bxr307@csc.anu.oz (07/06/90)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz In article <1990Jul5.020418.14002@cbnews.att.com>, boulder!pikes!pikes.Colorado.EDU!ndimas@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Nicholas Dimas) writes: > > > From: boulder!pikes!pikes.Colorado.EDU!ndimas@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Nicholas Dimas) > > Is there a theory behind the concept of cmmoflauge(sp?). I mean > aside from just "hide it". How are the patterns thought up? > stuff like that! Going back to my days in the Army here in Australia we were always taught the major principles of camouflage as being (and not in any particular order of importance either, its just the way we had it drummed into you):- 1) Shape 2) Shine 3) Surface 4) Silouhette (?sp) 5) Colour 6) Movement These were the things which you had to be aware of if you were comouflaging up either yourself, a vehicle or similar item. In personal camouflage we were always taught to be particularly sparing in applying `cam' cream to skin, as too much was just as useless as too little. There was nothing worse than seeing a pair of eyes or mouth appearing in the middle of a face which had had cam cream caked on it! (something which seems to not concern most American soldiers today who copy the "Ramboesque" style of covering every square inch of their faces with cam cream and then leave their arms bare, not even bothering to roll down their shirt sleeves). There are whole text books though on how to make use of camouflage as there are also several on its history. If people wish I'll hunt out the several I have and post the references in sci.military. Brian Ross
jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) (07/09/90)
From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) >From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz > >comouflaging up either yourself, a vehicle or similar item. In personal >camouflage we were always taught to be particularly sparing in applying `cam' >cream to skin, as too much was just as useless as too little. There was >nothing worse than seeing a pair of eyes or mouth appearing in the middle of >a face which had had cam cream caked on it! (something which seems to not >concern most American soldiers today who copy the "Ramboesque" style of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >covering every square inch of their faces with cam cream and then leave their >arms bare, not even bothering to roll down their shirt sleeves). There are Brian, I'm tired of seeing you bad-mouth the soldiers of the U.S. Army while holding the aussie army up as an object of worship. From now on, you're going to have to prove each derogatory point you make (if you'd like, you can start with your comments of last week about the "own goals" made by U.S. soldiers against Australian soldiers in Vietnam: what's your source, or are you just repeating old soldiers' tales, which you and I both know are 95% fiction and 5% lies?). Alternatively, you can start with your statement above: did you interview "most" of the soldiers in the U.S. Army? Have you travelled to most of the dozens of army posts here in the U.S., not to mention the scores of kasernes in Germany, Korea, Panama and elsewhere? Or are you basing your libel on American TV portrayals (like that show about the Marine Major and family)? You are obviously _not_ looking at the photos in Time, Newsweek, Army Times, NATO Review, etc. of real U.S. soldiers in the field (go find any picture of an ongoing combat operation from Just Cause; see if you can find one where a soldier has his war paint on and his sleeves up). I apoligize to the net for losing my temper. I just can't stand people with very limited knowledge trashing the U.S. Army soldier, who is (in my humble opinion) about as professional as they come. I look forward to seeing your response, Brian. John Pulliam (jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu)
J.Holley@massey.ac.nz (07/10/90)
From: J.Holley@massey.ac.nz In article <1990Jul9.023717.9451@cbnews.att.com> jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) writes: > >From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) >>From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz >> >>comouflaging up either yourself, a vehicle or similar item. In personal >>camouflage we were always taught to be particularly sparing in applying `cam' >>cream to skin, as too much was just as useless as too little. There was >>nothing worse than seeing a pair of eyes or mouth appearing in the middle of >>a face which had had cam cream caked on it! (something which seems to not >>concern most American soldiers today who copy the "Ramboesque" style of > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>covering every square inch of their faces with cam cream and then leave their >>arms bare, not even bothering to roll down their shirt sleeves). There are > >Brian, I'm tired of seeing you bad-mouth the soldiers of the U.S. Army >while holding the aussie army up as an object of worship. From now > >John Pulliam >(jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu) I wasn't going to post anything about Brian's posting but when I saw what John wrote I thought I would enter the discussion. I'm an officer in the NZ army who had spent some time with an Australian infantry company on exercise here in NZ (Feb 89). Now this company was from one of Australia's top battalions (their ready reaction/rapid deployment force - whatever they call it). The soldiers were still using the old 7.62mm SLR while for over year we had been using the new Steyr. They had inadequate cold weather kit, in fact a load of woolen underwear had to be flown in to them, with some suffering from mild hyperthermia (yes this was summer time). The thing that stuck out the most was the facial cam of the Australians. In the NZ army we are taught the same principles of camoflague as the Australians i.e. shape,shine etc. When it comes to cam we do cover our whole face as well as neck,ears and hands (and any other surfaces that show). This might seem "Ramboesque" but any skin that is not covered SHINES. The Australians though thinly dabbed cam on their faces and hands which did nothing to break up the shape of their faces or remove shine. They were in fact quite envious of the NZers attached to the company as the NZ army provides cam sticks free (an in quantity) where as the Australians had to buy their cam themselves! This may have changed over the last year but it seems to me the current use of facial cam within the Australian army is not based on sound principles but financial considerations. John A. Holley | J.Holley@massey.ac.nz : Internet School of Information Sciences | J.Holley@nz.ac.massey : Janet Massey University | +64 63 505611 : Fax Palmerston North | +64 63 69099 ext 8616 : Vox New Zealand | Disclaimer : Sorry! My brain hurts!
