"Why bother with camouflage in sci-fi?" Topic

I have been putting off painting up some sci-fi models due to lack of inspiration for colour schemes.

With all the electronic measures, will there be any need for camouflage, or will electronic counter measures mean it will still be necessary to hide from visual identification?

I appreciate it will really depend on how hi-tech my future universe is going to be.

any thoughts?

because not everyone is always prepared?
because the future may have electronic stimulated thread/paint that works to counteract basic electronic resolution devices?
becuase its cool to paint if you are good at it?

One possible development in the future will be adaptive camouflage. Vehicles will be coated in meta-Materials that will allow the vehicle to blend in with the terrain. How one chooses to paint said vehicles will depend on their theater of operations.

And obviously there will be a standard colour for the army, which will be the default parade ground, base etc duty.

For some armies it might not only be unnecessary but undesirable. If you have some sort of elite force that is almost impervious to the enemies weapons it may be better to scare them off by showing up than to fight them.

Why do you see Generals in the Pentagon holding a press conference wearing camouflage?
Because a busby and pelisse are no longer in style.

The answer is both yes and no I suspect. Better sensors might mean that camouflage isn't as valuable, but better countermeasures might cancel that effect out. I suspect that the number of times that camouflage is considered useful will be enough to make it a standard feature well into the future.

The other aspect is cultural; camouflage wasn't as popular pre-20th century not because it wasn't possible or never useful (though less useful in pre-gunpowder warfare perhaps), but in large part because the military culture put much more emphasis on appearing ready to fight and group identification through visual cues, etc, etc. An extreme example would be a knight's coat of arms; they WANTED to be seen and identified. That sort of military culture might appear again in the far future.

So the bottom line is paint whatever you're comfortable with. :)

-Will

It might help keep you hidden from animials that want to eat you.

Some may feel it 'looks' more military, some may prefer pretty colours – could just finish up on the effect you want to have. Remember, most of the time your vehicles won't be in combat ant the colour scheme could represent public perception of your army rather than reality.

Mixed messages

The Red Baron

link

Love the hat !
link

Oh yea, or WWI aces. An even more useful and current example! :)

-Will

C'mon, everyone knows in the future, warfare will be conducted with Claws or Autonomous Mobile Swords.

I painted my Ogres in bright schemes because I figured everyone knows darn well an Ogre is coming.

On the other hand I am going to paint one of my Telosian tank droids in Berlin Brigade urban because it looks cool!

Camouflage will more than likely be relevant into the distant future. At least as long as warfare is still tech driven. Just as the eye can be fooled even micro processor driven optics can be foiled. Radar and laser can be scatter or deflected and I don't believe therm-optics will be undefeatable for to much longer.
That being said, one of the SF games I play pits humans against aliens who have no optical organs and figuring out how they sense and learning to foil those senses are a cool part of the game. So human forces could be as visually garish as you like as the aliens can't see them in the light spectrum anyway.
Nice thing about imaginative games and settings, you can make most ideas plausible

I have a feeling that in the future most sensors will be as easy to trace as they are today---usually with guided munitions. That leaves visual or high altitude visual--think of it as a "passive" sensor.
Camo or other paint patterns may be used to hide unit composition or unit type.

For most of my sci-fi settings/projects, I assume adaptive camouflage, and since a unit could be a on an Earth-like temperate forest planet one campaign, a desert planet the next, and a purple planet the next, rather than pick one scheme and look odd the rest of the time, I'm going with parade ground colours (which still may be a camouflage scheme, but possibly a flamboyant one).

For references/ideas, I've taken some bird, butterfly, frog etc. ID guides and will use those paint schemes for the units.

In the 'Orphan's War' series (I think that's the title) the enemy 'slugs' saw in infrared, so the human body armor was painted in colors that helped absorb infrared radiation. It looked garish to human eyes but made them harder for the 'slugs' to see.

-Will

I've often thought it would be fun to paint a 6mm tank unit in camo, with one tank in parade ground colors because its adaptive camouflage program got "stuck."

"This new OS is a piece of crap! We keep cycling from parade to desert to tropical to ice to temperate to urban . . ."

I always assume that any regular type troops in body armor are wearing a sort of chameleon armor that would adapt to surroundings. On the other hand, low level insurgent types would wear some camo fatigues.

Why bother with camo? because when all your other fancy sensors are jammed, the Mk1 eyeball is still working and very hard to spoof.

Because it looks cool.

