Stages in WWI Ship Camouflage Application | 1918

USS George Washington (1918)

The SS George Washington was an ocean liner that was actually built by the German government prior to World War I. They named it for the first US President, and it kept that name throughout the war, although in 1917 it was seized by the US and used to transport American troops. It could carry almost 3000 passengers. When it was used by the navy, it was officially known as the USS George Washington. When used to transport army troops, its designation was USAT for US Army Transport.

The ship was initially camouflaged for the first time in 1918, in dazzle style. That formidable task was accomplished, from beginning to end, in less than a couple of weeks. Lieutenant Harold Van Buskirk, who was the executive officer in charge of the two-pronged US Navy Camouflage Section, described how that was undertaken in an article titled “Camouflage,” published in Transactions of the Illuminating Engineering Society (Vol 14 No 5) on July 21, 1919, pp. 225-229. Here is a portion of what he wrote—

On April 21, [1918], I received a request for a design for the USS George Washington, due to arrive at New York, April 27, and due to sail May 2. The blueprints of this vessel were obtained at once and outboard profiles and fore and aft elevations of the main superstructure were drawn at 1/16 inch to the foot. At the same time construction was started on a wooden model of the vessel at a scale of 1/32 inch to the foot. As soon as the drawing was completed it was sent to the US Geological Survey for copies. The model on completion was turned over to the design room. Here a design for this particular vessel was considered, tried and finally developed, with the aid of a submarine periscope looking over a false sea towards changeable sky backgrounds, which were operated from the periscope. On the sea, at a distance representing 2,700 yards or 1 1/2 miles was a turntable that also operated from the periscope. In this way, the model placed on the turntable could be observed from the periscope at various angles with varying sky backgrounds and lighting conditions. In order to obtain a veiling glare such as exists at sea due to fog, mist, smoke, etc., a movable semi-transparent mirror was mounted between the observer and the model to reflect scattered light into the eye of the observer in a way entirely analogous to the condition existing in nature. Generally, the design had been approved by the time the printed forms had been returned from the Geological Survey. The model bearing the approved design was then turned over to the drafting room where it was transferred to the outboard prints. This entire process averaged four to five days so that in this case on the morning of April 26 the design of the George Washington was mailed to the Navy Yard, New York, by special delivery and there awaited her arrival.

In this case, there are surviving photographs of the ship's completed camouflage, as shown (above and below) on this post.

There is also a photograph of the wooden model of it that was used to test the camouflage in an observation theatre.

Van Buskirk (right) and Richardson with USS George Washington model

USS George Washington in harbor at Brest, France (1918)

There is even a wonderful photograph of Lieutenant Van Buskirk and (we think) Ensign Raymond J. Richardson, originally from Reading PA, who, prior to the war, had been an architect and, after it ended, taught architecture at the Carnegie Insitute of Technology in Pittsburgh. At the camouflage facility in Washington DC, Richardson was in charge of the drafting room, where the ship plans were prepared.

A few months after the publication of Van Buskirk's article, Lieutenant Everett L. Warner (who oversaw the artists in the design subsection) published a lengthy account of the steps in the process of ship camouflage. The article, titled “Fooling the Iron Fish: The Inside Story of Marine Camouflage,” appeared in a popular magazine called Everybody’s Magazine, November 1919, pp. 102-109. He mentions the USS George Washington, in describing how wooden ship models were made—

The work began in the model-making room, where about a half dozen skilled men under Ensign Kenneth Maclntire were kept constantly busy in the production of miniature wooden models, which were accurately made to a fixed scale from blueprints of the vessels required. The reader may get a general idea of the size of these models from the dimensions of the President’s ship, the USS George Washington. It was one of the largest of them and measured about twenty-two and a half inches in length.

Warner refers to it as “the President’s ship” because on two occasions (December 1918, and again in the following March) President Woodrow Wilson and his diplomatic entourage traveled to the Paris Peace Conference on this same ship. But for those two trips, the USS George Washington was apparently no longer painted in a dazzle camouflage design.

diagram of a ship camouflage viewing theatre in 1918

Recently, we devised a diagram of the type of observation theatre (equipped with an upsidedown periscope) that was first used by the British and then the Americans (and most likely other Allies too) for testing dazzle ship camouflage schemes during World War I. 

Reproduced above is the left half of the diagram, showing two camouflage artists. Included in the diagram are American Navy camoufleurs Kenneth MacIntire (taking notes), and Harold Van Buskirk, who is looking through the periscope, trying to determine the angle at which a camouflage-painted ship model is headed.

As shown below in the right half of the diagram, the ship model was placed on an adjustable turntable, on the other side of a barrier wall. Behind that turntable was a painted canvas background that could be changed to simulate various visibility factors, such as weather or surrounding. Illumination could also be changed. The turntable (or perhaps the surface on which it was mounted) was marked with degree increments. When the periscopic observer had rotated the ship model to an angle that appeared correct, the person on the other side of the wall could easily tell the exact degree to which the observer’s adjustment was mistaken. The greater the error, the more effective the scheme would likely be in deceiving the periscope calculations of a U-boat gunner.

An especially clear, succinct account of the entire process (albeit, not every detail is fully correct) was published in the New Zealand Tablet, on January 29, 1920, including the following excerpt—

…a small wooden model of each ship was made to scale, on which was painted a dazzle design. This was carefully studied in a prepared theatre through a submarine periscope, and when the design had been so altered and arranged that it gave the maximum distortion, the model was handed over to a trained plan-maker, who fitted that design to scale for the particular ship it was intended. The plan was then dispatched to the port at which the particular ship was lying, and transferred to the vessel. Thus a model and plan were made for every ship. For each type a number of designs were made, so that on arrival at port any ship requiring a dazzle plan could be immediately camouflaged. Sometimes as many as 100 vessels were being painted at the same time in one port.

Not all WWI ship camouflage testing theatres were constructed just like this. Some were less elaborate, even makeshift, while others differed in other regards, but the overall principle was the same. 

SEE ALSO

Nature, Art, and Camouflage (35 min. video talk)

Art, Women’s Rights, and Camouflage (29 min. video talk)

Embedded Figures, Art, and Camouflage (26 min. video talk)

Art, Gestalt, and Camouflage (28 min. video talk)

Toy Boat Camouflage

The photo above was published in the New York Tribune (May 11, 1919), p. 8, with the following caption: 

A corner of the model room of the camouflage section of the [US] Navy Department. Scale models of every type of vessel, decorated with the weirdest of designs, are kept here for test and experimental purposes. It is easy to imagine what undoubted joy would be Young America's were he once let loose in this toy shipyard. 

