In Steve Jackson's(the US one) Ogre Miniatures Book, the PSB is that camo
is superfluous in the future all-electronic battle field. The tanks
would be outlined in bright colors, keyed to side and threat, in the holo
displays that actually ran the battle.
Certainly, in the Gulf, with many shots on the order of mile or greater,
through dense smoke, and/or at night, this has happened in some
situations. Natch, it's a special case, and I'd rather be camo'd in every way
possible. Hell, I'd rather keep keep my ass as far from any shooting as
possible.
However, my impression is that, if the best IR-suppressing paint were
hot
pink paisley, the Iragi tankers and gro-po's would have done a better
job surviving in Mod mode.
While the above is an observation, and not argument on my part, SJ also
pointed out that camo on the miniature battlefield can be too effective. Nice
if your opponent misses seeing your unit, bad if you do likewise, and miss
using it for a turn or three.
It's bad enough when I get spacey and miss using something in dazzle paint.
;->=
The_Beast
WHile all that wazoo stuff is fine and dandy in low light or limited
visibility stuff, nothing is more accurate than the mark1 eyeball and day
sights when it comes to daytime shooting.
> Doug_Evans/CSN/UNEBR@UNebMail.UNeb.EDU wrote:
> In Steve Jackson's(the US one) Ogre Miniatures Book, the PSB is that
> WHile all that wazoo stuff is fine and dandy in low light or limited
I can't believe how irrational an irritation the above engendered in me. Let
me first apologize to Los if any of the following comes off snide.
I thought I had made clear that the situations WERE special case. However,
from such one can try to note trends.
I started to write up an analogy of the battlewagon vs aviation/sub
arguments in the US prior to WWII, but many on this list would be able to
explain this far better than me. Suffice to say, the big boys did not lose
importance, but changed in importance, and the admirals that lost face tended
to miss the subtlety.
Actually, I think it was the 'mark1' reference. Firstly, I prefer Mark
I.
Secondly, as this was the second note in a very short time to use the phrase,
it was taking on less the aspect of rational argument, and more a religious
mantra.
Of course, now, and for the foreseeable future, Mark I rules!
After all, bright lights on tank hull down in wooded depression spells
target. ;->=
Just, try not to close your eyes to other possibilities.
As an aside: As EE has been brought up, wasn't it in Rouge(sic) Trader that
there were two pages of codex camo, including bizarre schemes for slag terrain
and
active lava flows? Blues, pinks, oranges, fire-engine reds...
*ah* For religious experience, there's nothing like thumbing through those
ever-loosening pages.
The_Beast
> Doug_Evans/CSN/UNEBR@UNebMail.UNeb.EDU wrote:
I've never agreed with that particular contention (although I'm a big
OGRE/Bolo fan). The electronic warfare environment described by Steve
Jackson is one full of heavy jamming and countermeasures. Now one of the least
'jammable' types of sensor is a visual one, whether it is your eye or a
camera.
I always pictured the big super tanks being tricked out in 'dazzle' paint like
was used on ships in the World Wars. Since the actual
location that is hit on an ogre/bolo is important, breaking up their
outline and providing false visual clues about their actual size, facing, and
speed would be very important, especially if the beast has
succeeded in spoofing your radar/IR/MAG/etc sensors.
Unfortunately, my painting skills have never been up to the task.
Jonathan Jarrad: I always pictured the big super tanks being tricked out in
'dazzle' paint like was used on ships in the World Wars. Since the actual
location that is hit on an ogre/bolo is important, breaking up their
outline and providing false visual clues about their actual size, facing, and
speed would be very important, especially if the beast has
succeeded in spoofing your radar/IR/MAG/etc sensors.
Me: Excellent point, and one to which I alluded, slightly, in a latter
comment. However, just for completeness, I'd like to point out that dazzle
paint was mostly for subs, and the effect was to confuse the Mark I eyeballing
of target ship baring(sp? damn homonyms), necessary for figuring torpedo run
plotting. Mostly apropos of how a shot should 'lead' a moving target.
Never considered location targetting considerations. Kewl!
Jonathan Jarrad: Now one of the least 'jammable' types of sensor is a visual
one, whether it is your eye or a camera.
Me: Well, dust, smoke, brush, an earlier mention of bright lights, night
manuvers, camo, etc., all seem to fit the idea of visual jamming, but, as I
said earlier, I agree that eyes still are the most versatile sensor going, and
all the others are still just extensions.
However, the aforementioned holo displays are also such extensions, and, at
extreme long ranges, would probably be the weak link in battle control, and
the attendent strengths and weaknesses would be the ones requiring the
strongest consideration.
As an aside, are folks aware that, during WWII, people with red-green
colorblindness were often used to defeat camo paint schemes?
Also, SJ's comments allowed that the units themselves might be camo'd, but
that the tabletop could represent the displays, and so your figs might well be
'flashy'.
Trying to get back to DS/SG/FT, still goes back to 'paint 'em how you
like.'
The_Beast
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 06:40:56 -0600,
> Doug_Evans/CSN/UNEBR@UNebMail.UNeb.EDU wrote:
> After all, bright lights on tank hull down in wooded depression spells
It depends on whether the exposed hull is "skylined" or not. Nova had a good
episode on camouflage a number of years ago. It turns out that if you want to
camouflage a vehicle that is "skylined" (that is, has the sky behind it, as in
a vehicle coming over a hill) what you want is a bank of REALLY bright lights.
The sky is very bright. Really, very bright, even on an overcast day. The Nova
people took an M113 and attached a bank of light bulbs to it. Up close, it was
really quite bright and noticable (but then, so is your plain, drab M113). Out
a couple of hundred yards and the lights made the vehicle blend into the sky.
It was impossible to see. A very bright vehicle may be just what you want in a
rolling desert environment.
My take on this is you paint the vehicle in a camouflage pattern, regardless
of electronics. There is always a chance that you will be attacked by a guy
who lost his helmet and is using unaided eyes to
fire a portable anti-tank missile. This is the same reason the
vehicles in the Warhammer games are silly: the Land Raider isn't impervious to
weapons in all cases, so it makes sense to slope the armour. For the same
reason, you paint the vehicles camouflage.
But here's another thought: how do the eyes of an alien work? As an example, I
always thought that a dog's eyesight was worse than a human's. It turns out
that it's different, not worse. They don't see contrasts as well as humans,
hence the reason that certain dayglo yellow tennis balls are almost impossible
for a dog to see in short grass. On the other hand, dogs can see far better in
the dark than a human (anyone who's ever had to chase a dog amongst trees at
night knows that only one of you is running into foliage, and it ain't the
pooch...). Some hunters wear dayglo red vests with darker red splotches to
represent camouflage. Colour blind critters don't see the dayglo red, they
only see the contrasting patterns that break up the human outline. Humans, on
the other had, see the hunter from a great
distance and--hopefully--will not shoot at him.
So, how well does a Kra'vak see the human-visible spectrum? A dayglo
pattern may be fully justified: the Kra'vak don't see your tanks too well, but
you've cut down on friendly fire incidents.
In other words, it's SF. You can probably justify any camo pattern you
want...