Doug

because not everyone is always prepared?
because the future may have electronic stimulated thread/paint that works to counteract basic electronic resolution devices?
because its cool to paint if you are good at it?

Agree on all points … only a drink'n GW fan boy would paint anything military in circus colors !

One possible development in the future will be adaptive camouflage. Vehicles will be coated in meta-Materials that will allow the vehicle to blend in with the terrain. How one chooses to paint said vehicles will depend on their theater of operations.

Agreed

And obviously there will be a standard colour for the army, which will be the default parade ground, base etc duty.

Units will probably be painted in the terrain they may most likely will operate in.

Camouflage will more than likely be relevant into the distant future. At least as long as warfare is still tech driven.

Very true … again unless you drink the GW

Why do you see Generals in the Pentagon holding a press conference wearing camouflage?

Usually those uniforms are much more comfortable and much more functional than a dress uniform.

Why bother with camo? because when all your other fancy sensors are jammed, the Mk1 eyeball is still working and very hard to spoof.

Yep … that is logical and makes good common sense …

For some armies it might not only be unnecessary but undesirable. If you have some sort of elite force that is almost impervious to the enemies weapons it may be better to scare them off by showing up than to fight them.

I think we've been around this rose bush before. In Infantry training we were taught that our mission was to close with the enemy to kill, capture, and/or destroy enemy personnel and equipment. Nothing in there about scaring them. Plus it's hard to spring an ambush if you are wearing circus colors. You spend a lot of time trying to blend in and get something solid between you and all the flying objects winging thru the battlefield. I'd imagine that will hold true even in the future.

So the bottom line is paint whatever you're comfortable with. :)

Totally agree … Do what works for you not me … But it won't stop me from making fun of your orange and red tanks when you put them on the gaming table !

we all forget that some planets the magnetic field may run sensors inoperaple.

especially on some bug planets!

Actually, it does make sense. If your oponent manages somehow to hack into your systems you can find useful to still have your troops in cammo uniforms. Or what if they have developed the ability to pinpoint your soldiers by locating your counter-electronic measures? Then you can find useful to turn them off and trust in the old good cammo. There are lot of reasons why cammo may be still useful in future engagements.

What about when your high tech Marines land to occupy a low-tech planet? Sensors are less relevant if the other guys don't use them

"In Infantry training we were taught that our mission was to close with the enemy to kill, capture, and/or destroy enemy personnel and equipment. Nothing in there about scaring them."

So are you saying that scaring the enemy isn't useful?

I was always told that in hand to hand combvat you screamed at the top of your voice to distract. Not sure if that counts as 'scaring'.

Plus it's hard to spring an ambush if you are wearing circus colors.

I just had a sudden vision of clowns jumping up out of terrain armed with ARs and the like…

Damon :)

Because of all of the above plus high tech stuff will break and when it does that old fashioned camouflage just might give you an edge.

ECM will advance as quickly as sensors will. You won't always be fighting the highest tech force. There will always be the need for the Mk I eyeball, and a need to trick it.

Opfors who aren't big on high-tech sensors: Reavers, Road Wariors, Scavengers, Troggies, Futsies, CHUDS, Xenomorphs, Polymorphs, Despair Squids, Trancers, Zergs, Bugs, Cultists, Yugees, Bodysnatchers/Pod People, Fremen, Sand People, Zardoz Exterminators, High Crusaders, Damn Dirty Apes, Them, the Thing, Blobs/Rutans/Hortas, Graboids, Penal Battalions, the less-advanced races of Mongo and of Tharv, Morlocks, Zombies/Ragers/the Infected, Ghosts of Mars, "Hodgkin's Law" societies, the Krool, Nort proto-GIs, ID-monsters, Kaijus, Gungans, Vortigaunts and the giant rape-slug from "Galaxy of Terror".

That's off the top of my head, and I'd consider myself a sci-fi lightweight.
Two caveats:

(1) I realise that some of the above wouldn't be reliant primarily on vision. I'm just brainstorming non-tech archetypes here, and:

(2) I realise that none of the above will cut any ice with 'Blue faction rifle section vs. Red faction rifle section' aficionados who consider it pushing the envelope to include a drone in the mix.

Edited for duplicate posting.

Talking low-tech sci-fi Opfors, and a Bug shows up!

Probably just coincidence…

So are you saying that scaring the enemy isn't useful?

