A Sho Histo of US Naval Camou age in

WWII
Introduction 

e origin of U.S. Naval dazzle camou age had been in the First World War. e U.S. Navy assembled a
camou age design team during WWI that was supe ised by the commercial painter Everett Warner.
Warner was then in uenced by the teachings of visiting British naval camou age expe Norman
Wilkinson who is considered the originator of the dazzle camou age concept. During the war the Navy
had considered and tested many camou age design schemes, some by obse ing painted models in a
specially designed stage. Toward the end of WWI, Warner had devised a technique for easily
generating disruptive dazzle patterns, but was not able to use it before the war ended. In the inter-war
years there was much discussion among camou age expe s and the Navy leadership concerning the
best type of camou age. Many favored camou age schemes designed to provide low visibility whereas
a few, like Everett Warner, favored the dazzle schemes, arguing that once a ship had been spotted it
was more impo ant for camou age to confuse the obse er as to the type and direction of the ship.
is philosophical di erence between these two almost mutually exclusive objectives continued on
until the end of World War II.
e U.S. Navy Bureau of Ships (BuShips) published the de ning document for the U.S. Navy for World
War II camou age as: Ship Camou age Instructions United States Navy usually referred to as SHIPS-2.
ere were four major issues of SHIPS-2 the initial release of SHIPS-2 was in Janua 1941, Revision 1
(http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1941OctoberSHIPS2Rev1.html) was in September
1941, Revision 2 in June 1942, and a Supplement to Revision 2 in March 1943. Each issue described, in
detail, camou age measures, paint colors, and their application. e Janua 1941 edition of SHIPS-2
gave this de nition of camou age: “Ship camou age means painting a ship for the purpose of
producing e ects of low visibility and of deception in course and range estimation.” is was clearly an
attempt to compromise between the two almost opposite positions of low-visibility versus deception.
SHIPS-2 also introduced the term “measure” to identify pa icular camou age schemes. While this site
is primarily concerned with the dazzle camou age used in 1944 and 1945 (i.e. Measures 31-32-33), I
also include a synopsis of some (not all) of the signi cant measures speci ed in SHIPS-2 leading up to
the later dazzle designs.

Measure Systems Pa I 

Measure 1 Dark Gray System

Measure 1 was introduced in the Janua 1941 release of SHIPS-2. is was the measure that most of
the Paci c Fleet at Pearl Harbor was wearing on December 7, 1941 when the Japanese attacked, even
though this measure had been discontinued by the September 1941 edition. All ve ical su aces above
the top of the stacks were painted light gray (5-L). All remaining ve ical su aces, such as sides of the
hull, sides of superstructure, stacks and lower masts were dark gray (5-D).

e Mahan class destroyer USS Conyngham (DD-371) is shown

transferring mail to another destroyer at sea in 1941. Conyngham is
wearing Measure 1 camou age. e sides are 5-D up to the top of the
stack and 5-L above that. Photo source: NHHC NH 6151.
Measure 2 Graded System
Measure 2 was also described in the Janua 1941 version of SHIPS-2 and was a graded camou age,
which meant that the color was changed in steps over the su ace of the ship, in this case ve ically. All
ve ical su aces above the deck edge were painted light gray (5-L). e sides of the hull were painted
in three bands, the upper was light gray (5-L), the middle ocean gray (5-O) and the lowest was dark
gray (5-D). e top edges of the bands followed the sheer line of the hull and were not horizontal.
Measure 11 Sea Blue System
Measure 11 was added in September 1941 to replace Measure 1 and was a solid dark color. It was felt
that dark ships were less visible to aircraft obse ation, but not to su ace level obse ation. Measure
11 was probably the result of tests conducted with destroyers before the war. Sea blue was a new paint
mixture that could be made by mixing white and tinting material in the proper po ions. It was selected
to replace dark gray (5-D) which had to be mixed di erently. is measure is often seen in early (1942)
photographs and is sometimes confused with the later Measure 21, which replaced it. All ve ical
su aces from boot-topping to the top of superstructure masses, pole masts and yards were painted
sea blue (5-S). Horizontal su aces were painted deck blue (20-B). About December 1941
(http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1941DecemberAtlanticFleetCamo.html) navy blue (5-
N) began to replace sea blue.
Measure 12 Graded System
Measure 12 was added in September 1941 and was a another graded measure or system to replace
Measure 2. Ve ical su aces from boot-topping to the main deck (except for carriers, it was the hanger
deck) were painted sea blue (5-S). Ve ical su aces above main deck level, (hanger deck of carriers) to
level of the top of the highest superstructure were ocean gray (5-O). Pole masts, yards, slender upper
works above the level of top superstructure mass were haze gray (5-H). Horizontal su aces were
painted a uniform deck blue (20-B). e silhouette below is from the September 41 version of SHIPS-2
and shows how a Fletcher class destroyer would look in Measure 12.

