Camo Study

[OHLAR]

Here's an interesting look at how effective your camo pattern might be in the real world.

http://www.whitetail.com/predator/camo1.html


PS: Great new forum! I'm looking forward to all the info that will surely roll in here.

Ohlar

[fastprofessor]

interesting article.

[MichonRAFW]

I've seen it around before except this time I noticed that most of the pictures that show the biggest difference between the camo patterns are shot with the sun at the subject's back leaving the front of them pretty much as a shadow. Now i'm not as surprised that the mossy oak pattern muddied up into a dark blob.
Ryan

[FREE RIFLEMAN]

Does anyone remember the ASAT Camo made by Brigade Quartemaster? That stuff was cool, I wonder what happened? Mossy Oak must have beat them out...

[Bentley8]

ASAT Camo?

Try http://www.asatcamo.com/

Never heard of it before. Did a search and found this. Looks pretty cool.

[John Randolph]

Very interesting stuff.

The links make an unstated case that a tan/desert camo pattern might be better or more effective for general use, than a woodland green pattern.

[Havoc]

The ASAT stuff is great but way overpriced. It can be easily replicated however by using some kahki bdu's as a base and then using spray paint for the darker lines. Krylon makes some excellent camo paint and can usually be found at Walmart or hardware stores. Although not one of their camo colors the "Make it suede" paint is an excellent flat sand color.

[John Hardin]

Does anybody know of something similar comparing common military patterns? I'd really like to know how my favorite (flectarn) stacks up against things like woodland, marpat, etc.

[milhol]

I'm hoping to start a website comparing different designs in different surroundings, if you guys are keen that means I'll have to get off my butt and actually do it!!
What do ya reckon?:shades:

[MichonRAFW]

I'm hoping to start a website comparing different designs in different surroundings, if you guys are keen that means I'll have to get off my butt and actually do it!!

So what are you waiting for? Get to it!:biggrin: :bow:
Ryan

[yovinny]

Interesting review, but it only takes into account what is perceived to the human eye. Most camo that was designed prior to 1999 did'nt take into account infra red reflection and wasent treated for it. this is one of the reasons weve been seeing so much different camo on the milsurp market. In fact most older camo, lights up like a star in the night, because of the cloth and dyes used.
Short but very interesting review of IR detection in Borsarello's book "Camo Uniforms, Europe & Nato Armies 1945 to present"
The Germans were actually experimenting with IR blocker treatments for there uniforms and camo in 1944 !! Because of IR detection in use at that time by the Allies. Just food for thought :)
YOOO VINNY

[John Randolph]

IMO Infra-red treatments were vastly over-rated in their effectiveness.

The US has been treating their BDUs for quite some time (at least since early 90s). We were in fact told not to dry-clean them, as it would take the treatments off.

However I've looked through IR scopes at US troops and everyone seemed lit up like a Xmas tree.

Are my standards too high?

[splattermatic]

this outfit works perfectly for me,, no matter what the distance

[yovinny]

Originally posted by John Randolph
IMO Infra-red treatments were vastly over-rated in their effectiveness.

The US has been treating their BDUs for quite some time (at least since early 90s). We were in fact told not to dry-clean them, as it would take the treatments off.

However I've looked through IR scopes at US troops and everyone seemed lit up like a Xmas tree.

Are my standards too high?

I dont know John, I dont have access to IR equipment myself to make any comparison. The IR photos in the aforementioned book make the current US woodland look pretty good compaired to some others. Yet they all seem a little lacking and easy to detect. Let's face it, between thermal imaging and IR, camo as an effective means of concealment is not really going to cut it. Just as night vision changed and negated the concealment of night, camo has lost it's place on the 21st century battle field.
YOOO VINNY

[elbo]

You guys confusing IR and UV?

[yovinny]

Originally posted by elbo
You guys confusing IR and UV?

No, Infra red reflective.

[milhol]

Splattermatic- Can't see you, I think I have too much wool over my eyes!

Vinny- Good point but most standing Third World armies don't have effective night vision. You can see them but they can't see you, if your cam is good enough.
The cams I have seen through NVGs were not that effective; three colour US desert, Auscam, woodland (is more effective than others, but not by much), even the US night vision coat specifically designed to break up the image was not that good. But that all goes out the window if your enemy doesn't have NV.
The only thing I have experienced defeat both IR and thermal is a ghillie suit.
The ghillie was undetected in grassland at fifty metres and undetectable to IR at 10.

Thanks Ryan.:eek: I now have no choice but indulge in one of my hobbies officially.:cool:

I now have to buy Night Vision equipment to take pictures of various cams through.

You guys are a bad influence I tell ya.;)

[splattermatic]

i'm the brown bump just about dead center, just behind the point where the 2 washes come together

ghille suit !

[milhol]

I knew that :bow: :D

[mrf2]

America and most of the NATO nations (England, France, Germany) have been treating their unforms for IR for quite some time, since at least the 80s. I have a utilty blouse from the mid 1980s that has been treated (looks like it, when viewed through my PVS-7s). The current South African Soldier 2000 pattern is also treated. It's pretty common, it only kinda works though. I suspect the massive amount of surplus uniforms is from a combination of miliary downsizing since the end of the cold war and age of the unforms themselves. After a while the treatment washes/wears out.

Milhol- US 3 color day desert is not treated. The treatment is desgined to be reflective, to mimic green vegitation when viewed through NV, there isn't much of this in the desert so it was decided not to treat the uniform. Another type is desgined to make the black stand out extra well, which is also not designed into the uniform. The US night desert set is desgined to fool older 1st and some 2ed Gen units at distances of 100 yards plus. I believe the figgure is 20% less likely to be seen at 100 yards (in theory).

mrf2

[yovinny]

I must have missed something :? What does night vision have to do with Infra red ?? There 2 totaly different things. Night vision amplifies available light, IR is a spectrum of light not seen by the naked eye. IR detection can be with ambiant light or from a IR light source. Any treatments that I've heard of before are for IR detection, unless you'r speaking of something new.
Thermal Imaging picks up heat, anything producing heat above the ambiant temperature. From what I've seen and read, it will work through wooden buildings. How ANY kind of camo or suite would defeat it, I'm not really sure.
YOOO VINNY

[mrf2]

Vinnie- From a practical stand point the IR band is split into three regions. Near, Medium, and Far. Near IR is from around 800nm to 1100nm. It behaves like visible light and passes though glass. Night vision scopes are sensative to this light, esp. 3ed gen. There is a lot of near IR at night, which is why 3ed gen scopes preform so well, becuase they can see it. Second and first gen. scopes can see slightly into the infrared band, but not very far. I believe the spectral response of first and second gen. tubes (S20 and S25 extended red photocathode) peaks at the blue and green region of the spectrum. Medium and Far IR are what thermal imagers see, it behaves less like visible light, needing lens made from special materals (like Gernaium). They "see" heat, and I believe they are what you are thinking about. The treatments applied to combat unforms are desgined to work with Near IR, and NV scopes. I don't think there is much you can do by chemicaly treating a uniform to make it less visible to a thermal imager, as the cloth will eventuly pick up and transmit the heat of the person wearing it. Your only hope of hiding from thermal is either to not get in it's line of sight (get behind large objects) or become the same temp as your back ground.

mrf2

[yovinny]

Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm really understanding this. You'r saying that 3rd generation NV interprets IR reflectivity into a light range that the human eye can see. Hence, why objects that reflect Infra red seem to "light up" through IR viewers and apparently 3rd generation NV also ??
I always thought it was the other way around. Very early night vision used an IR source and viewer. Natural objects that did'nt reflect as much IR seemed dull, while things that reflected more IR seemed to glow. And that now as we've progressed to the higher generations of "star light" amplification, IR reflection has become less of a noticable observance through NV scopes.
YOOO VINNY

[Gremper]

When I went through the US Army Camouflage School at Ft. Belvoir in the late 70s they told me that the biggest problem with camouflaged BDU's was that starching them totally screwed up the IR defeating effect. The dye used in the BDU cloth was designed to show up on infra-red sensitive film (which is used in daylight to defeat camouflage) as live foliage. Starch really screws up the dye reflectivity.

[mrf2]

Vinnie-

That is what I'm saying. The first tubes, image converter tubes, simply converted IR light (about 700 to 1100nm) to visible, typicaly green. First and Second gen amplified light, but mostly visible light, with a little in the IR, second gen went much further in the IR spectrum than 1st gen, and had greater gain, and were much smaller. They typicaly used what was called a tri-alkali photocathode (made of three alkali minerals) that responded to visible light, and some IR. Later second gen systems (typicaly 2ed gen plus) used a photocathode of slightly diffrent materal to increase response on the near IR range. Third gen uses GaAs (gallum arsinde, spelled wrong I think) as a photocathode materal that greatly improved response in the near IR region. The tube constuction is basicly the same as second, although the MCP has more holes for greater resolution. The increase in gain comes from the materal of the photocathode allowing near IR to be convered to visible light.

If you want to hear it from another source, check this link out:
http://www.excaliburenterprises.com/night/nvchart.html
Scroll down to the cool cut-away pictures of the tubes and it tells you the technical characteristics of each tube, including the increased IR response in 3ed gen tubes.
I hope that makes things clear.

mrf2

[milhol]

What I think he is trying to say is gen 1 requires an IR spotlight to see. Gen 2 makes use of ambient light that is boosted. Gen 3 uses both ambient boosted light and can see IR to a degree.
Most Gen 3 NVGs have inbuilt IR light bit like using a torch for when it is real dark and there is no ambient light.
I think the reason the ghillie defeated the thermal was because I had only put it on and my body hadn't the chance to heat it up. Since it was made out of natural fibre it just looked like the other material around it which is why it defeated NVG with IR.

[yovinny]

That link has some interesting info and I'm a little clearer on this now :D Thanks.
I believe what there calling generation 3 is actually a little behind the times for a military unit. Though as they state, it was milspec in 1992 and there most advanced unit for civilian sales. I dont believe the current military NV has an IR illumination source, in fact I dont remember having them on the NV we had before I got out in 86'. But that could be my lacking memory too :)
The Thermal Imaging units are pretty incredible and have made some great advances within the last years. In fact, if you know any firemen, ask if there company has one and what they think of it. Theres been a big push to equip fire departments with units in the last few years. They allow them to literally see through a house, smoke and fire and locate trapped or unconscious people. I saw a demonstration of one a few years ago and was just amazed. Still, at $40,000 for the unit, our local dept hasent been able to aquire one yet. Larger metropolitan depts should already have units in service and these are as state of the art as military units.
YOOO VINNY