Dazzle camouflage , also known as razzle dazzle (in the US) or painting glare , is a camouflage family of vessels used extensively in World War I, and to a lesser extent in World War II and thereafter. Credited to British maritime artist Norman Wilkinson, though with previous claims rejected by zoologist John Graham Kerr, it consists of complex patterns of geometric shapes in contrasting colors, interrupts and intersects each other.
Unlike other camouflage shapes, dazzling intentions are not to hide but to make it difficult to estimate target range, speed, and direction. Norman Wilkinson explained in 1919 that he intended to dazzle primarily to mislead the enemy about the course of the ship and take a bad shot position.
Dazzle was adopted by Admiralty in England, and later by the United States Navy. Each ship's glare pattern is unique in order to avoid making the ship class instantly recognizable by the enemy. The result is the number of stunning schemes put on trial, and the evidence for their success is best mixed. So many factors are involved that it is impossible to determine which is important, and whether there is an effective color scheme.
Dazzle attracted the attention of artists such as Picasso, who claimed that Cabbage like himself had created it. Edward Wadsworth, who oversaw the disguise of more than 2,000 ships during the First World War, painted a series of enchanting canvas ships after the war, based on his wartime work. Arthur Lismer also painted a series of stunning canvas ships.
Video Dazzle camouflage
The intended intent
At first sight, the glare appears to be an impossible form of camouflage, drawing attention to the ship rather than hiding it. This approach was developed after the Allied navy was unable to develop an effective means of concealing ships in all weather conditions. The British zoologist John Graham Kerr proposed the application of camouflage to a British warship in the First World War, describing what he believed to be a prevailing principle, an annoying camouflage, in a letter to Winston Churchill in 1914 that explains his purpose was to confuse, not to hide, by disturbing the line of the ship. Kerr compared its effects with those created by patterns on a series of terrestrial, giraffe, zebra and jaguar animals.
Taking the zebra example, Kerr proposes that the vertical line of the ship's mast will be disrupted with irregular white tape. Hiding this will make the ship less conspicuous, and will "greatly increase the difficulty of finding accurate ranges". Nevertheless, in the same letter, Kerr also called for a recount, the use of paints to obliterate self-shading and thus flatten recognizable solid forms. For example, he proposed gray ships on it, with white gradations underneath, so the weapons would disappear with gray background. Similarly, he suggests painting the white-colored portions of the vessel, and the brightly lit portions become gray, again with a smooth gradient between them, making the shape and structure invisible. Kerr thus hopes to achieve both transparency and level of confusion for enemies using scouts. Whether by mixing this goal, or Admiralty's skepticism about "any theory based on animal analogy," Admiralty claimed in July 1915 to have "trials" and decided to paint his ships in monotonous monotony, not adopting either Saran Kerr. It had made his mind, and all of Kerr's subsequent letters accomplished nothing.
American artist Abbott Handerson Thayer has developed a camouflage theory based on annoying protrusions and colors, which he published in the controversial 1909 Hiding-Color in the Animal Kingdom . Seeing the opportunity to put his theory into service, Thayer wrote to Churchill in February 1915, proposing to disguise submarines by subduing them like fish like mackerel, and advocating white vessels to keep them invisible. His ideas were considered by the Admiralty, but were rejected along with Kerr's proposal as "a strange method of painting ship... academic interest but not of practical advantage". The Admiralty notes that the necessary camouflage will vary depending on light, sea and sky color change, daylight, and sun angle. Thayer made a recurring and desperate attempt to persuade the authorities, and in November 1915 went to England where he gave demonstrations of his theory across the country. He received a warm welcome from Kerr in Glasgow, and was very enthusiastic about the support he avoided meeting with the War Office, which he intended to win, and instead sailed home, continuing to write ineffective letters to Britain and the American Authority.
Seafarers and Royal Naval Volunteers Norman Wilkinson agree with Kerr that dazzling goals are confusion rather than concealment, but disagree about the kind of confusion that will be sown in the enemy's mind. What Wilkinson wants to do is make it difficult for the enemy to estimate the type of ship, size, speed, and post, and thus confuse the enemy ship commander to take the wrong or bad shot position. An observer will find it difficult to know exactly whether the stern or bow is visible; and it is also difficult to estimate whether the observed vessel is moving in or away from the position of the observer.
