Could Redcoats "Blend In" with their Environment?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- When we think of 18th Century uniforms, the last thing that comes to mind is probably "stealthy." It may be true that the famous Redcoat was hardly a sneaky fellow...but they were hardly the sore thumbs we normally portray them to be, either!
If you'd like to support the channel, please consider giving on Patreon,
/ brandonf -
-
This video was made in support of The Native Oak. Learn more about our educational mission here:
www.nativeoak....
If you'd like to support the channel, please consider giving on Patreon,
/ brandonf
You can follow me on social media too!
/ thenativeoak
/ brandonfisichella
Weirdest "Where's Waldo" scenario I've ever seen.
SIR, I have found a prisoner in very........uh unique clothing, what shall we do with him
Put him in a book
Chrispy
It technically would be Wally, because that's what he's known in the Great Britain.
"you meet a lot of interesting people when you reenact." Only reenactors understand how much of an understatement that is.
Oh my goodness, yes!
The elephant in the room is that if you are a reenactor, YOU are probably an interesting person. :)
Ah, truth tough!
WW2 reenactments have some real characters.
traditional archer here. we feel that, too. Although ONLY the bow and the arrows are traditional, as I don't really care about the entire outfit. Still, enough strange people, I meet.
"Haha they were so stupid back then. Only an idiot would wear something so conspicuous into battle!"
[Universal Camouflage Pattern Intensifies]
Those were cheap for big gubment to produce and license.
I hate that camo. My favourite is the Italian Vegetata, it just looks so hecking good
@@LehySnek Personally, I prefer the German flecktarn camo. As for desert camo, well idk I don't live in a desert.
@@wisemankugelmemicus1701 The Bundeswehr has both desert and tropical color palettes for operations in other environments.
@@colbunkmust yeah I know, what I'm saying is, while I do like flecktarn, I cannot easily test the effectiveness of tropentarn because no desert.
In the military, we will do land navigation training and search for bright red boxes marked with bright yellow letters in the woods. There were several instances where I walked within meters of a box and didn't see it.
Where the fuck is your internet battle buddy?
@@Scumbagius Dummy cord broke and now we're both lost.
@@Spartan_082 f
Red is the hardest color for humans to see in the woods, that’s why hunters wear orange.
@Daniel Byrne I can be your extra pair of eyes!
It's important to remember that the primary job of camouflage is to break up the silhouette. You wear camo to make it harder for the other guys to see you when you are moving. It's not so important, as demonstrated here, when you can pick your hiding spot. Of course gillie suits are a whole different beast as they're meant to fool the human eye even when it has an unobstructed view.
On the 18th century battlefield it was much more important to be able to quickly identify people at a distance than it was to hide your location. It's not really possible to hide a large group of armed men traveling and with black powder it's also not possible to hide their location once they start shooting.
I would argue that the advent of smokeless powder and the radio caused the change to camo as the default combat uniform. Suddenly shooting didn't immediately give away your position and there was the possibility (and eventual likely-hood) of knowing, in relative detail, where friendly units were even after the chaos of combat starts to mess up all of those nice tactical plans that were made up.
It also, along with static defenses like barbed wire and machine guns, raised the importance of NCOs being able to make decisions in an aligned-yet-autonomous way.
That's all true, unless you were French during the opening days of WWI where they marched into battle with their bright blue and red uniforms.
@@Riceball01 "At a parliamentary hearing, a former War Minister, M. Etienne, spoke for France. “Eliminate the red trousers?” he cried. “Never! Le pantalon rouge c’est la France!”"
@@Riceball01 the silly thing was straight after the boer war France copied Britain’s experience and adopted a mid green uniform the new french conservative govt came to power and said the french elan and esprit was more important so reverted to red and blue
I think back when lineal battle was the thing, important were numbers to intimidate the enemy but after the machine gun entered the scene in WWI and one person could stop an entire enemy batallion a great number of soldiers charging towards you with drums and trumpets was no longer scary.
I’m such a down to earth soldier, I sharpen big rock to make spear. Spread go poke poke, ooga booga strategy.
@The Dank Meme Mastah A sling would be better, but would not work in the forrest
@The Dank Meme Mastah Me no need throw rock, me ride rock. Rock spin fast, rock heavy so flaten enemy.
This post was made by the anprim gang
@@generalr1700 a jreg fan?
@@Seabass-fi9wg you bet your ass i am
When my grandpa (an old vet) used to take me and my little brother Turkey hunting he would always wear this bright red flannel shirt. one day I asked him "grandpa aren't you afraid the turkeys will see that shirt?" To this my wise ol grandpa replied "color ain't what gets you seen in the trees. Movement does now shut up and sit still." We would then do as he said and we did always manage to come home with plenty of turkeys.
Hunters wore bright colours in the past to reduce the chances of being shot by other hunters. Birds and other animals have very different eyes and so camouflage designed to prevent other humans seeing you is useless for other creatures.