The person on the right is Harold Van Buskirk, the executive officer in charge of the Camouflage Section (which had two branches), while on the left is Everett L. Warner, who headed the Design Subsection in Washington DC. It was the Navy's responsibility to provide the camouflage designs for all American ships, both military and merchant, the plans for which were then sent out to teams of artists assigned to dock officers (called District Camoufleurs) at coastal harbors throughout the country. The District Camoufleur for Brooklyn NY was muralist William Andrew Mackay. Only recently, we discovered the following article from 1919, in which he is interviewed at length about his work as a camoufleur. [The photos on this blog post were not part of the original article.]

***

Two months earlier, the following article, written by Otis Peabody Swift, was published in the New York Evening World Daily Magazine (March 6, 1919) with the headline HOW A NEW YORK ARTIST, WITH TOY BOATS, WORKED OUT CAMOUFLAGE TO FOIL U-BOATS: In William Andrew Mackay's studio, sixty men under his direction worked night and day on designs of the United States Shipping Board, using diminutive models [like those shown here].

Now that the war is over many "mystery stories" of the war can at last be told. Perhaps one of the most interesting is the story of camouflage, the weird painting of seagoing ships that baffled and defeated the sea wolves of the submarines.

Camouflage, as developed in this war, is a product of American study and imagination. It is largely the result of the work of William Andrew Mackay, the New York artist and interior decorator, who for five years before the war experimented with the idea of protective coloration for American battleships. And the success of his plan is shown by the fact that of the 749 American vessels camouflaged according to the designs of the United States Shipping Board, supplied by the navy, only seven were sunk.

It was in the big studio workshop of the Mackay School of Camouflage at 345 East 33rd Street [in Manhattan] that the camouflage idea was developed. Here sixty men worked day and night disguising the American ships.

Along the walls of the big studio hang marine background paintings, showing the various color tints of the oceans. There are the long gray green wave of the North Atlantic, and the violet fog of the [English] Channel. There is the deep warm blue of the Gulf Stream, and the muddy brown of the Gironde delta. Against these backgrounds the camouflage effects were tested. Over in a corner stands a real periscope, manned by Skipper Mackay. And on tables, chairs, racks and shelves are dozens of nine- and ten-inch wooden models of merchant ships, awaiting their coat of camouflage.

When a vessel was to be camouflaged a wooden model was first made up of the ship, exact in every detail. Then different types of camouflage were applied and tested through the periscope against the different marine backgrounds. It was the old sport of playing boats. Famous artists and architects, students in the school, sailed their toys across the maneuvering boards. There were over a hundred of these little ships, and they formed a navy that would delight a youngster's heart. Then when a satisfactory design, one well fitted to that particular vessel, had been decided upon the plans were sent to the shipyard or dry-dock, where the actual camouflage would be applied.

"Yes, this looks like a deserted battlefield to me," said Mr. Mackay at the studio yesterday. "It was here that the first work of camouflage was developed. In all, 749 vessels were camouflaged, and sixty men, artists, architects and designers, made this shop their headquarters, under direction of the United States Shipping Board, working over designs, testing colors, peering through the periscope at the wooden models, and then dashing off to try out some few effect on the vessels that, in a few days, would be depending upon our skill in the art of disguise to save them from the U-boats.

But let's go back to the beginning. Caesar invented camouflage. His tiriemes that sailed north to conquer the red-haired Britons were all painted green, and his crews were ordered to wear green suits to make them less visible. In Macbeth we find the soldiers carrying trees to conceal themselves on that day when Birnam Wood came to Dunsinane. But modern camouflage, as developed by the war, is the product of American study.

Seven years ago, when I was at Newport, I read a volume by Prof. Ogden N. Rood of Columbia University entitled Modern Chromatics. He pointed out that the gray of nature—the sky, rocks and trees—is a combination of red, green and violet. It then occurred to me that by blending these colors I might evolve a battleship gray that would make our dreadnoughts less visible. Commander J.O. Fisher, USN, had been working along similar lines at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Together we experimented in 1915 on American submarines at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. We painted them in stripes and bars, and there evolved the first principles on which modern camouflage is based.

When the United States entered the war I placed the results of these experiments before the Navy Department. I privately undertook to camouflage American merchant vessels, and also opened the Mackay School, where fifteen camoufleurs were trained for the navy. Then I was appointed District Camoufleur by the Shipping Hoard, and the big job began. Plans were supplied by the Shipping Board, and new types of camouflage were worked out at their Washington headquarters.

There was nothing haphazard about the art. Every ragged line, every crazy angle, jarring color, had a meaning. First you must understand that there are really two kinds of camouflage. There is the camouflage which attempts to make a boat less visible, and thereby permits it to escape the enemy, and that camouflage which, although the boat shows up plainly, deceives the enemy as to the course, speed and identity of the craft. The most successful method was a combination of both forms.

In England Commander Wilkinson RN had been working on the idea and had developed the dazzle system. This consisted of large black and white figures. It dazzled the sub. He could see the boat, but he couldn’t place his shot. There were just as many subs, and they saw just as many British boats, but they couldn't hit them. Before the camouflage was put on the Germans got fifty boats a week. Afterward the average was ten boats a week.

Here in the States we combined the dazzle idea with low visibility. There were many tricks to the trade. You see the subs would shoot up their periscope and got a look at the ship. They based their mathematical calculations on what they saw in that moment's glance. We painted a false bow wave along the side of the ship, which, by foreshortening, made the vessel seem farther away than it was. We broke down all vertical lines, destroying the ship's silhouette by which they ascertained identity. We painted on the false bow lines which her appear to be going in another direction.

Above The top photo is a plaster unpainted model of the SS Baxley. According to other sources, ship models for this purpose were usually made of wood. The bottom photo is the actual ship after its camouflage scheme was applied.

From time to time other more spectacular methods of camouflage were adopted. The Von Steuben came into port one day with a destroyer painted on her side. Other vessels painted SC [submarine chaser] boats on their sides, some painted superimposed bows on their sterns so you couldn't tell which end was which. Of course the cubist artist hailed camouflage as the logical development of beauty and art, and said that from now on all ships and houses and automobiles ought to be decorated that way. But camouflage was purely utilitarian—we forgot the artistic part. We didn't care how the ship looked if it could dodge the submarines.

And they certainly did. It was so successful that we took to camouflaging SC boats, seaplanes and even houses and barracks on land where there was danger of air raids—as at Porto Corsino, Italy, and Dunkirk. The Germans got the idea and camouflaged their submarines, and camouflage got into vaudeville and the dictionary. Well, it's all over now. The ships are coming up the bay in their peacetime paint, and all the checkerboard ships and the Welsh rarebit decorations are a thing of the past. The big point is that it did the work. Of the 749 boats that were camouflaged in the second district only seven were sunk.”

