Talk:World War II ship camouflage measures of the United States Navy

More articles

someone in the know should make a Royal Navy Second World War Camouflage Patterns and a Kriegsmarine Camouflage Patterns — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsdh1 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I encourage the effort, but such articles might be formatted differently than this one. The United States Navy focused official attention on camouflage five years earlier than the Royal Navy; and the Royal Navy's camouflage schemes appear to have been less standardized and heavily influenced by local availability of resources. In some cases, the individuality of camouflage schemes might be best covered in the individual ship articles. Navies with fewer ships had less reason for standardized camouflage measures; and might similarly be covered in individual ship articles or in the general ship camouflage article.Thewellman (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A technicality on paint

What is the difference between "Bureau of Yards and Docks paint" and "Premixed"? Perhaps it should be explained in a note just above the table of paints. After all, readers may observe that both mean the paint arrives ready-mixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Drayton and Ms 1B/11

Well known picture of USS DRAYTON in her experimental Measure 1B camo (experimental color sapphire blue in place of the gray of standard Measure 1) is used to illustrate Measure 11. The current caption under the picture in the Measure 11 box correctly identifies her as Measure 1B but the separate media viewer caption incorrectly says Measure 11. Can this be resolved, and is there a color photo that can be found that can be used to clearly identify Measure 11? (One clue that DRAYTON is not in Measure 11 is that she has the mast top in the white of Measure 1; Measure 11 doesn't use that change of color for upper works).Brooksindy (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple images for a single Measure

Oh dear, we'd just reached agreement to remove the multiple images. There are several points to consider on both sides of this.

For multiple images per Measure:

1. it's nice to see different ships of course.
2. there are sub-measures. --- this could be handled by having a row of table per sub-measure.
3. different ships wear a Measure differently. If this is intentional then we need to source it. At the moment the article says of some Measures that shapes of patches were not specified, so in those cases showing variety might be helpful (or not).
4. Measures might be designed to make ships of type A resemble ships of type B, in which case we should have 2 columns, say with the mimic (imitator) on left, and model (the imitated) on right, and captions to explain what is happening and why, with cited source.
5. Measures might be designed to make ships of types A and B both resemble ships of type C; in which case again we need (at least) 2 columns, explanatory captions, and cited source(s).

For single image per Measure:

1. it makes for a clean and simple story: one Measure, one example.
2. it avoids leaving large chunks of whitespace in the table.
3. if multiple images are there just because we like different ships then that's not sufficient reason.

The current situation is basically not very satisfactory, either in terms of visual layout or of explanation. The formatting is starting to look a mess; but obviously the need to communicate the story of the ships is key, so we should be willing to change the format and redesign tables if need be. This is quite tricky as we don't want to duplicate descriptions; equally, we don't want to introduce (WP:OR) uncited claims by implying things through multiple images (such as "this was designed to make different classes of ship look the same": that certainly needs a source.

Well, there's the problem: solutions, anyone? -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The subject of Measure 32 patterns identifying specific classes of ships is sourced by Sumrall; although it may have been separated from that citation in subsequent edits. The two images of USS Duluth and USS Saratoga are uniquely useful in this regard, as it is unusual to find photos from exactly the same perspective. A number of potential solutions come to mind:

A) We might reconsider the single image per measure limitation where the measures involved variations.

B) We might utilize Template:triple image comparisons to illustrate the similarities or differences within the table.

C) We might utilize Template:triple image comparisons to illustrate the similarities or differences within the introductory paragraph.

D) We might expand the table of 30-series measures into numerical design entries.

E) We might break out the 30-series measures (or some larger subset) into a separate article with a see main article note if this article would be inappropriately large with individual design coverage.

F) We might break out the color palettes into a separate article with a see main article note if expansion of the measures tables would make this article unacceptably large.

I'm flexible about this, but I don't consider formatting issues an appropriate reason to omit a significant element of the subject.Thewellman (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There is such a vast range of 31-32-33 patterns that they really need their own article; it would overwhelm this one to give more than a taste. OTOH, I do see that 'triple image' might be a good way to give three representative examples of the nonstandardized MS-12 Mod. Unfortunately, color images of 12-mod are scarce, and the one of Alabama (a very atypical striped scheme) the only one I know of that shows the pattern clearly.

