The Germans didn't go big-time into camou until the war started going badly for them.

The Allies had enough trouble with 'friendly fire' incidents with their big distinctive looks Shermans with big white stars! If their tanks were camou'd-up then every passing Thunderbolt would mistake their forces for a Tiger.

One side note, in a recent 'Military Modeller' the cover shower US M8 Greyhounds in France with a 2-tone black-olive drab camou much like Brit camou. This camouflage type is less a close combat 'ambush' type but more a security/intelligence sorta thing. Distant vehicles with alternating black-olive stripes aren;t invisible but make it more difficult to distinguish which type of vehicle you're looking at. That why the US switched their camou style in the 80s to the less combat-effective Bundeswehr style, to make unit identification more difficult.

[Gyrene]

By Brian :So, what sort of rates of pay are we looking at here?

As I said, in the Oz Army, you're issued with all your uniforms and personal equipment and you can change any issued item, simply by returning it to the Q-Store and then being issued a new one, if it no longer fits. The only uniform you have to purchase is your Mess Dress and that only applies to Senior NCO's and Officers.

You can purchase extra items but they are sold at basically cost by the central clothing stores/unit Q-Stores.

If however, you've damaged an item and its not judged to be "fair wear and tear", then its "member to pay", when it comes to replacement.

I'd hope that the rates of pay in the Marines are consumate with the costs of purchasing and maintaining your uniforms if its got to come out of your own pocket, Gyrene.

The pay rate was pretty good....If you never left the barracks and always ate at the messhall.

We also had an exchange program for dress uniforms, but utilities come out of your pocket, as did all the brass, ribbons & such.

Marines get paid the same as any other branch, and after 3 months of boot camp everyone is disappointed at how little your first paycheck is, especially if you had to buy Dress Blues and an airline ticket back home for leave. (I did not need either, as Blues were optional when I was in, and I was within driving distance to home)

Most large bases run a "thrift" store in which you can buy used uniforms and was a great place to find a bargain, like cammie utilitiy sets for $10

Gyrene

[edward_n_kelly]

Originally posted by Brian:

As I said, in the Oz Army, you're issued with all your uniforms and personal equipment and you can change any issued item, simply by returning it to the Q-Store and then being issued a new one, if it no longer fits. The only uniform you have to purchase is your Mess Dress and that only applies to Senior NCO's and Officers.

Been away for a while ?

Regular Oz Army

IFI (initial free issue) of all uniforms.

Working dress (cams, etc) is replaced on the basis of damage or loss for which the user is not responsible.

All other is replaced through the UMA (uniform maintenance allowance).

(Army can be very flexible about what it regards as IFI/UMA items particularly when a change of dress is brought in like the early '90s for new service dress – it was UMA for Regulars and IFI for Reserve.).

Field Equipment (like packs, webbing, etc) is free and replaced as necessary (similar caveat on loss/damage).

Reserve

IFI and replacement on a needs basis (at no charge unless loss/damage is held to be member's responsibility)

Work dress IFI and replacement as needed (similar caveat on loss/damage)

Field Equipment (like packs, webbing, etc) is free and replaced as necessary (similar caveat on loss/damage).

Mess Dress for Officers and NCO's consisting of "Blues" trousers/skirt and mess jacket (corps colour for winter, white for summer plus accoutrements) is now IFI and replacement from UMA or free (depending on Regular/Reserve). Formerly, the "Blues" (trousers/jacket - in those days male only) were issued, the rest was private purchase (a sore point for the Reserves....)

You can purchase extra items but they are sold at basically cost by the central clothing stores/unit Q-Stores.

Correct

Edward

[SpazManOught]

Ok...Thanks for the info about bald fighter planes.

When it comes to painting up tanks, is any kind of camo theory. Idealy you would want the tank blend in perfectly with the surrounding enviroment, but that would make you stick out when you moved. So I assume the paint schemes chosen were just good for breaking up the outline of the tank to make it harder to spot.

So whats better zig zag's , splotches or nice pastel shades?

[Affentitten]

Exactly. Camouflage is never going to make you invisible. It's there to avoid detection from a sweeping glance, aerial photo or other long distance scrutiny. Moving will break your camouflage anyway, so then the game becomes breaking up the exact outline and perhaps making specific vehicle identification difficult.

