7 ms·

Today's camo is so much better than the red coats the British were wearing in the 18th century. chuckle

chrisseaton 4y ago
The British red coats were a kind of dazzle camouflage, making it hard to see individuals within the group. People weren't stupid back then - they just had different design goals to what we have now.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Camouflage was absolutely not a goal of 18th century uniforms. When you are wheeling around infantry units like big blocks camouflage is more or less tactically irrelevant. Furthermore, if they were trying to blend in with each other like one big homogeneous mass of infantry they wouldn't have given everyone hats in a contrasting color.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    I said dazzle camouflage, and it was. The goal of their uniforms wasn't to hide individuals within the environment, but to make it hard to discern individuals within the imposing mass of soldiers.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      That doesn't explain why early-modern generals adopted costumes with extremely distinctive hats. Napoleon's hat, for example, was meant to allow troops to discern him instantly.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        A leader would want to stand out - this was before long range marksmen would be able to hit them from a distance.
      - notatoad 4y ago
        part of the benefit of a distinctive hat is that you can take it off for an instant disguise.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      The goal of their uniforms (and other colorful uniforms of that era) was to make units visible to the commanders on their side, so that they could grasp the arrangement of the battlefield easily, and know where to e.g. send a messenger to relay orders.
- function_seven 4y ago
  "Lieutenant! We're sticking out like sore thumbs here! Why did we go with bright-fucking-red as our uniform colour? The enemy can clearly see us coming!" "Corporal, your job is to bang on that drum as we march, not complain about military fashion."
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > We're sticking out like sore thumbs here! As I just said, the design consideration wasn't to not stick out. 'Shock action' is a modern military term, but that's partly what they were trying to achieve in those days through visual impact. 'Shatter the enemy's cohesion and will to fight' is something they were trying to achieve through visual impact. As another example today, think about why the UN paint their vehicles white. It's because their visibility and presence on the battlefield provides a tactical effect.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      I didn't think that UN peacekeepers appeared on battlefields - don't they normally stay in their bases, or patrol peaceful areas? There usually has to be some peace before the peacekeepers rock up.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > don't they normally stay in their bases, or patrol peaceful areas The point is they turn up and show they're there to react if needed. You can see they're there because they're painted white. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Protection_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Protection_Forc... I think 60 or so British UN peacekeepers were killed there, for example.
    - seanw444 4y ago
      > UN > Tactical effect Hehe. Last thing I want helping me are Peacekeepers.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- omginternets 4y ago
  In addition, C2 was not what it is today, so an important design goal for military uniforms was to distinguish friend from foe on the battlefield. In the same vein, modern militaries often attach IR strobes to personnel and vehicles to identify them at night. This will likely appear silly in a few years when night optics are pervasive (if that hasn't happened already).
- the_af 4y ago
  What advantage would it provide to make it harder to distinguish individual soldiers? Wouldn't their enemies just volley fire into the mass of red coats, instead of picking and choosing?
  - Majromax 4y ago
    > What advantage would it provide to make it harder to distinguish individual soldiers? Distinguishing individual soldiers is an important step in counting the size of a line. Accepting "red coats blend together" as truth, that would make it more difficult for an opposing general to determine which parts of a battle line were stronger or weaker, thus making it more difficult to preposition forces to exploit weak sections. Once the battle was joined the camouflage effect would not have mattered as much, but before the deployment of radio it was also very, very difficult to change battle plans "on the fly."
    - the_af 4y ago
      When determining weaker sections visually, wouldn't you go by "mass" of soldiers? I don't think anybody would count individual soldiers. In any case, given the technology of the time, if you were beyond engagement range, I don't think you would have been able to pick out individual soldiers by sight regardless of which uniforms they were wearing... My theory is that vibrant color uniforms were chosen simply to make identification of different formations easier.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        It helped to identify friend-vs-foe yes, but not formation, as formations were distinguished by the lining of their uniform, which wasn't very visible! Also red was just an easy colour to get hold of and to dye with, and it hid blood. The red mass of undistinguished soldiers created an imposing sight on the battlefield. It's not about wanting to hit individuals (why would you?) it's about the shock factor. This is only infantry as well - where shock action was even more important - cavalry - and distinction didn't apply - you had less uniform more elaborate uniforms.
- Alupis 4y ago
  Flamboyantly colored uniforms of the time also helped prevent friendly fire. Each volley of musket fire filled the air with a white smoke cloud. [1][2] [1] https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/main-qimg-74a36dfd9ee0c8da565a2cd963d14765.jpg https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/202... [2] https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-historicals-firing-in-sharp-practice-2/ https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-historicals-firing-in-...
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Also life isn’t a movie. That red dye would be worn away pretty quickly. They probably looked more brown in the field.
spicymaki 4y ago
Just a little context here! I was just adding a little humor to the thread. I did not actually think they were wearing camouflage.
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
I wonder if the goal of bright, flashy uniforms was not the psychological effect that it has both on enemy and friends. There's a long history of armies going into battle bedecked in attire calculated to test the enemy's resolve and bolster their own. Skyclad Celtic warriors and extravagantly feathered Eagle Warriors. Spartans with red chitons and Samurai with monstrous faceplates. My favourite example is the Parthian geneal Surena's flamboyant manoeuver at the Battle of Carrhae (in 53 BC): The Parthians went to great lengths to intimidate the Romans. Firstly, they beat a great number of hollow drums and the Roman troops were unsettled by the loud and cacophonous noise. Surena then ordered his cataphracts to cover their armour in cloths and advance. When they were within sight of the Romans, they simultaneously dropped the cloths and revealed their shining armour. The sight was designed to intimidate the Romans.[24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae#Battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae#Battle

