Main article: Motion camouflage

Comparison of motion camouflage and classical pursuit

Most forms of camouflage are ineffective when the camouflaged animal or object moves,
because the motion is easily seen by the observing predator, prey or enemy.[54] However,
insects such as hoverflies[55] and dragonflies use motion camouflage: the hoverflies to
approach possible mates, and the dragonflies to approach rivals when defending
territories.[56][57] Motion camouflage is achieved by moving so as to stay on a straight line
between the target and a fixed point in the landscape; the pursuer thus appears not to
move, but only to loom larger in the target's field of vision.[58] The same method can be used
for military purposes, for example by missiles to minimise their risk of detection by an
enemy.[55]However, missile engineers, and animals such as bats, use the method mainly for
its efficiency rather than camouflage.[59]

Motion dazzle[edit]

The zebra's bold pattern may induce motion dazzle in observers

Most forms of camouflage are made ineffective by movement: a deer or grasshopper may
be highly cryptic when motionless, but instantly seen when it moves. But one method,
motion dazzle, requires rapidly moving bold patterns of contrasting stripes.[101] Motion
 dazzle may degrade predators' ability to estimate the prey's speed and direction accurately,
giving the prey an improved chance of escape.[102] Motion dazzle distorts speed perception
and is most effective at high speeds; stripes can also distort perception of size (and so,
perceived range to the target). As of 2011, motion dazzle had been proposed for military
vehicles, but never applied.[101] Since motion dazzle patterns would make animals more
difficult to locate accurately when moving, but easier to see when stationary, there would
be an evolutionary trade-off between motion dazzle and crypsis.[102]
An animal that is commonly thought to be dazzle-patterned is the zebra. The bold stripes of
the zebra have been claimed to be disruptive camouflage,[103] background-blending and
countershading.[104][e] After many years in which the purpose of the coloration was
disputed,[105] an experimental study by Tim Caro suggested in 2012 that the pattern reduces
the attractiveness of stationary models to biting flies such as horseflies and tsetse
flies.[106][107] However, a simulation study by Martin How and Johannes Zanker in 2014
suggests that when moving, the stripes may confuse observers, such as mammalian
predators and biting insects, by two visual illusions: the wagon-wheel effect, where the
perceived motion is inverted, and the barberpole illusion, where the perceived motion is in a
wrong direction.[108]

Applications

Redirecionado de Camuflagem de rede)

Saltar para a navegaçãoSaltar para a pesquisa

Em segurança de computadores, network cloaking (em português encobrimento de
rede ou camuflagem de rede) é uma tentativa de fornecer segurança sem fio pela
ocultação do nome da rede (service set identifier), para que não seja propagado
(broadcasting) publicamente. Muitos roteadores vêm com esta opção como um recurso
padrão no menu de configuração acessado através de um navegador web. Apesar do
cloaking rede poder impedir que alguns usuários inexperientes obtenham acesso ao
seu PA, para esta classe de usuários, a camuflagem de rede é menos eficaz do que
usar WEP estático (que por si só é vulnerável).[1] Ferramentas como
o inSSIDer, NetStumbler e Kismetfornecem virtualmente a qualquer um a capacidade de
"encontrar" o suposto nome da rede "escondida". Se o objetivo é proteger sua rede, utilize
o WPA ou preferencialmente o WPA2.[2]

VA camuflagem é o conjunto de técnicas e métodos que permitem a um

dado organismo ou objeto permanecer indistinto do ambiente que o cerca.[1] Têm-se como
exemplos desde as cores amadeiradas do bicho-pau até as manchas verdes-marrons nos
uniformes dos soldados modernos. Difere do mimetismo, que consiste na presença, por
parte de determinados organismos denominados mímicos, de características que os
confundem com um outro grupo de organismos, para sua proteção.[2]

Índice

 1Camuflagem
 2Eficiência
 3Maneiras de produção de cor
 4Influência da fisiologia de cada animal
 5Mudança de cor
 o 5.1Por movimentos musculares
o 5.2Pela dieta
o 5.3Pela liberação de hormônios
 6Camuflagem pelo coletivo
 7Confusão com outro objeto ou animal
 8Referências
 9Ver também

Camuflagem[editar | editar código-fonte]

A camuflagem é um recurso resultante da ação da seleção natural sobre uma certa
espécie, usado por várias espécies para se protegerem dos seus predadores. Uma das
mais amplas e diferentes adaptações é a camuflagem natural, a habilidade de um animal
se esconder de um predador ou presa. Consiste na presença, por parte de
determinados organismos denominados mímicos, de características que os confundem
com um outro grupo de organismos.
A camuflagem pode ocorrer pela cor, ou forma de cobertura do animal. É difícil, por
exemplo, distinguir um veado novo entre as folhagens, por causa da cor parda e às pintas
escuras. Como o objetivo final da camuflagem é esconder o animal de outros que querem
caçá-lo, a fisiologia e o comportamento de seus predadores ou de suas presas é altamente
significante. Um animal não desenvolverá nenhuma camuflagem que não o ajude a
sobreviver, então nem todos os animais se misturam em seu meio ambiente da mesma
maneira. Por exemplo, não há sentido em um animal replicar a cor de seu meio
ambiente se o seu principal predador for insensível às cores. O fator mais importante é o
meio ambiente.

Eficiência[editar | editar código-fonte]

A camuflagem mais eficiente é aquela em que o animal se mistura com o ambiente. Pode-
se ver este tipo de camuflagem em todos os lugares. Veados, esquilos, porcos-espinhose
muitos outros animais têm cor castanha, cores "tom de terra" que combinam com o
marrom das árvores e do solo em uma floresta. Tubarões, golfinhos e muitas outras
criaturas do mar têm uma cor cinza-azulada, que os ajuda a misturarem-se com a luz
suave da água.

Maneiras de produção de cor[editar | editar código-fonte]

Há duas maneiras pelas quais os animais produzem cores diferentes. Uma é por meio
dos biocromos, que são pigmentos naturais microscópicos presentes no corpo de um
animal que produzem cores quimicamente. Sua maquiagem química é tanta que eles
absorvem algumas cores da luz e refletem outras. A cor aparente de um pigmento é a
combinação de todos os comprimentos de onda de luz visíveis que são refletidas por esse
pigmento.
Os animais podem também produzir cores através de estruturas físicas microscópicas.
Estas estruturas agem como prismas, refletindo e espalhando luz visível. Dessa maneira,
uma certa combinação de cores é refletida. Os ursos polares, por exemplo, realmente têm
a pele preta, mas parecem brancos por terem pelos translúcidos. Quando a luz brilha em
seus pelos, cada pelo curva um pouquinho. Isto rebate a luz ao redor, fazendo então com
que parte dela incida sobre a superfície da pele do urso polar e o resto da luz seja
refletida, produzindo a coloração branca. Em alguns animais, os dois tipos de coloração
são combinadas.
Por exemplo, répteis, anfíbios e peixes com coloração verde normalmente têm uma
camada de pele com pigmento amarelo e uma camada de pele que espalha a luz para
refletir uma cor azul. Combinadas, estas camadas de pele produzem o verde.
Influência da fisiologia de cada animal[editar | editar código-
fonte]

As maneiras de coloração dependem da fisiologia de um

animal. Na maioria dos mamíferos, a coloração da
camuflagem está nos pelos, já que esta é a camada mais
externa do corpo. Nos répteis, anfíbios e peixes, está nas escamas;
nos pássaros está nas penas; e nos insetos é parte do exoesqueleto. A própria estrutura
da cobertura externa pode também evoluir para criar uma camuflagem melhor.
Em esquilos, por exemplo, o pelo é bastante áspero e irregular, então lembra a textura de
casca de árvore. Muitos insetos têm uma carapaça que imita a textura macia das folhas.

Mudança de cor[editar | editar código-fonte]

Camuflagem é muito comum na natureza; encontra-se em algum grau na maioria das
espécies. Mas não é muito comum para um animal ser capaz de mudar sua coloração
para combinar com um meio ambiente em mudança. Porém, alguns animais
desenvolveram essa a habilidade de mudar de cor, na maioria das vezes por causa da
troca de estações. O habitat de um animal pode estar todo verde e marrom no verão, mas
no inverno estará todo branco de neve, e a sua camuflagem marrom que funcionava
perfeitamente agora o torna um alvo fácil. Por isso, alguns animais, como a raposa-do-
ártico e a lebre-ártica mudam sua pelagem na troca de estações. Penas e pelos em
animais são como cabelose unhas dos humanos - são, na verdade, tecido morto. Estão
presos ao animal, mas como não estão vivos, o animal não pode fazer nada para alterar
sua composição. Consequentemente, um pássaro ou um mamífero tem que produzir uma
pelagem ou penas completamente novas para mudar de cor.

Por movimentos musculares[editar | editar código-fonte]

Alguns animais, assim como várias espécies de sépias (molusco da classe Cephalopoda -
a mesma de lulas e polvos), podem manipular seus cromatóforos para a troca total da cor
de sua pele. Estes animais possuem uma coleção de cromatóforos e cada um deles
contém um pigmento singular. Um cromatóforo simples pode estar envolto por um músculo
que pode contrair ou expandir. Quando o músculo da sépia se contrai, todos os pigmentos
são empurrados para a parte superior do cromatóforo. No topo, a célula fica achatada
dentro de um disco largo. Quando o músculo relaxa, a célula retorna ao seu formato
natural de um pequeno pingo. Este pingo é muito difícil de ser visto porque a parte larga do
disco constringe a célula. Constringindo os cromatóforos com um determinado pigmento e
relaxando todos os outros com outros pigmentos, o animal pode trocar toda a cor do seu
corpo.

Pela dieta[editar | editar código-fonte]

Na verdade, algumas espécies de animais trocam os pigmentos que existem em sua
pele. Nudibrânquios trocam sua coloração por alterar sua dieta. Quando um nudibrânquio
alimenta-se de um tipo específico de coral, seu corpo deposita os pigmentos deste coral
na pele e extensões externas do intestino. Os pigmentos aparecem, e o animal torna-se da
mesma cor que o coral. Como o coral não é só a comida da criatura, é também seu
habitat, a coloração é a camuflagem perfeita. Quando a criatura se move para um coral de
cores diferentes as do anterior, seu corpo troca de cor com a nova fonte de comida.
Similarmente, algumas espécies de parasitas, assumem a cor de seu hospedeiro, que
também é a sua casa.

Pela liberação de hormônios[editar | editar código-fonte]

Muitas espécies de peixe gradualmente produzem diferentes pigmentos sem mudar sua
dieta. Isto funciona mais ou menos como troca de pelagem sazonal em mamíferos e
pássaros. Quando o peixe troca de meio ambiente, ele recebe sinais visuais de um novo
modelo de ambiente. Baseado no seu estímulo, estas espécies começam a
liberar hormônios que mudam a maneira de seu corpo produzir pigmentos. Com o tempo,
a coloração dos peixes muda para combinar com seu novo meio ambiente.

Camuflagem pelo coletivo[editar | editar código-fonte]

Geralmente, este tipo de camuflagem não esconde a presença de um animal, meramente
mal o representa. Para um leão, um rebanho de zebras não parece um bando de animais
individuais, mas sim como uma massa grande e listrada. As listras verticais parecem todas
correr juntas, tornando difícil para um leão perseguir e atacar uma zebra em especial. As
listras também podem ajudar uma zebra sozinha a se esconder em áreas de grama alta.
Como os leões são insensíveis a cores, não importa que a zebra e o meio ambiente ao
redor sejam de cores completamente diferentes. Para os humanos, as listras de uma zebra
se destacam incrivelmente, então é difícil imaginar que as listras ajam como camuflagem.
O padrão de camuflagem é muito mais importante que sua cor ao se esconder dos
predadores. Se uma zebra ficar parada em locais correspondentes à sua camuflagem, um
leão pode ignorá-la completamente.
Muitas espécies de peixes são similarmente camufladas. Suas listras verticais podem ter
cores brilhantes, o que faz com que elas se destaquem para os predadores, mas quando
andam em bando, suas listras ficam todas misturadas. Este espetáculo confuso dá aos
predadores a impressão de uma grande bolha.

