Hello /k/.
I made the thread in pic related almost a year ago. I saved this image from some anon after seeing it be posted for the 10th time in some thread. I have a couple of hours to be bored and I'm willing to answer questions if you want.
>>29757149
ranger green?
>>29757378
Yeah, Ranger Green is a desaturated green-gray base color used primarily for TA-50/OCIE/gear and such. It's popularity is probably due to its reputation as a 75th exclusive snowflake color. Despite this, it is an effective base color in regions where the color value is low (dark). Because of its neutral tone, it is often superior to Olive Drab in my opinion.
>>29757478
>green-grey
What about just straight up grey colors? For gear.
![ranger41vu3[1].jpg~original.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bhnp5k2.jpg "ranger41vu3[1].jpg~original.jpg")
>>29757521
Gray (grey), like greens, can be finicky colors to adapt to a given environment. From what I understand grays have typically been fielded for urban environments to try and increase blending against poured concrete and urban paints. Gray varies heavily from different manufacturers and runs, but there are a few that have been labeled for use. NAVSPECWAR uses flightsuits in MAS (Maritime Assault) Gray. Well, at least I know they used to. Other grays such as "Wolf" Gray have been marketed to civilians. Matching Grays to urban environments has proven difficult for LE and AF. In my section we pretty much doffed the idea altogether. Even if you do match a solid gray to your urban area, you sacrifice concealment in rural or wilderness areas. In my opinion, gray is a relatively poor color for gear and equipment, not to mention uniforms.
Here are a couple good articles from mil spec monkey about this topic:
http://milspecmonkey.com/index.php/articles-page/63-articles/454-a-real-urban-grey
http://milspecmonkey.com/index.php/articles-page/63-articles/455-a-real-urban-grey-part-2
These are, of course, not my links.
>>29757642
I'm guessing that means you don't like ucp?
What do you thing is the next step for camos? Like is there some better stuff that's gonna come out or is it kind of like guns?
>>29758023
>I'm guessing that means you don't like ucp?
You guess correctly.
>What do you thing is the next step for camos? Like is there some better stuff that's gonna come out or is it kind of like guns?
I believe that the future of camouflage technology will be concealment in the IR spectrum. The proliferation of night vision devices for armies as well as civilians means that it will eventually become a necessity. As of right now, I believe that there are only two different countries in the world which have adopted patterns specifically developed for IR concealment. It should be noted, the vast majority of camouflage patterns developed and fielded in recent history have been largely ineffective for IR concealment. Unfortunately, this is a subject that I'm not really well versed in. My guess is that technologies like these will be driven more by chemists and textile gurus, whereas soldiers and snipers like myself are really just professionals in the visual spectrum.
>>29757149
>RG sucks
>Gray sucks
Okay, then what color should hear be?
>>29758252
fuck
gear*
>>29757149
Hi, and thanks for contributing to /k/.
I wanted to ask a pretty dumb question, but was curious everytime I see it, so gonna ask.
Does a camo like pic related exist in real-life? Does it have any pros?
And what cons it has?
Thanks
![37ef0299aeaaee19cdf8e66633fad38f_view[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/snEuNqh.jpg "37ef0299aeaaee19cdf8e66633fad38f_view[1].jpg")
>>29759023
>Does a camo like pic related exist in real-life?
The answer is essentially yes. There is nothing especially different from that pictured pattern when compared to other digital patterns aside from the fact that it has larger "pixels". Larger versions of camouflage patterns are often used on vehicles and equipment for reasons that differ from usage on uniforms.
The pro is that large pixels, amoebas, stripes, or any other combination of colors provide effective contrast at long distances. Contrast is essential for breaking up any shape that is easily recognizable. The reason that larger patterns are used for larger potential targets is that the likely enemy that they will be hiding from will be some distance away from them. Helicopters, bombers, and other large enemies have a large field of view, but they have historically been limited to distant observation. If the colors of a given vehicle can blend and break up its shape, there is a greater chance that they will go unseen.
The con to larger patterns is that they lose their effectiveness in close proximity. You would likely be able to identify a helicopter with that kind of pattern within 100 meters.
