Digi Cam v DPM - operational realities

#1
I know there are many out there that would like to see the Brits get a new ally digi-cam pattern for our combats, but why? I know it will be new and sexy, but in reality the pattern of any style tends to fade somewhat when in high intensity operations due to squaddies getting caked in dust and mud. Is there any proof that one style is better than the other?
 

Attachments

#6
little white boxes with red X's are not wel camoflaged.
 
#9
Digi-cam was an accident.

The pattern was designed on a computer screen where a bloke is 5 inches tall.

They copied the pattern created, enlarged it and printed it - of course the pixels wee enlarged and printed too. Then to save money some bright spark said it was proof against electro optic devices that reliesd on screens.

Its all b0llocks of course................
 
#10
theloggie said:
Digi-cam was an accident.

The pattern was designed on a computer screen where a bloke is 5 inches tall.

They copied the pattern created, enlarged it and printed it - of course the pixels wee enlarged and printed too. Then to save money some bright spark said it was proof against electro optic devices that reliesd on screens.

Its all b0llocks of course................
Not quite right in how they arrived at digi-cam but the b0llocks bit is 100%. Lots of work done in PECOC that proves its no better than traditional 'blotch' patterns. The US is looking at the cam issue again and is keeping an open mind about digi or blotch.

That said if you want to keep recruiting up and it makes no difference to the cam performance but attracts teenagers who stare at computer games and see digi cam soldiers running around that may be a reason to change to it.

My concern would be that digi cam is last years fashion. The US Air Force have moved away from it (they have more combat ground troops than the British Army) and have gone to a tiger strip look alike so that they are different from the Army when in the public eye.
 
#11
TheSpecialOne said:
I know there are many out there that would like to see the Brits get a new ally digi-cam pattern for our combats, but why? I know it will be new and sexy, but in reality the pattern of any style tends to fade somewhat when in high intensity operations due to squaddies getting caked in dust and mud. Is there any proof that one style is better than the other?
Apart from a rocky or concrete heavy environment, that's pretty much the only way the US Army ACU works. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=109933&page=4

PS: there's a lot of green in Afghanistan and Iraq. Desert DPM doesn't work all the time. Probably a little to bold as well. From what I've seen the desert Canadian and USMC digital patterns seems to work well.
 
#12
Can anyone enlighten me to the supposed advantages of digi over DPM?

I can't see it makes much difference when the clothing is probably going to be covered in a layer of mud or dust.

After a couple of days digging in soggy peat during Op Corporate in 1982, pretty much everyone was peat coloured from the waist down anyway. After a couple of weeks and a liberal coating of Falklands mud the clothing was a dirt colour all over.

:)

Rodney2q
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
JoeCivvie Tanks, planes & ships 7
Spanish_Dave The NAAFI Bar 12
Bromhead Weapons, Equipment & Rations 21

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top