Modi ed Measure 12 Dapple Patterns

Measure 12 was used as a basis for painting irregular patterns in an e o to break up the pro le of the
ship. ese patterns were called “dapple” or “splotch” patterns. is has been given the name Modi ed
Measure 12. e directions for painting the splotches were purposely inde nite; it was left up to the
painter to create a pattern. On the hull the splotches were supposed to be ocean gray over sea blue
(later navy blue). Above the hull on the superstructure they were haze gray over ocean gray. ere is
some evidence that some ships used greens as well. Sometimes an e o was made to match patterns
on po and starboard, but many did not. Anyone t ing to duplicate the pattern worn by any pa icular
ship should obtain photos of both sides to be sure. SHIPS-2 warned that the splotch patterns had not
been tested and that there was no rst hand information concerning their e ectiveness. Additionally,
one repo (http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1942JulyPlunkettCamou age.html) in July
of 1942 was critical of the pe ormance of splotches. Despite these cautions, a great many ships
painted in splotch patterns in 1942, in fact the Atlantic Fleet had been ordered in a December 13, 1941
memo (http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1941DecemberAtlanticFleetCamo.html) to use
Modi ed Measure 12 with navy blue (5-N) paint now replacing sea blue (5-S).
 USS Fletcher (DD-445) is shown on July 18, 1942 as built wearing camou age splotches
that were popular at that time. is is an example of Modi ed Measure 12. Fletcher was
repainted in Measure 21 later in the South Paci c. Photo source: NARA BS 31243.
Measure 16 ayer System
e ayer System was introduced in the June 1942 revision to SHIPS-2. is measure was similar to
some British Navy camou ages used in the No h Atlantic. It was considered especially well adapted
for winter use in no hern areas where nights were long and days were frequently overcast. e special
feature of this system was its changeable character. At low levels of illumination a blue paint will appear
relatively lighter and a red paint will appear relatively darker than these two paints appear in daylight.
is visual change, known as the Purkinje e ect, was utilized in the ayer System. e pure light blue
was selected because it appeared practically like white paint at low levels of illumination. e ship
would therefore appear like a white ship on moonless nights or during twilight when white or ve light
ships were the best for reduced visibility. During daylight hours or under bright moonlight the pattern
would be apparent and might produce some deception in the estimation of the target angle. A darker
blue would produce more deception but was not used because it would not appear white at night. e
purity of the color was an impo ant factor in the Purkinje e ect.
e entire ship was painted white (5-U) and a pattern using ayer blue (5-B) was painted on top of
that. Some example patterns were supplied in SHIPS-2 and some of these patterns were reused later in
the Measure 31-32-33 dazzle schemes. See Measure 16 Patterns Reused (/Measure16.php). is
system also employed “countershading,” which was the application of white paint to the underside of
projecting decks and overhangs, in an e o to hide or lessen shadows.