bxr307@csc.anu.oz (07/12/90)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz From: J.Holley@massey.ac.nz > >I'm an officer in the NZ army who had spent some time with an >Australian infantry company on exercise here in NZ (Feb 89). Now this company >was from one of Australia's top battalions (their ready reaction/rapid >deployment force - whatever they call it). >The soldiers were still using the old 7.62mm SLR while for over year >we had been using the new Steyr. They had inadequate cold weather kit, >in fact a load of woolen underwear had to be flown in to them, with >some suffering from mild hyperthermia (yes this was summer time). The Australian army is still using the L1a1 rather than the newer Steyr AUG. This is has resulted because of three factors. The first was because of a government policy to first divert initial production of the weapon to New Zealand, rather than Australian units. Secondly, because the Australian Army decided to accept a modified version of the weapon, rather than the version initially offered by Steyr (I believe they were unhappy with the safety catch, believing that the simple sliding block of plastic needed to be replaced as they felt it failed to satisfy their standards of visual safety) production for Australia use was delayed. Finally also because they decided to build up war stocks first (we keep approximately the same number of weapons in reserve as war stocks to what is actually issued to allow rapid wartime expansion) before issuing them to units. However the introduction date, that I was last aware of, was for general issue to commence in 1991/1992. They have, at last report to me, accepted approximately 2,000 pre-production examples which are on limited issue to various units around the country for use in assorted trials, such as development of new drill, and so on (which is why you might have observed them at the "Return to Gallipoli" 75th anniversary ceremonies, if you saw those on TV in NZ). Also as the NZ army is much smaller than the Australian Army I would expect that it is much easier to execute the change over from an old weapon to a new one more quickly. What you fail to mention though, is that a New Zealand summer is considerably different to an Australian Summer, as New Zealand is much further south. I would presume as a consequence the temperatures are much lower, particularly at night. As a consequence I'm not surprised that they were not equipped adequately for the conditions encountered, more than likely having been briefed to expect warm, sunny conditions. That was obviously a failure of adequate preparation on the part of the administration of the unit concerned. If I was the OC of that particular infantry company I would have been rather red-faced and with reason (particularly as the Bn CO kicks my bum over failing to prepare my men and their equipment for the conditions I should have been expecting). >The thing that stuck out the most was the facial cam of the >Australians. In the NZ army we are taught the same principles of >camoflague as the Australians i.e. shape,shine etc. When it comes to >cam we do cover our whole face as well as neck,ears and hands (and any >other surfaces that show). This might seem "Ramboesque" but any skin >that is not covered SHINES. The Australians though thinly dabbed cam >on their faces and hands which did nothing to break up the shape of >their faces or remove shine. That is unusual. In my experience we were taught to make use of cam cream to break up the shape by using blotches and short stripes. Working on the priniciple of confusing the eye and preventing an observer from being able to readily and quickly identify what he is looking at. This works admirably in the Eucalypt and other forests which covers large areas of Australia. In the more arid areas (which is approximately 70% of the country) where vegetation is more sparse, large areas of brown and black are applied to mimic rocks and broken ground, rather than vegetation. Additionally not covering the entire surface of the skin allows you to sweat more readily, and when operating as we do in temperatures up to 60 degrees Celsius (as it can sometimes reach in high summer in the middle of the continent) that is an important consideration. Preventing a soldier's body from cooling efficiently (which is what sweating is meant to do) can lead to dehydration, heat exhaustion or heat stroke and eventual death. Something which can happen all too easily if one is not aware of the dangers and fails to consume enough water. Which is another reason why they most probably suffered from cases of mild hypothermia, as the Australian army has little or no experience of operating in cold environments (we were committed for the first thirty years after WWII to first fighting in tropical Asia, and then for the last ten years to the hot Australian continent). What the problem more than likely was that there is a difference in the way in which the NZ apply cam. Such a difference is likely because of different conditions (NZ being basically a more temperate area without any large areas of arid country [yes I know they have one small cold, arid area on the South Island, but it doesn't really count when compared to Australia] ) in each country. However I still find it difficult to believe that you apply cam cream to every square inch of your exposed skin. >They were in fact quite envious of the NZers attached to the company >as the NZ army provides cam sticks free (an in quantity) where as the >Australians had to buy their cam themselves! Now that is unusual. In no unit I have served with have we been reduced that far! However there is always a possiblity that its true. Being in the Q-store in several units however, I never came across the situation when cam cream was not readily available through the supply system. Are you sure this was a regular unit, or was it an Army Reserve Unit? (and that is no real excuse, as they have just as good access to everything the Army supply system can provide, they just have to learn to fill out the right forms correctly. Which is usually felt to be too difficult by them. Most Army Reserve Units seem to have a real cargo cult mentality when it comes to supplies. They think the stuff magically appears from no where and they never wonder why they don't get something if they don't ask for it :-) >This may have changed over the last year but it seems to me the >current use of facial cam within the Australian army is not based on >sound principles but financial considerations. As they seemed to be buying the cam cream themselves, that is always a possibility. However as that appears to be an unusual situation going by my experience, I wonder what the real story was. Brian Ross
johndunk@wpi.WPI.EDU (John Dunkelberg) (05/02/91)
From: johndunk@wpi.WPI.EDU (John Dunkelberg) I am working on a project dealing with camouflage through the ages. If anyone has references or comments to make , especially first-hand reports of the uses of camouflage in wartime, I and my teammates would live to hear them. Please mail to: johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu Many thanks, John S Dunkelberg Jr. | johndunk@wpi.wpi.edu