Today Mr. Mackay is packing up the toy ships of the 33rd Street studio and is sending them to the Brooklyn Museum, where with the periscope and the deep sea background, they will afford the public an idea of how a wartime convoy looked at sea. And he is going to his bungalow at Coytesville, NJ, just atop the Palisades [Park], and forget all about ships while tramping round the woods with Patricia Mackay, aged seven, who has a toy boat collection that is the envy of every youngster in Jersey.

additional information

World War I marine camouflage exhibited in Brooklyn

Above An official US Navy photograph (digital coloring) of Lieutenant Harold Van Buskirk, who was head of the Camouflage Section (comprised of two sub-sections) in the Navy's Bureau of Construction and Repair during World War I. He is applying the finishing touches on the "dazzle" camouflage pattern on a scale model of an American ship. Notice the completed models on the background storage shelf.

Once the model was completed, it was taken to a testing theatre, equipped with a periscopic viewing device and changeable seascape backgrounds. The viewer was challenged to estimate the angle of the model as it was positioned on an adjustable platform (as shown in a photograph of Navy camoufleurs Van Buskirk and Kenneth MacIntire ).

•••

Exhibit of Marine Camouflage in Science, Vol 50 No 1287, c1919, p. 205—

The Brooklyn Museum Quarterly describes a special exhibit held at the museum of models, design. and other objects illustrating the practice and some of the principles of marine camouflage. The exhibition was arranged by the curator of the department of natural science, and was made possible through the interest and cooperation of Mr. William A. Mackay, of the United States Shipping Board, camoufleur of the Second Naval District, and Lieutenants Harold Van Buskirk and Everett L. Warner, of the Camouflage Section, Bureau of Construction and Repair, United States Navy. Numerous other naval officers, members of the American Society of Marine Camoufleurs, and others, also contributed to the success of the exhibit by lending illustrative material.

A aeries of photographs made in the naval laboratories at Washington DC, and Rochester NY, showed successive stages of the experimental work by means of which the colors and patterns employed in the camouflage designs had been arrived at. These illustrations included views of the elaborate periscopic theater at Rochester, in which painted models of ships were tested under conditions which simulated, in all essential respects, the open ocean. The history of marine camouflage was briefly traced by means of labels and colored models, while approved as well as experimental designs of the "low-visibility" type, the British and American "dazzles," and the French system, were shown by means of models, photographs and colored lithographs issued by the Navy Department.

A case in the center of the exhibition room contained a miniature convoy of transports in charge of a cruiser and a flotilla of destroyers, each camouflaged model an exact replica of its namesake, or, rather, the original working model from which the transport or war vessel had been camouflaged. A simple, illuminated theater, equipped with a periscope, enabled visitors to observe a model as if from a submarine point of view, and moreover, demonstrated surprisingly well the distortion and other types of illusion produced by the camoufleur's design. 

US Camouflage Artists Preparing Ships for Testing

US Ship Camouflage Artists (1918) [colorized]

Above Our unfinished colorization of a World War I US Navy photograph, an original of which is in the collection of the National Archives and Record Service (No 165-WW-70C-001). It is described as having been received from the Navy Department, Bureau of Construction and Repair, on July 12, 1918, but there is no indication of when it was actually taken.

In this photograph, four ship camouflage artists are applying dazzle camouflage schemes to various sizes and types of wooden ship models. When completed, the models were stored on the shelves on the back wall. We now know the identities of these four artists, all of whom had been career artists in civilian life. They are (left to right) John Gregory, Gordon Stevenson, Frederick Judd Waugh, and Manley Kercheval Nash.

•••

Haldane Macfall [reviewing a London exhibition of paintings by John Everett of WWI camouflaged ships], "The Dazzle-Painter" in Land and Water (February 6, 1919), p. 31—

Now, whilst the guns, for instance, on land were best fogged from observation by camouflage, this problem was not quite so easy for the sea-folk. The sea-gong camouflage artist had to wash out all land laws and discover the whole business anew. First of all, the main object of true camouflage, invisibility, had to go by the board. The light made invisibility pretty questionable: a light sky behind any ship converts it into a solid silhouette. The painter soon found this out; but his endeavor discovered to him a fact almost as important, and on that fact the camouflaging of ships was largely developed. Nothing could reveal this to the landsman better than the art of John Everett in these paintings, in which he has displayed the beauty that camouflage wrought upon modern shipping in an age that we are wont to look upon as lacking in color and romance. The fact may perhaps be most simply stated somewhat thus: The painting of a ship upon the sea in stripes, or violently contrasted masses employed by skill, curiously enough makes it prodigiously difficult to make out her movement and intention of movement, to make out exactly how she is steering. As Lieutenant [Jan] Gordon neatly puts it, "Dazzle-painting attains its object, not by eluding the submarine by invisibility, but by confusing his judgment." It perplexes the submarine as to the ship's course, its range, and its size. Everett has deliberately treated these dazzle-painted ships with realism and set down his impressions without qualification; and the result is a convincingness that is untainted by any suggestion of trickery or special pleading.

•••

Below Following completion of the dazzle painted ship models, each was carefully tested in an observation theatre, which simulated its appearance through a periscope at sea against different backgrounds, varied lighting , and in various weather conditions). Shown here are two camouflage artists from the same Navy unit, in the process of testing the models. The person at the periscope is architect Harold Van Buskirk, executive officer in charge of the two camouflage subsections (the one shown here was in Washington DC; the other at Eastman Laboratories in Rochester NY). Standing beside him is Kenneth MacIntire, an artist who headed the workshop in which the wooden models were made.

Ship Model Testing Theatre (1918) [colorized]

For more information on American and British WWI ship camouflage (both detailed text and images), see James Taylor's recent book on DAZZLE: Disguise and Disruption in War and Art (2016).

Lindell T. Bates | Ship Camouflage Behind the Scenes

An Incomplete Cast of Characters•

The US entered World War I in 1917, at which time it began to give serious consideration to ship camouflage, especially in relation to the threat of German submarines (called U-boats). For the remainder of the war, as narrated in the text below, there was confusion and disagreement about the "best practices" for ship camouflage, as distinct from land and aircraft camouflage.

The US Navy sought the advice of the British Admiralty, who had recently adopted an innovative system called dazzle-painting (as proposed by British artist Norman Wilkinson) in which a ship's appearance was broken up and made to look bewildering to the commander of a submerged U-boat, whose distant and brief observations were made through a periscope.

What kinds of professionals would be well-suited for ship camouflage design? Artists (who reliably fool the human eye), or zoologists (who study animal camouflage), or scientists (who conduct experiments with the physiology of vision, including light, color and optics)? 

In the US, most camouflage proposals were of two kinds: There were those who spoke in favor of disruptive ship camouflage (of which dazzle-painting was one example). To make a ship invisible in an ocean setting was simply not achievable, so instead it would be wiser to paint its surface in order to distort its shape. The goal of camouflaging ships, they argued, was not to make it hard to see, but to make it hard to hit. Advocates of this approach were primarily artists. 

