Quote:
Originally Posted by Firewalker
First of all, it's not called Universal Camouflage. It's called ARPAT, if you're going to criticize me, at least get it fucking right.
Second of all, through the magic of the beautiful computer technology known as Microsoft Paint, one can magically with pixie dust and unicorn tears take an image, and, prepare to be shocked, reverse the colours. I KNOW! Things they do with computers these days.
Anyway, you use that magical concept and take a normal ARPAT (that's Army Pattern) swatch from the glowing world of the internet and reverse it's colour to get the ARPAT reversed result.
Or, you know, you could save yourself some damn trouble and maybe read a bit before spewing uneducated bullshiat. But that wouldn't be a post worthy of being on ASC, now would it?
|
Actually the US Army officially calls the pattern UCP (Universal Camouflage Pattern), see document:
http://209.85.165.104/u/armyg1?q=cac...gl=us&ie=UTF-8
You will see that title referenced more often than ARPAT, which seems only to be used on Ebay, or on retail sites.
As well your analysis of the selected segments of the camo make no sense at all, despite your pictures. First off the patters have a different number of colours, but more importantly they are randomized patterns and very rarely repeat themselves. Since both were developed partially by Hyperstealth they will share similar randomized patterns; but you cant just take two pictures of anypoint on an ACU uniform and Cadpat uniform and pull off the similarities you did above. This alone makes me think its all rhetoric and not based on any credible source.
Don't get me wrong they have a common source, both were developed with assistance from hyperstealth, and that will show in ALL of their patterns; but past that there are very few similarities.
Also the development of ACU included trials of several other camo, eitherway your pictures are definitely Bias and I am gonna agree it's a pretty sketchy argument you got there at best.