Why things are seen:
* Texture
* Colour
Movement
Noise
Position
* Shine
* Shape
Silhouette
Shadow
Scale
Spacing
â Å“Disruptive Patternâ ? as the British coined it, is the mentality behind any camouflage pattern in a fatigue/field uniform: which is meant to address Texture, Colour, Shine and Shape.
I believe the Australians pioneered the technique of repeatedly flying a RECCE aircraft over a terrain, taking numerous photos, plugging the data into a computer and having it calculate the optimum colours for a cam pattern. Apparently the US Army tried to do that with
every terrain on the planet and got three tones of grey. IMHO, this
jack of all trades colour selection technique is a waste of energy and resources. The
computer average will miss certain terrains. As a few posts had pointed out, the colours will fade after several washings, and in the field, a soldier's combats will eventually look like mud and dirt. Easiest/cheapest to stick with a base colour (olive drab for woodland, tan for arid) and (arctic whites being the exception) 'scrim' to the environment/theatre of operations. [The only thing I'd agree with is a two tone, disruptive pattern. The KISS rule,
less is more.]
I'm sure any soldier would criticize their defence department in the selection of the colours of their new combats. When CADPAT (relish
) first came out, it reminded me of a 1970's couch and carpet design, which
stood out rather than
blended in :
. So, as one of Murphy's Laws goes,
â ?the defence contract will go to the lowest bidderâ ?, and you'll be getting that company's
interpretation of green, brown, etc. This seems to ring true for Canada, the US, and Belgium.