Talk:Dazzle camouflage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dazzle camouflage article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force World War II task force

[edit] Mixed messages

"American naval leadership expressed the dissenting opinion that dazzle camouflage was effective. Dazzle camouflage continued to be used until the end of World War II."

"However effective the scheme was in WWI, it eventually became completely obsolete as rangefinders became more advanced, and, by the time it would have been put to use again in WWII, the advance of widespread naval aviation and radar made it useless. The airplanes could observe the ships from the sky, and the radar could aim guns much farther than the eye could see."

The last paragraph, particularly the 'would have been' implies it never was. Which is true? --195.195.166.41 16:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Modern" use

I remember seeing a few months ago on Boing Boing, who did several postings on dazzle camo, something about the West German army painting their tanks in a maroon, white, pink and brown blocky camo scheme at one point in the '60s and was fairly effective in urban and suburban situations. I also recall that, in playing to the stealth characteristics of the ship, the Swedish Visby class corvette is painted in a similar jagged and contrasting to the dazzle camouflage ships of WWI and WWII, although in contrasting grays instead of pastels. There's even promo pieces with the Visby in this blocky puzzle piece pattern, very similar to the examples shown here. And the Visby isn't going to be alone: some artist concepts of the DD-21 Zumwalt and the Litoral Assault Craft feature similar schemes, along with stealth construction techniques. --YoungFreud 03:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. The British troops in Berlin in the 1980s also painted some of their vehicles in a blocky grey-green-black pattern that was intended to break up their outlines in an urban area, and was said to have worked well.

But there is a difference between dazzle camouflage at sea and similar disruptive patterns on vehicles on land. Radar works very well at sea, but is very hindered by "ground clutter" and other interference on land. But even on land, what deceives the Mark 1 Eyeball does not help much against thermal imaging systems or the new generation of ground surveillance radar systems.

On the other hand, most Western armies seem to assume that their likely opposition in the foreseeable future will be using mainly Soviet type vehicles, weapons, organization, and tactics, and will not have much if anything at all in the way of modern electro-optical target acquisition capability. Therefore, perhaps, it might make sense for the militaries of the US or UK to continue to paint vehicles in camouflage pattern, but the Army of the People's Republic of Lower Gumbystan might as well paint their T-54s bright orange, or, better yet, refrain from actions that could result in armed conflict against a modern military.

Mountbatten pink? Anyway, if you can avoid being spotted by the mk1 eyeball why not use the opportunity? Just because you may be spotted using modern electronics doesn't mean you should use bright orange. // Liftarn