As for use on uniforms, it doesn't happen too often. The reason being that soldiers must be prepared to confront enemies at potentially extremely close distances.
If you are interested in uniforms with this appearance, there was a release of a pattern called "Project Honor Camo" associated with a video game.
http://www.amazon.com/LBX-Tactical-Project-Assaulters-Uniform/dp/B00M3J5XIU
http://www.evike.com/products/46806/
>>29758252
Bumping this question.
>>29758252
For the record, I didn't claim that Ranger Green sucks. I only said that its use probably should be limited to dark environments. Burnt out forests and swamps are examples of them.
>>29759459
>>29758252
>what color should gear be?
As with all camouflage, the environment dictates what should be used. However, the choice of colors for gear may be a bit more simple. The reason is that gear almost always necessarily needs to be adaptable to a large variety of environments and seasons. For this reason alone, it is unlikely that greens would be the most preferred color. Greens in camouflage are present to emulate foliage, but the presence of foliage changes with seasons and terrain.
Therefore, if you are going to choose a solid color for your gear, I recommend a medium brown in between desert tan and dark soil. Neutral browns like this have many different names including Flat Dark Earth, Coyote, Nutria, and many others. Some are a little darker or lighter than others, but the idea between their use is the same.
>/k/ is a board devoted to weapons and military equipment.
there's a fashion board retards
>>29759716
>what is myriad military technology
Go post in your "relevant" threads like /k/ music, stalker bullshit, and spooky gray man SHTF shelter porn.
>>29759716
>I don't like something I read
>>29759691
So what, the Marines just got it right?
![MAG-Now-PM2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fMIXrLb.jpg "MAG-Now-PM2[1].jpg")
>>29759852
>the Marines just got it right?
Well not exactly. While I do think that the adoption of Coyote TA-50 is a very good option for the Marine Corps, I also think the plot thickens with regard to patterns. As I stated previously, IF you are going to choose a monocolor for gear, medium browns are most often the best bet. However, patterns are better than solid colors for breaking up shape. They cost more and sometimes command a ridiculous premium for licensing costs. If an army is willing to shell out money for a pattern which provides color contrast and covers a wide variety of terrains, then it is the better option in my opinion. I should say, many armies, branches, or agencies have a lot more to worry about than the camouflage of equipment. A branch like the USMC probably has less funds to work with than others. Coyote is simple and it works, but patterns are better.
Serious thoughts on using Rhodie camo in some parts of the mid/western united states, and more foliated areas of afghanistan?
![scoutguner_zps5ce89973[1].jpg~original.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/EdbdYTd.jpg "scoutguner_zps5ce89973[1].jpg~original.jpg")
>>29760454
Rhodesian Brushstroke is actually one of the better patterns that I have seen which was developed and adopted by an army in the 20th century (I'm not trying to sell anything). The color palette of the uniform has excellent contrast without oversaturating. For its intended environment (jungles of southern Africa) I'm guessing that it is probably very good. I'm really not sure about fielding the pattern in the Midwestern US or Afghanistan in general. Given that both environments are essentially arid to semi-temperate, I would say another pattern would work better. However, there are always densely vegetated exceptions. All of this being said, I do not have personal experience with the pattern, though it does appear to work very well in the forested area of North Texas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37MLPQA4shk
>>29760010
>If an army is willing to shell out money for a pattern which provides color contrast and covers a wide variety of terrains, then it is the better option in my opinion.
IMO they almost had it with UCP. Fuck the haters
![000d8b40c2a0c5412103ea0079d33b7c027212ad059b768d8ee6da976c222d13_large[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/DkFKCCq.jpg "000d8b40c2a0c5412103ea0079d33b7c027212ad059b768d8ee6da976c222d13_large[1].jpg")
>>29761164
>they almost had it with UCP
>>29761164
Yeah, real close. They just had to switch up the colors a little. After adding brown, green, and tan, getting rid of the blue and changing the actual pattern...then burning the uniforms, yeah they came out on top.
>>29758098
It really does end up being more of a material question and what type of dyes you use. It's better to have high IR reflectivity iirc.
