FOG HORN a Twobirds Flying Publication

Effective Camouflage
29 Nov 2010

By: Sal Palma ( Follow me on Twitter www.twitter.com/twobirdsflying )

A reader was asking about camouflage and how effective the various patterns are. This is a great question but
requires a book to answer. I'll give it a try in about a page or two.
The techniques of camouflage are best described as art forms based on relatively sophisticated science.
Camouflage is very specific, meaning that what works in one environment will not work in another. We see
this in nature where biologics, both prey and predator, have evolved defensive and offensive mechanism, of
which coloration and patterns are a significant part. We also know that same species adapt differently and
specifically, depending on their habitat; reinforcing the concept that what functions in one setting is not
necessarily suited to all. In other words, universal camouflage patterns are ridiculous concepts – unless we
consider reactive camouflage technologies.
In reactive camouflage we attempt to employ active technologies (chemical, optical and / or electronic) to
mimic the immediate surroundings. A number of universities, in the United States, are actively working on
this type of concealment technology; although the processes are well understood, implementation (i.e.
fabrics, coverings, etc.) represent interesting engineering challenges. So, for the time being, we need to use
techniques that trick the eyes.
To advance this discussion, I went out with my tripod and spotting optics – clearly an unnatural and man-
made object - to see how well I could conceal the equipment in a wooded environment. The tripod when fully
deployed stands about 6 feet tall. The other equipment included a 20-50 power Bushnell compact spotting
scope with its black nylon cover and a Russian PSO-1 8x that I use exclusively for ranging 1. I've included a
picture below that I will reference as we move through the discussion.
Effective concealment, in any setting, requires that the object to be concealed blend into its surroundings
such that the eye cannot readily separate the two. If there is a difference in coloration or shape between the
two, the object to be concealed will be accentuated and not concealed. That's an excess of words to simply
say that it will stand out.
Illustrating that point, take a look at the picture below. The shape of the scopes and the tripod head stand out
in stark contrast from the environment although they are painted. Both the shape and coloration don't fit the
setting; as a result, they stand out quite noticeably.

1 I use a PSO-1 because anything that transmits light in any spectrum or r.f. can be detected. Furthermore, the
PSO-1 uses a Dragunov ranging reticle, which in my view is the fastest ranging reticle yet devised. I am sure that
I'll be rebuffed for that statement but I can support my statement with factual data.

Copyright 2010, Sal Palma, dba Twobirds Flying Publication, All Rights Reserved
In contrast, take a look at the tripod, which was similarly painted; however, I used natural vegetation from the
surroundings. Note that the vegetation matches that of the background and the foreground, making the
tripod indistinguishable from a distance of 5 feet to the eye. At longer distances, the tripod would be
undetectable with optical surveillance.
However, had I used branches from, say, a pine tree to conceal the tripod, it would have had negative results.
Although pine branches are natural vegetation they are clearly out of place for the hide I was constructing.
In closing what we try to achieve with camouflage is to break up the shape of the object to be conceal using
coloration and vegetation (if applicable) consistent with the area of operation. Any deviation from that is
counter productive as you can see from the picture below.

-SP

Copyright 2010, Sal Palma, dba Twobirds Flying Publication, All Rights Reserved