Hunters still wear bright colors to avoid being shot by other hunters. Sit still and make good use of cover and animals will never know you are there. Works even better if you can get up a tree as the only animals that spend a lot of time looking up there are the ones that live there.
@@happyreaper5429 except turkeys which are known to have pretty good color vision
Your little brother was named Turkey?
@@NathanDudani You are what you eat, after all.
such camouflage would allow them to hide in the oceans and waterfalls of frenchman blood
Patrick Ancona the French would be fighting in the normal oceans and waterfalls
Huzza!
They had to adapt to the geography of North America, and if you ask me the British did it pretty well
*N A P O L E O N*
@@dreadedworld8864 Many dead Red Coats bt the French
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: King George's secret service.
then it is Splintah Cell. Right?
Metal Gear Solid 3: Redcoat Edition
@@Koala1203 with the long awaited"Shaap Soads" expansion pack
I’d play it
@@istvansipos9940
Those were the days before modern RP :P
When your a New Hampshire Militiaman securing a road, and your comrade exclaims-
‘They are positioned in amongst the ferns!’
Good sir I do believe that that wanker Charly is in that tree
'Clever girl'
@Matthew Taylor _The ferns_ "Oi yeah nah fuck off aye ya daft cunny!"
"My mistake, sir, it appears we've crossed the Welsh border"
THEY'RE IN THE TREES 😈
@Matthew Taylor meanwhile in RED 1812 Maple Forests: HEY, YA YANKIE WANKER'S CANYA NOT SEE THE LAD'S IN BRIGHT RED THAT'S SURROUNDIN YOU?
The bright colours faded over time, with exposure to the elements. A British soldier recalled how in the Peninsular War his red coat faded to a dirty blackish shade after a few months of Spain/Portugal's searing sunshine and pouring rain.
I love how after they shout "Huzza!" Then it's just awkward afterwards
In general terms, movement is more of a giveaway than colour. The human eye is quickly attracted to movement so, if a soldier can remain still, they will be difficult to spot in almost any concealment. Keeping still also helps reduce the chance of having light glint of one of the many shiny bits on a uniform of the day, as well as stopping any unwanted noise from bits equipment rattling and attracting attention.
As an long time paintball player I can confirm that camo, has only limited value. The best way to hide is to hide behind something, then nobody can see you not matter what. If you're moving you'll be seen. If you're communicating, you'll be heard. If you're shooting you'll be spotted. It's actually amazing how easily you can pick out movement in a forest when your senses are at the ready. Now, if you NEED to suddenly vanish or you want to set up and ambush camo helps but I highly suggest you be obscured by something........and not depend on your camo. Humans are great at picking out other human shapes i the forest.
@@MrBottlecapBill Coincides with my observations from my old job. I spent hours upon hours staring through an optic trying to spot people in the woods -- often people wearing safety orange/yellow with reflective vests, no less. The bright colors helped, yes, as did occasionally catching the reflection off the equipment they were carrying.
But by far the most immediate "tell" to be able to snap in on a general location where they were at (if I was totally lost) was to have one of them wave their arms, or one of the rods they were holding, or to shake a tree.
Last time I was this early, I was fighting King George III.
Every single down-to-earth person who ever said they would be able to win an 18th Century war would lose to 21st century reenactors let alone actual veteran light infantrymen of the 18th Century.
21st century reenactors would make them look like children... and 18th century soldiers would make the reenactors look like children.
@@spiffygonzales5899 ^^ I agree with this
Except me, obviously.
Trident Animation *lose
If a modern day soldier said it, I'd say he could do it. The average civilian? The butal death they would go through is best not to be discussed.
Of course they could, just needs to hide in the curtains.
Only if the coat matches the drapes... Badum tsss
I actually laughed. :D
I mean, I feel this is more a matter of concealment and cover. The benefits of camouflage is that you require less concealment to be hidden.
Regardless, I agree that camouflage didn't really matter as much as it's made out to be from back then. But light infantry units, such as Roger's Rangers or Spanish Cazadores, had drab green and/or brown uniforms so the idea of camouflage wasn't completely foreign back then but it was more used for units who would benefit more from hiding in the brush rather than line infantry.
His point is that the coat doesn't make concealment stop working
Many of them still had bright facings. Butler's Rangers had red facings on their green coats, as did the Royal Regiment of New York (when they weren't wearing red faced blue). The German Jaegers also wore green faced red, as did the 60th when they switched to rifles for the Napoleonic wars. The Indian Department by late war was often given surplus red coats, if they received uniforms at all. These would be the native allies, as well as units of armed former refugees from upstate New York. The British army modified it's doctrine during the war, adding orders such as "to tree" even for the line troops who by the southern campaign were fighting at open order. Any British soldier could reasonably be expected to take advantage of cover and concealment, as long as they weren't in an open field.
