11–20 of 21 posts
I was under the impression that the effectiveness of Dazzle camouflage was debatable, if not outright ineffective? There were no standardized patterns by which they could be studied for their effectiveness in WWI, and by WWII when such schemes were standardized, they were rendered moot by rangefinders and radar.
A submarine attack run is extraordinarily mentally demanding for the captain. Every second the periscope is raised increases your chance of being detected, because the wake from the periscope reveals your position and heading. WWI and WWII submarine captains would have been performing complex mental arithmetic to plot the range and heading of surface ships, based on the briefest possible glimpses through the periscope. Sonar was used in both conflicts, but it gave only vague information that needed to be confirmed visually.
Dazzle camouflage would have been worth using if it caused only a hint of confusion. The image through a periscope is already difficult to interpret due to the movement of both vessels and the effects of waves and sea spray; dazzle camouflage added another layer of visual confusion. Forcing a submarine captain to raise the periscope again to double-check a heading or creating a small error in his estimations could have been the difference between life and death.
If you're interested, I can highly recommend this documentary by the BBC on the Royal Navy's Submarine Command Course. It gives a vivid impression of the immense stress experienced by the captain, even during a benign training mission.
I was under the impression that the effectiveness of Dazzle camouflage was debatable, if not outright ineffective? There were no standardized patterns by which they could be studied for their effectiveness in WWI, and by WWII when such schemes were standardized, they were rendered moot by rangefinders and radar.
Yes the impact was likely hit or miss without standardization. Here's a modern-day application : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARPAT
A good example of how it was supposed to work - it really is hard to figure out where the ship is actually heading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage#/media/File:...
I must admit however it took me a moment to find the bow on this image:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USS_West_Mahomet_(ID...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes the impact was likely hit or miss without standardization. Here's a modern-day application : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARPAT
Supposedly infantry camoflage patterned uniforms only came about during WW2, and the SS were the first to adopt them.
I was under the impression that the effectiveness of Dazzle camouflage was debatable, if not outright ineffective? There were no standardized patterns by which they could be studied for their effectiveness in WWI, and by WWII when such schemes were standardized, they were rendered moot by rangefinders and radar.
There's a modern example of this at anchor in Edinburgh: https://edinburghartfestival.com/dazzle I've seen it in person, but what I've not tried and I wonder if anyone has, is photographing it from some distance across the sea to see if it's meaningfully camouflaged. I'm not sure that's possible at it's current location because of the harbour.
I was under the impression that the effectiveness of Dazzle camouflage was debatable, if not outright ineffective? There were no standardized patterns by which they could be studied for their effectiveness in WWI, and by WWII when such schemes were standardized, they were rendered moot by rangefinders and radar.
_cropped.jpg){kind=link}