A target camouflaged with MARPAT takes about 2.5 times longer to detect than older NATO camouflage which worked at only one scale, while recognition, which begins after detection, was delayed by 20 percent. The CADPAT and MARPAT patterns were thus somewhat self-similar (in the manner of fractals and patterns in nature such as vegetation), being designed to work at two different scales a genuinely fractal pattern would be statistically similar at all scales. O'Neill's idea was to create a complex pattern of small (2 inch) squares, in modern terms pixels, so that at short range an observer would see a woodland pattern, while at long range the small pixels would merge into larger patches, giving the appearance of a woodland pattern at a larger scale also. Large patches of colour worked well at long range, and small patches at short range, but neither scheme worked well at all ranges. O'Neill suggested that patterns consisting of square blocks of colour would provide camouflage that was more effective than traditional patches of brown and green. The pattern uses areas of olive green, sand, and black pixels running together in broken patches at a range of scales.
Pixellated shapes pre-date computer aided design by many years, already being used in Soviet Union experiments with camouflage patterns, such as "TTsMKK" developed in 1944 or 1945. The German Army developed the idea further in the 1970s into Flecktarn, which combines smaller shapes with dithering this softens the edges of the large scale pattern, making the underlying objects harder to discern. ĭuring the Second World War, Johann Georg Otto Schick designed a number of patterns for the Waffen-SS, combining micro- and macro-patterns in one scheme. At the same time, large patterns are more effective from afar, while small scale patterns work better up close. Large structures need larger patterns than smaller vehicles and single soldiers to disrupt their shape. The scale of camouflage patterns has an obvious effect on their use.
0 kommentar(er)
