|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 3, 2012 14:28:24 GMT
In World War 1 the British came up with a strange way to protect ships from U-Boat attack - Dazzle Camouflage.
This consisted of painting geometric patterns onto ships using strongly contrasting colours - principally it seems black and white. The idea wasn't to make the ship invisible, but to make it difficult for a U-Boat captain to judge a ships speed, range and heading when aiming torpedoes (which were unguided and possessed contact warheads).
The really strange thing about Dazzle Camouflage is that no one seems to have any idea if it really worked. Indeed it seems that the British never bothered to test it before they started using it, or indeed at any point after the war even though they continued to use it (if less often) in WW2. There is also no indication anyone bothered to do any research to see if it worked by looking at documents post war or talking to U-Boat Captains about it.
My thinking is that MB could test this by creating a miniature torpedo launcher, similar in design to those used in WW1, that is aimed by looking through a small camera that gives the same sort of image a U-Boat commander would have looking through a periscope.
They could get a number of model ships (or build a few) and paint them in various pattens - including the Dazzle pattern - and aim and shoot. The targets could be fitted with a pyrotechnic charge that will detonate if a 'torpedo' hits the ship, and be towed along at different speeds by a simple guide-wire.
They could them compare the hit rate against different camouflage types.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 3, 2012 14:55:55 GMT
I seem to remember seeing an example of a naval camouflage scheme that was essentially just the silhouette of a smaller ship painted on the side. Not sure if it was intended to making the vessel look like it was further away or simply to look like a smaller (and, therefore, less valuable) target.
Unfortunately, I can't remember the context, so I don't know if it was actually used in practise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Nov 3, 2012 15:06:41 GMT
They'd need a camera hookup for filming purposes, but why not have them build an actual periscope? There's a Type IX U-boat at Chicago's Museum of Science and Technology; I couldn't try out the periscope myself when I was there because there were too many kids ahead of me, but I would suspect they could get plans from the restoration if they asked nicely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 3, 2012 15:23:22 GMT
They'd need a camera hookup for filming purposes, but why not have them build an actual periscope? It would be too large, take too long to build and require that they be sitting underwater to use. A mini-camera can give the correct sized image in comparison to the target, and is also something they already have in the shop. Besides, using a remote camera allows them to sit the 'Commander' somewhere where he (or she) can't see the target except through the scope. (It also allows the viewer to see exactly what they are seeing, allowing us to judge for ourself as to how effective the scheme is). Since the rig would have to be remote controlled anyway, this should be a very minor addition to it - and certainly far less complicated that trying to figure out a rig that could be manually fired by someone underwater. |
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 3, 2012 17:19:45 GMT
Presumably, you'd need your "commander" to have some experience of judging range and bearing of a target vessel through the system before the various camouflage testing started. Since it would seem that the dazzle scheme would rely on messing with their expectations of range/size/movement. If they have no pre-conceptions of how the target should look it might alter the results.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 3, 2012 17:44:02 GMT
They could used uncamouflaged models to get practice, and test the rig out.
They might want to consider figuring out a way to remove or obscure any range markers in the background. Dry ice might be a good way to do this, if it is creating smoke behind the target.
|
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Nov 3, 2012 18:13:02 GMT
They might want to consider figuring out a way to remove or obscure any range markers in the background. Dry ice might be a good way to do this, if it is creating smoke behind the target. I began by thinking that the range markers could be easily removed by aperture control on the camera narrowing the depth-of-field of the image (throwing the background and foreground out of focus). Then I realized that lighting could be a major factor. Perhaps the high-contrast and the geometric patterns were intended to disrupt the targeter's twilight or night vision. The experiment, therefore, should include various light levels as another variable. |
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 3, 2012 18:31:40 GMT
The experiment, therefore, should include various light levels as another variable. It's probably worth considering the light's direction as well as its level. I'd guess that strong directional, contrasty, sunlight would give a different result to the omni-directional light that you get on an overcast day, even if the measured light level is the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 3, 2012 19:05:14 GMT
Variable light conditions would probably require that the tests be conducted in an indoor pool, which may not be practical or possible. Apart from many places not being too happy at the idea of setting off pyrotechnic changes in their pools. There is also the problem of size, indoor pools would be too limited in size to allow for much variation in speed and distance.
Testing outdoors, specifically the old quarry, gives them more options and allows for them to use larger and more impressive charges. It would also allow them to use much larger target-ships, which would also be more impressive.
There isn't much they can do about lighting conditions there, but trying to account for every variable would take weeks of testing and probably isn't practical. About the only thing I can think of to give poor lighting conditions would be smoke, or possibly a filter on the camera-periscope (or just tinkering with the contrast/brightness of the monitor).
