Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thimbleweed (talk | contribs) at 11:31, 8 October 2012 (→Restructuring: @ Chiswick Chap). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Military history: Technology C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force

Archives

/Archive to 2011

Dazzle Camouflage

I was surprised that there was no mention of Dazzle Camouflage on the page. I don't want to go messing about though and add/link it incorrectly. --96.52.133.199 (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Digital Camouflage (patterns)

There's an enormous long list of (most of) the world's armies, prefixed by the sentence: "Digital camouflage patterns have been adopted by:" - but the list gives no information about which digital pattern is used by which army, and worse, there are absolutely no citations to prove any of it. Question: does this list have any value to readers?

• Would that value be enhanced by making it, say, a table of (Army, Pattern, Date adopted, supporting documents)?
• Or is it just WP:OR which ought to be cut from the article?

Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is very low value, not encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Right then, I've cut it. The digital section still needs citations but at least it's proportionate in length. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

On a related subject (being in the same section), the picture of desert MARPAT bears no resemblance to the real thing. Should I change this? Hendrixwinter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

If you have a better photograph that you own (or is copyright-free), by all means upload it to Wikimedia Commons and then replace the inferior image. Make sure the license is correctly filled in though. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Main groups of patterns

I was considering adding a small list of the main types of camouflage patterns. Something like this:

Suggestion:

There are a bewildering number of camouflages used through history. However, most camouflage patterns can be categorized into broad categories. Some of the more common types are:

• Solid drab colour was the first type of camouflage for military use, and was introduced in the 18th century. Typical examples are British khaki, German Feldgrau and American olive drab. Some nations, notably Austria and Israel continues to use solid colour combat uniforms.
• Splint patterns originated during the First World War, and is characterized by straight lines and sharp angles, creating a disruptive effect. Often associated with Germany, these types of patterns are very commonly used on vehicles by numerous nations.
• Jigsaw patterns are more or less blotch-like fields of colours fitting into each other like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, giving more “organic” outlines than the angular splint patterns. It was invented in the Interwar period by the Italians, and has been widely used for uniforms. The various “woodland”, “water” and “wave” patterns are related types.
• Spotted patterns' are composed of small spots superimposed on fields of other colours, blurring the edges of fields by creating both a macro- and micro pattern. The idea was developed in Germany during the Second World War, and developed into the Flecktarns for the German forces in the 1970s. Similar patterns are by many nations. The MultiCam pattern is partly based on the same principle.
• Brushstroke patterns consist of usually two, sometimes three different colours printed as brushstrokes on a lighter background colour. Where the strokes overlap, the colours blend, making two-stroke patterns effectively four coloured (background + 3 brush colours). It was introduced in the British Denison smock during the Second World War. The British DMP-pattern and the French lizard pattern are derivates, and has been widely copied, particularly in Africa and South East Asia. The various tigerstripe patterns have evolved from the French lizard pattern.
• Duck hunter patterns are typified by various sizes of irregular splotches of several colours on a solid colour background. The first pattern of this type was the M1942 "frog skin" used by American troops in the Pacific during the Second Wold War, and copied by several nations. The Australian Disruptive Pattern Combat Uniform follow a similar lay-out.
• Rain patterns consists of small vertical line segments on a solid colour background. The German Second World War splint patterns often included such line segments. As a stand-alone form of camouflage the rain pattern was used by many Eastern European countries during the later stage of The Warsaw Pact.
• Digital patterns is usually associated with pixelated outlines, though the term in principle covers all computer generated patterns. Pixelated patterns was pioneered by several nations in the 1980s, but did not become popular until the MARPAT camouflage was introduced for American troops early 2010s, and is now widely copied.

