How Cubism Protected Warships in World War I
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: How Cubism Protected Warships in World War I
#2There'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.
Re: How Cubism Protected Warships in World War I
#3I 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.
Re: How Cubism Protected Warships in World War I
#4There'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.
Dazzle isn't about making it hide, it's about making it hard for a submarine's periscope (before the advent of radar) have trouble figuring out the speed and direction the ship is traveling. Remember, you have to fire a torpedo at where the target is going to be, not where it is.
This is why Dazzle often uses fake bow wakes (an indication of speed) and lines going off in different directions (making it hard to tell the true direction optically).
Re: How Cubism Protected Warships in World War I
#5I 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
Re: How Cubism Protected Warships in World War I
#6I 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
I would consider MARPAT and other digital camos related but distinct from Dazzle.
Re: How Cubism Protected Warships in World War I
#7A 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:...
Re: How Cubism Protected Warships in World War I
#8Earlier 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
I would consider MARPAT and other digital camos related but distinct from Dazzle.
Aye, there is also a significant difference between hiding a many thousand ton, hundreds of meters long ship on the high seas, and a 1 meter tall human being in the forest.
Re: How Cubism Protected Warships in World War I
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would consider MARPAT and other digital camos related but distinct from Dazzle.
Aye, there is also a significant difference between hiding a many thousand ton, hundreds of meters long ship on the high seas, and a 1 meter tall human being in the forest.
That is a very small soldier.
Re: How Cubism Protected Warships in World War I
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would consider MARPAT and other digital camos related but distinct from Dazzle.
Aye, there is also a significant difference between hiding a many thousand ton, hundreds of meters long ship on the high seas, and a 1 meter tall human being in the forest.
It's not about hiding it, it's about making it hard to accurately observer its heading and therefore hard to hit with a torpedo.