SIG SAUER - Never Settle

Archive for the ‘Camo’ Category

Helikon-Tex x Rhodesian Camo

Tuesday, July 11th, 2023

Discover the history of camouflage with Helikon-Tex and Rhodesian Camo. It’s an extraordinary pattern that originates directly from the classic camouflage used by the British Special Forces during World War II. Today, it is almost unavailable in modern clothing. That’s why Rhodesian Camo from Helikon-Tex is a real treat for camouflage and military apparel enthusiasts.

Rhodesian Camo not only offers an iconic design, but it also has excellent masking properties, making it ideal for woodland environments. It is a perfect choice for survivalists and military enthusiasts alike.

Rhodesian Camo is a unique camouflage – few brands produce clothing in this pattern, making it a standout choice even in urban settings. It’s a rare opportunity to add something that will truly set you apart from the crowd to your wardrobe.

Our range of products in Rhodesian Camo also includes shorts, perfect for summer trails. Every piece has been designed with the highest standards of quality and functionality, meeting the expectations of demanding users.

Don’t wait – join the ranks of those who appreciate exceptional quality and immerse yourself in the history of iconic camouflages with our Rhodesian Camo. Explore the full range of products and order online at www.helikon-tex.com.

Helikon-Tex – 40 years of Journey to Perfection.

Look Back: Olive Drab, Haze Blue and Jet Black: the Problem of Aircraft Camouflage Prior to and During WWII

Friday, June 23rd, 2023

Camouflage, in the form of paint applied to aircraft, has been regularly studied and experimented with since the First World War. The use of ground-based or airborne radar to detect enemy aircraft did not have significant application until the British used it successfully during the Battle of Britain in 1940. Until that time and even after, until radar was in widespread use, visual detection of aircraft was the primary means. The Army Air Corps and the wartime Army Air Forces wrestled with a number of aircraft camouflage concepts during the pre-war and wartime years. The final standards, schemes and colors were a compromise, and balanced a number of factors. All of this work was indicative of an air arm that now contemplated the task of executing new, world-wide, missions and operations.

The basic problem of how to camouflage any object starts with the concept of visibility. An object such as an aircraft is visible because it contrasts with its background – either the sky or the ground. The contrast may be in shape, shadow, texture, color, shine (flat to gloss), movement, or any combination of those characteristics. A regular or known shape will identify an object. Shadow and contrast also define it. A light-colored aircraft on a light runway is visible because of its shadow. A dark aircraft on a light runway or a light aircraft on a dark runway is visible because of its contrast. A dark aircraft on a dark runway helps to obscure both conditions. A moving aircraft seen against the sky or against the static terrain is visible because it attracts attention. All these physical factors need to be accounted for to some degree when deciding on camouflage schemes.

Similar to other tradeoffs in aircraft design, when dealing with the practical decisions regarding aircraft camouflage, there are many alternatives to be considered. A single-color scheme is not going to be suitable for all weather and seasonal variations and regular repainting during combat operations is not practical. What works well to hide an aircraft on the ground may be the opposite of what works well for the same aircraft in flight, so a compromise is necessary. The aircraft shape cannot be changed, so experimenting with different painting designs may determine what helps to “break up” the shape and make it less conspicuous.

Paint adds weight to an aircraft which can lower the performance; however, paint does improve resistance to corrosion which reduces maintenance and lengthens the aircraft service life. The paint itself must be durable enough to withstand field use and weather/sun exposure without significant fading or chipping which would reduce the overall camouflage effect. Painting an aircraft adds both material and labor costs, as well as schedule, to aircraft production – a non-trivial consideration during the rapid mass production executed during World War II. National insignia must be applied and must be visible – in some ways defeating the main purpose of camouflage to begin with. Finally, industry must be able to produce the paint in enough quantity and to required finish specifications in order to meet the needs of the Service and a very large aircraft fleet.

As far back as World War I, camouflage schemes were considered for aircraft. One disturbing factor that moderated the search for an effective concealment approach for U.S. aircraft was a report of a high number of “friendly fire” shootdowns of Allied planes by other Allied airmen because they could not distinguish their markings. As a result, the U.S. decided to err on the side of safety adopt the U.K. practice of painting, or “doping,” the fabric aircraft with one solid color, hoping this would reduce the number of accidental shootdowns.

After WWI, the U.S. Army and Navy continued extensive, parallel, and in some cases overlapping, experiments with aircraft camouflage. The research initially was focused on dying different materials and dopes for use on fabric-covered aircraft. As these fabric-covered aircraft gradually gave way to metal-skinned aircraft in the U.S. fleet, the focus changed to evaluating different paint formulations for metal surfaces. In the late 1930s, the Air Corps experimented with a number of camouflage schemes and measured their effectiveness in limited engineering testing. Additional practical trials were then conducted with temporary finishes as part of nation-wide exercises and war games. These temporary finishes were in a wide range of blues, greens, whites, grays and even purple!

By February 1940, with the war in Europe now raging, the Air Corps embarked on a comprehensive, service-wide initiative to test “protective coloration of aircraft, both in the air and on the ground.” The Air Corps had already decided by 1940 to specify a uniform design and color for tactical/combat aircraft, so the question to be answered was, which schemes would be adopted? Several Army and Air Corps organizations, with different and specific responsibilities, contributed to the effort. This extensive study considered many of the factors previously discussed: visibility, application, national insignia, durability, cost, materials, and both in-flight and ground effectiveness. They studied both U.S. Army and Navy and British systems to arrive at the best consensus.

What resulted, in April 1942, was a general standard adopted by both the Air Corps and the Navy. On the Navy side, ship-based aircraft and flying boats would be camouflaged with Non-Specular (lightdiffusing) Medium Blue Gray on the upper surfaces and Light Gray on the undersurfaces. For the Air Corps, Army land-based planes would be Olive Drab on the upper surfaces and Neutral Gray on the lower surfaces. The Army Ground Forces also adopted Olive Drab as the basic camouflage for all of their vehicles during WWII. (Olive Drab, although it appears “green” to the eye, is technically a mixture of black and yellow, Neutral Gray is a mixture of pure black and white only).

The main categories of aircraft considered for application of camouflage were roughly: combat or combat support aircraft (such as transports), high-altitude photographic reconnaissance aircraft that operated alone or in small formations; and night fighters or night bombers which required a special degree of invisibility in the night sky. A separate sub-category of combat aircraft early in the war was anti-submarine patrol planes which needed to be hidden from surfaced submarines so they could make their approach and attack before they were detected, and the sub had a chance to submerge and escape.

During operations overseas in different theaters, local variations of standard schemes were also used. Olive Drab aircraft were also later painted with Medium Green “splotches” or “blotches” around the upper surface leading and trailing edges to better conceal them when parked. Fighters and bombers in desert regions also used colors more suited to the surrounding terrain to break up the shape of the aircraft. In some areas of the world where U.S. Army Air Forces supplies were not available, units applied British Royal Air Force colors to their aircraft, as closely approximating the U.S. standard schemes as they could.

So-called “Haze Paint” for photo-reconnaissance aircraft was an interesting problem. These aircraft normally operated at high altitude, often alone, and required them to fly specific controlled flight patterns to get the necessary photographic coverage of targets. This made them especially vulnerable to interception by fighter aircraft or ground-based air defenses. Considerable efforts on the part of the U.S. Army Air Forces and industry were expended to make these aircraft as invisible as possible through passive defense measures. The aim with this was to increase their chances of mission success. Several special formulas and techniques for haze painting were tried out, principally on reconnaissance versions of the P-38 fighter, known as the F-4 or F-5. The development and use of this special paint was probably studied more extensively than any other aircraft finish during the war. Haze Paint was intended to vary the appearance of the aircraft from blue to white depending on the viewing angle. The scheme was successful at reducing the visibility of the aircraft at high altitudes, but it was highly dependent on application method and expertise of the painter. As a result, to allow the application of these finishes to large numbers of mass-produced aircraft, a synthetic or simpler-to-produce haze paint was developed and used by Lockheed. Over time, scuffing and weathering of Haze Paint on operational aircraft reduced its effectiveness. Further, an additional drawback to sporting a haze finish is that it highlights to the enemy the fact that this is a special reconnaissance aircraft, and therefore potentially unarmed. Other than applications to a small fleet of photo aircraft, Haze Paint and synthetic Haze Paint was only used for a limited period during the war.

Night fighter paint schemes were also heavily researched, and the resulting “best approach” ended up being counter-intuitive to initial assumptions about what finish would work best to hide the aircraft from ground or air observation and reflection of search light beams. After extensive testing on many airframes, it was determined that either a glossy black finish or a standard Olive Drab was actually more effective at this objective than a flat black finish. This was standardized by 1944, when it was directed that all night fighters (P-61s, P-70s and later P-38Ms and P-82s) were to be painted with glossy black and, if possible, polished to a mirror-like finish. (The specification for this gloss black was Jet Finish No. 622, probably where we get the name “Jet Black”). Because of their unique mission, night fighters were the notable exception to the late war AAF directive to cease camouflage painting. In fact, night fighters remained in their glossy black finish even through the Korean War, after which the mission ceased, and the aircraft left the USAF inventory.

Because the Atlantic U-Boat threat to the U.S. East Coast and Great Britain was so immediate, significant resources were put against finding an effective paint scheme for sub-hunting aircraft. The main threat to the aircraft in this mission was not from enemy aircraft, but rather surfaced submarines. The working assumption for these studies was that the aircrew had no more than 30 seconds to strike a sub on the surface before it executed a crash dive. This made visual “stealth” essential. After a series of tests of different finishes at various altitudes, sky conditions and viewing angles, the optimum scheme proved to be: Insignia White on the undersurfaces, leading edges and sides of the aircraft and either Olive Drab or Neutral Gray on the top surfaces. Variations of this specific type of camouflage for the submarine search mission were used by both the U.S. and the U.K. and proved effective for allowing the patrol aircraft approaching from head-on to avoid detection until the last possible moment – and strike submarines on the surface before they had a chance to escape below the surface. The scheme was clearly specified to be used only on aircraft that operated in a theater where “no enemy air opposition is to be expected” because this new design was not optimized for air-to-air concealment.

A special technical concern arose during the war involving detection by infrared (IR) photography. IR aerial photography could be employed to detect and defeat camouflage and “see through” natural haze to find objects on the ground. This technology was still in the early stages, but enough of a concern that the AAF examined families of paints and finishes that would frustrate infrared detection. By July 1942, this work eventually led to the development and application of a special shade of “high infrared-reflecting Olive Drab,” (based on a chromium oxide pigment) that promised the highest degree of protection against IR photography. Aircraft upper surfaces were to be painted with this new finish to mask them from detection by enemy aerial reconnaissance. During the period, the USAAF sourced aircraft paint from as many as a dozen or more different suppliers to ensure they had sufficient stocks on hand to cover the vast wartime fleet.

Throughout the war, there was a continual debate over the overall value of camouflage finishes versus leaving the aircraft in natural metal or unpainted, which offered a bit more extra speed due to either polishing of the surfaces or reduction in weight. There is a speed penalty imposed by rough painted surfaces that increases aircraft drag contrasted against smooth polished metal.

Within the USAAF, there was never a consensus about which property was more important— concealment or speed – so instead they settled the issue by directing that manufacturers cease camouflaging most combat aircraft as of 1943. This instruction applied to most combat aircraft, except some tactical fleets, such as transports or gliders. In light of the progress of Allied forces it also made sense operationally – air superiority over the battlefield was now changing over from Axis to Allied air forces; German progress in radar surveillance and detection made visual concealment less vital, especially in the case of large fleets of hundreds of strategic bombers daily hitting the Third Reich. Additionally, Allied bases in the U.K. and on The Continent were less threatened by surprise air attack because of our own radar coverage. The AAF summarized the situation in April 1943, “Due to the early warning and vectoring capabilities of radar, camouflage is losing its importance when weighed against the cost in speed and weight.” Some local commanders in the Pacific still felt camouflage was necessary for use in some geographic areas.

Reducing the aircraft weight and increasing performance was now offered a better tactical advantage to fighters and bombers. The piston-driven fighter aircraft particularly needed all the speed they could get to deal with the threat from the German jets. There was also the secondary benefit of reduced cost and production time, which facilitated quicker replacement of lost airframes.

Ironically, in spite of all the years of studies and experimentation, at the end of the conflict in 1945, camouflage finishes had almost entirely disappeared from USAAF and then USAF aircraft through the 1950s. By then, radar detection had almost totally eclipsed visual means. Camouflage finishes only made a significant reappearance after operations in Southeast Asia in the 1960s brought back the need to conceal aircraft against the jungle terrain in that particular theater.

The majority of the text for this Look Back is adapted from the Air Materiel Command Historical Study No. 115., Case History of Camouflage Paint, Volumes 1 and 2, January 1947 (research completed to November 1945.) For Further Reading: Bell, Dana: Air Force Colors, Volumes 1, 2, 3., (Nos. 6150, 6151, 6152.) Carrollton, TX: Squadron/Signal Publications Inc. 1979-1980.

 By Brian J. Duddy

Air Force Materiel Command History Office

Full Text:  media.defense.gov/2023/Jun/21/2003245250/-1/-1/1/LOOKBA_1.PDF/LOOKBA_1

CANSEC 23 – Tulmar Safety Systems

Wednesday, June 7th, 2023

Tulmar exhibited at last week’s CANSEC in Ottawa, showcasing their Galeo Next Generation Tactical Life Preserver as well as the new work they are doing with Sweden’s SAAB to manufacture their multispectral camouflage systems in North America.

Explore the FROG.PRO Tactical Evolution in the New Phantomleaf WASP II Z3A and Z2 Camo

Monday, June 5th, 2023

(GATTATICO (RE) – ITALY) – FROG.PRO®, the Italian reference brand for tactical tailoring, is proud to announce the release of its new Capsule Collection #2 – Phantomleaf Vibes.

Always keeping pace with the latest innovations

For years we at FROG.PRO have been committed to offering awesome tailored gear to our customers, but we don’t just stop at the design and production of combat equipment. Our mission is to integrate the most advanced technologies to provide operators with comprehensive and cutting-edge solutions to support them in modern warfare scenarios.

For this reason, we decided to launch the new line Capsule Collection #2 – Phantomleaf Vibes. The Phantomleaf WASP II Z2 and Z3A patterns are the result of experience and continuous field-test to provide optimal camouflage performance in various operating environments.

The advantages of new color schemes

The Phantomleaf camo pattern technology combines natural and geometric elements in an innovative way, creating an unprecedented camouflage effect. These specific camouflage solutions, blending with the surrounding environment, will make you practically invisible, allowing you to operate with confidence and discretion. Phantomleaf represents a true revolution in the field of camouflage and concealment, starting from a completely different approach.

The new Capsule Collection #2 – Phantomleaf Vibes, was created to integrate this technology into FROG.PRO’s most advanced products such as the HAWK Plate Carrier, the Chiron Mini IFAK and the Precision Rifle Scope Cover.

WASP II: breaking the perception

Phantomleaf develops modular camouflage systems using both the concept of mimikry (making something look like something else) and the concept of crypsis (hiding in one’s surroundings) to ensure optimal camouflage. The objective of WASP II is not to imitate or mimic the surroundings, but rather to introduce a pattern that leverages psychiatric and neuro-psychological knowledge to perplex the brain, disrupting its ability to classify visual information as familiar or menacing. All patterns provide micro, midi, and macro elements, addressing relevant engagement distances. The effectiveness of the pattern is demonstrated through night vision footage, showcasing its ability to provide camouflage even in low-light conditions and with infrared illuminators. The various WASP II patterns blend into designated environments, hindering human perception and making the user virtually undetectable.

As a starting point, we picked two patterns that would fit the biomes where most military operations currently take place.

Z2: from bush lands to desert

This coloration variant is designed to effectively camouflage in arid and desert-like regions, seamlessly blending into dry and burnt-out landscapes. With a combination of browns and yellows, this camouflage design perfectly mimics the hues and tones found in arid regions, ensuring that you remain hidden from sight even under the intense sun. Whether you’re lying low amidst the rubble or maneuvering through a desert canyon, WASP II Z2 offers reliable concealment at various distances.

Z3A: from forests to jungles

The WASP II Z3A pattern, a green variant of the Phantomleaf camouflage. Showcases remarkable camouflage capabilities in areas with high vegetation, ranging from deciduous and coniferous forests to lush tropical jungles. Thanks to the strategic combination of its seven-color palette, the adaptability of the Z3A pattern extends to boundary zones, where it transitions smoothly to bush, agricultural, or grasslands. The incorporation of micro, midi, and macro elements offers camouflage capabilities whether in close proximity or at longer ranges, ensuring a reliable performance at varying distances.

FROG.PRO, tactical innovation at your service.

Through the new Capsule Collection #2 – Phantomleaf Vibes, we express our commitment to evolution in the tactical field.

With the Phantomleaf WASP II Z3A and Z2 patterns, whether you’re operating in dense forests, lush jungles, or arid deserts, this new collection ensure you remain concealed, maintaining a tactical advantage. Rely on FROG.PRO for tactical awesomeness and stay one step ahead on the battlefield.

The Capsule Collection #2 – Phantomleaf Vibes is now available on www.frogpro.eu.

Rampart Range Day 23 – Tactical Concealment

Wednesday, May 31st, 2023

It was great to see the Tactical Concealment crew after so many years. They’ve been so busy manufacturing that they don’t make it out to trade shows very often. They build such a great product, the business comes to them.

This is their SURGEON Hood which is a hybrid of their Viper and Cobra sniper hoods.  One-size-fits-all, it has a halfback upper half torso with stowable hood.

Features:

Dual-side compression straps

Vegetation Support Tie Cords

Extraction Face/Weapon veil

Deep roomy hood

Made from MultiCam Mesh

This and other products shown at Rampart Range Day are available for unit and agency orders in Canada and the US through Rampart.

Saab Selects Tulmar as North American Production Partner for Multispectral Camouflage Systems

Tuesday, May 30th, 2023

Tulmar Safety Systems, a leading supplier of military ground vehicle systems sub-components, has been selected by Saab AB to provide the North American production of Saab’s Barracuda family of multi-spectral camouflage systems.

 

Henning Robach, the Head of Business Unit Saab Barracuda, emphasized, “Expanding our capacity to manufacture advanced camouflage products is not our sole objective. We sought a partner who could meet our stringent standards for product quality while upholding our core values of equality and environmental responsibility. This partnership enables us to better serve our North American and global customers as we enhance our overall production capacity.”

Tulmar has 30+ years in the field of design and manufacture of engineered textile solutions for military ground vehicle systems such as US Marine Corps LAV-25, US Army Stryker, Canadian Army LAV and TAPV, among others and is trusted by numerous OEMs and systems integrators as a supply chain partner that can be relied upon to deliver quality on time.   This collaboration presents exciting opportunities for knowledge and innovative exchange between the two companies and countries.

Patrick Tallon, President and Chief Executive Officer at Tulmar Safety Systems, expressed his enthusiasm, stating, “Our partnership with Saab aligns perfectly with our core engineering and production strengths and offers new avenues for growth. As we prepare for the production of MCS, we are already witnessing the benefits of this Swedish-Canadian collaboration.”

US Marine Corps combat veteran and Tulmar’s Director of Defense Business Development Matt Fisher added “Contemporary combat operations such as the Russo-Ukrainian and Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts highlight the importance of survivability inside a contested area through the application of a ‘hard to find—hard to kill’ approach.  The goal being to defeat the enemy’s ability to detect your forces through a combination of a light footprint, mobility & maneuver, signature management, and deception.  Saab’s Barracuda multi-spectral camouflage systems give allied forces a competitive edge on the current and future battlefield and we are honored to be chosen as their North American production partner.”

As the world’s leading supplier of advanced camouflage systems, Saab’s Barracuda product family includes Mobile Camouflage Systems (MCS) for on-the-vehicle on-the-move capability, Ultra-lightweight Camouflage Screen (ULCAS) static nets, and on-the-body Soldier Systems  for comprehensive multispectral signature management.  Saab’s Barracuda Multi-Spectral Camouflage product family utilize advanced blends of pigments, coatings, and textiles, enabling effective signature management within the electromagnetic spectrum for armoured fighting vehicles, artillery positions, tactical command posts, logistical staging areas, troop/materiel concentrations, and dismounted troops reducing detection by up to 90%. These customizable solutions can counter sensors designed to detect within the ultraviolet, visual, near infrared, short-wave infrared, thermal infrared, and radar spectrum bandwidths. 

 

NorArm Tactical Creates New Camouflage Pattern

Thursday, May 18th, 2023

In honor of yesterday’s Constitution Day in Norway, NorArm Tactical announced their new camouflage pattern: Norwegian Flecktarn. What’s more, they’ve introduced a new base fabric as well: NYCO Stretch.

The pattern was designed by @rndr.design and features elements of Flecktarn and the shape of Norway, their home. You can see it above on either side of the current Norwegian Woodland national pattern, with a close up
below.

Clothing in the new pattern should be available by early June.

SOF Week 23 – Platatac

Tuesday, May 9th, 2023

Exhibiting in the SOF Select pavilion, Platatac gave us a glimpse of their upcoming ERDL line.

Release is very soon.