Dazzle Camouflage ship visual camouflage from the First World War

14 368 5
Dazzle Camouflage ship visual camouflage from the First World War
RMS Olympis liner in Dazzling Camouflage paint


During the First World War, special attention began to be paid to the issues of camouflage and protection from observation. Various solutions to these issues were proposed, including the most original ones. For example, several countries used the so-called dazzling camouflage in the form of contrasting stripes and spots to protect their ships and vessels. It did not make it difficult to detect a surface object, but it did interfere with an attack.



At the level of theory


On the eve of World War I, experiments were conducted in Great Britain on visual camouflage of ships and vessels. The main result of the first stage of these works was the understanding that it is practically impossible to hide a surface object from an observer against the background of water and sky. Other solutions were required.

Already after the war began, new proposals on the topic of camouflage began to arrive at the Admiralty. Thus, in 1914-15, several zoologists suggested using the experience of nature. They drew attention to the coloring of some animals, which included contrasting spots, stripes, etc.

It was noted that an animal with such coloring does not always blend into the background and becomes invisible. At the same time, the pattern does not allow one to correctly assess its size, orientation in space, direction and speed of movement, etc. A similar version of "blurring" camouflage could also be used in the military sphere, including at sea.


Standard paint Type 1 Design C

This concept was supported by marine artist and Royal Navy Reserve volunteer Norman Wilkinson (1878-1971). He developed the original idea and came up with a way to make camouflage more effective. According to the artist, in the case of ships, it was necessary to abandon the so-called protective coloring in gray-blue tones and use other colors, including more noticeable ones.

It was clear that this coloring option, like any other, would not allow the ship to be hidden from observation. At the same time, it would seriously complicate the determination of the ship's type, size, course and speed. As a result, the enemy would not be able to effectively use its artillery or torpedoes.

For some time, the Admiralty discussed the proposals received and decided which of them should be implemented in practice. At the end of 1916, the choice fell on the ideas of N. Wilkinson - they were considered more successful and understandable, as well as easier to implement. At the same time, a separate camouflage department appeared within the Admiralty, which was to implement the new ideas.

Transition to practice


At the turn of 1916-17, the newly formed Camouflage Directorate began to solve the tasks set. N. Wilkinson, as the author of the idea, was involved in the work, as well as a number of other artists and entire organizations from the field of art. The new concept was called Dazzle Camouflage.


Paint variant Type 11 Design B

The artists' task was to develop camouflage patterns for application to various ships and vessels. According to the original plan, all paint schemes were to be based on common graphic solutions and have the same color palette. White, gray, blue, black and other colors were used.

At the first stage, it was decided to make its own drawing for each ship or vessel. It was believed that thanks to this, the enemy would not be able to find any patterns, determine the type of target by camouflage, etc.

A very serious approach was used when creating the schemes. Artists developed a scheme and painted a small model of the vessel according to it. Then, using a periscope model imitating the optics of an enemy submarine, they determined how effective the chosen scheme was.

However, this approach turned out to be too labor-intensive, and by the end of 1917, the artists' work was simplified. They were tasked with developing standard designs that could be applied to different ships with some changes. The basic principles of camouflage construction did not change. The laboratory "tests" also remained the same.

Camouflage at sea


"Dazzling camouflage" was introduced in the summer of 1917. Both new ships and vessels, as well as pennants undergoing repairs, received this coloring. All major British shipyards received documentation on the camouflage.


Light cruiser HMS Bermuda

According to known data, Dazzle Camouflage was applied to British ships and vessels until the very end of hostilities. For obvious reasons, the last of its carriers were surrendered after the conclusion of the armistice. In total, more than 400 warships of various classes and types, as well as over 4 thousand merchant ships received this coloring.

The US Navy was interested in the original idea. They began repainting their ships in the spring of 1918, and by the end of the war they had only managed to prepare 1250 pennants. This was only a small part of their military and merchant fleet.

After the war ended, the Admiralty collected statistics and summed up the results. It turned out that ships with "dazzling" paint were attacked by enemy submarines in 1,47% of voyages. For comparison, single-color ships became targets in only 1,12% of cases. It followed from this that contrasting paint makes it easier to detect a surface object.

However, other statistics showed certain advantages of the new camouflage. Thus, 52% of enemy attacks on ships without camouflage and 43% with the new paint were successful. In addition, it was noted that German submariners more often aimed at the central part of the ship with Dazzle Camouflage. It was assumed that this was due to the difficulty in determining the parameters of the target and aiming.


Aircraft carrier HMS Argus (I49) in 1918.