Come to think of it that would probably be faster and cheaper as well.
|
|
ronbo6
Demi-Minion
Survivor: End of the World. 12/21/2012
Posts: 91
|
Post by ronbo6 on Nov 22, 2012 6:10:06 GMT
The whole idea of the dazzle camouflage was to break up the ship's silhouette, and make its range and direction harder to determine by someone using the limited vision available from a submarine's periscope, which is going to provide only a very low-angle view, probably in poor weather conditions, with little depth perception. Under those conditions, even if it is only slightly effective, it would work out better than the alternative of a monochrome ship.
On a similar note, I have seen one aerial picture from World War II (taken from an attacking US aircraft) of a small Japanese aircraft carrier that had put a deceptive paint job on its flight deck. The plan view outline (and turrets) of a Battleship (or possibly a Heavy Cruiser) had been painted diagonally across its flight deck. Obviously, this was an attempt to disguise the type of ship it was and the direction it was moving from attacking enemy aircraft.
It was also pretty obvious from the picture that this 'dazzle scheme' variation would only be effective under conditions of poor visibility, but again, under the right conditions (while ducking into and out of rain squalls, or maybe at dusk, for instance), it just MIGHT have worked..
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 22, 2012 6:53:18 GMT
for swimming pool use, a CO2 system could replace the pyrotechnic system.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 22, 2012 11:46:53 GMT
I seem to remember seeing an example of a naval camouflage scheme that was essentially just the silhouette of a smaller ship painted on the side. Not sure if it was intended to making the vessel look like it was further away or simply to look like a smaller (and, therefore, less valuable) target. Unfortunately, I can't remember the context, so I don't know if it was actually used in practise. I have seen pictures of a ship that was painted with very similar silhouette painted on it, which was also painted to be in the reverse direction, to confuse observers as the the direction of travel. As has been said it probably only helped in poor conditions for observations. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 22, 2012 13:39:39 GMT
It was also pretty obvious from the picture that this 'dazzle scheme' variation would only be effective under conditions of poor visibility, but again, under the right conditions (while ducking into and out of rain squalls, or maybe at dusk, for instance), it just MIGHT have worked.. The North Atlantic would certainly fall under the heading of 'poor visibility'. I've read accounts both by some U-Boat Commanders and the men who sailed with convoys, all of whom described the North Atlantic as 'grey', 'dull' and often 'gloomy'. |
|
|
|
Post by KMCCLA on Nov 23, 2012 3:29:37 GMT
From what I remember reading, as it has been said before, it was to disrupt the pattern of the ship. It also was to confuse the outline and shape of the ship, the speed and direction it was going. It was designed to confuse, and to frustrate rangefinders, the later by breaking up the vertical lines.
It was still being used in WW2, however it was largely used in the Pacific Fleet. For example, the Missouri had more rounded contours rather than the jagged edges. However, it did not take long until they went back to the gray as this was being phased out at the time. For the most part, once the USN had supremacy of the sea, they no longer needed the dazzle camouflage. From what I also have read, it was somewhat undetermined if it really worked. In some cases the ship was painted gray, or as in the case at Normandy, ships where navy-blue hull from main deck level downward, the area above haze gray. The decks where painted a dark blue-gray so it would blend into the sea when viewed from above.
Sited sources -- Battleship Missouri, Stillwell and US Battleships, Friedman
|
|
|
|
Post by paulsee on Nov 23, 2012 10:01:08 GMT
Just an inquiry, is this Dazzle camouflage similar to what Keith Ferris tried with the F-14's?
I believe aside from the grey color scheme, a false canopy was also painted.
I wonder why the navy did not adopt it?
The false canopy is painted on F-18's of Canada. (I believe the Canadians had their own research and reason for this and may not be related to the Keith Ferris)
If it is so, maybe, testing can be done with model airplanes as well? Might be easier to implement.