The British red coats were a kind of dazzle camouflage, making it hard to see individuals within the group. People weren't stupid back then - they just had different design goals to what we have now.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Camouflage was absolutely not a goal of 18th century uniforms. When you are wheeling around infantry units like big blocks camouflage is more or less tactically irrelevant. Furthermore, if they were trying to blend in with each other like one big homogeneous mass of infantry they wouldn't have given everyone hats in a contrasting color.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  I said dazzle camouflage, and it was. The goal of their uniforms wasn't to hide individuals within the environment, but to make it hard to discern individuals within the imposing mass of soldiers.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    That doesn't explain why early-modern generals adopted costumes with extremely distinctive hats. Napoleon's hat, for example, was meant to allow troops to discern him instantly.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      A leader would want to stand out - this was before long range marksmen would be able to hit them from a distance.
    - notatoad 4y ago
      part of the benefit of a distinctive hat is that you can take it off for an instant disguise.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    The goal of their uniforms (and other colorful uniforms of that era) was to make units visible to the commanders on their side, so that they could grasp the arrangement of the battlefield easily, and know where to e.g. send a messenger to relay orders.
function_seven 4y ago
"Lieutenant! We're sticking out like sore thumbs here! Why did we go with bright-fucking-red as our uniform colour? The enemy can clearly see us coming!" "Corporal, your job is to bang on that drum as we march, not complain about military fashion."
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > We're sticking out like sore thumbs here! As I just said, the design consideration wasn't to not stick out. 'Shock action' is a modern military term, but that's partly what they were trying to achieve in those days through visual impact. 'Shatter the enemy's cohesion and will to fight' is something they were trying to achieve through visual impact. As another example today, think about why the UN paint their vehicles white. It's because their visibility and presence on the battlefield provides a tactical effect.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    I didn't think that UN peacekeepers appeared on battlefields - don't they normally stay in their bases, or patrol peaceful areas? There usually has to be some peace before the peacekeepers rock up.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > don't they normally stay in their bases, or patrol peaceful areas The point is they turn up and show they're there to react if needed. You can see they're there because they're painted white. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Protection_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Protection_Forc... I think 60 or so British UN peacekeepers were killed there, for example.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    > UN > Tactical effect Hehe. Last thing I want helping me are Peacekeepers.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
omginternets 4y ago
In addition, C2 was not what it is today, so an important design goal for military uniforms was to distinguish friend from foe on the battlefield. In the same vein, modern militaries often attach IR strobes to personnel and vehicles to identify them at night. This will likely appear silly in a few years when night optics are pervasive (if that hasn't happened already).
the_af 4y ago
What advantage would it provide to make it harder to distinguish individual soldiers? Wouldn't their enemies just volley fire into the mass of red coats, instead of picking and choosing?
- Majromax 4y ago
  > What advantage would it provide to make it harder to distinguish individual soldiers? Distinguishing individual soldiers is an important step in counting the size of a line. Accepting "red coats blend together" as truth, that would make it more difficult for an opposing general to determine which parts of a battle line were stronger or weaker, thus making it more difficult to preposition forces to exploit weak sections. Once the battle was joined the camouflage effect would not have mattered as much, but before the deployment of radio it was also very, very difficult to change battle plans "on the fly."
  - the_af 4y ago
    When determining weaker sections visually, wouldn't you go by "mass" of soldiers? I don't think anybody would count individual soldiers. In any case, given the technology of the time, if you were beyond engagement range, I don't think you would have been able to pick out individual soldiers by sight regardless of which uniforms they were wearing... My theory is that vibrant color uniforms were chosen simply to make identification of different formations easier.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      It helped to identify friend-vs-foe yes, but not formation, as formations were distinguished by the lining of their uniform, which wasn't very visible! Also red was just an easy colour to get hold of and to dye with, and it hid blood. The red mass of undistinguished soldiers created an imposing sight on the battlefield. It's not about wanting to hit individuals (why would you?) it's about the shock factor. This is only infantry as well - where shock action was even more important - cavalry - and distinction didn't apply - you had less uniform more elaborate uniforms.
Alupis 4y ago
Flamboyantly colored uniforms of the time also helped prevent friendly fire. Each volley of musket fire filled the air with a white smoke cloud. [1][2] [1] https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/main-qimg-74a36dfd9ee0c8da565a2cd963d14765.jpg https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/202... [2] https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-historicals-firing-in-sharp-practice-2/ https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-historicals-firing-in-...
Spooky23 4y ago
Also life isn’t a movie. That red dye would be worn away pretty quickly. They probably looked more brown in the field.

spicymaki 4y ago

Just a little context here! I was just adding a little humor to the thread. I did not actually think they were wearing camouflage.

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago

I wonder if the goal of bright, flashy uniforms was not the psychological effect that it has both on enemy and friends. There's a long history of armies going into battle bedecked in attire calculated to test the enemy's resolve and bolster their own. Skyclad Celtic warriors and extravagantly feathered Eagle Warriors. Spartans with red chitons and Samurai with monstrous faceplates. My favourite example is the Parthian geneal Surena's flamboyant manoeuver at the Battle of Carrhae (in 53 BC): The Parthians went to great lengths to intimidate the Romans. Firstly, they beat a great number of hollow drums and the Roman troops were unsettled by the loud and cacophonous noise. Surena then ordered his cataphracts to cover their armour in cloths and advance. When they were within sight of the Romans, they simultaneously dropped the cloths and revealed their shining armour. The sight was designed to intimidate the Romans.[24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae#Battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae#Battle