[Brian]

Originally posted by edward_n_kelly:

Originally posted by Brian:

As I said, in the Oz Army, you're issued with all your uniforms and personal equipment and you can change any issued item, simply by returning it to the Q-Store and then being issued a new one, if it no longer fits. The only uniform you have to purchase is your Mess Dress and that only applies to Senior NCO's and Officers.

Been away for a while ?

Approximately 10 years. Not that much has changed and as I pointed out, uniforms are basically issued free of issue, with the exception of dress ones, which is quite a contrast with the Marine Corps which apparently expects the member to pay out of their own pocket for all uniforms.

I wonder Gyrene, do they expect you to pay for your own weapons and ammunition as well?

BTW, you didn't actually mention was the scales of pay were. How much would a Private earn, for example?

[ March 07, 2002, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Brian]

Originally posted by SpazManOught:

So whats better zig zag's , splotches or nice pastel shades?

Obviously depends upon many factors. Generally IIRC the main "rules" for camouflage are:

Shape;

Surface;

Shine;

Silhouette;

Movement;

Generally Cam is intended to preferrably hide and at least obscure an object that isn't moving.

Obviously, a object thats covered in green folage is going to be rather inappropriate for a desert and a vehicle painted for desert cam isn't going to work in the middle of a forest.

So, camouflage must be appropriate to the terrain and conditions surrounding the object. Shiny surfaces are more visible than matt ones. Regular shapes are more visible than irregular ones. Flat surfaces more visible than bumpy ones. Something that sticks up above the surrounding terrain will be silhouetted like a sore thumb. A moving object is more visible than an immobile one.

Appreciate that and then its possible to try and correct them and if you're reasonably good at it, and you have some degree of luck, then it will remain hidden.

There is also a problem of sometimes "more is too much of a good thing", in that many novices try too hard and end up looking like moving bushes. In the case of personal cam, its better to try and break up the outline, and apply a minimum of face paint rather than trying to turn your skin green like a frog's (too much face paint makes the areas you cannot colour, like your eyes, mouth and nose more prominent and so hence more easily detected through shape recognition).

When I was in the Oz Army were were always taught to apply sufficient face paint to break up the face's outline and leave enough skin free to allow you to sweat easily without smearing the face paint. Another useful item is a face veil but they appear to have largely fallen out of fashion, for the most part ('cause I wear glasses I always wore a face veil as it prevented the glasses from reflecting sunlight).

On vehicles, important areas to hide, particularly in arid environments are the shadow under the vehicle (which is why you'll see vehicles with rolled up hessian along the edges in pictures of the Western Desert. When halted, the hessian was quickly lowered and the vehicle would then look with a quick glance from the air, like a big rock, rather than something on four or more wheels suspended above the desert with a shadow underneath) and other overhangs. In less arid environments, its possible to use folage to hide that shadow and its not quite as stark as in a desert. Barrels on AFVs are also an important feature to hide, their length and regularity can be quite revealing.

The ADF has also found a useful way to both shade tanks in the far north of Australia's "top end" and to break up their shape has been to use large umbrellas over the top of the turrets, like those used in many open street cafes (except they use camouflage clothe). This is an important consideration when it gets over 60 degrees C inside a tank up there in the dry and over 35 degrees with 90% humidity in the wet.

Avoid movement as much as possible and when you do move, follow the (hopefully) established track plan, so that its not possible for the enemy to either spot fresh tracks or determine strength from them.

I'm sure there is more but thats the basics as I remember them.

[illo]

ignore

[ March 07, 2002, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: illo ]

[Affentitten]

Brian will laugh at me, but my only experience with camouflage was in the school cadets. We were also taught the shape, shine etc rules. In fact we were issued pamphlets printed in the 40's on the topic, along with such gems as "Field Stripping the Owen Submachinegun".

I remember the general rule for face was to colour reflective areas like the nose and cheek bones with a dark shade, and then to use a lighter green for the shadowed regions like under the chin and nose. That way, everything was averaged out.

I used to use a face veil too. Mainly because it made me feel tough.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Affentitten:

Brian will laugh at me, but my only experience with camouflage was in the school cadets.

