Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thimbleweed (talk | contribs) at 21:15, 2 September 2012 (→Main groups of patterns). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Military history: Technology C‑class

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force

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.

Aodhdubh 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? Randroide 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. DMorpheus (talk) 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. 128.123.86.26 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.--Nashaii 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Digital Camo

The photo in the Digital Camo section has nothing to do with Digital Camo. Tmaull 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) 24.196.115.179 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.

Camouflage Clothing

Anyone feel like trying to rescue this one? See talk:camouflage. Richard001 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.120.26 (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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 this page should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.123.149 (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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. Dom Damian (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Roger's Rangers and earlier

America used dull colors as early as Roger's Rangers in an attempt to blend in with the environment.(Burt Garfield Loescher (1946), The History of Rogers' Rangers) 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 skirmish thesis?

Lucas.yamanishi (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.176.218 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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... 194.197.79.18 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a small note for finnish snowsuits with a nice picture. 212.149.213.242 (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. --dashiellx (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Bronze Horseman

Caption says "camouflaged" but, in fact, it is not camouflaged at all, just protected. I do not believe it belongs on this page. GS3 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll remove it. Smartse (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

USSR images

These links were added to the article. They don't belong there so I've moved them here. Smartse (talk) 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

Dazzle Camouflage

I was surprised that there was no mention of Dazzle Camouflage on the page. I don't want to go messing about though and add/link it incorrectly. --96.52.133.199 (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Digital Camouflage (patterns)

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 WP:OR which ought to be cut from the article?

Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is very low value, not encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Right then, I've cut it. The digital section still needs citations but at least it's proportionate in length. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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? Hendrixwinter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Main groups of patterns

I was considering adding a small list of the main types of camouflage patterns. Something like this:

Suggestion:

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 khaki, German Feldgrau and American olive drab. Some nations, notably Austria and Israel continues to use solid colour combat uniforms.Katz, Sam (1988). Israeli Elite Units since 1948. United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-85045-837-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Splint patterns 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 “woodland”, “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 Flecktarns for the German forces in the 1970s. Similar patterns are by many nations. The MultiCam 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 Denison smock during the Second World War, and has been widely copied, particularly in South East Asia. The British DMP-pattern and the French lizard pattern are derivates, and from this again the various tigerstripe patterns have evolved.
• 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 Disruptive Pattern Combat Uniform follow a similar lay-out.
• 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 MARPAT camouflage was introduced for American troops early 2010s, and is now widely copied.

Problem is, where do I place such a list? The current article is somewhat messy, with several overlapping sections. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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 Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

NB we absolutely don't want to duplicate List of camouflage patterns, which is organized by continent and country. That results in much repetition (e.g. M81 Woodland 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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right that some patterns are mixes. The Wehrmacht Splittermuster combine spliter pattern and rain pattern, the 1st Gulf War chocolate-chip camouflage 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 List of camouflage patterns, as it would bring us dangerously close to OR. If we do, we need to be very clear about this being our classification.

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. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thimbleweed (talk • contribs) 10:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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 Camopedias take on it).

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.

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 Disruptive Pattern Material. 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.

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. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

References

1. Newman], [concept & direction, Hardy Blechman ; compiled & edited, Hardy Blechman & Alex (2004). DPM : disruptive pattern material : an encyclopedia of camouflage : nature, military, culture (1. ed. ed.). London: DPM Ltd. ISBN 0-9543404-0-X. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. Johnson, Richard Denis (1999). Tiger patterns : a guide to the Vietnam War's tigerstripe combat fatigue patterns and uniforms. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publ. ISBN 0764307568.
3. Brayley, Martin J. (2009). Camouflage uniforms : international combat dress 1940-2010. Ramsbury: Crowood. ISBN 1847971377.

• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles