...it's pretty, and there are a lot of good ideas. Pockets on the shoulder? Great! Infrared reflectors? Maybe that's useful.
So...what I now want to know is "where did they get the pattern from?". Maybe I'm cynical, but I can picture someone painting a whole lot of different patterns, and holding them up to pictures of vegetation to see which blends in the best. Did someone go "small swatches blend in" and go out to paint up a uniform? What made them decide that?
I'm a big fan of Australian camos. A whole lot of samplings of australian bush photos were fed into a computer, which generated a pattern that blended in. OK, sure, it's a computer, probably looking at different things to humans. So it was then tested. Having seen our camos out in the bush (or not seen them as the case may be) I can tell you that, in the Australian environment, they are MUCH more effective than the old American uniforms.
Then again, ours were designed for our bush, the American ones weren't, it's not a fair test (but illustrates DesertRat's point about the right camo for the right environment). My point still stands. There was a methodical, sensible, technical reason and method for creating them that way, which has a much higher chance of making effective camoflage than a guy with a paintbrush.
Not trying to start a "we're better than you" argument, the American camos may be much more effective in other situations for all I know. I just want to know, with all the new innovations in these uniforms, what innovations were put to use on the actual pattern, the core purpose of the camos?
Are there any sort of benchmarks to test? Is Desertrat right, and these ones won't be able to do all three? Can we test how effective they are compared to the old style? (without putting your soldiers out there and seeing who gets shot at more!)
Rat |
