Camouflage discussion

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
29 November 2010
Messages
1,703
Reaction score
3,211
I wanted to start a thread where we can discuss all things about aircraft camouflage

especially these days where everything looks somewhat the same (F-35s are virtually the same in most air forces)
its also a way to reminisce about the days when there was more variety.

Some questions.. how effective were

1. False Cockpits. did it really trick people?
upside-down-cockpit-600x392.jpg


2. Dazzle camouflage and similar ones that are intended to break up shapes. Again was it useful? perhaps more so in the era of dogfighting?
371px-Brewster_F2A_Buffalo_in_dazzle_camouflage.jpg


3. Digital camouflage. what advantages does it have over traditional camoflage shapes that were more curved/circular?
1f288011703d62432f27df8d0e5ecf12.jpg
 
1. False cockpits are best at close visual ranges. Meanwhile, rocket scientists are busy developing longer-ranged and faster missiles that can turn ever tighter and kill from beyond visual range, minimizing the need for close in dog fights.

2. Dazzle paint was primarily to confuse U-boats that were trying to calculate the speed of ships. If the ship is slower than calculated, the torpedo passes harmlessly ahead of the bow.

3. Digital camouflage was designed to confuse a specific type of night vision goggle. Now it is more of a fashion statement and a generalized way to calculate/guess which colors and how much of which colors will best confuse the human eye.
 
I have recently seen wider surface LEDs and motorbikes with 'electric paint. Looks like skyglow from the ground. Combine with optical cloak tech. Mirror finish up top like adjusting tint to blind pursuit?
 
The first recorded application of camouflage to a military aircraft was to the Dunne D.1 glider of 1907. A tailless swept biplane, it featured his secret conical development of the wing surface. To confuse any reporters or spies who found their way past the Lord Atholl's private army (he being one of the few in the UK still granted the right to such), Col. Capper, RE ordered thin white lines to be laid down on its black silk covering, so that they would mislead the eye. In photos they look like tape laid over the ribs, but presumably they deliberately wandered off true.

Another of my favourites is the bright pink applied to some PR machines in WWII, such as a number of early Spitfire examples. When the plane came roaring in low out of the sun at the crack of dawn, it was apparently remarkably hard to see. A model of one certainly stands out from the crowd.
 
The first recorded application of camouflage to a military aircraft was to the Dunne D.1 glider of 1907. A tailless swept biplane, it featured his secret conical development of the wing surface. To confuse any reporters or spies who found their way past the Lord Atholl's private army (he being one of the few in the UK still granted the right to such), Col. Capper, RE ordered thin white lines to be laid down on its black silk covering, so that they would mislead the eye. In photos they look like tape laid over the ribs, but presumably they deliberately wandered off true.

Another of my favourites is the bright pink applied to some PR machines in WWII, such as a number of early Spitfire examples. When the plane came roaring in low out of the sun at the crack of dawn, it was apparently remarkably hard to see. A model of one certainly stands out from the crowd.

The Special Air Service drove pastel pink Land Rovers during the Cold War. They said that pink blurred into Middle Eastern sand backgrounds.
 
2. Dazzle camouflage and similar ones that are intended to break up shapes. Again was it useful?
AFAIK dazzle was not for camouflage, it was to give a headache to the poor bloke trying to measure distance by coincidence, ie matching two half-images in a rangefinder. Yes it worked.

But as Riggerrob pointed out, for ships not planes. Your plane photo is most likely just the opposite of camo, ie trying to make a target tug very visible.
 
... Your plane photo is most likely just the opposite of camo, ie trying to make a target tug very visible.

The dazzle scheme on that Buffalo was intended as aircraft camouflage ... it just wasn't very successful.

From McClelland Barclay's 16 February 1939 patent application (US2190691):

"This invention relates to camouflaging and more particularly to a novel method of camouflaging whereby the actual size and shape of a moving body Such as an aircraft is caused to become indistinguishable. It is often highly desirable, particularly in warfare, to confuse an observer as to the size and shape of a moving body and thereby cause said observer to be deceived as to the speed and direction of travel of said body. For example,in aerial Combat a definite advantage may be secured over an enemy plane if the pilot thereof can be confused for a few seconds as to the speed, course, size or type of an adversary. In addition, enemy ground defenses are rendered ineffectual against an aircraft when the latter is suitably camouflaged to cause an enemy observer to misjudge the distance from the craft to the ground batteries, or the direction of travel of said craft relative to Said batteries. Accordingly, one of the objects
of the present invention is to provide a novel method whereby a Craft, such as an airplane, has painted or stencilled thereon a multiplicity of designs of such color and configuration as to Secure a desired confusion in the eyes of an enemy observer."
-- https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/7a/86/3f/cd2f9373b01fb0/US2190691.pdf

McClelland Barclay was a successful American commercial artist who developed this camouflage for the US Navy in 1938-1940. Barclay had worked on naval camouflage schemes during WWI. He re-joined in June 1938 as a Lieutenant, USNR, and was appointed Assistant Naval Constructor (BuC&R). A range of dazzle schemes for naval aircraft were devised and applied for testing. Evaluation "showed that pattern camouflage was of little, if any, use for the aircraft."

There are a few more details in a Naval Historical Center biography of McClelland Barclay as well as photos of four of the dazzle schemes applied to USN aircraft:

- Barclay No. 2 Dazzle Paint scheme applied to a Brewster F2A-2
- Barclay No. 4 Dazzle Paint scheme applied to a Northrop BT-1
- Barclay No. 6 Dazzle Paint scheme applied to a Vought SB2U-2
- Barclay No. 7 Dazzle Paint scheme applied to a Douglas TBD-1

-- https://web.archive.org/web/2007020...y.navy.mil/ac/artist/b/barclay/barclay 1.html

McClelland Barclay returned to active service in October 1940. LCdr Barclay was killed when LST-342 was torpedoed off the Solomons on 18 July 1943.
 
2. Dazzle camouflage and similar ones that are intended to break up shapes. Again was it useful?
AFAIK dazzle was not for camouflage, it was to give a headache to the poor bloke trying to measure distance by coincidence, ie matching two half-images in a rangefinder. Yes it worked.

But as Riggerrob pointed out, for ships not planes. Your plane photo is most likely just the opposite of camo, ie trying to make a target tug very visible.
as Apophenia pointed out, there were several dazzle or similar types of camouflage on aircraft that were not target tugs.
I believe one of the Su-35 test beds (the old 35 with canards, not the current one) had something similar as well.
 
I wanted to start a thread where we can discuss all things about aircraft camouflage

especially these days where everything looks somewhat the same (F-35s are virtually the same in most air forces)
its also a way to reminisce about the days when there was more variety.

Some questions.. how effective were

1. False Cockpits. did it really trick people?
upside-down-cockpit-600x392.jpg


2. Dazzle camouflage and similar ones that are intended to break up shapes. Again was it useful? perhaps more so in the era of dogfighting?
371px-Brewster_F2A_Buffalo_in_dazzle_camouflage.jpg


3. Digital camouflage. what advantages does it have over traditional camoflage shapes that were more curved/circular?
1f288011703d62432f27df8d0e5ecf12.jpg

These are examples of camouflage that doesn't work. Starting with the bottom one: The pattern is too small. At a distance, it will resolve to the human eye as a shade of grey, or maybe as a couple of patterns blending into each other. A uniform low visibility blue-grey that blends the aircraft into the sky works best for air-to-air camouflage.

Dazzle patterns generally don't work for the same reason: The pattern is too small. Even where it isn't, if the pilot isn't fooled by the direction of movement of the plane then the pattern fails.

Phony cockpits and the like do the same thing.

The US Navy studied this problem rather extensively during WW 2 for ships and drew those conclusions as well. The pattern has to be large enough to resolve as a pattern at a distance. The colors chosen should either blend the item into the background or should break up its appearance making it hard for the person looking at it to determine what it is. That is, you want to make it hard to figure out what airplane it is.