I imagine the instructors get the soldiers full attention during the concealment and cover classes when they wear bright red into battle.
@@v.sandrone4268 I imagine concealment makes the tunic kind of not matter
@@marxbruder The first lesson in Not Being Seen: do not stand up.
THis was even harder for me to see the guys because I'm colourblind
Red-green colour blindness was actually first identified when John Dalton (a 19th century English scientist) mentioned to a colleague (on seeing a British officer) that he thought it clever of the army to make their coats the same colour as the bushes.
British soldiers had experience fighting the French and Native Americans, they knew how colonial warfare worked
Jacob Levy Most of the Redcoats were actually German mercenaries , a fact that is rarely mentioned
Sparky The Magic Piano I’m fairly certain redcoats and German hirelings would be different units. Redcoats were all British citizens.
@@Theoriginalsparkythemagicpiano yeah the hessians were their own uniforms
@@Theoriginalsparkythemagicpiano not most of them
Weren't there British units who wore green uniforms?
I’m such a down to earth person. If I was fighting in the 18th century I would only use handmade flint tools and scream “ooga booga” at my enemies before bashing their head in with a stone and offering their body as a sacrifice to the sun god.
They invented bayonets for people like you. 😁
Perfect timing Brandon, I needed something to sleep to.
That’s silly
The gaming Sentinel Brandon has a very soothing voice.
Brick Break yes
A interesting example is that when I play the “War of Rights”，a Civil War game，it is hard to see the enemy firing line before they fire in the forest landscape. And When they fire，we just fire into the smoke that also totally cover them.
FUCK WEST WOODS. But for real I always make sure to fire a volley and GTFO and relocate as quick as possible
Something of a side-note to this topic: The disastrous Braddock campaign is so often misunderstood. The initial “ambush” that led to the catastrophe was actually a skirmish between opposing vanguards. Additionally, a good number of the British troops did take to the woods to fight under the orders of their officers; a larger tactical difficulty was that the French forces secured a hill (the high ground).
I’d also add that the British forces had to deploy while fording a stream in combat conditions, a difficult task no matter the force.
Indeed: de Beaujeu was killed off early and the Canadien militia broke during that stage. The difficulty was less that the British couldn't fight in the forest but was caught in marching column while the French had already positioned themselves. Weren't a lot of both the regulars and militia newly raised, although I also heard that the veterans of King George's War among both the regulars and Virginians did well in the battle?
“I am going to go prone in the forest and be practically invisible. I will fire and kill you, then high tail it back to base because I can’t reload my musket while prone, god forbid you have someone else with you!”
You roll on your back. It's relatively easy, if slightly more time consuming than standing or kneeling. With a knapsack or blanket roll it's even easier, as they give something to cushion the ground. The only real problem is cartridges falling out of the pouch, or heaven forbid trying to use a belly box.
Should be noted too, linear tactics didn't rely on camouflage quite so much as the looser formations more common today.
Brandon, as an aspiring author with a weird love for flintlocks (and Matchlocks!), colonial era technology and napoleonic/civil war era warfare, your videos are an excellent, down to earth source of food for though :)
Also, I love how people forget that a key aspect of hiding is, well, literally, making sure your main body mass is not visible...
I remember doing a reenactment of the Oriskany ambush back in 2010 (or thereabouts). Loyalists in green coats with red facings blended in almost perfectly, while militia and continentals in their blues and earth tones stood out like sore thumbs. The other thing I remember, though, was our concealment didn't matter. When the shooting starting, the patriots just charged up the hill (completely breaking the scenario, btw), still at close order, and it didn't matter how well hidden the crown forces were, because at those distances the patriots could reach us before we reloaded after the first or second shot. Had it been real, our only options would have been to run or die by the bayonet.
Splendid as ever, good sir! And, as I ever argued with my American friends who love to brag how they beat the British Empire, skirmishers don't win wars ... having the French Navy and French Heavy Infantry on your side helps you not lose! :p.
EDIT: Also much kudos for the Legion poster behind you.
Dallas Sukerkin And the Dutch and Spanish. When you look at it without blinkers the American ‘win over the British’ is put into a new light. I am sure a 4th nation fought on the American side ( read British discontents in another British civil war) but I cannot recall offhand which one.
@Ya Boii I would be interested in hearing your sources, good sir. And just to be a pedant (and annoying) were they really American's yet? Surely they were still British? For a great many gloss over that this 'secession' was actually a remote civil war.
The American Rebellion didn't loose. That's al an insurgency needs to do to be successful. Not be defeated.
@@dallassukerkin6878 by 1775 there had been several generations in some of the colonies and colonists who weren't native brits also settled. So it's conceivable that while they hadn't separated as much yet they would identify more with the colony of massachusetts bay for example than with england itself. They might still consider themselves british but they are also americans and did consider themselves different at least in what was in their interests (especially the nobility and governments of the colonies.) And started seeing those interests as less and less aligned with the british crown for years before the revolution broke out.