Confusão com outro objeto ou animal[editar | editar código-

fonte]

Bicho-pau

Outra tática de camuflagem parecida é o animal tomar a aparência de algum outro objeto.
Um dos mais famosos exemplos deste tipo de comportamento é o bicho-pau, um inseto
que parece um graveto comum e para aperfeiçoar a camuflagem, recolhe as patas junto
ao corpo. Se houver perigo, fica imóvel exatamente como um graveto. O predador pensa
que é somente um graveto, e ignora-o.
Algumas espécies de mariposas desenvolveram um desenho surpreendente em suas asas
que lembram os olhos de um animal maior. Uma visão assustadora para a maioria dos
predadores com os quais a mariposa poderia encontrar. Uma variação mais simples desta
adaptação é a imitação de cor. Em muitos ecossistemas, animais menores venenosos
desenvolvem uma coloração brilhante - os predadores aprendem a reconhecer facilmente
estas cores.
O mimetismo é uma aproximação diferente de uma camuflagem comum, mas tem a
mesma finalidade. Desenvolvendo uma certa aparência, uma espécie de animal faz dela
mesma um alvo de difícil reconhecimento para predadores.

Referências
1. Ir para cima↑ Martins, Lucas: Camuflagem e Mimetismo no site Info-Escola acessado a 13
de março de 2017
2. Ir para cima↑ “Mimetismo” no site TodaBiologia.com acessado a 13 de março de 2017

Ver também[editar | editar código-fonte]

 Mimetismo

The peacock flounder can change its pattern and colours to match its environment.
 A soldier applying camouflage face paint; both helmet and jacket are disruptively patterned.

Camouflage is the use of any combination of materials, coloration, or illumination for

concealment, either by making animals or objects hard to see (crypsis), or by disguising
them as something else (mimesis). Examples include the leopard's spotted coat,
the battledress of a modern soldier, and the leaf-mimic katydid's wings. A third approach,
motion dazzle, confuses the observer with a conspicuous pattern, making the object visible
but momentarily harder to locate. The majority of camouflage methods aim for crypsis,
often through a general resemblance to the background, high contrast disruptive coloration,
eliminating shadow, and countershading. In the open ocean, where there is no background,
the principal methods of camouflage are transparency, silvering, and countershading, while
the ability to produce light is among other things used for counter-illumination on the
undersides of cephalopods such as squid. Some animals, such
as chameleons and octopuses, are capable of actively changing their skin pattern and
colours, whether for camouflage or for signalling. It is possible that some plants use
camouflage to evade being eaten by herbivores.
Military camouflage was spurred by the increasing range and accuracy of firearms in the
19th century. In particular the replacement of the inaccurate musket with the rifle made
personal concealment in battle a survival skill. In the 20th century, military camouflage
developed rapidly, especially during the First World War. On land, artists such as André
Mare designed camouflage schemes and observation posts disguised as trees. At sea,
merchant ships and troop carriers were painted in dazzle patterns that were highly visible,
but designed to confuse enemy submarines as to the target's speed, range, and heading.
During and after the Second World War, a variety of camouflage schemes were used
for aircraft and for ground vehicles in different theatres of war. The use of radar since the
mid-20th century has largely made camouflage for fixed-wing military aircraft obsolete.
Non-military use of camouflage includes making cell telephone towers less obtrusive and
helping hunters to approach wary game animals. Patterns derived from military camouflage
are frequently used in fashion clothing, exploiting their strong designs and sometimes their
symbolism. Camouflage themes recur in modern art, and both figuratively and literally in
science fiction and works of literature.

Contents

 1History
 2Principles
o 2.1Crypsis
 2.1.1Resemblance to surroundings
 2.1.2Disruptive coloration
 2.1.3Eliminating shadow
 2.1.4Distraction
 2.1.5Self-decoration
 2.1.6Cryptic behaviour
 2.1.7Motion camouflage
 2.1.8Changeable skin coloration
 2.1.9Countershading
 2.1.10Counter-illumination
 2.1.11Transparency
 2.1.12Silvering
o 2.2Mimesis
o 2.3Motion dazzle
 3Applications
o 3.1Military
  3.1.1Before 1800
 3.1.219th-century origins
 3.1.3First World War
 3.1.4Second World War
 3.1.5After 1945
o 3.2Hunting
o 3.3Civil structures
o 3.4Fashion, art and society
 4Notes
 5References
 6Bibliography
o 6.1Camouflage in nature
o 6.2Military camouflage
 7Further reading
 8External links

History[edit]

Octopuses like this Octopus cyanea can change colour (and shape) for camouflage

In ancient Greece, Aristotle (384–322 BC) commented on the colour-changing abilities,

both for camouflage and for signalling, of cephalopods including the octopus, in his Historia
animalium:[1]
The octopus ... seeks its prey by so changing its colour as to render it like the colour of the
stones adjacent to it; it does so also when alarmed.

— Aristotle.[1]
Camouflage has been a topic of interest and research in zoology for well over a century.
According to Charles Darwin's 1859 theory of natural selection,[2] features such as
camouflage evolved by providing individual animals with a reproductive advantage,
enabling them to leave more offspring, on average, than other members of the
same species. In his Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:[3]
When we see leaf-eating insects green, and bark-feeders mottled-grey; the alpine
ptarmigan white in winter, the red-grouse the colour of heather, and the black-grouse that
of peaty earth, we must believe that these tints are of service to these birds and insects in
preserving them from danger. Grouse, if not destroyed at some period of their lives, would
increase in countless numbers; they are known to suffer largely from birds of prey; and
hawks are guided by eyesight to their prey, so much so, that on parts of the Continent
persons are warned not to keep white pigeons, as being the most liable to destruction.
Hence I can see no reason to doubt that natural selection might be most effective in giving
the proper colour to each kind of grouse, and in keeping that colour, when once acquired,
true and constant.[3]
Experiment by Poulton, 1890: swallowtailed moth pupae with camouflage they acquired as larvae

The English zoologist Edward Bagnall Poulton studied animal coloration, especially
camouflage. In his 1890 book The Colours of Animals, he classified different types such as
"special protective resemblance" (where an animal looks like another object), or "general
aggressive resemblance" (where a predator blends in with the background, enabling it to
approach prey). His experiments showed that swallowtailed moth pupaewere camouflaged
to match the backgrounds on which they were reared as larvae.[4][a]Poulton's "general
protective resemblance"[6] was at that time considered to be the main method of
camouflage, as when Frank Evers Beddard wrote in 1892 that "tree-frequenting animals
are often green in colour. Among vertebrates numerous species of parrots, iguanas, tree-
frogs, and the green tree-snake are examples".[7] Beddard did however briefly mention
other methods, including the "alluring coloration" of the flower mantis and the possibility of
a different mechanism in the orange tip butterfly. He wrote that "the scattered green spots
upon the under surface of the wings might have been intended for a rough sketch of the
small flowerets of the plant [an umbellifer], so close is their mutual resemblance."[8][b] He
also explained the coloration of sea fish such as the mackerel: "Among pelagic fish it is
common to find the upper surface dark-coloured and the lower surface white, so that the
animal is inconspicuous when seen either from above or below."[10]

Abbott Thayer's 1907 painting Peacock in the Woodsdepicted a peacock as if it were camouflaged.

The artist Abbott Handerson Thayer formulated what is sometimes called Thayer's Law, the
principle of countershading.[11] However, he overstated the case in the 1909
book Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom, arguing that "All patterns and colors
whatsoever of all animals that ever preyed or are preyed on are under certain normal
circumstances obliterative" (that is, cryptic camouflage), and that "Not one 'mimicry' mark,
not one 'warning color'... nor any 'sexually selected' color, exists anywhere in the world
where there is not every reason to believe it the very best conceivable device for the
concealment of its wearer",[12][13] and using paintings such as Peacock in the Woods (1907)
to reinforce his argument.[14] Thayer was roundly mocked for these views by critics
including Teddy Roosevelt.[15]
The English zoologist Hugh Cott's 1940 book Adaptive Coloration in Animals corrected
Thayer's errors, sometimes sharply: "Thus we find Thayer straining the theory to a fantastic
extreme in an endeavour to make it cover almost every type of coloration in the animal
kingdom."[16] Cott built on Thayer's discoveries, developing a comprehensive view of
camouflage based on "maximum disruptive contrast", countershading and hundreds of
examples. The book explained how disruptive camouflage worked, using streaks of boldly
contrasting colour, paradoxically making objects less visible by breaking up their
outlines.[17] While Cott was more systematic and balanced in his view than Thayer, and did
include some experimental evidence on the effectiveness of camouflage,[18] his 500-page
textbook was, like Thayer's, mainly a natural historynarrative which illustrated theories with
examples.[19]
Camouflage is a soft-tissue feature that is rarely preserved in the fossil record, but rare
fossilised skin samples from the Cretaceousperiod show that some marine reptiles were
countershaded. The skins, pigmented with dark-coloured eumelanin, reveal that
both leatherback turtles and mosasaurs had dark backs and light bellies.[20]

Principles[edit]

Draco dussumieri uses several methods of camouflage, including disruptive coloration, lying flat, and
concealment of shadow.

Further information: List of camouflage methods

Camouflage can be achieved by different methods, described below. Most of the methods
contribute to crypsis, helping to hide against a background; but mimesis and motion dazzle
protect without hiding. Methods may be applied on their own or in combination.
Crypsis[edit]
See also: Crypsis
Crypsis means making the animal or military equipment hard to see (or to detect in other
ways, such as by sound or scent). Visual crypsis can be achieved in many different ways,
such as by living underground or by being active only at night, as well as by a variety of
methods of camouflage.[21]
Resemblance to surroundings[edit]
Some animals' colours and patterns resemble a particular natural background. This is an
important component of camouflage in all environments. For instance, tree-
dwelling parakeets are mainly green; woodcocks of the forest floor are brown and speckled;
reedbed bitterns are streaked brown and buff; in each case the animal's coloration matches
the hues of its habitat.[22][23] Similarly, desert animals are almost all desert coloured in tones
of sand, buff, ochre, and brownish grey, whether they are mammals like
the gerbil or fennec fox, birds such as the desert lark or sandgrouse, or reptiles like
the skink or horned viper.[24]Military uniforms, too, generally resemble their backgrounds; for
example khaki uniforms are a muddy or dusty colour, originally chosen for service in South
Asia.[25]Many[26] moths show industrial melanism, including the peppered moth which has
coloration that blends in with tree bark.[27] The coloration of these insects evolved between
1860 and 1940 to match the changing colour of the tree trunks on which they rest, from
pale and mottled to almost black in polluted areas.[26][c] This is taken by zoologists
as evidence that camouflage is influenced by natural selection, as well as demonstrating
that it changes where necessary to resemble the local background.[26]

Black-faced sandgrouseis coloured like its desert background.

Egyptian nightjar nests in open sand with only its camouflaged plumage to protect it.

Papuan frogmouthresembles a broken branch.

Conspicuous giraffemother can defend herself, but calf hides for much of day, relying on its
camouflage.
 

Bright green katydid has the colour of fresh vegetation.

