"Did Fancy Vehicle Camouflage Schemes Work?" Topic

I was painting up some US vehicles and silently thanking the War Department for painting everything OD Green :) Makes things real simple!

But that got me to thinking. Of all the major combatants, only the Germans went in for those fancy multi-color camo schemes. Why? It would be tempting (and cynical) to say that the Allied vehicles didn't survive long enough to make it worthwhile, but I can't believe that the high commands would ever admit that, or that the tank crews would pass up any chance to maybe not get killed. And it's interesting that you don't see those fancy camo schemes in post-war armies either.

So were studies done to determine if the German-style paint schemes actually made any difference? Did the Allies decide that it did not make enough difference to try it out on their own vehicles?

While I have no idea on effectiveness, it wasn't just the Germans who did camo schemes on armored vehicles.

The French, Soviets and British had plenty of examples of camo schemes on their vehicles as well and I am sure they aren't the only ones.

The Americans did an OD and black camo pattern that is on a surprisingly large amount of vehicles if you look VERY hard at the photographs of the time.
Also white camo in winter.
British vehicles had tan and blue among others in the desert campaigns.
The French of course had a myriad of camo patterns on almost all of their armored vehicles.
And I am sure you will get a deluge of examples from other members, with pictures attached.
Thanks,
Pat

One of the fanciest camo designs I have seen was that for a British tank in Malta, painted in a pattern that would make it resemble the outline of a typical local stone wall (which presumably were pretty common).

It must have been quite succesful, since the Germans and Italians never launched an actual amphibious invasion of the island.

The Marine Corps used camo patterns in the Pacific.

In my experience they do work, if used right. It won't help you not being noticed crashing through the brush but if you still and utilize obscuring terrain it can be extremely effective.

I always was told the fancy camo schemes are good whilst stationary but draw more attention when moving and the uniform schemes are good whilst moving. Something to do with the way the humam eye processes visual information.

The Japanese also used camo patterns. I know some countries did studies before/during the war on the effectiveness of personal camoflage. There were some crazy camos like urban camoflage that looks like a red brick wall and similar tests. Based on what was actually issued, it appears that most of the crazy camo was found to be rather ineffective.

Besides the black on OD, some US tanks may have had red-brown on OD (this has come into question), but also sand on OD for vehicles in North Africa/Sicily/Italy.

Damon.

The Japanese and French had some awesome cam schemes.

They work well agent aircraft in wooded lands and brush, but no camo works when moving. US armor was not on the defense very much.

The Americans in Normandy quickly abandoned camouflage tank patterns and camouflage uniforms after too many friendly fire incidents. American GI's were conditioned to think anything with camo was German.

i read somewhere that a short drive in an armored vehicle throws so much dust/fine dirt onto the vehicle that the painted pattern kinda disappears.
and my great uncle, who was an engeneer in pattons army, and who was as sharp as a tack until the day he died(last year, aged 93) told me the "black over OD" was gonna be put on most of the armored vehicle if the war went into the summer months.

Why camo when you decide to paint a very large white star on the side of the vehicle? Actually, lots of crews painted over the white star with black; and, there were quite a few Shermans painted with OD-Black and OD-sand.

I used to paint a lot of Great War aeroplanes.
I had to laugh at the bright red Fokker DVIIs with bright red fuselage, large white letters, and standard lozenge camo on the upper and lower wing surfaces.
The Albatros DV and DVa were even sillier.

In general, the camouflage is used to disrupt the visual pattern of objects. Studies seem to show it does work better for stationary objects than moving objects. (Just ask a snake or a lizard, if you can find one.) There is always going to be debates about which pattern is better than another, and it really depends on the area of operations. What works in Germany may not be the best for North Africa and etc. Dirt building up on a vehicle probably works just as well as adding branches and other greenery that can be added or dropped as needed or change in topography dictates. (I.E.: Woodlands vs. Grasslands vs. Snow)

On a tangeant, the opposite is also true. For a long time, fire engines were red because it was a bright color, but also because it was universal for 'fire'. However, if you've noticed, many fire engines now are painted with an almost fluorescent Lime-Yellow or Orange-Red paint color. The reason for this is because these colors are the most irritating to the human eye, hence you pick out the colors that much quicker in order to get out of the way faster. Th studies actually showed that fire engines in these colors suffered many fewer traffic accidents than the traditional red fire engines, proving their worth simply by changing the color of the vehicle. Other changes can be seen for pedestrian crossing and school zone signs, many being changed from yellow to the fluorescent lime-yellow color.