@@willemdafoe9811 There's plenty of people in Britain itself who call themselves distinct from it in some way. The Republic of Ireland also won independence from Britain, and in the past decade the Scots voted on the same thing.
18th century Redcoats did not just fight in lines, but were also trained to fight in open order. But what we saw in the video was the job of skirmishes. Skirmishes wore green coats and operated in front of the Line Regiments. They were also equipped with early rifles rather than muskets. Regiments included Rodger’s Rangers (later Queens Rangers). The Rifle Brigade (as in the Sharpe videos) Later the Royal Green Jackets.
So lesson of the storey, soldiers are less visible if they crouch or hide behind trees.
Apparently during the Zulu War in 1879, the Redcoats of the infantry actually blended in very well with the dusty dried grasses of Zululand. The only problem was the Zulu King Cetswayo told his warriors all the enemy would be wearing red - the vast majority of the survivors who escaped the disaster at Isandlwana were wearing blue, either patrol jackets or artillery etc. During the AWI we should have had a special unit ordered to paint tree trunks red ahead of the rebel army THEN send our boys in!
There are, I think, two things to take away from this. First, it is easy to hide in any environment provided there is enough concealment. Second, it is very difficult to disguise the contrast of some brightly coloured period uniforms with the more muted surroundings. When on service in India, many "redcoats" took to tea-dying their undershirts to a more neutral light brown after witnessing Indian troops doing the same, which proved to be quite an effective improvised camouflage.
Also, it doesn’t take into account the effect a few months on campaign would have on the red dye. Being very cheap, it would fade quite quickly, and not be anywhere near as vibrant as that in your modern reproductions.
video idea on the decline of polearms from the 17th to the 19th century /polearms from the 17th to the 19th century. I am quite cofused by them like how was the corsque used and was the partizan ever used in a formation like a pikesquare or was it always an officers weapon . Love your content brandon
0:30 Light infantry: "Allow us to introduce ourselves"
Fine work as always Good sir.
Well you made a great example of times where you can hide very well in thick brush of the New England wilderness with the lovely uniforms. I personally find that in fairness any thick concealment or cover behind a thick enough tree can hide even the most brightest colors should you be in a good spot. In terms of being able to hide from the human eye with less than ideal concealment or out in the open, the more natural & muted colors would have better odds in not being detected as often as bright uniforms, although not by much over them compared to well made camo patterns or even a gillie suit.
Americans: Hey Redcoats, your "Bloody" Obvious
Redcoats: **Hides Behind a tree**
Americans: Where are you ? did you where camouflage ?
Me: The Best "Camouflage" is to NOT be within line of sight
(Add usual joke about the FNFAL teaching the enemy the difference between cover and concealment)
you’re* “Bloody Obvious”
did you wear*
Looking forward to hearing you dismember the Patriot's battle scenes, love your work bro
*sigh* okay look. The Patriot wasn't meant to be a documentary. It was meant to be a patriotic movie showcasing a relatable and interesting man fight against an enemy that was being hostile against his family. It took a famous time period and produced an obvious work of fiction.
Maybe I'm wrong about them intentionally making it fictional, but tbh this "omg the Patriot is stupid" b.s got old five years ago. Especially considering that there are much more inaccurate historical fiction movies people believe to be accurate (Troy and 300 for example) and many movies which claim to be historical that have clear falsehoods (*ahem* DiD aLiEnS bUiLd thE pYrAmiDS).
Spiffy Gonzales The battles in Patriot might not be historically accurate but damn are they exciting and well shot.
@@forrestpenrod2294
100% agree. Cinematic masterpiece for Historical fiction.
There's loads of great videos on this channel telling in detail why The Patriot is such a pile of horsesh+t on pretty much every level. And, no, Spiffy, it never gets old.
I love all your enthusiasm and research you put into you subject!
At the battle of Lundy's Lane, as men of the Glengary Light infantry were falling back from skirmishing, (through the smoke of the battle) with the Americans they were mistaken for the enemy by their own side, and fired upon, tragicly losing more men to friendly fire in the battle than to the enemy. Glengaries wore green, black, and grey. It shows you the importance of thoes red coats on a smoky battlefield.
The British soldiers coats would have been dark in the field due to wear and tear. I imagine the more mobile and active flank companies probably took off their coats in the height of summer as well due to heat.
during the napoleonic wars, some studies were done in forested areas with reds, rifle greens, and also a grey, out of the three, a grey was, by far the hardest to see and hit accurately even when in 'full view' so to speak.
but i find myself very impressed by the effectiveness of the red.
Brandon, can you please do a video on 18th century military training?! I'm curious as to how civilians were turned into soldiers; how recruits were instilled in them a military mindset and the general understanding of the necessity of doing this.
I'd also like to know more about recruits'/soldiers' physical exercise and standards of fitness required to be in the military at that time. Were fitness standards different for officers and men?
