Dazzle - Article - A Short History of US Naval Camouflage in WWII
Dazzle - Article - A Short History of US Naval Camouflage in WWII
Dazzle - Article - A Short History of US Naval Camouflage in WWII
WWII
Introduction
e origin of U.S. Naval dazzle camou age had been in the First World War. e U.S. Navy assembled a
camou age design team during WWI that was supe ised by the commercial painter Everett Warner.
Warner was then in uenced by the teachings of visiting British naval camou age expe Norman
Wilkinson who is considered the originator of the dazzle camou age concept. During the war the Navy
had considered and tested many camou age design schemes, some by obse ing painted models in a
specially designed stage. Toward the end of WWI, Warner had devised a technique for easily
generating disruptive dazzle patterns, but was not able to use it before the war ended. In the inter-war
years there was much discussion among camou age expe s and the Navy leadership concerning the
best type of camou age. Many favored camou age schemes designed to provide low visibility whereas
a few, like Everett Warner, favored the dazzle schemes, arguing that once a ship had been spotted it
was more impo ant for camou age to confuse the obse er as to the type and direction of the ship.
is philosophical di erence between these two almost mutually exclusive objectives continued on
until the end of World War II.
e U.S. Navy Bureau of Ships (BuShips) published the de ning document for the U.S. Navy for World
War II camou age as: Ship Camou age Instructions United States Navy usually referred to as SHIPS-2.
ere were four major issues of SHIPS-2 the initial release of SHIPS-2 was in Janua 1941, Revision 1
(http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1941OctoberSHIPS2Rev1.html) was in September
1941, Revision 2 in June 1942, and a Supplement to Revision 2 in March 1943. Each issue described, in
detail, camou age measures, paint colors, and their application. e Janua 1941 edition of SHIPS-2
gave this de nition of camou age: “Ship camou age means painting a ship for the purpose of
producing e ects of low visibility and of deception in course and range estimation.” is was clearly an
attempt to compromise between the two almost opposite positions of low-visibility versus deception.
SHIPS-2 also introduced the term “measure” to identify pa icular camou age schemes. While this site
is primarily concerned with the dazzle camou age used in 1944 and 1945 (i.e. Measures 31-32-33), I
also include a synopsis of some (not all) of the signi cant measures speci ed in SHIPS-2 leading up to
the later dazzle designs.
Measure Systems Pa I
Measure Systems Pa II
e Fletcher class destroyer USS David W. Taylor (DD-551) on September 26, 1943 in
Mobile Bay wearing Measure 21 Camou age. David W. Taylor has been given the AA
upgrade of twin 40mm abaft the aft funnel, but retains the 20mm platform and tubs in
front of the bridge. Later these 20mm were replaced by two twin 40mm AA. Photo
source: NARA BS 52087.
Measure 22 Graded System
Measure 22 was also introduced in the June 1942 revision as another graded system to replace
Measure 12. is measure was intended for use on combatant ships in areas where bright weather
with fair visibility predominated, and high angle aerial obse ation was unlikely. Navy blue (5-N) was
applied to the hull up to the height of the main deck edge at its lowest point with the upper edge of
this navy blue area horizontal. Haze gray (5-H) was painted on all remaining ve ical su aces and all
masts. Deck blue (20-B) was applied to all decks and other horizontal su aces. e undersides of
overhanging horizontal su aces were painted with white (5-U) to lighten shadows. Measure 22 was
primarily to reduce the visibility of the ship when viewed at a distance by blending with the horizon,
however Everett Warner, who was advocating disruptive designs, criticized it
(http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1942DecemberE ectivenessOfMs22.html). is
measure was sometimes referred to as two-toned No h Atlantic gray and Atlantic Fleet Command
ordered (A icles/43%3A3%3A4CinCLant.pdf) its use in March of 1943; so most ships wore this
camou age while in the Atlantic during 1943 and into 1944.
USS Underhill(DE-682) a destroyer esco of the Buckley class on August 21, 1944 in
Boston Harbor in Measure 22 Camou age. By September 12, 1944 Underhill would be
wearing a dazzle design. Photo source: NARA BS 66695.
erefore, in 1943 ships destined for the Paci c were painted in Measure 21 and ships slated for the
Atlantic were painted in Measure 22, as evidenced by this memo
(A icles/43_7_20DEcamoP&A.pdf). Both Measure 21 and Measure 22 remained in e ect until the end
of the war in 1945, and were in fact revived in Februa 1945 when the Bureau of Ships recommended
(http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1945_S19_631Application.html) all ships repaint using
Measures 12, 21 or 22. Some ships had begun the migration back to those Measures earlier and some
ships had remained in Measure 21 or Measure 22 even while others used the dazzle patterns. Also in
1945, navy blue was replaced by navy gray (http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-
7/1945Janua Letter4-45Camou age.html), which was mixed from black instead of purple tint,
because of sho ages and because it was nally realized that tone itself was more impo ant than the
actual color. However, from black and white photos navy blue and navy gray are almost
indistinguishable.
Variations
ere were many ways that ships varied from a speci c camou age design. e most common
variation was simply due to aging. Many ships were at sea for weeks or months between po visits and
had few chances to repaint, pa icularly the hull. Often photographs of ships at sea show a good deal
of scraped and peeled paint on the hull.
e actual colors used on ships sometimes depended on the ship and force commanders and the crews
that had to apply the paint and maintain the ships. Sometimes the colors used on individual ships were
di erent than the speci c drawing because the colors had to be mixed locally. ere were also cases
that because of sho ages of ce ain colors the painters were forced to adapt the color scheme.
A few ships carried more than one design within the Measure 31-32-33 system. In most cases, the use
of multiple designs was because the ship had been assigned to a di erent command or to a di erent
eets and had to change because of the di erent requirements. It was common for a ship to wear one
camou age when assigned to the Atlantic Fleet and another when assigned to the Paci c.
SHIPS-2 included instructions for painting the hull numbers that speci ed the size of the numbers but
not the position. us hull numbers were painted in slightly di erent locations by di erent ships using
sometimes white and sometimes black paint.
Finally, there were many cases of painters that misinterpreted or misread the design drawings and
applied the wrong color or even “extra” panels. Several ships have “extra” panels painted on the stern
due to interpretation di culties with the stern views of the camou age drawings. Many drawings
included stern views and those stern views included the aft most panels from each side, but viewed
nearly edge on. ese views seem to confuse the camou age painters and cause them to add
unneeded panels to the stern. Since there are so many instances of this, it is clear that there was some
confusion and the drawings were ambiguous. One can just imagine the many discussions in wardrooms
and shipyards over the correct interpretation of some of these drawings. ese di erent interpretations
of the stern views resulted in two variations for almost eve design drawing that showed a stern view. I
have written an a icle (Angle.php) that gives a good ove iew of the di erences “from a di erent
angle.”