As a military example, the modern US Woodland (4-color) camouflage could be deemed the most successful based on being the most widely used camouflage in the world. The addition of the black to the other three colors, through numerous studies, proved to be the most effective at breaking up the silouettes of both man and machines, in temperate/wooded climates.

However, the U.S. changed to the UCP (Universal Camouflage Pattern) because the most active area of operations changed to a drier climate (Middle east) where there was a need for better camouflage colors as the 4-color wasn't working. Also, the manufacturing process using a digital pattern helped to change to the UCP much faster and get the new fatigues to the troops.

Now recently, because the UCP pattern is showing to be not as effective as it could be, the newest pattern to emerge is the 'Multicam' or 'Scorpion Camo'. This scheme is proving to be somewhat better than the UCP and can be utilized in a wider range of topographies including desert, tropical, mountains, temperate woodlands, savanna, and etc.

David G.
gamerarchitect.blogspot.com

I like this April 1944 US Army Field Manual on camouflage for vehicles including paint patterns,

PDF link

Robert

For what it's worth, I've actually lost my BF Konigstiger on the table before… It's painted in a (slightly incorrect) version of the 3-color Ambush pattern.

Slightly incorrect because it has spots of the other two colors on all three colors.

The fancy dazzle camo on ships definitely works, by confusing which direction the ship is heading, how fast it's moving, and how far away it is.

As a previous post mentions, a lot of camo is designed to break up the outline of the object. Putting foliage on helmets breaks up the dome. Even my weather guys could camo up and be nearly undetectable from 10 feet away – If they are still.

Vehicle camo works best by obscuring the outlines.

Naval camo is designed to to confuse the eye since most naval ships are moving, so dazzle painting will make it hard to see the true outline since you cannot obscure the existence of the object

Naval camouflage was also intended to make it harder to estimate the range, heading & size of the vessel. link

Complex painting patterns didn't disappear at the end of WWII either. These have been pasted by others before but they show the Berlin Brigade urban camouflage pattern.

A Matilda II in the Malta scheme.

Kaoschallenged has already posted the US Manual, so here's the British/Canadian version.
link

Jon Gawne (jgawne on TMP) has written extensively & posted many times here about the US use of camouflage pattern uniforms in NW Europe.

One of the Malta Matildas
link

link

Sherman tank, named ‘Sheik' of the Scots Greys, with distinctive camouflage, 29 September 1943.

link

A Sherman tank of 4th County of London Yeomanry fording the Volturno river at Grazzanise, 17 October 1943

link
link
The crew of a Sherman tank fitted with deep wading equipment enjoy an evening meal beside their vehicle, 15 October 1943.

link

link
A Diamond T tractor of 372 Tank Transporter Company RASC towing a German PzKpfw IV tank, 1 November 1943.
link

Well, the German lozenge pattern was supposed to be on all surfaces, but bravado among the ex-cavalry types in the cockpit won out – and it was soon realized that the bright colors helped tell friend from foe in a fast moving dogfight. This lesson had to be relearned in WWII and all nations adopted some kind of distinctive color on the cowling, tail or wings to avoid friendly fire (which usually isn't)

David G. — the UCP never worked. The Marines got the "digital camo" pattern that worked, and the Army couldn't bear to duplicate anything the jarheads used, so went with a pattern that wasn't fully tested.

The Multicam stuff comes from SOCOM experience, where they could spend more money on better gear.

Part of reason for the USMC new camo uniform design was so they didn't look anything like the US ARMY … And if you notice all branches of the US military have their own camo patterns now … Probably, for a number of reasons, among which was so the media could tell the difference … As far as camo'ing AFVs … anything was better than nothing. Finally the US got around to camo'ing all their vehicles but it was long after WWII, and even Vietnam … I was on active duty, '79-'90 in 4 Infantry Bns, and everything was camo'd by then …

The Flames of War guys can tell you a lot about cammo patterns on vehicles. I started playing the game about 2 years ago and was embarrased when I placed my plain olive drab Shemans on the table. I then did my research, and well, "who knew?" My primary knowledge on the lack of cammo is from WWII movies, no cammo there.

