Been reading about tracking and target detection. I am wondering about using artificial plants, ivy, oak etc. to enhance camouflage? Is this a bad idea? If it works, then what are good artificial products to use? I never see photos of camouflage taken with telescopic or telephoto lenses, simulating target detection. Just looking to satisfy curiosity, as I am too old to play SOG warrior.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Fieldcraft Artificial plants, ivy etc. for camouflage?
- Thread starter rap36case
- Start date
Target Indicators:
Olfactory (Smell)
- Things made out of synthetic mateials can have a noticeable odor to them. With humans this would obviously require them to be pretty much on top of you to detect it. However animals could pick this up at a signifcant distance.
Tactile (Touch)
- Not really much hear
Auditory (Sound)
- Things made out of stiff synthetic mateials can make an "unnatural sound" as they move or are rubbed up against each other.
Visual (Sight)
– Shape / Shadow / Silhouette / Surface / Spacing / Setting / Color / Movement
- You could have a number of potential issues here. Unnatural shapes, colors, and movement. A lot of synthetic mateials have a sheen or shine to them.
My wife has some fake plants that look pretty good, but they all have at least one or two of the issues above. Synthetic technology has come a long way, so I would never say never, but it is very hard to beat mother nature!
EDIT - I have DQed more than my fair share of snipers in a stalk lane as an observer. Most common issues:
- Speed, which translated to movement, which as humans were are good at detecting when focused
- Foligae, that did not fit the area, the color or shapes were wrong (premade suits from other areas, or bad fake stuff), or they crawled into one type of foliage coverd in foliage that did fit that area.
- Shine/Glint, off of anything reflective
- Unnatural Shapes, why is there a hump/clump where there should not be one? "Tree Cancer"
- Sounds, not real common, but it did happen when someone bumped equipment together, or inadvertently hit an object they did realize was there
Olfactory (Smell)
- Things made out of synthetic mateials can have a noticeable odor to them. With humans this would obviously require them to be pretty much on top of you to detect it. However animals could pick this up at a signifcant distance.
Tactile (Touch)
- Not really much hear
Auditory (Sound)
- Things made out of stiff synthetic mateials can make an "unnatural sound" as they move or are rubbed up against each other.
Visual (Sight)
– Shape / Shadow / Silhouette / Surface / Spacing / Setting / Color / Movement
- You could have a number of potential issues here. Unnatural shapes, colors, and movement. A lot of synthetic mateials have a sheen or shine to them.
My wife has some fake plants that look pretty good, but they all have at least one or two of the issues above. Synthetic technology has come a long way, so I would never say never, but it is very hard to beat mother nature!
EDIT - I have DQed more than my fair share of snipers in a stalk lane as an observer. Most common issues:
- Speed, which translated to movement, which as humans were are good at detecting when focused
- Foligae, that did not fit the area, the color or shapes were wrong (premade suits from other areas, or bad fake stuff), or they crawled into one type of foliage coverd in foliage that did fit that area.
- Shine/Glint, off of anything reflective
- Unnatural Shapes, why is there a hump/clump where there should not be one? "Tree Cancer"
- Sounds, not real common, but it did happen when someone bumped equipment together, or inadvertently hit an object they did realize was there
Last edited:
Thank you for your response to the question. Anyone who has spent time hunting or just hiking in the woods develops an eye for the unusual. Game is often easy to spot with any type of movement. Taking the time to scan with the naked eye and then more detail scan with optics probably picks up a great deal of 'unusual' stuff that doe not quite fit in. You seldom see this type of scanning on Youtube or other videos. I suppose the 'acid test' would be to set up items and practice finding them with optics. Even with perfect camouflage, there is always thermal imaging, dogs and recon by fire that makes me glad I am too old now for SOG games. Yes, excellent quality and adaptation of concealment for the few hours under observation are key to survival. It might be cool to include a non-shooting 'stage' in practical matches where you must hide and seek with cover and concealment. Even this old vet could participate in such a match.
The vegetation used for camouflage is selected based on the current environment. Its not uncommon for a sniper to stop a stalk, remove the current vegetation, and apply new/fresh vegetation because the environment changed (ie. moving from a forest into shrubland or a grassy field). Vegetation is also selected from the same height and level that the sniper is occupying and is a combination of the vegetation in front of him, at the same place as him, and behind him.
Utilizing artificial vegetation wouldn't be practical due to the typical ever changing environment and the need to "freshen up" as you move.
And all the reasons LRshooter101 listed above. There is a bunch of free camouflage out in nature, its best to utilize that instead.
Utilizing artificial vegetation wouldn't be practical due to the typical ever changing environment and the need to "freshen up" as you move.
And all the reasons LRshooter101 listed above. There is a bunch of free camouflage out in nature, its best to utilize that instead.
The notion of using artificial foliage occurred to me after noting basic camouflage does not move with the wind (whats wrong with this picture). In Texas, varieties of oak are everywhere, except the extreme west where mesquite is more prevalent. There are several artificial oak products out there. The best test I suppose would be to put some out at various ranges arranged on camo clothing and put optics on it. This would be similar to testing tracking and evasion methods in a controlled manner. Yes, the tradition of strict camouflage discipline is decribed in one of Maj. John Plaster's books on S.O.G. operations in Laos and Cambodia. At my age, I have no interest in testing those limits. It's just that marketers of camouflage never do an adequate job of presenting or testing their products in any climatic conditions, urban to jungle. Let the buyer beware.
The military uses artificial camoflage all the time. Camo-netting being the most prevalent. You can use it to enhance your camoflage, just don't think you'll get away with using it only. As noted, the best stuff is "what you're in".
As to changing it's coloration, rub it in dirt to brown it up. Or, rub on fresh vegetation to brighten up the "green" on it.
As to changing it's coloration, rub it in dirt to brown it up. Or, rub on fresh vegetation to brighten up the "green" on it.
That's one reason why there are so many different types of camo, so that one can use the correct camo for the environment one will be hunting. The same would apply to just about any foliage, fake or not that one chooses to use to add more "reality" to one's concealment. If I'm hunting in Florida swamps, I will choose a camo that blends well in that environment, if in northern Minnesota, I'd expect to choose something more appropriate for that environment. Do you think that you can design a do-it-everywhere camouflage? If so, the Army needs you.
Well @rap36case, you may have a first here. Reincarnation of a necropost after 2-1/2 years. I don’t have a problem with it, but some do. 
Similar threads