However, the real potential of blinding paint could not be determined. There are many different nuances and variables in the processes of observation, target search and torpedo use that affect the final result. What role unusual camouflage played in each specific case is unknown. Therefore, the exact results of the implementation of this idea remain unknown.

American statistics are also of interest. By the end of World War I, the United States had lost only 18 pennants with dazzling camouflage, 11 of which were lost to enemy torpedoes. For comparison, over the same period, more than 70-80 ships and vessels with traditional paint were lost.

After the war


The ship camouflage in the form of a complex pattern received mixed reviews. In general, the Royal Navy was pleased with the result, but the specificity of this solution and the impossibility of an accurate assessment imposed certain limitations. As a result, after the First World War, the British Navy decided to abandon the unusual coloring. Ships and vessels gradually returned to their usual appearance.

The US did the same. However, after entering World War II, the US Navy remembered the old idea. Some of the fleet's warships were repainted using new schemes, taking into account old experience. It is assumed that such measures helped save some ships from sinking, but more accurate assessments, as before, could not be made.


The US Navy aircraft carrier USS Santee (ACV-29) in 1942.

Visual camouflage in the form of simple geometric shapes and patterns has returned in recent decades. It is now used by navies of different countries on boats and ships of different designs. It is assumed that the current level of development of optical-electronic detection means makes "blinding" coloring relevant again.

However, over the last few decades, radar has been the primary method of searching for and tracking targets. As a result, the potential of camouflage has been greatly reduced, and it has practically fallen out of use in the surface fleet.

The solution


Thus, having encountered the German submarine forces and their torpedoes in full force, the Royal Navy developed and implemented new measures to counteract the new threat. One of these measures was the original paintwork of ships and vessels, which prevented the attack.

It is obvious that Dazzle Camouflage had some potential and helped protect pennants from the enemy. However, the real effectiveness of such a solution cannot be determined. In addition, over time, the "dazzle" coloring, like visual camouflage at sea in general, became obsolete. The era of new detection means was coming, and other measures were required against them.
5 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    16 February 2025 07: 04
    American statistics are also of interest. By the end of World War I, the United States had lost only 18 pennants with dazzling camouflage, 11 of which were lost to enemy torpedoes. For comparison, over the same period, more than 70-80 ships and vessels with traditional paint were lost.

    Considering that less than 5% of US ships and vessels in the combat zone had "dazzling camouflage", the scales are not in favor of the innovation.
    My personal opinion is that camouflage schemes based on this principle are effective for boats, unmanned combat vehicles and small landing craft. Moreover, it is necessary to “play” with dull (protective) paints.
    With large ships everything is more complicated; here we probably need to work with materials that change the radar and noise signature.
    Good day everyone!
    1. +5
      16 February 2025 07: 56
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      My personal opinion is that camouflage schemes based on this principle are effective for boats, unmanned combat vehicles and small landing craft.

      And the relevance of such camouflage now is no higher than in those years, due to the development of optical guidance systems.
      Another such solution is the "false cockpit" for close-range maneuverable combat, although it was allegedly abandoned due to its excessive effectiveness in peacetime.
    2. +1
      16 February 2025 08: 37
      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Camouflage schemes based on this principle are effective for boats, unmanned combat vehicles and small landing craft
      All these devices you mentioned are now perfectly defined by radar systems, sonars, IR scanners and satellite surveillance. In addition, cruise missiles have all the necessary features in their navigation and control unit. images, absolutely all available enemy ships. I don't know how today's digital navigation units on modern drones, but I'm sure that some memory of ships They have them too. Perhaps during the First and Second World Wars such protection worked, but today it looks as if the armies of modern states dressed their infantry in chain mail and knightly armor...
  2. +9
    16 February 2025 08: 03
    For some reason, the main reason for using these types of camouflage is not mentioned, the principle of the rangefinder, with two spaced lenses, where to determine the distance it is necessary to combine two images, and when there is already a bifurcation on the ship by coloring, then this was considered more difficult to do. And determining the exact distance is very important for both artillery and torpedo attack
    1. +2
      16 February 2025 08: 51
      I would like to add that submarines usually used a rangefinder built into the periscope to determine the distance to a target in the underwater position, and that is why submarines had problems determining the distance due to its compactness and, accordingly, measurement error. That is why the camouflage was called blinding, and this is not a task for artists.
      It seems the author studied the issue in literature to disinform the enemy.


      The artists' task was to develop camouflage patterns for application to various ships and vessels. According to the original plan, all paint schemes were to be based on common graphic solutions and have the same color palette. White, gray, blue, black and other colors were used.

      At the first stage, it was decided to make its own drawing for each ship or vessel. It was believed that thanks to this, the enemy would not be able to find any patterns, determine the type of target by camouflage, etc.