# Talk:Aircraft camouflage

In the surviving B-52 page, there is an image of a B-52 on display in Orlando, Florida. It also has different top-bottom camo schemes, and is a great example due to its styling. I believe it would make for a good example if anyone feels it is necessary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.29.7 (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 

The article as it now stands reads like classical WP:OR: it has the informed tone of an insider, summarizing his opinion on each subtopic in a gently rambling paragraph or two, with almost no references. The choice for an article in this state is to delete the text down to a stub and start again, or to attempt to justify the text as written by hunting for the sources that he must have used. Which would people prefer? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The latter is preferable as the existing page provides a reasonable structure and the cleanup can be done in stages. There are also lots of omissions - Soviet WW2 camouflage, Interwar camouflage (such as US Army, French Air Force, Japanese Army, Early Luftwaffe and that used in South America and China), and minor countries during the cold war and after, such as Sweden whose splinter/lozenge camouflage should be mentioned, as well as digital camouflage and the reduction in insignia due to IR returns, as well as challenges during ww2 when visibility and confusion was an issue.NiD.29 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's more than time it was cleaned up, as much of the text has been uncited for years. On the additions, go right ahead but please cite every addition fully to reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

An editor has at this late stage (GAN) inserted two subsection headings, two images, and some poorly-cited text, some sentences being entirely uncited. These unbalance the table of contents, skew the article's coverage and are possibly WP:UNDUE, bordering also on original research, when what is required is a reliably-cited analysis of the camouflage principles involved. I'd be minded to reduce the entry, remove the headings and the uncited material, and perhaps keep one of the images, but given where we are I'd like to reach consensus first. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the new material also partly duplicated what was there already. I've merged it, saving the new citation, and put the better of the two images into the gallery. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: As an alternative to:

(Hohum @) 16:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Well, firstly all the fuselages have (and had in wartime) a cross and numbering so that doesn't decide anything. The yellow under the nose is indeed "surplus to requirement". You must be right about the upper wing pattern which is rather too RAF, as the period image shows. I'll use the period image, then, as it's definitely authentic: none of the other images actually show the same scheme, though the 'with dappling' image has it almost right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I *think* your original image has an interesting mix of countershading and ground shading. From the side, countershading, from the top, ground shading, hence the mix of dark and not so dark along the top. Perhaps a little too complicated to explain in the article though. (Hohum @) 19:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Those things were certainly intended and the text does mention them though not many sources go into the right sort of detail. What's not certain is whether the upperwing in the period was as conspicuously 2-tone as in that image (and can the base colour have been grey?). It looks as if the wartime aircraft were only weakly disruptive on the upperwing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting WP:IG - image galleries are generally deprecated except in special circumstances. I can see the argument that this is a sufficiently "visual" subject that galleries are justified, but I think that even so most of the current ones could be replaced by inline images, it would encourage a little more discrimination in image selection. For instance, I don't think the Camel, Il-2, Zero or first Jaguar help a reader to increase their understanding of camouflage. And I'm not keen on either of the lead images - it would help if the Phantoms were cropped significantly tighter, but it still doesn't quite do it for me as an image. I guess there must be pictures of Tornados somewhere in sky and ground schemes, eg GR1 with GR4 or F3, but skimming the MoD website suggests they've got none on free OGL. A crop of File:NJANGandNorwayF-5.jpg maybe? Bit fuzzy though. And I get that someone is trying to use the B-2 to make the multispectral point, but that doesn't have to be in the lead - although I might replace the F-117 pic with the B-2, it's a better image at small sizes. The convention is to have one image in the lead, I'd use the Corsairs on the ground. Not only is it a really striking image in its own right, but vertical images tend to work well as lead images, and they don't "fit" so well among a bunch of landscape images. The one pic I'd add would be one of modern Russian digital camouflage such as File:Su-35 in flight. (3826731912).jpg, perhaps the most "different" of the 21st century paint jobs. And it would be nice to have a transport aircraft in there, perhaps replace the Spitfire with something like File:Douglas C-47A Dakota 3 (DC-3), UK - Air Force AN1421134.jpg or File:Lockheed C-130K Hercules C1 (L-382), UK - Air Force AN2272468.jpg. Be nice to have a desert scheme, which would also allow a bit more variety in countries - something from a Gulf country or Egypt or somewhere.Le Deluge (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

