User:SergeantSelfExplanatory/sandbox 2002
The United States armed forces has done extensive uniform experimentation.
Camouflage uniform testing
[edit]WW1 Central Park camouflage evaluations
1942 Frogskin forest camouflage trials
1962 Fort Benning camouflage concept-proving forest trials
[edit]In 1962, camouflage concept-proving forest trials were held at Fort Benning. Held by the Infantry Board, the Engineer Research and Development Laboratories (ERDL) and the Quartermaster Research and Development Command (QRDC).[1]
testing against the same background from extreme distances
MASSTER forest camouflage trials
[edit]The MASSTER forest camouflage trials 1973–75
During 1973 and 1975, MASSTER Test Phase I (1973) and Phase II (1975) respectively were held at Ft Bliss, TX. Conducted by NARADCOM, MERADCOM, and also recently assembled Modern Army Selected Systems Test, Evaluation, and Review (MASSTER).[2]
"An evaluation, ... during MASSTER (Phase I) ..., indicated the camouflage posture of participating Army units required considerable improvement."[2]
Under development were personal camouflage items such as facepaint, gloves, and boot concealment.[2]
ERDL Expansion series were the standard 1.0x, 1.3x, 1.6x, and 2.0x.[2]
Verdant terrains
camouflage testing techniques were heavily improved upon
1976–77 Dual-Tex forest and snow camouflage evaluations
[edit]Initially tested prior to April 1977, Dual-Texture Gradient (DTG) camouflage, or Dual-Tex for short, was originally intended as a possible vehicle camouflage replacement for MERDC aka NATO camouflage, it saw use in color slide series trials. MERDC camo was developed by a patent technique for making camo based on photographs of terrain. The test was conducted from August 1976 - February 1977 at West Point, New York, by selected members of the Psychology and Leadership Committees, Office of Military Leadership, United States Military Academy.[3]
Photographs of Stewart Army Subpost forest and plains during the summer were utilized.
During ~1979 to 81, , was tested on uniforms at Ft Benning, Georgia ..?.
However, from 1978 into the early to mid-1980s, pixelated design elements could be seen through their use in painted camouflage schemes on the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment's M1 Abrams tanks and M113 APCs.
1980 Saudi Arabian desert camouflage evaluations
[edit]In 1980, a Belvoir RD&E Center team[4]
Outcome
Six-color bad
Misc 1980s Army/USMC Desert Camouflage Evaluations
[edit]1986–87 desert sand sample match camouflage trials
[edit]In 1985, Training and Army Doctrine Command (TRADOC) informed Army Materiel Command (AMC) to raise a development effort for an improved desert pattern. AMC tasked Belvior RD&E Center, Fort Belvoir, VA, with leading the effort.[5]
1986 Phase I test
[edit]In 1986, first phase. The Natick RD&E Center developed and furnished six uniforms 2–7 for testing to compare against the standard 6-Color Desert.
Uniforms tested:
- Uniform #1 - Standard Six-Color Desert - Light Tan 379, Tan 380 (Mint), Light Brown 381, Dark Brown 382, Black 383, and Khaki 384 (White)
- Uniform #2 - Mountainous Tricolor Desert
- Uniform #3 - Unknown Desert
- Uniform #4 - Tricolor Desert - Light Tan 379, Khaki 384 (White), and Light Brown 381
- Uniform #5 - 3-Color Desert - Light Tan 379, Tan 380 (Mint), and Khaki 384 (White)
- Uniform #6 - 3-Color Desert - Desert Tan 459, Khaki 384 (White), and Light Brown 381
- Uniform #7 - Unknown Desert
Note: Color numbers are Natick color designations (*No numbers assigned)
Combined Day & Night tests Most effective were Uniforms 4, 5, and 6 (Tricolor, #5 3-Color Desert, and #6 3-Color Desert).
Uniforms 2, 3 and 7 were least effective and subsequently eliminated for the start of Phase II.[5]
1987 Phase II test
[edit]In 1987, second phase. The NRDEC developed and furnished four uniforms 8–11 for testing.