Yes, I did like the comparison-shots of Saratoga and Duluth. Perhaps there is a way to format them other than the vertical arrangement which hugely increases white space?

Paras 4 & 5 above: to my knowledge, 'mimic' Measures 6-7-8 were never actually used on any ship.

--Solicitr (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, why not try a Template:triple image (or maybe just a double image) in the central text field for Measure 32 and see if it works? (That would leave space in the right hand column for another one, even; btw I doubt having images side-by-side in the right hand column will work.) And then write a separate article on it, if need be... Seems we're all happy with that.

I thought Measures 6 and 8 were mimics? Sounds from the text as if 8 was at least briefly in use. Pity, it sounds like one of the few cases where there was unequivocal evidence of ship camouflage's effectiveness... (I do wonder with mil cam on land, sea, and air - seems about 90% of it is just for show, no?). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the USN's stupid new "Aquaflage" or "Battle Dress Oceanic" uniforms are all rather pointless show! (In practice, naturally, fleet sailors just wear practical blue coveralls as before).

I'll have to look for evidence of the use of Measures 6-8. Remember, most of the Pacific Fleet only got around to repainting in even the simple January 41 measures in the fall, right before they were all abolished! BuShips made the mistake of promulgating Ships-2 before production of the new paints had even begun, and it turned into a bureaucratic/logistic clusterfark. In August Pacific battleships submitted paint requisitions to Mare Island, only to be informed (by boat-mail, and thus weeks later) that those paints had been discontinued, and please submit new requisitions for the new paints for Measures that hadn't yet been announced. Solicitr (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, a bit of progress- according to Raven, the cruiser Minneapolis wore Measure 8 briefly-- not in 1941, but in 1943! I'll keep digging. Solicitr (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work on this

This should be a GA and beyond! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

USS Concord in Ms 23 entry

USS Concord is shown to illustrate Ms 23. However, Concord is not in Ms 23; she is in Ms 22. The design of Ms 22 is that the navy blue starts at the lowest part of the freeboard and extends horizontally from that in either direction. The Omaha class cruisers were flush-decked but raked with constantly increasing freeboard from stern to prow. So the navy blue panel is just very shallow compared to most ships. Perhaps the contributor thought it was just boot topping. Even shipcamouflage.com couldn't come up with a photo to illustrate Ms 23; it is possible that it was used on a Coast Guard vessel or two, however. Brooksindy (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Image of North Carolina to illustrate measure 1

An editor left the following explanation when changing the description of the the image of battleship North Carolina used to illustrate measure 1:

BB-55 North Carolina never wore Measure 1, she went from #5 standard navy gray to Measure 12 while in drydock between 08/01/1941 through 08/19.1941 in preparation for her military trials. This can be found in notes made by Capt. Hustvedt after meeting with Admiral King aboard USS Augusta in New York Harbor about 08/12/1941. These are in North Carolina's records at NARA.

If this can be verified, a new image should be found to illustrate measure 1. Thewellman (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Replaced it for now with the picture of Maryland formerly in that spot. Couold the ship have been misidentified? The paint scheme in the photo is without question Measure 1, not 12 Solicitr (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Keel color

It is easy to miss. We are missing the reddish color type for the keel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:985:5F23:1:20B4:779E:8C2E:1266 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

No attempt was made to camouflage the portion of a ship's hull normally submerged below the waterline because water shielded that part of the ship from visual observation. Paints used below the waterline were designed to both minimize corrosion and prevent growth of marine organisms commonly termed fouling. A ship's hull is an attractive substrate for plants and animals benefiting from the flow of nutrients created as the ship moves through the water. Such organisms roughen the hull surface increasing drag and reducing speed. Their attachment locations create areas of differing ionic concentrations favorable for crevice corrosion. Some of these paints were toxic to specific types of organisms and some were formulated to remain soft so organisms could not establish a firm hold on the ship. Thewellman (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)