There was a second and opposing side, which urged the government to adopt low visibility camouflage. Even if it were a challenge to make a ship invisible, they reasoned, it was still of considerable value to lessen its visibility, and to therefore afford it protection. This group, in which scientists predominated, devoted their efforts to testing low contrast, non-disruptive painting schemes, and assessing the discernability of various experimental ship models, for which they used such devices as a colorimeter and a visibility meter [see patent diagrams below]. Typically, in this approach, "dazzle-painted" camouflage schemes were assessed not just for distortion but for visibility as well. 

L.A. Jones Patent for Visibility Meter (1922)

In 1918, when the US Navy officially established a Camouflage Section, it was purposely made of two branches: The Design Subsection [pictured below], consisting of artists, was headquartered in Washington DC, while the Research Subsection, made up of scientists, conducted their experiments at the Eastman Kodak Company in Rochester NY. The tandem sections were administrated by Harold Van Buskirk [Photo 1 above]. an architect and Olympic fencing champion. An American Impressionist artist, Everett L. Warner [Photo 3], was put in charge of the Design Subsection, while the leader of the research team at Eastman Kodak was that firm's leading scientist, Loyd A. Jones [Photo 2].

E.L. Warner and other artists at Design Subsection (c1917)•

Today, one hundred years later, most people react with surprise or disbelief when they see examples of WWI ship camouflage, especially dazzle-painting. It is commonly described as counter-intuitive because, off-hand, one might conclude that its heightened visibility would aid an attack by a U-boat, not deter it. But that conclusion is largely attributable to the lack of familiarity with the complexities of U-boat targeting at the time—conditions that are vastly different today. 

Those complexities were addressed in 1918 in a confidential report published by the Submarine Defense Association. The first part of that report, which was written by Lindell T. Bates (the association's secretary), was titled The Science of Low Visibility and Deception as an Aid to the Defense of Vessels Against Attack by Submarines. There is a second, less extensive part, written by Loyd A. Jones, on Protective Coloration as a Means of Defense Against Submarines.

The entire report, no longer confidential, can be accessed online through Hathi Trust Digital Library. But for the purposes of blogging, we are instead reprinting below a full-page newspaper article that was published  in The New York Sun in 1919. Even though Bates was clearly allied with the scientific (or low visibility) view of the debate about ship camouflage, his news article is one of the clearest accounts that we know of WWI-era U-boats attacks, and how best to survive them.

•••

Lindell T. Bates, MARINE CAMOUFLAGE BROUGHT TO PERFECTION IN AMERICA. First Authentic Account of the Development of Illusion in Foiling Hun Pirates Written by Leader in the Work Here—Scientific Explanation of Colors, Curves and Lines Used. The New York Sun. January 19, 1919, p. 11—

Camouflage has had almost as fascinating an evolution in marine as in land warfare. In many respects, however, it is the youngest science, and until March 1918, it might rather be called an art than a science.

The Germans were the first to apply the lessons of visual deception to the sea. Early in the U-boat campaign they began to paint their vessels in various designs to make them less conspicuous.

In the late nineteenth century British warships used to be black in color, and American white. In sea fights at fairly close range low visibility was not considered of great importance. In the 90’s the Germans changed from black to dark gray. Great Britain and the other Powers shortly thereafter followed suit, but different shades of gray were used by different nations. Dark gray, called “battleship gray,” was the prevailing color. At the outbreak of hostilities the French, Italian and Austrian fleets were of a color different from those of the British and Germans. The former favored a gray and khaki mixture. The Dutch ships were greenish brown in hue. In 1914 Austria adopted the German color for the sake of uniformity with her ally.

Prior to the entry of the United States into the war the Allies had made no notable effort to disguise their vessels as a help in the struggle against the U-boat. When American entered the only instruction to merchant vessels was to paint their white or light-colored upper works gray or dull stone color. Some vessels were decorated early with false painted bows and bow waves, or a silhouette of a destroyer, a submarine or a sinking ship.

Artists Took Up the Work
In the course of the war several American artists, noting the rapid development of land camouflage, became interested in its marine possibilities. William A. Mackay [Photo 4] and Lewis Herzog, both of New York, appear to have been the pioneers of elaborate camouflage both of this country and abroad, although in 1917 attention was beginning to focus on this question simultaneously in many quarters. Gerome Brush [Photo 5], Maximilian Toch [Photo 6] and Everett L. Warner soon entered the new field. Mr. Mackay even established a marine camouflage school in New York City, the first of its kind.

These artists were divided at the outset into two groups, those who favored painting for low visibility and those who favored a so-called “dazzle” system. Mr. Mackay’s original system was for low visibility, as was that of Mr. Brush. Mr. Warner considered deception of major and low visibility of minor importance. Messrs. Herzog and Toch sought to reconcile both aims.

The United States Shipping Board took interest in the possibility of camouflage as a defensive measure for American merchant ships. On October 1, 1917, the Treasury Department through the Bureau of War Risk Insurance issued an order requiring under penalty of one-half per cent increase in war risk premium the painting of vessels for protective purpose. Ship owners were at liberty to select either of five systems mentioned. Should an owner wish to try his own or a different scheme, the order required him to obtain for it the prior approval of William L. Saunders, chairman of the naval consulting board.

Little experimental work was conducted with reference to marine camouflage prior to the adoption of the five systems. Mr. Mackay had painted some submarine chasers at the navy yard, and Mr. Herzog had conducted visibility experiments on the northeast coast of the United States. The other artists had not enjoyed suitable experimental opportunities.

In July 1917, the Submarine Defense Association was organized by the shipping and insurance interests in New York in an effort to see that all measure were duly taken to safeguard vessels. Nearly a hundred leading American and British companies joined, and all the leading marine insurance concerns. Lucius H. Beers, counsel for the Cunard company, was elected chairman. J.A.H. Hopkins of Johnson and Higgins was chosen vice-chairman, and Lindon W. Bates chairman of the engineering committee. Admiral William S. Benson assigned a naval vessel to the association for experimental purposes and the new organization, although entirely independent, enjoyed the closest and most cordial relations with the American and foreign authorities.

The association’s technical staff soon set about ascertaining which, if any, of the five systems was the best, and if none was satisfactory, then to devise one that would be more acceptable. It proposed to approach the subject from a scientific, rather than an artistic, standpoint, so the chairman of the engineering committee, Lindon W. Bates, enlisted the active cooperation of George Eastman and the facilities of the great research laboratory of the Eastman Kodak Company of Rochester. Lloyd[sic] A. Jones of the research staff was assigned to collaborate with the writer and others of the association’s organization. From the summer of 1917 to March 1918, exhaustive investigations were conducted at Rochester, on Lake Ontario and at sea upon the vessel assigned by the Navy Department under Mr. Bate’s directions.

