For anyone who doubts the effectiveness of a wavy white line, I can personally attest that it took me a solid second or so to realize that the sherman at 5:16 was not a 75!! Just imagine how much harder it would be to spot at 800m away through an AT gun optic
Even from these very well lit shots with no obstruction, the paint still got me for a bit, even when I was expecting it. I would guess that from far away, with obstructions, it probably did its job quite well. Great video!
It was surprisingly effective against my glances. My snap pattern recognition stopped where the dark portion of the barrel stopped. Focused on center mass, naturally.
I would imagine that, in the middle of combat, where many people are shooting at each other and moving around that it was tremendously effective. Like others have said here, at first glance in even still photos, while knowing full well examples of it were going to be shown, it evaded notice.
On the other hand, not a single one of the famous German tank commanders mentioned in their battle reports that they had ever paid attention to the length of the enemy tanks' barrels. Or as Otto Carius himself said, when he was asked about this situation: "Most of the muzzles of the enemy cannons were aimed at us, so that we would only have noticed a difference in length if our armor was hit."
Works great at a glance. I saw a test they tried of a tank on a hilltop against a bright sky. Tank had some kind of lights mounted on it. You could plainly see the silhouette, "hey there's a tank on the hill"... until they hit the lights and it just disappeared. Light intensity matched the background light. Not real practical but interesting.
That one Sherman was likely too important to risk losing in action. They raised morale and helped argue the best form of gun disguise. That tank deserves a medal!
I've always wanted to see some photos or something at the right distance, angles, and backgrounds to see how much of a difference it could make to the enemy. 5:15 though gave me a decent idea. I first glanced at the PaK 43 on the Jagdpanther, then looked at the Sherman and asked myself "why are we showing one with a 75mm if this is about the camo on the 17 pounder?" only to take a closer look down the barrel and realize it actually was.
Tankers would use wood logs and sand bags as exterior armor. The tracks on the side of the tanks were replacement. Tracks would break and needed replacement. Or tracks get blown off in battle. And you become a setting duck. Praying the Nazi didn't see you and move on. Then those extra tracks become a God sent.
Another great video thank you :) The picture around 5:20 is perfect. I had to look at it twice and even then it was easy to 'lose' the rest of the barrel.
It was until you pointed it out that I had to do a "double-take" and realized it was not a standard Sherman gun. The camo is truly working in that scene!
Well done. I'd seen period B&W photos, drawings, etc. and never thought it worked, but then the well lit and high def color (and one B&W period) photos had me double taking. Crazy how such a simple trick plays on our brain.
Good choice of photos towards the end of the video, thst really showed how effective the counter shading was! Also the camouflage boys went to extraordinary lengths to protect their supplies of beer and pies.
Camouflaging a tank barrel was nothing for Jasper Maskelyne. He once made the city of Alexandria disappear and reappear in a different location. Seriously, Google the guy.
I made a model of the Firefly a few years back. Barrel painted with the cammo. When I came back to some photos I had taken a little later, the end (scale) 5ft had disappeared! I couldn't believe how effective it was.
I suspect the use of this on the likes of the Tortoise and Centurion was intended as cheap and easy outright disruptive camouflage. The gun really stands out in how artificially straight it is, so I can see the logic of wanting to opt for a more extreme pattern to disrupt that appearance. Also, the gun is the part of the tank that is typically going to be most exposed and moving around most obviously. I strongly suspect that the profile of the gun is the thing that gives away most tanks when they're spotted
Also helps hide the barrel when one is hiding one's vehicle among trees and bushes. The wavy pattern cuts down the contrast of the straight barrel with the randomness of the foliage.
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 That would work reasonably well, provided the sights were kept in mind while lashing things. Either way, one disrupts the straight profile that contrasts with the more random background.
WOW! I thought I knew about this, but I had only seen B&W photos before. So, I assumed I would not be fooled if I saw the barrel in full color (outside, with full color background). But, your video proved me wrong, or that this simple camo pattern on the barrel really worked. I was amazed when I did a quick glance at the photos in your video, and how effective it was to fool me (at a glance) to think the barrel was short, even when the POV is close to the target tank. This video is excellent for proving the effectiveness of this particular camo technique. Optical illusions depend on our brain’s quick, initial assumptions and pattern recognition (shape recognition), based on what we have seen before, so we can be fooled by what is right in front of us.
This "Counter-shading" as it was called didn't start with the Fireflies - some desert standard Shermans had it as part of the camoflage scheme where there was also white under the front of the transmission, all to reduce shadows under the harsh desert sun. Tanks with much smaller guns were also counter-shaded on the barrel like the 2pdrs on Covenanters.
It's not actually about reducing shadows. The principle of countershading is borrowed from the natural world, specifically animal colouring. When sun shines down the top colour is lightened and the bottom colour appears darker, or rather there's less contrast. There's no additional shadow, it's just how contrasting colours work.
Quite relevant to this topic are things done to warships such as various geometric camouflage (think dazzle) and false bow waves. I can't count the number of times I have seen a photo of an old warship with a false bow wave and my brain immediately thought that the ship was under way. Even though a second later I would realize, through the use of other cues, that the ship was either barely moving, or not moving at all. I really can understand how such things would have made it harder to target back in the days before radar guided guns. It is quite remarkable how your brain locks in on singular and obvious cues, even when you are aware of them being faked.
From what I read of the Caunter pattern in the desert it was a disruptive pattern derived from naval practice and the only paint available was taken from naval stores
@Lewis Taylor: If I remember rightly the Navy took that concept a step further during WW1 and designed a fleet of Q-Ships which not only looked like merchant vessels but were mirror images from the centre to the bow and stern so a sub couldn't be sure which way they were heading!
Greetings from Orange County, California. Always been a military history buff and that is what my degree is in (history). So I found this video very interesting. Cheers
Note that the pattern is replicating the countershading effect that critters often have - they often have lighter fur or feathers underneath and darker on top, as it's opposite to what the brain expects from a 3D object and thus harder/longer to detect as they end up looking rather flat instead of being properly shaded. I'd say that's why it continued past the need to disguise long-barrelled Shermans and such: makes the barrel harder to see, and thus less obvious if it's sticking out of cover and/or camouflage.
I suspect that the post war use was to assist in concealing the barrel itself. It's relatively easy to conceal the rest of the tank, but that long straight sticky out bit is rather obvious even under the best of circumstances.
Disguised the Firefly as a regular Sherman as the wavy lines matched the jagged silhouette of hedge rows and distant clouds. The light underside helped the gun vanish against the sky as the tanks crested inclines.
I am sure I've seen submarines with the same pattern. It must of worked because I've yet to read anything about submarines being attacked by anti-tank guns. The camouflage is similar is similar to the countershading found on animals which helps deal with the shadow you would get underneath an animal.
I could see how from a long distance with the heat mirage on a warm gun barrel, especially on a hot summer day, wavy camouflage could be effective, thanks! 👍
It's for accurate aiming sighting.& Leveling of the tank barrel for the live round leaves the tank barrel. &To explain the proximately time frame of when the tank barrel will start smoking.,or smoke after the live tank round has been being fired.& Left from the barrel.
But he had it backwards, he wanted it to appear he had a bigger gun so they would be less likely to shoot at him for fear of reprisal. The fake guns here are to make everyone appear an equal threat so they are more likely to be shot at than the enemy just focusing on the one guy with the bigger boomstick. We all know he gave up on the idea in the end and bought the Tiger instead. "It's a beautiful tank".
If you look at the barrel, it doesn't really fool you. BUT, you're looking at the barrel because you know it's painted. If you look directly at the tank, as you would be on the battlefield, you see the tank and it's "short" barrel. Even in the pictures above, just looking directly at the Firefly at 05.15, all you see in the peripheral is a 75mm barrel, so the counter-shading does work.
The barrel camouflage was often credited to artist Rex Whistler who served with Guards Armoured Division in Normandy 1944 until he was killed in action. The Sherman Firefly was in short supply only up to August 1944, after that date the number of Firefly tanks rapidly increased to 2 tanks per troop, constituting 50% of the fighting strength of the regiment. In all 2,150 Firefly's were built.
Tell the scriptwriters of 'Fury' about the big gun being the first target for German anti tank hunters. Thus Brad Pitt's tank would have been the first to be hit - end of film.