Measure Systems Pa II 

Measure 21 Navy Blue System

Measure 21 was introduced in the June 1942 revision to SHIPS-2 as a dark system to replace Measure
11. SHIPS-2 stated that this measure provided the lowest visibility to aerial obse ers during daylight or
nighttime and in all types of weather. Also, it was felt that while a ship painted in Measure 21 was
highly visible to su ace obse ers in all types of weather, it did cause some course deception. In
September 1942, the Paci c Fleet was ordered (http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-
7/1942SeptemberPaci cCamou age.html) to paint using Measure 21, probably driven by the Japanese
air threat, and most of the eet was painted in this camou age by 1943. us, almost all of the ships
headed to the Paci c that completed or commissioned in 1943 were initially wearing this measure. All
ve ical su aces without exception were navy blue (5-N), which had replaced sea blue (5-S), and all
deck and horizontal su aces were deck blue (20-B).

e Fletcher class destroyer USS David W. Taylor (DD-551) on September 26, 1943 in
Mobile Bay wearing Measure 21 Camou age. David W. Taylor has been given the AA
upgrade of twin 40mm abaft the aft funnel, but retains the 20mm platform and tubs in
front of the bridge. Later these 20mm were replaced by two twin 40mm AA. Photo
source: NARA BS 52087.
Measure 22 Graded System
Measure 22 was also introduced in the June 1942 revision as another graded system to replace
Measure 12. is measure was intended for use on combatant ships in areas where bright weather
with fair visibility predominated, and high angle aerial obse ation was unlikely. Navy blue (5-N) was
applied to the hull up to the height of the main deck edge at its lowest point with the upper edge of
this navy blue area horizontal. Haze gray (5-H) was painted on all remaining ve ical su aces and all
masts. Deck blue (20-B) was applied to all decks and other horizontal su aces. e undersides of
overhanging horizontal su aces were painted with white (5-U) to lighten shadows. Measure 22 was
primarily to reduce the visibility of the ship when viewed at a distance by blending with the horizon,
however Everett Warner, who was advocating disruptive designs, criticized it
(http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1942DecemberE ectivenessOfMs22.html). is
measure was sometimes referred to as two-toned No h Atlantic gray and Atlantic Fleet Command
ordered (A icles/43%3A3%3A4CinCLant.pdf) its use in March of 1943; so most ships wore this
camou age while in the Atlantic during 1943 and into 1944.
 USS Underhill(DE-682) a destroyer esco of the Buckley class on August 21, 1944 in
Boston Harbor in Measure 22 Camou age. By September 12, 1944 Underhill would be
wearing a dazzle design. Photo source: NARA BS 66695.

erefore, in 1943 ships destined for the Paci c were painted in Measure 21 and ships slated for the
Atlantic were painted in Measure 22, as evidenced by this memo
(A icles/43_7_20DEcamoP&A.pdf). Both Measure 21 and Measure 22 remained in e ect until the end
of the war in 1945, and were in fact revived in Februa 1945 when the Bureau of Ships recommended
(http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1945_S19_631Application.html) all ships repaint using
Measures 12, 21 or 22. Some ships had begun the migration back to those Measures earlier and some
ships had remained in Measure 21 or Measure 22 even while others used the dazzle patterns. Also in
1945, navy blue was replaced by navy gray (http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-
7/1945Janua Letter4-45Camou age.html), which was mixed from black instead of purple tint,
because of sho ages and because it was nally realized that tone itself was more impo ant than the
actual color. However, from black and white photos navy blue and navy gray are almost
indistinguishable.

