A new toy in town...

Today a new tool (or toy, speaking in my dear wife's words *snicker*) arrived.
The Garmin GPSmap60CSX handheld device. Together with it came a 2GB MicroSD Card and a set of topographic maps of Germany (and unfortunately no bread and water, on which I have to rely for the next weeks, considering the price of 477 EUR for the kit).
The GPSmap60 features a SIRF3 receiver and is said to excels the old receivers by far, enabling even getting a fix indoors. The whole device maxes a sturdy impression and is IPX7 certified and so it should (hopefully) withstand any accidents likely to happen in the field!
So far its first impression was very good, it acquired a cold fix within 3 minutes, despite the clouds and rain, and got a hot fix under 15 seconds. Next weeks exercise will show, if it stands up to its reputation! Before that I will have to get hold of a decent set of rechargeable batteries though.

Why less is more...

Once in while, you stumble upon some things, that seemed normal for years and all of a sudden you think "What the heck? There is a world behind my 4 corners of imagination". One of these events happened to during the last month of my work. Normally I was a follower of the dogma "Fabric must be as thick as possible". But now I realised, that this is wrong! So how came this change in beliefs? Well, I´ll tell you.
The first crack in belief I noticed was in 2007, when I met Mr John Carver from Eagle Industries on a exhibition and bought a Combat Field Pack from him. The pack was made "only" from 500D nylon and performed so incredibly, I could not believe it! It survived harshest treatment without any damage. This was the moment where I started to think about the "All made from 1000D nylon" trend.
First thing I asked myself was: "Is everything made from 1000D nylon fibre really high-quality standard?" And I came to the conclusion: "No! Not at all!" There are copy's of the Rhodesian (yeah, I know, Zimbabwe now...) M83 Assault vest, plate carriers from various Chinese vendors, all 1000D but not really sturdy. And most of those issued(!) items in 1000D pay theyr ruggedness with a tremendous weight! So next thing in line was: How did that happen? For example, the British MOD parted from their ´58Pattern webbing for one of the same reason the US Army dumped theyr M1956 for the new M1967/LC1 webbing: Because it was lighter! So why accept the backdrop of heavy gear anyway.
Solution was easy: Because it was made for soldiers! A regular soldier doesn't care for his gear very much. If its broke, he exchanges it, he has not to pay for it! The government has to, though! And that's why they choose the cheapest and easiest way, to get a system, that's affordable and will withstand the heaviest mis-treatment of any bored soldier in service.
So, now its obvious why the military sacrifices weight for stability, but why do commercial producers still work with that old techniques. Answer is threefold:

1. Customers ask for it! Because of the long-lasting indoctrination of "massive is best", customers ask for that stuff!
2. Not every producer do stock this stuff. In fact it is the military industry stuck in its overweight-phase. Civilian outdoor company's, like Hoeffel, Jack Wolfskin, etc. already recognised the value of lightweight, sturdy fibers.
3. Last but not least: Its a lot easier, to make a long lasting 1000D rucksack than a good long lasting 500D rucksack! So I reckon a lot of companies prefere to go the easy way on that... Companies like Eagle Industries proofed that lightweight gear is possible!

Taken these things in consideration, I started to put together a lightweight, all weather outfit based on the principle "as light as possible". I will post my experiences here within the next months, so stay tuned, and remember:

Big may be beautiful, but light is comfortable! And safe!

Rise and shine ...

Over decades green-toned, dark camo patterns dominated the patterns of European army's. Why? Whats that based on? Only slowly modern researches change the appearance and the way the military sees their camo patterns. One of the results is the (awful) UCP pattern adopted by the US Army. But also the advanced camo pattern MultiCam by Crye Precision walks a new way, with careful toned, subdued colors. But this pattern is also very heavy on the green side, with a lot of lime tones.

Nevertheless, it works!

But whats with other European patterns? British DPM (Disruptive Pattern Material) or German five color camo print "Flecktarn" for example, both very green and very dark. Whats the point?

One statement is "We compared a lot of satellite images". Well, that explains a lot! But soldiers don't dangle from tree to tree like Johnny Weissmueller, they move slightly above or directly at the ground, crawling for cover. And there the world is mostly brown and tan. Have you ever seen a green deer, rabbit or fox?

Now I already hear you "Hey, wait! What about Grass? What about dense brushwork?"... Now, lets play dumb, shall we? What kind of Grass and bushes do you know? Thick, natural grass: If its so fresh and green, that you need green camo, it will cover your body nevertheless, so if you don't wear blaze orange, it wont matter. Cut, cultivated short grass: If its "british-short" you can even wear a chameleon skin, you will be seen!

Speaking of bushes, you think of dense, green, leafy bushes, right? Well, if they are dense, green and leafy, they will conceal you, regardless what camo you wear. At least in summer... In autumn/winter you need (again) brown tones or, of course, white!

Next point on the "What the heck has happened" List: About 60 years ago, the german army developed a plethora of camo patterns, besides the infamous "Peadot Camo" one of the most widely spread pattern was the so called "Buntfarbendruck 31" (in english-speaking countries known as "Splitter or Splinterpattern"). It features tan, green and brown as colors and worked pretty well! After WWII many army's experimented with patterns based on "Splinter", most added new features, most prominently large areas of black color. Explanation was easy: To simulate shadows and blend in.

Now lets do some simple math:

Example 1: A Forrest, some underbrush, daylight: We have a man, in DPM, lying flat on his belly. Sun casts shadows over his body and surroundings. The green, tan and bown of his uniform match's his surroundings. The sun, as said before casts its shadow over his DPM uniform. So the sun casts dark spots on his uniform, which also features black areas. So we have factor of 1:1:1 in environment : light : dark constellation around him but a 1:1:2 factor on him, whilst black color and shadows double on him! What happens? He sticks out!

Example 2: Same soldier prone on a field, daylight: Although there is no shadow, his uniform again features black "shadows". Now he is in a 1:1:1 config in a 1:1:0 surrounding. What happens again? He sticks out! Yay!

Lets face it: Black and green sucks! Big time! Period!

A lot of future developments incorporate these facts already, although MultiCam lost against UCP in first round, its still in line for the Advanced Warfighter Program. In the UK tests of a 4 color mix of DPM and DDPM are running, whiles other armys start also to reconsider theyr plannings for new uniforms!

So, rise, shine and succeed!