Thanks!
From a couple of books on the subject, military training for an infantry soldier in the long 18th century was roughly equivalent in both length and standard of training, to that which a soldier today would experience in the first 3-4 weeks of basic training. The standard of fitness varied drastically however the flank companies (both grenadier and light bob) ideally required, tallest, fittest and strongest recruits, as did the artillery
@@corin492 @deckard pt Thank you very much! Does there happen to be any books on the subject you can recommend? Sorry in advance for pestering.
VERY GOOD! Thank You! We use your videos a lot. Be Well and Safe out there.
Some to note about the flashy uniforms is that the colour fades, the stiff parts crumple and probably accumulate dirt. The Duke of Wellington during the Peninsula campaign required his soldiers to be "close enough" to uniform standards that he could tell what army they were but "it's not a parade ground, its a battlefield, turn up and fight" was the main expectation. You'd be amazed at how camouflaged you get after 6 months without washing.
5:46 damn I actually couldn't even see him after a solid few minutes of looking, good job on that dude for hiding himself so we'll
Every British soldier had something like 5 Bren LMGs that could shoot 2 billion rounds a millisecond and also they were the best troops in the world or something.
- US History textbooks
XD
Wow, Lindybeige’s new book is looking to be a great read.
Major general bunk, what do you have against lindy?
@@Havermeyer7908 His patriotism tends to bias his view on history to the point where I consider him unreliable at best. See his views on the Bren gun and MG42 for an infamous example of this.
Major general bunk I can see where you are coming from. Lindybeige was uninformed about the MG 42, however I think that part of the video was about addressing the random surrounding German wargear from the second world war. And how it was completely flawless in every way.
Yeah, I used to work as a Forester, and even with our HiVis, sometimes you'd lose track of coworkers only a few feet apart.
This is an excellent piece of work, Sir. You have obviously done these things time and time again and know what you are talking about. I remember during the little school years in America the comments of many history teachers and even the ranting and raving of our chums overstimulated by too much chocolate milk, Cokes and strong sweet tea making us all feel brave. Cheers!
Rules of Combat
1. Don't Kill Yourself
2. Don't get Killed by your Friends/Allies/own side
3. Don't get Killed by the Enemy
4. Kill the Enemy Before they Kill You.
You'd think the 1st two are easy but you'd be surprised how common those are broken (especially in a combat environment).
This is why I subscribed. Brandon doesn't just make videos about common topics with information I've heard before, he answers questions that I realistically ask myself. Love it
On the other hand, we must also remember that those clothes was designed to be visible in battle to make sure that commanders can easily spot his own units on battle field full of smoke. Of course u can change tactics an give lower commanders more freedom but.. that's it u have to change tactic with isn't that simple to do.
Plus (like u said) if u shoot with gun powder gun them even with best camouflage u still show you're position. So when we add that up, bright uniforms aren't that stupid.
Simcoe's Queens Rangers wear dark green uniforms. They were well suited for skirmishes and raids in forest and other dense landscapes
This video reminds me a lot of the videos from another UA-camr who goes by Brent0331. He does a lot of these tests wearing uniforms from various nations and time periods. However, the one flaw in these videos as proof of how well a given camo pattern or color of uniform works is that in heavy vegetation, almost any color will blend in. Another factor is that we, the viewer, are not seeing things as we would in person. We're seeing everything on a computer screen which makes everything smaller as if we were seeing them from much further away than we would in person.
This is a nice explanation. I live in a prairie where there is little tree cover, so I tended to believe whatever rumors I heard about how battles worked in forests. Thanks Brandon.
I'm red-green colour blind so red on green is very difficult to for me to see.
"yeah, let's play Warcraft III. But ONLY on a winter map"
-a red-green colour blind friend of mine, long long time ago, in this galaxy
The Trees are speaking English
You could do the experiment with people wearing long-sleeve red t-shirts, and white or light tan pants. Not exactly the same, but easier to cheaply get a bunch of people together and accomplish the same concept
It’s funny that you uploaded this since I just started researching Robert Rogers and his rangers who fought during The French and Indian War and The Revolutionary War
It's also safe to say that camouflage is only relevant until the 1st shot is fired. The smoke from a musket exposes every position thereafter no matter how good the camouflage.
You may be surprised by the French uniforms. White has a tendency to look like reflected light in a forest. In years past I and my friends did ACW naval reenacting and wearing white was an advantage in the woods. We always got the "we never saw you" when compared to our blue and gray brethren. The French AWI uniforms would do the same. Of course, it is easier to hide when you don't move. Movement will give away position much more than color.
Some notes from Germany. In early 18th century the first units of light infantry appeared. They had been professional hunters and Forrest officals with their private rifles and hunting daggers. Until a few years ago, green uniforms had been the traditionell dress of german Forrest officals, and also nonoffical hunters liked green dress. During the seven years war, there was a change in weaponry. The military versions of hunting daggers/ Hirschfänger became longer and could be attached to the rifles, and the rifles became standardized, but kept the civilian look ( untill around 1800).
