Green or tan?
 

I've finally seen an abundance of A-Tacs FG in person, rather than just online pics. My question is, is it considered green or tan? It shares a very similar color scheme to multicam, which is considered tan. Many have argued over the years that multicam should be considered green, but it was placed in tan due to it's base, not the over lying pattern. After careful inspection, A-Tacs FG appears the same way. It has an off tan/yellow base, with light green haze, and deep green blotches. So realistically it could be considered one or the other. It was designed as a woodland pattern, hence the name "FG/Foliage Green". I will tell you, that 99% of pictures do not do this camo justice, it "must" be seen in person to be appreciated.

I'd love to hear from some big, relevant game hosts, on where you place this camo. As well as some "full" teams that may run this camo, on how well it works. Is it versatile like multicam, or woodland/jungle only? Be honest please. In my opinion A-Tacs AU fell flat on it's face, unless you were hiding in a pile if concrete. But it seems this coloration may have brought this pattern to life.

Thanks

my buddy was wearing ATACS pants on the weekend...it's a tough call.

Looking at the guys pre-game brief...I'd have pegged MC as TAN (although you're right and some of it looks pretty green). I think it really depends on the cloth and manufacturer's run of material.

The ATACS...I would have put it "green"...but really more because it was muted/darker than "tan" in comparison. The "background" seemed to be grey...and the "foreground" was greeny/?black?/?brown?...or vice versa.

If I were to look at it on it's own...it'd be on the "green" side.

We didn't split tan/green at this game...it was an ID Friend/Foe type game, so it didn't matter what you were wearing.

Since multicam and these other new crazy camouflages, we've been going by 'darks vs lights' since the whole green/tan thing is really getting muted out, haha.

We general put FG on the Tan side of things, mostly because if they went green, Tan would be over run

Actually, we put FG on whatever side needs more players at the game :p

Normally the tan side.

Um, A-TACs Arid.. is tan ... A-TACs FG is green

stand em side by side.. it's pretty clear

I hear ya Brian, but at most events teams are separated by green versus tan. FG is more green than AU, but it still has strong tan elements.

General camo spread:

Green team:
- Woodland
- DPM
- Marpat
- Cadpat
- Tigerstripe
- Flecktarn


Tan team:
- Multicam
- Aridpat
- A-Tacs AU
- Tri-color
- Chocolate chip

I'd personally put A-Tacs FG on green, but my opinion doesn't matter here. It's whatever the accepted standard is. Multicam and UCP both caused this type of debate before as well. What's important here is what the Airsoft community decides.

-

there is no standard. it is on whatever side the host says it is on.

Usually larger events in the west do share a standard. What they do, is post up Alpha/blue patterns (tan), and bravo/red patterns (green). And then during registration, they will close one side if the numbers become unbalanced. Basically forcing people to either; wait until Bravo catches up to Alpha in registration, "or" wear a different pattern. Some camo like black or night stalker for example, will be used to balance teams later. But it is 9/10 times most patterns can't switch.

So if your team wears woodland predominantly, and green team is full or has more registered than tan, you have to switch camo patterns to tan if your team would like to attend the event. Or hope there is a large influx of tan in the registration.

Most serious milsims are even going specific patterns only. Such as multicam (and variations), against woodland (and variations). If you don't own one of those patterns; you don't attend. This is why I am asking about it being accepted as green or tan in this system.

no shit serious milsims have specific camo requirements such as MC only on one side...so then it doesnt matter if that game even allows atacs..

the pattern falls in the middle but like B says, they offer one of each so it really isn't a problem. You can talk this subject to death so it really depends on the game itself.

I understand what your saying, but your not quite getting me. Anyone can design a game that is whatever they wish it to be. Woodland on woodland if you want. However, there is a generally accepted list at all the games we have out this way. Camogames, JOC, EAR, etc; all seem to share a standard list. Because my team wears multicam, we are "always" on tan. Which is fine, but we would like the ability to fill numbers on the other side if needs be. So we need a "green" camo pattern. We could get the obvious woodland, but I'd like something as versatile as multicam.

That's why I'm asking about A-Tacs FG. If I attend a game that changes these rules "which hasn't happened yet", I'll accommodate. And by game I mean a large milsim (60 -300 plus people), not a weekend gathering; where your numbers are low enough that you need to switch camo around to accommodate the game.

So, anyone that knows of what I speak have some input? Anyone from the Black Devils, Wolfpack, Dawgs, Team 7, Death's Hand, Bootnecks, etc that have played this tan/green system know where this camo would be dominantly placed?

Thanks

i get what you are saying. I think Brian gave you your answer. If a camo is borderline colour wise, then you are going to run into issues either way you look at it. I hate games based on green vs tan. If it is milsim, it shouldn't be divided that way anyway.

Green in Alberta will probably be brown in Ontario.

How about this for green? http://soldiersystems.net/2012/06/06...tt-camouflage/ it should pass for green anywhere.

I've been to an event that had somewhere in the three hundred attendees mark. If there was no camo seperation, people would be shooting team mates as you aren't going to recognize a hundred or more team mates. Camo separation is the easiest way to accomplish this.

Personally, I'd like to see only a handful of "allowed" camo patterns at events. I think that will be the future of the sport. But for now, we need a camo pattern that opposites multicam. Even though multicam causes debate, I've never attended a game where it was not considered tan. So it does matter. If I say attend Claybank, Battlefield, Fiery Spoon, Risky Sun, Etc; itll be predetermined tan or green. And more than likely it'll be considered the same at all of the above, even though they are put on by different groups/teams.

It enevitably will be decided by the major game organizers, and serious well known teams. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have large groups connected together. We tend to all share some general ideals, and talk often whilst attending each others events. And the tan/green system is alive and well here. Where a small milsim usually has between sixty and one hundred players in attendance, it's "easiest" to separate by pattern. And I estimate that system will continue for some time.

My team runs multicam. Some of us think it's tan, others green. That's not important. What is important is that it "is" considered tan at 99% of the events we go to. Therefore we know which team we will be on. We are in the market for a "predominantly considered green camo", and A-Tacs FG caught my eye. However I haven't seen enough of it used yet to see where it's going to be placed. But it "will" be sided with one or the other. So does any game organizers or Airsoft conglomerates know or have a thought as to where it'll end up? We all know it has tan and green, and placement could be argued. But the powers that be will tilt it one way.

What is it? It looks like Cadpat colored Flecktarn. There are some definitive greens for sure. Woodland, Cadpat, etc. I'm trying to find something more versatile though. Multicam has worked everywhere for us. I was hoping to have luck the other way as well.

Thanks Danke.

Blue on blue has less to do with what color you are wearing than what command and control is doing to manage their forces.

For example at the game on the weekend, one side had established a battle line, and gave the order that anyone forward of the line was to be engaged.

One fellow on the far left flank had a vist by the good idea fairy .. For some reason he thought it would be a good plan to advance all on his own without telling anyone.

He got lit up by 7 guns, while shouting FRIENDLY!

But he was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and paid for it.

Camo color to define sides fails completely at night a well.

Sort of. Good communication will let you know the location of enemy units, and we will "bright" any possible targets to make sure. You don't want to light up some guy who's just walking by, an admin, a pyrotechnics guy, a medic, or an unsuspecting team mate. You must be responsible for who and what you shoot. Although I'm a firm believer in dead lights, reflective vests, and things like that. Not to mention we usually have a few guys with night vision, and every squad member has a radio.

I know people say that camo shouldn't matter if it's "real milsim", but it does. In reality one side would generally be in platoons where each soldier would wear the same or very similar kits. Or a small elite unit. So target identification is important.

Honestly I couldn't imagine a game like Mason Relic without strict camo rules. It would turn into the shootout at OK corral. On general game/practice days, there are many wearing the same camo, but we know what they look like.