Why Differed Camouflage Patterns?

Hi,

I was looking at some jackets on this forum...
And a questions rose up in my head...

Why are there differed camouflage patterns?
If one is the best as camouflage, why should and country take an other kind of camouflage?
I mean like the English Desert Camouflage and the US desert Camouflage...


grtz
BMOF

Hi it s to recognize soldiers on battlefield. Each country want is own camo pattern may be it means culture and tradition

Every country usually custom makes and trials a uniform that meets their specifications, In doing so they usually develop their own patterns. There really isnt one "best" camouflage pattern...all of them have their own advantages and disadvantages.

Also, it is a source of pride and identification, they want to have a different uniform than anyone else, if they can.

mm, but if there is like 5% more change to be seen with the 1 cammo then the other...
And you have flags?
But I have seen pictures of Dutch Soldiers wearing also 3-colored DCU...



And I'm sure you have more countries.

ladrang wrote:Hi it s to recognize soldiers on battlefield. Each country want is own camo pattern may be it means culture and tradition

hey guy, there's a plenty factors that played a role : economics, big/slow use, effective,... By example the DCU is a common camouflage in some contries, not only USA and Netherland army. There's also some africans and arabs countries that wear it.

It costs some money to develop a new camo so it's sometime better to buy/use the one of another country. Moreover, when you've a contry that's not often in desert environment, like Netherland army, it has no sense to make his own camo and it costs too many money. It can be one of the reason.

In US army, there's a multitude of desert camo : DCU, ACU, marpat desert,... some differents camo for some different environments : woodland, desert, night, snow, digital, urban,... by example, in Belgium we only have two differents camos at this time. And never forget that USA spent some money for their uniforms, not as Engliand or other european countries. In our european countries, we keep a camo for decades. Some of our uniforms are obsolete and inadapted for some combat environments. We developped them one time for one type of environnment, but never changed them after. As you can see now with multicam, US army found that DCU and ACU were "ineffective" and so changed them for a multi-environment camo : multicam.

And you can add culture and tradition factors as Ladrang said.

And there's still some difference with the american DCU. Both designs differ. By example : epaulets on Dutch army DCU uniforms !

Interesting topic, all of the above comments I agree with, I think above all ,economics plays a large part, and national identity.

During Gulf War 1,the Brits were fighting an enemy dressed in the same pattern e.g. DPM, which is why the British MOD had to very swifty re-design a new pattern, but keep it DPM for national identity!!!


I've mentioned it before ,but at the present time ,there is a real issue ,with many nations adopting Multi-cam, close up there are obvious differences......but I can see there will be a lot of "blue on blue" incidents,time will tell I guess

Well, the Americans did hang on to Woodland almost since the end of the Vietnam war, that's long. Also, in times of war things tend to change much faster than in peace time, and the checks are "blanker". Just imagine how fast you'd have been reasigned if you as someone with responsibility over equipment changes in the DoD prior to 9/11 would've suggested the following:

1, equip virtually every active duty serviceman, and deployed National Guards and Reserves (well, those who'd be deployed after 9/11) with optic sights like ACOG's, Aimpoints, EOTECH's, M145's etc. 2, issue body armour with double trauma plates to everyone. 3, give everyone even better plates. 4, give them side plates too. 5, whoops, the vest aint designed to carry that load, let's design new vests for everyone. Twice. 6, let interservice b*thcing leed to the USMC and the Army getting different vests. Twice. 7, let interservice b*tching leed to the Army and the USMC developing different new camouflage patterns. 8, let the Navy get its own brand new camouflage, that they can have when they're not out at sea. 9, let the Navy make that camuoflage blue (facepalm). 9, let the USAF get a new camouflage, it's only fair when its brothers got new toys. 10, let the Army get rid of two working camouflages so they can get a "universal camouflage". 11, not spanking the Army when it's revealed that their idea of a universal camouflage is a camouflage that is only universal in the sence that it doens't work anywhere (double facepalm). 12, let the Army pretend everything's fine just until all its members have been issued all there is to issue in the new camo pattern, and then get a new "universal camouflage" instead of just making them wear the cammies designed by the USMC as to remind them never to f*ck up like that again. 13, let the Army trade in all its rifles for carbines. 14, pay attention to the Army once it starts complaining that the carbines it has are even weaker than the weak rifles it used to have (big surprise). 15, actually start looking at new weapons for the Army instead of just returning the rifles with a mighty good spanking for wasting resources. 16, issuing NVG's and PEQ's to everybody. 17, let both the Army and the USMC pretend that soft skin cars against IED's is a battle that can be won by them. 18, let them pretend so until they're a few months away from redeploying most of the forces to a country were most of the few roads are below Midevil standards. 19, looking the other way when they both spend billions buying vehicles that won't just be unrequired but a burden in a few months. 20, let interservice b*thcing leed to the Army and USMC getting different new helmets.
Did I forget to mention anything?

kilroy was here! wrote:Well, the Americans did hang on to Woodland almost since the end of the Vietnam war, that's long. Also, in times of war things tend to change much faster than in peace time, and the checks are "blanker". Just imagine how fast you'd have been reasigned if you as someone with responsibility over equipment changes in the DoD prior to 9/11 would've suggested the following:

1, equip virtually every active duty serviceman, and deployed National Guards and Reserves (well, those who'd be deployed after 9/11) with optic sights like ACOG's, Aimpoints, EOTECH's, M145's etc. 2, issue body armour with double trauma plates to everyone. 3, give everyone even better plates. 4, give them side plates too. 5, whoops, the vest aint designed to carry that load, let's design new vests for everyone. Twice. 6, let interservice b*thcing leed to the USMC and the Army getting different vests. Twice. 7, let interservice b*tching leed to the Army and the USMC developing different new camouflage patterns. 8, let the Navy get its own brand new camouflage, that they can have when they're not out at sea. 9, let the Navy make that camuoflage blue (facepalm). 9, let the USAF get a new camouflage, it's only fair when its brothers got new toys. 10, let the Army get rid of two working camouflages so they can get a "universal camouflage". 11, not spanking the Army when it's revealed that their idea of a universal camouflage is a camouflage that is only universal in the sence that it doens't work anywhere (double facepalm). 12, let the Army pretend everything's fine just until all its members have been issued all there is to issue in the new camo pattern, and then get a new "universal camouflage" instead of just making them wear the cammies designed by the USMC as to remind them never to f*ck up like that again. 13, let the Army trade in all its rifles for carbines. 14, pay attention to the Army once it starts complaining that the carbines it has are even weaker than the weak rifles it used to have (big surprise). 15, actually start looking at new weapons for the Army instead of just returning the rifles with a mighty good spanking for wasting resources. 16, issuing NVG's and PEQ's to everybody. 17, let both the Army and the USMC pretend that soft skin cars against IED's is a battle that can be won by them. 18, let them pretend so until they're a few months away from redeploying most of the forces to a country were most of the few roads are below Midevil standards. 19, looking the other way when they both spend billions buying vehicles that won't just be unrequired but a burden in a few months. 20, let interservice b*thcing leed to the Army and USMC getting different new helmets.
Did I forget to mention anything?

Interesting point of view Kilroy...good point and well presented

Thanks. If you take a look at your average grunt prior to 9/11 and today the differences are huge. Today the common grunt is equipped equally, if not superior to US Army Rangers before 9/11. That's nothing most people would've dreamed of ten years ago.

Hi Kilroy, you re right, you are a grunt or a ranger or anything else you wear the same equipment. Except the training camp make the difference. That's all

Well, not exactly. What I meant is that with the incredible increase of military budgets and euipment in OEF and OIF, today a grunt has the same/better things than the Rangers had before the wars. The Rangers have even more things today than ten years ago.

Well, may be if I confront the equipments of the CSOR and Regular Army, I m not sure they have a better equipments as the others forces in the army. It could be different in the US Army, I havent any idea, I have worked with the US Marines, I m not sure they were a better stuff than us. But you re right on one point, I haven't seen the increase of military budgets since 9/11.

As already discussed millions of pounds / dollars is spent on developing new camouflagues & differing patterns.

The reason why patterns change i.e. from painted swirls or digital squares is mostly heraldic from the differing countries of origin or the development of new night sight systems.

The first use of a camouflague is believed to be Persia who highly polished their armour & shield to blind the enemy in the desert & so the enemy couldn't count their number.

The British army adopted the scarlet red jackets for the same reason, past 150 yards it became very difficult for the enemy to count their numbers.

Italy began to use camouflague in the mountains in WW2 & the Germans soon began to use the material.

Later in the war Germany began to experiment with 'dot' camo's, whilst we wenr with the painted swirl effect that can be still seen today in the DPM pattern.

Germany is again using dot camo's in the Flektarn schemes.

Russia experimented with digital squares in Afghan in the 80's & the US took & developed the idea with the Marpat, ACU & night parkas.

Now seen not sucessful the digital ACU actually stands out on a green background.

The US forces suffered during training battles in Europe against Nato forces & they had even heavier losses at night!

Now we're all going multicam, but that won't last as i've even seen pictures of Russian troops wearing their own version.

The main reason for the darkening of patterns is due to the development of night & starlight scopes.

This is evident in the British DPM pattern that has slowly got darker since 1968.

MTP & Multicam is not a true camouflague is it doesn't blend in, it actually confuses the brain.

The ultimate under development will be the suits to render you invisible like in 'Predator'

Think i'm joking.

The British did it with mirrors in the desert in WW2 & i've seen the Americans do it with tank nets in Iraq.

By the way you can have as much gucci kit as you want; it's the mental ability of the man with the boots on & not the kit that wins the battle.

rob8066 wrote:As already discussed millions of pounds / dollars is spent on developing new camouflagues & differing patterns.

The reason why patterns change i.e. from painted swirls or digital squares is mostly heraldic from the differing countries of origin or the development of new night sight systems.

The first use of a camouflague is believed to be Persia who highly polished their armour & shield to blind the enemy in the desert & so the enemy couldn't count their number.

The British army adopted the scarlet red jackets for the same reason, past 150 yards it became very difficult for the enemy to count their numbers.

Italy began to use camouflague in the mountains in WW2 & the Germans soon began to use the material.

Later in the war Germany began to experiment with 'dot' camo's, whilst we wenr with the painted swirl effect that can be still seen today in the DPM pattern.

Germany is again using dot camo's in the Flektarn schemes.

Russia experimented with digital squares in Afghan in the 80's & the US took & developed the idea with the Marpat, ACU & night parkas.

Now seen not sucessful the digital ACU actually stands out on a green background.

The US forces suffered during training battles in Europe against Nato forces & they had even heavier losses at night!

Now we're all going multicam, but that won't last as i've even seen pictures of Russian troops wearing their own version.

The main reason for the darkening of patterns is due to the development of night & starlight scopes.

This is evident in the British DPM pattern that has slowly got darker since 1968.

MTP & Multicam is not a true camouflague is it doesn't blend in, it actually confuses the brain.

The ultimate under development will be the suits to render you invisible like in 'Predator'

Think i'm joking.

The British did it with mirrors in the desert in WW2 & i've seen the Americans do it with tank nets in Iraq.

By the way you can have as much gucci kit as you want; it's the mental ability of the man with the boots on & not the kit that wins the battle.

Blimey..what did eat for breakfast,the Camoflague encylopedia, Good and valid points made though

Apologies Gary I went off on a history course trip!!

Yes, i've done the camouflague & concealment course- does it show

Also heavily involved in the trials of multicam v DPM.

Hi Rob thanks for the camo course

Easy Gee wrote:Blimey..what did eat for breakfast,the Camoflague encylopedia, Good and valid points made though

That's exactly what I was thinking!

Sorry!!.......i'm not allowed out much

rob8066 wrote:



By the way you can have as much gucci kit as you want; it's the mental ability of the man with the boots on & not the kit that wins the battle.

Absolutely. And something many seem to forget. People in general, and the US specifically, think that the more tech and gucci stuff you throw at something will make it better. Not always the case. More often than not, all that does is increase the burden on the individual trooper in terms of weight and amount of kit required to carry. Or in most cases, amount of kit tossed aside and never used.

I used to marvel at the amount of crap I had to sign for, constantly carry, inspect, and deploy with whether for training or real world, and 90% sat in the duffel bags never once used!!!

Less is often more. But, on the flip side, it makes for interesting discussions and collecting purposes!!

I used to marvel at the amount of crap I had to sign for, constantly carry, inspect, and deploy with whether for training or real world, and 90% sat in the duffel bags never once used!!!

Always the same problem in any army all around the world

LOL; I thought the Canadians did the digital camo before the US did; but clearly after the Night camo and the Russian camos.....
anyways; I am reminded of a scene from Platoon where Sheen's character was getting tired and passing out..then WIlhem Dafoe tells him "dont need this, that chuck this, you're humping too much shit" lol.

I think You re right, the first research effort, called Integrated Protective Clothing and Equipment (IPCE) Technology Demonstration was initiated in 1995 but then was cancelled. The cadpat pattern became the standard issue for the Army in 2002.

rob8066 wrote:Sorry!!.......i'm not allowed out much

No worries mate, it was still a great bit of information.

HoovieDude wrote:

rob8066 wrote:



By the way you can have as much gucci kit as you want; it's the mental ability of the man with the boots on & not the kit that wins the battle.

Absolutely. And something many seem to forget. People in general, and the US specifically, think that the more tech and gucci stuff you throw at something will make it better. Not always the case. More often than not, all that does is increase the burden on the individual trooper in terms of weight and amount of kit required to carry. Or in most cases, amount of kit tossed aside and never used.


Less is often more. But, on the flip side, it makes for interesting discussions and collecting purposes!!

heres an auction for a HSGI Denali chest rig;
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=222497036
the seller states THIS
"I bought it used and have not worn it. Its too much for me to handle." and then "The soldier who first bought it was not allowed to use it because it was not his job to carry the kitchen sink. It was in a footlocker for a year. "
lol.

rob8066 wrote:Apologies Gary I went off on a history course trip!!

Yes, i've done the camouflague & concealment course- does it show

Also heavily involved in the trials of multicam v DPM.

No worries Mate,I was kidding ,the more people add to these kinda posts the better.

I got say, I would love to have been involved in a Camo trial too,some might have got "lost " though..know what I mean,nudge,nugde,wink,wink

kilroy was here! wrote:Thanks. If you take a look at your average grunt prior to 9/11 and today the differences are huge. Today the common grunt is equipped equally, if not superior to US Army Rangers before 9/11. That's nothing most people would've dreamed of ten years ago.

To embellish the abpve:

There is a rather interesting article over on Military.com on the changes that have taken place in U.S. soldiers gear since 9/11.

The article isn't very long, but some of the comments are quite informative.

[url=h t t p : / / kitup.military.com /2011/09/the-post-911-soldier.html]The Post-911 Soldier - KitUp[/url]

Sorry for the scrambled link - I'm trying to add to the thread.