# Infrared Nonsense...



## chrisf (11 Mar 2004)

I never thought about it before, because I never cared enough to think about it, but a recent post, regarding CIC officers getting issued CadPat, made me stop and think about it for a moment.

In anycase, somthing about CadPat quickly struck me, and I‘ve decided to dissolve some nonsense.

There is no special chemical treatment, or any sort of special thread in the uniforms that absorbs infrared light. Indeed, any after-market items you buy made in an actual CadPat pattern, or even in knock-off CadPat, assuming it uses close to the same colours, will have just as much infrared absorbing properties.

As most of us know, CadPat is digitally generated. They basically took a camera, and drove along in a variety of enviroments, and took a few of the most common colours, and put them in a digitally generated pattern.

That being said, you‘ll find that black very seldom appears in nature, yet appears very regularly in the CadPat field hat sitting on top of the speaker in front of me.

Why you ask? Excellent question.

You can‘t see black. Rather you see an absence of light. Pure black reflects absolutely no light. It‘s very hard however to make perfectly black black, but "almost black" reflects very little light.

Infrared light is not visible to the naked eye, infrared viewing devices convert it to visible light. Essentially, with your naked eye, an area can appear to be very dark, but it could potentially be flooded with infrared light.

Infrared light also reflects differently then regular light.

Black however is also effective at absorbing infrared light. As such, the patches of black in the CadPat break up a sillhouette, even when viewed through infrared viewing devices.

You‘ll also note the appearence of black on the british Soldier 95 pattern, also added to disrupt infrared.

So there we go. Myth dispelled.


----------



## Slim (12 Mar 2004)

:crybaby:


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Mar 2004)

Umm Just a Sig Op, you need to do some more homework, or go to this link

 http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/html_files/html_view_e.asp?page=vol5-26army


----------



## chrisf (12 Mar 2004)

Why exactly do I need to do more homework? After working in the video/film field (Which I have) you learn an irritating amount about light.

That article confirms everything I just said...

When black fades, it goes to grey. Grey doesn‘t absorb IR light, it reflects it just as bad as any other colour. The lighter the shade, the more it reflects.

Like I said, pure black doesn‘t occur in nature... it does on CadPat.

They‘ve basically just come up with a fancy name for the addition of black to the camo pattern. Like I said, the Brits did the same thing with their Soldier 95 pattern.


----------



## Franko (13 Mar 2004)

Just a Sig Op....you still need to do you homework. I was on the trials and I can tell you a bit of the technologies that went into our combats...but I won‘t for obvious reasons   

Not only does it disrupt IR it also does a number on thermal imagery(passive)...but you already knew that. IR isn‘t used on the battlefields any more because it is active. You must generate the IR source for the detectors to function properly, thereby negating the whole idea of "stealth" during night ops. Someone with a passive NVG set can see you a mile away...because you lit up the whole area around you.

That‘s why IR has been droped by most modern armies.

Thermal, on the other hand, is a completly diferent story. It is passive and detects temperature changes, minute enough to see where you put your hand 30min ago. It generates the images by collecting the heat signatures in the surroundings and enhances them a million fold. CADPAT disrupts the heat of your body enough to enable it to blend in with the background...mind you your head is lit up like a 100w bulb.

The Brit cam pattern is not what CADPAT was based on...not even close.   

Go back to your home video making...

‘nuff said

Regards


----------



## wongskc (13 Mar 2004)

Something I always wondered about the thermal qualities of CADPAT is that thermal is basically body heat.  So, wouldn‘t that basically mean the only way to prevent being lit up on a thermal sensor would be to insulate yourself so no body heat escapes?  If that‘s so, your going to get hot pretty quick and stay hot.  Not exactly a comfortable situation.


----------



## Franko (13 Mar 2004)

You are correct wongskc. There are thermal suits out there and used by other forces for just that purpose.

Unfortunatly they aren‘t practicle for the average soldier on the battlefield. That‘s why CADPAT and MARPAT were developed.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (13 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Franko:
> [qb] You are correct wongskc. There are thermal suits out there and used by other forces for just that purpose.
> 
> Unfortunatly they aren‘t practicle for the average soldier on the battlefield. That‘s why CADPAT and MARPAT were developed.
> ...