Small patterns just don't work.
 
At a distance, it will resolve to the human eye as a shade of grey, or maybe as a couple of patterns blending into each other
That's actually exactly the purpose of digital camouflage... A given pattern is only effective at narrow range of distance depending on the human eye's resolution and the size (and "angular diameter" or visual angle") of the "pixels".

By making larger patterns with smaller pixels, you create a wider range of distances at which the pattern(s) can be effective. The eye resolves the pattern differently at different ranges.
The new "square" digital camo is definitely a fad, but digital camouflage of different sized patches (not squares) composed of smaller pixels has been around a long time, and is effective when well designed.


Dazzle patterns generally don't work for the same reason: The pattern is too small. Even where it isn't, if the pilot isn't fooled by the direction of movement of the plane then the pattern fails.

Phony cockpits and the like do the same thing.
Dazzle on ships is meant to obscure the heading of the target. If I do not know the relative heading, I cannot accurately determine the size or range of the target. Also hard to hit a moving target with shells or torpedoes if I do not know where it is expected to be in X-seconds because I cannot determine the heading.

Does it work? Probably somewhat effective at a narrow range of distance for a given pattern size. Can you tailor the pattern to an optimal distance? Yes, but unlike the naked eye, naval binoculars, periscopes, and telemeters come in a variety of lens sizes -- and telemeters of a large enough baseline make the heading and size of the target irrelevant for determining distance. As did radar and lidar.

For aircraft, dazzle is probably mostly useless, and you're exactly right: the fake cockpit is another means to the same effect. The argument for boils down to, in essence, if it takes a quarter of a second for your brain to make the determination of the target's orientation, that could be significant in a battle determined by fractions of seconds-- and if you actually flinch the wrong way first and guess wrong, you've created a problem that can quickly compound. After all, all it cost was a blob of paint.

Probably a bit silly, but this is a community in which a large segment still carry a personal talisman into the cockpit.
 
For an aircraft, the paint scheme should be low visibility for either air-to-air or if it operates mostly at lower altitudes a scheme on top that blends into the terrain below and a low visibility underside to make picking it out from the sky in general difficult. I'd add, big plus is engines that don't smoke...
 

These are examples of camouflage that doesn't work. Starting with the bottom one: The pattern is too small. At a distance, it will resolve to the human eye as a shade of grey, or maybe as a couple of patterns blending into each other. A uniform low visibility blue-grey that blends the aircraft into the sky works best for air-to-air camouflage.

Dazzle patterns generally don't work for the same reason: The pattern is too small. Even where it isn't, if the pilot isn't fooled by the direction of movement of the plane then the pattern fails.

Phony cockpits and the like do the same thing.

The US Navy studied this problem rather extensively during WW 2 for ships and drew those conclusions as well. The pattern has to be large enough to resolve as a pattern at a distance. The colors chosen should either blend the item into the background or should break up its appearance making it hard for the person looking at it to determine what it is. That is, you want to make it hard to figure out what airplane it is.

Small patterns just don't work.
interesting point about smaller patterns and indeed, those tiny digital ones, from afar just looks like a solid color

I am wondering if this is what led to the Russians in adopting larger chunkier patterns?
Su-351.jpg
 
For an aircraft, the paint scheme should be low visibility for either air-to-air or if it operates mostly at lower altitudes a scheme on top that blends into the terrain below and a low visibility underside to make picking it out from the sky in general difficult. I'd add, big plus is engines that don't smoke...

Except when wraparound terrain camo seems like a good idea. This particular Hercy bird is an Aussie, but the fashion is widespread among military transports and choppers.

RAAF_Hercules_CBR_Gilbert-1.jpg
 
It's arguably less relevant now, but there used to be a distinction between offensive and defensive camouflage. The former protected aircraft in flight, by making it harder for adversaries to see from the same altitude or below. Uniform, light blue gray would be the optimum. The latter's main purpose was to protect aircraft against destruction on (or hear) the ground at the hands of higher flying aircraft. Greens, browns predominated, with some use of white or silver in winter. But the RAF's "hemp" (concrete-runway color) would also fall into the defensive category. The adoption of offensive or defensive camouflage seems to reflect a combination of the greatest perceived threat and fashion.

Until recently, most camouflage was a compromises: offensive blue/gray under surfaces combined with defensive upper surfaces. But compromises seem to have been less than effective in flight, since most aircraft look dark against a lighter sky.

WW2 Allied antisubmarine aircraft, however, went for fully offensive camouflage in the Battle of the Atlantic, however. By using white on surfaces in shadow and pale gray on surfaces that might reflect bright light, the Allies successfully reduced the contrast between aircraft and sky when seen from the front. The logical extension of this approach was Project Yehudi, which selectively illuminated the front surfaces of the aircraft to minimize contrast with the bright sky behind. It reportedly worked very well, though its practicality may have been suspect. So, for awhile in the '80s and '90s, at least, various Western air forces experimented with painting the darkest parts of a fighter seen from in front--the interiors of air intakes--gloss white or lighting them from within.

So far, I've talked about camouflage intended to hide the airframe. But camouflage can also be designed to hide the attitude,aspect, and flight direction of aircraft. This was the intended function of the dazzle camouflage tried on aircraft, as on ships. So both Keith Ferris' false canopy and the wrap-around, segmented camouflage of that Hercules are variations on dazzle. The wrap-around approach was expressly adopted ito remove the cues provided by more conventional, compromise camouflage and thus cause enemy pilots or ground gunners to confuse up, down, and angle of bank. During WW1, Britain experimented with a similar concept: distorting the shape and spacing of upper wing roundels on a Camel in order to make an attacking fighter pilot misjudge the attitude of the aircraft and thus the position of it's vulnerable pilot.
 
Since 1916, a new fabric began to be used by the Central Powers in the Western Front, that patterned with polygons of different colours reduced the visibility of airplanes confusing them with the ground tones.

The new camouflage system was named ‘Lozenge-Tarnung’ and based its design on the Impressionists painters that, it was discovered, had a distortional optical effect during combat manoeuvres that made the enemy accurate aim very difficult.



By the end of the ninetieth century, zoologists discovered that the tiger stripes mimic the vertical shadows in the reed beds where they hide for hunting. On the other side, the zebras stripes seem designed to increase visibility; however, five out of six lion attacks fail, due to more subtle causes. As it turns out, due to the movement of the animal, the rhythmic waving caused by the black stripes produces an optical distortion (known as ‘akinetopsia’) that affects the way in which the brain calculates distances.



The Royal Navy was the first to apply this principle to the naval war but, towards 1915, almost every warship was painted with white, black, grey and blue diagonal stripes to disorient the telemeters of the enemy artillery.



In the air, the fighters Albatros D.V of the Jasta 37 were the first to use the optical distortion techniques, with its tailplane painted in black and white diagonal stripes. In combat, the violent turns of the airplane achieved the ‘zebra effect’ thus disrupting the aiming of the British pilots. They had the additional resource to use the Iron Crosses painted on the upper wing as reference, but the Lozengue camouflage and the aircraft vibration during tight turns made the distance estimation very difficult in deflection shooting. The Fokker DR.I of the Jasta 6 also used the ‘zebra effect’ painting the tailplane, the fuselage and even the interplane struts with stripes.



The system worked and towards 1917 almost every German reconnaissance two-seater airplane, operating in the Western Front, had a rectangular patch of diagonal stripes on their fuselage.



The British airplanes started to imitate them. In 1918 it was common to see the F-2B and ‘Camels’ of the RFC with series of white bands painted over the khaki of the rear fuselage.



The technique reached its peak of refinement during the summer of 1918 with the Albatros DV flown by Ltn. Fritz Rumey, assigned to the Jasta 5, an elite squadron. In this airplane, the diagonal stripes had four different widths and had been painted in spiral (like on a candy) along the fuselage.



The Austrians had their own mind about the subject. They started painting small spirals on the upper surfaces of the Phönix fighters but, around 1917 they camouflaged the Aviatik with a special scheme of hexagons which colours varied in intensity, lighter on the wing tips and tail surfaces, to blur the characteristic shape of the airplane.



