Bismarck's Baltic Camoflage

[tc432]

Two questions. Can someone explain the reasoning and purpose behind the baltic camoflage scheme used on Bismarck? Secondly, was the arados carried on board painted green or some shade of grey. Thanks for your help this is a great website. Tom

[RF]

My understanding was that the camouflage was used in all home waters not just the Baltic, the purpose as on all warships being security and in wartime make enemy identification of ships more difficult.
I had presumed the Arado's would be grey rather than green.

[RF]

By the way Tom, welcome to the forum.

[tommy303]

the Ar 196 was usually painted green on the upper surfaces and light blue on the undersides. The wings had often as not the usual Luftwaffe splinter-type camo patterns of lighter and darker greens.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ar196.html

thomas

[tc432]

Thanks for the speedy replies. I can see the benefit of the baltic camo scheme for easy Identification to ones own navy. I also reconize that if most of the kriegsmarines capital ships at this time had the camo stripes,the enemy may be confused as to which ship they may be looking at.(deception through looking similar).The false bow and stern waves gives off an impression of high speed from various angles. What still perplexes me is this :Were the darker shaded ends of the hull designed to make the the ship appear smaller? It seems to me the it should be the other way around. Lighter ends should be less visible at distance. I remember seeing a photo of the Scharnhorst with dark midsection and light painted ends.Also ,were there any other benefit to the black and white baltic stripes such as breaking up the ships outline or confusing drection to the enemy? One last question does anyone know the Ral color numbers for the arado plan?

[tommy303]

If I recall correctly the Luftwaffe used paint manufactured to its own specifications, and such paints were given a RLM designation consisting of RLM followed by a number and a word description--i.e., RLM-24 Dunkelblau (dark blue).

http://www.simmerspaintshop.com/forums/ ... lours.html

This seems to be a fairly good chart.

[RF]

I believe (I may be wrong in this) that the camouflage scheme was aimed at making submarine attack more difficult, by giving a false impression as to the targets size and speed. This was at a time when the threat of attack from the air was not appreciated for what it became, and submarines were considered the main hidden danger to surface ships. However I am not an expert on camouflage.

[Olaf]

I believe (I may be wrong in this) that the camouflage scheme was aimed at making submarine attack more difficult, by giving a false impression as to the targets size and speed. This was at a time when the threat of attack from the air was not appreciated for what it became, and submarines were considered the main hidden danger to surface ships. However I am not an expert on camouflage.

Neither am I, however, I believe that it made aiming through a periscope more difficult not because of false impressions of heading and speed but because of interrupting and breaking the outlines of the superstructure, i.e. making it more difficult to align the vertical line "in" the periscope to an imagined vertical line of the target. The problem: if you can't align to the superstructure, there is another perfect vertical line on the target... the mast(s)...

With regard to the target's speed, well... I don't think an able submarine skipper could be fooled by a false bow wave/stern wake...

I haven't read much about this particular camouflage scheme but all I know is, that there may have been numerous heated discussions about sense and nonsense of it. From ship to ship, the parallel stripes were very similar, I think SH is the only exception if I'm not mistaken. This similarity provides some kind of camouflage but not in the meaning of "hiding" or "blending in" into the surroundings but rather - as mentioned here before - to confuse the enemy about what ship he is actually looking at. But there is also a problem: when the darker bow and stern panels should make the ship appear shorter, why did the large ships carry three pairs of stripes while the smaller ones had five?

I believe the structural design of the German capital ships was camouflage in itself and more effective than the Baltic Scheme, e.g. BS and PG in the Battle of the Denmark Strait.

The dark bows and sterns ~ I read that it proved to be more successful to paint these parts of the hull in lighter colours than the rest of the ship.

Best ~ Olaf

[Vic Dale]

I don't think the colours and stripes used in the Baltic would have been considered as camouflage in the normal sense of the word. I tend to think the easily recogniseable lines would attract the eye of the casual or untrained observer and thus mask the actual identity of the ship.

The Baltic was full of potential spys and if they reported the comings and goings of similarly painted warships, British Intelligence would not get a very clear picture. On sighting a German warship, the most striking apsects would be remembered and the finer detail missed. The dark bows and sterns would probably fox the civilian observer, but not work too well on the well trained eye. The lighter shade of the ship's side would draw the eye whilst of the actual length, little would be learned.

I think also that the striking diagonal black and white lines would work on the retina and brain of the observer making it difficult to see that the bow and stern had been darkened, also it might cause the observers brain to resolve the image into an incorrect picture.

The adoption of this type of paint scheme may well have been intended to hide the fact that Bismarck and Tirpitz had begun sea trials. Observers might have become used to seeing warships so painted coming and going and the frequent observer's complacency might cause them to miss the fact that they were now observing a battleship with two superimposed turrets as opposed to one, as with the Scharnhorst class.

Vic Dale

[tc432]

Thank you for all the replies. Many of them are very insightful. Thanks Tom

[Bgile]

I think the false bow wave and stern waves would work well when it was dark, during the long northern nights. If it was hard to see the ship anyway, painting the bow and stern a darker color than the rest of the ship might deceive a submariner who was using his reticle along with ship length to determine range for a torpedo attack. During good visibility the camo wouldn't make much difference whatever you do, so they may have optimized that part of it for night.

[Olaf]

There is one additional question that popped up in my head some time ago (maybe in my head only...)...

The false bow wave on Bismarck:
When the Baltic Scheme was painted over in Norway, did they possibly 'enlarged' the false bow wave a bit by painting its forward curve down to the boot-topping? I mean, the aft edge of the former dark 'Dunkelgrau 2' area was in the shape of the stem and I can't imagine that they left the forward edge false wake in this stem-shape after painting out the dark bow with 'Dunkelgrau 51'...

Are there any good wreck photos confirming this? I think, as to the starboard side, there is that large whole caused by the PoW shell but what about the larboard side? I've never seen photos of this paricular area...

Any ideas?

[Vic Dale]

To Olaf.

There were a good number of holes made in the bow above water during Bismarck's last battle and I believe it has been considered impossible to determine accurately which one came from PoW.

As far as the false bow-wave goes, the ship was trimmed by the stern at the time she was photographed in Norway and I believe this was to lift the bow a few feet out of the water so as to facilitate painting out the dark bow and to enable the false bow-wave to be extended downwards, so as not to show black boot-topping below it as fuel was burned during the operation and the ship lightened.

Vic Dale

[Bgile]

I think the hole overlapping the false bow wave dovetails pretty well with the description of the damage, and I've not seen another one which did.

[Vic Dale]

I think the hole overlapping the false bow wave dovetails pretty well with the description of the damage, and I've not seen another one which did.

Yes there is not much douting that one as the exit hole, but the incoming from PoW is the tricky one due to the other incomging hits.

Vic Dale