[Lang]

Tony

A couple of interesting things in your post.

Way back at the beginning of this thread there was discussion about the camouflage committee. I think I annoyed some people by commenting how it was made up of the manufacturers whose interest was forming a supply cartel, upping prices and controlling the paint game. The government supply people went along with it and the army said they did not care so long as the paint came from "somewhere".!

Young's thoughts are exactly on my wave length.

I also related how I was involved in selecting the new camouflage scheme for the army, flying observer groups around in circles for a couple of weeks near Oakey. We looked at APC's painted in 6 or 7 , possibly more, different colour schemes from all directions and light conditions. As I said, the Vietnam era plain green won hands down in nearly all circumstances but they had an agenda!

At that stage there was a feeling that camouflage of uniforms and vehicles looked more marshal and warlike, even giving the illusion troops dressed like that appeared as "elite" forces. Not entirely, but in part, the whole camouflage business was driven by fashion.

The new colours have a name but I can't recall it - Austcam? As your photos show and I commented, there is still no standard pattern with a mix of computer generated and colour patch designs (although the colours seem to be of a limited variety)

The great god CSIRO is not infallible and particularly on tasks requiring subjective opinion possibly less than perfect. Just like Dakin they are made up from scientists most of whom do not have a practical bone in their body or any experience of actually using their product in the field. They are a great organisation but I think they could have been equaled or bettered by a group actually experienced in the subject. How come of the 190 armies in the world not two of them have the same camouflage schemes!


Lang