The painted warships of WWI (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

By Fiona Macdonald

The periscope broke through the water. The U-boat captain had to be quick: he had just a few seconds to find his target and fire. And then the ship he was tracking appeared to break up, jolt, change direction. The torpedo missed.

That was the idea, anyway. The scientist John Graham Kerr first suggested the use of camouflage to make it difficult to calculate a ship’s course in 1914, but it was an artist who developed the technique. British marine painter and poster artist Norman Wilkinson was inspired to create ‘dazzle’ camouflage after serving as a Royal Navy volunteer in a submarine patrol at Gallipoli and on a minesweeping ship off the British coast. Instead of attempting to render warships invisible, he aimed to confuse the enemy with contrasting colours and shapes that distorted the ship’s form and obscured its movement in the water.

Now the optical illusions have been revived as part of a series of art commissions celebrating the centenary of World War I. Venezuelan artist Carlos Cruz-Diez has created a new work for a historic pilot ship in Liverpool, and in London today, Tobias Rehberger unveiled his transformation of the HMS President, which served as a ‘dazzle ship’ during the conflict. The German sculptor won the Golden Lion award at the 53rd International Venice Biennale with a cafe he created using the principles of dazzle painting.

Although Wilkinson’s own artwork was traditional – he was commissioned to create paintings for the smoking rooms on the Titanic – his dazzle designs have been compared to the Cubism of Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque. Curves on the hull of a ship could create the impression of a wave, shapes on smokestacks suggested the ship was facing another direction, and patterns at bow and stern made it hard to see which was which.



***
more: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20140715-the-painted-warships-of-wwi

[JayhawkSD]

1. Sometimes inaccuartely referred to as "camoflage" paint schemes

They were not intended to hide, because a ship at sea cannot be hidden. They were enormously successufl at obscuring the "angle on the bow" used in targeting calculations for torpedos and, to a lesser extent, for naval artillery.

The angle on the bow is not quite the same thing as the "course," but is a measure of the target's angle relative to the shooting ship, and is used to determine the rate at which the range and bearing will be changing. The target's course is determined by a series of "plots" on the chart, while the angle on the bow is a visual extimate and is a "snapshot" of it's status at a given moment.

Similar paint schemes were still in use throughout WW2 as well.

[cyberswede]

3. I appreciate the extra information.

I love how they thought of this back then. It reminds me of the inflatable military equipment that was used to fool spy planes.

[Aristus]

4. The French word' camouflage' means 'disguise', not 'to hide'.

So in this context, the word is accurate.

There was also at least one ship in the Royal Navy during the WWII Battle of the Atlantic that disguised itself by painting its bow, stern and one gun turret a darker shade of gray than the rest of the ship. On a cloudy, overcast, or foggy day, the battleship (or cruiser, I forget which) would more resemble a smaller ship, like a destroyer, due to the camouflage paint.

[JayhawkSD]

5. I don't really care what the French dictionary says.

In the military context the word "camouflage" means to hide. So to refer to the ship's paint scheme as "camouflage paint" is incorrect. And the ship that made itself look smaller was not hidden, so you did not prove me wrong there, either.

[Aristus]

6. I didn't say the ship was hidden.

I said it was disguised, (or camouflage in French), as a smaller, less powerful ship.

Anyway, I'm not sure which military you are referring to. When I was in the US Army, we wore BDU's with a woodland-pattern camouflage scheme designed to make us look, in the field anyway, like a part of the landscape; disguising us, as it were, and not hiding us. 'Hiding' involves concealment.

You know, it's okay to have discussions like these without copping an attitude. Word of advice from an adult.

[JayhawkSD]

7. The attitude comes from

a discussion board where people seem to make a career of telling other people they are wrong. This is not a discussion it is a damned contest. Half the time that I make a comment I regret doing so because some "expert" comes along to prove that he knows more than I do gets into a endless argument with me to prove that he is always right.

"make us look, in the field anyway, like a part of the landscape" THEREBY HIDING YOU FROM THE ENEMY'S VISION.

Oh yes, from Merriam Webster:

cam·ou·flage noun \ˈka-mə-ˌfläzh, -ˌfläj\
1. a way of hiding something (such as military equipment) by painting it or covering it with leaves or branches to make it harder to see
2. the green and brown clothing that soldiers and hunters wear to make them harder to see
3. something (such as color or shape) that protects an animal from attack by making the animal difficult to see in the area around it

[Aristus]

8. Well, if it's an empiric fact, one is either right about it or wrong.

It's not a matter of opinion. The French word for 'hide' is cacher.

It's okay to be wrong. It doesn't make you a bad person.

It's like when a music critic reported that Carrie Underwood could have done a better job in The Sound Of Music, and she responded by calling the critic mean and stating that 'he just needs Jesus.' It would have been much more adult of her to lose the attitude and take criticism like an adult.

In the context of the 'dazzle'-pattern paint jobs on WWI ships, camouflage is perfectly appropriate.

[JayhawkSD]

9. We are not speaking French

We are speaking English, and I'm done with you.

[Aristus]

10. Au revoir!

[cyberswede]

2. Very cool - thanks for posting!