Measure Systems Pa III 

Measures 31, 32 and 33 Dazzle Patterns

Measures 31, 32 and 33 were introduced in the March 1943 supplement to SHIPS-2, although the
supplement was not distributed until May 1943. ese Measures included patterns that had been
developed earlier in experiments with both ships and models. e patterns were speci cally designed
for each class of ship using a range of colors usually in the blue-gray range, but some were in the
green-gray range. Ultimately auxilia ships and landing craft were the only types to use the green-
gray range of colors. After internal discussions and deliberations, the Paci c Fleet requested
(A icles/43%3A6%3A21ComPacFlttBuShip.pdf) BuShips begin a major e o to expand the number of
designs for all the types and classes of ships. e Paci c Fleet then o cially adopted
(http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1943Oct_26CL-43Dazzle.html) the new Measures in
October of 1943, and the major combat ships began showing up in Dazzle patterns later in October
and November. e Atlantic Fleet did not o cially adopt (A icles/44%3A7%3A19CincLanttBuShip.pdf)
any pattern or “dazzle” measures until July of 1944, and then only Design 3D for destroyers and
destroyer esco s and Design 4A for esco carriers.
Some representative drawings of the new Measure 31-32-33 patterns had been included with the
original March 1943 supplement to SHIPS-2; but these were probably not enough because BuShips
sent PacFleet a memo (http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1943JulyDazzlePlans.html) in
July 1943 with additional pattern drawings and instructions on how to adapt them to additional classes
of ships. e Paci c Fleet Maintenance O ce (FMO), who would ultimately be responsible for the
painting and maintenance of the Fleet in the Paci c, then sent in October 1943 a suggested
assignment (http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1943AugustDazzleMigration.html) list of
those design drawings to the ships then assigned to the Paci c Fleet. Pa of this assignment list states
that destroyers and destroyer esco s with even hull numbers should use Measure 31 and odd numbers
Measure 32 and that carriers and cruisers with even hull numbers should use Measure 33 and odd
Measure 32. e evidence that this rule was followed is so persuasive that this is how those ships are
listed unless other strong evidence shows otherwise. is assignment was along with instructions to
send each ship’s commanding o cer a copy of the camou age drawing selected for that ship. At that
time the Camou age Section must have shifted to maximum production of new and existing
camou age designs to meet the needs of the Paci c Fleet. Also, the Camou age Section probably
wanted to ensure the early designs were adapted to each class of ship properly, so most of the
“capital” ships, e. g. carriers and battleships, were given new design drawings with patterns better
adapted to their pro les. In fact, not all ships painted in camou age to agree with the above-
suggested camou age patterns from October 1943. is was pa ly caused by “adjustments” made to
the list by the Camou age Section in Washington; a memo
(A icles/44%3A6%3A10BuShip2Se Pac.pdf) was eventually sent in June 1944 to the Paci c Fleet
explaining and tabulating the reassignments for at least the destroyers and destroyer esco s.
e Dazzle patterns were systematically given identifying numbers. e rst pa of the number
identi ed the Measure and therefore the color range. An example would be camou age Design 32/16D
where the number 32 indicates Measure 32. e second pa of the number indicates the design
number, in this case 16. e last letter was used to identify the type of ship for which the design was
originally intended. In this case the D was for destroyers; A was for aircraft carriers, B for battleships, C
was for cruisers, F was for freighters, L was for landing ships, M was for mine wa are ships, and T was
for transpo s. Sometimes dual letters were needed: Ax was used for auxilla ships, AO was for
tankers, and SS was for submarines; in addition, small extra letters either a or b were added on to
indicate speci c variations on a pa icular design. However, two ve di erent designs could have the
same number, but di erent letters, for example 3A and 3D were ve di erent and unrelated designs.
Many designs for one type or class of ship were redrawn for other classes; as an example, Design 16D
was also drawn up for the California class battleships, the Baltimore class heavy cruisers and the
Mettawee class gasoline tankers. Usually, the number and letter were kept the same, but in some cases
new design numbers were given. us, this numbering system did not always remain entirely
consistent.
Each design had a master drawing that depicted how the pattern should appear for a speci c class of
ship. Everett Warner, who in early 1942 had been rehired as a consultant by the Navy, just as he had
been during World War I, approved each drawing. Most drawings were sent out with his initials and an
approval date. A total of well over 300 di erent design drawings, most with two sheets were produced
and distributed to over a thousand di erent ships during 1943 and 1944. Some design master
drawings were not speci c to a measure or color range and were referred to as “open.” ose design
numbers began with 3_ to indicate that the color range was optional. Examples are : Designs 3_/1D,
3_/7D and 3_/14D for the Fletcher class destroyers. When it became necessa to send a copy of the
drawing to a pa icular ship, a copy of the master could be made with labels added or changed to
match the required Measure. ese masters were copied and distributed in two ways. One method
was the use of the Ozalid©, which was a machine for making black and white copies of large drawings
such as blueprints. e advantage of larger drawings was the ease for the painters to lay down and
apply the design; this process often resulted in cutting and destroying the Ozalid© copies. e other
method was to send the drawings to the Bureau of Aeronautics which maintained a photo lab. en
the drawings were photo copied by a large format copy camera and 8-by-10 prints could be
generated. ese prints were probably more convenient to car or mail; by this time BuShips had
assigned trained camou eurs to many forward bases and they could use the prints for reference and
even possible creation of new Designs or variations. e su iving record of these drawings is from the
archived copies from the Bureau of Aeronautics photos; it is also likely that not all design drawings
have been prese ed in that manner.
Additionally some ships seem to have painted in Measures other than the Measure designated by
BuShips. One reason why this might have happened was, due to the large volume of work by the
Camou age Section to generate drawings for distribution, there may have been some labeling errors.
Also local conditions might have caused a change; it is possible but not too likely that an individual ship
commander would have decided to use a di erent camou age on his own. So, the reality is that the
nal determination of a ship’s camou age Measure and Design is sometimes based on suppositions
from letters and memos and aided by di cult photo interpretation because one is forced to t to
interpret color from black and white photos using only tone. e nal selection of color range was
decided by eet and force commanders and not by the Camou age Section in Washington, but the
great majority of ships painted in the suggested design and colors.
Because of much controversy about the e ectiveness and possible visibility issues of the Measure 31-
32-33 disruptive camou age designs, in the middle of 1944, Everett Warner toured and su eyed the
Paci c Fleet. In September 1944, he returned a repo (http://www.shipcamou age.com/4_8.htm) that
stated that the dazzle camou ages were e ective under the conditions for which they were designed,
but also recommended that the horizontal patterns on destroyer class ships were not e ective and
should be discontinued. After that date many ships, not just destroyers, had only solid deck blue on
their horizontal su aces. However, despite Warner’s optimistic repo many commanders in the Paci c
continued to ask for patterns that had less contrast and fewer light colors so as to not stand out as
much at night or in low visibility. In October 1944, the Commander of Se ice Forces in the Paci c
asked (A icles/44%3A10%3A1Se PactBuship.pdf) BuShips to decrease the use of the lighter color
paints which BuShips resisted (Everett Warner wrote the dissenting reply on the routing cover).
Beginning in December of 1944 instructions (http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-
7/SpdLtr_04254.html) were given for changing back to Measures 12, 21 and 22 from the dazzle
patterns, probably driven by the threat of kamikaze attacks (the Dazzle patterns were known as less
e ective against aerial obse ation). A Janua 1, 1945 letter (A icles/45%3A1%3A1ComPactPac.pdf)
from the Commander Paci c Fleet recinded the October 8, 1943, order to use Measures 31-32-33 and
directed the use of only 12, 21 and 22. us, sta ing in early 1945, many ships painted over their
dazzle designs into either Measure 21 or 22 often using the new navy gray which was mixed using
black instead of purple tint. Even so, some other ships in the Paci c remained in dazzle patterns until
the end of the war in September. Finally, BuShips gave in and formally documented an additional
supplement to SHIPS-2 in March 1945 that discontinued all disruptive patterns except the irregular
patterns of Measure 31 mostly for landing ships. e Atlantic Fleet directed
(A icles/45%3A4%3A24BuShiptALL.pdf) ships to repaint in Measures 12, 21 and 22 in April of 1945, to
avoid repainting when transferring to the Paci c.
Measure 31 Dark Pattern System
Measure 31 used patterns with a dark range of colors, which resolved to approximately 10 to 15
percent re ectance. For almost all regular patterns, the speci ed ve ical colors were dull black and
ocean gray or haze gray and if three colors dull black, ocean gray and haze gray. Although, this
measure was primarily intended as a low visibility measure against obse ation by aircraft, it had the
added advantage of confusing the ship's identity and breaking up the lines of the ship once it had been
seen, however it was felt that it provided little course deception.
Measure 31 also included a few irregular patterns reminicent of, but larger than the splotches. ese
irregular patterns usually used colors in the green range and were worn by some auxilia ships and a
great many amphibious ships. Prior to the introduction of Measure 31 amphibious ships were to be
painted in the “Tropic Green System” identi ed by this memo
(http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1943Janua TropicGreenSystem.html). Later, a
Februa 12, 1944 memo (A icles/44%3A2%3A12Se PactoBuShip.pdf) from the FMO to the Bureau of
Ships requested that all landing craft and ships be painted in Measure 31 Designs 5L, 6L, 7L, 18L and
similar designs using the colors green, brown and black. Measure 31 green patterns for landing craft
remained in e ect when the rest of the Paci c Fleet was ordered to paint over the dazzle patterns on
Janua 1, 1945. en, on Februa 20, 1945 BuShips instructed
(A icles/45%3A2%3A20BuShiptALL.pdf) that all landing craft and ships involved in beach operations
should be painted in Measure 31 Designs 5L or 8L.
Measure 31 Design 20L using greens, brown and black was recommended by FMO on July 8, 1944,
through a memo (A icles/44%3A7%3A8Se PactBuShip.pdf) sending a “Master” pattern for the
design. It was intended to be overlaid on an existing ships's pro le drawing and the pattern of panels
transferred to create a camou age drawing that could be sent to a ship or yard for painting. Some
examples of the result were also included. is Master was created during the time that Everett Warner
was visiting and obse ing the Paci c Fleet, so he probably approved the drawing. On August 19, 1944,
this memo (A icles/44%3A8%3A19BuShiptALL.pdf) instructed APD's to use 31/20L.
Measure 32 Medium Pattern System
Measure 32 was primarily e ective in areas where visibility was generally high and it was impossible to
conceal vessels at close ranges no matter how they were painted. is measure was intended to
produce deception at close ranges and low visibility at those ranges where the patterns resolved to a
uniform shade. It was considered the measure that provided the best defense against visual detection
by submarine. e patterns resolved to a medium shade between 20 to 40 percent re ectance. Most of
the ve ical patterns used the colors dull black and light gray or if three colors were used, dull black,
ocean gray and light gray. SHIPS-2 stated that once vessels were detected by radar, visibility was of
little impo ance compared to deception. SHIPS-2 also stated that bold contrast was necessa to
produce the most deception and this measure provided the most contrast.
Measure 33 Light Pattern System
Measure 33 was an antisubmarine measure composed of designs that resolved to a light gray of
approximately 40 to 50 percent re ectance. It was primarily a low visibility measure having the added
advantage of a pattern that made recognition more di cult. e ve ical colors used by this measure
most often were ocean gray and light gray or pale gray; if three colors were used they were navy blue,
haze gray and pale gray or navy blue, ocean gray and light gray. is measure was considered e ective
under the same conditions as the earlier Measure 16. However, even when broadside to strong sunlight
Measure 33 was less vulnerable than Measure 16 because no plain white was visible. Ships painted with
this measure were presumed to have high visibility from high angle aircraft obse ation.
Measures 31a, 32a and 33a
ese Measures appeared late in the fall of 1944 and were each o shoots of 31, 32 or 33 respectively.
Each used a similar color range to maintain a similar re ectance range, but apparently attempted to
achieve less contrast. So lighter dark colors and darker light colors were used. Measures 31a, 32a and
33a also used new patterns, some of which were derived from existing patterns. e rst mention of
Measures 31a, 32a and 33a seemed to be in Everett Warner’s September 1944 repo
(http://www.shipcamou age.com/4_8.htm).

Variations 

ere were many ways that ships varied from a speci c camou age design. e most common
variation was simply due to aging. Many ships were at sea for weeks or months between po visits and
had few chances to repaint, pa icularly the hull. Often photographs of ships at sea show a good deal
of scraped and peeled paint on the hull.
e actual colors used on ships sometimes depended on the ship and force commanders and the crews
that had to apply the paint and maintain the ships. Sometimes the colors used on individual ships were
di erent than the speci c drawing because the colors had to be mixed locally. ere were also cases
that because of sho ages of ce ain colors the painters were forced to adapt the color scheme.
A few ships carried more than one design within the Measure 31-32-33 system. In most cases, the use
of multiple designs was because the ship had been assigned to a di erent command or to a di erent
eets and had to change because of the di erent requirements. It was common for a ship to wear one
camou age when assigned to the Atlantic Fleet and another when assigned to the Paci c.
SHIPS-2 included instructions for painting the hull numbers that speci ed the size of the numbers but
not the position. us hull numbers were painted in slightly di erent locations by di erent ships using
sometimes white and sometimes black paint.
Finally, there were many cases of painters that misinterpreted or misread the design drawings and
applied the wrong color or even “extra” panels. Several ships have “extra” panels painted on the stern
due to interpretation di culties with the stern views of the camou age drawings. Many drawings
included stern views and those stern views included the aft most panels from each side, but viewed
nearly edge on. ese views seem to confuse the camou age painters and cause them to add
unneeded panels to the stern. Since there are so many instances of this, it is clear that there was some
confusion and the drawings were ambiguous. One can just imagine the many discussions in wardrooms
and shipyards over the correct interpretation of some of these drawings. ese di erent interpretations
of the stern views resulted in two variations for almost eve design drawing that showed a stern view. I
have written an a icle (Angle.php) that gives a good ove iew of the di erences “from a di erent
angle.”

Paints and Colors 

 e best sources for information about the paints used by US Navy ships for camou age during World
War II are the website called e Ship Camou age Website
(http://www.shipcamou age.com/index.htm), and the book Camou age 1, both are also listed in the
sources. Snyder and Sho Enterprises, host of the website, and the publishers of e Floating D dock
(http:// oatingd dock.com/) catalog sell paint chip cha s as well as premixed paints for modelers.
Both sources also o er data about the camou age paints along with mixing information so that colors
may be duplicated.
e table below lists all the colors that are mentioned here. Purple tint was used to mix with white to
obtain the blue-gray colors listed except for dull black, dark gray, deck blue and ayer blue, each of
which came pre-mixed or used another tint. e re ectance values are provided as an interpretation
aide when comparing photos with similar sun or light conditions.
Color Navy Designator Re ectance
White 5-U 75%
Pale Gray 5-P 55%
ayer Blue 5-B 50%
Light Gray 5-L 35%
Haze Gray 5-H 28%
Haze Green 5-HG 28%
Ocean Gray 5-O 18%
Ocean Green 5-OG 18%
Sea Blue 5-S 11%
Navy Blue 5-N 9%
Navy Green 5-NG 9%
Navy Gray (1945) 5-N 9%
Dark Gray 5-D 7%
Deck Blue 20-B 7%
Dull Black BK 2%
Purple Tint 5-TM 2%

Table of Color Combinations

 Paint Combo in Pattern Measure 31 Measure 32 Measure 33
10----15 20----40 40----50
Black (BK) + Ocean Gray (5-O) 12.8
Black (BK) + Haze Gray (5-H) 19.8
Black (BK) + Light Gray (5-L) 24.7
Navy Blue (5-N) + Haze Gray (5-H) 20.8
Navy Blue (5-N) + Pale Gray (5-P) 39.4
Ocean Gray (5-O) + Pale Gray (5-P) 40.8
(BK) + (5-O) + (5-H) 19.2
(BK) + (5-O) + (5-L) 22.7
(5-N) + (5-O) + (5-L) 23.3
(5-N) + (5-H) + (5-P) 36.0
ayer Blue (5-B) + White (5-U) 63.7
is table gives the calculated re ectances of various combinations of paints for patterns. e columns
give an idea of where those calculations would fall relative to the stated ranges of re ectance for
Measures 31-32-33. ese calculations were simpli ed by assuming equal areas for each paint within
a pattern, which was de nitely not true for all patterns. Measure 31 included combinations of black
and ocean gray as well as black, ocean gray and haze gray and these fall within the range. Measure 32
used black and light gray as well as black, ocean gray and light gray and those combinations fall within
the range of 32. Haze gray with black is just a little darker than the Measure 32 range but still was
labeled Measure 31. Substituting navy blue for black to decrease contrast only lightens the
combination slightly. Measure 16 colors, ayer Blue and white, are included to show where that
combination would be in re ectance.
ese values were calculated using a root-mean-square (RMS) technique since re ectance values are
area measurements and cannot be combined using a linear average.
For example, the calculation for "Black (BK) + Ocean Gray (5-O)" is:
√ (22 + 182) / 2
Please contact cleejohnson@usndazzle.com (mailto:cleejohnson@usndazzle.com)
with any comments, suggestions, or criticisms.
Site last updated: March 1, 2019
Copyright © C. Lee Johnson 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019