Sites that did not receive nighttime testing were due to excessive commute times—up to 2 and a half hours in some cases.[5]
Uniforms tested:
- Uniform #1 - Standard Six-Color Desert - Light Tan 379, Tan 380 (Mint), Light Brown 381, Dark Brown 382, Black 383, and Khaki 384 (White)
- Uniform #4 - Tricolor Desert - Light Tan 379, Khaki 384 (White), and Light Brown 381
- Uniform #5 - 3-Color Desert - Light Tan 379, Tan 380 (Mint), and Khaki 384 (White)
- Uniform #6 - 3-Color Desert - Desert Tan 459, Khaki 384 (White), and Light Brown 381
- Uniform #8 - Solid color - Tan 380 (Mint)
- Uniform #9 - Solid color - Khaki 384 (White)
- Uniform #10 - 3-Color Desert - Khaki 384 (White), brown*, and sand*
- Uniform #11 - 2-Color Desert - clay* and Khaki 384[note 1]
Note: Color numbers are Natick color designations (*No numbers assigned)
| Date | # | Color of site | Location | Nighttime test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1987 | 1 | Buff | Yuma Sand Dunes, AZ | Yes |
| 1987 | 2 | Light Gray | Ogilby Road, Tumco, CA | Yes |
| 1987 | 3 | Light Tan | Yuma Proving Grounds, AZ | Yes |
| 1987 | 4 | Dark Beige Tan | Anza Borrego State Park, CA | Yes |
| 1987 | 5 | Light Beige | Tank Trail, 29 Palms USMC Base, CA | |
| 1987 | 6 | Dark Tan | Salton Sea State Park, CA | |
| 1987 | 7 | Beige Tan | Anza Borrego State Park, CA | |
| 1987 | 8 | Light Beige Tan | Anza Borrego State Park, CA | Yes |
| 1987 | 9 | Tan | Jean Dry Lake Bed, NV | Yes |
| 1987 | 10 | Gray Tan | Route 15, Baker, CA |
Day tests Most effective were Uniforms 4, 5, and 8.
Night tests Most effective were Uniforms 4, 5, 6, and 10.[5]
Outcome
Tricolor Desert Adopted
Arctic Warrior '91 snow camouflage testing
[edit]In 1991, the Arctic Warrior '91 exercise had snow camouflage evaluations. The three camouflage patterns, Snow Woodlands (1990), 3-Color Snow (1990), and 2-Color Snow (1990), were tested in the forms of patterned overwhite parka and trousers shells, with additional helmet covers and pack covers all printed so that the fabric's non-face side is mirrored to a unique adaptation of each pattern it reverses to, only as a white and gray 2-color pattern.
These experimental patterns were evaluated at the same time as standard MREs and other rations were being field tested.[6]
Baseline urban camouflage evaluations
[edit]The baseline urban camouflage evaluations in 1994 at Fort Benning evaluated new camouflage patterns.[7]
During May 1994, a total of seven camouflage uniforms were tested at the McKinna MOUT site at Ft Benning, Georgia.
7 total uniforms tested:
- Standard US Woodland
- Standard Tricolor Desert
- Solid Urban gray
- Black Nomex flightsuit
- Unknown Urban 2-color
- 2-tone Urban
- T-Block
Operation Urban Warrior
[edit](LOE 1) Limited Objective Engagement 1
[edit]During January 1998,
(LOE 2) Limited Objective Engagement 2
[edit]During April 1998,
1999 T-Block test week
[edit]During March 1999, T-Block Urban was used
MCCUU/MARPAT development trials
[edit]USMC MCCUU/MARPAT development trials from 2000 to 2001
Universal Camouflage For The Future Warrior trials
[edit]The Universal Camouflage For The Future Warrior trials from 2001 to 2004 were a United States Army camouflage evaluation series to create a camouflage pattern effective in all environments. The trials were conducted by Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM), and the Natick Soldier Center. Certain Natick civilians and soldiers and marines from bases were the observers in the evaluations. The blending evaluations took place at US Army bases across the contiguous United States, including Fort Benning, Ga, Fort Polk, La, Fort Irwin NTC, Calif, and Yakima Training Center (YTC), Wash. At the bases, environments of woodland, desert, and urban were tested.[8][9][10]
Three schemes of camouflage patterns, named All-Over Brush, Track, and Shadowline, were made in environment-specific colorways designated as Woodland, Desert, Urban, and Desert-Urban colorways.[8][9][10]
Results from Phase IV showed that Desert Brush won. was most effective pattern[8][9][10]
External links
[edit]
Media related to Universal Camouflage For The Future Warrior trials at Wikimedia Commons
Sandbox 112 - ABU Trials
Sandbox 113 - NWU Trials
2009 photosimulation evaluations
[edit]The photosimulation evaluations[11]
Pattern-in-picture evaluations
[edit]Pattern-in-picture evaluations[12]
Sandbox 114 - 2009 OEF Camouflage Improvement trials
Sandbox 115 - 2014 Scorpion W2 camouflage trials
Experimental camouflage uniform testing
[edit]Experimental reversible uniforms
[edit]In 1998, the capability to print both sides of a uniform was developed by Natick Soldier Center.[13]
PROS This is cool because it makes logistics ez. Shipping
PROBLEMS Too heavy
Everywhere printer
[edit]Rapid Deployable Camouflage, an NSC prototype to print new camo for new environment covered by frontline soldier.[14]
and was shifted toward the backburner of research projects to look into how to remediate logistical concerns.
