6 ms·

I was under the impression that the effectiveness of Dazzle camouflage was debatable, if not outright ineffective? There were no standardized patterns by which

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.

dforrestwilson 9y ago
Yes the impact was likely hit or miss without standardization. Here's a modern-day application : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARPAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARPAT
- fenwick67 9y ago
  I would consider MARPAT and other digital camos related but distinct from Dazzle.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    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.
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      That is a very small soldier.
      - tekromancr 9y ago
        Sgt. Threefoot, reporting for duty!
      - 24gttghh 9y ago
        Ha! you're right. Maybe.. 1.7 meters?
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      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.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  Supposedly infantry camoflage patterned uniforms only came about during WW2, and the SS were the first to adopt them.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    Honestly I think the camouflage is more about making the soldier wearing it feel safer, as opposed to making them harder to see. That is not to say things like all-white in a winter environment, or a gilly suit are not quite effective.
    - gmueckl 9y ago
      Wearing only camouflage usually is not enough, but it is a basis for extremely effective concealment in the right terrain. I've personally walked one or two meters past a soldier without even suspecting anyone near. He had simply taped a few branches to his helmet and uniform and tried to kept still. They didn't cover him perfectly, but the camouflage pattern of the uniform did the rest.
jdietrich 9y ago
I'd wager that it worked very well in many circumstances. 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1wr8J-edbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1wr8J-edbo
Qw3r7 9y ago
Dazzle paint is still used today by car companies testing new models. The paint schemes arguably hide the curves of the car with dazzle paint. ruining the perception of depth to hide the curves
theoh 9y ago
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Graham_Kerr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Graham_Kerr, it was mostly Norman Wilkinson's personal success in promoting his ideas that caused the concept to be pursued. (John Graham Kerr, the subject of that Wiki page, had made some progress in convincing Churchill to try a different dazzle scheme a few years previously. It lost favour when Churchill left that post.)

dforrestwilson 9y ago

Yes the impact was likely hit or miss without standardization. Here's a modern-day application : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARPAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARPAT

fenwick67 9y ago
I would consider MARPAT and other digital camos related but distinct from Dazzle.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  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.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    That is a very small soldier.
    - tekromancr 9y ago
      Sgt. Threefoot, reporting for duty!
    - 24gttghh 9y ago
      Ha! you're right. Maybe.. 1.7 meters?
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    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.
digi_owl 9y ago
Supposedly infantry camoflage patterned uniforms only came about during WW2, and the SS were the first to adopt them.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  Honestly I think the camouflage is more about making the soldier wearing it feel safer, as opposed to making them harder to see. That is not to say things like all-white in a winter environment, or a gilly suit are not quite effective.
  - gmueckl 9y ago
    Wearing only camouflage usually is not enough, but it is a basis for extremely effective concealment in the right terrain. I've personally walked one or two meters past a soldier without even suspecting anyone near. He had simply taped a few branches to his helmet and uniform and tried to kept still. They didn't cover him perfectly, but the camouflage pattern of the uniform did the rest.

jdietrich 9y ago

I'd wager that it worked very well in many circumstances. 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1wr8J-edbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1wr8J-edbo

Qw3r7 9y ago

Dazzle paint is still used today by car companies testing new models. The paint schemes arguably hide the curves of the car with dazzle paint. ruining the perception of depth to hide the curves

theoh 9y ago

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Graham_Kerr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Graham_Kerr, it was mostly Norman Wilkinson's personal success in promoting his ideas that caused the concept to be pursued. (John Graham Kerr, the subject of that Wiki page, had made some progress in convincing Churchill to try a different dazzle scheme a few years previously. It lost favour when Churchill left that post.)