I don't really get how the horizon effect is something that could be confused/conflated with the effect of dazzle camouflage. The horizon effect is described as a predictable bias in angle estimation, relative to the true angle, when a ship is viewed such that it's near the horizon. This presumably always applies to the view from a periscope, so it would be ever present in any remotely reasonable test of dazzle camouflage (whether to a neutral control or to conventional camouflage patterns). They just say that Blodgett’s control was "too vague to be useful", but it would have to be a truly terrible control to lead to the suggested confusion, e.g., comparing dazzle camouflage through a periscope to conventional camouflage viewed from above.
I had the exact same question and I think the news article didn't do a good job to answer it. But the paper does claim that his control was terrible, even though not clear why because he didn't seem to document it properly.
> After addressing problems with Blodgett's analysis and control experiment, we found results indicating a twist of only about 7°, but a much larger “hysteresis” effect (∼19–23°) where perceived direction was drawn to the horizon regardless of dazzle. This effect combined both constructively and destructively with “twist”, depending on the direction of the target ship.
Then specifically this part is very suspicious, zero error is unlikely in any circumstance:
> A uniform white and black background were assumed to produce zero errors. In the case of white, Blodgett (1919) claimed this was borne out by experiment, though no details (e.g., number of trials or observers) were provided. Furthermore, there is no evidence (or even a suggestion) that the black condition was run.
> Results were also reported for ships painted uniform black and uniform grey (e.g., see Table 2 in S2). These conditions were not mentioned by Blodgett until his results, and it is not clear under what seascape and weather conditions these controls were run, how many trials were performed, what the true directions were, or which or how many participants took part. In fact, there is nothing in Blodgett's report to suggest that these conditions were performed by any of the six participants mentioned above.
The last photo in the article is of my great uncle's [0] ship, the Olympic [1], sister ship to the Titanic. It's interesting to read about since he was knighted after the war for captaining her and ramming a U-boat [2] that was trying to sink her during a troop transport mission across the Atlantic.
H.I. Sutton did a great video [1] about it that also explains how it was beneficial due to the way enemy submarines had to estimate speed and heading and could get fooled.
When you're trying to hit something moving 20kt, with something moving 30-35kt, from a few thousand yards, it doesn't take much error in estimating speed, heading, or distance, to make them miss. It's honestly more remarkable that they hit at all in those conditions, even with a "spread" (shooting several along slightly different headings hoping one or two will hit).
Anyone with a copy of Silent Hunter 3 https://store.steampowered.com/app/15210/Silent_Hunter_III/ can experience this for themselves. Trying to estimate another ship's heading from a vantage point near sea level is maddening, even with the aid of a little recognition book which shows ships of that class at various relative headings, and as TFA says it's especially hard to tell the difference between perpendicular and near-perpendicular relative headings.
Mind you, this also explains why dazzle was a promising idea in the first place. Calculating Angle On Bow was already the hard part of ship-against-ship targeting, why not try to make it even harder?
Well, at least in WW2 they had mechanical computers that could use the input width of the vessel and the class to estimate the range, heading, and firing angle to set the torpedoes up. There's a good series of youtube videos by a sim player that teaches how to use the TDC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANk6hZCcVRw - it's very in depth, and demonstrates how much effort it takes to get a firing solution, as you say.
> we found results indicating a twist [due to dazzle] of only about 7°, but a much larger “hysteresis” effect (∼19–23°) where perceived direction was drawn to the horizon regardless of dazzle. This effect combined both constructively and destructively with “twist”, depending on the direction of the target ship.
It's in the first paragraph? At least the effect they were looking for:
> Unlike traditional camouflage, which helps objects blend into their surroundings, dazzle camouflage used stark geometric patterns to try to confuse German U-boat captains’ perception of a ship’s direction and speed, making it harder to target.
The connection between camouflage and then-current art styles is also interesting. Dazzle camouflage seems quite related to expressionism (which I know mostly from film, where it's stark and unsettling like the camouflage), and the still-current pixel camo is related to, well, "computers are cool" and pixel art.
Strange take. Pixelated camouflage is and was an attempt to make a scale invariant camouflage (works at near and far distances) by encoding patterns at multiple spatial frequencies. It's far from "computers are cool" or pixel art.
There are always reasons (rationalizations) why it had to be exactly like that. Like so many acronyms that are really backronyms. Or, if you are familiar with IT, why a certain technology is "needed" in a product.
I'm not saying that these camo patterns don't work, but the particulars (e.g. why it had to be rectangular pixels, not hexagons or nature-inspired fractals) are often connected to fashions. My personal opinion is that dazzle camo looks cool, by the way ;)
Conceivably this would be done better with more resolution and pixelated patterns are also not found in nature. Keep in mind this rolled out in an era where army recruiting was investing heavily in video games and other favorable media in effort to connect with a new generation of youth. High tech seeming uniforms are also for the morale of the soldier as much as they are for function.
It's impossible to conclusively say whether dazzle worked or not, due to the large number of confounding variables. One study, which I unfortunately forget where I read it, came to the tentative conclusion that it was probably mostly a wash. Yes, dazzle helped somewhat and there was as a result a slightly lower percentage of successful attacks (that is, more torpedoes that missed their target), but OTOH due to being easier to spot in the first place the dazzle painted ships also invited more attacks.
The fun part about this article is I did not know the term "razzle dazzle" came from this kind of camo. As in: "I gave em the ol razzle dazzle" meaning "I was able to escape being pursued." Even the first comment below mention the "old razzle dazzle." Fun term.
Readit News
> After addressing problems with Blodgett's analysis and control experiment, we found results indicating a twist of only about 7°, but a much larger “hysteresis” effect (∼19–23°) where perceived direction was drawn to the horizon regardless of dazzle. This effect combined both constructively and destructively with “twist”, depending on the direction of the target ship.
Then specifically this part is very suspicious, zero error is unlikely in any circumstance:
> A uniform white and black background were assumed to produce zero errors. In the case of white, Blodgett (1919) claimed this was borne out by experiment, though no details (e.g., number of trials or observers) were provided. Furthermore, there is no evidence (or even a suggestion) that the black condition was run.
> Results were also reported for ships painted uniform black and uniform grey (e.g., see Table 2 in S2). These conditions were not mentioned by Blodgett until his results, and it is not clear under what seascape and weather conditions these controls were run, how many trials were performed, what the true directions were, or which or how many participants took part. In fact, there is nothing in Blodgett's report to suggest that these conditions were performed by any of the six participants mentioned above.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/zebra-stripes-...
Deleted Comment
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertram_Fox_Hayes 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Olympic 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM_U-103
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw7vq_YD6JM
Mind you, this also explains why dazzle was a promising idea in the first place. Calculating Angle On Bow was already the hard part of ship-against-ship targeting, why not try to make it even harder?
> we found results indicating a twist [due to dazzle] of only about 7°, but a much larger “hysteresis” effect (∼19–23°) where perceived direction was drawn to the horizon regardless of dazzle. This effect combined both constructively and destructively with “twist”, depending on the direction of the target ship.
Could have just said that...
Deleted Comment
> Unlike traditional camouflage, which helps objects blend into their surroundings, dazzle camouflage used stark geometric patterns to try to confuse German U-boat captains’ perception of a ship’s direction and speed, making it harder to target.
I'm not saying that these camo patterns don't work, but the particulars (e.g. why it had to be rectangular pixels, not hexagons or nature-inspired fractals) are often connected to fashions. My personal opinion is that dazzle camo looks cool, by the way ;)
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
https://www.hagley.org/librarynews/razzle-dazzle-and-rangefi...