All right, I'll make a move on this, to show willing and to make the lead inviting. I will attempt to reply as briefly as possible, at the risk of not making each point as full, forceful, and comprehensible as I would like: there is much I would wish to say. For the record, I do think that camouflage is an exceptionally visual subject, indeed one of the most (perhaps THE most) visual things both in biology and in military history. I can add that the images have been chosen with great care to convey the message of the article: each one has something important to say; the danger with galleries, and the reason for WP:IG, is that they can easily become indiscriminate, which is absolutely not the case here (nor has there been any trouble in that direction). For example, the pair of Jaguar images (summer/winter) are about the only ones available to illustrate what a biologist would call 'seasonal polyphenism', in other words the changing colours and patterns for summer and winter camouflage. The phenomenon is indeed more common in terrestrial military camouflage, but the pair of images demonstrate it with visual immediacy and force for aircraft camouflage here. I would go so far as to argue that this pair of images is not really a gallery at all, but a visual comparison, like the pair of Yehudi lights images (formatted as one jpeg). Your suggestion to add a modern Russian image is interesting, as it says there is good reason to illustrate the history and breadth of camouflage with an image of each remarkable thing, and perhaps each nation: that would in itself call for more not fewer images, which would mandate the use of galleries – there is no room down the right hand side for all your interesting suggestions, none of which are without some merit. I certainly believe that showing aircraft from each of the main air-warring nations is important: this is a military history as well as a history of a technology, and who did what is a key part of the article's mission. There is also extremely good reason to include a Spitfire image, even if it were not the case that this particular image shows the disruptive sand-and-spinach pattern to good advantage: it's the only image in the article where the upperside pattern actually works to disrupt the aircraft's outline and delay recognition (i.e. camouflage actually working as Hugh Cott intended), and that's not even to mention the fact that it is the only WWII RAF aircraft image in the article. No, the galleries here are defensible: more, they are right and proper, and I will be happy to discuss them with the GA reviewer. But we'll try the Corsairs image in the lead, as it too is certainly camouflage that works. I've hidden the Phantoms, which some other editors will be sorry about; and I have moved the B2 to the Stealth section but left it hidden for now: of course it would be nice to use it but it conveys much the same message as the F-117 and I doubt that adding a gallery just now would be helpful... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
As I said from the start - I recognise that this is a visual subject, but I'm still 75-25 against the image galleries - ranging from 50-50 on the WWII one to near 100-0 on the two-pic ones... But it's still a good idea to make the effort to get the article to work without galleries, it's a good discipline. I'm not suggesting a net addition of images, at most I'm proposing one-in-one-out, and realistically more like 3-in, 6-out or something. For instance, you suggest that two image "slots" are needed to demonstrate seasonal camouflage. Your case is rather weakened by the fact that the Jaguar photos are both taken within a month of midsummer, and that the UK does not have "winter" camouflage but "Arctic" - a geographical designation. I'm struggling to think of occasions when aircraft have genuinely had seasonal camouflage - happened on the Eastern Front of WWII, but it's not that common. And the concept can be conveyed in words, it doesn't need pictures to explain it - as I say, it's about discipline. I might replace both Jags with this pic of a Sea King that was presumably on the same exercise, which i) shows off Arctic camouflage better at small image sizes ii) ticks the helicopter box so we can lose the Tiger and iii) ticks the 1990s box. So that's 3 out, 1 in. <g>Which should free up space for a desert scheme, as the one major type that isn't represented at the moment, and which should be amenable to representation by a non-Western airforce. I'm not obsessive about having different countries represented but at the same time it shouldn't be a history of US/UK camouflage either - as soon as you say eg China and Saudi need to be there, then India and Iran feel left out, then Pakistan and Iraq and so on. To do a proper history of national camouflages you end up with hundreds of pictures and casual readers lose the wood for the trees. I'd see the article leave that kind of thing for articles on the histories of individual air forces - I'd keep the historical structure here but only as a framework to make points about specific classes of camouflage.At the moment the visual stuff ends in the 1980s - if you're going to make a point about changing air defences forcing ground-attack to low level and hence into ground schemes in the 1970s, the reverse has happened since Desert Storm (eg Tornado GR1 vs GR4), increased multi-roleness has also been a factor. And I wasn't suggesting the Su-35 on national grounds particularly, it's more that digital camouflage is arguably the biggest development in visual camouflage since WWII - the fact that it's not mentioned at all makes the article seem even more Western-centric, as the Russians and allies have been the main users on aircraft.Much though I love Vulcans, and it's a great pic, and planform pics are better than side-on, I'm not sure that a photo of the underside in yet another ground scheme adds particularly much to the article.  By the same token, there's a dedicated article on anti-flash white and it's not a kind of camouflage, so we don't need a pic of it here. A non-gallery mindset enforces discipline.I recognise the work that's gone into the article and I hope you appreciate I'm not trying to nitpick for the sake of it or impose guidelines just because they're there, I just think the article would be better for some of the above suggestions.Le Deluge (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I will make one more attempt at moving in your direction, but I do expect this dialogue not to be all one way, and would much appreciate your not making dubious remarks about discipline. However, I agree that we can't and shouldn't attempt to cover all nations' aircraft (that way madness lies), so we may as well not worry about displaying a range of different air forces' camouflage schemes at all. I have slimmed down the range of images accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aircraft camouflage/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 12:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This has languished long enough, I'll take the review. Parsecboy (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, I hope you enjoy it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The article was originally written in AmEng, so the article should be standardized that way per WP:RETAIN.