spectral terrain data was collected from an urban location at the Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) site in Camp Pendleton, California.[14]
PROS On-demand camo
PROBLEMS Logistical complexity. Poor Colorfastness. Expensive/Slightly wasteful of synthetic fabrics
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ Visually similar to army camo in Family Guy Episode Saving Private Brian
References
[edit]- ^ Rizzo, F. J.; Ramsley, A. O.; Campbell, A. M.; Bushnell, W. B.; Natsios, B. A.; Merola, A.; Kidder, G. (April 1976). "Support to MASSTER Phase II Camouflage Test" (PDF). (MASSTER) Modern Army Selected Systems Test, Evaluation, and Review (65 pages, Appendixes A–C, 29 figures, 23 tables). NARADCOM, MERADCOM, and MASSTER. ADA029072, TR 76-38- CEMEL, CEMEL 159, 62723A, 1Y762723AH98-AB-002. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 22 August 2024 – via Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
- ^ a b c d Rizzo, F. J.; Ramsley, A. O.; Campbell, A. M.; Bushnell, W. B.; Natsios, B. A.; Merola, A.; Kidder, G. (April 1976). "Support to MASSTER Phase II Camouflage Test" (PDF). (MASSTER) Modern Army Selected Systems Test, Evaluation, and Review (65 pages, Appendixes A–C, 29 figures, 23 tables). NARADCOM, MERADCOM, and MASSTER. ADA029072, TR 76-38- CEMEL, CEMEL 159, 62723A, 1Y762723AH98-AB-002. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 22 August 2024 – via Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
- ^ O'Neill, Major Timothy R.; Johnsmeyer, CPT William L. (April 1977) [stamped as Received 8 June 1977]. "Technical Report - DUAL-TEX: Evaluation of Dual-Texture Gradient Pattern" (PDF). Office of Institutional Research - West Point Academy (DD FORM 1473 - 1 JAN 73). West Point, NY: Office of Military Leadership - West Point Academy. ADA040342. Archived from the original on 24 November 2016. Retrieved 7 August 2024 – via Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
- ^ Anitole, George; Johnson, Ronald L.; Neubert, Christopher J. (June 1986) [Stamped as DTIC Selected 2 July 1986]. "Statistical Comparison of the Ability of Camouflage Colors to Blend with Terrain Background Under High and Low Sun Angles". U.S. Army Belvoir R&D Center, Ft. Belvoir, VA; U.S. Army Engineer School, Ft. Belvoir, VA (Stamped as Received 2 July 1986). Proceedings of the Conference on the Design of Experiments in Army Research Development and Testing (31st) Held at the Madison, Wisconsin on 23-25 October 1986 — U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, NC. pp. 201–212. ADA169473, Report No. 86-2. Retrieved 8 January 2025 – via Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
- ^ a b c d Anitole, George; Johnson, Ronald L. (December 1989). "Evaluation of Desert Camouflage Uniforms by Ground Observers" (PDF). Belvoir RD&E Center (74+ pages, 1.0–5.0 appendixes, 27 figures, 55 tables). NARADCOM, MERADCOM, & BVRDEC Command/Leadership. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 August 2024. Retrieved 24 August 2024 – via Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
- ^ LTC King, Nancy; Mutter, Susan H.; Roberts, Donald E.; Sutherland, Michael R.; COL Askew, Eldon W. "Cold Weather Field Evaluation of the 18-Man Arctic Tray Pack Ration Module, the Meal, Ready-to-Eat, and the Long Life Ration Packet" (PDF). Military Nutrition Division and Thermal Physiology and Medicine Division. U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM). Natick, MA; Geo-Centers, Inc.. Newton Centre, MA; Statistical Consulting Center. University of Massachusetts. Amherst, MA;. Military Medicine. Vol. 158. July 1993. AD-A268 691 – via Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
The test was conducted with 96 volunteer male soldiers from two batteries (A and B) from the 5/11th Field Artillery Battalion of the 6th Infantry Division (Light), for 10 days (January 28 to February 6, 1991), during the Arctic Warrior Field Training Exercise held at Fort Greely, Alaska.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) - ^ "Urban Camouflage". The Warrior Magazine (-!-) (Webarchive = Less Ads) (-!-). NSC Public Affairs Office. May 1996. Archived from the original on 11 February 2011. Retrieved 29 August 2024 – via Global Security Website.
- ^ a b c Dugas, A.; Zupkofska, K. J.; DiChiara, A.; Kramer, F. M. (December 2004) [See also ADM001736, Proceedings for the Army Science Conference (24th) Held on 29 November - 2 December 2005 in Orlando, Florida.]. "Universal Camouflage for the Future Warrior" (PDF). US Army Natick Soldier Center (NSC) (Technical Report - NISO Form 298). Natick, MA: US Army Research, Development & Engineering Command (RDECOM). ADA433081. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 May 2009. Retrieved 27 June 2009 – via Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
- ^ a b c Dugas, Anabela; Kramer, F. M. (15 December 2004). "dugas.ppt as .PDF" (PDF). Mil-spec Monkey. Individual Protection Directorate (IPD), Supporting Science & Technology Directorate. US Army Natick Soldier Center (NSC); US Army Research, Development & Engineering Command (RDECOM). Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 December 2019. Retrieved 14 June 2024 – via Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
- ^ a b c Dugas, Anabela; Kramer, F. M. (15 December 2004). "dugas.ppt". Individual Protection Directorate (IPD), Supporting Science & Technology Directorate. US Army Natick Soldier Center (NSC). US Army Research, Development & Engineering Command (RDECOM). Archived from the original on 11 August 2013. Retrieved 29 June 2009 – via Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
- ^ Rock, Kathryn; Lesher, Larry; Stewardson, Cheryl; Isherwood, Kristine; Hepfinger, Lisa (23 June 2009). "Photosimulation Camouflage Detection Test" (PDF). Natick Soldier Center (NSC). NATICK/TR-09-021L; 63001. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 July 2024. Retrieved 25 December 2024 – via Soldier Systems Daily (SSD).
- ^ Hepfinger, Lisa; Stewardson, Cheryl; Rock, Kathryn; Leshner, Larry L.; Kramer, F. Matthew; McIntosh, Scotlund; Patterson, Joseph; Isherwood, Kristine; Rogers, Glenn; Nguyen, Hien (December 2010). "Soldier Camouflage for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF): Pattern-in-Picture (PIP) Technique for Expredient Human-in-the-Loop Camouflage Assessment" (PDF). US Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, 15 Kansas Street, Natick, MA, 01760-5020 (To be presented at the 27th Army Science Conference, JW Marriott Grande Lakes, Orlando, Florida, November 29 - December 2, 2010). ADA532947. Retrieved 25 December 2024 – via Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).
- ^ "Individual Protection Factsheet - Reversible Battle Dress Uniform (BDU)". NSC Website Light Blue. 1 April 2003. Archived from the original on 3 October 2003. Retrieved 6 August 2024.
- ^ a b "Factsheet - Site Specific Rapidly Deployable Camouflage (SSRDC)". SBCCOM Website Blue. 18 October 2001. Archived from the original on 22 April 2003. Retrieved 2 August 2024.