camo and tanks

5 posts ยท Jan 9 2002 to Jan 23 2002

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 22:41:39 -0500

Subject: camo and tanks

Camo is designed to break up a visual outline (the human eye picks up smooth
curves like helmets much easier than broken ones like a boonie hat or a helmet
with scrimmage attached). OTOH, I have heard it reported
that scrim attached to modern IR-dispersive BDUs messes makes you stand
out under TI or IR viewing. I dunno, never had a $5K TI scope to test the
theory (or fancy IR dispersive jams either). Anyone know if this is "urban
military myth" or factual? (I think the argument went something like dead
plants will have a different IR sig than your suit so they'll stand out
against it....)

But, for all that, the visual daytime non-sensor advantages are great
enough that I won't abandon facepaint, scrim, or other visual camouflage
regimens until 1) everyone starts using IR/TI all the time (assuming the
above is true) or 2) they deploy an effective IR and visual camo suit.

Anyone seen the new Canadian Cammie Jammies? The new BDU is computer generated
and works like the dickens. Stare at it.... your EYES hurt. It is really
disturbing to look at as your eyes just don't want to lock in on it. Looks
like a pain in the arse to paint on minis (the pixelated
look... how to get that?). It looks like a bad old C-64 sprite image,
but boy does it work. Course, I don't know about its abilities in the thermal
bands....

As for tanks, the Sherman wasn't a bad tank, it just wasn't the equal of the
German tanks. But they cost a bundle to make, were a logistical nightmare
(complex and sometimes unreliable), and if you could afford to make 3x as many
Shermans and use them in line like artillery, you didn't care. And if you were
backed up by Typhoons and Lightnings and Mustangs, those Panthers and Tigers
didn't stand much of a chance. And a Tiger or
Panther out of ball-bearings, grease, spares, or gas isn't much use....
which is another way that the Allies beat the Axis.

One of the best tanks of the war, though rarely the best commanded, was
probably the T-34 (later models, the early ones had some interesting
flaws such as gunner seat not attached to turret....). Simple, robust, and
fairly tough.

And as for Whitmann taking out a column of Brits, he did exactly what he
should do in an ambush. But in order to hit them, he had to be able to bear
with his main armament, so they should probably have been able to shoot back.
His tank had to be capable of surviving the return fire, which it apparently
did.

Of course, so much of a WW2 tank battle is spotting and target acquisition. In
older tanks (or even in modern ones), buttoned up is a sure way to have
command and control issues, but having your commander up is a lovely recipe
for a dead track commander. Not like some sort of
2190 vehicle with full immersive three-d imagining (virtual synthetic
environment) for track crews that makes being unbuttoned needless and stupid
(at least till they start peeling off chunks of hull sensors and you have
to!).

My usual 0.02... Cdn.:)

Tomb

From: Roger Burton West <roger@f...>

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 23:14:58 +0000

Subject: Re: camo and tanks

> On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 10:41:39PM -0500, Tomb wrote:

See for example:

http://www.vcds.dnd.ca/dgsp/dsc/bravo/images/clothe.jpg (not very good)
http://www2.ttcn.ne.jp/~camouflage/image/canadian_digital_camo.jpg
(better)

From: Iain Davidson <iain@a...>

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:31:13 -0000

Subject: RE: camo and tanks

BDU?

Pretty please ;-)

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 08:27:55 -0500

Subject: Re: camo and tanks

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Steve Gill <Steve@c...>

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:11:53 -0000

Subject: RE: camo and tanks

> Roger Burton wrote:

Nice design, should break up the outline nicely as long as the rest of the
kit's in the same design. I get the feeling it might not work too well at
distance though, the colours are a little too similar.

---