Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
And Now For Something Completely Different (or is it?)
The use of camouflage in fashion and art has a section to itself, but might it be worth discussing military camouflage in popular culture more generally? The 'How Not to Be Seen' sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus and at the beginning of And Now for Something Completely Different may be silly, but before devolving into explosions, it illustrates well some important concepts (such as no matter how well-camouflaged you are, you're going to stick out if you're camouflaged as something obvious). I'm sure that there must be other instances outside of fashion and art where camouflage techniques are the main topic of examination. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Digital camouflage
I came to the page (redirected, actually) looking for information on the so-called digital camouflage patterns that have been in vogue for a while now, and while I assume that the shift to such patterns is done for a good reason, I would like to be informed of what those reasons are, because to my eyes (especially when applied to vehicles in large, blocky patches) they seem to be all the more conspicuous. They say "nature abhors a vacuum", but nature also tends to abhor perfectly straight lines and right angles, at least when it comes to vegetation. I realize, perhaps, that AFV camouflage might not be designed to fool the human eye at all, so that could be at least a partial explanation. Nevertheless, seeing as I was redirected to this article after clicking on a link that explicitly said "digital camouflage", I feel some description of it is warranted. Apologies, though, if I just missed the relevant portions of a rather large article.--172.129.55.131 (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The digital camouflage section is quite long, and it is argumentative (reflecting an ongoing argument within camouflage profession). as it os now, I agree with IP above that it is not very informative. It does not discuss the different ways the term is used, and it uses a lot of space on only scratching the surface of the science (or lack thereof) behind it. I suggest the section is cut back to a summary, and a separate article is made. I believe it is a topic of enough interest to warrant an article of its own. Thimbleweed (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it should certainly be a sub-article (and an entry in the navbox). It will need (many) more citations, and should stick closely to the facts. Go ahead and do as you suggest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
