Author Topic: Picture of the Day  (Read 1471438 times)

Offline nysä

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 541
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15810 on: 23-09-2018, 18:09:31 »
Anytime! I don't want to spam more Jagdpanzer 38(t) here, but here you can see "very" standard BMM factory cam with fake visors;

https://images.booklooker.de/x/0162w2/Horst-Scheibert+Panzer-38-t-Waffen-Arsenal-Band-23.jpg

Offline Ts4EVER

  • Banner of THeTA0123
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 7.711
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15811 on: 23-09-2018, 21:09:43 »

Offline Sander93

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.205
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15812 on: 23-09-2018, 22:09:01 »
The fake visors were an attempt to draw away from the weakest part of the front of the vehicle from what I’ve read. Don’t know for sure tho

Visors are primary targets for infantry small arms fire, as it's their only way to disable (or make it less effective at least) a tank without AT weapons. I don't think there's much to be gained in tank combat as I don't think WWII gunnery was accurate enough to aim for visors anyway.

Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.594
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15813 on: 23-09-2018, 22:09:32 »
Visors are primary targets for infantry small arms fire, as it's their only way to disable (or make it less effective at least) a tank without AT weapons. I don't think there's much to be gained in tank combat as I don't think WWII gunnery was accurate enough to aim for visors anyway.

It seems like the idea was that fooling a gunner into aiming a few inches low or high could make for a better chance of the vision port not getting hit. And at the cost of a few drops of paint, why not try.

But I doubt the fake visors made any tangible difference in real life. A lot like the dazzle camo for ships in WW1, the idea in theory doesn't always translate to anything significant in practice.

Offline VonMudra

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 8.227
  • FH2 Betatester/Verdun Team Researcher
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15814 on: 24-09-2018, 00:09:50 »
Dazzle camo actually worked extremely well and continued to be used in WW2

And yes, false visor paint like that would work well, for confusing Soviet AT riflemen, specifically, as they were the ones who would be targeting the visors.

Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.594
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15815 on: 24-09-2018, 00:09:37 »
Dazzle camo actually worked extremely well...

Did it have any tangible effects tho? I guess you could say it “worked” in the sense that it did confuse the enemy when they saw it. But everything I’ve read says that it was nice in theory, impressed some RN commanders, and even boosted moral to an extent but that it was statistically insignificant.

This guy on reddit did a pretty good write up with sources (long amount of text)
Spoiler
It's really difficult to say - there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that it was effective, but this isn't entirely supported by the statistics. Dazzle camouflage was not standardized, but applied differently to each ship. Some had impressive effects, with RN officers expressing their admiration:

Sighted Clam about five miles, four points on starboard bow, and for some time could make nothing of her; when about five miles distant I decided it was a tug towing a lighter with a short drift of tow rope. The lighter, towing badly and working up to the windward, appeared to be steering an opposite course. It was not until she was within half a mile that I could make out she was one ship, steering a course at right angles, crossing from star­board to port. The dark painted stripes on her after‑part made her stern appear her bow, and a broad end of green paint amidships looked like a patch of water. The weather was light and visibility good.

(Commanding Officer, HMS Martin)

Convoy was observed by three destroyers' officers running trials at distances varying from two to four miles. All these officers agreed that the dazzle painting of the Millais was a huge success; they state that it was quite impossible to state her course even approximately, except when the sun lit up her masts. Lieutenant‑Commander Harrison stated that he could not tell her course within 12 points.

(Captain Bartlett, SS Millais)

But RN submariners were more scathing about it, claiming that it had little effect on their ability to attack in trials. Dazzle painting had little effect when the ship was silhouetted against the sky, as they usually were when observed from a periscope. In addition, they usually used the masts and funnels of the ship to determine its course or range. These were less affected by dazzle camouflage than the hull shape, and so it had little effect.

The general opinion seems to be that a light grey with hinged masts would be more effective. The dazzle painting of H.M.S. Talisman through a periscope gives a slightly distorted appearance, but the course is obtained as usual from her masts and funnels.

The Admiralty set up a committee to determine the effectiveness of dazzle painting. This consisted of the Director of Naval Equipment, the Director of Statistics, and representatives from the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff. Reporting their findings on the 31st July 1918, they found little statistical evidence for the effectiveness of dazzle camouflage. Their report states that "no definite case on material grounds can be made out for any benefit in this respect from this form of camouflage". However, they recommended that its use be continued, as it had a great effect on the morale of the crews of ships with it, and had no disadvantages beyond cost.

During the war, the RN collected a large amount of statistics about merchant sailings. An analysis of this suggests minimal effectiveness for dazzle camouflage as a means of escaping attack. Between January and October 1918, 33,072 sailings were made by camouflaged ships, while 34,302 sailings were made by uncamouflaged ones. Over this period, 60% of normally painted ships attacked were hit, compared to 59% for those with dazzle camouflage. Slightly more attacks were made on dazzle camouflaged ships, but this is most likely because they were travelling the more dangerous Atlantic routes - most sailings by normally painted ships were either on the heavily escorted cross-channel runs, or along the British coast. It may also be because dazzle-painted ships tended to be larger, and thus were seen as more tempting targets for German submariners. Dazzle camouflaged ships seem, from the data, to be harder to sink, with 74% of ships hit sinking compared to 87% for uncamouflaged ships. This may show that dazzle camouflage had a significant effect on the aim of German submariners. However, it may simply result from the fact that larger ships are more difficult to sink. Of the ships attacked, 25% of dazzle camouflaged ships displaced over 6000 tons, compared to 6% of the unpainted ones.

Dazzle camouflage appears, from the available sources, to have impressed surface observers, but to have had little effect on submarine attacks.

Sources:

History of the Great War - The Merchant Navy, Volume 3, Archibald Hurd, John Murray, 1924

The Camouflage of Ships at Sea.C.B. 3098R, Admiralty, 1945

Statistical Review of the War against Merchant Shipping, Director of Statistics, Admiralty, 1918

I figure this would be pretty similar to the visors. Maybe it did fool some people, but it didn’t do enough to make any sort of significant impact on the battlefield.

Offline Redbadd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15816 on: 24-09-2018, 00:09:29 »
Iirc from a the chieftain on YouTube, Brits painted fake vision slits on tanks too. Just saw a YouTube  of the ptrd, 30mm penetration at 300 meters, that's pretty good. Reloading action is something too.

Offline Matthew_Baker

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.594
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15817 on: 24-09-2018, 01:09:43 »
everything I’ve read says that it was nice in theory, impressed some RN commanders, and even boosted moral to an extent but that it was statistically insignificant.

I guess this could be said about any painted camouflage tho, depends on your definition of “effectiveness;” is it effective from a tactical standpoint? - maybe slightly. But from a strategic level, other things like a convoy system, aerial recon etc.... have a far greater impact on the outcome of the engament.

Same with the vision slits, they really only apply to a very specific set of engaments, and are merely drop in the bucket when you think about all the possible engements these specifically painted hetzers could’ve encountered.

This could also go for the barrel camo on the firefly etc...
« Last Edit: 24-09-2018, 01:09:20 by Matthew_Baker »

Offline Redbadd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15818 on: 24-09-2018, 01:09:32 »
Goes for putting leaves on your helmet and stuff, it feels nice to think you have some control or outsmarting your opponent eventho everybody is doing it. Got to make the best out of a shitty situation as long as you don't put too much faith in it.

Offline nysä

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 541
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15819 on: 24-09-2018, 07:09:10 »
Jagdpanzer 38(t) were made using low alloy Siemens-Marteneit steel, which gave a little over 50% protection compared to the high quality German armor: the 60mm front was equivalent to 35mm, while the 20mm side was about equivalent to 12mm which was intended to provide protection against light machine guns.

The whole idea to phase out StuG III/IV production in favor of Jagdpanzer 38(t) came from Albert Speer, owning to growing shortage of steel. Hitler was sold to the idea that 1/3 of more tank destroyers could be produced from the same volume of raw materials. But the Sturmartillerie wasn't too enthusiastic about the switch, due a number of unwelcome disdvantages over the StuG III Ausf G (all listed in the report "Ausstattung der Panzerartillerie" dated 12.10.1944).

Sources: "Panzer Tracts 9: Jagdpanzer" by Jentz, Doyle, "Sturmgeschütz III Vol I" by Müller, Zimmermann, OKH, General der Artillerie beim Generalstab des Heeres, 3159/44 g.Kdos

Ed: Jagdpanzer 38(t) gun shield penetration shows just how thin was the armor:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qNuMCZJS5MY/W37L1DEhuqI/AAAAAAAAdg4/_Tk-8xVFUpAzoT_CynGnvPNrEsHNqeiBwCLcBGAs/s1600/39467444_1890014144392363_1643086373839699968_n.jpg

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



Berlin, May 1945
« Last Edit: 24-09-2018, 10:09:56 by nysä »

Offline Leopardi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 587
  • [11PzG] member
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15820 on: 24-09-2018, 10:09:01 »

Offline Seth_Soldier

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.726
  • "Mort aux cons !"
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15821 on: 24-09-2018, 18:09:11 »

Offline Torenico

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5.586
  • ¡Viva la Revolución!
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15822 on: 24-09-2018, 23:09:28 »
pic

-Joe, isn't that a German tank?

-....fuck


Offline nysä

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 541
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15823 on: 25-09-2018, 07:09:59 »



Offline Kerst

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Picture of the Day
« Reply #15824 on: 25-09-2018, 13:09:43 »