No even better tell the script writers the firefly could penetrate the tigers front and that would've been the shortest tiger engagement but nooo instead the firefly need to fire smoke rounds
@@averydrunkidiot Sorry, Simon Gee is correct but you are mistaken. "Fury" was not a Firefly but an American 76mm armed Sherman. The UK had developed the more effective 17 pounder anti-tank gun before the 76 mm gun became widely available. Although only slightly longer at 55 calibers, their Ordnance QF 17 pounder (76.2 mm) anti-tank gun had a much larger 76.2×583mmR cartridge case, which used about 5.5 lb (2.5 kg) more propellant. The anti-tank performance of the 76 mm was inferior to the British 17-pounder, more so if the latter was using APDS discarding sabot rounds, though with that ammunition the 17-pounder was less accurate than the 76 mm. The 76 mm M1, while an improvement over the previous 75 mm, was a disappointment in its promised performance vis-à-vis the Panther tank and upgraded models of the Panzer IV Ausf. H/J in the frontal arcs. So "Fury" would have to be extremely close to penetrate the front of a Tiger.
The technique is not disruptive camouflage it is counter shading, examples of which are more commonly seen on aircraft and (historically) naval vessels. I recall reading that on occasion it was used downward facing surfaces on tanks including the hull to reduce the contrast between the different reflective planes and making the tank less visible from a distance. The concept was developed by Abbott Thayer who also worked on dazzle and disruptive camouflage during WW1. Y
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 That's exactly how Abbott Thayer developed his ideas. For those interested read 'Adaptive coloration in animals' by Hugh Cott. Y
The old infantry recon tip if you need to buy time, is to wave hello if you encounter an opposing force. It takes someone longer to respond to a hello gesture (as they have to work out just who you are) than to an angry gesture. What's this got to do with a great video on gun barrel camo? It's seconds that matter, and if someone is traversing a tank turret locked down, through viewfinders, or binoculars, that camo effect could take a few seconds to register. Those seconds could allow a Firefly to get off a couple of rounds at the target that has now got its main gun pointed elsewhere. As others have said, the images included, are good enough that at a glance I'd mistake the barrel length, and that's knowing we are talking about the subject.
It just clicked in my head. It's counter shading! paint the top dark and paint the bottom light to counter the natural shadows that are present from having the sun above. Counter shading, once you know that it's a thing, it shows up EVERYWHERE.
Nature has used this trick since the beginning! Dark on top and light underneath is a common pattern; scales or fur. Shadow on the light underside, and sun on the dark top makes for a more homogeneous blob all round. Cheap and easy camo!
The barrel camo would help hide the barrel when the rest of the tank is concealed. For instance if coming around a corner or if the tank is bunkered up.
It always makes me laugh at that scene in Kelly's Heroes where Oddball tells Kelly they fit tubes over their gun barrels to make them look bigger to scare off the German tanks - all they would be doing is to makes themselves a priority target! That's Hollywood researchers for you!
The wider doctrine of camouflage is based on disrupting shape, shine, silhouette and shadow. Scrim started to come in in the late 60s, as a step-up from hessian, and soon mated with cargo nets to disrupt heavy weapon emplacements. However, in preceding years, breaking up long barrel lines became an obvious necessity.
very impressive I used the disruptive barrel camo following the method as per vidio and !!!BOOM!!! My War Thunder ratio went way up 🤣🤣 instant subscribe
I'd never seen a picture of the British Camouflage Department before... and I guess I still haven't.
Год назад
Very nice Video. I found that at least for my german audience such Videos that deal with a visual oddity on a tank work quite well. Maybe thats a good video series Idear in generall for you
"Did it work?" We don't know. It didn't really matter if it worked, or not; as long as the Firefly crews believed that it worked. Moral is important, and can often be boosted by simple means like this.
The barrel and breach configuration was designed at ROF Barnbow Leeds in around 7 days and they were being churned out before the blueprints had been finished (Prof Steven Zaloga Osprey New Vanguard)
Answer: Disruption camo...it was done to break up a 76mm barrel silhouette so Germans didn't kill them first and make it look like a short US 75mm at a distance. Germans prioritized the longer gunned tanks as the main threat.
After watching this I noticed while watching a documentary called "The Channel's Superguns" that they also painted the wavy white bottom on the English Dover super gun "Clem" @39:16. I wonder why and why on the bottom part all the way, wouldn't that part be hidden from a reconnaissance plane? Maybe to hide it from ground based telescopes. Looks like another video topic for your channel!
It's countershading and it will help against planes still off in the distance as they will still be seeing the gun from the side unless flying really high up. If the plane is flying directly above you wouldn't want them to see the white anyway as that contrasts heavily with the ground
It's hard to determine how extensively the Germans were prioritising the longer barreled guns. On a base level It's extremely difficult to see the guns at long range, especially if the vehicle is headed towards you. I'm sure I've read some form of report saying this is why the false barrel on the rear of the tank wasn't adopted. Any range close enough for the enemy to spot the shorter barrel was close enough you'd really rather have the turret facing front! And secondly, on a more statistical level, Fireflies suffered fewer proportional losses than the 75mm tanks, whereas you'd expect the reverse if the Fireflies were public enemy #1. Granted, the usage was a factor - Fireflies were generally held back and brought forwards to engage enemy armour only when needed. Although this too suggests that disguising the gun wasn't all that important. This goes even for Cromwell units, many of which had to make do with Fireflies (rather than the rarer Challenger), you'd think the Firefly would stick out like a sore thumb but they still suffered lower losses than the Cromwells around them. This doesn't detract from the purpose of the countershading at all - the *fear* that Fireflies would be prioritised as targets was very definitely real, which is what led to such extensive effort to prevent that. But the question is there how realistic a fear that actually was.
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
For anyone who doubts the effectiveness of a wavy white line, I can personally attest that it took me a solid second or so to realize that the sherman at 5:16 was not a 75!! Just imagine how much harder it would be to spot at 800m away through an AT gun optic
same once I saw the back I realized it was a firefly
Damn.
Its actually super impressive
Yeah and in that image it's not even backdropped against a natural environment.
Specsavers
Even from these very well lit shots with no obstruction, the paint still got me for a bit, even when I was expecting it. I would guess that from far away, with obstructions, it probably did its job quite well. Great video!
Especially if both the target and viewer were moving?
It was surprisingly effective against my glances. My snap pattern recognition stopped where the dark portion of the barrel stopped. Focused on center mass, naturally.
I would imagine that, in the middle of combat, where many people are shooting at each other and moving around that it was tremendously effective. Like others have said here, at first glance in even still photos, while knowing full well examples of it were going to be shown, it evaded notice.
On the other hand, not a single one of the famous German tank commanders mentioned in their battle reports that they had ever paid attention to the length of the enemy tanks' barrels. Or as Otto Carius himself said, when he was asked about this situation: "Most of the muzzles of the enemy cannons were aimed at us, so that we would only have noticed a difference in length if our armor was hit."
Works great at a glance. I saw a test they tried of a tank on a hilltop against a bright sky. Tank had some kind of lights mounted on it. You could plainly see the silhouette, "hey there's a tank on the hill"... until they hit the lights and it just disappeared. Light intensity matched the background light.
Not real practical but interesting.
🤣 the description of the "british camouflage dept" is hysterical! gotta love 🇬🇧 humor.
It's amazing how well it works even when you are this close
That one Sherman was likely too important to risk losing in action. They raised morale and helped argue the best form of gun disguise. That tank deserves a medal!
I've always wanted to see some photos or something at the right distance, angles, and backgrounds to see how much of a difference it could make to the enemy. 5:15 though gave me a decent idea. I first glanced at the PaK 43 on the Jagdpanther, then looked at the Sherman and asked myself "why are we showing one with a 75mm if this is about the camo on the 17 pounder?" only to take a closer look down the barrel and realize it actually was.
Wow. Yeah, that is *effective*.
Panzerchunkywagon is the model I want to find out more about
I reckon he should be able to finish up the Panzerchunkywagon research by midnight on 31st March..
5:20 I now see how effective that was, I didn't notice the extra 5 feet on that cannon
Well done. I thought I knew already, but this added much more depth to what I'd read elsewhere. Thanks!
What really stood out to me was how many in conflict tanks had extreme quantities of tracks mounted as up armour.
yeah, i wonder if it's tracks yoinked from other dead tanks they came across
Tankers would use wood logs and sand bags as exterior armor. The tracks on the side of the tanks were replacement. Tracks would break and needed replacement.
Or tracks get blown off in battle. And you become a setting duck. Praying the Nazi didn't see you and move on. Then those extra tracks become a God sent.
I'll admit, it works. With a quick glance, you cannot tell the length of the barrel.
Another great video thank you :) The picture around 5:20 is perfect. I had to look at it twice and even then it was easy to 'lose' the rest of the barrel.
It was until you pointed it out that I had to do a "double-take" and realized it was not a standard Sherman gun. The camo is truly working in that scene!
Even if you think you know about a subject,it's always refreshing to get new information that adds to ones knowledge.This site never disappoints 👍👍🇧🇴
Well done. I'd seen period B&W photos, drawings, etc. and never thought it worked, but then the well lit and high def color (and one B&W period) photos had me double taking.
Crazy how such a simple trick plays on our brain.
Thanks. Love your video’s. 👍🏻 Greetings from Belgium
Good choice of photos towards the end of the video, thst really showed how effective the counter shading was! Also the camouflage boys went to extraordinary lengths to protect their supplies of beer and pies.
British camouflage department must have been among the best in the world! 😁
Well it would be if anyone could ever find them to get them to do some work! 🤣
British stealth workshops.
Enlisting the services of model makers and set designers from the theater and film industry was a very smart move.
They already knew the value of not being seen, not chosing an obvious piece of cover. They however forgot not to tell the neighbour and so...💥
Camouflaging a tank barrel was nothing for Jasper Maskelyne. He once made the city of Alexandria disappear and reappear in a different location. Seriously, Google the guy.
I made a model of the Firefly a few years back. Barrel painted with the cammo. When I came back to some photos I had taken a little later, the end (scale) 5ft had disappeared! I couldn't believe how effective it was.
sweet
I suspect the use of this on the likes of the Tortoise and Centurion was intended as cheap and easy outright disruptive camouflage. The gun really stands out in how artificially straight it is, so I can see the logic of wanting to opt for a more extreme pattern to disrupt that appearance. Also, the gun is the part of the tank that is typically going to be most exposed and moving around most obviously. I strongly suspect that the profile of the gun is the thing that gives away most tanks when they're spotted
Also helps hide the barrel when one is hiding one's vehicle among trees and bushes. The wavy pattern cuts down the contrast of the straight barrel with the randomness of the foliage.
@@genericpersonx333 Another way would be to make the barrel not straight, by lashing branches to it. But maybe they'd obstruct the sight?
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 That would work reasonably well, provided the sights were kept in mind while lashing things. Either way, one disrupts the straight profile that contrasts with the more random background.
WOW! I thought I knew about this, but I had only seen B&W photos before. So, I assumed I would not be fooled if I saw the barrel in full color (outside, with full color background). But, your video proved me wrong, or that this simple camo pattern on the barrel really worked. I was amazed when I did a quick glance at the photos in your video, and how effective it was to fool me (at a glance) to think the barrel was short, even when the POV is close to the target tank. This video is excellent for proving the effectiveness of this particular camo technique. Optical illusions depend on our brain’s quick, initial assumptions and pattern recognition (shape recognition), based on what we have seen before, so we can be fooled by what is right in front of us.
My theory was exactly what you noted at 6:13. Nice to know I wasn't completely wrong.
I like the idea of the fake muzzle and the fake 17lb gun. Very interesting.
I laughed out loud when it finally dawned on me what I was looking at with the camouflage department picture!
Really nice and interesting piece of history, thanks.
I served for over 20 years with the 72's and we used to paint our barrels everytime we boinked in the tank.
This "Counter-shading" as it was called didn't start with the Fireflies - some desert standard Shermans had it as part of the camoflage scheme where there was also white under the front of the transmission, all to reduce shadows under the harsh desert sun. Tanks with much smaller guns were also counter-shaded on the barrel like the 2pdrs on Covenanters.
It's not actually about reducing shadows. The principle of countershading is borrowed from the natural world, specifically animal colouring. When sun shines down the top colour is lightened and the bottom colour appears darker, or rather there's less contrast. There's no additional shadow, it's just how contrasting colours work.
Reminds me of the bit from Kelly's heroes
where they put pipe on their Sherman's gun to make it look bigger.
'Odd Ball's' reasoning was an attempt to 'scare off' Germans from engaging his unit.
Quite relevant to this topic are things done to warships such as various geometric camouflage (think dazzle) and false bow waves. I can't count the number of times I have seen a photo of an old warship with a false bow wave and my brain immediately thought that the ship was under way. Even though a second later I would realize, through the use of other cues, that the ship was either barely moving, or not moving at all. I really can understand how such things would have made it harder to target back in the days before radar guided guns. It is quite remarkable how your brain locks in on singular and obvious cues, even when you are aware of them being faked.
From what I read of the Caunter pattern in the desert it was a disruptive pattern derived from naval practice and the only paint available was taken from naval stores
@Lewis Taylor: If I remember rightly the Navy took that concept a step further during WW1 and designed a fleet of Q-Ships which not only looked like merchant vessels but were mirror images from the centre to the bow and stern so a sub couldn't be sure which way they were heading!
Greetings from Orange County, California. Always been a military history buff and that is what my degree is in (history). So I found this video very interesting. Cheers
cool vid, ed, cheers! i like the wavy line, and i've, oddly enough, never even heard of the muzzle brake trick before!
Great photos and info!
It must work, it took a second or three to realise it was a Firefly next to the Jagdpanther.
"and which ones has the long big shooty stick" 😂
Thank you, sir!
Day trading, Amazon, train derailed, RUclips algorithms. Love the video. Thanks for your hard work.
“Big Long Shooty Stick” is my new go-to term for a tank’s main gun.😂
Got seriously Monty Python "How hot to be seen" vibes from the British Camouflage Department. Love it. 🤣
Note that the pattern is replicating the countershading effect that critters often have - they often have lighter fur or feathers underneath and darker on top, as it's opposite to what the brain expects from a 3D object and thus harder/longer to detect as they end up looking rather flat instead of being properly shaded. I'd say that's why it continued past the need to disguise long-barrelled Shermans and such: makes the barrel harder to see, and thus less obvious if it's sticking out of cover and/or camouflage.
2:26 that’s some serious camouflage- can’t see either the main building OR the workshop. Impressive work. 😉
I love a day when I learn something new. Thanks! That was interesting and well researched.
I suspect that the post war use was to assist in concealing the barrel itself.
It's relatively easy to conceal the rest of the tank, but that long straight sticky out bit is rather obvious even under the best of circumstances.
I had a blowpipe when I was a kid, and I tied strips of cloth around the front half for just that reason.
Good example of countershading camouflage !
“long, big shooty stick” - best quote of the day!
Disguised the Firefly as a regular Sherman as the wavy lines matched the jagged silhouette of hedge rows and distant clouds. The light underside helped the gun vanish against the sky as the tanks crested inclines.
I am sure I've seen submarines with the same pattern. It must of worked because I've yet to read anything about submarines being attacked by anti-tank guns.
The camouflage is similar is similar to the countershading found on animals which helps deal with the shadow you would get underneath an animal.
I chuckled a lot at your second sentence!
Thanks for sharing.
It might have become something of a lucky charm for tank crews, seeing as it saved the hide of tank crews in WW2.
2:26 Alright that killed me lol
"It's a complete mystery to me?"
Good to see prison libraries have the info needed for your research.
Ah yes, that well known military terminology "long pointy shooty stick"
I could see how from a long distance with the heat mirage on a warm gun barrel, especially on a hot summer day, wavy camouflage could be effective, thanks! 👍
2:25 Brilliant lol
It's for accurate aiming sighting.& Leveling of the tank barrel for the live round leaves the tank barrel. &To explain the proximately time frame of when the tank barrel will start smoking.,or smoke after the live tank round has been being fired.& Left from the barrel.
So what you’re saying with the earlier fake 17pdr tests is that Oddball wasn’t actually off base with his fake barrel extension
But he had it backwards, he wanted it to appear he had a bigger gun so they would be less likely to shoot at him for fear of reprisal. The fake guns here are to make everyone appear an equal threat so they are more likely to be shot at than the enemy just focusing on the one guy with the bigger boomstick. We all know he gave up on the idea in the end and bought the Tiger instead. "It's a beautiful tank".
Kelly's Hero's was my favourite movie a kid
Good Stuff!!!
Very interesting Video! 😃
Cheers. Something that I had never gotten around to investigating!
If you look at the barrel, it doesn't really fool you. BUT, you're looking at the barrel because you know it's painted. If you look directly at the tank, as you would be on the battlefield, you see the tank and it's "short" barrel. Even in the pictures above, just looking directly at the Firefly at 05.15, all you see in the peripheral is a 75mm barrel, so the counter-shading does work.
Some warships also did this on bow/stern sections to mess with identification of speed and size.
The barrel camouflage was often credited to artist Rex Whistler who served with Guards Armoured Division in Normandy 1944 until he was killed in action. The Sherman Firefly was in short supply only up to August 1944, after that date the number of Firefly tanks rapidly increased to 2 tanks per troop, constituting 50% of the fighting strength of the regiment. In all 2,150 Firefly's were built.
Tell the scriptwriters of 'Fury' about the big gun being the first target for German anti tank hunters. Thus Brad Pitt's tank would have been the first to be hit - end of film.
No even better tell the script writers the firefly could penetrate the tigers front and that would've been the shortest tiger engagement but nooo instead the firefly need to fire smoke rounds
@@averydrunkidiot Sorry, Simon Gee is correct but you are mistaken. "Fury" was not a Firefly but an American 76mm armed Sherman. The UK had developed the more effective 17 pounder anti-tank gun before the 76 mm gun became widely available. Although only slightly longer at 55 calibers, their Ordnance QF 17 pounder (76.2 mm) anti-tank gun had a much larger 76.2×583mmR cartridge case, which used about 5.5 lb (2.5 kg) more propellant. The anti-tank performance of the 76 mm was inferior to the British 17-pounder, more so if the latter was using APDS discarding sabot rounds, though with that ammunition the 17-pounder was less accurate than the 76 mm. The 76 mm M1, while an improvement over the previous 75 mm, was a disappointment in its promised performance vis-à-vis the Panther tank and upgraded models of the Panzer IV Ausf. H/J in the frontal arcs. So "Fury" would have to be extremely close to penetrate the front of a Tiger.
The firefly turret was horrible inside, saw a documentary on it and don't know how the allies even got a accurate shot off.
@@alanwright3172 and the firefly would have had to within 500 meters and extremely lucky to hit a target smaller than a barn.
@@randymagnum143 sounds like a slight misquote from "Chieftain" as the normal ammo was accurate enough for the job😁
Dad was a GGFG tank commander in WWII. He said they tried the extensions on some of their tanks. Really ticked off the crews.
The technique is not disruptive camouflage it is counter shading, examples of which are more commonly seen on aircraft and (historically) naval vessels. I recall reading that on occasion it was used downward facing surfaces on tanks including the hull to reduce the contrast between the different reflective planes and making the tank less visible from a distance. The concept was developed by Abbott Thayer who also worked on dazzle and disruptive camouflage during WW1. Y
And on animals, which often have a lighter belly so they don't look as 3D.
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 That's exactly how Abbott Thayer developed his ideas. For those interested read 'Adaptive coloration in animals' by Hugh Cott. Y
'Panzer Chunkywagon VI' LOL
Panzerchunkywagon VI... I spit lemonade all over my keyboard!
"long big shooty stick" 🤣
Yup pretty much
The photo of the British Camouflage Hq. made me giggle.
Two best named cammo schemes…
1; early WW2 British ‘Mickey Mouse Ears’ on vehicles.
2; Australian personnel uniforms ‘Bruised Banana’.
I worked in the camouflage centre, that's me on the left near the fountain
Will draw a Colt Navy on my UZI !
Thank's for the hint !
The old infantry recon tip if you need to buy time, is to wave hello if you encounter an opposing force. It takes someone longer to respond to a hello gesture (as they have to work out just who you are) than to an angry gesture.
What's this got to do with a great video on gun barrel camo?
It's seconds that matter, and if someone is traversing a tank turret locked down, through viewfinders, or binoculars, that camo effect could take a few seconds to register. Those seconds could allow a Firefly to get off a couple of rounds at the target that has now got its main gun pointed elsewhere.
As others have said, the images included, are good enough that at a glance I'd mistake the barrel length, and that's knowing we are talking about the subject.
Incredibly interesting!
2:30 THAT is the best sales pitch I ever saw !!!
1:45 “long big short stick”
Bro I can’t rn😂
awesome video
It just clicked in my head. It's counter shading! paint the top dark and paint the bottom light to counter the natural shadows that are present from having the sun above.
Counter shading, once you know that it's a thing, it shows up EVERYWHERE.
It took me half a second looking at the first shot for me to realise its purpose and that it probably did its job fairly well
Nature has used this trick since the beginning! Dark on top and light underneath is a common pattern; scales or fur.
Shadow on the light underside, and sun on the dark top makes for a more homogeneous blob all round. Cheap and easy camo!
Imagine you are in a tank company, and your mate got painted and you know it's about to force the enemy to shoot you first.
The barrel camo would help hide the barrel when the rest of the tank is concealed. For instance if coming around a corner or if the tank is bunkered up.
It always makes me laugh at that scene in Kelly's Heroes where Oddball tells Kelly they fit tubes over their gun barrels to make them look bigger to scare off the German tanks - all they would be doing is to makes themselves a priority target! That's Hollywood researchers for you!
My first instinct would be to stick a drainpipe on the regular Shermans, but there you go.
The wider doctrine of camouflage is based on disrupting shape, shine, silhouette and shadow. Scrim started to come in in the late 60s, as a step-up from hessian, and soon mated with cargo nets to disrupt heavy weapon emplacements. However, in preceding years, breaking up long barrel lines became an obvious necessity.
2:25 perfect camouflage lol
very impressive I used the disruptive barrel camo following the method as per vidio and !!!BOOM!!! My War Thunder ratio went way up 🤣🤣
instant subscribe
At 5:17 I initially didn’t see the barrel length because of the camouflage,
I guess it worked 😂
thx man, now i got the idea :-D
At last, something I knew before you told it to me.
I'd never seen a picture of the British Camouflage Department before... and I guess I still haven't.
Very nice Video. I found that at least for my german audience such Videos that deal with a visual oddity on a tank work quite well. Maybe thats a good video series Idear in generall for you
"Did it work?" We don't know. It didn't really matter if it worked, or not; as long as the Firefly crews believed that it worked. Moral is important, and can often be boosted by simple means like this.
great vid
The barrel and breach configuration was designed at ROF Barnbow Leeds in around 7 days and they were being churned out before the blueprints had been finished (Prof Steven Zaloga Osprey New Vanguard)
Answer: Disruption camo...it was done to break up a 76mm barrel silhouette so Germans didn't kill them first and make it look like a short US 75mm at a distance. Germans prioritized the longer gunned tanks as the main threat.
It was to make it look like it has the standard 75/76 short barrel German tankers would always go for the fireflys first.
After watching this I noticed while watching a documentary called "The Channel's Superguns" that they also painted the wavy white bottom on the English Dover super gun "Clem" @39:16. I wonder why and why on the bottom part all the way, wouldn't that part be hidden from a reconnaissance plane? Maybe to hide it from ground based telescopes. Looks like another video topic for your channel!
It's countershading and it will help against planes still off in the distance as they will still be seeing the gun from the side unless flying really high up.
If the plane is flying directly above you wouldn't want them to see the white anyway as that contrasts heavily with the ground
It's hard to determine how extensively the Germans were prioritising the longer barreled guns.
On a base level It's extremely difficult to see the guns at long range, especially if the vehicle is headed towards you. I'm sure I've read some form of report saying this is why the false barrel on the rear of the tank wasn't adopted. Any range close enough for the enemy to spot the shorter barrel was close enough you'd really rather have the turret facing front!
And secondly, on a more statistical level, Fireflies suffered fewer proportional losses than the 75mm tanks, whereas you'd expect the reverse if the Fireflies were public enemy #1. Granted, the usage was a factor - Fireflies were generally held back and brought forwards to engage enemy armour only when needed. Although this too suggests that disguising the gun wasn't all that important.
This goes even for Cromwell units, many of which had to make do with Fireflies (rather than the rarer Challenger), you'd think the Firefly would stick out like a sore thumb but they still suffered lower losses than the Cromwells around them.
This doesn't detract from the purpose of the countershading at all - the *fear* that Fireflies would be prioritised as targets was very definitely real, which is what led to such extensive effort to prevent that.
But the question is there how realistic a fear that actually was.
I feel for the most part it came down to -see tank -shoot tank until no worky
Nice article on the subject. The only thing missing is how to replicate it in War Thunder with the customization decals.
It is the part that sticks out of the underbrush camoflage. There are no straight lines in nature, so the paint breaks up the shiloette