Testing apparatus on the shore of Lake Ontario (1917)

[Editor's note The physical outdoor apparatus (referred to as a "model rack") used by the Eastman Kodak scientists on the lake shore to test the effectiveness of camouflaged wooden ship silhouettes is shown above in a drawing that Bates included in his report. At least six of those wooden cut-outs have apparently survived. Three of them are housed in the collection of the National Archives and Records Administration, as reported in an earlier blog post. More recently, three more were discovered and photographed by James Dodge (as shown below), and are now in the collection of the Hoover Institute. In a future post, we will be sharing his memories of the involvement of the Bates family in ship camouflage and other wartime defense measures.]

Ship cut-outs used in testing. Photo courtesy James Dodge.

British Use “Dazzle” System
During the time in which these research labors were being conducted the British and French navies began to look seriously into the camouflage question. Early in 1918 the British adopted a “dazzle” system devised by Lieutenant Norman Wilkinson, RNVR, a London artist.

In February 1918, it was learned in this country that Lieutenant Wilkinson was to be sent to the United States to initiate our navy into the mysteries of the new art. Ninety “dazzle” patterns preceded. Prior to his arrival the United States Navy Department decided to establish a camouflage section of its own and authorized the adoption of a “dazzle” system. Whatever system, therefore, was adopted had, perforce, to be called a “dazzle,” and as the meaning of that term was still uncertain, practically any type of camouflage was authorized.

As the navy authorities were familiar with the scientific research work which the Submarine Defense Association was conducting, the chairman of the engineering committee was consulted regarding the proposed navy organization. For scientific questions in connection with the subject it was obvious that Mr. Jones was the best equipped person in this country. For the executive direction under the higher naval officers, Harold Van Buskirk was designated because he was the most available, and he had shown tact and ability and could be released from duty with the association to go to the navy. These men were made Senior Lieutenants and they were the nucleus of the new Navy Camouflage System.

Of the five American camouflage artists, Everett L. Warner was chosen for a post with them, but Mr. Mackay remained in New York as a local executive of the Shipping Board of ship painting from designs supplied by the navy. While these developments were taking place, Lieutenant Wilkinson arrived, bringing with him ninety more “dazzle” patterns. The previous ninety were already considered obsolete.

Norman Wilkinson camouflage plan Type 8 Design BX (1917)

In March the Submarine Defense Association terminated its research work and published two marine camouflage reports entitled The Science of Low Visibility and Deception Against Attack by Submarines by Lindell T. Bates, and Protective Coloration as a Means of Defense Against Submarines by Lloyd[sic] A. Jones.

Difference of the Reports
The writer’s report gave the history of camouflage, discussed the question of reduction of superstructure, the means of smoke elimination and of making smoke screens as well as deceptive coloration. Mr. Jones limited his study to low visibility coloration and how to reconcile deception coloration with low visibility at the blending distance.

Submarine Defense Association low visibility schemes (1917)

The association advocated a system combining low visibility and deception, recommended the abolition of the five earlier systems and considered that the British “dazzle” system was subject to criticism largely because of its total neglect of low visibility. The navy thereupon adopted for certain war vessels a low visibility color only, and for destroyers and merchant ships a materially modified British “dazzle,” changed so as to give it a low visibility feature.

The Shipping Board organized also a camouflage section and applied the designs received from the navy to the merchant vessels under its jurisdiction.

The results of the research work of the association, the adoption by the United States Navy of a low visibility, deception system, and the practical experience at sea led the British in the late summer of 1918 practically to abandon their own ‘dazzle,” which disregarded the low visibility factor. Camouflage based on more scientific principles then began to take the place of the original English system. Checkerboard bow and funnel patterns and perspective distortion bands began to appear.

Lieutenant Jones has perfected a colorimeter [see patent diagram below] to measure the weather coefficient and two expeditions left in December 1918 to measure this factor in various seas. Protective coloration for American submarines has been investigated and a special color determined. Navigation signs of a particular variety and clever navigation light schemes also been evolved.

L.A. Jones Patent for Colorimeter (1924)

The geographical position of a vessel at sea and the circumstances under which she is seen have an important bearing upon her visibility. The submarine danger zone included all the Mediterranean, North Sea, and Atlantic beyond even the Azores, Cape Verde and Canary Islands. The approaches to the Irish Coast were particularly hazardous as were the other places where trade routes intersect or converge such as the Strait of Gibraltar.

Hostile U-boats were most likely to be met in the Irish Sea and English Channel. They were frequently encountered anywhere in the Mediterranean and North Sea, and in the Atlantic as far as longitude 25 degrees west, and as far south as latitude 30 degrees north. They were also encountered near Madeira and the Azores. Thirty per cent of the shipping losses, according to Sir Eric Geddes, occurred in the Mediterranean.

The visibility problem is affected also by the manner in which ships voyage, whether alone or in a group. Prior to the entry of the United States into the war the escort and convoy systems did not extend to many vessels other than transports. In 1917 and 1918, however, large convoys of from twenty to forty ships proceeded from American and Canadian ports to Europe. Merchant vessels proceeding to the Mediterranean occasionally so voyaged, as well as ships coming back from Europe to America. Convoys sometimes split up on the journey and single vessels proceeded to other ports than that of the convoy.

An effort was made to group vessels according to speed. It happened, however, that vessels of less than a certain minimum rate hamper a convoy overmuch and were not included in it. Fast vessels were also excluded, as with their speed and maneuvering ability they were about as safe alone. There were numerous vessels which were not given he protection of convoy. Such are, for example, ships about 16 and below 6 knots in speed, European coastwise vessels and ships proceeding to certain Mediterranean ports. Sometimes therefore victims were alone on the sea, sometimes they were escorted or convoyed.

The visibility problem in further complicated by certain war emergency navigation rules. The instructions to American and allied vessels called for precautionary zigzag maneuvers while the danger zone was being traversed. Frequently ships proceeded three miles to port or starboard of their normal course, sometimes five miles. These measures meant that a wide belt was navigated through the submarine infested area.

Smoke a Dangerous Factor
Fueling practice is also a factor in the visibility study. American vessels were required by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, under penalty of increased premium, to burn smokeless fuel or anthracite in the danger zone. Inasmuch as other ships were not always similarly regulated and convoys were composed of foreign as well as American vessels, smoke clouds always formed above convoys. It was not possible either in all cases to obtain smokeless fuel or to use it the full time necessary. Telltale plumes therefore issued from the funnels of vessels traveling alone or in company through the danger zone.