The British had a problem with the colour of their airplanes. Since 1915 all were brown and both the fighters and the anti-aircraft artillery had the tendency to open fire against anything painted in another colour….. French ones included. As a consequence, their experiments were more conservative, although at the end of the war some airplanes carried the roundels of the upper plane painted in asymmetric position to confuse the enemy, as it happens with the false eye that some tropical fishes had near the tail. They also used additional, more blurred roundels, painted on unusual spots of the airplane, like the tailplane, the back of the fuselage or the central section of the upper wing.

In 1918 limited essays were made on skewed-perspective box-grids, diminishing overlapping rectangles and high visibility but misleading geometrical designs. These experiments were shaped by advice from painters of the ‘Vorticist School’ (Britain’s version of Futurism) like Wyndham Lewis and their ultimate objective was to create in the enemy pilot that second of doubt and confusion that frequently is key to escape.



The end of the WWI did not end with these practices. In 1923 the Finnish Fokker D.VII were painted on a ‘splinter’ scheme in dark blue, light grey, purple and light green. During the 30s, the new Luftwaffe started to use the ‘splinter’ in two or three different shades, although some Heinkel 45, seen during the Spanish Civil War, still kept the ‘Lozenge’ camouflage.



In 1935 the Hawker Demon fighters of the 74 sqn of the RAF, based in Malta, tried a new type of camouflage based on ochre, yellow, grey, green and brick red, with just one roundel on upper wing starboard and the opposite side aileron painted in aluminium!



The general idea, apparently not very successful, was not to make the plane hard to see but hard to be shot at by enemy pilots.

The Munich crisis of September 1938 served, among other things, to prove how unprepared were the French and British air forces for the war. At that time, London was defended by biplanes that were slower than a ‘postal’ Heinkel He 111. The Hawker Fury and the Dewoitine 510 lost their aluminized painting of peace time that was hastily covered with a dark green layer.



Despite their theoretical neutrality, the North American airplanes also lost the chrome yellow on their wings. In 1940 the US Army Air Corps performed low visibility camouflage tests with some Curtiss P.36 and Northrop A-17 A. The US Navy repeated the British experiments of the ‘Vorticist School’ with some Brewster F2A and Northrop BT-1 in North Island, California. Finally mass production prevailed: Seversky and Curtiss in olive drab, Brewster and Grumman in naval grey.



In 1939 the colour of the European aviation was as dark as its future. The Germans used splinter in two shades of dark green. The British used dark green, dark earth and black and white undersides. The French used earth, ash and dark green. Over the French-German border all the airplanes looked the same. The Bf 109 shot down Belgian Hurricanes on neutrality patrols, mistaking them for British fighters. The authentic Hurricanes of the BEF shot down Potez 630 confusing them with the Bf 110 and were attacked by Morane fighters that took them for German airplanes.

Only the Poles showed some creativity. When entering the war with Germany most of their fighters were well positioned in auxiliary aerodromes, the square shaped national markings were painted on the wings in asymmetric position and some P.Z.L. P.11C fighters of the 161 squadron had schemes of optical distortion painted in zig zag over the wings, although that was not nearly enough to overcome the technical and numeric superiority of the Luftwaffe.



During the World War II, when airplanes were manufactured by tens of thousands, the dynamic of the assembly lines did not allow any experiment with complex camouflages. There was not even the time to paint the airplanes and many Mustangs, Forteresses and Thunderbolts were delivered with the naked aluminium coating, while nationality roundels were replaced by big decals to save time and hand work!



In the battlefield that covered from the jungle to the sea and from the Arctic to the desert, things were very different and the airplanes received any type of conceivable camouflage to get unnoticed against the ground they flew over. Some missions, like the stratospheric combat, photographic reconnaissance or night fighting, required specially modified airplanes with camouflage schemes adapted to the environment on which they should operate.



The Ju 86P, Bf 109 G-6/AS, Spitfire HF Mk VIII, Westland Welkin and D.H. Mosquito NF.XV, intended for high altitude combat, used to go wholly painted light grey. The Lockheed P-38 F-5 that photographed the Ruhr at medium height, were painted bluish fog-grey; the Spitfire P.R.Mk IV and Mosquito P.R. Mk XVI were painted a deep blue colour, to rest them visibility against the sky colour at high altitude, while the Spitfire P.R. Mk VII of the541 Sqn, operating at dawn with clear weather, were painted in pink colour. For the darkness war, the RAF painted in black the under surfaces of all its bombers, to make them less visible to the reflectors.



Until 1943, all night fighters were painted in black. Germany used the Arado Ar 68E, Bf 109 E-4, Bf 110 C-6 and E-2, Do 17 Z-10, Do 215 B-5 and Do 217 J and N. The British used the Defiant Mk II, Hurricane Mk II, Beaufighter Mk II, Mosquito NF.Mk II, and even some Spitfire Mk VB of the 111 Sqn. At the beginning they used an extra matt anti reflective paint, but it turned out that it produced drag, limiting the airplanes speed.

The Americans operated in Europe and in the Pacific with Northrop P-61 and Douglas Havoc II, the Japanese used the Nakajima J1N1-S Gekko, the Italians, the Caproni Vizzola F-5 and the French the Potez 631. It seemed to be the most logical solution, but the black painting did not work out well. The airplanes were very visible from above, when flying over clouds lighted by the reflectors.



The Germans started to use this advantage in August 1943, using conventional fighters Bf 109 and Fw 190 in the ‘Wilde Sau’ night operations. In the winter of 1942, some Do 215 B-5 and Do 217 J night fighters were experimentally painted in light grey, to make them less visible to the gunners of the Lancaster and to the pilots of the Mosquito NF. II of escort. The results were good and it was ordered that all night fighters and ‘Wilde Sau’ would be fully painted with RLM 76 ‘Hellblau’ (light blue).



Recalling the experiments made with the ‘night’ Lozenge for the Gotha bombers, in the WWI, the hazy effect was improved making the shape of the airplanes blurred by means of patches or ‘worm’ schemes of RLM 75 ‘Hell Violett-Grau’ (light grey violet). I worked better with the big airplanes Ju 88 G-6, Do 217 N and Bf 110 G-4 while the fighters Bf 109 G-5 / G-6 and the Fw 190 A-6 were light grey RLM 02 ‘Grüngrau’. Some had the underside starboard wing painted in black for identification of the flak.



Since 1943, the night fighters Mosquito adopted the idea, changing the overall black by the standard daylight camouflage in dark green and ocean grey upper surfaces, keeping the under surfaces in the previous black colour, that the RAF considered useful against reflectors, provided that they flew over the layer of clouds.



The accurateness and volume of fire of the flak increased daily. From the viewpoint of the British fighters that made straffing missions over the occupied France, the number of casualties grew until 1945… the Reich vomited flak.



In 1942, Captain Paul Hexter designed a black and white dazzle camouflage scheme for the underside of the attack airplanes. It was tested in a Mustang Mk IA proving that, like the warships of the WWI, it distorted the distance calculation of German telemeters during flights at low altitude, by the so known ‘zebra effect’. Its use was never generalized due to its difficult maintenance. In the Mediterranean the Savoia 79 of the Regia Aeronautica were too visible over the sea, with their ‘Sicilian’ camouflage. Some machines specialised in attacks with torpedoes received a layer of light grey painting in the front of the fuselage and wings leading edges to diminish its frontal visibility.



In the Atlantic, antisubmarine aircrafts of the US Navy had the same problem: the U-Boat immersed at the lowest sign of sighting. In 1943, an experiment was performed under the Yehudi code-name to diminish the frontal visibility against the luminous background of the sky. It consisted of 10 sealed-beam lights, installed along the wings leading edges and the rim of the engine cowling of an Avenger TBM-3D bomber. The tests proved that the Yehudi system lowered the visual acquisition range from twelve to two miles.



