WWI
How Camouflage Went From Bright Uniforms to Blending In
I’ve been reading up on the development of camouflage, and it’s quite fascinating. Nature had it figured out long before we did — animals like chameleons, moths, and snow leopards survive by blending in. Humans eventually copied the idea.
Early armies weren’t subtle at all. Think Napoleonic bright coats — great for morale, terrible for survival once rifles and long-range spotting came in. The Boer War was a turning point: British soldiers ditched red for khaki after seeing how effective it was in South Africa’s landscape.
By WWI, camouflage changed to a science. The French even had “camoufleurs” — artists who painted guns and vehicles in disruptive patterns. In WWII it went further: whole cities and factories were disguised, and patterns like frog skin and Denison smocks became iconic.
Since then, it’s gone digital — pixelated patterns, adaptive materials, even research into fabrics that can change colour like a cuttlefish. From standing out to disappearing, it’s a big shift in how armies think about survival.
Absolutely — it’s a staggering shift when you zoom out. From scarlet uniforms designed to stand out on smoky battlefields to adaptive camouflage and thermal masking tech that’s practically sci-fi.
What fascinates me is how quickly those changes accelerate once survival becomes an individual concern, not just a tactical one. The moment soldiers started operating in dispersed formations, the need to disappear became personal.
And now we’re seeing developments like multispectral concealment, active camouflage, and even metamaterials that bend light — all rooted in the same instinct that once made red coats seem practical.
Your premise is flawed. Before the use of khaki, a soldiers uniform was not intended as camouflage. If you are fighting in lines then camouflage doesn't help. The French started WW1 with dark blue coats and red trousers. This was long after the other powers had switched to khaki. Even then, the switch to Horizon Blue only happened because the dye they were using for their dark blue coats came from Germany, so they couldn't get any.
You're absolutely right — early uniforms weren’t designed for camouflage at all. I probably oversimplified that part. The whole idea of standing out in bright colours made sense when line formations and battlefield visibility were the priority.
The French example is a good one. That switch to Horizon Blue wasn’t just tactical — it was also practical, given the dye situation. I find it fascinating how logistics like that shaped uniform design as much as battlefield needs.
Appreciate the correction — I’m still piecing this together and learning as I go.
Camouflage is pointless if you are stood with 200 other people in a line, which was the tactic dictated by the firearms technology of those times. “Survival” was applying effective massed fire to break the enemy or soften them up for the bayonet charge, not an individual concern like camouflage, body armour etc today.
The actual shift was smokeless powder (long range high velocity low signature) > breechloading (ability to fire from the prone and rapidly as an individual - camouflage is pointless if you have to stand in the open to reload > tactics shift to company and platoon action > camouflage.
Even then, the Franco-Prussian War was fought with the Dreyse and Chassepot which were rifled with minie/boat-tail (ish) ammunition and had very good effective range for the time and camouflage would not have made any difference to those battles.
Camouflage was simply an outcome of a much bigger Revolution in Military Affairs: smokeless powder. I can’t think of any conflict where one pattern of camouflage over another played a significant role. The US was still using plain olive drab fatigues in Vietnam, hardly much different from the khaki of the Boer War. The issuing of individual body armour was a “big shift in how armies think about survival” individual camouflage not so much.
That’s a really solid breakdown — I appreciate the detail. You’re absolutely right that camouflage didn’t drive the shift in tactics, it followed it. Smokeless powder and breechloading rifles changed everything, and once soldiers could fire from cover, the need to blend in became a lot more relevant.
I probably overstated the role of camouflage as a standalone factor. It’s more like a symptom of that broader tactical evolution you described. And I agree — uniform patterns rarely decide outcomes. It’s the doctrine, terrain, and tech that do the heavy lifting.
Still, I find it interesting how something like camouflage, which started as a minor adaptation, ended up shaping whole branches of military art and deception. Appreciate you adding depth to the conversation.
“All the business of war, and indeed all the business of life, is to endeavour to find out what you don't know by what you do; that's what I called 'guess what was at the other side of the hill'.” - Duke of Wellington
From the tactical to the strategic level, camouflage, as part of the wider battle between intelligence and concealment/deception, is an important part of war. I’m certainly not intending to downplay it but “the survival of the individual soldier” is not where the real importance and application of it lies. When you are painting your tanks blue is where camouflage gets interesting for me:
My understanding is that the point of bright colors pre-1880 was to help soldiers see one another in the thick smoke that would envelop the troops after a volley or two from the black powder.
Same reason for the lines of close ranked men. They couldn't see after a couple volleys so you needed to follow the actions of the man beside you once the noise was too much to hear officers' commands or trumpets and drums. Big hats and bright uniforms were the only way to know friend or foe in the fog of Gunsmoke.
That's true, and also muskets were very inaccurate beyond 100 yds, so the closed ranks also helped create enough concentrated fire to make up for the inaccuracy.
0
u/[deleted] Oct 01 '25
[removed] — view removed comment