Wilkinson advocates a "very contrasting color mass" to confuse the enemy of a ship post. Thus, while fascinating, in some lighting conditions or at close range, may actually increase the visibility of the ship, a striking pattern will obscure the hull's outline (though admittedly not a superstructure), disguising the correct ship title and making it harder to hit.
Dazzle was created in response to extreme needs, and was organized by an organization, Admiralty, which has rejected an approach supported by scientific theory: Kerr's proposal to use "staining-parti" based on a camouflage method known as staining and disturbing scattering.. This was dropped for a recognized non-scientific approach, led by socially connected Wilkinson. Kerr's explanations of principles are clear, logical, and based on years of research, while Wilkinson is simple and inspiring, based on the perception of an artist. The decision was probably because Admiralty was comfortable with Wilkinson, in stark contrast to their awkward relationship with Kerr who was stubborn and rambunctious.
Wilkinson claimed to have no idea about the camouflage theory of Kerr and Thayer camouflage, admitting he had only heard of the "old invisibility idea" of the Roman era.
Maps Dazzle camouflage
Possible mechanisms
Disrupt the range meter
In 1973, curator of the navy museum Robert F. Sumrall (following Kerr) suggested a mechanism whereby a blinding camouflage might have sown the kind of confusion Wilkinson intended for it. The accidental measuring device used for naval artillery has an optical mechanism, operated by humans to calculate its range. The operator adjusts the mechanisms for up to two half of the target images lined up in the complete picture. Dazzle, Sumrall argues, is meant to make it difficult, because the clashing patterns appear abnormal even when the two sections are aligned, something that becomes more important when the submarine's periscope enters such rangefinders. Patterns sometimes also include fake arc waves making it difficult for the enemy to estimate the speed of the ship.
Disguised and undercover speed
Historian Sam Willis argues that since Wilkinson knew that it was impossible to make a ship that was not visible with paint, "the very opposite" was the answer, using striking shapes and contrasting violent colors to confuse enemy submarine commanders. Willis points out, using the HMTÃ, Olympic dazzle scheme as an example, that different mechanisms may have worked. The contradictory patterns on the ship's funnel may imply that the ship is in a different post (as Wilkinson says). The curve on the keel under the front funnel can be a false arc wave, creating a misleading impression of the speed of the ship. And striped patterns in the bow and stern can cause confusion about which end of the vessel.
The dazzle did work along these lines suggested by the testimony of the U boat captain:
Not until he was within half a mile, I could see that he was a ship [not several] driving the lane at right angles, crossing from right to harbor. The dark lines painted on him after the part made him stern appear his bow, and the wide piece of green paint in the middle of the ship looked like a patch of water. The weather is sunny and the visibility is good; this is the best camouflage I've ever seen.
Motion dazzle
In 2011, scientist Nicholas E. Scott-Samuel and colleagues presented evidence using a moving pattern on computers whose human perception of speed is distorted by dazzling patterns. However, the speed required for the riveting movement was far greater than that available for the First World War vessels: Scott-Samuel noted that the target in the experiment would correspond to a dazzling Land Rover vehicle in the 70 m (77 yd) range, traveling at 90 km/hour (56 mph). If the dazzling target causes a 7% confusion in the observed speed, a rocket-propelled grenade traveling half a second will reach 90 cm (35 inches) from the intended point, or 7% of the distance traveled by the target. This may be enough to save lives in a dazzling-looking vehicle, and possibly cause the missile to disappear completely.
World War I
In 1914, Kerr convinced Lord Lord of Admiralty, Winston Churchill, to adopt a military camouflage form which he called "partial coloring". He argued well for countershading (following American artist Abbott Thayer), and for the annoying dyeing, both used by animals. The general order to the British fleet issued on 10 November 1914 advocated the use of the Kerr approach. It was applied in various ways to British warships such as HMSÃ, Implacable , in which officers noted agreeing that the pattern "increases the difficulty of finding accurate ranges". However, after Churchill's departure from Admiralty, the Royal Navy returned to a plain gray paint scheme, informing Kerr in July 1915 that "various experiments have been conducted and that various light and environmental conditions are required to modify many theories based on analogy [color and animal patterns ".
The British Army officially inaugurated the Camouflage Section for land use in late 1916. At sea in 1917, a major loss of merchant ship to an unrestricted German submarine war campaign caused a new desire for camouflage. The marine painter Norman Wilkinson promotes a system of dotted lines and lines "to change the external shape with contrasting hardness" and confuses the enemy about the speed and dimensions of the ship. Wilkinson, then a lieutenant commander on the Royal Navy patrol duty, implements a "dazzling precursor" that begins with an SS Industrial trader. Wilkinson was assigned to a camouflage unit using techniques on a large group of merchant ships. More than 4000 British merchant ships were painted with what came to be known as "dazzling camouflage"; Dazzle also applied to about 400 naval vessels, beginning in August 1917.
All British patterns are different, first tested on small wooden models viewed through a periscope in a studio. Most design models are painted by ladies from the Royal Academy of Arts London. A foreman then improves their design for the real thing. However, the painter is not alone in this project. Creative people include sculptors, artists, and designers of camouflaged designed sets.
Wilkinson's Dazzle camouflage is accepted by Admiralty, even without a practical visual assessment protocol to improve performance by modifying the design and colors. Dazzling camouflage strategy adopted by other navies. This led to more scientific studies on color options that might increase the effectiveness of camouflage.
After the war, beginning on October 27, 1919, an Admiralty committee met to determine who had priority for the dazzling invention. Kerr was asked if he thought Wilkinson personally benefited from anything he wrote. Kerr avoids the question, implying that he does not, and says, "I do not claim to have found the principle of staining-parti, this principle, of course, created by nature". He also agrees that he does not suggest anywhere in his letters that his system will "create the illusion of the way the ship is painted". In October 1920, Admiralty told Kerr that he was not held responsible for a fascinating painting. In 1922 Wilkinson was awarded the sum of Ã, Â £ 2000 for this discovery.
Effectiveness
The effectiveness of Dazzle was highly uncertain during the First World War, but still adopted in both England and North America. In 1918, Admiralty analyzed the loss of delivery, but could not draw any obvious conclusions. Fascinating ships were attacked at 1.47% of voyages, compared with 1.12% for non-camouflaged vessels, showing increased visibility, but as Wilkinson argued, the glare did not make the ship difficult to see. Convincingly, ships hit by torpedoes, 43% of the dazzling vessels drowned, compared with 54% of the vessels not in disguise; and likewise, 41% of dazzling vessels were beaten in the middle of the vessel, compared with 52% of the unmarried. This comparison can be taken to imply that submarine commanders have more difficulty in deciding where to go to and where to go. However, the dyed ships are bigger than the unclashed vessels, 38% of which exceed 5000 tonnes compared to only 13% of the vessels that are not disguised, making the comparison unreliable.
Looking back, too many factors (choice of color scheme, ship size and speed, tactics used) have varied in order to determine which factors are significant or which scheme works best. Thayer experimented on a dazzling camouflage, but failed to show a reliable advantage over ordinary paint.
American data was analyzed by Harold Van Buskirk in 1919. Around 1,256 ships were painted dazzlingly between March 1, 1918 and the end of the war on November 11 of that year. Among American merchants 2,500 tons and more, 78 ships are not disguised drowning, and only 18 vessels are camouflaged; of these 18, 11 were drowned by torpedoes, 4 collisions and 3 by mines. No US Navy ship (all disguised) sank in that period.
World War II
But the blinding camouflage was possible in World War I, it became less useful as a distance meter and especially the plane became more advanced, and, by that time used again in World War II, the radar further reduced its effectiveness. However, it may still confuse enemy submarines.