OK, I've made the obvious fixes; not easy for a Brit! Let me know if I missed anything.
Tell me about it, it drives me a little nuts to write articles on British topics ;) I see a few "minimise"s that should be "minimize"s. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Done.
One dupe link for stealth technology in that section (and arguably, both links in the text are unnecessary given the hatnote at the top of that section)
Removed.
Lots of websites I'm not sure about as far as RSes go - for example, what makes http://www.century-of-flight.net a reliable source? Can you go through the websites you use and point out what qualifies them for use?
Removed, and focused the text which was borderline relevant anyway. I think the others are reliable for their statements about camouflage. The IPMS and Scutts cover topics ignored by many textbooks, and they are not likely to be wrong about paint colors. Cross & Cockade has been used a couple of times; this is essentially military not academic, but again is for a knowledgeable and critical audience that insists on correctness on matters such as coloration. Nearly all the other sources are certainly reliably edited and published.
For http://www.wwiaviation.com/index.html, I can't find anything that provides credentials for the author of the site
Removed.
Ditto for http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/ - I don't know that we'd accept a hobbyist group as a reliable source
Removed.
I can't get http://users.hol.gr/~nowi/luftcam/index.html to open, so it's either dead or the site is blocked on my work computer.
Removed.
http://sepecat.info/b/2013/11/14/jaguar-snow-camo/ - also appears to be a modeling site
Removed. Can't see how to source this fact unless we can simply cite the photo on Flickr - if that's acceptable for the basic fact (Jaguars have sometimes had snow cam) then I can put it back.
There's this, this, and this (which you might be able to get enough from the snippets to cite). Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Now that was very clever of you. Sorted, thanks!
http://www.barryschiff.com/high_flight.htm - not so sure about this one either - Schiff is an experienced commercial pilot, to be sure, but I don't know that that qualifies him as a RS as Wikipedia defines the term. It could easily be replaced by this.
Thankyou, replaced.
The article has too many images - while I understand the need to show various types of camouflage, images should not sandwich text. I would recommend moving a lot of them to galleries at the bottom of relevant sections.
I caught a lot of 'flak' for galleries earlier, so I've instead hidden 2 images and moved one, I've tried all widths and there is no sandwiching now.
It seems a little odd that there's no mention of WWII developments in the lead.
Extended.
"for diurnal-flown aircraft" - should be "for diurnally flown aircraft".
Reworded.
My understanding on the USAAF dropping camouflage was to save weight, not to reduce drag.
Mentioned.
Anti-flash white was not confined to British use, which is what that sentence implies.
Said "including".
I wonder if things like chaff, radar jamming, and flares should be included
Interesting. They're certainly defensive countermeasures but I've not seen them described as camouflage: perhaps there is scope for a further article on those topics. Jamming for example is definitely an active measure, unlike camouflage which is essentially passive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the section on the Yehudi lights got me thinking about other active measures - figured it was worth asking. Parsecboy (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
There are things like this, this, this, and this to beef up the Cold War section, since camouflage was extensively used in the wars fought during that period. Which is to say, the decreasing usefulness of camouflage applies mainly to the strategic forces of the US and USSR, not so much to tactical aviation in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Good idea, done.
Also ran it through earwig's tool and it came up clear. Parsecboy (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Noted.
Came across this while looking for snow camouflage refs above - seems to be more useful than just that, so I'll put it in its own section. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Did you see this one? Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: That's a useful new book, I've added it and used it for the Soviet fighters. Reassuring, too, as the article covers the same territory. I think we're about finished here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I think so, good work. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought paint, or at least matte paint, might increase drag on an aircraft skin but when I looked up some numbers in tech documents I was surprised to find that smoothly applied matte paint does not increase drag relative to gloss paint or polished metal. However, any kind of paint adds weight, which the article mentions in two places. Can we tell the reader how much weight is typically added with a coat of camouflage paint? And if someone can find an easily cited source for the lack of increased drag that would help. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added a note on the weight saved, and the speed gained. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This Mosquito page says difference between matte and gloss nightfighter black around 25 mph. I think I've read something more authoritative elsewhere. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Done: good thing I checked as it was 25kph not mph! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)