Franko

Thermal will pick up heat sources as you say.  CADPAT has very little effect on that.   You will still pick up people as if they were naked.  Only a thick obscuration in between you and the heat source will hide them.  Heavy Brush or Trees, buildings, heavy fog, etc., can defeat thermal.  A patrol moving down a raod will easily be picked up by thermal, whether they are wearing CADPAT or not.

GW


----------



## Franko (13 Mar 2004)

Just refering to the pattern that is visible in the FLIR with the CADPAT George. We both know CADPAT is easily defeatable with certain things the Coyote is capable of. Mind you CADPAT does provide a limited disruption...*very* limited. It is more effective in II disruption.

You and I know this as a fact. The point I was trying to get across is that it does help blend in the shape of the human form to the background, to a degree. Another thing is the reference that Just a sig op made of the CADPAT design was modeled after the Brit combat "splash" cam is complete non-sense.   

 We know how it was generated...and he‘s spouting off about something he couldn‘t possibly know about, unless he was part of the design or trial teams...which he wasn‘t.

As for the thermal suits...they completly enclose a person and, for a limited time, conceal the body heat signature...which negates thier use by the average grunt on the battlefield.

Regards


----------



## sdimock (13 Mar 2004)

"mind you your head is lit up like a 100w bulb"

I have seen head covers or more correctly "face" covers advertised that are used so that a person doesn‘t cam up, but instead puts the cover on under their helmet and it drapes down hiding the outline of their face.

They look like they are made of a cheese cloth type material with a CADPAT or bush pattern.

I would guess it would make little or no differance with the heat detection but may be very hot to wear in warm weather.

What‘s the impression of people as to these covers wrt practical use and cam and concealment?

Chimo   :cam:


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Mar 2004)

Also Sig Op(Franko correct me if I am mistaken) the CADPAT Arid Region has the same IR (Thermal whatever) treament, and last time I saw a pair there is absolutely no black anywere on the uniform. Would you care to try and explain that one?


----------



## McInnes (15 Mar 2004)

They coat combats in some sort of chemical. When you iron them it crystalises, thus the reason you‘re not supposed to iron them. That is what I was told about it.


----------



## Franko (15 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by The_Falcon:
> [qb] Also Sig Op(Franko correct me if I am mistaken) the CADPAT Arid Region has the same IR (Thermal whatever) treament, and last time I saw a pair there is absolutely no black anywere on the uniform. Would you care to try and explain that one? [/qb]


Let‘s take a look....






Compare to....





Hmmmmm....

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Aquilus Lupin:
> [qb] They coat combats in some sort of chemical. When you iron them it crystalises, thus the reason you‘re not supposed to iron them. That is what I was told about it. [/qb]


I would think that it was more likely due to the fact that combat clothing has a high nylon content and extreme heat from an Iron would crystalize it.  Same goes for High heat setting on your dryer.  It is a common ‘man‘ problem.

GW


----------



## Franko (16 Mar 2004)

I‘m still waiting for a rebuttal by JUST A SIG OP....

Perhapse in vain  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Regards


----------



## jon (16 Mar 2004)

poor guy...


----------



## cdonnelly (16 Mar 2004)

I was looking forward to the continued debate. I guess this falls into the "beaten like a red-headed stepson" archives...


----------



## chrisf (16 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Franko:
> [qb] I‘m still waiting for a rebuttal by JUST A SIG OP....
> 
> Perhapse in vain[/qb]


Nope. Just forgot about the post.

Here‘s your re-buttal.

While it‘s entirely possible I was mistaken, black does aid in the defence against infrared. As I said, it‘s the reason the brit‘s added it to their post 1995 cam, it‘s the reason it appears in most camoflauge patterns.

I‘m not familiar with any technology beyond that, no can I, despite a rather extensive familiarization with light, theorize about any checmical treatment that would do the job, but I‘ll admit, I may have been mistaken.


----------



## Jungle (16 Mar 2004)

Black is incorporated in most woodland cam patterns to simulate shadows. Shadows are mostly caused by vegetation, which is the reason black is absent from most desert cam patterns.


----------



## bossi (16 Mar 2004)

Hooray, Jungle!  The voice of experience and knowledge has finally spoken!!!!
Good on yah, mate!


----------



## winchable (16 Mar 2004)

mmm stat


----------

