(May 12, 2016 at 8:17 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: That kind of dazzle naval camo decreased in usage in WWII. It was designed for a specific situation, confusing an observer at short to medium range looking through a periscope at wave top level. It is counterproductive in most other situations. That's why WWII naval camouflage tends to be somewhat more subdued, with more focus on systematically matching the luminance of background sea and sky, and on intentionally creating a specific false impression of the ship's length, size of bow and stern waves, and blurring the deck line, and creating false impression of how far above water the deck is, in order to confuse the observer at a variety of ranges and looking from variety of altitudes regarding the range to target rather than aimed mainly at making it hard to judge which way the target is going. The WWII type camo has the added benefit of making the ship blend into the back ground sky or sea in any hazy situation.
This is why it always bothers me to see non-black-colored starships, especially warships, in every Sci-Fi show.
Presuming they could, by technology, defeat detection sensors like radar, in any proximity to a star they'd shine like a beacon-- after all, we can pick up surprisingly small asteroids via telescope from here on earth.
As to the dazzle paint, the Brits even tried it on their tanks in the desert, such as this Matilda II :
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.