Q of the Week - Camouflage?

Started by Leon, 20 April 2010, 02:58:10 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Leon

20 April 2010, 02:58:10 AM Last Edit: 28 April 2010, 12:53:55 AM by Leon
This week, back to 'Educating Leon':

Why was camouflage not extensively used until the 20th Century?  Native tribes knew the value of disappearing into their surroundings for centuries, so why did it never catch on?
www.pendraken.co.uk - Now home to over 7000 products, including 4500 items for 10mm wargaming, plus MDF bases, Battlescale buildings, I-94 decals, Litko Gaming Aids, Militia Miniatures, Raiden Miniatures 1/285th aircraft, Red Vectors MDF products, Vallejo paints and much, much more!

Hurley

This is could be a big lesson but I'll keep it short. I  believe for the most part Weapons and tactics used before the 20th century relied on unit action on big open fields. It was more impotent to look different different then the other guy so your commander could tell who, where, and how well you where doing. On a side note if you look at anything not on the battle field or small unit fights you see camouflage used, like skirmishers going after supply lines.

Hurley
warning up salt amounts when talking to this person.

Smee

Dont forget that most people who were recruited then had a VERY limited education (I dont mean thick just schooling) and had more than likely never been beyond a couple of miles of where they lived. To these people a bright shinney uniform was very appealing it represented a different kind of life and way out of the drudgery of their current life. Another factor was that the person who formed the Regt. also had to clothe it so they would use what ever material and deisign that they liked.

lentulus

When you are using muskets with a 200m range and have to concentrate men shoulder to shoulder in open fields to get decisive firepower, and adequate mutual support against cavalry, you might as well look good doing it, because you are not going to hide anywhere.

Specialists like jaegers, of course, wore at least green coats; muted clothing was common enough in North America as well.

Leon

Coloured uniforms look nice, and give us something to brighten up the table, but to me it's always seemed like a good way of screaming 'Shoot Me!'

;D
www.pendraken.co.uk - Now home to over 7000 products, including 4500 items for 10mm wargaming, plus MDF bases, Battlescale buildings, I-94 decals, Litko Gaming Aids, Militia Miniatures, Raiden Miniatures 1/285th aircraft, Red Vectors MDF products, Vallejo paints and much, much more!

Patrick R

Most battles were fought in open terrain, often at close range or hand to hand, there was no advantage in hiding, unless you are ambushing people.  So for a long time people used colourful shields, helmet crests, bodypaint and bright uniforms to show off were the norm.  Uniforms were introduced as a useful way of identifying friend from foe.

When it came to muskets, they were only effective when fired in massed volleys, the length of the weapon made it hard to reload quickly when prone, so there was no point in trying to hide.

Modern repeating rifles, machine-guns and quick-firing artillery changed the rules.  A body of men in bright uniforms suddenly became a big juicy target.  And soldiers had to learn to hide and use the terrain to stay out of sight.  Very reluctantly did armies switch to muted or camouflaged uniforms.  At the end of the 19th century soldiers still had lavish colourful uniforms, but by 1900, nearly everybody was going for muted colours and started issuing covers for shiny helmets, breastplates, kilts etc.  Those that still clung to brightly visible uniforms, such as the French in 1914, learned the lesson the hard way.

Leon

Quote from: Patrick R on 21 April 2010, 10:43:31 PM
Uniforms were introduced as a useful way of identifying friend from foe.

Are there many good examples of people wearing the oppositions colours to gain an advantage?
www.pendraken.co.uk - Now home to over 7000 products, including 4500 items for 10mm wargaming, plus MDF bases, Battlescale buildings, I-94 decals, Litko Gaming Aids, Militia Miniatures, Raiden Miniatures 1/285th aircraft, Red Vectors MDF products, Vallejo paints and much, much more!

Patrick R

Quote from: Leon on 22 April 2010, 01:34:51 AM
Are there many good examples of people wearing the oppositions colours to gain an advantage?

It seems the Romans had distinctive enough shields for men to pick up enemy shields to spy in the enemy camp during the civil wars.

Uniforms could cause confusion, many British units in the Napoleonic era had blue uniforms, which could be mistaken for the enemy.  There was a similar confusion in the early stages of the American Civil War with Union and Confederates both wearing blue and gray.

Even the French in the 17th and 18th century could be mistaken for the enemy and they added a white strip to the flag to be recognized.  Similarly the Dutch used an oak leaf in their hats because, like the French they wore gray uniforms.

Hurley

Also in WW2 Everyone had a go at wearing the older sides uniform.

A interesting note to this is a lot of research is going on right now in how to fight a opponent "not" in uniform. The Canadian and i believe American army are putting a lot of money in to "understanding a network" which is understanding how humans interact and conflict with each other.  Like right now the uniform of the Taliban is actually the guy next to him. It kinda goes like this "jack" sees "bob" and some guy walking up to the cave. Jack does not know the guy but he must be on our side cause he is with Bob and i like him.   
warning up salt amounts when talking to this person.