Talk:Military camouflage: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:15, 2 September 2012 editThimbleweed (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users732 edits →Main groups of patterns ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:47, 6 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,872,251 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(82 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talk page header}}
	{{Summaryin\|camouflage}}
			{{Article history\|action1=GAN
	{{WPMILHIST\|class = Start
			\|action1date=08:04, 27 January 2013
			\|action1link=Talk:Military camouflage/GA1
			\|action1result=listed
			\|action1oldid=535128229
			\|currentstatus=GA
			\|topic=war
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=GA\|
			{{WikiProject Military history\|class = GA
	<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->		<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
	<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->		<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
	\|B1=no		\|B1=yes
	<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->		<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
	\|B2=yes		\|B2=yes
Line 14:		Line 23:
	\|Science=yes		\|Science=yes
	}}		}}
			}}
			{{summary in\|camouflage}}
			{{British English}}

			== And Now For Something Completely Different (or is it?) ==
	==French Pre-Cammo Photo==
	]

	I shold have noted in edit remarks, but removed ''Image:Musee-de-lArmee-IMG 0981.jpg'' as it does not illustrate any species of camouflage, and is as innapropriate to the article as any other image of military uniforms worn before the concept of camouflage was applied (such as the red tunics of British Army regiments of foot). A photograph of the first French attempt at a general- or limited-issue camouflage (a field-blue, as I recall) would be appropriate.

	] 06:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	----

	Hi. I am the guy who added the picture. Well, the text mentions this uniform:

	:''At the beginning of World War I, the French retained red (garance) trousers as part of their uniform.''

	My rationale is that a specially bad (camouflage wise) uniform is worth showing, just as a counterpoint.

	But, yes, you have a point. I suggest to add the text I added in the picture (above) to make clear that uniform was pre-camouflage.

	Any suggestions? ] 07:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	I think it would be an awfully good idea to add the phot back in. Defining anything includes defining what it is not. ] (]) 13:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

	==Better links?==

	I was surprised to find that there are so few links on camouflage. The Rangermade link may have the best camouflage ever devised--but there are no pictures of this camouflage anywhere on that page, and it seems to me that a link from a camouflage article should contain samples of camouflage, not articles with no pictures. I've got nothing against articles, but military camouflage is a very visual subject.
	I've removed this link and replaced it with an article on ghillie suits. This seems to be what the Rangermade page is describing.
	] 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

	== USA camo ==

	The section entitled "United States" is mostly '''not''' about the US. In fact, only one sentence is. If somebody could remedy that, that would be great.--] 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

	== Digital Camo==
	The photo in the Digital Camo section has nothing to do with Digital Camo. ] 13:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

	: No, it doesn't it looks like normal camo (unless he is so hidden we can't find him) ] 22:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

	yea the picture is a picture of digital desert camo if you look real close.

	== External Links ==

	"See Also" contains links outside of the Misplaced Pages network, an "External Links" section should be created underneath the SA section for the...external links.

	==]==
	Anyone feel like trying to rescue this one? See ]. ] 08:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

	== "German military tent camouflage" ==

	The Germans actually manufactured uniforms for their army in this pattern until industrial production shortages forced them to adopt the "feldgrau" ("field grey," actually a greyish green color) as standard in 1942. They did tents and ponchos too, but they stopped doing those in this pattern long before they stopped making the uniforms. Oh, and the picture shows only the spring-summer light/bright color side. This cloth was all reversible, and the tents, tunics, and pants had pockets on both sides. The other side was the "autumn/winter" side which was the same pattern (printed with rollers, if I recall correctly) printed with darker, dullier, muddier colors. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Australian Research ==

	The Australian department of defence has done some research into camouflage from infra-red and night vision detection, I think the relevant information on should be added. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== History edit ==

	I have tidied up some of the chronological misplacements, rewritten some bits to correct syntax and grammar, added a pile of stuff on the history of US camo and created some headings to make it a little easier for editors to place their contributions. ] (]) 21:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Roger's Rangers and earlier ==

	America used dull colors as early as ] in an attempt to blend in with the environment.({{citation
	\| title = The History of Rogers' Rangers
	\| url = http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/FRENCH-INDIAN/2001-04/0987283414
	\| author = Burt Garfield Loescher
	\| date = 1946
	}}) I imagine the trend first appeared at this time due to the invention of reliable firearms and the increased range of combat, but I don't have any sources for this. In any case, Roger's Rangers takes the American history back at least another 80 years and should be included. Does anybody have any supporting or dismissive evidence for my ] thesis?