No, not at all, but don't base your tactics and fieldcraft on the enemy running away. Unless they are Iraqis and you are Daesh ! Regardless, US military doctrine since the ACW generally has been to inflict as many losses to the enemy as often as possible. The quicker you attrite the enemy, the quicker you break his will. And runs out of bodies … The quicker the war is over. And at the very least you keep your losses as low as possible. And in turn hopefully the enemy's as high as possible. An enemy that runs away out of fear means you still have to hunt them down and kill them on another day. Which isn't always a bad thing. But bottom line, a retreating army is not a defeated army. The retreating force is trying to break contact. To fallback to rearm, refit, etc. and counter attack and take to the offensive. Of course they can't very well do that if they run away as routed uncoordinated mob or mobs.

Again, note the Iraqis against Daesh. And note in GWII, the standing Iraqi forces generally ran away. But not all. However, then many of the remnants with local support fought a long bloody insurgency. You really don't want to got this route. It's better to attrite the enemy rapidly and in high numbers. And then leave him no options but surrender or die. Now if they surrender out of fear that is good too. But that does not always happen … rarely in fact … unless you are Iraqi …

Now during the Korean War, some US Tankers painted a tiger face with eyes and mouth with teeth, etc. … On the fort hull of their tanks. As they believed that the mostly Chinese peasant Army would be afraid, etc. … Don't know how really effective it was ? As the UN Forces fought almost 3 years and killed thousand upon thousands of Chinamen [and Norks]. So it didn't scare too many of them it appears.

But since we are talking Sci-fi. If it does scare your alien enemy and forces him to surrender if your troops are wearing clown suits or in calypso colors etc. … Then by all means get out the paint brushes and have the S4 order paints from Disney. And issues Bozo Halloween costumes.

I was always told that in hand to hand combat you screamed at the top of your voice to distract. Not sure if that counts as 'scaring'.

Yes, very true … but are you wearing a clown suit while doing it ?

I just had a sudden vision of clowns jumping up out of terrain armed with ARs and the like…

Well in Pictor's universe that might just work ! LOL ! Not so much anywhere else though … I'd think …

That is what the Bug infiltrators want you to think!

When the active camo is countered they have to use some sort of old school printed pattern with infra-red to ultra violet dampening to confuse the passive sensors (including Mk 1 eyeball).

Sh*t get broken or equalized – rule one of military equipment.

Since we have no idea where tech will be, its up to the game universe to set the tech level. I think its a matter of enjoyable paint jobs. Like 40K using the Praetorian historical look or the Russian great coats.

My ideas:
super hig tech future; body suits for quick motion with more emphasis on armor than appearance.

Lower tech: Camo would be fine but still I think body armour would be better because of weapons continually improving.

Super low tech; Google Daryl Dixon….

"Well in Pictor's universe that might just work ! LOL ! wink Not so much anywhere else though … I'd think …"

I guess because you aren't looking. In about 3,000 years of human history camo has really only been used in about a century, give or take. Not that there weren't instances in the past where it was good to hide. In actual battle though it was often thought good to display rather than hide.

It would be naive to believe that technology couldn't change to make that true again.

"Regardless, US military doctrine since the ACW generally has been to inflict as many losses to the enemy as often as possible."

This will almost always be true, unless you are trying to enslave the enemy of course. However in the ACW they didn't use camo. What they did sometimes was charge with the bayonet.

This was a weapon of terror more than anything else. There are very few recorded instances of bayonet wounds to someone's front in the ACW.

So it seems that often the doctrine was to get the enemy to run because it was easier to kill them when their back was turned.

This is often the strategy in war.

My guess is that you are looking too narrowly at warfare and only considering a very brief span in human history.

Of course if you are wearing some armor that makes you practically invulnerable to the enemy why would you hide?

You might hide if you were trying to draw them into a trap.

You might hide if you wanted to find out what they were doing.

But if you are trying to force them out of a town you might want to show up, loud speakers blaring, lights flashing and so forth.

I'd also point out that when making pre-dawn massed tank attacks in the 90s US army tankers were trained to start all their engines and turn their lights on all at once to psyche the enemy out. So your idea that camo is always good isn't even necessarily true in modern warfare.

Psychological warfare can be very effective, especially when your forces have a well deserved reputation for crushing all enemy opposition.

The bright orange color of the 9857th Heavy Grav Armored Division's vehicles strikes fear into the hearts of all that oppose them, much like the Red Baron did in his bright red aircraft many centuries ago. All enemy units are required to perform and pass a mandatory morale check when they first spot them visually.

