3 ms·
Norman Wilkinson, the developer of dazzle camouflage in the UK, had a flash of inspiration while sitting on a train that an "extreme opposite" approach was requ
by theoh 11y ago
Norman Wilkinson, the developer of dazzle camouflage in the UK, had a flash of inspiration while sitting on a train that an "extreme opposite" approach was required. As someone who deals with artists a lot, I can only express my strong feeling that this was not a rigorous strategic insight. Creative, yes.
In fact there appears to be no conclusive proof of the perceptual effectiveness of dazzle painting. Great for morale, though!
I'm open to hearing alternative accounts.
- Retric 11y agoThere was too much noise in the data to make real comparisons. Yes, 41% of the dazzle ships were struck amidships, compared to 52% of the uncamouflaged. However, dazzle ships where generally larger, so this may have been due to near misses becoming hits. IMO, dazzle would have only been useful when subs where under time pressure. However, it's a paint job so even a tiny difference would make this cost effective.
- KineticLensman 11y agoMy understanding is that the camo was intended to confuse WW1 sub captains who were trying to compute torpedo firing solutions in their heads whil peering through the periscope. The target ship plainly would be highly visible but it's speed and heading would be obfuscated