Talk:MERDC camouflage

What is the point of this page?

This page seems to be both pointless and wrong. The colors included seem arbitrary, are not systematically related to the MERDC camouflage used for vehicles from the late seventies to the eighties, and the "rule" for inclusion is puzzling? What does "To be included in the list the colour must be "Federal Standard 595" and have the word "camouflage" in it" even mean in this context?

If this page shouldn't just be deleted, it should at least be changed to something meaningful. --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Ummm, it lists and discusses the Federal Standard 595 camouflage colours, which are often used by military modellers or people in general. IQ125 (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, 8 years later I stumble upon this page again, and see I already made my point here. But to elaborate: The US standard FED-STD 595 (now superseded by AMS-STD 595 under SAE International since 2017, as correctly mentioned on Federal Standard 595) does not even _name_ colours, it is mainly a set of numbered paint colour samples. How can a colour "have the word "camouflage" in it"?

That FS colours have been used by the US military for camouflage colour schemes of aircraft, ships and vehicles (and indeed the standard historically is a result of the unification of several military standards used by the US Navy and US Army) is obvious; and the versions of the standard also mention a group of around 12 colours they call "camouflage colors". These vary between the multiple revisions of the standard, though, and are not strictly speaking related to the MERDC camouflage system used by the US Army from the mid-seventies up to around 1983. This article however completely misses this fact, conflating "F595 camouflage colors" and "MERDC camouflage system". It is unclear whether the colours listed are from FS595, FS595A, -B or -C, or a mix (a mess). MERDC, which as far as I know is specified across several Technical Manuals, Orders, Circulars and Bulletins, has twelve colours:

1. W White

2. DS Desert sand 30279

3. S Sand 30277

4. EY Earth yellow 30257

5. ER Earth red 30117

6. FD Field drab 30118

7. EB Earth brown 30099

8. OD Olive drab 34087

9. LG light green 34151

10. DG Dark green 34102

11. FG Forest green 34079

12. BL Black 37038

as they are mapped to FS 595A, which was the current revision at the time, probably by TM 5-200, which I am unable to dig up anywhere at the moment.

Neither this page nor the page on FED-STD 595 should IMO list any colours, and certainly not using hex RGB code or other nonsense. These colours and standards refer and define specific paint colours, and hex approximations are just as meaningless as stating ER is a "red", or a "brown", or a "reddish tan". In MERDC, 34079 is "Forest Green", 34102 is "Dark Green" and 34151 is "Light Green", but in USAF SEA (South-East Asia) camouflage, 34079 is merely "Dark Green", whereas 34102 is "Medium" or maybe "Light". That is, if they are not just referred to as "Green" (as the FS number specifies the colour exactly.)

This page remains pointless - if specific camouflage systems should be described in detail, it should be on a page for the system, not a page like this. What's the procedure for getting a page deleted? (comment by Lasse H. Petersen, who can't be bothered to log in.) 5.186.55.135 (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this article needs to be fixed, and appears to engage in WP:OR with the "has "camouflage" in its name" criteria, which seems rectally sourced, if I may be so crude. The sole reference does not remotely include most of these colors, and only lists the twelve you list as well. Seems like the person who started this basically didn't actually know what they were talking about and made up something. The MERDC system would be a good topic for an article. But this article is not about that actual topic. It needs to be scrapped and started over under the proper title and with the actual content, not someone's blatantly incorrect guesses. WP:TNT is a thing. As is WP:AFD. oknazevad (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this article split and "bastardized" from the FS-595 article?

I was looking to use the FS-595 article's former example colors as a resource for a texturing project, but it seems the article has been split between Federal Standard 595 and this one here, which has a shortened list of color codes but absolutely no visual examples of said colors. Any idea why this split happened? I'd like to see it at least partially reverted, and have the previous complete example list of FS-595 colors formerly on that original article reinstated for public convenience. OJ Pulpman (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the above section. The article's shortened form is a vastly more accurate description of the real particular camo system used, which the previous version confused with the idea that every color in the old Fed Std 595 that mentions "camouflage" (which are not official names) was actually used for camouflaged paint jobs. They weren't. The supposed "complete list of colors" was not an actual thing ever. The former article content was made up junk created by someone who had no idea what they were talking about at all. The title was incorrect, the content WP:OR, and the entire thing just misleading nonsense. It needed to be replaced entirely. It has been. oknazevad (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was undeniably a list of colors, although my language describing it as "complete" was inaccurate and for that I apologize. None the less, I fail to see how removing completely removing the table from this page and not moving it over to the actual page for Federal Standard 595 is supposed to benefit anyone. People on Wikipedia searching "Federal Standard 595 camouflage colors" as well as those who had who had the previous version bookmarked as a resource are now redirected to this newer article, that has a significantly more narrow variety of colors, and is totally devoid of visual references for the few colors actually listed.

My primary and more or less singular concern is the utility of this article or any articles deriving from it to the demographic of people most likely to actually go looking for it. OJ Pulpman (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]