[URL=http://s43.photobucket.com/user/Top_Gun_Ace/media/15mm%20Grav%20Tanks%20and%20Armor/Type15HeavyGravTank.jpg.html]

[/URL]

"The Fireballs" (named that due to their brightly colored vehicles, and the contrails they leave in the sky as they drop to the planet's surface from orbit at Mach 3) have developed a fearsome reputation throughout the galaxy, rarely giving quarter to their opponents.

What they did sometimes was charge with the bayonet.

This was a weapon of terror more than anything else.

Yes, this is hugely important to point out. A bayonet charge isn't intended to end in a hand-to-hand fight; the intent is to get the enemy to hi-tail it and run. That's why units frequently stripped the bluing off their bayonets; a row of burnished steel was considered more intimidating to the enemy than blackened steel. Same reason why units charged in flags flying and drums beating; you WANTED the enemy to know you were coming. And however counter-intuitive it seems compared to modern military practice, this WORKED, over and over again throughout history. It's not all that hard to imagine such a military culture emerging again in the right circumstances. It happened in WWI air combat, as was already pointed out.

The current military obsession with stealth/camouflage/etc is primarily a late-20th century conceit (albeit one with firm grounding in current military reality), not a fundamental aspect of military operations. I suspect it will remain hugely important for a long time to come, but who knows where technology will take us. So, as I said earlier, folks should paint up their forces however they like.

-Will

Oh please … you don't need to lecture me about military history. We all know tech push the General's to evolve their tactics. We see this more and more as the ACW went on. Towards the end more breach loading artillery, improved small arms, more fortifications, etc., etc. force the leadership to change many way they did the business of war. Things began to look a little more like WWI. And then in WWI tactics had to change again with all the new tech on the battlefield. MGs, quick firing FA, aircraft, tanks, etc. … As with WWII, the tech improved as well as tactics. "Blitzkrieg" being the first of many tactical improvements. So yes, in early times camo, cover and concealment played little in most battles. As the average line Grunt didn't have a ranged weapon. Among other considerations.

It would be naive to believe that technology couldn't change to make that true again

It would be … but I don't think anytime soon will leaders be thinking about not using camo, cover & concealment.

This will almost always be true, unless you are trying to enslave the enemy of course. However in the ACW they didn't use camo. What they did sometimes was charge with the bayonet.

This is because again, the average Grunt didn't have a repeating weapon. A good trooper could get maybe 2-3 or 4 shot a min. … And you can't reload while running. The bayonet was the direct solution to this. Well before the ACW. If they could have used fire and maneuver like modern armies do they would have. And note, the losses due to bladed weapons in the ACW was small. But again, that does not stop us from carrying a bayonet today. It will have some use in close combat. We each carried a bayonet, a and a knife. If nothing else it was useful for opening c-rats, and other chores in the field. My preference was a USAF Survival Knife. My buddy had Gerber, another actually carried a Gurkha Kukri … real infantry soldiers in real Infantry units. Not something I read about.

So it seems that often the doctrine was to get the enemy to run because it was easier to kill them when their back was turned.

That is only because they couldn't envelope them and cut off their retreat. A dead or captured enemy trooper can't live to fight another day … Unless you are really talking Sci-fi. Or Fantasy like LotRs …

My guess is that you are looking too narrowly at warfare and only considering a very brief span in human history.

No, we are talking about modern and future warfare. Not ancient, medieval, etc. … Alexander's Army would have little use for camo uniforms. Or Leonidas at Thermopoly (sp?), The King at Agincourt or even the Pharaoh at Kadesh …

Of course if you are wearing some armor that makes you practically invulnerable to the enemy why would you hide?

You might hide if you were trying to draw them into a trap.

You might hide if you wanted to find out what they were doing.

But if you are trying to force them out of a town you might want to show up, loud speakers blaring, lights flashing and so forth.

All true to some level or other … But NEVER underestimate your enemy.

you might want to show up, loud speakers blaring, lights flashing

I've never heard in recent time of anyone doing this … you'd probably get shot at the very least.

I'd also point out that when making pre-dawn massed tank attacks in the 90s US army tankers were trained to start all their engines and turn their lights on all at once to psyche the enemy out. So your idea that camo is always good isn't even necessarily true in modern warfare.