No, they were/are a useful place to get some grounding in the military arts. I used to do Cadet Camps as a member of Staff. Lots of fun and very amusing as well.

We were also taught the shape, shine etc rules. In fact we were issued pamphlets printed in the 40's on the topic, along with such gems as "Field Stripping the Owen Submachinegun".

Well, that dates you, I think, considering when the Owen was phased out. I've only ever handled but never fired an Owen, I'm only a youngster.

I remember the general rule for face was to colour reflective areas like the nose and cheek bones with a dark shade, and then to use a lighter green for the shadowed regions like under the chin and nose. That way, everything was averaged out.

Basically right. I was always taught to breakup the outline by pay attention to nose, cheeks, forehead, ears and neck, using elongated "blobs", rather than covering the whole area.

As I said, the problem is if you do cover the whole area, you still need to open your eyes and there is your mouth. Children as young as 3 months can recognise a face shape based on just those three points, so its deeply instinctive to identify even the most minimal representation of a face, if it can be seen.

I used to use a face veil too. Mainly because it made me feel tough.

Each to their own. I used it, as I said, to hide my glass's reflection. I actually preferred not to but my corporal got upset the first time an ambush failed on my IET course because the "enemy" caught the glint off my spectacles.

[edward_n_kelly]

Originally posted by Brian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Affentitten:

Each to their own. I used it, as I said, to hide my glass's reflection. I actually preferred not to but my corporal got upset the first time an ambush failed on my IET course because the "enemy" caught the glint off my spectacles. [/QB]</font>

Also very useful as a fly guard - those bush and horseflies could be as bad if not worse those pictures of fly covered personnel in the Western Desert.

Thankfully the dung beetle program is lessening this problem....

Edward

[Affentitten]

Well, that dates you, I think, considering when the Owen was phased out. I've only ever handled but never fired an Owen, I'm only a youngster.

Not at all. I was at school in the 80's. When I first joined the cadets in '83, we drilled with Enfield Mk IV's, and even some Mk III's that had 1915 stamped on the barrel! The Enfields had the pins removed and were dry-fired to teach basic rifle shooting principles, postures and so forth. They were chiefly used by the cadets for clubbing the bejeezus out of each other on exercises. (All I know is that if I ever get into a position of rifle butt combat, I want an Enfield in my hands, not one of those plastic Austrian things!) I also had my platoon doing a fair rendition of the three-step firing routine from Zulu.

In my last couple of years, when the Aussies started moving over to Steyrs, we inherited a truck load of SLR's, which were much more fun. I still smile when I remember one of our officers, who had been in arty in the regs and reserves. He decided to show us a full strip down of the SLR to demonstrate how many pieces were in a "modern" weapon. He couldn't get it back together afterwards!

We didn't actually have any Owens. Once when I was on a charge and relegated to cleaning up one of the Q store offices, I stumbled across a trove of field manuals that had obviously been sent as a job lot to the cadet corps after WW2. They'd probably be worth a fortune on e-bay now!

On camps at Singleton we got to live fire M-16s on the pop-up range, and I think we were once given a demo of that masterwork, the F1 SMG.

I recall the first time I ever stepped up to the block at the range to shoot an M-16. Each cadet had a regular army guy looking after them. I looked at my supervisor. He was a captain. I looked at his sandy beret and the "Who Dares Wins" badge. "Oh Jesus", I thought. "I'm going to look so crap." I'd never even held an M-16 before, let alone gone through any firing practise.

But he was a great instructor, and I bagged an 80% mark on the range. The best reward was him turning round to the other army personnel and boasting that "his guy" had out-shot theirs!

[MikeyD]

About which camou is best, it all depends on what you're defending against. If it's toe-to-toe ground combat then German ambush scheme is usually best. But if you're protecting yourself from air attack you need another tactic. Fighter pilots look for distinctive shapes and shadows so you want broad alternating darks & lights to break-up the vehicle's outline, with black used to disrupt the shadow edges. One Air Force camou test they found a fighter pilot attacking targets on the ground (other planes in this case) is more likely to go for a strong shadow - even if the shadow isn't plane-shaped! They found laying out black geometric tarps onto the tarmac would fool 'em every time.