This is quite a good study by Natick for the effectiveness of a range of camouflage patterns

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19823845/Photosimulation-Camouflage-Detection-Test

http://soldiersystems.net/2009/09/18/natick-camo-study-making-sense-part-ii/

The Natick results were described by a retired UK Special Forces Warrant Officer, "Nothing earth shattering; desert s@&* works great in the desert and green s@&* works great in the green area.".

As for the current US Army issue UCP or Universal Camouflage Pattern, it doesn't seem to be at all Universal since it doesn't work well in either desert or arid regions or work well in woodland either as well.

The so called Digital camouflage (multicam, spec4, UCP etc) is nothing really more than just a fashion statement or an attempt to make the camoflauge look more modern (to todays electronic gaming generation) even though digital camouflage materials has been around for more than 3000 years.

Am_Fear, I was part of a group study for the same project in the late 80's/early 90's. What they did was dressed dummies up, put them in various areas (woodland in our case), and we tried detecting them, first with no help (we walked a path), then with binos, then spotting scopes. There were several different types: the standard US camo pattern, tiger stripe, the british version, a variation on the german stuff, regular jungle fatigues similar to those worn in Viet Nam. Oddly, with my group, the most effective ones WE (didnt) see were the solid green jungle fatigues-they sort of blended in with everything. My unit was just randomly picked-we were just a regular infantry unit, nothing special. It was a neat learning experience though!

Desperado, I took the same test, and am like 80% color deficient. It SEVERELY limited my jobs in the Army-but, I went in to be a grunt, and they didnt have an issue with that (is that discrimination?!?!?!). I never once had an issue reading maps with a red light-using night vision gear either, which I was also told wouldnt work (no idea what they based that on!!!).

The thing that gives someone away, more than ANYTHING else, is movement. As has been stated above. Even well trained individuals can give themselve away by lack of it-when the wind blows, almost everything moves-except rocks and people. If you are observing an area for a while, you sort of catalog everything in your FOV. When the wind blows strong enough, you can sometimes pick out silhouettes-even if someone is using some sort of screen. Granted, this isnt something that people look for unless its their job...but usually movement, or unnatural LACK of movement, give away a person. Muted colors normally blend in, particularly at a distance. They human eye is easily tricked...but some things you simply cant replicate.

Sounds like you did TD at one of the specialty schools offered at the school for wayward boys outside Columbus GA also.

Odd that they let you have 11B being color blind. That wasn't allowed when I went in. But then neither was 95B, and that was my primary MOS plus the identifier B4 I picked up along the way.

They may have fudged it, lwtting me in-I know that I had to go for additional testing, and they signed off on it.

I had a break in service, and when I went BACK in, in 98, they werent going to allow me back because of it...I had to argue with the doctor, telling him I didnt DEVELOP it....I had it when I went in before...ultimately, they let me in. Again.

Would I want to be found?

After a natural disaster? Heck yeah!

After a "Red Dawn" type of invasion? ... no so much. (Probably best to leave the bright orange rainsuit inside the dark green backpack in that situation.)

Jackets from Left to Right; Tweed 109, Hyperstealth SpecAm 4, 5.11 British DPM.

The Tweed Jacket works remarkably well for concealment out on the hills during the spring and Autumn days in Scotland. I wonder how well it would perform in the Natick Tests.



I guess if your being hunted down by anyone wearing UPC out in the woods during the cooler months you'll probably see them way before they see you, what ever your wearing..

Beyond scenarios based on apocalyptic, and unlikely, 'running from authorities', or 'avoiding plundering hoards' scenarios, most of which are based on a misreading of reality and/or tactics, there are a few good reasons to maintain some ability to maintain a low profile.

IMO as more people take up hiking and camping the people themselves, particularly when they wear or use bright colored gear, become a form of visual pollution. When people use and wear subdued colors the situation seems calmer and less chaotic. A matter of aesthetics.

I also have been known to use subdued gear simply because people are social animals. I have found that if I set up a tent it isn't uncommon for people, particularly those who are less experienced in wilderness manners (exactly the sort who will be out in force after a major disaster) tend to try to set up right next to, sometimes on top of, my camp. Subdued kit and camp placement a bit farther off the beaten path than normal go a long way toward keeping people out from under foot.

On the other hand when you want and need to be spotted you need to have something that will stand out against the predominant background. Day-glow orange, blues, yellow and greens jump out at you. The military use identification panels with bright colors. A 2' by 6' piece of cloth in a bright color folded into a ground cloth, a bright hammock in the tent, or a distinctive sleeping bag liner are all options.

Generally there is little need for actual camouflage, Simple, and often less expensive, earth tones, dull greens, grays, and browns all virtually disappear once you get any distance. Deep and dark reds seem bright up close but once you add a bit of distance they appear often look brown or black.

I agree. I find blaze orange to be a particularly obnoxious color when out and about; it doesn't belong. Good color for hunters and folks trying to be seen, but I much prefer subdued colors that blend in. Solid OD hides well in a wide range of environments and in general subdued tones, not necessarily camouflage, hide well if you don't stand up.

(link added)

Brilliant

the things to think of for concealment when i was in the military were:
shape
shine
shadow
silhouette
spacing
surface
movement

the worst is shine; people send signals to aircraft with a little mirror. in the british army they gave us everything in camouflage, then issued shiny mess tins!
concealment is a fantasy option, can anyone give an example when not being findable was helpful in a natural disaster?

but you specifically say 'I guess my question is more for the EOTWAWKI scenario.'
and the only realistic scenarios that could bring the US to it's knees is a nuclear war. In which case why hide yourself?
from who? why would they be looking for you? "The population has just gone through the floor; there are cities to empty, but we'll go into the woods and if we find someone in an orange jacket we'll have him"
the only reasons to conceal yourself in a disaster is because you are intending on doing something criminal. then running away and hiding. otherwise you want to be as visible as possible. no one is going to come for you if you are trapped by fire/rubble/water if they don't know you are there.
The Sock