discussion Camouflage...it does work

[stona]

Just my opinion but I think if the plane was moving it would be less affective but it's still very good I have that desert 109 in an old book on the said aircraft
Roger

Camouflage is always less effective or useless on something that's moving. Our eye is attracted to movement, like any predator's. It is much easier to hide in plain sight when motionless


Disruptive and dazzle camouflages applied to moving objects are not so much designed to hide as confuse, making identification, estimation of range etc more difficult.


Cheers


Steve

 

[Alan 45]

I always wondered what the reasoning was behind the wrap around camo we employed on aircraft in the sixties and seventies?


Did we turn them upside down to confuse satellite surveillance cameras?


Answered on a postcard to the usual address

 

[stona]

Wasn't that for very low level operations? Maybe it was to camouflage the bottom when banked against background terrain.


Cheers


Steve

 

[Alan 45]

Could be Steve but as you mention camo is no good on moving objects as we are drawn to movement


That probably was the reason but in reality it's pretty useless

 

[stona]

I'm only guessing! Our grey/green camouflage is also a disruptive pattern, helping to break up or obscure the outline of the object. It shows quite well on the images of the two Victors. The camouflaged one actually appears less distinct, even smaller to my eyes. I would think the assault on the ears of a low flying V-bomber would give it away!


It's a complicated subject. I've got a large book somewhere which describes in detail the different types of camouflage and their uses for everything from ships, aircraft and vehicles to factories and hangars. That typical of RAF aircraft (brown/green or grey/green) falls simultaneously into two main categories, mimicry and disruptive. A lot of work was done on the colours and patterns.The underside colours were generally developed to hide the aircraft against the sky by mimicry alone, colours like Sky, Azure Blue, Mediterranean Blue and later Medium Sea Grey (which was a bit of a compromise). At night of course the aptly named Night did the job.


If you can find an image of a group British soldiers wearing the old DPM in front of a natural background it demonstrates how both elements work together. Not only do the colours merge with the background but it can be difficult to see where one soldier ends and the next begins


Cheers


Steve

 

[Alan 45]

Your right about disruptive, I do know that was the reason behind ships painted in different greys so it would look like something else and change the size of the ship so there's no reason to think they wouldn't have adopted the same thinking behind other camo schemes

 

[flyjoe180]

I always wondered what the reasoning was behind the wrap around camo we employed on aircraft in the sixties and seventies?

I'd say the reasoning behind a wrap-around scheme was because the emphasis changed from high altitude strikes to low level strikes during that period as missile and interceptor technology advanced to the point that the only real way to infiltrate enemy radar/radar-guided guns etc was to fly as low as possible. Of course much of that has changed again with the advent of stealth technology and advanced anti-radar and jamming equipment, but when flying low level it would make sense to try and blend in with the topography as best you can. Also much of the emphasis changed from nuclear to conventional strike, so the anti-flash white scheme was not required any longer in the case of the V-bombers.

 

[Guest]

Nonsense, I can see that single plane easily, very poor camouflage effort!