« camo gear | Main | National Air Photo Library »
Thursday
Dec102009

camouflage

Eric Ravilious. Spitfires on a Camouflaged Runway, 1942. watercolour on paper 45 x 62 cm. Royal Air Force Museum, Hendon

Ravilious, above, shows a camouflaged air field, with an added stream, road and shading to indicate topographic variation: complex patterns for a complex landscape.  If the RCAF training field in Vulcan had been under threat from the Luftwaffe it would have been painted to look like a wheatfield with rectangular plowing lines. 

Aisling O'Carroll wrote about military camouflage in On Site 22: WAR.  In her section on deception she outlines the array of dummy trucks, tanks and airstrips elaborately laid out to divert attention from real trucks, tanks and airstrips all cunningly camouflaged with paint, netting and big boxes.  She tracked down some great pictures from the National Photographic Archives at Kew – one showing a tank lurking under a very crude truck form as part of the grand counter-installations for el Alamein.  The scale of the deception is staggering: an entire army was recreated in a part of the desert far away from the real army. 

Camouflage does not seem to be as much about veracity as pattern recognition.  The scale worked at is the texture of the landscape with objects, including shadows.  It is an activity at once huge and intimate.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

The article on camaflauge was fascinating. I think the germans started this in the desert by disgusing cars as tanks to generate an element of surprise. War is filled with these kinds of things - after all it war is a form of hunting and nature has long provided models for this behaviour. I once read an intriguing article that women (or efeminate men!) make better generals as they utilise a wider range of 'wiles' in battle. The premise was that full frontal assault is rarely as effective as enticement, encirclement and entrapment, which are apparently better understood by women. What was intriguing about this line of thinking is that it places war in a completely different context and in a weird way makes it an extension of biological struggle and human pyschology.

I think this was from Susan Mansfield, The Gestalt of War

December 16, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterpaul

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>