Disruptive coloration Disruptive coloration ( or disruptive patterning ) is a form of camouflage that works by breaking up the outlines of an animal , soldier or military vehicle with a strongly contrasting pattern . It is often combined with other methods of crypsis including background colour matching and countershading . It appears paradoxical as a way of not being seen , since disruption of outlines depends on high contrast , so the patches of colour are themselves conspicuous . The importance of high contrast patterns for successful disruption was predicted in general terms by the artist Abbott Thayer in 1909 , and explicitly by the zoologist Hugh Cott in 1940 . Later experimental research has started to confirm these predictions . Disruptive patterns work best when all their components match the background . While background matching works best for a single background , disruptive coloration is a more effective strategy when an animal or a military vehicle may have a variety of backgrounds . Conversely , poisonous or distasteful animals that advertise their presence with warning coloration ( aposematism ) use patterns that emphasize rather than disrupt their outlines . For example skunks , salamanders and monarch butterflies all have high contrast patterns that display their outlines . Early research . The artist Abbott Handerson Thayer in his 1909 book " Concealing - Coloration in the Animal Kingdom " argued that animals were concealed by a combination of countershading and " ruptive " marks which together " obliterated " their self - shadowing and their shape . Thayer explained that Hugh Cott ' s 1940 book " Adaptive Coloration in Animals " introduced ideas such as " maximum disruptive contrast " . This uses streaks of boldly contrasting colour , which paradoxically make animals or military vehicles less visible by breaking up their outlines . Cott explains that in ideal conditions , background colour matching together with countershading would " suffice to render an animal absolutely invisible against a plain background " , but at once adds that conditions are hardly ever ideal , as they are constantly changing , as is the light . Therefore , Cott argues , camouflage has to break up the perceived continuous surfaces of an object , and its outlines . In Cott ' s own words , therefore , Cott draws an analogy with a pickpocket who carefully distracts your attention , arguing that Further , Cott criticises unscientific attempts at camouflage , early in the Second World War , for not understanding the principles involved : In animals . Disruptive patterns use strongly contrasting markings such as spots or stripes to break up the outlines of an animal or military vehicle . Some predators , like the leopard , and some potential prey like the Egyptian Nightjar , use disruptive patterns . Disruptive patterns " are characterized by high - contrast light and dark patches , in a nonrepetitive configuration , that also provide camouflage by disrupting the recognizable shape or orientation of the animal " , as in the cuttlefish . The strategy appears paradoxical as a method of camouflage , since disrupting outlines depends on using patches of colour which contrast strongly with each other , so the patches are themselves conspicuous . While background matching works best for a single background , disruptive coloration is a more effective strategy when an animal or a military vehicle may have a variety of backgrounds . Disruptive patterns can also conceal specific features . Animals such as fish , birds , frogs and snakes can readily be detected by their eyes , which are necessarily round and dark . Many species conceal the eye with a stripe that runs through the eye , making it seem just part of a dark area of background . Cott called this a " coincident disruptive pattern " . The opposite case : aposematism . Many poisonous or distasteful animals that advertise their presence with warning coloration ( aposematism ) use patterns that emphasize rather than disrupt their outlines . For example skunks , salamanders and monarch butterflies all have high contrast patterns that display their outlines . These advertising patterns exploit the opposite principle to disruptive coloration , for what is in effect the exactly opposite effect : to make the animal as conspicuous as possible . A disputed case : the giraffe . The presence of bold skin markings does not in itself prove that an animal relies on camouflage . According to Mitchell , adult giraffes are " inescapably conspicuous " , making the conclusion that their patterns are for camouflage appear counterintuitive : but when standing among trees and bushes , their camouflage is effective at even a few metres ' distance . Further , young giraffes are much more vulnerable to predation than adults : between 60 % and 75 % of calves die within a year . Mothers hide their calves , which spend much of the time lying down in cover . Since the presence of a mother does not affect survival , Mitchell suggests that young giraffes must be extremely well camouflaged . This is supported by the fact that coat markings are strongly inherited . Conversely , far from hiding , 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 . Other ways of hiding outlines . The outlines of an animal ' s body can be made hard to see by other methods , such as by using a highly irregular outline . For example , the Comma butterfly , " Polygonia c - album " , is highly cryptic when its wings are closed , with cryptic colours , disruptive pattern , and irregular outer margins to the wings . In military usage . Disruptive coloration is common in military usage , for military vehicles , for firing positions and other installations , and for individual soldiers , where uniforms , equipment such as helmets , and face paint may be used to break up outlines and features . Disruptive coloration , however , does not always achieve crypsis on its own , as an animal or a military target may be given away by other factors including shape , shine , and shadow . Many military camouflage pattern s since the 1940s have been disruptively coloured , and with the issue of US Woodland pattern to United States armed forces from 1981 , disruptive pattern became a dominant feature of military uniforms . Challenges . Three major challenges face the design of disruptively patterned uniforms , however . Firstly , units frequently move from one terrain to another , where the background colours and contrasts may differ greatly . A uniform designed for woodland will be too strongly contrasting for desert use , and too green for urban use . Therefore , no single camouflage pattern is effective in all terrains . The American UCP of 2004 attempted to suit all environments but was withdrawn after a few years of service . Terrain specific patterns like " Berlin camouflage " , which was applied to British vehicles operating in Berlin during the Cold War , have sometimes been developed but are ineffective in other terrains . Secondly , the effectiveness of any pattern in disrupting a soldier ' s outlines varies with lighting , depending on the weather and the height of the sun in the sky . And thirdly , any given patch of printed colour varies in apparent size with distance from the enemy observing the pattern . A pattern printed with small patches of colour blends into a single perceived mass at a certain range , defeating the disruptive effect . Conversely , a pattern printed with large patches of colour appears conspicuous at shorter ranges . This problem has been solved with pixellated shapes , often designed digitally , that provide a fractal - like range of patch sizes , enabling them to be effectively disruptive both at close range and at a distance . The first genuinely digital camouflage pattern was the Canadian CADPAT , soon followed by the American MARPAT . A pixellated appearance is not essential for this effect , though it is simpler to design and to print .