Measuring Success...

Mansteins revenge wrote:

ddp59 wrote: do you mean pre-pearl harbour or pre-poland for pre-ww2? I think it was actually in the '20's or 30's...

...wish I could find that story again...

The main purpose of "dazzle" was not to make the ship less visible, but to confuse optical range finders. These operate with a horizontal "split image" which is lined up to give the range. The idea was that clashing patterns looked abnormal even when the two halves were aligned. As an additional feature, the dazzle pattern usually included a false bow wave to make estimation of the ship's speed difficult.

The British Admiralty concluded it had no effect on submarine attacks, but proved to be a morale boost for crews. American naval leadership thought dazzle effective.

Rick

 Did it confuse subs?

ddp59 wrote:

do you mean pre-pearl harbour or pre-poland for pre-ww2?

I think it was actually in the '20's or 30's... 

do you mean pre-pearl harbour or pre-poland for pre-ww2?

I remember a story once where a battleship painted in a dazzle scheme snuck through a channel once, even though the folks on shore were told beforehand that the ship would be passing through---and no one saw it...wish I remember the details---I believe it was pre-WW2 in the Northeast somewhere...

searat12 wrote:

I don't think it helped much against aircraft

Indeed, we see in late 1944, after the kamikaze's started appearing, a crash program by the Navy to paint out the dazzle schemes.

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/ComServPacDispatch030229.html

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/SpdLtr_04229.html 

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/SpdLtr_04254.html 

Those are just some of the documents I've seen; haven't posted them all. 

From my readings, the 'sea blue' and 'deck blue' camoflages used in the Pacific were particularly good against aircraft, and the various 'mist gray' and 'sea gray' schemes used in the North Atlantic worked pretty well too (especially on hazy days, and/or mist and fog).  The various 'dazzle' schmes were mostly designed to deal with submarines, so that it was difficult to figure out what direction/angle the ship was moving when viewed through a periscope at fairly close range (5,000 yards).  That's all well and good, but I don't think it helped much against aircraft, or long-range shellfire (where you couldn't really see the dazzle paintjob at all)

Read Alan Raven's monograph at shipcamouflage.com

http://www.shipcamouflage.com/development_of_naval_camouflage.htm

Read the whole article, but pay particular attention to chapter 6

As my dad said,it was a pain in the a... and he thought it did no good,Digger.

Probably so, they were mostly designed to confuse optical range finders. With radar, these measures were redundant. That's why they are no longer in use today, US Navy ships are painted with lo-viz mainly to confuse missiles. They like contrast. I know of no evidence that they were effective, but then I don't know a whole lot anyway.  I would have liked to have seen it in person so I could make my own opinion.