	] (]) 19:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

	Other than 'America' (I assume you mean US) not being a nation during the time of Rogers Rangers? It would be more appropriate in the British section I think given that Robert Rogers was essentially a British officer. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Finnish snowsuits and M/62 pattern camo combat suit ==

	Interesting how nothing is mentioned about Finnish Winter War issue snowsuits (all-white combat dress) and the camouflaged combat suit that was adopted in 1962. Of course, like in UK, it didn't reach everyone immediately...
	] (]) 13:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

	I added a small note for finnish snowsuits with a nice picture. ] (]) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

	== WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 ==
	Article reassessed and graded as start class. ] and ] guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. --] (]) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

			The use of camouflage in fashion and art has a section to itself, but might it be worth discussing military camouflage in popular culture more generally? The ']' sketch from ] and at the beginning of ] may be silly, but before devolving into explosions, it illustrates well some important concepts (such as no matter how well-camouflaged you are, you're going to stick out if you're camouflaged as something obvious). I'm sure that there must be other instances outside of fashion and art where camouflage techniques are the main topic of examination. — ] (]) 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
	== Photo of Bronze Horseman ==

			== Digital camouflage ==
	Caption says "camouflaged" but, in fact, it is not camouflaged at all, just protected. I do not believe it belongs on this page. ] (]) 00:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

			I came to the page (redirected, actually) looking for information on the so-called digital camouflage patterns that have been in vogue for a while now, and while I assume that the shift to such patterns is done for a good reason, I would like to be informed of what those reasons are, because to my eyes (especially when applied to vehicles in large, blocky patches) they seem to be all the more conspicuous. They say "nature abhors a vacuum", but nature also tends to abhor perfectly straight lines and right angles, at least when it comes to vegetation. I realize, perhaps, that AFV camouflage might not be designed to fool the human eye at all, so that could be at least a partial explanation. Nevertheless, seeing as I was redirected to this article after clicking on a link that explicitly said "digital camouflage", I feel some description of it is warranted. Apologies, though, if I just missed the relevant portions of a rather large article.--] (]) 00:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
	: Agreed. I'll remove it. ] (]) 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

			:: See ]. It is a bit of a mouthful. ] (]) 11:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
	== USSR images ==

			::: The digital camouflage section is quite long, and it is argumentative (reflecting an ongoing argument within camouflage profession). as it os now, I agree with IP above that it is not very informative. It does not discuss the different ways the term is used, and it uses a lot of space on only scratching the surface of the science (or lack thereof) behind it. I suggest the section is cut back to a summary, and a separate article is made. I believe it is a topic of enough interest to warrant an article of its own. ] (]) 21:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	These links were added to the article. They don't belong there so I've moved them here. ] (]) 11:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC) http://www.rkka.ru/uniform/files/arm3.htm
	http://www.rkka.ru/uniform/files/arm31.htm
	http://www.rkka.ru/uniform/files/arm11.htm
	http://www.rkka.ru/uniform/files/arm9.htm
	http://www.rkka.ru/uniform/files/arm25.htm
	http://www.rkka.ru/uniform/files/arm10.htm

			:::: Yes, it should certainly be a sub-article (and an entry in the navbox). It will need (many) more citations, and should stick closely to the facts. I have created a new article more or less unaltered from here (added a lead); it awaits extension and improvement. ] (]) 04:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	== Dazzle Camouflage ==

			== Camouflage face paint ==
	I was surprised that there was no mention of ] on the page. I don't want to go messing about though and add/link it incorrectly.
	--] (]) 05:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

			Camouflage face paint is, all things considered, rather a minor aspect of camouflage compared, say, to hiding squadrons of main battle tanks. It is probably not worth mentioning in the lead section of the article, whose job is to summarize the main points of the rest of the article, not to introduce new concepts. The topic is in fact already mentioned and suitably referenced to a non-commercial source (a supplier's website is not the sort of site we should normally be linking to, and in general supplier pages change quickly within a few months or years), so there is no obvious need for additional coverage. If anyone wishes to create a new article on the topic, with suitable ], that would be fine, and we could wikilink it from the main article. ] (]) 15:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
	==Digital Camouflage (patterns)==

			== External links modified ==
	There's an enormous long list of (most of) the world's armies, prefixed by the sentence:
	"Digital camouflage patterns have been adopted by:" - but the list gives no information about which digital pattern is used by which army, and worse, there are absolutely no citations to prove any of it.
	Question: does this list have any value to readers?
	* Would that value be enhanced by making it, say, a table of (Army, Pattern, Date adopted, supporting documents)?
	* Or is it just ] which ought to be cut from the article?
	] (]) 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::I think it is very low value, not encyclopedic. ] (]) 18:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

			I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	::: Right then, I've cut it. The digital section still needs citations but at least it's proportionate in length. ] (]) 08:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.thezimbabwean.co/news/16077/dj-squilasustained-serious-head-injuries.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123230614/http://www.museomadre.it/opere.cfm?id=471 to http://www.museomadre.it/opere.cfm?id=471
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831104046/http://defense.aol.com/2012/06/25/army-drops-universal-camouflage-after-spending-billions/ to http://defense.aol.com/2012/06/25/army-drops-universal-camouflage-after-spending-billions
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www3.fitnyc.edu/museum/loveandwar/galliano.htm

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	On a related subject (being in the same section), the picture of desert MARPAT bears no resemblance to the real thing. Should I change this? ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:: If you have a better photograph that you own (or is copyright-free), by all means upload it to Wikimedia Commons and then replace the inferior image. Make sure the license is correctly filled in though. ] (]) 07:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 19:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
	==Main groups of patterns==
	I was considering adding a small list of the main types of camouflage patterns. Something like this:

			== External links modified ==
	Suggestion:

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	There are a bewildering number of camouflages used through history. However, most camouflage patterns can be categorized into broad categories. Some of the more common types are:
	]
	* '''Solid drab colour''' was the first type of camouflage for military use, and was introduced in the 18th century. Typical examples are British ], German ] and American ]. Some nations, notably ] and ] continues to use solid colour combat uniforms.{{cite book
	\| last =Katz
	\| first =Sam
	\| coauthors =Ronald Volstad
	\| title =Israeli Elite Units since 1948
	\| publisher =Osprey Publishing
	\| date =1988
	\| location =United Kingdom
	\| pages =64
	\| isbn =978-0-85045-837-4 }}
	* ''']''' originated during the First World War, and is characterized by straight lines and sharp angles, creating a disruptive effect. Often associated with Germany, these types of patterns are very commonly used on vehicles by numerous nations.
	* '''Jigsaw patterns''' are more or less blotch-like fields of colours fitting into each other like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, giving more “organic” outlines than the angular splint patterns. It was invented in the Interwar period by the Italians, and has been widely used for uniforms. The various “]”, “water” and “wave” patterns are related types.
	* '''Spotted patterns'''' are composed of small spots superimposed on fields of other colours, blurring the edges of fields by creating both a macro- and micro pattern. The idea was developed in Germany during the Second World War, and developed into the ]s for the ] in the 1970s. Similar patterns are by many nations. The ] pattern is based on the same principle.
	* '''Brushstroke patterns''' consist of usually two, sometimes three different colours printed as brushstrokes on a lighter background colour. Where the strokes overlap, the colours blend, making two-stroke patterns effectively four coloured (background + 3 brush colours). It was introduced in the British ] during the Second World War, and has been widely copied, particularly in South East Asia. The British ] and the French ] are derivates,<ref>{{cite book\|last=Newman]\|first=] patterns have evolved.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Johnson\|first=Richard Denis\|title=Tiger patterns : a guide to the Vietnam War's tigerstripe combat fatigue patterns and uniforms\|year=1999\|publisher=Schiffer Publ.\|location=Atglen, PA\|isbn=0764307568}}</ref>
	* '''Duck hunter''' patterns are typified by small, irregular splotches of several colours on a solid colour background. The first pattern was the M1942 "frog skin" used by American troops in the Pacific during the Second Wold War, and copied by several nations. The Australian ] follow a similar lay-out.<ref>{{cite book\|last=Brayley\|first=Martin J.\|title=Camouflage uniforms : international combat dress 1940-2010\|year=2009\|publisher=Crowood\|location=Ramsbury\|isbn=1847971377}}</ref>
	* '''Rain patterns''' consists of small vertical line segments on a solid colour background. The German Second World War splint patterns often included such line segments. As a stand-alone form of camouflage the rain pattern was used by many Eastern European countries during the later stage of The Warsaw Pact.
	* '''Digital patterns''' is usually associated with pixelated outlines, though the term in principle covers all computer generated patterns. Pixelated patterns was pioneered by several nations in the 1980s, but did not become popular until the ] camouflage was introduced for American troops early 2010s, and is now widely copied.

			I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	Problem is, where do I place such a list? The current article is somewhat messy, with several overlapping sections. ] (]) 10:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426011729/http://emmalundgren.com/camouflage/ to http://emmalundgren.com/camouflage/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614042717/http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/04/14/camouflaging-airports-and-plants-during-wwii/ to http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/04/14/camouflaging-airports-and-plants-during-wwii/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125100420/http://camotest.de/ to http://www.camotest.de/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	:: Interesting. The patterns list article is indeed already long and a bit rambling (not to mention somewhat uncited). The suggestion is for a classification of patterns. I'm not certain it's a strict taxonomy as the categories might possibly overlap (could one have a digital flecktarn, for instance?). Perhaps the suggestion would make a nice introductory table headed "Principle types of camouflage pattern", with a picture of each one, its date, country, name, description, and usage? all the best ] (]) 10:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:: NB we absolutely don't want to duplicate ], which is organized by continent and country. That results in much repetition (e.g. ] recurs 49 times). Revamping the article would be a piece of work - ideally the table would be sortable by pattern, type, date and country to keep everyone happy. ] (]) 10:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 23:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
	:::You are right that some patterns are mixes. The Wehrmacht ] combine spliter pattern and rain pattern, the 1st Gulf War ] combines a jigsaw pattern with, eh, something, and of course there are patterns that doens't really fall into any of these categories. This list should not be taken as some sort of official classification. We should be carefull using this classification in the ], as it would bring us dangerously close to OR. If we do, we need to be very clear about this being our classification.

			== External links modified (January 2018) ==
	:::I think I'll be able to source some or most of the statements, like the evolution from brushstroke to lizard to tigerstripe. I'm waiting for some reference litterature to help in the rest. I'll also happily help you clean up this article a bit, if you want to have a go at it. ] (]) 12:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:::: I'm not available for some weeks now. If you have invented a classification then it's certainly OR. On the other hand, if 7 patterns are all called Flecktarn variants x, y, and z then it's fine to have a section or table heading for Flecktarn, with the named variants beneath it. Organising by date is also fine. You're right, you'll need refs to show evolution if that's your aim: it would be nice to have a diagram showing (with images and arrows from one pattern to the next) showing what gave rise to what. I can prepare such things when I have time. Still not clear which article you mean to develop, however. I am AGAINST adding a list to Military camouflage as there's already a list of patterns article; and Mil cam is certainly not only about patterns. ] (]) 13:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

			I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:::::I'm looking for developing ''this'' article. The list is a list and there's only so much information you can cram in before it becomes unwieldable. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426011721/http://www.thisgreedypig.com/art/the-re-appropriation-of-camouflage-from-military-use-into-civilian-clothing/ to http://www.thisgreedypig.com/art/the-re-appropriation-of-camouflage-from-military-use-into-civilian-clothing/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126055931/http://www.veruschka.net/ to http://www.veruschka.net/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130142620/http://www.strikehold.net/2010/04/04/making-sense-of-digital-camouflage/ to http://www.strikehold.net/2010/04/04/making-sense-of-digital-camouflage/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125100420/http://camotest.de/ to http://www.camotest.de/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	:::::The suggestion above is just meant to be descriptive, to offer some overview of the bewildering variety of camouflage patterns. I guess you can think of it more like a key than a classification. There is no such thing as "camouflage classification" anyway, camouflages are manmade constructions, not flowers or chemical elements, and most states or agencies are eager to point out their uniqueness, not how similar they are to other patterns. That hasn’t stopped camouflage aficionados from making their own systems (e.g. see ).

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:::::Since there are no governing body dictating this, there is no right way and accordingly no wrong way. The above suggestion has lumped things together rather than spitting them up for overview rather than presission. Typically the lizard and tigerstripe classes being lumped in with DPM under brushstroke, and the "jigsaw" class as a catch-all for anything with wavy outlines. The latter is probably a bad choice of term, as it often applied to a Belgian type (and derivate). Perhaps “Blotch patterns” would be better.

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 05:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
	:::::Your suggestion for using only the official names wouldn’t work. Most patterns don’t even have names, but serial numbers like "M1985" or "Vz60". If they do have names, they are often non-descriptive, like the ]. Copied usually also have different names, only the 1979 German patters are actually named "Flacktarn". The Chinese "Tibetan" or "Plateau" pattern has another name, despite being a spot-for-spot copy of the German Flecktarn, but with different colours. The Danish Flecktarn again is named M/84, the older Austrian pattern is named K4. Again, this has not stopped commercial producers, collectors and historians from applying the term to all, or to some. Perhaps it would be better to stick to a more descriptive name, like “spotted patterns” or something similar.

			== Assessment ==
	:::::Don’t worry about not having time, the article can wait. There’s plenty that do not require more people, like finding references and stuff. ] (]) 10:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

			This article contains at least one <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> tag. It, therefore, does not meet the criteria for B1 (referencing). That would make it a C Class, rather than a Good article. I'll leave to someone more qualified in the area to find an appropriate reference or reassess the article. ] (]) 20:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
	==References==
	{{Reflist}}

Latest revision as of 05:47, 6 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military camouflage article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Military camouflage has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 27, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

A summary of this article appears in camouflage.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

And Now For Something Completely Different (or is it?)

The use of camouflage in fashion and art has a section to itself, but might it be worth discussing military camouflage in popular culture more generally? The 'How Not to Be Seen' sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus and at the beginning of And Now for Something Completely Different may be silly, but before devolving into explosions, it illustrates well some important concepts (such as no matter how well-camouflaged you are, you're going to stick out if you're camouflaged as something obvious). I'm sure that there must be other instances outside of fashion and art where camouflage techniques are the main topic of examination. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Digital camouflage

I came to the page (redirected, actually) looking for information on the so-called digital camouflage patterns that have been in vogue for a while now, and while I assume that the shift to such patterns is done for a good reason, I would like to be informed of what those reasons are, because to my eyes (especially when applied to vehicles in large, blocky patches) they seem to be all the more conspicuous. They say "nature abhors a vacuum", but nature also tends to abhor perfectly straight lines and right angles, at least when it comes to vegetation. I realize, perhaps, that AFV camouflage might not be designed to fool the human eye at all, so that could be at least a partial explanation. Nevertheless, seeing as I was redirected to this article after clicking on a link that explicitly said "digital camouflage", I feel some description of it is warranted. Apologies, though, if I just missed the relevant portions of a rather large article.--172.129.55.131 (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

See Military camouflage#Pattern scale and digitization. It is a bit of a mouthful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The digital camouflage section is quite long, and it is argumentative (reflecting an ongoing argument within camouflage profession). as it os now, I agree with IP above that it is not very informative. It does not discuss the different ways the term is used, and it uses a lot of space on only scratching the surface of the science (or lack thereof) behind it. I suggest the section is cut back to a summary, and a separate article is made. I believe it is a topic of enough interest to warrant an article of its own. Thimbleweed (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should certainly be a sub-article (and an entry in the navbox). It will need (many) more citations, and should stick closely to the facts. I have created a new article more or less unaltered from here (added a lead); it awaits extension and improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Camouflage face paint

Camouflage face paint is, all things considered, rather a minor aspect of camouflage compared, say, to hiding squadrons of main battle tanks. It is probably not worth mentioning in the lead section of the article, whose job is to summarize the main points of the rest of the article, not to introduce new concepts. The topic is in fact already mentioned and suitably referenced to a non-commercial source (a supplier's website is not the sort of site we should normally be linking to, and in general supplier pages change quickly within a few months or years), so there is no obvious need for additional coverage. If anyone wishes to create a new article on the topic, with suitable reliable sources, that would be fine, and we could wikilink it from the main article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military camouflage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Military camouflage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Military camouflage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Assessment

This article contains at least one {{citation needed}} tag. It, therefore, does not meet the criteria for B1 (referencing). That would make it a C Class, rather than a Good article. I'll leave to someone more qualified in the area to find an appropriate reference or reassess the article. Lineagegeek (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Categories: