New Challenger 2 experimental camouflage

[Bandsaw Steve]

I think the main question here is why go to all those lengths to paint such a complex scheme but leave all of the wheels a uniform dark colour. I would have thought - given the pattern and colours chosen on the hull - it preferable  to have at least had a couple of tan wheels, a few lighter green wheels and just a couple of dark ones. I can’t imagine that being much extra work and would go some distance toward reducing the ‘big black hole under the tank’ that’s currently present.

 

 

 

 

[Kingsman]

The Chally looks quite different out in the wild in natural light rather than in the shed under bright lights.  Actually works quite well in the woodland sertting.

 

Barracuda in different colours is something that has been being looked-at for a while.  But then you need lots of sets in different colours in store and it may not be durable.

 

Did anyone else notice the sensor pod and mast in the back of the Jackal?  We were talking about doing that back in 2014.  New lookers as well as a new look..........

[spejic]

On 11/13/2020 at 12:02 PM, pigsty said:

Very appealing colours, but what is this obsession with pixellated camouflage?  At any distance you can't see that it's made of rectangles.

That's the point. At a distance the rough edges between the colors blend together creating a gradient of color without using hundreds of paints.

 

Like how this picture at a distance looks like it's made of various greys but is actually made of only white and black:

 

 

[Agent K]

On 11/19/2020 at 1:16 PM, Rumblestripe said:

I've always been a little puzzled with the military obsession with green?

 

 

Prey animals have developed camouflage techniques driven by the most simple of driving factors, evolution. There are no green antelopes. You get green snakes and insects, animals that will be in green environments, so green birds flit around trees. The antelope that is easy to see is the one the lion will try to kill. You will notice the light coloured lower flank, this is specifically to make the animal harder to see at a distance. Which does make you wonder about painting the wheels dark shades if nothing else.

I think you’ll find most animals only see in B & W hence accurate colour is less important than a disruptive effect.

[Agent K]

Re pixelated effect and the questions here why, I believe it can be disruptive to digital optical viewers/screens, ie pixels being viewed through pixels.

[viper-30]

If you read up on why they have done it .. it’s part of a trial on various types of camouflage painting that’s being carried out by ADTU and Various other departments..to assess various types and patterns .. 

[Rumblestripe]

14 hours ago, Agent K said:

I think you’ll find most animals only see in B & W hence accurate colour is less important than a disruptive effect.

Not quite right. Most mammals are colour-blind (which is not the same as seeing in black and white) they can see the yellow to violet range of the spectrum perfectly well but cannot see red/orange. So spotting a brown antelope against green is as you say not easy. Primates including Homo Sapiens have trichromatic vision giving us full range red to violet vision. So I guess green IS correct for European theatres at least, the question remains about a darker lower half when nature almost universally goes for lighter colouration?

[Agent K]

2 hours ago, Rumblestripe said:

Not quite right. Most mammals are colour-blind (which is not the same as seeing in black and white) they can see the yellow to violet range of the spectrum perfectly well but cannot see red/orange. So spotting a brown antelope against green is as you say not easy. Primates including Homo Sapiens have trichromatic vision giving us full range red to violet vision. So I guess green IS correct for European theatres at least, the question remains about a darker lower half when nature almost universally goes for lighter colouration?

That's impressive knowledge for somebody from Darlo………… 😉 😆

 

Joking aside that's interesting and thank you and yes a darker lower side does seem to go against logical thought.

[Kingsman]

Although some naval disruptive schemes included darker shorter false hull shapes, which might also seem counter-intuitive.  If the intent is to deceive rather than hide then the dark lower section might perhaps give a false impression of range.  But with laser ranging, thermal imaging and high-resolution electro-optics such ideas may no longer have any value.

 

In experiments, USAF pilots reported that shadow was their easiest clue to identifying ground targets in the open.  This led USAF to abandon using old airframes as airfield decoys in favour of 2-dimensional cut-outs and even just false painted shadows.  Thus introducing what amounts to a false shadow area might well be counter-productive.  If one sticks rigidly to hull-down the lower colour becomes less relevant.

 

WW2 British camouflage schemes in 1940 - 44 used light grey or white in areas of deeper shadow such as lower front hulls, under mantlets and turret undercuts.  But not under M3 and M4 sponsons, which were often left in factory OD to save time - giving much the same effect as the CR2 scheme.

 

But then if camouflage was easy it would be called football..........

[Rumblestripe]

On 12/2/2020 at 5:42 AM, Das Abteilung said:

In experiments, USAF pilots reported that shadow was their easiest clue to identifying ground targets in the open.  This led USAF to abandon using old airframes as airfield decoys in favour of 2-dimensional cut-outs and even just false painted shadows.  Thus introducing what amounts to a false shadow area might well be counter-productive.  If one sticks rigidly to hull-down the lower colour becomes less relevant.

Interesting, I wonder if anyone has considered mounting downward facing lights to remove a cast shadow? With modern CREE type LEDs it wouldn't need much power. A bit of processing power to make sure they weren't left on at night and...

 

...where did that tank go?

[Bandsaw Steve]

14 hours ago, Rumblestripe said:

Interesting, I wonder if anyone has considered mounting downward facing lights to remove a cast shadow? With modern CREE type LEDs it wouldn't need much power. A bit of processing power to make sure they weren't left on at night and...

 

...where did that tank go?

Yes it has been tried.

 

It is called ‘counter-illumination’ and was trailed on warships at sea during WW2 (illuminating areas of shade under overhanging structures etc) but the technology was insufficient to make it work correctly and No doubt the benefits were minor compared to the effort.

 

However in the modern world with modern illumination devices (LED’s and lasers for example) , light-meters and sophisticated computer control, I bet someone somewhere is - at least - experimenting with this idea.

 

This is perhaps especially so considering how many modern weapon systems operate at (or beyond) extreme limits of visual range.
 

Of course the possibility that related technology might be able to make an aircraft (or other system) change colour or pattern as required should also not be discounted.

 

Interestingly ‘counter-illumination’ is found in the natural world. The ‘Salmon Shark’ (if memory serves correctly) has phosphorescent cells on its underside to lighten the area of shade under its body and thereby render its shape less conspicuous when viewed from the side.  It also makes it harder to see against the sunlit surface when a predator views it from below.

 

[Bandsaw Steve]

Whoops- my apologies @Rumblestripe I have just re-read your post and note that you specified ‘cast shadow’ ie shadow on the ground cast by the target object not ‘shade’ on the object itself which is what my response above was about.

 

Personally I know of no such technology but I don’t work in defence (at least not for 25 years or so) so would not know if it exists or not. It certainly seems like a reasonable suggestion and might provide a modicum of protection to ground equipment. Of course - as always - there would be a trade-off with expense and complexity.

[Kingsman]

I did read that USAF was experimenting with a colour-changing polymer coating that was reactive to electrical impulse.  Easier to do on an aircraft that doesn't have the rough-and-tumble life of an AFV.  Or an Aston Martin.........

 

Boy racer underbody lighting strips on a Chally?  Pimp my ride.....

 

It is interesting that none of the "stealth" adaptions trialled on the "stealth Chieftain" SID now at Bovington seem to have been taken forward.  Flat discs on the wheels and brush strips around the tracks front and rear would seem potentially useful.

[Giorgio N]

On 12/3/2020 at 3:19 PM, Bandsaw Steve said:

Yes it has been tried.

 

It is called ‘counter-illumination’ and was trailed on warships at sea during WW2 (illuminating areas of shade under overhanging structures etc) but the technology was insufficient to make it work correctly and No doubt the benefits were minor compared to the effort.

 

However in the modern world with modern illumination devices (LED’s and lasers for example) , light-meters and sophisticated computer control, I bet someone somewhere is - at least - experimenting with this idea.

 

This is perhaps especially so considering how many modern weapon systems operate at (or beyond) extreme limits of visual range.
 

Of course the possibility that related technology might be able to make an aircraft (or other system) change colour or pattern as required should also not be discounted.

 

Interestingly ‘counter-illumination’ is found in the natural world. The ‘Salmon Shark’ (if memory serves correctly) has phosphorescent cells on its underside to lighten the area of shade under its body and thereby render its shape less conspicuous when viewed from the side.  It also makes it harder to see against the sunlit surface when a predator views it from below.

 

 

 

Similar concepts were tested on aircrat over the years. The earliest test was probably in the mid '30s on the Grumman FF-1 prototype with poor results. Later during WW2 the idea was tested both in Canada and Britain and again by the USN with the project Yehudi. In this case instead of illuminating the aircraft surfces, the lamps were directed forward to try and match the reflectance of the sky. The system was tested on a B-24 and a Avenger and was meant to be used mainly on ASW aircraft. Results were promising but improvements in the radar systems performance and the end of the war brought all tests to an end.

Later the concept was tested again when in the early '70s the USAF tried it on an F-4C. Allegedly the technique was tested again in the '90s on an F-15 while it is known that epxeriments are being conducted on drones even today.

 

 

[Blimpyboy]

On 11/14/2020 at 7:02 AM, pigsty said:

what is this obsession with pixellated camouflage?

 

I think 'pixels' (or at least, small rectangles) form a fractal pattern more easily.

The use of fractal patterns forms effective visual camouflage, but also has application against the auto detection/tracking processors in some EO sensors.

 

I guess the question is, is the paint on the Challenger forming fractal patterns? 

[At Sea]

Is it an aggressor tank?

 

Simulating a 'Insert flavour of the month enemy here' tank to train our tank crews for a potential future engagement?

 

The MOD saying they are 'trialling schemes' would be good cover to avoid the inevitable furore over any idea we would prepare ourselves to go to war in Eastern Europe.

[MisterE]

On 12/11/2020 at 20:43, GMK said:

 

Someone, somewhere has been playing Minecraft...

 

 

[GMK]

Paint scheme now updated:

 

 

 

Who’s game?

[Bandsaw Steve]

That looks wicked! 

[Newtonk]

On 11/03/2021 at 13:25, GMK said:

Paint scheme now updated:

 

 

 

Who’s game?

Yep, I'm keen. Do you have this image in hi-res, please? I'll need it for pattern and colours. I think I'll go with the new Ryefield kit, rather than a Trumpeter or Tamiya one.

 

Cheers

[Steben]

Wheels should be monocolour IMHO.

And personally I never have been smitten on camo patterns. Dazzle schemes and countershade are exceptions.
I think paint today should have qualities like material protection and IRR. Basic colour should be choosen according to environment. Look at the British "new brown" some years ago.
But camo as in local disguise is optimal with add on material. Always have been. Nets, cloth, branches .... those things.

It's a bit of an afwul stretch, but I can't see many conflicts lately (let's say 20th century) where coloured camo pattern were massively used by the winning team. Germany won the blitzkrieg with dark grey for crying out loud against camo pattern armies. They switched to coloured camo pattern ... about when they started loosing.
The Allies almost used monocolour only in Europe in 1944-1945.
in WW1 Britain omitted the camo patterns on the rhomboid tank because it was useless. The biggest ww1 air ace flew a bright red plane.
IDF forces used plain sand colour against the camo Arabic armies.
 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Steben

[GMK]

12 hours ago, Newtonk said:

Yep, I'm keen. Do you have this image in hi-res, please? I'll need it for pattern and colours. I think I'll go with the new Ryefield kit, rather than a Trumpeter or Tamiya one.

 

Cheers

Sorry mate, only what you see here. Pagey on Twitter (CO of ATDU) posted these, at that res. 

[Newtonk]

Well that may be a problem... I'll wander over to Twitter and see what I can find. Thank you,

[ivan-o]

Colour photos here.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-army-show-off-next-generation-tank-camouflage/

[Newtonk]

Ivan-o, thanks for the link, the images GMK posted show an updated Camo scheme and colours. Still working on finding that in a larger format.