Disruptive coloration[edit]
Main article: disruptive coloration

Illustration of the principle of "maximum disruptive contrast" by Hugh Cott, 1940

Disruptive patterns use strongly contrasting, non-repeating markings such as spots or

stripes to break up the outlines of an animal or military vehicle,[28] or to conceal telltale
features, especially by masking the eyes, as in the common frog.[29] Disruptive patterns may
use more than one method to defeat visual systems such as edge detection.[30] Predators
like the leopard use disruptive camouflage to help them approach prey, while potential prey
like the Egyptian nightjar use it to avoid detection by predators.[31] Disruptive patterning is
common in military usage, both for uniforms and for military vehicles. Disruptive patterning,
however, does not always achieve crypsis on its own, as an animal or a military target may
be given away by factors like shape, shine, and shadow.[32][33][34]
The presence of bold skin markings does not in itself prove that an animal relies on
camouflage, as that depends on its behaviour.[35] For example, although giraffes have a
high contrast pattern that could be disruptive coloration, the adults are very conspicuous
when in the open. Some authors have argued that adult giraffes are cryptic, since when
standing among trees and bushes they are hard to see at even a few metres
distance.[36] However, adult giraffes move about to gain the best view of an approaching
predator, relying on their size and ability to defend themselves, even from lions, rather than
on camouflage.[36] A different explanation is implied by young giraffes being far more
vulnerable to predation than adults: more than half of all giraffe calves die within a
year,[36] and giraffe mothers hide their calves, which spend much of the time lying down in
cover while their mothers are away feeding. Since the presence of a mother nearby does
not affect survival, it is argued that young giraffes must be very well camouflaged; this is
supported by coat markings being strongly inherited.[36]
The possibility of camouflage in plants has been little studied until the late 20th century.
Leaf variegation with white spots may serve as camouflage in forest understory plants,
where there is a dappled background; leaf mottling is correlated with closed habitats.
Disruptive camouflage would have a clear evolutionary advantage in plants: they would
tend to escape from being eaten by herbivores. Another possibility is that some plants have
leaves differently coloured on upper and lower surfaces or on parts such as veins and
stalks to make green-camouflaged insects conspicuous, and thus benefit the plants by
favouring the removal of herbivores by carnivores. These hypotheses are testable.[37][38][39]
 

Leopard: a disruptively camouflaged predator

Russian T-90 battle tank painted in bold disruptive pattern of sand and green

A ptarmigan and five chicks exhibit exceptional disruptive camouflage

Jumping spider: a disruptively camouflaged invertebrate predator

Many understory plants such as the saw greenbriar, Smilax bona-nox have pale markings,
possibly disruptive camouflage.
Eliminating shadow[edit]

Camouflaged animals and vehicles are readily given away by their shapes and shadows. A flange
helps to hide the shadow and a pale fringe breaks up and averages out any shadow that remains.

Some animals, such as the horned lizards of North America, have evolved elaborate
measures to eliminate shadow. Their bodies are flattened, with the sides thinning to an
edge; the animals habitually press their bodies to the ground; and their sides are fringed
with white scales which effectively hide and disrupt any remaining areas of shadow there
may be under the edge of the body.[40] The theory that the body shape of the horned lizards
which live in open desert is adapted to minimise shadow is supported by the one species
which lacks fringe scales, the roundtail horned lizard, which lives in rocky areas and
resembles a rock. When this species is threatened, it makes itself look as much like a rock
as possible by curving its back, emphasizing its three-dimensional shape.[40] Some species
of butterflies, such as the speckled wood, Pararge aegeria, minimise their shadows when
perched by closing the wings over their backs, aligning their bodies with the sun, and tilting
to one side towards the sun, so that the shadow becomes a thin inconspicuous line rather
than a broad patch.[41] Similarly, some ground-nesting birds including the European nightjar
select a resting position facing the sun.[41] Eliminating shadow was identified as a principle
of military camouflage during the Second World War.[42]

Three countershaded and cryptically coloured ibexalmost invisible in the Israeli desert

"Shape, shine, shadow" make these 'camouflaged' military vehicles easily visible.
 

The flat-tail horned lizard's body is flattened and fringed to minimise its shadow.

Camouflage netting is draped away from a military vehicle to reduce its shadow.

A caterpillar's fringe of bristles conceals its shadow.

Distraction[edit]

Conspicuous white distractive markings of bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) take a predator's

attention from recognising the prey.

Main article: Distractive camouflage

Many prey animals have conspicuous high-contrast markings which paradoxically attract
the predator's gaze.[d][43] These distractive markings serve as camouflage by distracting the
predator's attention from recognising the prey as a whole, for example by keeping the
predator from identifying the prey's outline. Experimentally, search times for blue
tits increased when artificial prey had distractive markings.[44]
Self-decoration[edit]
Main article: Self-decoration
Some animals actively seek to hide by decorating themselves with materials such as twigs,
sand, or pieces of shell from their environment, to break up their outlines, to conceal the
features of their bodies, and to match their backgrounds. For example, a caddis fly larva
builds a decorated case and lives almost entirely inside it; a decorator crab covers its back
with seaweed, sponges and stones.[21]The nymph of the predatory masked bug uses its
hind legs and a 'tarsal fan' to decorate its body with sand or dust. There are two layers of
bristles (trichomes) over the body. On these, the nymph spreads an inner layer of fine
particles and an outer layer of coarser particles. The camouflage may conceal the bug from
both predators and prey.[45][46]
Similar principles can be applied for military purposes, for instance when a sniper wears
a ghillie suit designed to be further camouflaged by decoration with materials such as tufts
of grass from the sniper's immediate environment. Such suits were used as early as 1916,
the British army having adopted "coats of motley hue and stripes of paint" for
snipers.[47] Cott takes the example of the larva of the blotched emerald moth, which fixes a
screen of fragments of leaves to its specially hooked bristles, to argue that military
camouflage uses the same method, pointing out that the "device is ... essentially the same
as one widely practised during the Great War for the concealment, not of caterpillars, but of
caterpillar-tractors, [gun] battery positions, observation posts and so forth."[48][49]

This decorator crab has covered its body with sponges.

Sniper in a Ghillie suit with plant materials

Crab camouflaged with algae


 Reduvius personatus, masked hunter bug nymph, camouflaged with sand grains

Soviet tanks under netting dressed with vegetation, 1938

Cryptic behaviour[edit]

The leafy sea dragon sways like seaweeds to reinforce its camouflage.

Movement catches the eye of prey animals on the lookout for predators, and of predators
hunting for prey.[50] Most methods of crypsis therefore also require suitable cryptic
behaviour, such as lying down and keeping still to avoid being detected, or in the case of
stalking predators such as the tiger, moving with extreme stealth, both slowly and quietly,
watching its prey for any sign they are aware of its presence.[50] As an example of the
combination of behaviours and other methods of crypsis involved, young giraffes seek
cover, lie down, and keep still, often for hours until their mothers return; their skin pattern
blends with the pattern of the vegetation, while the chosen cover and lying position together
hide the animals' shadows.[36] The flat-tail horned lizard similarly relies on a combination of
methods: it is adapted to lie flat in the open desert, relying on stillness, its cryptic coloration,
and concealment of its shadow to avoid being noticed by predators.[51] In the ocean,
the leafy sea dragon sways mimetically, like the seaweeds amongst which it rests, as if
rippled by wind or water currents.[52] Swaying is seen also in some insects, like Macleay's
Spectre stick insect, Extatosoma tiaratum. The behaviour may be motion crypsis,
preventing detection, or motion masquerade, promoting misclassification (as something
other than prey), or a combination of the two.[53]
Motion camouflage[edit]
Main article: Motion camouflage

Comparison of motion camouflage and classical pursuit

Most forms of camouflage are ineffective when the camouflaged animal or object moves,
because the motion is easily seen by the observing predator, prey or enemy.[54] However,
insects such as hoverflies[55] and dragonflies use motion camouflage: the hoverflies to
approach possible mates, and the dragonflies to approach rivals when defending
territories.[56][57] Motion camouflage is achieved by moving so as to stay on a straight line
between the target and a fixed point in the landscape; the pursuer thus appears not to
move, but only to loom larger in the target's field of vision.[58] The same method can be used
for military purposes, for example by missiles to minimise their risk of detection by an
enemy.[55]However, missile engineers, and animals such as bats, use the method mainly for
its efficiency rather than camouflage.[59]

Male Syritta pipienshoverflies use motion camouflage to approach females

Male Australian Emperordragonflies use motion camouflage to approach rivals.

Fish and frog melanophore cells change colour by moving pigment-containing bodies.

Changeable skin coloration[edit]

Further information: Snow camouflage

Animals such as chameleon, frog,[60] flatfish such as the peacock flounder, squid
and octopusactively change their skin patterns and colours using
special chromatophore cells to resemble their current background, or, as in most
chameleons, for signalling.[61] However, Smith's dwarf chameleon does use active colour
change for camouflage.[62]
Four frames of the same peacock flounder taken a few minutes apart, showing its ability to match its
coloration to the environment

Each chromatophore contains pigment of only one colour. In fish and frogs, colour change
is mediated by the type of chromatophores known as melanophoresthat contain dark
pigment. A melanophore is star-shaped; it contains many small pigmented organelleswhich
can be dispersed throughout the cell, or aggregated near its centre. When the pigmented
organelles are dispersed, the cell makes a patch of the animal's skin appear dark; when
they are aggregated, most of the cell, and the animal's skin, appears light. In frogs, the
change is controlled relatively slowly, mainly by hormones. In fish, the change is controlled
by the brain, which sends signals directly to the chromatophores, as well as producing
hormones.[63]
The skins of cephalopods such as the octopus contain complex units, each consisting of a
chromatophore with surrounding muscle and nerve cells.[64] The cephalopod chromatophore
has all its pigment grains in a small elastic sac, which can be stretched or allowed to relax
under the control of the brain to vary its opacity. By controlling chromatophores of different
colours, cephalopods can rapidly change their skin patterns and colours.[65][66]
On a longer timescale, animals like the Arctic hare, Arctic fox, stoat, and rock
ptarmigan have snow camouflage, changing their coat colour (by moulting and growing
new fur or feathers) from brown or grey in the summer to white in the winter; the Arctic fox
is the only species in the dog family to do so.[67] However, Arctic hares which live in the far
north of Canada, where summer is very short, remain white year-round.[67][68]
The principle of varying coloration either rapidly or with the changing seasons has military
applications. Active camouflage could in theory make use of both dynamic colour change
and counterillumination. Simple methods such as changing uniforms and repainting
vehicles for winter have been in use since World War II. In 2011, BAE Systems announced
their Adaptiv infrared camouflage technology. It uses about 1000 hexagonal panels to
cover the sides of a tank. The Peltier plate panels are heated and cooled to match either
the vehicle's surroundings (crypsis), or an object such as a car (mimesis), when viewed in
infrared.[69][70][71]

Rock ptarmigan, changing colour in springtime. The male is still mostly in winter plumage
 

Norwegian volunteer soldiers in Winter War, 1940, with white camouflage overalls over their
uniforms

Arctic hares in the low arctic change from brown to white in winter

Snow-camouflaged German Marder IIIjagdpanzer and white-overalled crew and infantry in

Russia, 1943

Veiled chameleon, Chamaeleo calyptratus, changes colour mainly in relation to mood and for
signalling.

Adaptiv infrared camouflage lets an armoured vehicle mimic a car.

Countershading[edit]
Main article: Countershading
Countershading acts as a form of camouflage by 'painting out' the self-shadowing of the body or
object. The result is a 'flat' appearance, instead of the 'solid' appearance of the body before
countershading.

Countershading uses graded colour to counteract the effect of self-shadowing, creating an

illusion of flatness. Self-shadowing makes an animal appear darker below than on top,
grading from light to dark; countershading 'paints in' tones which are darkest on top, lightest
below, making the countershaded animal nearly invisible against a suitable
background.[72] Thayer observed that "Animals are painted by Nature, darkest on those
parts which tend to be most lighted by the sky's light, and vice versa". Accordingly, the
principle of countershading is sometimes called Thayer's Law.[73] Countershading is widely
used by terrestrial animals, such as gazelles[74] and grasshoppers; marine animals, such
as sharks and dolphins;[75] and birds, such as snipe and dunlin.[76][77]
Countershading is less often used for military camouflage, despite Second World War
experiments that showed its effectiveness. English zoologist Hugh Cott encouraged the use
of methods including countershading, but despite his authority on the subject, failed to
persuade the British authorities.[78] Soldiers often wrongly viewed camouflage netting as a
kind of invisibility cloak, and they had to be taught to look at camouflage practically, from an
enemy observer's viewpoint.[79][80] At the same time in Australia, zoologist William John
Dakin advised soldiers to copy animals' methods, using their instincts for wartime
camouflage.[81]
The term countershading has a second meaning unrelated to "Thayer's Law". It is that the
upper and undersides of animals such as sharks, and of some military aircraft, are different
colours to match the different backgrounds when seen from above or from below. Here the
camouflage consists of two surfaces, each with the simple function of providing
concealment against a specific background, such as a bright water surface or the sky. The
body of a shark or the fuselage of an aircraft is not gradated from light to dark to appear flat
when seen from the side. The camouflage methods used are the matching of background
colour and pattern, and disruption of outlines.[74]

Countershaded Dorcas gazelle, Gazella dorcas

 

Countershaded grey reef shark, Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos

Countershaded ship and submarine in Thayer's1902 patent application

Two model birds painted by Thayer: painted in background colours on the left, countershaded
and nearly invisible on the right

Countershaded Focke-Wulf Fw 190D-9

Counter-illumination[edit]

Principle of counter-illumination in the firefly squid

Main article: Counter-illumination
Counter-illumination means producing light to match a background that is brighter than an
animal's body or military vehicle; it is a form of active camouflage. It is notably used by
some species of squid, such as the firefly squid and the midwater squid. The latter has
light-producing organs (photophores) scattered all over its underside; these create a
sparkling glow that prevents the animal from appearing as a dark shape when seen from
below.[82]Counterillumination camouflage is the likely function of the bioluminescence of
many marine organisms, though light is also produced to attract[83] or to detect prey[84] and
for signalling.
Counterillumination has rarely been used for military purposes. "Diffused lighting
camouflage" was trialled by Canada's National Research Council during the Second World
War. It involved projecting light on to the sides of ships to match the faint glow of the night
sky, requiring awkward external platforms to support the lamps.[85] The Canadian concept
was refined in the American Yehudi lights project, and trialled in aircraft including B-24
Liberators and naval Avengers.[86] The planes were fitted with forward-pointing lamps
automatically adjusted to match the brightness of the night sky.[85] This enabled them to
approach much closer to a target – within 3,000 yards (2,700 metres) – before being
seen.[86] Counterillumination was made obsolete by radar, and neither diffused lighting
camouflage nor Yehudi lights entered active service.[85]

HMS Largs by night with incomplete diffused lighting camouflage, 1942, set to maximum
brightness

Bulwark of HMS Largsshowing 4 (of about 60) diffused lighting fittings, 2 lifted, 2 deployed

Forward-looking Yehudi lights on Grumman TBM Avenger torpedo bomber.