Problem is, where do I place such a list? The current article is somewhat messy, with several overlapping sections. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. The patterns list article is indeed already long and a bit rambling (not to mention somewhat uncited). The suggestion is for a classification of patterns. I'm not certain it's a strict taxonomy as the categories might possibly overlap (could one have a digital flecktarn, for instance?). Perhaps the suggestion would make a nice introductory table headed "Principle types of camouflage pattern", with a picture of each one, its date, country, name, description, and usage? all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

NB we absolutely don't want to duplicate List of camouflage patterns, which is organized by continent and country. That results in much repetition (e.g. M81 Woodland recurs 49 times). Revamping the article would be a piece of work - ideally the table would be sortable by pattern, type, date and country to keep everyone happy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right that some patterns are mixes. The Wehrmacht Splittermuster combine spliter pattern and rain pattern, the 1st Gulf War chocolate-chip camouflage combines a jigsaw pattern with, eh, something, and of course there are patterns that doens't really fall into any of these categories. This list should not be taken as some sort of official classification. We should be carefull using this classification in the List of camouflage patterns, as it would bring us dangerously close to OR. If we do, we need to be very clear about this being our classification.

I think I'll be able to source some or most of the statements, like the evolution from brushstroke to lizard to tigerstripe. I'm waiting for some reference litterature to help in the rest. I'll also happily help you clean up this article a bit, if you want to have a go at it. Thimbleweed (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not available for some weeks now. If you have invented a classification then it's certainly OR. On the other hand, if 7 patterns are all called Flecktarn variants x, y, and z then it's fine to have a section or table heading for Flecktarn, with the named variants beneath it. Organising by date is also fine. You're right, you'll need refs to show evolution if that's your aim: it would be nice to have a diagram showing (with images and arrows from one pattern to the next) showing what gave rise to what. I can prepare such things when I have time. Still not clear which article you mean to develop, however. I am AGAINST adding a list to Military camouflage as there's already a list of patterns article; and Mil cam is certainly not only about patterns. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for developing this article. The list is a list and there's only so much information you can cram in before it becomes unwieldable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thimbleweed (talk • contribs) 10:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion above is just meant to be descriptive, to offer some overview of the bewildering variety of camouflage patterns. I guess you can think of it more like a key than a classification. There is no such thing as "camouflage classification" anyway, camouflages are manmade constructions, not flowers or chemical elements, and most states or agencies are eager to point out their uniqueness, not how similar they are to other patterns. That hasn’t stopped camouflage aficionados from making their own systems (e.g. see Camopedias take on it).

Since there are no governing body dictating this, there is no right way and accordingly no wrong way. The above suggestion has lumped things together rather than spitting them up for overview rather than presission. Typically the lizard and tigerstripe classes being lumped in with DPM under brushstroke, and the "jigsaw" class as a catch-all for anything with wavy outlines. The latter is probably a bad choice of term, as it often applied to a Belgian type (and derivate). Perhaps “Blotch patterns” would be better.

Your suggestion for using only the official names wouldn’t work. Most patterns don’t even have names, but serial numbers like "M1985" or "Vz60". If they do have names, they are often non-descriptive, like the Disruptive Pattern Material. Copied usually also have different names, only the 1979 German patters are actually named "Flacktarn". The Chinese "Tibetan" or "Plateau" pattern has another name, despite being a spot-for-spot copy of the German Flecktarn, but with different colours. The Danish Flecktarn again is named M/84, the older Austrian pattern is named K4. Again, this has not stopped commercial producers, collectors and historians from applying the term to all, or to some. Perhaps it would be better to stick to a more descriptive name, like “spotted patterns” or something similar.

Don’t worry about not having time, the article can wait. There’s plenty that do not require more people, like finding references and stuff. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Planned restructuring

Chiswick Chap, are you back? I have some suggestions if you want to do something to this article. Thimbleweed (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. My main feeling about this article is (still) that it desperately needs references. People are adding more and more uncited stuff. If I was going to do anything here, it would be to add a column for sources/references/evidence. What did you have in mind? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, one problem is the lack of references. Unfortunately, there are not all that many good one for this subject. I guess you can see I have annotated the list suggestion above as good as I can, but I don't thing we can do much better than that. The second problem is the structure, with a lot of repetition. I think the article will be better (and shorter) by dropping organizing it by country and in stead organizing it by type (uniform, vehicle, aeroplanes etc) and chronology. Thimbleweed (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That would have the advantage of improving readability, reducing length (perhaps), and showing that mil cam is not only about uniforms (the most WP:OR-rich aspect, I suspect). Then we could at least have SOME refs for each section. However it would be a major change. Perhaps you could put a draft of it on your user page? And, by the way, I still think that the same problem is much worse on List of camouflage patterns, where the same solution is much more necessary. I'd suggest we start there, not here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to brighten up the list with adding some pictures, but it is now getting to the size where it is hard to get it to load. I don't know what to do with it.

I'll make a draft in my sandbox as you suggested. Thimbleweed (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. The list surely needs the identical treatment - get rid of the ridiculous ordering by continent and country (what use can that be?) and simply show each pattern just once (OK, that can be grouped by the country that created/first used the pattern), with a list of countries that use it. That would make it a lot shorter, and would remove the repetition of images - after all, the article is a list of patterns not of countries, ain't it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm working on the article in my sandbox, but it is going to take a few days. I'm wondering if the main body of this article (the uniforms) can be moved to a separate article: Camouflage uniforms? Thimbleweed (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the same as Battledress? I'd suggest you feel free to slim down the "Postwar uniforms" section (possibly severely), and similarly slim down or remove most of the by-nation coverage of uniforms/battledress, merging anything not already said in Battledress with that article. While you're about it, I wonder how much overlap there is with Military uniform (another OR cruft-fest)? Perhaps it's mostly a case of merge and redirect, tho' uniform is more than camouflage fatigues as it covers smart mess dress etc. Talking of a mess... Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This article seems to deal only with personal camouflage, perhaps an article rename is more appropriate. Or it needs to deal with the other forms vehicle schemes (Caunter, Mickey-Mouse, Dazzle?. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it needs to talk a lot more about vehicle, ship, aircraft, building and firing position camouflage to provide proper balance; I'd envisage a section on each of those, as on battledress, with a Main article link in each section. That implies that the current heavy coverage of battledress be slimmed down, as we were discussing (in shorthand) above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I really don't like to remove content from Misplaced Pages, I'd rather move it about. Using Battledress as dumping ground for the over-detailed uniform stuff from this article is fine with me. I will try to expand the sections on land vehicles, planes and ships (all of which have their own main articles) as well as adding something on buildings/positions. I'm afraid the section on uniforms will still be longer than the other sections, as uniforms, thanks to their printed nature, are more detailed and variable than the others. Thimbleweed (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Working on this article in my sandbox, I see my list of pattern (above) is better suited for the battledress article. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh good. Do you see a way to simplify List of camouflage patterns while you're looking at Battledress? I suspect the list can be much shorter by listing each pattern once; and it might possibly make sense to use your visual list of pattern types to group those patterns (non-geographically) - do you believe that would work, or are there many patterns that don't fit? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It might simplify things a bit, but it would create other problems. My list is just a simplye key to the most common classes, not to specific patterns. There are some patterns that are used by a lot of nations (DPM, M81 Woodland, French Lizard pattern), but there are (my estimate) something like 300 or thereabouts unique patterns out there, many of which have very little documentation. The latter is because much of these are to some extent military secrets. These days the digital patterns are all the rage, and there will possibly be another 100 unique (and likely shortlived) patterns out by the next few years. I really don't know how to attack the list. Thimbleweed (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

On your first point: it's a matter of grouping by class, not of listing and illustrating everything. If by-class is not preferred, we can simply list alphabetically by name of pattern, or alphabetically by name of country of origin (no duplication, therefore). Either way, each pattern could have a list of user countries (names as abbreviations, maybe) - if there is proof: right now, 99% of the claims about use are pure WP:OR.

On your second point: Wikipedians could argue that probably short-lived and uncitable patterns are non-notable, in which case the answer is simple: we don't list them unless someone finds decent references for them. Would support you in that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As I read the list, it is supposed to be a comprehensive list of all patterns. Grouping it by main patterns and delete all the "minor" patterns would defy its original purpose. On the other hand the current list is a mess, so we should try to come up with something. As for sources, Camopedia is a place to start. It is a wiki, but it is not open and edited by just two persons as far as I can tell. Would it be usable as a source? Thimbleweed (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, so we don't try grouping the list by type; in that case I propose grouping Alphabetically by Country of Origin.

I share your feelings of caution about Camopedia; it is certainly a source, but its reliability is doubtful. It would be fine to use it for images (we write a Non-Free Usage Rationale), and it can guide our search, but it needs corroboration. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, I've been working on the article in my sandbox a bit, and here's what I suggest: The article is split into three main sections, Principles of military camouflage (including how it differ from other forms of camouflage), History, and Application. Application should contain the present chapter of aeroplanes, ships etc, + a new section on uniforms, condensed out of the current cruft-ridden text. I've got the two first main sections fairly under control, and if you agree this is a good layout, I'll start to put it in, section by section. It's all sourced, though some of the sources are less than ideal (but better than no sources I suppose). Thimbleweed (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, there's a lot here. Firstly, you've been hard at work, and there are some excellent ideas here - certainly, having Principles, then History, then Applications (not sure about this 3rd heading, but it'll do for now) is an improvement. Secondly, the de-crufting should be helpful. I'm not completely sure that the actual principles are fully worked-out yet; it would probably be best to refer to Camouflage for principles, which has been worked out in detail. In fact {{main|Camouflage}} would do for that section. Thirdly, the History section seems to work really well up to and including the USSR section, tho' you're right, the section remains light on references. The 'Military camouflage patterns' uses some terms like 'solid' and 'digital' which nobody will object to; but do we have sources for the other type names? Even 'splint' pattern, which has an unsourced article, is going to be hard enough to source. Fourthly, not sure the subsections of 'In fashion and art' really add much (and wasn't there only one Dazzle Ball?) - certainly, much of the Dazzle Balls section is not about the Ball at all. Finally, the reorg is going to need a rewrite of the Lead section too.

Where does that leave us. Hmm. I think, go right ahead and reorg the History, and by all means wrap the Applications materials in that heading. Probably we need to go over the rest again. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit of work, granted. If you want to see what I've got so far, take a look here. I consider myself done with the principles bit, but need some more on history. The history bit is a bit longish, perhaps most of it really belongs under battledress, and only a summary of the evolution of camo uniforms belong in this article. I'll need to fill out the Great War and further development. I have mostly sourced the application sections, but need to write one for buildings and positions, and to condense the main body of the existing article into a "camouflage uniforms" section.

I'm no Shakespear and could use some input. We (if you want to go through it) could do it all in one go in my sandbox and simply replace this article, or transfer bits from there to here when we are pleased with them. Thimbleweed (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring

I have started putting in some of the sections I had written in my sandbox. Unless anyone have objections, I will continue. The majority of this article really belongs in battledress. Thimbleweed (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not move the battledress material over there, then? Or if you can't work out where it should go, put it on the Talk:Battledress page, clearly marked, with a note that people are welcome to use it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. The batteldress article is a mess to begin with, i guess it's next up for restructuring. Thimbleweed (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm almost done with the restructuring. I need a bit more history, WWII and the rise of camouflage uniforms and a bit on the birth of radar & al, and the subsequent invention of stealth technology. When that's done, I'll say we're there (apart from someone needing to go over my English to make it flow a bit more evenly). Thimbleweed (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Chiswick, you about? Thimbleweed (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

References

1. "Die Uniform". Österreichs Bundeshher. Austrial Army (Bundesheer). Retrieved 3 September 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help)
2. Katz, Sam (1988). Israeli Elite Units since 1948. United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-85045-837-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
3. "Making Sense of Digital Camouflage". Strike - Hold. Retrieved 2 September 2012.
4. Newman], [concept & direction, Hardy Blechman ; compiled & edited, Hardy Blechman & Alex (2004). DPM : disruptive pattern material : an encyclopedia of camouflage : nature, military, culture (1. ed. ed.). London: DPM Ltd. ISBN 0-9543404-0-X. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
5. Johnson, Richard Denis (1999). Tiger patterns : a guide to the Vietnam War's tigerstripe combat fatigue patterns and uniforms. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publ. ISBN 0764307568.
6. Brayley, Martin J. (2009). Camouflage uniforms : international combat dress 1940-2010. Ramsbury: Crowood. ISBN 1847971377.

• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles