"Go to the sound of gunfire and shoot those not dressed like you."

This used to be an Infantry adage.

Camouflage, as most of us know, is pretty damn helpful to remain unseen when others are actively looking for you and trying to help you lose liquid. That said, armies the world over have been researching camo patterns for 100 years. Some work, some don't, like the awful grey gravel pattern the Army wasted untold millions on because they never fucking thought; "Hey, we need a new camo, call Sniper school and ask them to help out."

Right now, there's a war in which most parties are wearing the same color scheme. Essentially, everybody is wearing multicam. I do realize it's not, but the colors are the same. It's so bad that to differentiate friend from foe the Ukrainians are compromising their camo by wearing yellow and blue tape.

The US will be in this war soon, in person, and this phenomena will make our camo useless.

Is it time for the DoD to come up with a new pattern for the Army? Possibly issue MARPAT or AOR2 to the Army? Reissue woodland, since it was designed for that theater? All three are good functional patterns.

Even in civvie SHTF scenarios, MC may still be too damn common.

I wasn't entirely sure where to put this post, but here it is.

What say you men?

Panama 1989, Panamanians too were wearing woodland.


NSN 8315-00-255-7662 Tape, Textile. Since 1st January 1963 the Engineer Tape is the best friend for IFF.


i guess you are overthinking it, if you have seen a person in daylight from 200 meters is difficult to say if he's wearing camouflage or a tuxedo. NIR properties of the camouflage are maybe more important, but again not life changing.

IF the US will go boots on the ground in ukraine camouflage itself will be a minimal issue. Just like happened in earlier 21st century conflicts it will be useful for few advisors for blending in with local soldiers and the few small teams that really need camouflage will have no problems soutcing the best for their needs.
Friendly Fire happened in Iraq or Afghanistan not due to camouflage issues, if you are worried about infiltrators or disguised saboteurs... i think it may happen just like when suicide bombers approached coalition soldiers dressed as Afghan Army or Police soldiers.

As i was told by a NCO once "camouflage for the big army is for the purpose of being seen". I imagined myself being like a piece in a chess game, white vs black, or like Napoleon era, blue army vs red army.

If you can spend a weekend making some kind of force on force training in the woods, simulated patrol, airsoft, paintball in the woods, whatever. You will see yourself how difficult is to discern two different camouflages from a few yards away.

As far as "civilian SHTF" there may be different issues, but again discerning different camouflages is difficult. Even brightly colored armbands or helmet bands like it's happening in ukraine does not allow for a quick IFF recognition, maybe hawaian shirts won't help, too.

I may be overthinking it.





On that, I have done all of those except Airsoft. When doing infantry things at ft Benning and elsewhere, OpFor and such always wore a different uniform. Hell, there's a whole OpFor unit as part of 7th ID.

I could almost always discern different camos at range. If not with the naked eye, I'd whip out binos. When I played paintball before the military days, proper camo was king. Shitty camo would get you spotted and tagged. Of course, ranges for paintball rarely exceed 50 meters.

Maybe it's a training scar to think everybody should be in different camo.

Friendly fire will always happen, of course, but it's going to be much more common then if we can tell each other apart.

A little advice for those going into harms way wearing the same camo as the enemy. Never get ahead of the people on your left or right. Also, if you find yourself really easily sneaking up on a guy from his rear, he's probably on your side.

Modern thermal imaging has made camouflage basically a fashion statement.

I've yet to see a Ukrainian or Russian infantryman with one, tell me more about thermal imaging taking over the battlefield.

Are they EMP proof?

You can buy thermal scopes on Amazon. They're everywhere.

Not sure how that makes camo useless.

More to the point, since I'm unsure what your point is, is that the richest Army in the world, the US, has one per squad if the squad is lucky.  That means 1 in 8/10 has one if they are lucky.

Availability doesn't equal distribution. I don't have a fleshlight, for instance.

So, I'm not overly concerned about a technology that isn't even hard to overcome.

Feel free to add other off topic information at your leisure.

Yes, and if you really want to bake your brain, consider that the enemy may wish to conduct false flag operations, in which case they'll have units wearing the same camo as you no matter what you adopt.

That doesn't bake my brain. Did you think that possibility, reflected in covert operations for the last 2000 yrs, would blow my mind? LOL

I thought this may be an interesting topic. Perhaps not.

Anyway..