As said above, the patterns varied from region to region. The one I like the most was that Fireflys would paint the upper half of their gun barrels sky blue. Then place a large can halfway up the barrel to simulate a muzzle brake. All in an attempt to look like the other Shermans.

Why the large White Star? Well the air force had a reputation for straifing every thing they found. Soon all the Allies were sporting white stars. As one German said it, when our planes fly, you dig in, when the British planes fly, we dig in, when the Americans fly, we all dig in.

Yes, painted camouflage helps, especially disruptive patterns on stationary objects. The main thing is a dull, drab scheme which blends into the background.

A major concern was air observation, hence the black roofs on British trucks and panzer grey German stuff – when parked up in the shadow of a building makes it very hard it spot from the air.

The Soviets (and many other nations) took the view that however good a paint scheme was, you couldn't beat natural camouflage – so camo nets, foliage, parking up in woods etc.

Grass and shrubbery in helmets really works too.

Whether this stuff actually works well enough to warrant inclusion in wargames rules is amoot point. It is usually subsumed into spotting rules and based on the assumption that troops will be taking senisble precautions. You may wish to use troop quality as a spotting modifier.

In our tactical rules we have spotting mods for 'well camouflaged' and 'skilled at fieldcraft'.

The former usually applies to specific instances for units on defence (on top of existing mods for being dug in etc), the latter to sniper teams, skilled recce troops etc.

Did it work or not? Combat troops tend to be a practical lot. I don't think they would have invested their time and energy if they didn't feel it worth while. Plus our perspectives are way different. A tank in cammo at 100 yards is probably comicaly viewable. 700 yards? Not so much.

I don't think they would have invested their time and energy if they didn't feel it worth while.

OTOH, they also tend to have a lot of rime on their hands, and if slapping some paint on the tank might give them a 1% better chance of not dying, they'll probably do it. Heck, they take the time to paint nicknames and slogans on them, or to carry a rabbit's foot…
-Kle.

Actually, the Brits had some very distinctive camo colours in the desert – including using blue!

link

While the troops would certainly do anything that they thought would help their chances of survival, I wonder if rates of vehicle replacement might also factor in (for example, the Brits went through a lot of tanks in the desert – as did the Russians)

The Armoured Acorn site has some good examples of British paint schemes.

armouredacorn.com/ncvm.html

Also Bison Decals

link

most of the time the vehicles are covered in dust or mud. many times on the Western Front German and American/British columns of vehicles would become intermixed. no one realizing it till someone noticed the uniforms or helmets.

I'm sure someone can find photos of camouflaged tanks that were knocked out or brewed up, which would prove that it didn't ALWAYS work. However, when your life is on the line, why not try anything that might improve your chances of survival even a little bit?

French cruiser Gloire. At distance it was difficult to judge 1) what type of ship 2) range 3) direction of travel.

With the advent of air power in WWI, camo generally became a good idea not only for installations and structures, but for AFVs, rolling stock, etc. … And generally with the naked eye, most vehicles look like dark(er) "blobs" at about 200 meters/yards. Now put that "blob" in terrain that the "blob" more easily blends into … by the time you know it … you're taking fire … Proper use of camo, cover and concealment is just good fieldcraft …

Well they certainly wouldn't have issued manuals about camouflage if they didn't think it would work LOL. Robert

Although a lot of the stuff in is about fieldcraft and how to identify good cover and make yourself look like a bush.

I do love those naval dazzle schemes.

I Liked the different camo paint schemes from April 1944 FM 5-20B US Army Field Manual PDF I posted. Robert

shrubbery in helmets really works too

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2UbtcmjfKa8#t=0s

Yes, using local foliage stuck in your helmet was standard … Our camo helmet covers had little slits in them just for that reason. As well as the helmet band could be used for foliage also. You just had to change it out as it wilted and died … You could do the same with on your LBE/Patrol Harness, back pack, etc., etc. … Of course the "Ghillie Suit" being the ultimate camo job, but mostly is not made of natural shubbery, but that could also be added as needed … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilly_suit