 

Yehudi Lights raise the average brightness of the plane from a dark shape to the same as the
sky.
Transparency[edit]

Many animals of the open sea, like this Aurelia labiatajellyfish, are largely transparent.

Many marine animals that float near the surface are highly transparent, giving them almost
perfect camouflage.[87] However, transparency is difficult for bodies made of materials that
have different refractive indices from seawater. Some marine animals such as jellyfish have
gelatinous bodies, composed mainly of water; their thick mesogloea is acellular and highly
transparent. This conveniently makes them buoyant, but it also makes them large for their
muscle mass, so they cannot swim fast, making this form of camouflage a costly trade-off
with mobility.[87] Gelatinous planktonic animals are between 50 and 90 percent transparent.
A transparency of 50 percent is enough to make an animal invisible to a predator such
as cod at a depth of 650 metres (2,130 ft); better transparency is required for invisibility in
shallower water, where the light is brighter and predators can see better. For example, a
cod can see prey that are 98 percent transparent in optimal lighting in shallow water.
Therefore, sufficient transparency for camouflage is more easily achieved in deeper
waters.[87]

Glass frogs like Hyalinobatrachium uranoscopum use partial transparency for camouflage in the dim
light of the rainforest.
Some tissues such as muscles can be made transparent, provided either they are very thin
or organised as regular layers or fibrils that are small compared to the wavelength of visible
light. A familiar example is the transparency of the lens of the vertebrate eye, which is
made of the protein crystallin, and the vertebrate cornea which is made of the
protein collagen.[87] Other structures cannot be made transparent, notably the retinas or
equivalent light-absorbing structures of eyes – they must absorb light to be able to function.
The camera-type eye of vertebrates and cephalopods must be completely
opaque.[87] Finally, some structures are visible for a reason, such as to lure prey. For
example, the nematocysts (stinging cells) of the transparent siphonophore Agalma
okenii resemble small copepods.[87] Examples of transparent marine animals include a wide
variety of larvae, including radiata (coelenterates),
siphonophores, salps (floating tunicates), gastropod molluscs, polychaeteworms, many
shrimplike crustaceans, and fish; whereas the adults of most of these are opaque and
pigmented, resembling the seabed or shores where they live.[87][88] Adult comb jellies and
jellyfish obey the rule, often being mainly transparent. Cott suggests this follows the more
general rule that animals resemble their background: in a transparent medium like
seawater, that means being transparent.[88]The small Amazon river fish Microphilypnus
amazonicus and the shrimps it associates with, Pseudopalaemon gouldingi, are so
transparent as to be "almost invisible"; further, these species appear to select whether to
be transparent or more conventionally mottled (disruptively patterned) according to the
local background in the environment.[89]
Silvering[edit]

The adult herring, Clupea harengus, is a typical silvered fish of medium depths, camouflaged by
reflection.

The herring's reflectors are nearly vertical for camouflage from the side.

Where transparency cannot be achieved, it can be imitated effectively by silvering to make

an animal's body highly reflective. At medium depths at sea, light comes from above, so a
mirror oriented vertically makes animals such as fish invisible from the side. Most fish in the
upper ocean such as sardine and herring are camouflaged by silvering.[90]
The marine hatchetfish is extremely flattened laterally, leaving the body just millimetres
thick, and the body is so silvery as to resemble aluminium foil. The mirrors consist of
microscopic structures similar to those used to provide structural coloration: stacks of
between 5 and 10 crystals of guaninespaced about ¼ of a wavelength apart to interfere
constructively and achieve nearly 100 per cent reflection. In the deep waters that the
hatchetfish lives in, only blue light with a wavelength of 500 nanometres percolates down
and needs to be reflected, so mirrors 125 nanometres apart provide good camouflage.[90]
In fish such as the herring which live in shallower water, the mirrors must reflect a mixture
of wavelengths, and the fish accordingly has crystal stacks with a range of different
spacings. A further complication for fish with bodies that are rounded in cross-section is
that the mirrors would be ineffective if laid flat on the skin, as they would fail to reflect
horizontally. The overall mirror effect is achieved with many small reflectors, all oriented
vertically.[90] Silvering is found in other marine animals as well as fish. The cephalopods,
including squid, octopus and cuttlefish, have multi-layer mirrors made of protein rather than
guanine.[90]
Mimesis[edit]
Further information: Mimicry and Cryptic aggressive mimicry
In mimesis (also called masquerade), the camouflaged object looks like something else
which is of no special interest to the observer.[91] Mimesis is common in prey animals, for
example when a peppered moth caterpillar mimics a twig, or a grasshopper mimics a dry
leaf.[92] It is also found in nest structures; some eusocial wasps, such as Leipomeles
dorsata, build a nest envelope in patterns that mimic the leaves surrounding the nest.[93]
Mimesis is also employed by some predators and parasites to lure their prey. For example,
a flower mantis mimics a particular kind of flower, such as an orchid.[94] This tactic has
occasionally been used in warfare, for example with heavily armed Q-ships disguised as
merchant ships.[95][96][97]
The common cuckoo, a brood parasite, provides examples of mimesis both in the adult and
in the egg. The female lays her eggs in nests of other, smaller species of bird, one per nest.
The female mimics a sparrowhawk. The resemblance is sufficient to make small birds take
action to avoid the apparent predator. The female cuckoo then has time to lay her egg in
their nest without being seen to do so.[98] The cuckoo's egg itself mimics the eggs of the
host species, reducing its chance of being rejected.[99][100]

Peppered mothcaterpillars mimic twigs

Flower mantis lures its insect prey by mimicking a Phalaenopsis orchid blossom
 

Hooded grasshopper Teratodus monticollis, superbly mimics a leaf with a bright orange border

This grasshopper hides from predators by mimicking a dry leaf

WWII tank concealed in Operation Bertram by mimicking a truck

Armed WW1 Q-ship lured enemy submarines by mimicking a merchantman

Cuckoo adult mimics sparrowhawk, giving female time to lay eggs parasitically
 

Cuckoo eggs mimicking smaller eggs, in this case of reed warbler

Wrap-around spider Dolophones mimicking a stick

Motion dazzle[edit]

The zebra's bold pattern may induce motion dazzle in observers

Most forms of camouflage are made ineffective by movement: a deer or grasshopper may
be highly cryptic when motionless, but instantly seen when it moves. But one method,
motion dazzle, requires rapidly moving bold patterns of contrasting stripes.[101] Motion
dazzle may degrade predators' ability to estimate the prey's speed and direction accurately,
giving the prey an improved chance of escape.[102] Motion dazzle distorts speed perception
and is most effective at high speeds; stripes can also distort perception of size (and so,
perceived range to the target). As of 2011, motion dazzle had been proposed for military
vehicles, but never applied.[101] Since motion dazzle patterns would make animals more
difficult to locate accurately when moving, but easier to see when stationary, there would
be an evolutionary trade-off between motion dazzle and crypsis.[102]
An animal that is commonly thought to be dazzle-patterned is the zebra. The bold stripes of
the zebra have been claimed to be disruptive camouflage,[103] background-blending and
countershading.[104][e] After many years in which the purpose of the coloration was
disputed,[105] an experimental study by Tim Caro suggested in 2012 that the pattern reduces
the attractiveness of stationary models to biting flies such as horseflies and tsetse
flies.[106][107] However, a simulation study by Martin How and Johannes Zanker in 2014
suggests that when moving, the stripes may confuse observers, such as mammalian
predators and biting insects, by two visual illusions: the wagon-wheel effect, where the
perceived motion is inverted, and the barberpole illusion, where the perceived motion is in a
wrong direction.[108]

Applications[edit]
Military[edit]
Main articles: Military camouflage and List of military clothing camouflage patterns

Before 1800[edit]

Roman ships, depicted on a 3rd-century AD sarcophagus

Ship camouflage was occasionally used in ancient times. Philostratus (c. 172–250 AD)
wrote in his Imagines that Mediterranean pirate ships could be painted blue-gray for
concealment.[109]Vegetius (c. 360–400 AD) says that "Venetian blue" (sea green) was used
in the Gallic Wars, when Julius Caesar sent his speculatoria navigia (reconnaissance
boats) to gather intelligence along the coast of Britain; the ships were painted entirely in
bluish-green wax, with sails, ropes and crew the same colour.[110] There is little evidence of
military use of camouflage on land before 1800, but two unusual ceramics show men
in Peru's Mochicaculture from before 500 AD, hunting birds with blowpipes which are fitted
with a kind of shield near the mouth, perhaps to conceal the hunters' hands and
faces.[111] Another early source is a 15th-century French manuscript, The Hunting Book of
Gaston Phebus, showing a horse pulling a cart which contains a hunter armed with a
crossbow under a cover of branches, perhaps serving as a hide for shooting
game.[112] Jamaican Maroons are said to have used plant materials as camouflage in
the First Maroon War (c. 1655–1740).[113]
19th-century origins[edit]

Green-jacketed rifleman firing Baker rifle1803

The development of military camouflage was driven by the increasing range and accuracy
of infantry firearms in the 19th century. In particular the replacement of the
inaccurate musket with weapons such as the Baker rifle made personal concealment in
battle essential. Two Napoleonic War skirmishing units of the British Army, the 95th Rifle
Regiment and the 60th Rifle Regiment, were the first to adopt camouflage in the form of
a rifle green jacket, while the Line regiments continued to wear scarlet tunics.[114] A
contemporary study in 1800 by the English artist and soldier Charles Hamilton
Smith provided evidence that grey uniforms were less visible than green ones at a range of
150 yards.[115]
In the American Civil War, rifle units such as the 1st United States Sharp Shooters (in
the Federal army) similarly wore green jackets while other units wore more conspicuous
colours.[116] The first British Army unit to adopt khaki uniforms was the Corps of
Guides at Peshawar, when Sir Harry Lumsden and his second in command, William
Hodson introduced a "drab" uniform in 1848.[117] Hodson wrote that it would be more
appropriate for the hot climate, and help make his troops "invisible in a land of
dust".[118] Later they improvised by dyeing cloth locally. Other regiments in India soon
adopted the khaki uniform, and by 1896 khaki drill uniform was used everywhere outside
Europe;[119] by the Second Boer War six years later it was used throughout the British
Army.[120]
First World War[edit]