Remember working with the Geronimo unit at Ft Polk in 2014. I was attached to an infantry unit from the TXARNG, which we played as OPFOR. All of us wore the classic OD greens. Worked well in the jungle like environment of Ft Polk.

Amusing part, for the 82nd Airborne fighting against us, their uniforms after a solid week or two being the field looked like ours. The "wonderful" UCP blended into a solid green gray with the sweat, mud, and grime of Louisana.

During the final battle, there were Texans pushed out to harass the 82nd pushing towards the village. One of my teammates was leaning against a CONEX and a group of 82nd soldiers stacked up with him. They too tired to realize he wasnt wearing a helmet, let alone the same uniform.

I think this thread really illustrates the lack of experience, as well as, the experience of many in this regard.   Military camo patterns can be very effective at times.  At others, it doesn't matter.

As far as both sides having essentially the same thing.  Now you are getting into IFF, which goes way beyond visual camo ID.  You will probably see some kind of basic IFF, like you see the Ukrainians and Russians doing.  And there are many others beyond the scope of this thread.  But suffice it to say, there are many ways to tell who's-who, in the zoo out there, besides just the cammies you're wearing.

Two points to consider.  As was said, after two weeks in the bush, you would be hard-pressed to say, oh that guy has Russian Spring pattern, or whatever on.  And in many places, a guy at 100m is a dark silhouette, so shape and movement are much more important.  By the time you can recognize a camo pattern, there are many other things in play.  If he sees you, and shoots, shoot back.  If he looks at you, and waves, or snaps a signal panel, then close and do the challenge/password.  If he doesn't see you, you can whisper out "Ranger", (preferably behind cover) and see his reaction.  If he, shoots, see above.  If he's like fuck me glad to see you guys, again, see above.

It's impossible to describe every last scenario you may find yourself in, but at least I hope this illustrates it goes way beyond cammies.  And you don't always shoot first and ask questions later.  And then again, sometimes you do.  

Diz makes some very good points.

Does that mean that visual camouflage it's useless? absolutely not. Go hunting and you will hone your "defensive" camouflage skills and your noise/light/smell discipline. On the other hand while the prey usually has good concealment skill it's difficult to mistake for another person. Definitely hunting accidents occur, but you can easily recognize an animal even without seeing it, by its smell, the noise he makes, the way he walks.

In war, expecially when bigger units are involved the best way to distinguish friendlies and enemies is usually due to good intelligence and communication. Again, on the other hand smaller elite teams like SOG in Vietnam  used enemy clothing and camouflage to gain a non trivial initial advantage when in close contact (being alone surrounded only by enemies made their work somehow simpler). Again it all depends on the situation.

Applying it to a civilian SHTF scenario is difficult to me, as one can envision SHTF in very different ways. What do you expect? A large organized militia, a lone wolf, you and a couple of neighbors? Doing what? fighting the government? Fighting russian paratroopers? Doing woodland/city/riverine patrol against rioters/looters/subversive people? trying to get back home after a natural disaster? surviving in the woods/desert/snow after nuclear fallout in a Mad Max fashion?  Everything is different.

Some solid points there.

As I thought I was overthinking it, it appears I was under-thinking it in a modern military setting.

This discussion leads to a much simpler question; is camo still important? It seems it's importance relates directly to the technology on the battlefield.

, I have money invested in it, so I'd tend to argue for it to justify my spending. An EMP device would make it very important again.

Disclaimer: no military experience but just an observation on this subject.

Started playing paintball in the early 90s we used red or blue sometimes yellow arm bands because we pretty much all used surplus m81, od green we still hit our own teammates it happened. Depending on the amount of people playing sometimes more often but smaller amount of players you pretty much kept that awareness of your squad location and you had less friendly fire.

Fast forward to now I am involved in milsim and airsoft and we use a tan versus green even going as far as in some milsim different platoons, squad and companies are even slated to use very specific camo patterns (multicam, aor1, m81, civilian etc...) We still sometimes hit our own especially in CQB or even more at night even using night vision and thermal. You try different things like challenges or even different IR patches or glint tape set ups but no matter what it comes down to keeping that situational awareness dialed in. Night games get crazy when both teams are playing with night vision because camo is hard to recognize quickly or at certain distance. You try to use coms and even then we sometimes still grenade our own which is not fun on the receiving end also. At milsim games your leaders or cadre are ex or current military and when asked if identifying friend or foe is a problem in real operations some of the guys say yes some say no. I could see a real problem in the Ukraine with the similarity in uniform and weapons and near peer in terms of other equipment. Like the tank that rolled up to a bunch of Ukrainian soldiers posing on the side of the road and they thought it was friendly tank, well it wasn't.

Interesting on multiple layers

In a broad sense camouflage as in its original meaning of "shielding from enemy view" Is undoubtly a very important thing at all levels. Camouflage as in color of an uniform Is still a part of It in a varying degree of importance. A sniper or a Mortar forward observer team relies more on uniform colors than a mechanized infantry Platoon that has Just dismounted.

Also as silly as It seems  a good looking camouflage uniform worn with professional looking appearance builds Esprit de corps (works Better the more inexperienced the soldiers are, particularly true in conscript armies).
When worn by a force deployed in another country the same good looking uniforms and professional appearance makes the local population more inclined to help and respect the soldiers as well as making the enemies more cautious (a pinch of fear Is mixed in). That was the point of my nco telling how camouflage Is sometimes for the purpose of being recognized.

I wonder if the same psychological effects would apply to a large well uniformed militia civilian force in case of some SHTF scenarios.

In the end respect murphy's law:
"Don't be conspicuous. In the combat zone, it draws fire. Out of the combat zone, it draws sergeants."

Camouflage has so many different meanings.  If I say tactical camo, I mean I want to resemble the surrounding bush or terrain, or appear as "nothing" (more on that later).  If I say military camo, as Joe said, some times the uniform is a badge of honor, and/or distinguishes you from the crowd.

In the sense of a civilian self-defense group, defending your town or village during a WROL-type event, it could serve as either purpose.  You might want sharply dressed guys out front at check points to discourage people with bad intent from coming into your town.  And you might want marksman well hidden covering them.  Military vs tactical use.  

In a tactical sense, there are two schools of thought.  The first, and more traditional, is the disruptive pattern, designed to resemble the environment you find yourself in.  These are many and varied.  But may also be used in garrison duty, since they are simply colored patterns in the cloth.  The second school of thought is to appear as "nothing".  This is more common in precision shooting circles.  But is also purely tactical, since it is not very practical in a garrison setting.  And this is where we get into 3-d camo, where the objective is to disrupt the shape, outline, texture, and the color or reflectance, to the point where a person resembles "nothing" in the background scene.  You literally melt into the countryside.


The traditional, 2-D disruptive pattern will work, practically all the time.  The 3-D patterns are highly specialized and are used when additional stealth/concealment are required or highly desirable.

Besides the camo pattern on your clothes, you would want to consider your hands and face, as they are pretty shiny, regardless of the amount of pigment you may have.  Shiny, sweaty skin reflects badly in the bush.  A face is quickly seen, because well, there's nothing else in nature that looks like it; you automatically look for the size and shape of it.  Hands are also bright signal flags.

Your field gear can have bright, shiny, noisy stuff on it.  Spray it, tape it, pad it down.  Smear mud on it (or just let nature take it's course).

Your rifle looks like a big, black licorice stick.  Paint that thing! Tape or cover the sling swivels.  Also tape the muzzle in deep woods (you'll see).  

Movement is another tell-tale.  Learn to mimic how a deer/other game moves through the woods.  Nice and slow, with frequent looks around.  Not all jerky and loud.  

Smell is something lots of folks don't consider but comes into play.  A good tracker can smell your soap, deodorant, toothpaste, etc. from a long way off.  Don't believe me?  Go to "JEST" school in the Philippines (it's open to civvies now).  Those Negrito guides can smell a Caucasian (or any foreigner really) from a long way off.    Even your spoor smells different (if you don't eat the local diet).

Practicing "terrain masking" as much as possible.  This means you stay off the skyline and use any terrain features, in a way to keep you being seen from longer distances.

And I shouldn't even have to mention this, but no smoking.  And no big cook fires.  Use heat tabs and a fold up stove, at the base of as tree, so any smoke will travel up and dissipate in the branches.  Don't remain overnight where you just cooked your chow (not to mention where you just sent a message to base).  Be far away from there when you bed down.

As I hope you can see, when you say "camouflage" there's a lot more to it than the pattern on your clothes.  Whether someone is trying to observe you with the naked eye, I2, or thermal, many times, it really doesn't matter all that much.  The way you are camouflaged, the way you move, and use the terrain, the more you stop (and scan yourself); these things will determine if you are more likely to be spotted, regardless of technology involved.  

The competent foot soldier who NEEDS CAMO will adapt whatever he's wearing when camo is needed.

Beyond that "cam patterns" for large groups in uniforms is 99% fashion statement.

The other 1% goes on some Major's "list of accomplishments" that he submits when he gets passed over for promotion again.

Along with this topic got me thinking of something that happened at a milsim game at guardian center a few years ago: I went on a mission with some guys who were marine and army combat arms guys ( i found this out later after a few beers and keeping in contact with them some were spec ops also) THESE DUDES WERE WAY ABOVE MY LEVEL and I really felt outta my league but one thing i noticed : these guys moved with such little talking no yelling and the leader kinda kept guys back some on security and some lined up to cover alleyways and other areas while only a core group moved through the buildings clearing them. They kept a awareness of the positions of the team kinda like to me was : one guy point, the team flows behind him and even when guys broke off we never really moved ahead of the core team that was doing the building clearing. Now this was at night these guys all had NODS and just goes to show know that your team wont move beyond a certain point beyond your point man so hopefully that keeps the bad guys always ahead of you and your team. I know there is probably much more to it but thats the way it seemed to me, maybe there is a better way to explain it but again that awareness of your advancement and your teams positions, at night under nods really important so you dont frag your boys. Some of the opposing team you couldnt tell ACU from marpat from other patterns and your making really fast decisions so I guess it comes down to almost a situation of my boys are behind me on this side of the street so anyone on the other side of the street is getting blasted.

I know Iam probably going a little off topic in a way but in that situation I really saw that more than camo it comes down to team coordination, situational awareness and staying disciplined to your assignment and communication limited to as little as needed to get the job done.

No man, that's entirely my point.  Field craft not camo pattern.

I went back and read this twice today, you da man Diz  !!

Nikon

I’m curious what experience you have in the military if you think a Major has anything to do with selecting a camo pattern.

Somebody mentioned this above somewhere - solid natural colors do pretty well after being exposed to dirt, mud, sweat, etc... I was in the 75th when the OG-107 'Jungle Fatigue' was the issued uniform. In Panama, I couldn't see our Patrol Base perimeter guys who were only about 10-15m away, after humping through the jungle all day. When we switched to the 'BDU' (Woodland) in early '89, it didn't do as well in the same situations IMO.

Hell yeah Ranger, the OG-107's ROCKED.  SOG used to spray paint them with black and the effect was amazing (see Plaster's book for a great photo).  

I think the major comment may have been in reference to the geniuses that came out with UCP.  Probably brokered with the Chinese, by Hunter, with 10% for the big guy.  That's about the only explanation that makes any sense.

Regarding ucp the best rationale i could come up was:

-uniform cut: a step in the direction of a more practical Combat uniform
-digital camouflage scheme: It was the fashion of the time, Canadian did It, USMC did It, army did It. No problems.
-colors...no black as It Is not a natural color, reasonable. The others, well, i think they used a couple of greens and a Sand because they are Natural colors and desaturated them as they would fit in all environments, not being too tan in Lush vegetation neither too green in the desert. Sounds great on paper, doesn't work in real Life.

Or maybe It was Just tailored for the Iraqi war, to work in rocky desert/Urban areas and different enough as to be recognized in the street by locals as the liberators and gain their trust.
When Serbia adopted a camouflage to be used on the Montenegro mountains they too went for a very specific tailored camouflage as you see from trials photos




I wore ucp once while doing opfor for the Retired Army Nco Association during One of their competitions. Long story short at night i couldnt see the person i was sharing an OP with a few feets away (wearing Tiger stripes) while i felt like glowing in the dark as i watched my ucp having a very High contrast with the surrounding.

Camouflage uniforms don't make you invisible.

There's always the Human Element on the battlefield.  This explains, no matter how much you think you've coordinated and marked yourselves as friendlies, why the modern United States military (all services, since WWII) kills 1 in 7 of its own troops in combat.

That's a no-shitter.  We were initially discussing a little bit of IFF at the beginning of the thread but it bears repeating.  I was just watching another vid that showed Ukrainian troops loading into a troop carrier, and whatta-ya-know, they all had blue tape around their arms and helmets.