The most important of all visibility factors is weather. The yearly “proportion of sky covered with clouds” for the North Atlantic is from 60 to 70 per cent, for the ocean off the south English and French coasts 60 per cent, off the Azores 50 per cent, off the Canaries 40 per cent and off the Cape Verde Islands 40 per cent. In the Mediterranean it is from 30 to 40 percent, while in the waters off Greece it is 50 per cent.

The hours of sunshine a year total 1,300 off the north coast of Ireland and Scotland, 1.500 off England, 1,700 off the southern coast of Ireland, 2,500 in the Mediterranean. These are out of a total of 8,760 hours of day and night a year. In the English Channel westerly gales are prevalent in the winter months from October to March, inclusive. They are rare from May to July, inclusive, and seldom last long. During twilight hours in the morning and evening there is generally a haze over the sea. In the danger zone near the British Isles daylight is frequently modified by more or less heavy sea fogs. Haze on the water is almost constant from October to April.

In the sections of the danger zone near the Azores, Canaries and in the Mediterranean the percentage of clear days is much greater; there are fewer storms, even in winter, and the atmosphere is freer.

Visibility is also concerned with the question of the distance from which the observation of the U-boat is taken. The distance at which a ship is potentially visible at sea depends upon the height of the point of observation, the height of the vessel and the curvature of the earth’s surface.

Submarines are able to receive and send wireless messages carrying maritime information such as the location of Allied war craft. Sound signals may be used also for signaling between U-boats. They are now provided with hydrophones able to detect the presence of other craft several miles off. If the vessel or convoy is found to be passing at some distance, necessitating considerable running on the surface at high speed to bring the U-boat within attacking distance the attempt will not be made unless the ship or group is known to be an important one. If the earliest observations give encouragement the submarine, unless already ahead of the vessel on her course, takes a direction at 90 degrees to the line of first observation and toward the vessel’s route.

If the ship is alone and it is decided to use the naval gun, the U-boat approaches to a range of from four to eight thousand yards and opens fire. The caliber of the submarine’s deck guns was in 1914 3.5 inches; at the close of the war it was 5.9 inches or 6 inches on most submarines. The guns on merchant vessels were often out-ranged. The latest U-boats even dared to attack an Allied cruiser.

If, on the other hand, for tactical reasons the torpedo is selected as the best weapon to use, the submarine submerges while still out of sight and proceeds to the firing position. This is abreast or slight ahead of the victim and about 1000 yards off. German U-boats have endeavored to come as close as 300 yards before launching the torpedo. If the ship is part of a convoy the U-boat will either attack the convoy flank or seek to rise in the center. In case of such attack no particular ship is selected during the early approach.

While submerged the submarine commander takes from six to eight periscopic observations in order to obtain the course, range and speed of the merchantman or convoy. These data enable him to calculate where the firing position will be against a single vessel or where to attack a convoy. The duration of the periscopic sights is from thirty seconds to five seconds. In ordinary periscopes, all but about a third of the light is lost by reflection or absorption. If there be dust or moisture on the lenses the loss of light is even greater. This defect in the instruments is largely compensated among other ways, however, by the natural dilation of the pupil of the eye to admit more light.

Normally the vessel’s image is enlarged from 1.2 to 1.5 times, but magnification three to six times is not unusual. To ascertain range from periscopic observations there are only two available methods. Telemeter scales or cross hairs graduated vertically and horizontally in hundredths are generally used. The other method is the double image micrometer. Two images of the same object are made to cut each other in the lens, and are shifted with reference to one another until the masts, funnels or other high parts of the vessel under observation are on a level with the water line or deck line of the second images. The angle of shift determines the distance.

Harold Van Buskirk assessing ship camouflage model (1918)•

The range of a vessel as the various times that she is observed will give an idea of her course unless she is zigzagging. At close range the apparent perspective of the ship, her bow position and alignment of masts are the course indices used. Speed calculation is also approximate only. It should be emphasized that course, range and speed estimated from periscopic observation is by no means an exact science. The human eye may be deceived when its view is so limited and brief.

With respect to protective camouflage there are two purposes which may be subserved—namely, a reduction in the visibility of vessels in order that they may traverse the danger zone unobserved or less well observed by submarines, and a change in the appearance of a vessel so that if observed the calculation of her course, speed and range may be thereby rendered in accurate. While U-boats are equipped with sound detection apparatus of considerable hearing radius, the low visibility purpose if well worth securing, because the hearing radius of sound detectors does not in every case extend as far as vision at sea. Sound, furthermore, does not give the precise direction, distance and course of a vessel which are necessary for an approach to torpedo firing position.

Hard to See, Hard to Hit
A ship that is hard to see is hard to hit. It is still, therefore, a real advantage for a ship to be as nearly invisible as possible. This is especially true from the point of view of naval strategy. The area that a U-boat can patrol and still be sure of meeting ships of low visibility is much smaller than it can patrol and be sure of meeting vessels more readily seen.

Were low visibility secured, to cover the same sea area with a submarine cordon would require more submarines. If it were possible so to “dazzle” the eye as to render it incapable or partly incapable of observing the image of the target, this “dazzle” effect would be desirable. As, however, in taking the most important periscopic observations, the vessel’s outline, masts and funnels are chiefly noticed, the program of low visibility and of disturbing range, speed and course estimate is preferred.

It is a serious matter to decide the nature of the deception to be sought. Deception as to range can affect gunfire less than torpedo fire, as when the former “spot firing” is resorted to. In the case of torpedo attack, which is nearly always at close range, deception may, however, have a decided influence. Should one make the vessel’s course as seen from a submarine seem directed away from the U-boat or toward it? Each has its advantages and disadvantages, depending upon the respective position, speed and other characteristics of the submarine and target vessel.

If the ship is made to appear as coming toward the submarine, the latter may be cause to maneuver to a torpedo firing position at a range further than, and astern of, the normal one. On the other hand, if the course is made to appear as away from the U-boat, the latter may submerge and rise at a point where the vessel could run it down.

Should an attempt be made to give an aspect of speed faster or slower than the actual? A slower apparent speed may cause the U-boat, to its cost, to take leisure in approaching the firing position. An illusion of faster speed may induce the submarine to overrun the firing position.

Should an effort be made to give the range a longer or shorter appearance? If the vessel seems to be closer to the U-boat then she really is, the torpedo fire will be actually at longer range than the submarine captain anticipates. If, on the other hand, the ship is made to appear more distant than she really is, then the torpedo maybe be aimed to pass actually ahead of the vessel.

A choice cannot be arbitrarily made between the alternatives cited, but that there should be deception in relation to the three factors is clear. The extent of the deception desired cannot be precisely prescribed. It would be well not to seek too much. An error of 15 degrees in course of two knots of speed or of two to three hundred yards in range is sufficient to add materially to the safety of a vessel against a torpedo attack. Any illusion, even a slight one, along these lines will be an advantage, since accuracy in gun and especially in torpedo fire as well as the maneuver of approach depends intimately upon exactness in the estimates of the target’s range, course and speed.

The bearings of vessels are first taken by a U-boat from observation of smoke or superstructure. While for ships in convoy the smoke, noise and breadth of area covered lessen the utility of superstructure reduction to lower visibility, it remains of value as an aid to the defense of the solitary ship.

The safety of a ship subject to attack may be said to vary inversely as the area over which she is visible to the submarine.

On sailing ships all superstructure is usually needed, but on steamers considerable reduction is possible. Masts on modern vessels serve little purpose save for the wireless antennae, the crow’s nest and the light. One mast, in many cases, will suffice. The Marconi Company informed the International Mercantile Marine Company that the aerial of the wireless on their vessels could be fun from one mast to the funnel and still meet the requirements of service.

Scenic Artist’s Effort
Homer F. Emens, the well-known scenic expert, devoted considerable attention to the problem of distorting the apparent perspective of the upper works of a vessel. He prepared a model in which a large triangular screen was placed below the bridge, extending from side to side, the point of the triangle facing the bow of the vessel. On each side of this triangular screen he painted a perspective view of the normal structure which actually faced the base of the triangle. The effect os this was to make the ship when seen from the side appear nearly bow on, provided the error was not corrected by a normal view of other portions of the ship.

Homer F. Emens camouflage model (1917)

The new ships for the Emergency Fleet Corporation have been designed with low superstructure. A notable example of a vessel with superstructure reduced is the steamship Valeria. The vessel was a Cunarder supplied to Thomas A. Edison by the Submarine Defense Association for this experimental purpose. The funnels and masts were cut short and character deception was sought by Mr. Edison by means of canvas screens strung between the funnels and certain other parts of the superstructure. They were blown off, however, a short time after the vessel left New York. As the vessel thereafter traveled in convoy no conclusive data have become available. Owing to the inherent difficulty of screening, it seems hardly practical to radically change the character of a vessel.

The field of protective coloration is an important one, but on which is limited. Vessels in convoy or with escort can hardly hope to be invisible whatever paint is used. But paint may render even a convoyed or escorted vessel less liable to torpedo attack, as low visibility and deception are possible. Vessels proceeding alone cannot expect often to be invisible to ordinary vision within about 5,000 yards, unless there is a haze or a fog or it is night, as their bulk distinguishes them from the sky. For ranges beyond about 5,000 yards, in such a case, low visibility and even invisibility is frequently possible.

But, if a vessel lies between the U-boat and the sun, no amount of paint will render her invisible, since the side of the ship seen will be in the shadow and the background will be illuminated. Deception to ordinary vision is possible, on the other hand, within approximately 5,000 yards, or a greater distance if the periscope used magnifies to several times normal. It is difficult so paint a large warship as to cause real deception, because her naval masts and upper works give away her character and heading. On the other hand low visibility for all ships is possible.

The System Analyzed
One may now analyze the respective merits of five American systems, the British “dazzle"
 and the navy camouflage, for these represent the systems of camouflage practiced during the European war. The Naval Consulting Board recorded on July 9, 1917, regarding the Mackay system:

“Fundamentally it is based on mottling the surface with the three primary colors which at a distance blend to produce a gray having the quality of a gray light. He also proposes to shade the tints so as to lower highlights and raise the low areas of illumination.”

This was classed as a system for vessels “which is our opinion will lower their visibility.” The theory of Mr. Mackay’s low visibility system is given by him in the following language:

“The proportion of constituent colors to give white are: Violet 44, red 36, green 20. Therefore areas covered with these three colors in this proportion would give a general over-all gray. With the colors in this proportion the ground color would be violet.”

William Andrew Mackay camouflage system (1917)

It is not clear how three different color effects can be produced by the same formula. At a subsequent date Mr. Mackay supplemented his “low visibility” object with a “dazzle” purpose and produced a system which he calls one of “disruptive coloration.”

The Warner system aims primarily to “dazzle” rather than to reduce visibility. Various irregular patterns are carried out in the shades red, blue, pink green and white. Particular stress is laid by the artist upon the value of strong contrasts with a view to giving a deceptive appearance to familiar parts of the vessel. But Mr. Warner regards the question of pattern as of paramount importance. He does not ask to give low visibility within five miles of a vessel.

Everett Longley Warner camouflage system (1917)

The Toch camouflage system applies four color, a very light blue gray, a dark blue gray, a dark green and a light pink purple. The colors are said to have been selected for their so-called “vibrating” qualities. The dark colors predominate in the lower part of the hull and the lighter in the upper part along the skyline and on the extremities. All lines, both vertical and horizontal, are broken by the alternation of colors.

Maximilian Toch camouflage system (1917)

The superstructure, masts and funnels are painted mainly in a very light blue gray irregularly splotched with a dark gray and a light pink purple. The green does not appear in the superstructure. The colors are intended to blend and fade out in long distances into the general tone of sky and water, which are assumed to b the same. Low visibility is sought by the use of colors of alleged low visibility qualities and a “dazzle” effect by placing them in strong contrast and in large splotches.

The Brush system [based on countershading] seeks low visibility by rendering uniform the illumination of the vessel. Dark areas are raised by light paint and light areas are darkened. Black and white is occasionally used, or a dark gray. The resulting shade upon blending is a gray somewhat lighter than battleship gray, but resembling it.

Gerome Brush camouflage system (1917)

Short Ray Colors Used
Lewis Herzog devised a system which uses the short ray colors—that is, those from the lower side of the spectrum—avoiding the use of red, yellow and orange. He remarks concerning this system:

“Interference of light rays setting up vibrations is sought by means of more or less concentric sets of panels of blue, green and violet as a gray base, which at a distance takes on a tone scintillating with the atmosphere and blending into it, and thereby lowering the visibility of the ship. The lines of color application are broken as much as possible and change frequently in direction. All color bands are applied in arcs of circles each of considerable radius. Straight lines are avoided on the principle that the eye is more confused by the use of circular forms.”

Lewis Herzog camouflage system (1917)

The effect which it is desired to produce on the sight by this system is best described as a “shimmer” or “scintillation” very similar to that produced by heat waves over the surface of land or water.

The British “dazzle” is made up of such colors as black, dark blue, scarlet, dark red, olive green, yellow, gray and white. These colors are laid in large patches of contrasting colors. In some of the patterns the light colors are concentrated at one end of the vessel and the dark colors at the other in order to distort the apparent heading and view of the vessel.

This scheme is based upon the idea that invisibility at sea being unattainable, some protection may be afforded by painting ships in such a way as to confuse the enemy and by causing some doubt as to the course, speed and distance.

It may be seen from this brief review upon how fragile a base the early systems rested. They were impressionistic systems devised by artists, and not scientific systems devised by light and color experts. Their sponsors deserve, however, the greatest credit for introducing the subject and for opening a new field for research.

In his elaborate technical report upon Protective Coloration as a Means of Defense Against Submarines, Lloyd[sic] A. Jones expressed the physical laws and factors which govern visibility. For special research he determined that low visibility is attainable and that a particular shade of gray which he calls omega gray is best suited for vessels navigating the northern portion of the danger zone, where the average weather is 70 per cent cloudy, and below that line where there is frequent haze. For the southern portion of the danger zone a bluer tone of gray called psi gray was found the best. Latitude 45 degrees north is a suitable dividing line of the areas in which a ship should appear omega and psi gray, respectively.

It is of supreme interest to note the sacrifice of low visibility by the various camouflage systems heretofore presented. This is shown by Mr. Jones in a scientific and convincing manner with the aid of a “visibility meter” invented by him in the course of experiments. The British “dazzle” system, with its large masses of black and dark colors, is particularly vulnerable in this respect. No one of these systems produces the least visibility attainable. Omega and psi gray alone comply in their respective fields with low visibility requirements.

The USS [Gem], the naval experiment ship of the association, has shown as law as 0.2 in clear weather at 1,500 yards and invisibility at 3,000 yards and in foggy weather 0.1 at 800 yards. The average weather coefficient for the northern, most hazardous portion of the danger zone, is calculated as .43.

…

The great superiority of omega gray for low visibility may be deduced from this table. Under average weather conditions a ship so painted is forty-six times less visible than one painted according to the British “dazzle.” On one of the tests off New London several persons on shore could not pick up the USS [Gem] at 3,000 yards distance, even with binoculars. There was a slight mist over the water, such as is frequently noted in the northern portion of the danger zone. But other vessels, painted battleship gray, were visible at a greater distance than 3,000 yards.

False bows, sterns and bow waves have frequently been painted on vessels and are of value. It is of little use to try to reverse the apparent direction the ship is taking or to paint another ship on her, as such deception attempts too much to accomplish anything. But by a false painted bow and stern placed so as to distort the apparent perspective the course may be made to appear somewhat other than it is.

Checkerboard patterns blur outline. In art and architectural drawing the principles of perspective representation have been scientifically studied for centuries. It is quite feasible to paint a vessel in such a fashion as that the apparent perspective is different from the real. This will induce an error in course estimate. A vessel painted with converging bands of colors properly contrasted will offer a deceptive appearance as to course. It is possible also to distort perspective by curves or by vertical bands closer together at the bow or stern of the vessel than at the opposite end.

Must Break the Water Line
Inasmuch as the water line of a ship is known to be horizontal the bands should break the water line. This point is of great moment. No two ships should be painted exactly alike in regard to pattern and convergence of lines. Perspective deception patterns should blend at a distance where deception is no longer possible but low visibility is possible.

It should be carefully borne in mind that the blending distances of bands and patterns are based upon the hypothesis that the periscope does not enlarge the image much above normal vision. If magnification of three to six times normal should be resorted to the blending distances should be reduced in order that low visibility is not sacrificed. It may also be necessary to modify the blending distances of the bands and patterns to meet a possible attempt to nullify by light filters and deceptive effects.

Deception is a matter of psychology and is less susceptible than visibility of scientific determination. What will deceive on submarine observer will not delude another. The Submarine Defense Association has experimented with perspective distortion bands and checkerboard outline blurring patterns. Officers who viewed the USS [Gem] as she entered New Haven harbor said the diamond pattern on her bow gave her a scow bow. The British toward the end of the war came to favor also such checkerboard patterns for certain portions of the ship.

“Dazzle” patterns have been tried on American warships, but so long as the upper works and masts are of their special character no radical deception is possible. Experiments have been made with squares, rectangles, patches, band and other designs to overcome this handicap, but without success so far. It is for this reason that the low visibility object alone is favored for the larger warships.

Tests were also made in July 1918, off Fort X to determine the effect of a low visibility‚ deceptive coloration—upon the ability of coast defenses to follow a vessel with searchlights at night. The USS [Gem] proceeded between Point Y and Island Z at 8,000 yards mean range, steering a sinuous course until opposite the end of the latter, and then went straight through a channel at a distance of about 3,000 yard from the nearest searchlight.

Although the approximate time of her departure was known she passed through all five searchlights wholly undetected and picked up only when, after passing through the channel she turned on her own lights. This was repeated on another occasion with a modification in program. She left a known point at a known time on a known base course. The vessel was located for only three minutes out of forty.

Report of the Fort Test
While a considerable part of her ability to avoid searchlights was attributed to the “S” course the following remarks were made concerning the camouflage effect:

“At the range (9,000 yards) she gave the appearance of a bright streak of silver recognizable as the [USS Gem] only when in the leading edge of the beam. Her starboard camouflage was such that as soon as she got well back in the the beam she was of the same gray-blue-white color as the beam itself. Of course it is well known that a searchlight beam blankets a target in the center or rear edge thereof, but this was more pronounced in the case of the [USS Gem].”

The United States Navy Department had the benefit of much prior experience when it came to adopt a navy system. It made use to a large extent of the data previously obtained. The dreadnoughts and submarine chasers were duly painted with low visibility gray. For merchant vessels, contrasting masses and bands of black, blue, gray and white have chiefly been used.

In regard to the success of camouflage there is practically no data available, save in German hands, because it is hard to determine to what cause escape from a submarine has been due. It is largely a matter of guesswork how much marine camouflage has added too a vessel’s safety, but that it had a substantial effect is not open to question.

Ships in convoy or passing each other at sea have been deceived as to the course of the camouflaged vessel. We do know, however, that of about 1,300 American vessels painted with the navy system, only eleven have been lost since March 1918. The convoy system, zigzagging and improved armament have, no doubt, contributed materially to the result and probably all of them much more than has protective coloration.

Should the writer hazard an estimate he would say that the systems of camouflage, heretofore used, have increased the chances of safety between 3 and 15 per cent.

Just as the submarine has come into the world to stay, so too has marine camouflage. It has developed during the great war from a crude fantasy into science. Practical application always follows some distance behind the advances of abstract knowledge and research, so that marine protective coloration did not reach a final form in the great war.

The low visibility color is now determined, but the means of reconciling deceptive painting with it requires further transformation in practice. Science has pointed out the directions which must be taken. The importance of defensive coloration is not so great as many believe, and new ways may be found to counteract its effect, but marine camouflage will in years to come play a notable role in naval warfare.

• Photographs marked by raised dot have been digitally colorized. All others are original WWI-era coloring.