Iron observation post camouflaged as a tree by Cubist painter André Mare, 1916

Further information: list of camoufleurs

In the First World War, the French army formed a camouflage corps, led by Lucien-Victor
Guirand de Scévola,[121][122] employing artists known as camoufleurs to create schemes such
as tree observation posts and covers for guns. Other armies soon followed
them.[123][124][125] The term camouflage probably comes from camoufler, a Parisian slang term
meaning to disguise, and may have been influenced by camouflet, a French term
meaning smoke blown in someone's face.[126][127] The English zoologist John Graham Kerr,
artist Solomon J. Solomon and the American artist Abbott Thayer led attempts to introduce
scientific principles of countershading and disruptive patterning into military camouflage,
with limited success.[128][129]
Ship camouflage was introduced in the early 20th century as the range of naval guns
increased, with ships painted grey all over.[130][131] In April 1917, when German U-boats were
sinking many British ships with torpedoes, the marine artist Norman
Wilkinson devised dazzle camouflage, which paradoxically made ships more visible but
harder to target.[132] In Wilkinson's own words, dazzle was designed "not for low visibility, but
in such a way as to break up her form and thus confuse a submarine officer as to the
course on which she was heading".[133]
 

USS West Mahomet in dazzle camouflage

Siege howitzercamouflaged against observation from the air, 1917

Austro-Hungarian ski patrol in two-part snow uniforms with improvised head camouflage on
Italian front, 1915-1918
Second World War[edit]
Further information: list of camoufleurs, World War II ship camouflage measures of the
United States Navy, and German World War II camouflage patterns
In the Second World War, the zoologist Hugh Cott, a protégé of Kerr, worked to persuade
the British army to use more effective camouflage methods, including countershading, but,
like Kerr and Thayer in the First World War, with limited success. For example, he painted
two rail-mounted coastal guns, one in conventional style, one countershaded. In aerial
photographs, the countershaded gun was essentially invisible.[134] The power of aerial
observation and attack led every warring nation to camouflage targets of all types.
The Soviet Union's Red Army created the comprehensive doctrine of Maskirovka for
military deception, including the use of camouflage.[135] For example, during the Battle of
Kursk, General Katukov, the commander of the Soviet 1st Tank Army, remarked that the
enemy "did not suspect that our well-camouflaged tanks were waiting for him. As we later
learned from prisoners, we had managed to move our tanks forward unnoticed". The tanks
were concealed in previously prepared defensive emplacements, with only their turrets
above ground level.[136] In the air, Second World War fighters were often painted in ground
colours above and sky colours below, attempting two different camouflage schemes for
observers above and below.[137] Bombers and night fighters were often black,[138] while
maritime reconnaissance planes were usually white, to avoid appearing as dark shapes
against the sky.[139] For ships, dazzle camouflage was mainly replaced with plain grey in the
Second World War, though experimentation with colour schemes continued.[130]
As in the First World War, artists were pressed into service; for example, the surrealist
painter Roland Penrose became a lecturer at the newly founded Camouflage Development
and Training Centre at Farnham Castle,[140] writing the practical Home Guard Manual of
Camouflage.[141] The film-maker Geoffrey Barkas ran the Middle East Command
Camouflage Directorate during the 1941–1942 war in the Western Desert, including the
successful deception of Operation Bertram. Hugh Cott was chief instructor; the artist
camouflage officers, who called themselves camoufleurs, included Steven Sykes and Tony
Ayrton.[142][143] In Australia, artists were also prominent in the Sydney Camouflage Group,
formed under the chairmanship of Professor William John Dakin, a zoologist from Sydney
University. Max Dupain, Sydney Ure Smith, and William Dobell were among the members
of the group, which worked at Bankstown Airport, RAAF Base Richmond and Garden
Island Dockyard.[144]

Maritime patrol Catalina, painted white to minimise visibility against the sky

1937 summer variant of Waffen SS FlecktarnPlane tree pattern

USS Duluth in naval camouflage Measure 32, Design 11a, one of many dazzle schemes used
on warships


 A Spitfire's underside 'azure' paint scheme, meant to hide it against the sky

A Luftwaffe aircraft hangar built to resemble a street of village houses, Belgium, 1944

Red Army soldiers in the Battle of Stalingrad in snow camouflage overalls, January 1943
After 1945[edit]
Further information: List of camouflage patterns

Camouflage has been used to protect military equipment such as vehicles,

guns, ships,[130] aircraft and buildings[145] as well as individual soldiers and their
positions.[146] Vehicle camouflage methods begin with paint, which offers at best only limited
effectiveness. Other methods for stationary land vehicles include covering with improvised
materials such as blankets and vegetation, and erecting nets, screens and soft covers
which may suitably reflect, scatter or absorb near infrared and radar waves.[147][148][149] Some
military textiles and vehicle camouflage paints also reflect infrared to help provide
concealment from night vision devices.[150] After the Second World War, radar made
camouflage generally less effective, though coastal boats are sometimes painted like land
vehicles.[130]Aircraft camouflage too came to be seen as less important because of radar,
and aircraft of different air forces, such as the Royal Air Force's Lightning, were often
uncamouflaged.[151]
Many camouflaged textile patterns have been developed to suit the need to match combat
clothing to different kinds of terrain (such as woodland, snow, and desert).[152] The design of
a pattern effective in all terrains has proved elusive.[153][154][155] The American Universal
Camouflage Pattern of 2004 attempted to suit all environments, but was withdrawn after a
few years of service.[156] Terrain-specific patterns have sometimes been developed but are
ineffective in other terrains.[157] The problem of making a pattern that works at different
ranges has been solved with multiscale designs, often with a pixellated appearance and
designed digitally, that provide a fractal-like range of patch sizes so they appear
disruptively coloured both at close range and at a distance.[158] The first genuinely digital
camouflage pattern was the Canadian Disruptive Pattern (CADPAT), issued to the army in
2002, soon followed by the American Marine pattern (MARPAT). A pixellated appearance
is not essential for this effect, though it is simpler to design and to print.[159][160]
 

CADPAT was the first pixellated digital camouflage pattern to be issued, in 2002.

British Disruptive Pattern Material, issued to special forces in 1963 and universally by 1968

2007 2-colour snow variant of Finnish Defence Forces M05 pattern

Main (4-colour woodland) variant of ChinesePeople's Liberation ArmyType 99 pattern, c. 2006

Modern German Flecktarn1990, developed from a 1938 pattern, a non-digital pattern which
works at different distances
 

US "Chocolate Chip" Six-Color Desert Patterndeveloped in 1962, widely used in Gulf War
Hunting[edit]

A hide used in field sports

Hunters of game have long made use of camouflage in the form of materials such as
animal skins, mud, foliage, and green or brown clothing to enable them to approach wary
game animals.[161] Field sportssuch as driven grouse shooting conceal hunters in hides (also
called blinds or shooting butts).[162] Modern hunting clothing makes use of fabrics that
provide a disruptive camouflage pattern; for example, in 1986 the hunter Bill Jordan created
cryptic clothing for hunters, printed with images of specific kinds of vegetation such as
grass and branches.[163]
Civil structures[edit]

Cellphone tower disguised as a tree

Camouflage is occasionally used to make built structures less conspicuous: for example,
in South Africa, towers carrying cell telephone antennae are sometimes camouflaged as tall
trees with plastic branches, in response to "resistance from the community". Since this
method is costly (a figure of three times the normal cost is mentioned), alternative forms of
camouflage can include using neutral colours or familiar shapes such as cylinders and
flagpoles. Conspicuousness can also be reduced by siting masts near, or on, other
structures.[164]
Automotive manufacturers often use patterns to disguise upcoming products. This
camouflage is designed to obfuscate the vehicle's visual lines, and is used along with
padding, covers, and decals. The patterns' purpose is to prevent visual observation (and to
a lesser degree photography), that would subsequently enable reproduction of the vehicle's
form factors.[165]
Fashion, art and society[edit]

The "dazzle ball" held by the Chelsea Arts Club, 1919

Military camouflage patterns influenced fashion and art from the time of the First World War
onwards. Gertrude Stein recalled the cubist artist Pablo Picasso's reaction in around 1915:
I very well remember at the beginning of the war being with Picasso on the boulevard
Raspail when the first camouflaged truck passed. It was at night, we had heard of
camouflage but we had not seen it and Picasso amazed looked at it and then cried out, yes
it is we who made it, that is cubism.

— Gertrude Stein in From Picasso (1938)[166]

In 1919, the attendants of a "dazzle ball", hosted by the Chelsea Arts Club, wore dazzle-
patterned black and white clothing. The ball influenced fashion and art via postcards and
magazine articles.[167] The Illustrated London News announced:[167][168]
The scheme of decoration for the great fancy dress ball given by the Chelsea Arts Club at
the Albert Hall, the other day, was based on the principles of "Dazzle", the method of
"camouflage" used during the war in the painting of ships ... The total effect was brilliant
and fantastic.
More recently, fashion designers have often used camouflage fabric for its striking designs,
its "patterned disorder" and its symbolism.[169] Camouflage clothing can be worn largely for
its symbolic significance rather than for fashion, as when, during the late 1960s and early
1970s in the United States, anti-war protestors often ironically wore military clothing during
demonstrations against the American involvement in the Vietnam War.[170]
Modern artists such as Ian Hamilton Finlay have used camouflage to reflect on war. His
1973 screenprint of a tank camouflaged in a leaf pattern, Arcadia, is described by
the Tate as drawing "an ironic parallel between this idea of a natural paradise and the
camouflage patterns on a tank".[171] The title refers to the Utopian Arcadia of poetry and art,
and the memento mori Latin phrase Et in Arcadia ego which recurs in Hamilton Finlay's
work. In science fiction, Camouflage is a novel about shapeshifting alien beings by Joe
Haldeman.[172] The word is used more figuratively in works of literature such as Thaisa
Frank's collection of stories of love and loss, A Brief History of Camouflage.[173]
 

André Mare's Cubistsketch, c. 1917, of a 280 calibre gun illustrates the interplay of art and war,
as artists like Mare contributed their skills as wartime camoufleurs.

Ian Hamilton Finlay's 1973 Arcadia screenprint uses camouflage in modern artto contrast leafy
peace and military hardware.

Camouflage clothing in an anti-war protest, 1971

A camouflage skirt as a fashion item, 2007

Notes[edit]
1. Jump up^ A letter from Alfred Russel Wallace to Darwin of March 8, 1868 mentioned such
colour change: "Would you like to see the specimens of pupæ of butterflies whose colours
have changed in accordance with the colour of the surrounding objects? They are very
curious, and Mr. T. W. Wood, who bred them, would, I am sure, be delighted to bring them
to show you."[5]
2. Jump up^ Cott explains Beddard's observation as a coincident disruptive pattern.[9]
3. Jump up^ Before 1860, unpolluted tree trunks were often covered in pale lichens; polluted
trunks were bare, and often nearly black.
4. Jump up^ These distraction markings are sometimes called dazzle markings, but have
nothing to do with motion dazzle or wartime dazzle painting.
 5. Jump up^ The belly of the zebra is white, and the dark stripes narrow towards the belly, so
the animal is certainly countershaded, but this does not prove that the main function of the
stripes is camouflage.

References[edit]
1. ^ Jump up to:a b Aristotle (c. 350 BC). Historia Animalium. IX, 622a: 2–10. Cited in Borrelli,
Luciana; Gherardi, Francesca; Fiorito, Graziano (2006). A catalogue of body patterning in
Cephalopoda. Firenze University Press. ISBN 978-88-8453-377-7. Abstract
2. Jump up^ Darwin 1859.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b Darwin 1859, p. 84.
4. Jump up^ Poulton 1890, p. 111.
5. Jump up^ Alfred Russel Wallace (8 March 1868). "Alfred Russel Wallace Letters and
Reminiscences By James Marchant". Darwin Online. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
6. Jump up^ Poulton 1890, p. Fold-out after p. 339.
7. Jump up^ Beddard 1892, p. 83.
8. Jump up^ Beddard 1892, p. 87.
9. Jump up^ Cott 1940, pp. 74–75.
10. Jump up^ Beddard 1892, p. 122.
11. Jump up^ Thayer 1909.
12. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, p. 77.
13. Jump up^ Thayer 1909, pp. 5, 16.
14. Jump up^ Rothenberg 2011, pp. 132–133.
15. Jump up^ Wright, Patrick (23 June 2005). "Cubist Slugs. Review of DPM: Disruptive
Pattern Material; An Encyclopedia of Camouflage: Nature – Military – Culture by Roy
Behrens". London Review of Books. 27(12): 16–20.
16. Jump up^ Cott 1940, pp. 172–173.
17. Jump up^ Cott 1940, pp. 47–67.
18. Jump up^ Cott 1940, pp. 174–186.
19. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, pp. 153–155.
20. Jump up^ Lindgren, Johan; Sjövall, Peter; Carney, Ryan M.; Udval, Per; Gren, Johan A.;
Dyke, Gareth; Schultz, Bo Pagh; Shawkey, Matthew D.; Barnes, Kenneth R.; Polcyn,
Michael J. (February 2014). "Skin pigmentation provides evidence of convergent melanism
in extinct marine reptiles". Nature. 506 (7489): 484–
488. doi:10.1038/nature12899. PMID 24402224.
21. ^ Jump up to:a b Forbes 2009, pp. 50–51 and passim.
22. Jump up^ Cott 1940, pp. 5–19.
23. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, p. 51.
24. Jump up^ Cott 1940, pp. 5–6.
25. Jump up^ Newark 2007, pp. 45–46.
26. ^ Jump up to:a b c Cott 1940, p. 17.
27. Jump up^ Still, J. (1996). Collins Wild Guide: Butterflies and Moths. HarperCollins.
p. 158. ISBN 0-00-220010-4.
28. Jump up^ Barbosa, A.; Mathger, L. M.; Buresch, K. C.; Kelly, J.; Chubb, C.; Chiao, C.;
Hanlon R. T. (2008). "Cuttlefish camouflage: The effects of substrate contrast and size in
evoking uniform, mottle or disruptive body patterns". Vision Research. 48 (10): 1242–
1253. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2008.02.011. PMID 18395241.
29. Jump up^ Cott 1940, pp. 83–91.
30. Jump up^ Osorio, Daniel; Cuthill, Innes C. "Camouflage and perceptual organization in the
animal kingdom" (PDF). Retrieved 25 October2013.
31. Jump up^ Stevens, M.; Cuthill, I. C.; Windsor, A. M. M.; Walker, H. J. (7 October
2006). "Disruptive contrast in animal camouflage". Proceedings of the Royal Society
B. 273 (1600): 2433–2436. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3614. PMC 1634902  . PMID 16959632.
32. Jump up^ Sweet, K. M. (2006). Transportation and Cargo Security: Threats and Solutions.
Prentice Hall. p. 219. ISBN 978-0-13-170356-8.
33. Jump up^ FM 5–20: Camouflage, Basic Principles. U.S. War Department. November 2015
[1944].
34. Jump up^ Field Manual Headquarters No. 20-3. Camouflage, Concealment, and Decoys.
Department of the Army. 30 August 1999.
35. Jump up^ Roosevelt, Theodore (1911). "Revealing and concealing coloration in birds and
mammals". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 30 (Article 8): 119–
231. Roosevelt attacks Thayer on page 191, arguing that neither zebra nor giraffe are
"'adequately obliterated' by countershading or coloration pattern or anything else."
36. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Mitchell, G.; Skinner, J. D. (2003). "On the origin, evolution and
phylogeny of giraffes Giraffa camelopardalis" (PDF). Transactions of the Royal Society of
South Africa. 58 (1): 51–73. doi:10.1080/00359190309519935.
37. Jump up^ Lev-Yadun, Simcha (2003). "Why do some thorny plants resemble green
zebras?". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 224 (4): 483–489. doi:10.1016/s0022-
5193(03)00196-6.
38. Jump up^ Lev-Yadun, Simcha (2006). Teixeira da Silva, J.A., ed. Defensive coloration in
plants: a review of current ideas about anti-herbivore coloration strategies. Floriculture,
ornamental and plant biotechnology: advances and topical issues. Vol. IV. Global Science
Books. pp. 292–299. ISBN 978-4903313092.
39. Jump up^ Givnish, T. J. (1990). "Leaf Mottling: Relation to Growth Form and Leaf
Phenology and Possible Role as Camouflage". Functional Ecology. 4 (4):
463. doi:10.2307/2389314. JSTOR 2389314.
40. ^ Jump up to:a b Sherbrooke, W. C. (2003). Introduction to horned lizards of North America.
University of California Press. pp. 117–118. ISBN 978-0-520-22825-2.
41. ^ Jump up to:a b Cott 1940, pp. 104–105.
42. Jump up^ U.S. War Department (November 1943). "Principles of Camouflage". Tactical
and Technical Trends (37).
43. Jump up^ Stevens, M.; Merilaita, S. (2009). "Defining disruptive coloration and
distinguishing its functions". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences. 364 (1516): 481–488. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0216. PMC 2674077  .
44. Jump up^ Dimitrova, M.; Stobbe, N.; Schaefer, H. M.; Merilaita, S. (2009). "Concealed by
conspicuousness: distractive prey markings and backgrounds". Proceedings of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences. 276 (1663): 1905–
1910. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0052. PMC 2674505  .
45. Jump up^ Wierauch, C. (2006). "Anatomy of disguise: camouflaging structures in nymphs
of Some Reduviidae (Heteroptera)". American Museum Novitates. 3542: 1–
18. doi:10.1206/0003-0082(2006)3542[1:AODCSI]2.0.CO;2.
46. Jump up^ Bates, Mary. "Natural Bling: 6 Amazing Animals That Decorate Themselves".
National Geographic. Retrieved 11 June 2015.
47. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, pp. 102–103.
48. Jump up^ Cott 1940, p. 360.
49. Jump up^ Ruxton, Graeme D.; Stevens, Martin (1 June 2015). "The evolutionary ecology
of decorating behaviour". Biology Letters. 11(6):
20150325. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2015.0325. PMC 4528480  .
50. ^ Jump up to:a b Cott 1940, p. 141.
51. Jump up^ "What is a Horned Lizard?". hornedlizards.org. Horned Lizard Conservation
Society. Retrieved 14 November 2015.
52. Jump up^ "Leafy Sea Dragon". WWF. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
53. Jump up^ Bian, Xue; Elgar, Mark A.; Peters, Richard A. (2016). "The swaying behavior of
Extatosoma tiaratum: motion camouflage in a stick insect?". Behavioral Ecology. 27 (1): 83–
92. doi:10.1093/beheco/arv125.
54. Jump up^ Cott 1940, pp. 141–143.
55. ^ Jump up to:a b Srinivasan, M. V.; Davey, M. (1995). "Strategies for active camouflage of
motion". Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 259(1354): 19–
25. doi:10.1098/rspb.1995.0004.
56. Jump up^ Hopkin, Michael (5 June 2003). "Dragonfly flight tricks the eye". Nature.com.
Retrieved 16 January 2012.
57. Jump up^ Mizutani, A. K.; Chahl, J. S.; Srinivasan, M. V. (5 June 2003). "Insect behaviour:
Motion camouflage in dragonflies". Nature. 65(423): 604. doi:10.1038/423604a.
58. Jump up^ Glendinning, P (2004). "The mathematics of motion camouflage". Proceedings
of the Royal Society B. 271 (1538): 477–481. doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2622. PMC 1691618 
. PMID 15129957.
59. Jump up^ Ghose, K.; Horiuchi, T. K.; Krishnaprasad, P.S.; Moss, C. F.
(2006). "Echolocating Bats Use a Nearly Time-Optimal Strategy to Intercept Prey". PLoS
Biology. 4 (5): e108. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040108. PMC 1436025  . PMID 16605303.
60. Jump up^ Cott 1940, pp. 30–31.
61. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, pp. 52, 236.
62. Jump up^ Stuart-Fox, Devi; Moussalli, Adnan; Whiting, Martin J. (23 August
2008). "Predator-specific camouflage in chameleons". Biology Letters. 4 (4):
326. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2008.0173. PMC 2610148  . PMID 18492645.
63. Jump up^ Wallin, M. (2002). "Nature's Palette" (PDF). Bioscience Explained. 1 (2): 1–12.
Retrieved 17 November 2011.
64. Jump up^ Cott 1940, p. 32.
65. Jump up^ Cloney, R. A.; Florey, E. (1968). "Ultrastructure of Cephalopod Chromatophore
Organs". Zeitschrift für Zellforschung und mikroskopische Anatomie. 89 (2): 250–
280. doi:10.1007/BF00347297. PMID 5700268.
66. Jump up^ "Day Octopuses, Octopus cyanea". MarineBio Conservation Society.
Retrieved 31 January 2013.
67. ^ Jump up to:a b "Arctic Wildlife". Churchill Polar Bears. 2011. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
68. Jump up^ Hearn, Brian (20 February 2012). The Status of Arctic Hare (Lepus arcticus
bangsii) in Insular Newfoundland (PDF). Newfoundland Labrador Department of
Environment and Conservation. p. 7. Retrieved 3 February 2013.
69. Jump up^ "Tanks test infrared invisibility cloak". BBC News. 5 September 2011.
Retrieved 13 June 2012.
70. Jump up^ "Adaptiv – A Cloak of Invisibility". BAE Systems. 2011. Retrieved 14
November 2015.
71. Jump up^ "Innovation Adaptiv Car Signature". BAE Systems. 2012. Retrieved 14
November 2015.
72. Jump up^ Cott 1940, pp. 35–46.
73. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, pp. 72–73.
74. ^ Jump up to:a b Kiltie, Richard A. (January 1998). "Countershading: Universally deceptive or
deceptively universal?". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 3 (1): 21–23. doi:10.1016/0169-
5347(88)90079-1.
75. Jump up^ Cott 1940, p. 41.
76. Jump up^ Ehrlich, Paul R.; Dobkin, David S.; Wheye, Darryl (1988). "The Color of Birds".
Stanford University. Retrieved 1 February 2013.
77. Jump up^ Cott 1940, p. 40.
78. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, pp. 146–150.
79. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, p. 152.
80. Jump up^ Barkas 1952, p. 36.
81. Jump up^ Elias 2011, pp. 57–66.
82. Jump up^ "Midwater Squid, Abralia veranyi". Smithsonian National Museum of Natural
History. Retrieved 28 November 2011.
83. Jump up^ Young, Richard Edward (October 1983). "Oceanic Bioluminescence: an
Overview of General Functions". Bulletin of Marine Science. 33 (4): 829–845.
84. Jump up^ Douglas, R. H.; Mullineaux, C. W.; Partridge, J. C. (September 2000). "Long-
wave sensitivity in deep-sea stomiid dragonfish with far-red bioluminescence: evidence for a
dietary origin of the chlorophyll-derived retinal photosensitizer of Malacosteus
niger". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 355 (1401): 1269–
1272. doi:10.1098/rstb.2000.0681. PMC 1692851  . PMID 11079412.
85. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Diffused Lighting and its use in the Chaleur Bay". Naval Museum of
Quebec. Royal Canadian Navy. Archived from the original on 22 May 2013. Retrieved 3
February 2013.
86. ^ Jump up to:a b Hambling, David (9 May 2008). "Cloak of Light Makes Drone Invisible?".
Wired. Retrieved 17 June 2012.
87. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Herring 2002, pp. 190–191.
88. ^ Jump up to:a b Cott 1940, p. 6.
89. Jump up^ Carvalho, Lucélia Nobre; Zuanon, Jansen; Sazima, Ivan (April–June 2006). "The
almost invisible league: crypsis and association between minute fishes and shrimps as a
possible defence against visually hunting predators". Neotropical Ichthyology. 4 (2): 219–
224. doi:10.1590/S1679-62252006000200008.
90. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Herring 2002, pp. 192–195.
91. Jump up^ Gullan, P. J.; Cranston, P. S. (2010). The Insects (4th ed.). John Wiley,
Blackwell. pp. 512–513. ISBN 978-1-4443-3036-6.
92. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, p. 151.
93. Jump up^ Ross, Kenneth G. (1991). The Social Biology of Wasps. Cornell Press.
p. 233. ISBN 978-0-801-49906-7.
94. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, p. 134.
95. Jump up^ Beyer, Kenneth M (1999). Q-Ships versus U-Boats: America's Secret Project.
Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-044-4.
96. Jump up^ McMullen, Chris (2001). "Royal Navy 'Q' Ships". Great War Primary Documents
Archive. Retrieved 6 March 2012.
97. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, pp. 6–42.
98. Jump up^ Welbergen, J; Davies, N. B. (2011). "A parasite in wolf's clothing: hawk mimicry
reduces mobbing of cuckoos by hosts". Behavioral Ecology. 22 (3): 574–
579. doi:10.1093/beheco/arr008.
99. Jump up^ Brennand, Emma (24 March 2011). "Cuckoo in egg pattern 'arms race'". BBC
News. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
100. Jump up^ Moskát, C; Honza, M. (2002). "European Cuckoo Cuculus canorus
parasitism and host's rejection behaviour in a heavily parasitized Great Reed Warbler
Acrocephalus arundinaceus population". Ibis. 144 (4): 614–622. doi:10.1046/j.1474-
919X.2002.00085.x.
101. ^ Jump up to:a b Scott-Samuel, N. E.; Baddeley, R.; Palmer, C. E.; Cuthill, Innes
C. (June 2011). Burr, David C., ed. "Dazzle Camouflage Affects Speed Perception". PLOS
One. 6 (6): e20233. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020233. PMC 3105982  . PMID 21673797.
102. ^ Jump up to:a b Stevens, Martin; Searle, W. T. L.; Seymour, J. E.; Marshall, K. L.
A.; Ruxton, Graeme D. (25 November 2011). "Motion dazzle and camouflage as distinct
anti-predator defenses". BMC Biology. pp. 9–81. doi:10.1186/1741-7007-9-81.
103. Jump up^ Cott 1940, p. 94.
104. Jump up^ Thayer 1909, p. 136.
105. Jump up^ Caro, Tim (2009). "Contrasting coloration in terrestrial
mammals". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 364 (1516): 537–
548. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0221. PMC 2674080  . PMID 18990666.
106. Jump up^ Waage, J. K. (1981). "How the zebra got its stripes: biting flies as
selective agents in the evolution of zebra colouration". J. Entom. Soc. South Africa. 44:
351–358.
107. Jump up^ Egri, Ádám; Blahó, Miklós; Kriska ,György; Farkas, Róbert;
Gyurkovszky, Mónika; Åkesson,Susanne; Horváth, Gábor (March 2012). "Polarotactic
tabanids find striped patterns with brightness and/or polarization modulation least attractive:
an advantage of zebra stripes". The Journal of Experimental Biology. 215 (5): 736–
745. doi:10.1242/jeb.065540. PMID 22323196.
108. Jump up^ How, Martin J.; Zanker, Johannes M. (2014). "Motion camouflage
induced by zebra stripes". Zoology. 117 (3): TBA. doi:10.1016/j.zool.2013.10.004.
109. Jump up^ Casson 1995, pp. 211–212.
110. Jump up^ Casson 1995, p. 235.
111. Jump up^ Jett, Stephen C. (March 1991). "Further Information on the Geography
of the Blowgun and Its Implications for Early Transoceanic Contacts". Annals of the
Association of American Geographers. 81(1): 89–102. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8306.1991.tb01681.x. JSTOR 2563673.
112. Jump up^ Payne-Gallwey, Ralph (1903). The Crossbow. Longmans, Green. p. 11.
113. Jump up^ Saunders, Nicholas (2005). The People of the Caribbean: An
Encyclopedia of Archaeology and Traditional Culture. ABC-CLIO.
114. Jump up^ Haythornthwaite, P. (2002). British Rifleman 1797–1815. Osprey
Publishing. p. 20. ISBN 978-1841761770.
115. Jump up^ Newark 2007, p. 43.
116. Jump up^ "Killers in Green Coats". Weider History Group. 20 February 2008.
Retrieved 8 July 2012.
117. Jump up^ "Khaki Uniform 1848-49: First Introduction by Lumsden and
Hodson". Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research. 82(Winter): 341–347. 2004.
118. Jump up^ Hodson, W. S. R. (1859). Hodson, George H., ed. Twelve Years of a
Soldier's Life in India, being extracts from the letters of the late Major WSR Hodson. John
W. Parker and Son.
119. Jump up^ Barthorp, Michael (1988). The British Army on Campaign 1816–1902. 4.
Osprey Publishing. pp. 24–33. ISBN 0-85045-849-8.
120. Jump up^ Chappell, M (2003). The British Army in World War I (1). Osprey
Publishing. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-84176-399-6.
121. Jump up^ Wright, Patrick (23 June 2005). "Cubist Slugs". London Review of
Books. 27 (12): 16–20.
122. Jump up^ Guirand de Scévola, Lucien-Victor (December 1949). "Souvenir de
Camouflage (1914–1918)". Revue des Deux Mondes (in French).
123. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, pp. 104–105.
124. Jump up^ "Art of the First World War: André Mare and Leon Underwood". The Elm
at Vermezeele. Memorial-Caen. 1998. Retrieved 8 February 2013.
125. Jump up^ "Art of the First World War: André Mare". Memorial-Caen. 1998.
Retrieved 8 February 2013.
126. Jump up^ "Camouflage". Online Etymology Dictionary. 2012. Retrieved 8
February 2013.
127. Jump up^ "Camouflage, n". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
Retrieved 8 February 2013.
128. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, pp. 85–89.
129. Jump up^ For Solomon, see BBC Radio 4 programme "Warpaint: the story of
camouflage" by Patrick Wright, August 2002 (repeated Radio 4 Extra, 17 June 2014).
130. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Sumrall, R. F. (February 1973). "Ship Camouflage (WWII):
Deceptive Art". United States Naval Institute Proceedings: 67–81.
131. Jump up^ Prinzeugen. "Schnellboot: An Illustrated Technical History". Prinz
Eugen. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
132. Jump up^ "Obituary: Mr Norman Wilkinson, Inventor of 'dazzle' painting". The
Times. 1 June 1971. p. 12.
133. Jump up^ Wilkinson, Norman (1969). A Brush with Life. Seeley Service. p. 79.
134. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, pp. 149–150.
135. Jump up^ Keating, Kenneth C. (1981). "Maskirovka: The Soviet System of
Camouflage" (PDF). U.S. Army Russian Institute. Retrieved 8 July2012.
136. Jump up^ Clark, Lloyd (2011). Kursk: the greatest battle. Headline Review.
p. 278. ISBN 978-0-7553-3639-5.
137. Jump up^ Shaw, Robert L. (1985). Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering.
Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-059-9.
138. Jump up^ Stephenson, Hubert Kirk (1948). Applied Physics, pp. 200, 258. Volume
6 of Science in World War II; Office of Scientific Research and Development. Editors:
Chauncey Guy Suits and George Russell Harrison. Little, Brown.
139. Jump up^ Tinbergen, Niko (1953). The Herring Gull's World. Collins. p. 14. ISBN 0-
00-219444-9. white has proved to be the most efficient concealing coloration for aircraft on
anti-submarine patrol
140. Jump up^ "World War II". Farnham Castle. Retrieved 8 February 2013.
141. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, pp. 151–152.
142. Jump up^ Barkas 1952, pp. 154, 186–188.
143. Jump up^ Forbes 2009, pp. 156–166.
144. Jump up^ Mellor, D P, , Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 4 – Civil,
Volume 5 The Role of Science and Industry, Australian War Memorial, Canberra, 1968,
page 538ff
145. Jump up^ "Concealment, Camouflage, and Deception" (PDF). Smithsonian. pp. 1–
4. Retrieved 16 June 2012.
146. Jump up^ "FM 21–75". Chapter 1: Cover, Concealment, and Camouflage.
Department of the Army. Retrieved 16 June 2012.
147. Jump up^ "FM 21-305/AFMAN 24-306" (PDF). Chapter 20: Vehicle Camouflage
And Nuclear, Biological, And Chemical Operations. Department of the Army. pp. 1–9.
Retrieved 16 June 2012.
148. Jump up^ "5–103". Appendix D: Camouflage. Department of the Army.
Retrieved 17 June 2012.
149. Jump up^ "SSZ Camouflage". Military Suppliers & News. 2012. Retrieved 17
June 2012.
150. Jump up^ Jukkola, E. E.; Cohen, R. (1946). "Color Stability of Olive Drab Infrared-
Reflecting Camouflage Finishes". Industrial & Engineering Chemistry. 38 (9): 927–
930. doi:10.1021/ie50441a019.
 151. Jump up^ Richardson, Doug (2001). Stealth Warplanes: Deception, Evasion, and
Concealment in the Air. MBI Publishing, Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-1051-9.
152. Jump up^ Pfanner, Toni (March 2004). "Military uniforms and the law of
war" (PDF). IRRC. 86 (853): 99–100. doi:10.1017/s1560775500180113.
153. Jump up^ FM 21–76 US Army Survival Manual. Department of the Army.
Retrieved 8 January 2013.
154. Jump up^ Photosimulation Camouflage Detection Test. U.S. Army Natick Soldier
Research, Development and Engineering Center. 2009. p. 27. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
155. Jump up^ Brayley, Martin J (2009). Camouflage uniforms: international combat
dress 1940–2010. Crowood. ISBN 1-84797-137-7.
156. Jump up^ Freedberg, S. J. Jr. (25 June 2012). "Army drops universal camouflage
after spending billions". AOL Defence. Archived from the original on 31 August 2012.
Retrieved 27 September 2012.
157. Jump up^ Davies, W. "Berlin Brigade Urban Paint Scheme". Newsletter. Ex-Military
Land Rover Association. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
158. Jump up^ Craemer, Guy. "Dual Texture – U.S. Army digital camouflage". United
Dynamics. Retrieved 27 September 2012.
159. Jump up^ Gye, H. (25 June 2012). "How U.S. Army spent $5 billion on 'failed' pixel
camouflage". Daily Mail. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
160. Jump up^ Engber, D. (5 July 2012) [2007]. "Lost in the Wilderness, the military's
misadventures in pixellated camouflage". Slate. Retrieved 27 September 2012.
161. Jump up^ Newark 2007, p. 38.
162. Jump up^ Blakeley, Peter F. (2012). Wingshooting. Stackpole Books. pp. 116,
125. ISBN 978-0-8117-0566-0.
163. Jump up^ Newark 2007, pp. 48, 50.
164. Jump up^ du Plessis, A. (3 July 2002). Telecommunication Mast Management
Guidelines For The City of Tshwane. City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality.
165. Jump up^ "The secrets behind all that camouflage". Automotive News. 12 May
2015. Retrieved 28 July 2015.
166. Jump up^ Stein, Gertrude; Toklas, Alice B. (trans.) (1939). "Picasso". Scribners.
167. ^ Jump up to:a b Forbes 2009, p. 100.
168. Jump up^ "The Great Dazzle Ball at the Albert Hall: The Shower of Bomb Balloons
and Some Typical Costumes". Illustrated London News. No. 154. 22 March 1919. pp. 414–
415.
169. Jump up^ "Love and War: The Weaponized Woman". John Galliano for Christian
Dior, silk camouflage evening dress. The Museum at FIT. 9 September – 16 December
2006. Archived from the original on 12 December 2012. Retrieved 1 December 2011.
170. Jump up^ "Camouflage: The Exhibition". Canadian War Museum. 5 June 2009.
Retrieved 14 November 2015.
171. Jump up^ "Ian Hamilton Finlay: Arcadia (collaboration with George
Oliver)". Arcadia, 1973. Tate. July 2008. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
172. Jump up^ Haldeman, Joe (2004). Camouflage. Ace Books. ISBN 0-441-01161-6.
173. Jump up^ Frank, Thaisa (1992). A Brief History of Camouflage. Black Sparrow
Press. ISBN 0-87685-857-4.

Bibliography[edit]
Camouflage in nature[edit]
Early research

 Beddard, Frank Evers (1892). Animal Coloration. Swan Sonnenschein.

 Cott, Hugh B. (1940). Adaptive Coloration in Animals. Methuen.
 Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species. John Murray. Reprinted 1985,
Penguin Classics.
 Poulton, Edward B. (1890). The Colours of Animals. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner.
 Thayer, Abbott Handerson (1909). Concealing-Coloration in the Animal
Kingdom Macmillan.
General reading
 Elias, Ann (2011). Camouflage Australia: Art, Nature, Science and War Sydney
University Press. ISBN 978-1-920899-73-8.
 Forbes, Peter (2009). Dazzled and Deceived: Mimicry and Camouflage Yale University
Press. ISBN 978-0-300-17896-8.
 Herring, Peter (2002). The Biology of the Deep Ocean Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-854956-7.
 Rothenberg, David (2011). Survival of the Beautiful: Art, Science and Evolution
Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-60819-216-8.
Military camouflage[edit]

 Barkas, Geoffrey (1952). The Camouflage Story (from Aintree to Alamein). Cassell.
 Casson, Lionel (1995). Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. JHU
Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-5130-8.
 Newark, Tim (2007). Camouflage. Thames and Hudson, with Imperial War
Museum. ISBN 978-0-500-51347-7.