At the Royal Navy, a stunning paint scheme reappeared in January 1940. It was unofficial, and competitions were often held between ships for the best camouflage pattern. The Royal Navy's Camouflage Department came up with a scheme designed by a young naval officer, Peter Scott, a wildlife artist, developed into Western Approaches Schemes. In 1942
The United States Navy implemented the camouflage painting program in World War II, and applied it to many ship classes, from patrol boats and auxiliaries to warships and some Essex fleet carriers. Design (known as Size, each identified by number) is not arbitrary, but is standardized in a process involving the planning stage, then review, and then fleet-wide implementation. Not all the actions of the United States Navy involve dazzling patterns; some of which are simple or even completely unsophisticated, like false arc waves on traditional Haze Gray, or Blue Deck that replaces ash in part or all of the ship (the last to counteract the kamikaze threat). Dazzle measures were used until 1945; In February 1945 the United States Navy Pacific Fleet decided to repaint its ships in non-glamorous actions against kamikaze threats, while the Atlantic Fleet continued to use its charms, ships were repainted when moved to the Pacific.
Nazi Germany Kriegsmarine first used camouflage in the 1940 Norwegian campaign. Various patterns are allowed, but the most common black and white diagonal lines are used. Most patterns are designed to hide ships at ports or near the shore; they are often painted in plain gray colors while operating in the Atlantic.
Arts
Abstract patterns on breathtaking camouflage inspired artists, including Picasso. With his distinctive hyperbole, he claims praise for camouflage experiments, which for him is his basic Cubist technique. In a conversation with Gertrude Stein shortly after he first saw a cannon painted on the streets of Paris he said, "Yes, we made it, that's cubism". In England, Edward Wadsworth, who oversaw stunning camouflage paintings in war, created a series of canvas after the war based on his dazzling work on the ship. In Canada, Arthur Lismer used a dazzling ship in several wartime compositions. In America, Burnell Poole painted the canvas of a United States Navy ship in a dazzling camouflage at sea. The camouflage historian Peter Forbes commented that the ships had a Modernist view, their design was successful as an avant-garde or Vorticist art.
In 2007, the art of camouflage, including stunning evolution, was featured as a theme for performances at the Imperial War Museum. In 2009, the Fleet Library at Rhode Island School of Design showed off a collection of lithographic plans that have been rediscovered to camouflage the merchant ship of American World War I, in an exhibition entitled "Bedazzled".
In 2014, the Centenary Art Commission supports three fascinating camouflage installations in the UK: Carlos Cruz-Diez includes Edward Gardner's Edward MV pilot vessel at Liverpool Canning Wharf with brightly colored dazzle artwork, as part of this city. Liverpool's Annual Art Festival; and Tobias Rehberger paint HMS President , anchored since 1922 at the Blackfriars Bridge in London, to commemorate the dazzling use of a century. Peter Blake was assigned to design the exterior paint for Snowdrop MV, Mersey Ferry, which he called "Everybody Razzle Dazzle", combining his distinctive motifs (stars, targets, etc.) with the design of the First World War dazzle.
Other uses
Patterns reminiscent of blinding camouflage are sometimes used to cover test cars during trials. During the Formula 1 2015 testing period, the Red Bull RB11 car was painted in a scheme intended to disrupt a competitor's team's ability to analyze its aerodynamics. Designer Adam Harvey also proposed a camouflage form that reminiscent of glare for personal camouflage of face detection technology. It tries to block detection by facial recognition technology like DeepFace "by creating 'anti-face'". It uses occlusion, which includes certain facial features; transformation, change the shape or color of the face; and a combination of both. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has been using fascinating patterns on its fleet since 2009.
Note
References
Source
- Forbes, Peter (2009). Deceived and Deceived: Mimicry and Camouflage . Yale Press University. ISBN 978-0-300-17896-8.
- Williams, David. (2001). Navy camouflage, 1914-1945: complete visual reference. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-496-8.
Further reading
- Behrens, Roy R., ed. (2012). Ship Shape: A Dazzle Camouflage Sourcebook . Bobolink Book. ISBN: 978-0-9713244-7-3.
External links
- Recently discovered a dazzling plan at Rhode Island Design School
- The development of naval camouflage 1914-1945
- Artists and other contributors to disguise in the 20th century
- Camoupedia: dazzling camouflage
- Stunning camouflage razzle
- "He's All Dressed in Peace," Popular Science (February 1919), p. 55.
- "Fighting U-Boat with Cat", Popular Science (April 1919), p. 17-19.
- The History Museum of Destructor Guards: USS Slater painted in 1945 Dazzle camouflage
- PT Navy US Ship at Dazzle Camouflage
- US Navy World War II ship catalog at Camouflage Dazzle
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments