Alright so I'm sort of artistic (if you call my scribbles art?) and I've gotten a sort of uncanny interest in camouflage. But I'v noticed that there seem to be three types of camouflage patterns: Macropat (Example: M81 Woodland), Semi-Digital (Hex pattern essentially) and Digital patterns (Example CADPAT). My question is whats the different between all of these types of patterns?
Who is Alex? I think I didn't explain my inquiry as I should have, my question is whats the difference between these patterns. I have a friend that says Macropat is the end all be all of camouflage, but its not the greatest thing for disrupting and concealing people with background noise though Macro does have better shape distribution. I know absolutely nothing on Semi-Digital though.
Oh, I know about the cost and stuff but I wasn't talking about issued patterns and which is better I just want to better understand the differences between them since I find camouflage a interesting thing. Fun Fact camouflage patterns were first started by French/British Artists that served in Artillery units during WW2 they painted the guns and fishnets so observation craft could not locate them, now natural camouflage has been around forever; the most commonly known being a Ghillie suit.
Honestly, I can't tell if you're being serious or trolling. Giving us a history lesson on camo? How old are you?
I kinda screwed up on my email and though: "awww shit this is like when I registered for CA.org put a cap on a letter that didn't have one for my email" so I made another profile. I didn't want to use my hotmail since my gmail is a lot more secure and used for more meaningful things. I fucked up big time didn't I?
It does raise some flags. Your enthusiasm is understandable because a lot of us were like that at your age, however you have to admit your behavior (this thread plus the dual accounts) has made me at least somewhat skeptical of your intentions; we had a similar scenario play out a month or two ago and that ended poorly for the user. So here's what we're (you the this board) are going to do: You will spend some time READING and SEARCHING this forum to have a better understanding of what you're dealing with and you will not post...not one bit...for the next two weeks. In turn, this board (for all of you dog-piling knuckleheads out there) will keep their dirty digital paws off of you and cut you some slack. Two weeks, March 26th, until you can post again. If you have any questions or problems, start a conversation with me (upper right corner of your screen under Inbox). After the 26th, you are welcome to post, but don't give us a reason to end this...poorly. Back to the original post, if anyone would like to take an objective stab and answer his post, please do so. Anything else is verbotten. Kum-ba-yah, everyone.
Most people don't, it's just another tool of the trade, if it works great, if it doesn't, we bitch about it until it gets changed. Camouflage nerds have been some of the most painful people I've come across on the net, try not to be one of "them".
In some cases the difference is as simple as the colour pallete and a variation on the shape. The purpose is to break up the shape and blend in with the surroundings. Some patterns do it better than others in different terrain. An example of this is the broader patterns seen in the 80s uniforms like DPM and Woodland BDUs which were designed with a European temperate environment in mind. Now digital patterns are the rage, these are being thought of with more Urban employment. The only real answer to your question (apart from the obvious they look different) is the difference is the environment they were designed for.
So the best camouflage is just improvisation then? Goes right back to the basics doesn't it, history does like repeating itself.