>>29760984
When the US was choosing their now current camo they found that Rhodesian Brushstroke was one of the 3 best pre-existing camo patterns. And it is great in pretty much all Texas Woodland.
>>29761164
>IMO they almost had it with UCP
I don't really intend on arguing with anyone, but I'd like to change your mind.
UCP is, by objective measure, one of the worst camouflage patterns fielded by a developed country's army in recent history. Not only is it not universal, it is ineffective in the vast majority of locales that it was subsequently tested in. UCP did not undergo any formal evaluations before its adoption process started and complaints of its ineffectiveness in both Iraq and Afghanistan surfaced immediately after the new uniforms were issued. About one third of the UCP FR-ACUs that came into possession of my recon section were spray painted in order to be effective for field use. In Sniper School and RSLC, students were encouraged to bring uniforms or ghillie suits with a different camouflage pattern (2007-2011 time-frame). Even high ranking commanders in the army have since admitted that the UCP adoption was probably a mistake.
http://www.hyperstealth.com/camo-improvement/
https://www.milspecmonkey.com/index.php/articles-page/63-articles/52-ucp-sucks-universal-camo-pattern-rant
http://kitup.military.com/2010/12/how-bad-was-universal-camo-in-tests-b-a-d.html
Now, we've all seen pictures where UCP works well, whether that be against the rocks in Afghanistan or on Grandma's couch. I'll be the first to admit that all patterns will probably work somewhere. Regardless, the pattern is area specific which inevitably means that it restricts the battle space in which someone using the pattern can operate concealed. Not only that, but the pattern seriously suffers from iso-luminescence when light is shining on it. The pattern is not only poor, it's remarkably poor. Embarrassingly poor. Not trying to be dramatic, but if one soldier, one, was killed for the simple fact that he was blue in the Middle East, then the army is wrong, the US is wrong, and certainly the camo pattern is fucking wrong.
>>29761588
It's based on that canadian pattern which is fine but they switched the colors to what worked best against IR and/or NVG. MARPAT is the same with different colors and it's very good.
>>29758098
>two different countries in the world have adopted patterns specifically developed for IR concealment
which ones? also are you talking about concealment against thermal, NV, or both at the same time?
>>29761788
>they switched the colors to what worked best against IR and/or NVG
That is false. UCP was not specifically developed for use against IR. Guy Kramer developed several patterns which outperform UCP to a substantial degree. UCP fairs even more poorly under IR than its predecessor M81.
http://www.hyperstealth.com/c3/
>>29757149
I live innadesert.
what would be better, something patterned (like chocolate chip camo) or just plain tan?
or does it depend on the environment?
>>29761997
>innadesert
Can you give me a rough idea of the region? Do you have distinct foliage variability throughout the different seasons or is it essentially a monoclimate?
>>29762042
NM, so it's basically a monoclimate of shit, save for the bosques (forests)
it looks like afghanistan or iraq, just scrubbrush, sand, rocks, and the occasional tree
>>29761964
This is what I meant. I assume it's roughly accurate? The part about NVG IR?
>>29762077
meant to post this link, derp.
http://www.hyperstealth.com/camo-improvement/
>>29762072
Well it is my opinion that patterns are always better than solid colors if they blend properly.
>>29757149
I live in Western Oregon.
I've got a set of British surplus woodland DPM camo, can I do better? I was thinking a set of DOT wouldn't hurt, and during the fall when there are a whooole lotta leaves on the ground I don't think the woodland DPM is going to cut it. Ideas?
>>29762253
>DPM camo, can I do better?
I would guess probably. I have personally found DPM, Flecktarn, and M81 woodland patterns to often be oversaturated in the Pacific Northwest. I don't think that they are poor options, but you might consider MARPAT if you are still looking for surplus or, a personal favorite of mine, A-TACS FG as a civilian option. I have no experience with DOT.
>>29762451
Surplus or otherwise I don't really care, I just want something effective so I can go innawoods and play oper8or.
Thanks camanon.
>>29757149
What camo would you recommend for Ohio?
>>29762253
>I've got a set of British surplus woodland DPM camo, can I do better?
honestly, I noticed that one last, and the checkmark one first.
>>29762790
If you can swing it I'd opt for two, some kind of "multi-environment" pattern for Fall and Winter and a dedicated woodland one mostly for Summer.
>>29761964
>Guy Cramer
He ever unveil his new invisibility cloak or are he and Dumbledore still working out the kinks?
>>29763345
Probably. He's always made it seem as though he has some high level contracts that he's working on with this country or that country. I do know that his company invented both Jordan's standard uniforms and the Afghan National Army's uniforms.
>>29762790
>>29762253
>>29762072
>>29761997
I realize that I haven't exactly been specific as far as patterns are concerned. I'll provide you guys with a few examples of what patterns I believe work well and fall into the categories I've recommended. This list is by no means exhaustive.
"Multi-environment":
-MultiCam
-Italian Multiland
-MTP
-All Terrain Tiger
Arid:
-MultiCam Arid
-Pencott Sandstorm
-A-TACS AU
-Tropentarn
Woodland:
-A-TACS FG
-Pencott Greenzone
-Rhodesian Brushstroke
-MARPAT Woodland
>>29764314
what patterns would you recommend for this swampy environment?
>>29757149
So why not just own multiple camos?
>>29764434
another pic for reference.
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/D46R2Sn.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
>>29764434
>>29764468
Mossy Oak Obsession is rally green like that
I know they make another that's greener, but I forget the name
>>29764464
It's a good idea. I don't think I would ever say you shouldn't. However, a lot of people don't really have the resources so it's about trying to effectively cover as much of their area as possible with two or even one pattern. At the same time, I think a lot of people have misconceptions about camouflage that leads them to make misguided purchases.
>>29764494
Flecktarn jacket $5-10
Brit multicam $10-15
Alpenflage $5-10
Woodland $5
I mean come on, surplus camo that works well enough is cheap
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kFnSnHW.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>29764434
>>29764468
Marshland and swamp areas tend to be some of the darkest in temperate regions. I would recommend a pattern like MultiCam Tropic or A-TACS FG. A cheaper surplus option would be MARPAT Woodland.
>>29764473
>Mossy Oak Obsession
This is also a very decent camouflage pattern. I tend to avoid recommending hunting patterns because they can cost a hell of a lot and fade quickly depending on the material it's printed on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYL7nwdOYSA
>>29764507
Flecktarn, M81, and Alpenflage are typically pretty poor woodland patterns relative to others in my experience. MTP is an excellent and cheap surplus item though.
>>29764547
>I tend to avoid recommending hunting patterns because they can cost a hell of a lot and fade quickly depending on the material it's printed on.
Depends on where you buy and yes, some of them can fade
Only one of my shirts has faded, but it still works pretty well
>>29764547
>Flecktarn, M81, and Alpenflage are typically pretty poor woodland patterns relative to others in my experience.
If we're talking about one specific green ass forest yeah
Go into a pine forest and flecktarn works fairly well along with M81 woodland
Go into a deep northern thick forest in fall and alpenflage is the best there is
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KtdPIHr.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>29764576
>Go into a pine forest and flecktarn works fairly well along with M81 woodland
>Go into a deep northern thick forest in fall and alpenflage is the best there is
Yes, well I certainly disagree with that conjecture. In my experience M81 and Flacktarn have an oversaturated appearance which blobs at distance. They are dark, too dark for the majority of forests that I have tested them in. Alpenflage...yeah I just don't really get it. The isoluminescence off of the vibrant red is visible during fall against dead growth. Anyway, I'm not arguing that you haven't found them to be effective somewhere, but I do not recommend them.
Here are a couple videos that I think demonstrate what I'm talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlLgZmiN6go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNHKcMyzxXE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH6KvqN4UhE
>>29764663
>conjecture
>an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
>because I've never walked into my back yard
The picture you're using is incredibly green and lacks any pine trees
Like I said
The forests near me are never that bright because it's filled with dark underbrush
>>29764663
>lets use a camo in a specific area that's not anything like the color of the camo and say it's not useful anywhere
Are you just retarded?
>>29764663
>They are dark, too dark for the majority of forests that I have tested them in
>the forests you have tested are all forests
>especially northern pine forests like that anon was saying
>>29764694
>>29764708
>>29764722
Ooh boy, the milsurp fags showed up. Get him boys, I don't think he likes your gear!
>>29764737
you're the single camo type, so who cares what you think
There is no universal camo
Every climate has something that works for it and the idea that anyone can say one thing works better or worse is ignorant unless they've flown to every corner of the country and tested camos
>>29764745
>you're the single camo type
Hahaha what the fuck? I'm not any type. I just knew somebody would sperg out if someone talked shit on fleckshit.
>>29764770
I don't like flecktarn because it's too dark for my area, but the guys reasoning is ridiculous
>>29764782
Uh, his reasoning is that it's too dark. You know, like you said.
>>29764796
His reasoning is that it's too dark for the forests he's tested it in, that's why it's too dark for the dark pine forests that this anon>>29764576 said it worked fine in
Because OP is obviously the only one qualified to test camouflage
Why is Swedish M90 so aesthetic? Why does Belgian Jigsaw seem to work so well despite looking like a clown should be wearing it up close?
>>29764694
>The picture you're using is incredibly green and lacks any pine trees
>>29764708
>lets use a camo in a specific area that's not anything like the color of the camo and say it's not useful anywhere
>>29764722
>especially northern pine forests like that anon was saying
Yeah, relax people. I didn't claim that the videos or pictures were the only reason that what I said about M81, Alpenflage, and Flecktarn were true. I just included them as an example. I have extensively used all of these patterns in northern forests in and around Fort Lewis and BC. I've fielded camouflage all over the place. I'm only speaking from experience which is why I made this thread. I'm sorry that your favorite pattern isn't mine. Flecktarn is better than a solid black uniform, but even the Bundeswehr snipers that I trained with used spray painted Tropentarn as a base for their forest ghilllie suits.
>>29764821
Because M90 is tits and I love it
I have one hanging up and one still in the packaging
>>29764815
Yeah, you're in HIS thread where he said people could ask HIS opinion.
>>29764815
He didn't say that he didn't test in pine forests...or did he? Maybe I'm confused.
>>29764822
BC as in British Columbia?
Because I do believe that is not only a mountainous, but also coastal province which will have considerably different forests than a north central American state
Hell, in the end you don't even need camo
My brother was out in a brown fleece jacket and when he stopped moving I couldn't find him if i didn't know where to look
To say a color is too dark for a certain area is fine, so long as YOU'VE tested it there
To refute someone else who says it works fine in their area even though you've never been there, is pure foolishness
Fuck, I live in Iowa and for 3 month out of the year you could wear desert camo and blend in with the fields
The issue here is that OP is trying to point out a single camo that would work well for a military over a large area vs what the average /k/uck will do which is move in a very small area and have multiple camo patterns available
>>29764878
Uh, I think the issue is that somebody got mad when OP said he didn't like their favorite camo.
>>29764865
>considerably different forests than a north central American state
Nobody ever mentioned a "north central American state". The parameters are narrowing immensely beyond what they were before.
>Hell, in the end you don't even need camo
I never claimed you did. I only offered my opinions on which ones work better.
>To refute someone else who says it works fine in their area even though you've never been there
Never denied what they were saying was true. In fact, if you look at my post: >>29764663
>I'm not arguing that you haven't found them to be effective somewhere
you will see that I only disagreed with the claim : >>29764576
>Go into a deep northern thick forest in fall and alpenflage is the best there is
>Fuck, I live in Iowa and for 3 month out of the year you could wear desert camo and blend in with the fields
...uh okay.
I'm really not going to argue with you. If anyone else in the thread that I made for asking me questions has any questions to ask of me, I'm all ears. Otherwise, my layover is ending pretty soon.
>>29764947
Uh, yes I have one. Why does fleckshit completely suck ass?
>>29764865
I live in the BC interior, and we have way too many fucking biomes for one camo to cover.
>dark evergreens with dark bark and grey ground
>bright leafy ferns/etc. with birch/aspens
>rainforest on the coast
>arid scrub land with literal fucking desert in the south
Pic related, these two places are less than an hour and a half from each other.
I'm probably just going with something like Ranger Green, then keeping a break-up suit as needed.
![375b095ec5f862b6863ef12dbcd1b9ed[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5fFDskS.jpg "375b095ec5f862b6863ef12dbcd1b9ed[2].jpg")
>>29764962
I never said that. I wouldn't say that because I don't believe it.
...I know what you'e trying to do.
>>29764947
because when I said Northern Pine forest I was referring to the United States being as a majority of the people who browse this website are American
>if you look at my post
>well I certainly disagree with that conjecture
You not only refuted the claim, but you also called it an uneducated claim
>>29764988
Dude, go away.
>>29764947
Okay serious question. How many eyes do you have and what is UCP actually good for?
>>29765019
Question 1: Only two, unfortunately.
Question 2: You can spray paint it and make an extra ghillie suit.
Pic related is mine.
>thread devolving into anons calling camocuck out just like every time he posts this thread
Never change /k/
why even bother with camo if you have body armor? cowards die in shame
>>29765057
>camo is more cowardly than body armor
Psh, yeah right kid.
>>29765053
So sorry he didn't like your alpenfag.
>>29765053
>every time
>twice
Actually last time it devolved into a flame war over the Nugget Enterprise Rhodie scam if I remember correctly.
>>29765086
it was my first post of the thread
>>29765103
I seem to remember this getting posted multiple times and OP claiming that his knowledge was scripture while anons did exactly what happened in this thread:
>giving anecdotal evidence for their area and OP saying they're wrong
>>29765146
No, I've actually only posted an AMA once before this. I seriously doubt I would do another one without a similar circumstance to what I'm in right now. The original picture that I posted was made by someone else.
>>29765179
Well, I'm happy that your flight got delayed. I think you pretty much have interesting shit to say.
>>29765190
>flight got delayed
I only wish. My flight(s) got cancelled. Two of them.
Thanks anyway.
>>29765179
this guy >>29764708 here
I'm entirely content with you explaining how camo works and the philosophy of camo which is not to replicate a background but to break up your pattern and I appreciate it
I just think you're being silly by saying that this anon >>29764576 is wrong for using camo that works in his area
Is ERDL a good pattern for a jungle? I mean, I assume it is.
What do you think of duck hunter camo?
>>29765215
Friend, friendo, buddy, I've already said that that is not what I disagreed with. I even said: >>29764663
>I'm not arguing that you haven't found them to be effective somewhere
I disagreed with his comment: >>29764576
>Go into a deep northern thick forest in fall and alpenflage is the best there is
I've been in a deep northern thick forest and those Alpenflage pants that I tested didn't cut the mustard. So, yes I disagreed with him. I don't hate Alpenflage, I think it's alright.
I never said that anyone was "wrong for using camo that works in their area".
>>29765267
>Is ERDL a good pattern for a jungle?
Let me qualify this, in my very own personal opinion, yes they are decent. And, again in my opinion, they are superior to M81.
>duck hunter camo
Exactly which?
>>29765272
then I think your mistake here was calling his claims conjecture
learn what big words mean before using them
>>29765302
Yes, I know what conjecture means and making a statement as egregious as "X camo for Y is the best there is" qualifies as conjecture when exhaustive efforts in scientific study are not present.
>>29765302
Dude, how about not getting butthurt when you click on an ama thread and see that someone has a different opinion?
>>29765338
>"X camo for Y is the best there is"
Name another red camo for fall
>>29765363
Anyways, my point has been made and my plane is here thank Jesus. It's been good guys.
>>29765363
Wow, just wow. It's his opinion and he never tried to take away from yours. Just agree to disagree.
>>29765403
naw I want to know his opinion on fall camouflages
>>29765413
Well, I guess you're gonna have to wait until whatever plane he's on lands wherever.
>>29765413
you didn't see he left?
>>29765413
For what? So you can get even more mad?
>>29765430
>>29765424
>1 minute and 2 seconds apart
If you're going to samefag, at least give it some time between posts so it's not so obvious
>>29765451
I'm not trying to pretend I didn't post them. The second post is a legitimate question.
