by Tracy White » Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:09 pm
Eh.... I have a couple of issues.
There has been little research into the effects (if any) of dazzle camouflage. To date, evidence of its military usefulness is largely restricted to anecdotal reports (e.g. [17]), and the British Admiralty's 1918 analysis of naval shipping losses in WWI was inconclusive, with changes in colour schemes on ships confounded with ship size and other changes in military practice during the war [9], [11]
I see nothing in their references that indicates that they did any research in official US Naval documents in the US National Archives. There was an awful lot of research and scientific testing done by
Everett Warner,
Charles Bittenger, and others.
If one mis-identifies the course/direction a vessel is traveling in, and tracks it's movement across an arc, then one has mis-identified the speed. If you are off by enough to put a torpedo ten feet BEHIND your target, isn't that enough to invalidate their argument? Seems too "clean room"-ish to me.
Eh.... I have a couple of issues.
[quote]There has been little research into the effects (if any) of dazzle camouflage. To date, evidence of its military usefulness is largely restricted to anecdotal reports (e.g. [17]), and the British Admiralty's 1918 analysis of naval shipping losses in WWI was inconclusive, with changes in colour schemes on ships confounded with ship size and other changes in military practice during the war [9], [11][/quote]
I see nothing in their references that indicates that they did any research in official US Naval documents in the US National Archives. There was an awful lot of research and scientific testing done by [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Warner]Everett Warner[/url], [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bittinger]Charles Bittenger[/url], and others.
If one mis-identifies the course/direction a vessel is traveling in, and tracks it's movement across an arc, then one has mis-identified the speed. If you are off by enough to put a torpedo ten feet BEHIND your target, isn't that enough to invalidate their argument? Seems too "clean room"-ish to me.