2 words: Tarleton's Legion.
I feel like this comment need one or two more words
Would love to see a video like this on the uniforms of the major powers
I'd like to know why the French went with the cream color
@@Tareltonlives They had to standardize uniforms just like the Brits and others nations did and the Bourbons have been using white to represent the dynasty in terms of colour.
Bright colors can also work to your advantage because it's easier to identify friend from foe.
People have weird ideas about camouflage, as if not having it makes you stick out. Most practical camouflage breaks up the outline of the body so that a person appears as a moving blob like distortion in the background. Modern weapons with their high rate of fire is a factor in making camouflage necessary, modern optics is another factor. Cover and concealment is still very important on any battlefield and that is what allows someone to get the jump on their enemy. As long as you aren't wearing hot pink or other bright color, you can probably hide pretty well. Avoiding direct sunlight works wonders too.
Brent0331 and Brandon F camouflage competition. "How not to be seen!"
There’s an old magician joke of “if you want to make something invisible paint it red”
While the red seems like it would be incredibly vibrant the eye notices it far less than it does black, straight lines, and movement. Those three are more unnatural to the eye than the color red.
That aside there is also a claim of using camouflage to help the brain “ignore” the discrepancies, making something jarring enough that the brain uses data around it to make sense of the image and effectively make it disappear.
Red often appears as Brown in some lighting; this is why hunters are usually required to wear Flouresent Orange
I reenact ww2 german.Years ago we did the same experiment with men wearing the off white drillich uniform moving and taking fire positions in a wooded area.It blended in surprisingly well depending o how well they used the available cover.Dirt and fading on the uniforms also helped.As a side note the swiss postwar camo used a bright red in its pattern
When fighting tactically, finding the enemy is not has hard as Brandon makes it seem. Persons moving through the woods pause often use cover and look around keying on movement.. Not unlike stalking deer.
In his second clip, i was expecting a wide area of ambush and found some likely areas..... then my squirrel hunting senses kicked in (what is probably off with X area) and i focused in on the guy on the far left in that line right before he stood up.
In formation, you need a few lines of men shooting at an area to hit your attackers and camouflage was more situational than the norms (armies assaulting/defending points of interest in line or column formation).
I would be interested to see a test of visibility of moving targets.
After Braddock's disaster on the Monongahela River during the Seven Years War, the British Army formed a regiment called The Royal Americans. This regiment was dressed in forest green with black buttons, to blend in when fighting in the forests against the French in Canada. George Washington was a colonel in the regiment, which later became the 60th Rifles, The King's Royal Rifle Corps, now a part of the Rifles. My grandfather died in the regiment in 1917 and both my brothers did their national service in the last years of the pre-merger regiment.
I'll never be able to feel safe on a woodland trail again.
Besides that the point of bright colors, to see through the smoke of battle who you're shooting at so no friendly fire because you can make out who it is.
0:28 - I love that illustration (the light corps flanking at Brandywine IIRC). Light bobs in open order, firing and even reloading from a prone position, as they were trained to do. Really helps to dispel the myth that close order linear drill was the only way the British fought.
I'm no specialist in 18th or 19th century warfare, but I would guess that the reason for bright color uniforms were to distinguish your own troops from the enemy, when you are on a battle field with a lots of smoke, it can be hard for the artillery to see what they are shooting at. In closer combat today IR-identifier (IR-lamp that usually blinks) are used at night for the assault teams when storming a building for the support groups to redirect the fire. Infantry ambushes probably weren't used as much because of the reliability of the weapon, and if you wanted to assault logistics and moving armies you would already have a specialized unit for that: the light cavalry, where speed is your weapon. Tactics that may seem very strange today may have been perfect for the time period with the technology available.
Very interesting subject! Good work!
Though not quite as conspicuous as bright red, I imagine the blue of the Continentals didn't easily blend in either. The various militia units would probably have had a better time of trying to hide. However, it still would not have been easy for militia to surprise a British column since the tactics of the day required a line of skirmishers and flankers be sent out ahead and to the sides as the column moved forward, allowing the commander of the column to properly receive the enemy. Sometimes, skirmishers were not employed due to the neglect of the commander, and the results could be disastrous, as in the ambush of the Union 12th Corps at Antietam.
Camouflage doesn't make anyone invisible; instead, it helps you blend in to your surroundings more easily, and the contest becomes one of who can see who first. But Brandon is correct: once the smoke puffs out, trying to blend in with your environment is a rather moot point. Experiments with camouflage did occur, such as the Berdan Sharpshooters in the Civil War, but it was not used on a large scale until after the invention of smokeless powder.