That was a rare case against the Iraqis Army that in many situations would surrender to a anything that was not Iraqi. As a Mech Co Cdr, '87-'89. I've been attached to Armor Bns a number of times. At that time, I never heard any Bn Cdr brief that. As we were prepping to fight an army that didn't run away. Do that against any Army other than the Iraqis, you'll be looking to get shot at … I don't risk my troop's lives on such a tactic unless we know for sure that will work. And besides an M60 or M1 has a lot better armor the those flimsy M113s we were riding in.

Psychological warfare can be very effective, especially when your forces have a well deserved reputation for crushing all enemy opposition.

Of course, we all know how effective PsyOps can be. And if it gave you a real edge to paint your tanks orange. You'd do it. Of course on the gaming table you can justify anything if you want. Nice model and paint job though !

Yes, this is hugely important to point out. A bayonet charge isn't intended to end in a hand-to-hand fight; the intent is to get the enemy to hi-tail it and run. That's why units frequently stripped the bluing off their bayonets; a row of burnished steel was considered more intimidating to the enemy than blackened steel. Same reason why units charged in flags flying and drums beating; you WANTED the enemy to know you were coming. And however counter-intuitive it seems compared to modern military practice, this WORKED, over and over again throughout history. It's not all that hard to imagine such a military culture emerging again in the right circumstances. It happened in WWI air combat, as was already pointed out.

All very true … But as you noted we are talking the 1860s vs. 20th Century's technology. And the Flying Circus was quite the anomaly. And besides in that era of Air2Air. Where are you going to hide besides behind a cloud ? Of course most aircraft at that time were camo'd to blend in with the ground below and when that were parked at the airfield, etc. … As was as painting the bottom of the aircraft to blend it with the sky. Still used today in most cases. And the AAA weapons of that time were in their infancy …

The current military obsession with stealth/camouflage/etc. is primarily a late-20th century conceit (albeit one with firm grounding in current military reality), not a fundamental aspect of military operations. I suspect it will remain hugely important for a long time to come,

Of course, based on decades of experience. You don't make yourself a target. The saying was when I was on active duty '79-'90, "If you can be seen … you can be hit … if you can be hit … you can be killed …" … So why do anything that may put you in body bag.

All very true … But as you noted we are talking the 1860s vs. 20th Century's technology.

Yes, I get that, and the preponderance of modern firepower is exactly why camouflage (or stealth) is so important today. Yea, I wouldn't want to be running around in an orange jumpsuit if the enemy was firing at me with AK's either. But what if some sort of technology comes along and changes the offense/defense balance, for example?

For example, let's imagine someone invents something like the Dune energy shield; it does a damn good job of blocking fast projectiles (ie, bullets and shrapnel) and is man-portable. All of a sudden this changes the dynamic of small arms combat quite a bit, and cuts down on the advantage that superior firepower gives you. I'm not sure it means we go all the way back to swords and shields, but it does mean that current infantry tactics and the emphasis on taking cover, fire-and-move, etc, etc all probably go out the window.

Of course, based on decades of experience. You don't make yourself a target. The saying was when I was on active duty '79-'90, "If you can be seen … you can be hit … if you can be hit … you can be killed …" … So why do anything that may put you in body bag.

Again, a modern (and sensible) stance; but plenty of warriors in history went into battle waving what were essentially giant 'come and get me' signs at the grim reaper. If your military culture places a lot of emphasis on individual glory, you want to be recognizable on the field, as one example. Folks 200 years ago had radically different values then you and me, and I suspect folks 200 years from now will have radically different values then you or me. I would not assume that future conflicts will be just like modern conflicts, just with bigger fancier guns. Or, one CAN assume that (and it might be right), but other models are possible.

-Will

So, as I said earlier, folks should paint up their forces however they like

As did I … you can justify anything if like on a gaming board. Hell … you don't have to justify anything … As I said, do what works for you … not me …

But what if some sort of technology comes along and changes the offense/defense balance, for example?

For example, let's imagine someone invents something like the Dune energy shield; it does a damn good job of blocking fast projectiles (ie, bullets and shrapnel) and is man-portable. All of a sudden this changes the dynamic of small arms combat quite a bit, and cuts down on the advantage that superior firepower gives you. I'm not sure it means we go all the way back to swords and shields, but it does mean that current infantry tactics and the emphasis on taking cover, fire-and-move, etc, etc all probably go out the window.

And if/when such tech comes about, we'll evolve our tactics, techniques, fieldcraft, etc., as I mentioned before. Tech forces your tactics to change and evolve.