Further reading[edit]
 Behrens, Roy R. (2002). False Colors: Art, Design and Modern Camouflage. Bobolink
Books. ISBN 0-9713244-0-9.
 Behrens, Roy R. (2009). Camoupedia: A Compendium of Research on Art,
Architecture and Camouflage. Bobolink Books. ISBN 978-0-9713244-6-6.
 Behrens, Roy R. (editor) (2012). Ship Shape: A Dazzle Camouflage Sourcebook.
Bobolink Books. ISBN 978-0-9713244-7-3.
 Goodden, Henrietta (2009). Camouflage and Art: Design for Deception in World War 2.
Unicorn Press. ISBN 978-0-906290-87-3.
 Latimer, Jon (2001). Deception in War. John Murray. ISBN 978-1-58567-381-0.
 Newman, Alex; Blechman, Hardy (2004). DPM – Disruptive Pattern Material: An
Encyclopaedia of Camouflage: Nature, Military and Culture. DPM. ISBN 978-0-
9543404-0-7.
 Stevens, Martin; Merilaita, Sami (2011). Animal Camouflage: Mechanisms and
Function. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-15257-0.
 Wickler, Wolfgang (1968). Mimicry in plants and animals. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-
070100-7.
For children

 Kalman, Bobbie; Crossingham, John (2001). What are Camouflage and Mimicry?.
Crabtree Publishing. ISBN 978-0-86505-962-7. (ages 4–8)
 Mettler, Rene (2001). Animal Camouflage. First Discovery series. Moonlight
Publishing. ISBN 978-1-85103-298-3. (ages 4–8)

External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has
media related
to Camouflage.

Wikimedia Commons has

media related to Animal
camouflage.
 Wikisource has the text of
the 1922 Encyclopædia
Britannicaarticle Camouflage.

 Ohio State University: The Camouflage Project – interplay of science and art
 Behrens, Roy. A Chronology of Camouflage
 "An informal study into camouflage"

show

Camouflage

show

Camoufleurs

show

Vision in animals

show

Ecology: Modelling ecosystems: Trophic components

show

Ecology: Modelling ecosystems: Other components

 show

Evolutionary ecology

show

Patterns in nature

Categories:

 Military camouflage
 Survival skills
 Deception
 Hunting
 Predation
 Antipredator adaptations
 Mimicry
 Biological interactions
 Evolutionary ecology
 Camouflage

Flecktarn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Flecktarn
 Flecktarn camouflage fabric

Type Military camouflage pattern

Place of origin Germany

Service history

In service 1990–present

Used by See Users

Wars Bosnian War (1992–1995)

Afghanistan War (2001–present)

Iraq War

War in Donbass[1]

Production history

Designed 1976

Variants See Variants

Flecktarn (German pronunciation: [ˈflɛktaʁn]; "mottled camouflage"; also known

as Flecktarnmuster or Fleckentarn) is a family of 3-, 4-, 5- or 6-color disruptive
camouflage patterns, the most common being the five-color pattern, consisting of dark
green, light green, black, red brown and green brown or tan depending on the
manufacturer. The original German 5-color pattern was designed for use in European
temperate woodland terrain. A 3-color variation called Tropentarn(formerly Wüstentarn) is
intended for arid and desert conditions: the German Bundeswehr wore it in Afghanistan.
The original German 5-color flecktarn has been adopted, copied and modified by many
countries for their own camouflage patterns.
 Contents

 1History
 2Modern patterns
 3Variants
 4Users
 5References

History[edit]
Main article: German World War II camouflage patterns
The German Army started experimenting with camouflage patterns before World War II,
and some army units used Splittermuster ("splinter pattern") camouflage, first issued in
1931.[2] Waffen-SS combat units used various patterns from 1935 onwards. Many SS
camouflage patterns were designed by Prof. Johann Georg Otto Schick.[3]

Modern patterns[edit]

German Flecktarn uniform in 2015

In 1976, the Bundeswehr in Germany developed a number of prototype camouflage

patterns, to be trialled as replacements for the solid olive-grey "moleskin" combat uniform.
At least four distinct camouflage patterns were tested during Bundeswehr Truppenversuch
76 ("Bundeswehr Troop Trial 76"). These were based on patterns in nature:[2] one was
called "Dots" or "Points"; another was called "Ragged Leaf" or "Saw Tooth Edge"; another
was based on pine needles in winter.[2]
Designed by the German company Marquardt & Schulz, several patterns were developed
and tested by the German military. The pattern named "Flecktarn B" was chosen as the
final pattern for use. The word flecktarn is a composite formed from
the German words Fleck (spot, blot, patch or pattern) and Tarnung (camouflage). The
Bundeswehr kept its green combat dress throughout the 1980s, however, while trials were
conducted. Flecktarn was only widely introduced in 1990 in a newly reunited Germany.[2]
In Germany, the Flecktarn camouflage pattern is used by all Bundeswehr service branches,
the Heer(army), the Luftwaffe (air force), some Marine (navy) units and even
the Sanitätsdienst (medical service). Its official name is 5 Farben-Tarndruck der
Bundeswehr (5-color camouflage print of the Bundeswehr). This temperate Flecktarn 5-
color scheme consists of 15% light green, 20% light olive, 35% dark green, 20% brown and
10% black.[4] It is also used by snipers of the Österreichisches Bundesheer (Federal
Army of Austria) and Belgian Air Force ground personnel and airborne infantry. Albania
used 5-color German flecktarn while participating in IFOR in Bosnia in
1996.[5][better source needed] France tested Flecktarn for use, but rejected it; the Dutch army also
tested and rejected it, allegedly because it was "too aggressive".[2] Flecktarn was seen as
controversial because of its resemblance to the Waffen-SS "peas" and "oak leaves"
patterns, which also used dots in various colors.[2]

Variants[edit]
Flecktarn is the basis for the Bundeswehr's Tropentarn desert camouflage,[6] the Danish
military's T/78 and M/84 camouflage, including a desert variation of the Danish pattern.
Several variations of the Flecktarn camouflage are also used by the Russian military, one is
called Sever ("north"), sometimes also referred as Flectarn-D while another variant is called
Tochka-4. Other country's variations include Japan's Type II Camouflage; Type 03 Plateau
camouflage, used by the Chinese military in Tibet (and some Russian Special Forces); and
an urban variation used by some police units in Poland.[7]
In 2013, the German company Mil-Tec introduced a new version of Flecktarn, called
the Arid Flecktarn. It retains the 5-color pattern but with the colour scheme resembling that
of MultiCam.[8] It remains a commercial variant and is not in use by any world military.

Chinese Tibetarn

Belgian Flecktarn

Danish M/84

Danish M/01
 

French Experimental Desert Flecktarn

German Flecktarn

German Tropentarn

Indian Flecktarn

Japanese Jieitai

Japanese Winter Jieitai

 

Japanese Desert Jieitai

Polish Urban Flecktarn

wz AT 1 PLAMIAK

Polish Woodland Flecktarn

Gepard

Russian Flectar-D

Commercial Arid Flecktarn

Commercial Schneetarnsnow camouflage

 Users[edit]
 Germany: Used by Bundeswehr.[6]
 Ukraine: Used by Ukrainian forces like the Azov Regiment[1] and the Donbas
Battalion.[9] Also used by Bohdan Company,[10]Ivano-Frankivsk Battalion,[11] Kherson
Company,[12] Sicheslav Company,[13] Skif Battalion[14] and Sumy Company due to being
cheap and affordable while being widely available.[15]

References[edit]
1. ^ Jump up to:a b "Azov Regiment". Military Land. Retrieved 31 July 2018.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Newark, Tim (2007). Camouflage. Thames and Hudson. pp. 133–134,
157. ISBN 978-0-500-51347-7.
3. Jump up^ Dougherty, Martin J. (2017). Camouflage At War: An Illustrated Guide from 1914
to the Present Day. Amber Books. pp. 45–47. ISBN 978-1-78274-498-6.
4. Jump up^ TL 8305-0290: 5 Farben-Tarndruck der Bundeswehr (PDF; 242 kB) (in German)
5. Jump up^ "Albania". SFOR Informer Online. NATO. Retrieved 27 March2016.
6. ^ Jump up to:a b "Uniformen der Bundeswehr" (in German). Bundeswehr. Retrieved 22
August 2016.
7. Jump up^ SZOŁUCHA, BARTOSZ. "New Uniforms for Metro PD". special-ops.pl (in
Polish). MEDIUM Group. Retrieved 22 November 2016.
8. Jump up^ "M/84 Camouflage Version of MultiCam Could Have Looked Like
This". Krigeren.dk (in Danish). Retrieved 21 January 2016.
9. Jump up^ http://militaryland.net/ukraine/national-guard/donbas-battalion/
10. Jump up^ http://militaryland.net/ukraine/special-police-forces/bohdan-company/
11. Jump up^ http://militaryland.net/ukraine/special-police-forces/ivano-frankivsk-battalion/
12. Jump up^ http://militaryland.net/ukraine/special-police-forces/kherson-company/
13. Jump up^ http://militaryland.net/ukraine/special-police-forces/sicheslav-company/
14. Jump up^ http://militaryland.net/ukraine/special-police-forces/skif-battalion/
15. Jump up^ http://militaryland.net/ukraine/special-police-forces/sumy-company/

Wikimedia Commons has

media related to Flecktarn.

hide

Camouflage

 Camouflage

 Countershading

 Active camouflage


ethods
Counter-illumination

 Disruptive coloration

 Motion camouflage

 Multi-scale camouflage
 Multi-spectral camouflage
  Self-decoration

 Snow camouflage

 As evidence for natural selection

 Crypsis

 Decorator crabs

 Flower mantises
In
nature
 Mimicry

 Batesian

 Müllerian

 Aggressive

 Underwater camouflage

 Edward Bagnall Poulton

Peacetime
 The Colours of Animals

 Abbott Handerson Thayer

 Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom

 Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola

 John Graham Kerr

 Norman Wilkinson

 Everett Warner
oneers Camoufleurs Johann Georg Otto Schick

 Hugh Cott

 Adaptive Coloration in Animals

 Geoffrey Barkas

 Timothy O'Neill

 Roy Behrens

Researchers
 Innes Cuthill

 Thomas N. Sherratt

 Martin Stevens

 Military camouflage

 Aircraft camouflage

Military 
Topics
Dazzle camouflage

 Middle East Command Camouflage Directorate

 Ship camouflage
 USN WWII camouflage measures
  Splittertarnmuster (1931)

 Platanenmuster (1937)

 Rauchtarnmuster (1939)
German
WWII
 Palmenmuster (c 1941)

 Sumpfmuster (1943)
Up to
 Erbsenmuster (1944)
WWII
 Leibermuster (1945)

 Lozenge (1917 aircraft)

Other
 Telo mimetico (1929 tent)

 Denison smock (1941)

 Frog Skin (1942)

 Lizard (1947)
Post-
war
 Flecktarn (1956)

 Rain pattern (1960)

 Rhodesian Brushstroke (1965)

Patterns  ERDL (1967)

 Disruptive Pattern Material (1969)

 wz. 68 Moro (1969)

 Tigerstripe

 M84

 M90

 Disruptive Pattern Camouflage Uniform

Late Six-Color Desert Pattern (Chocolate Chip)
20th U.S. "M81" Woodland (1981)
Century wz. 89 Puma
 Jigsaw

 TAZ 83

 TAZ 90

 Camouflage Europe Centrale

 Desert Night Camouflage

 wz. 93 Pantera

 Soldier 2000

 Type 99 (China)
  Australian Multicam

 Bundeswehr Wüstentarn

 CADPAT (2002)

 M05

21st
 MARPAT

Century
 MultiCam

 Multi-Terrain Pattern

 Operational Camouflage Pattern

 Tactical Assault Camouflage

 Type 07

 Universal Camouflage Pattern

Deployed
 Berberys-R

 Nakidka

Technology
 Diffused lighting camouflage (1941)
Prototypes Yehudi lights (1943)

 Adaptiv (2011)

elated Dazzled and Deceived

Categories:

 Camouflage patterns
 German military uniforms
 Military camouflage
 Military equipment of Germany
vv