Also, the US military has gone low visibility for a long time already with the different shades of grey.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 23, 2012 14:22:28 GMT
No. Dazzle camouflage consisted of geometric shapes in strongly contrasting colours; twistedsifter.com/2010/02/razzle-dazzle-camouflage/Since we are interested purely in if the scheme affected aiming we should/can eliminate as many variables as possible. We should keep the firing platform stationary - and apart from anything else one favoured tactic by U-Boats was to sit in front of a Convoy and wait for it to pass by before attacking. WW1 Torpedo's didn't have a gyroscope, they could be set for running depth but beyond this where only capable of travelling in a straight line once fired. WW2 torpedoes did have gyroscopes, but these only allowed a fairly minor course correction just after launch (allowing for torpedoes to be fired in a spread pattern without having to move the bow of the submarine.) Since the Dazzle Scheme was developed and mainly used in the first world war we should concentrate on available technology circa 1917-18. www.gwpda.org/naval/w0100000.htmApart from anything else the earlier systems would be easier to duplicate in small scale and in bulk by MB. A cigar tube with a small motor should be good enough - they can compare the speed of their design against the speed of the full sized version, and reduce the speed of their target accordingly. Another reason why testing in the quarry-lake may be preferable to an indoor pool is the ability to duplicate the run time of the torpedoes by having a much longer distance between target and torpedo. (Although this would also depend on the endurance of their designs). In reality I don't think U-Boat Captains fired if the torpedo would be running for more than a few seconds. In part because the calculations became more complex and the chances of missing became higher and higher (It is the same reason why the best fighter pilots held their fire until they were very close to their target). There was also the fact that the longer the torpedo was in the water the greater the chance someone would notice its track and the greater the chance that the target would be able to take evasive action. Since torpedoes in WW1 lacked proximity warheads they hard to hit a target to detonate. While proximity warheads were available in WW2 they were unreliable - Most experienced U-Boat commanders preferred the old contact types as they at least knew they worked. For example. During the hunt for the Bismark Swordfish torpedo bombers were originally sent out armed with magnetic torpedoes. In what has to be one of the most fortunate friendly fire accidents in history, they accidentally attacked a RN Cruiser that was shadowing the Bismark. Half the Swordfish dropped their torpedoes before anyone realised the mistake...and all of the torpedoes detonated as soon as they hit the water. The pilots went back to their carrier, were rearmed with the 'old' torpedo types, and went out on a second strike that damaged the Bismark's rudder and allowed the RN to catch and sink her the next day. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 23, 2012 15:24:54 GMT
Mine seems to indicate that the gyro system was only useful for setting depth not direction - although I have no doubt that experiments into better systems were being done. Certainly such torpedoes could not change direction during their run, so the nature of the targeting was more or less the same - point and shoot.
In MB's terms 'dumb' torpedoes are a lot easier to make, and since the firing rig could move a lot more easily and faster than a U-Boat gyroscopes are probably not needed here. We are, after all, just testing to see if the Dazzle scheme makes it harder to target a ship rather than the effectiveness of the torpedoes.
The great thing here is that this rig would also allow testing to see if other schemes worked, as once again we would be looking at the camouflage and how difficult it makes to judge speed, heading and range when aiming at it. Regardless of the specific system, the basic targeting was identical in both world wars in so far that if you misjudged the speed, heading or range chances were you would miss your target.
|
|
ronbo6
Demi-Minion
Survivor: End of the World. 12/21/2012
Posts: 91
|
Post by ronbo6 on Nov 24, 2012 8:26:47 GMT
I wouldn't think that a gyroscope would be all that useful for setting DEPTH.
I always figured that this could be most easily accomplished with a diaphragm or a mercury column (open on one side to the water, the other side open to a space with a controlled internal pressure) acting on a beam with an adjustable spring (to set running depth) opposing it (everything properly damped, of course).
The beam's movements would then be transmitted to the control surfaces in the tail of the torpedo used to regulate the depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Nov 24, 2012 18:56:57 GMT
These guys might have some good ideas for testing:
They are also local to the SF Bay Area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 26, 2012 11:30:02 GMT
I think you are over-thinking this.
The myth is about the camouflage making it more difficult for a U-Boat to aim at ships. Regardless of the specifics of their design, it is clear that torpedoes of this period were effectively unguided as soon as they left the tube - their course was set by information obtained visually through the periscope and once launched could not to altered if someone realised they messed up.
All that is needed therefore is a 'torpedo' that is small and simple enough to be produced in significant numbers for MB's testing while having enough performance to reach its intended target before it moves too far out of the way - ideally something that could cross the distance in roughly the same time a real torpedo would have been in the water. (This would be another advantage of using the lake rather than an indoor pool).
They will most likely have to conduct test firings, both to make sure the rig is working and fine tune it as well as getting them used to using it. Jumping straight into testing would make the results questionable, as by the time they got around to firing at targets using the dazzle scheme their greater familiarity with the controls could/should result in better accuracy than in earlier tests.
So they should ideally conduct a fair number of test firings against stationary and moving targets without the scheme to get used to the rig before full testing takes place. This could be done in a pool, would let them test the entire rig without risking loosing anything (which also allows them to make sure the torpedoes are working correctly, and if not pluck them out of the water to see what is going wrong). However this would ALSO require a fair number of torpedoes - which would need to be simple enough for them to produce them in the shop in fairly large numbers. This is why I was thinking of cigar tubes, which they should be able to get in large quantities.
Other than this we only need concern ourselves with the aiming system - the 'periscope' in other words - not the rest of the 'U-Boat'. If the Dazzle Scheme was effective then we should see a reduction in accuracy compared to shots against targets that are unpainted.
|
|