Some time ago, I was at a paintball field, playing a game of woodsball, dressed in a camouflage outfit. A player on the other team was wearing a bright red, white, and blue, Captain America themed shirt. At one point in the game I was ducking behind a bunker when I noticed out of the corner of my eye a bright blue splotch of something moving. I yanked myself to the right and fired my marker several times; I hit him and he had to leave the field. Was I invisible? No. However, it was a lot harder for him to see me than for me to see him. I saw him first and marked him out.
Of course! as it turns out, they aren't visible when they are hiding behind things! Remarkable analysis! I will make sure to recommend bright red coats for all military purposes.
They're actually a couple of other factors at least in the War of 1812. Uniforms were not issued that often and were worn for a considerable time. There are descriptions of the uniforms fading to either a brown or pinkish brown. Although I have not heard of it being done in this war intentionally during the Indian mutiny the British muddied their white walking-out uniform to make Kaki. I know that Wolf considered his regulars after some acclimatization to be better in the woods than his accompanying Americans. The French Canadians being excellent woods fighters. Another factor that is interesting is the West point tradition of wearing grey because the American regulars wearing grey at the Battle of Chippewa Creek. The British commander mistakenly assumed they were militia and that may have contributed to mistakes he made in the battle. But interestingly that is not the only time such a mistake was made in the War of 1812. In the battle of Crysler's Farm a larger American force was sent to brush back a British Canadian following force. When the British saw them coming they thought it to be a major attack and formed up. The Americans saw the British grey overcoats and thought they were facing militia. The British force all being regulars maneuvered beautifully although seriously outnumbered handing the Americans a major defeat.
One other point it looks like the re-enactors with the yellow facings might have been from the 10th Foot, my grandfather's regiment that he joined in 1896.
300m is generally how far most people can spot a target that is not moving and partially concealed(without optics), most soldiers would have needed to get much closer than this to shoot effectively with muskets. So the fact you spotted the red coat at 600m instead of 300m would make very little difference to the outcome of a skirmish.
I love the fact that you’ve got (almost) the entire Hornblower book series on your shelf!
So you see.. People not only do reenactment to have fun, we can actually find detailed historical facts surrounding it while having fun.
Red Coats with yellow facings would be excellent camo in a NH Autumn. I noted that one of your models had a wooden flint in the jaws of the cock, very wise.
The bright colors if 18th century armies helped one know who to shoot at, reducing "friendly fire".
Perhaps we'll face each other on "the battlefield" at Ft. #4 someday.
The true English King's name is STUART!
Can't say I found all the soldiers, but that video I had immediately. It seemed the best place to hide, just off the trail, aiming down a fairly long straight path, good cover, and likely a good, covered, exfil behind it. It wasn't so much, I think, that them, but rather the very good shooting position drew my eye, which then allowed me to focus on the soldiers. I also saw four and assumed five.
I wonder if I would have spotted them as quickly, had they been positioned slightly differently, in less a obviously advantageous position.
Another factor to bring up is that red is a color found in nature. It is also the first color you can no longer see as it gets darker. So red in a dimly lit forest should be harder to see the darker it is.
Great points. I think I the battle of Oriskany highlights that the patriots in their earthen tone clothes were ambushed easily and engaged in brutal fighting in a heavily forested area where uniform color didn't really matter. The larger Saratoga campaign also demonstratea that the red uniforms didn't necessarily provide east targets for hidden sharpshooters. Rather it was an attacking force advancing on a well positioned defender.
Even back then, they knew the importance of not being seen...
Straight up the SAS had bright pink jeeps that were virtually invisible in the desert
Now I'm no genius on this, but wouldn't having men spread out in a sense forest taking pot shots without a solid formation make them open to a charge?
A blind charge, that is easy to ambush.
I dont get the point of the vid, red is easy to spot
Hence light infantry of this time wore greens and earthy colours.
An infantry charge perhaps, but you cannot really cavalry charge through bushes, can you?
@@AttiliusRex Others might have but the British Light Infantry (The Light Bobs) who were developed during the AWI wore red just the same as the line infantry but with a shorter jacket and different hats (designed for faster movement). It was their tactics that changed, not their colours.
@@plymouth5714 the british rogers rangers wore greens and browns
@@AttiliusRex You're quite right, they did, but they weren't light infantry in the truest sense. Roger's formation was possibly the first official Special Forces unit, put together for a single mission penetrating deep behind enemy lines during the Seven Years War. They were so successful that they were expanded into a Rangers Corps and although Rogers trained his men in light infantry tactics they were essentially scouts gathering intelligence about the enemy. The main 'Light Infantry' were formed from the men of each regiment as a semi independent unit used to skirmish ahead of the main force, ambushing the Patriots as they were in the process of setting up their own ambush for the main force marching behind. The Rifle Brigade with their dark green uniforms were a direct descendant of the Rangers and possibly combined the tasks of scouting and skirmishing into a single unit so you are right in that respect. Stay Safe mate!
The red dye was plant based, it would fade. In campaign the uniforms would get dirty. All in all nothing like as visible as the nice, clean, fresh uniforms worn in the photos
Good video Brandon, keep it up
Amazing how good trees are for hiding behind
i really enjoy your content, it ism all so fascinating .thank you!
This is actually great for my black powder DnD campaign. One of the players is insisting that the dragoons assigned to protect him are only going to be a hinderance, escorting through a magical backwoods.
If you got or borrowed a spherical camera you could add another layer to the hide and seek by removing the extra hint of what area you're looking for them in like an actual soldier walking down the road looking from side to side.
That's the weirdest red circle In the thumbnail
I recommend Richard Scollins artwork of a Battalion Company private of the British Army on service in North America 1770-1783.
This man lives in a woolen coat that's dyed madder red. That's a vegetable dye.
He eats, sleeps and sh!ts in the damn thing. He's marched around the highways and byways of North America for months or years in all weathers and sleeps rough.
Of course it's true that every now and then he fights a battle or skirmish with the rebel Americans; but it's the day in and day out exposure to the elements you notice.
He's torn it on fences and trees; and worn out the knees and the elbows. He had to patch it with whatever was available and black ball and Blanco are distant memories.
He'll blend in.
It's often said that the red coats were abolished in 1898 with the universal adoption of khaki service dress for the entirety of the British Army in that year, but that's not actually true; they've continued to be an authorised order of dress in the British Army up to the present day, although not, of course, worn in the field.
They were retained (as were the equivalent full dress uniforms for all other non-infantry regiments and corps) for 'walking out' and ceremonial parades after 1905, being the only other uniform that was actually authorised for men and NCOs as well as khaki service dress after that year (officers also had regimental mess dress and the blue patrol jackets).
When WW1 rolled around, they were put into stores, but not formally abolished.
After the war, the red etc. full dress uniforms were again authorised to be worn by regimental bands, mascot handlers, ceremonial line markers, and officers attending levees (formal presentations to the monarch), and indeed are still worn *to this day* by the first three categories.
Good points, and the concept of battlefield uniforms that blended into the surroundings didn't really establish itself in modern militaries until well after smokeless powder, and especially semi-automatic weapons and radio communications became widespread. Shifting to drab, earthy tones began in WWI, and well into WWII when the first real camouflage uniforms were used. It wasn't until after WWII that the camouflage uniform became widespread, all in response to the changes in warfare tactics. Even then, camouflage uniforms only really aided in making it difficult for an enemy to differentiate targets from their surroundings, not necessarily for being stealth. They have more to do with making a clean shot more difficult, as well as ascertaining exactly how many opposing soldiers are involved in a fire fight. This is especially important when over-the-horizon artillery is involved.
Things like ghillie suits are specifically for stealth, and can be so effective that an enemy can walk right next to you and not ever notice you at all. Which is why it is used almost exclusively in special warfare, for either infiltration, sniper operations, or reconnaissance. The first use of ghillie suits were by a British sharpshooter/scout unit between the 2nd Boer War and WWI and their use by special forces almost exclusively remains pretty much unchanged. Regular infantry don't really use stealth on that level. A simple ambush even today can be done without the aid of even the most basic camouflage, simply by being tactical and using your surroundings.
With that said, the weapons of the 18th and 19th centuries (muskets and bayonets) simply weren't as useful to the concealment/cover fighting of modern warfare, and that is the primary reason why linear warfare was the most common style. While muskets were comparatively inaccurate compared to even WWI bolt-action rifles, they weren't as inaccurate as is commonly stated. However, they were difficult to use properly in a covered/concealed position (difficulty of reloading and the aforementioned smoke signal problem), and a battle between two forces fighting this way would likely end in a pointless draw more often than not, with neither side able to really hurt the other, the rate of fire being so low and the number of heads remaining safely ducked. Only in an ambush would the musket and bayonet work well enough on such terrain. And the ambush still today is a risky maneuver.
The vast majority of the time linear tactics were used because it worked, so a special uniform designed to blend in simply wasn't needed and didn't outweigh the importance of signifying which unit was where on the battlefield. They didn't have instant communication like radios or satellite phones for units to constantly relay real-time battle information to the officers coordinating it. The officers had spyglasses and they could instantly tell where their men were simply by looking and seeing where their colors (and flags!) were. It's really as simple as that, yet so very important to prevent losing control of a battle. Having a uniform that said "Here I am shoot me" became far less frightening than the option of your entire flank being left open because the field commander didn't notice it was totally exposed.
For a visual experiment, try any of a dozen games that feature linear warfare and imagine all of the units, yours and the enemy's, were all wearing drab earthen colors and had no flags or symbols or anything telling you who or what they are, and then you'd have an idea of how confusing it would be trying to command the battle. Suddenly those solid red or blue or white uniforms don't look so stupid, do they?