The entry into service of the new centimetric radars, that the ‘Metox’ detectors of the Kriegsmarine could not detect, disrupted the balance in the Battle of the Atlantic, rendering the Yehudi useless. But the experiments went on using a Liberator and were only declassified in the 80s.

During the Vietnam war, the idea was resumed under the ‘Compass-Ghost’ code name and the tests made with a blue and white F-4 Phantom, lighted by nine high-intensity lamps on the wings and fuselage, reduced the detection range a 30 percent.
 

Attachments

  • Flying Wings 001.jpg
    Flying Wings 001.jpg
    487.3 KB · Views: 32
  • Flying Wings 002.jpg
    Flying Wings 002.jpg
    647.6 KB · Views: 32
Wow Justo!
You have really researched camouflage in detail.
Is there any truth to the rumour that RAF heavy bombers initially got their bellies painted with matte black, but since that created a "hole" in reflections from search-lights, they were later painted with gloss black bellies. Gloss black reflecting at close to the same wavelength as ambient medium altitude backgrounds.
 
Wow Justo!
You have really researched camouflage in detail.
Is there any truth to the rumour that RAF heavy bombers initially got their bellies painted with matte black, but since that created a "hole" in reflections from search-lights, they were later painted with gloss black bellies. Gloss black reflecting at close to the same wavelength as ambient medium altitude backgrounds.
The R.D.M.2 extra matt anti-reflective paint scheme was found to reduce by 16 mph the top speed of the DH Mosquito NF. Mk.II.

In the fall of 1944 the Northrop P-61 A-5 fighters were factory painted in "Glossy Jet Black" a painting developed by the Radiation Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) that reflected the searchlights beams, making the Black Widow practically invisible for 80 per cent of the time that the spotlight passed.
 
Last edited:
The French back in the late 30's tried something similar to that on the Char B1 bis.

1668122461824.png

It was the same sort of rough almost 3D camo in the picture. The problem they found with it was that as the tank drove around in the mud, dirt, off road, etc., all it did was collect that dirt and mud and ensure the vehicle ended up with a thicker coating of it due to everything catching on the camo.
 

It was the same sort of rough almost 3D camo in the picture. The problem they found with it was that as the tank drove around in the mud, dirt, off road, etc., all it did was collect that dirt and mud and ensure the vehicle ended up with a thicker coating of it due to everything catching on the camo.
Not really comparable. The Barracuda multispectral camouflage system is about a lot more than visual camouflage. See here:

 
At very short ranges, false cockpits can be useful. Beyond about 200 yards on a man-sized target, the important factor is just blending in with the background, which is why warships and aircraft are generally painted some form of grey. This is also why the Chinese Type 07 woodland pattern has a background of grey in it, it's a quasi-universal pattern for urban-woodland/suburban terrains FWIW. Tanks and aircraft will have longer relevant ranges, maybe double this, before they start to get affected by the atmospheric haze and attenuation of the natural eyeball.

So, actual color patterns on aircraft are generally useful for confusing extremely short range detection. Mottled patterns aren't meaningfully useful in the current era, as air combat and anti-aircraft combat takes place at ranges measured in miles, and thus the general hue of the pattern is more important than the pattern (it will be a pale or dark dot), but maybe they were useful for fooling anti-aircraft gunners trying to aim at a plane or extremely short range ambushes by higher flying aircraft/gunners. Something like the Cenepa War where gunners are aiming down into a terrain feature at aircraft maybe.

As T.A. Gardner says, it's mostly serving a purpose of identifying friendly aircraft from enemy aircraft by having specific, unique patterns nowadays. Which is why Russian jets have funny camouflage and VKS helicopters have mottled brown and green patterns. Camouflage on aircraft, and arguably increasingly on men, serves more a purpose similar to colorful regimental identification uniforms in the 18th and 19th centuries, than anything.

This is a strong argument against armies adopting "friendly" foreign patterns, but that I suppose only happens in a handful of cases of still highly integrated moral-political blocs so it's not a huge deal atm.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom