Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com (LEAVING 14 JULY, BACK 19 AUG) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Camoflage Lighting, etc Message-ID: <1990Jun27.020936.1180@cbnews.att.com> Date: 27 Jun 90 02:09:36 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 44 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "LEAVING 14 JULY, BACK 19 AUG" Wilson Heydt, and others described the "antivisibility" lighting of patrol planes during WWII. The control of the intensity of the lighting was critical, but the effect can be VERY good. He also mentions white paint as camoflage. I recall reading that during the smugglers heydey, between England and France, say the mid 1700s, it was illegal to have a civilian boat painted white. They were too hard to see. During WWII (time shift...) It was found that natural aluminum color was harder for the search light crews to "see", as the light was scattered, rather than providing a surface for the beam to "project onto". As radar took over aiming and detection, color became irrelavant, at least where radar was the prime acquisition means. Against "sighting device Mk I" color was still critical. For camo historians, look for a copy of "The War Magician", by , perhaps Jasper Maskelyne? He was a working stage magician, who managed to get an assignment using his sleight of wit, and knowledge of human nature, to fool the Axis. (Hiding a war ship by building an OBVIOUSLY FRAUDULENT ship over it. And the only explanation of the CDL gear i have ever seen.) Henry Spencer proposes: >The most effective missile attack against most any modern warship would >not use a blast/frag warhead, but rather an incendiary warhead. Remember >HMS Sheffield, destroyed completely by an Exocet whose warhead did not >detonate. This form of attack might be quite effective even against a BB. If memory serves, the Sheffield was a fairly light ship, someone (nicely, imo) characterized many modern ships as "brittle". How true is this of other /"all" vessels (According to AW&ST HMS Sheffield was NOT Aluminum hulled, or the part that burned wasn't Aluminum, memory fades, can anybody confirm, from a good, technical, source...) thanks dave pierson |the facts, as accurately as i can manage, Digital Equipment Corporation |the opinions, my own. 600 Nickerson Rd Marlboro, Mass 01752 pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com "He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing" A J Raffles