Since this is camouflage too - Nick Chen (solscud on YouTube) just put up some Thermal Camo footage. Take away that I got was: Amazon sells 5x10 Burlap Tablecloths...get two, pick your dimensions, and sew them together ($48)

There are also sheets/rolls of hunting blind Burlap with camo patterns.

Attached File

I started this thread under the assumption that opposing forces having different uniforms will lessen fratricide as an objective fact.

Nothing could end it, short of a technology that turns firearms off if they aim at the wrong target.

I understand that. I guess I could have avoided receiving the Cpt Obvious responses by stating in the OP that I used to be an Infantry SSG.

AHA! You've been outed!  But no big deal; this is arfcom after all.  When I first came here about 20 years ago, I just figured everyone was a vet, since in my day, no one would have this kind of knowledge unless they'd been in.  Imagine my surprise when I found out I was talking to a bunch of kids ha ha.  If I just ASSume this, my apologies.

Diz. you have avoided the Cpt Obvious shit for the most part. I've been here for a bit myself with a couple huge breaks.

It's fucking weird right now in the military camo world. Nobody could have envisioned the US, UK, and Russia wearing the same pattern at the same time. I do realize 20-30 other countries use it, or a close approximation, as well.

I have a genuine concern for our troops because of this. There's a lot of other factors sure, like your trans Platoon leader wanting to be addressed as They, same sex e-tool shitters, or what shade of blush is considered face camo.

There's definitely bigger fish to fry, but I can't address those.

What I believe I do know is individual camouflage. Perhaps I started the thread just to see if I was the only one concerned about it.

Since you were in the military, do you know about studies or statistics about the subject?
I took some time starting with Wikipedia list of friendly fire incidents and tried to go deeper from there, trying to search for accounts of infantry friendly fire episodes caused by small arms. I didn't manage to find a pattern of incidents related to similar camouflage worn by both sides. I searched 1960/2010 time frame, considering also that naked Eye recognition of the enemy was almost mandatory up to the mid late 90s. You have night time shootings, untrained shootings, not following SOP shootings, wrong split second decision shootings. At the moment i couldnt fine an episode where It Is clearly written "friendly fire due to enemies having same uniform as ours". Not that It didn't/don't/won't happen obviously.

I was impressed that according to the most recenti investigation data about panama 1989 operation more than 75% casualties and 9 out of 20 US deaths were caused by friendly fire. That was a Woodland vs. Woodland scenario.

On the other hand, no doubts that adversaries with the same uniform have tried to distinguish themselves, be It White engineer tape or like the Brits in desert Storm fielding a new desert uniform as they had been selling Iraq the same ones they were wearing in the 80s.

Ok tracking with you now on the same uni shit.  Sounds like Joe V did some decent research here, and it's just a sub-set of all blue-on-blue casualties.  It sounds like positioning might be the best way to figure out the sheep from the goats here, like we're on this side of the river, (or FEBA, or whatever), and they're on the other side.  If it gets mixed up, like block-to-block in an urban setting, it could be bad.  Herer is where some kind of IFF is going to come into play.  From this perspective, sure, camo could be seen as irrelevant, when you have to wear some kind of recognition panel/tape/badge.  Sorta defeats the whole purpose of it, huh.  

But then you have all the what-ifs, from simple security/combat patrols, to long range recce.  Obviously if you are in no-man's land, or well past it, then you have another set of problems.  And just departing from, or returning to, friendly lines might be the most dangerous thing you do all night.   So now challenge and passwords come into play, both "running" and 24 hr measures.

And I guess it boils down to what you're up to.  If you're with the thundering herd on the FEBA, you're not really trying to be stealthy, or maybe I should say you're balancing being stealthy with being recognized.  Things MIGHT be a bit more straight forward.  The bad guys SHOULD be that-a-way, and our guys are behind us.  But if you are on patrol, or some kind of outpost, who knows who is out there.  If you are in Injun country, then everyone else is probably not a friendly.  I don't think sporting some kind of recognition is doing you much good.  Of course it's not that simple but we gotta start somewhere.

But for sure, if everybody has the same cammies on, then you might have some issues.  But hopefully that is a unilateral issue!

I cannot speak to other electronic IFF measures that may be available at this time, but I suspect going forward they will play a large part in this.  

From the standpoint of "military" camo (as in friend or foe recognition), yeah it may be less relevant, but from the standpoint of "tactical" camo (as in blending in so as not to be seen), it still is very much in play.

As good a place to drop this as any.

Autistic levels of modern camouflage lore

If we were to be in a land war in Ukraine, it would be better to have a distinctive uniform I think, but big green is NOT adept enough to do that within any reasonable time frame.

If they want some help with actually doing that, my consulting fees are very reasonable I have some very reasonable and quick to implement ideas that would work well.

I have a nice grey pixelated pattern I could sell you real cheap...

25th Inf Div Jungle School:



Marines at NTA in Okinawa:

Camouflage fabric takes time to make and it's comparatively expensive (by the yard) against a simple, single-color cloth (i.e., Olive Green).

A for-example, Olive Green (OG)-107 Vietnam jungle fatigues cost $8 a pair at Fort Bragg Clothing Sales in 1984, while summer-weight BDUs were multiples of that.  Fast-forward to 2023 (with inflation) and a set of GI (Multicam) OCPs is WAY more.
(< see avatar )

A WWII-type great war expansion outfitting US units, allies, and guerillas/partisans is going to mean each services' Gucci-flage is going to be simplified just to keep up.

Multicam was a first step to reduce product lines in a peacetime industry with a limited number of CONUS contractors (build facilities didn't have to stop to set up between runs of ACU, desert and woodland Marine flage, Air Force Tiger, and Navy's Blueberry and Marineflage AOR knock-offs).

Could send 5th Group, they have some alternative camo...

Attached File

You know it's eerie, but those jarheads at NTA look very reminiscent of pics from WW II.  And those doggies could have been right out of Vietnam.  After a week in the jungle, it all looks very much the same.

The Army ran camo tests between 2002 and 2004 with different pattern and color combinations. After running those tests they decided that the winner didn't look professional or cool enough, so they slapped the colors that performed the best at night in their tests (and the worst during the day) into the digital camo pattern used by MARPAT and CADPAT and fielded it without doing any testing.

An Army PowerPoint summarizing their testing can be found here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130811125947/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004issc/wednesday/dugas.ppt

And after 20 years, now we're using the third place pattern.

Although I think their testing methodology was kinda bogus and were apparently smoking crack with the IR stuff.

The ACU was the color scheme of the last place pattern in their testing (urban track) applied to the pixelated pattern from cadpat/marpat.

Their "woodland track" pattern in one of their color iterations is a reasonable facsimile of the commercial desert tiger stripe that's available now.

With a little color tweaking the "brush" pattern that won isn't very far off from the newer UK MTP pattern.

No-moon nights bring another complexity -- warm bodies and hot vehicles are all blobs, white-hot or black-hot switched.  Multi-color is even worse.

We have all kinds of strobes, bud lights, thermal strips, etc.   They don't stop us from acquiring farther and engaging sooner (before positive ID) where we kill our own even faster.
Attached File

That example was the same at Fort Campbell INF Bde's, that was our goto in the field.  The supply nco would send you back to CIF for your jungle issue, for deployment or for jungle school.  Pre-89 Panama Invasion.  Clothing carried until stock ran out
84-90's?  Best uniform I had.

Yup. Was the standard uniform at the 75th until they dropped them sometime between Late '88 and early '89. But Ranger Department (Now called Ranger Training Brigade or 'RTB') still authorized them for wear for a while longer (I  4187'd over there from 3/75 in Spring/Summer '89). 100% Cotton though - but I don't remember bitching about fabric too much back in the day

I've argued for years that the armed forces should have a solid color workwear-like uniform as an option between a camo field-optimized uniform and a dress uniform.

Regarding Rangers i think there Is a thin line between camouflage effectiveness and heritage. I Remember than the Italian special forces battalion (now regiment) Guys used to wear OD pants from the 1977 pattern uniform well into the late 90s, with camouflage tops (be It the m29, or the 1987 or 1990 Woodland pattern) with no practical use beside distinguishing themselves. Surely OD works, however i think Rangers were the only ones still wearing newly made RDF cut uniforms in OD while the rest had the same cut uniforms in camouflage (this would be a couple year before woodland came out).





I am aware of czech republic having a almost solid color working uniform alongside their woodland and desert patterns. Common surplus where i live. Definitely looks like dirty od ( to mask stains possibily).

I'm sure you're correct. It worked great in the Jungle though. You have to remember that in the 80's, it was all about Tropical Islands and Cocaine in Central and South America. I don't know what RDF is, but I've never seen Straight Pocket Jungles in Regiment (I got there in '86)