False Bow and Stern Waves
Moderator: Bill Jurens
False Bow and Stern Waves
Hi all,
Does anyone know why the false waves were painted on both the bow and the stern of the Bismarck ?
I understand the false waves were intended to give the impression of speed to distant observers, who might then miscalculate estimated distances travelled, gunnery ranges etc. but on the stern as well ?
I suppose if they were painted only on the bow then the direction of travel would be a straight giveaway, partially negating the point of any sort of deception, but then why not just have big false waves at the stern only, to try to totally confuse the enemy ?
Thanks for any replies
Does anyone know why the false waves were painted on both the bow and the stern of the Bismarck ?
I understand the false waves were intended to give the impression of speed to distant observers, who might then miscalculate estimated distances travelled, gunnery ranges etc. but on the stern as well ?
I suppose if they were painted only on the bow then the direction of travel would be a straight giveaway, partially negating the point of any sort of deception, but then why not just have big false waves at the stern only, to try to totally confuse the enemy ?
Thanks for any replies
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:30 pm
- Location: Bay Shore, NY, USA
I believe that one of the purposes was to provide a misleading view of the length or size of the ship. The false bow and stern waves depict waves considerably aft and forward of the bow and stern, respectively. With this camouflage treatment on the Bismarck it may have been possible to misidentify it as the Prinz Eugen especially as the 2 + 2 turret layouts provide similar profiles.
Gerard
Gerard
Thanks Gerard
We know the false waves were intended to mislead. I'm not so sure they were intended to provide a misleading view of the length or size of the ship (i thought the dark grey painted sections fore and aft were intended to try to do this).
Of course, they would but i think the intention was the impression of speed. My question is really why both the bow and stern ? The ship can only travel one way.
Thanks for any replies
We know the false waves were intended to mislead. I'm not so sure they were intended to provide a misleading view of the length or size of the ship (i thought the dark grey painted sections fore and aft were intended to try to do this).
Of course, they would but i think the intention was the impression of speed. My question is really why both the bow and stern ? The ship can only travel one way.
Thanks for any replies
- Bernd Willmer
- Member
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: Vaihingen/Enz, Germany
- Contact:
Hi,
the dark grey stern and bow was to shorten the ships length and thus its size, but later tests and studies on ship camouflage conducted by Kapitänleutnant Dechend in 1942 showed, that dark areas of ships accented these parts of the ship rather than concealing them when viewed from a distance. After these studies bows and sterns were painted light grey or white-grey to shorten the ships length. This worked fine (e.g. Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, etc.).
False bow and stern waves was to camouflage the actual ships speed. These worked fine according to the studies mentioned above.
the dark grey stern and bow was to shorten the ships length and thus its size, but later tests and studies on ship camouflage conducted by Kapitänleutnant Dechend in 1942 showed, that dark areas of ships accented these parts of the ship rather than concealing them when viewed from a distance. After these studies bows and sterns were painted light grey or white-grey to shorten the ships length. This worked fine (e.g. Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, etc.).
False bow and stern waves was to camouflage the actual ships speed. These worked fine according to the studies mentioned above.
Bye,
Bernd.
Bernd.
- paulcadogan
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
- Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Hi 30 Knots,
Regarding the false stern waves, remember that at higher speeds (like your name!) ships will churn up a lot more foam at the stern as well. This should be the reason for the added wave at the stern I would think.
And Bernd, that's interesting. I always wondered why there was reversal in shade in Scharnhorst 1943 versus Bismarck and PE 1941. Thanks.
Paul
Regarding the false stern waves, remember that at higher speeds (like your name!) ships will churn up a lot more foam at the stern as well. This should be the reason for the added wave at the stern I would think.
And Bernd, that's interesting. I always wondered why there was reversal in shade in Scharnhorst 1943 versus Bismarck and PE 1941. Thanks.
Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
Thanks guys.
For the false bow wave to 'work', the enemy would have to be around to see it. If the enemy was around, i would imagine the ship would be at maximum or near maximum speed, causing a real bow wave. Hence we now have two bow waves.
I know this is all very well from a computer desk and Tiornu makes a very good point, but would anyone like to comment on the 'two bow waves' ?
Thanks for any replies
For the false bow wave to 'work', the enemy would have to be around to see it. If the enemy was around, i would imagine the ship would be at maximum or near maximum speed, causing a real bow wave. Hence we now have two bow waves.
I know this is all very well from a computer desk and Tiornu makes a very good point, but would anyone like to comment on the 'two bow waves' ?
Thanks for any replies
Thanks Bgile
Of course - submarine attack. My apologies, i was just thinking of a surface encounter.
OK, i am satisfied as to the purpose of these false waves, bow and stern.
Does anyone know why the stern one together with the side 'stripes' were painted out for Op Rhein, leaving only the bow one ?
Thanks for any replies
Of course - submarine attack. My apologies, i was just thinking of a surface encounter.
OK, i am satisfied as to the purpose of these false waves, bow and stern.
Does anyone know why the stern one together with the side 'stripes' were painted out for Op Rhein, leaving only the bow one ?
Thanks for any replies
Presumably as British warships did not use these types of camouflage it was done as the striping would identify the Bismarck as being German at fairly long range to all other shipping.....30knots wrote:
Does anyone know why the stern one together with the side 'stripes' were painted out for Op Rhein, leaving only the bow one ?
Thanks for any replies
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
- Bernd Willmer
- Member
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: Vaihingen/Enz, Germany
- Contact:
- paulcadogan
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
- Location: Kingston, Jamaica
I think it's a little more than that Berndt. Because a u-boat's periscope is right at sea level, it would have the shortest possible horizon view. Any target comes into view superstructure first with the hull out of sight below the horizon, hence the term "hull down".
So if a ship is hull down, any hull camouflage would have no effect.
However, I doubt a WW2 submarine would attempt to attack a ship so far away that it is hull down... The chance of hitting would be too small, with the difficulties in computing course and speed etc.
Paul
So if a ship is hull down, any hull camouflage would have no effect.
However, I doubt a WW2 submarine would attempt to attack a ship so far away that it is hull down... The chance of hitting would be too small, with the difficulties in computing course and speed etc.
Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
That's probably true Paul. My personal experience was probably at much greater ranges on average than a U-boat would be using. It's possible they could actually see the waterline of the target, at least with initial classification observation. After that they would probably only expose a meter or less of scope.