Sovietwarplanes

Hi Massimo,

There are always exceptions to the rule.

Can you answer the following questions?

1.  How was the rest of your Mig-3 painted?  I can only tell that there are 6 black lines on its nose?
2.  How many Migs were painted in this ?Tiger scheme??
3.  How common was Tiger scheme when compared to the more standard green-black scheme?
4.  How many I-16s were painted in Tiger scheme?  Can you produce a single evidence???

Regards,
KL

Hi Konstantin,
there is not any standardized tiger scheme, only planes with improvised camouflages that are not following the standard schemes. I have at least four photos of MiG-3, to say nothing of SB, Il-4 and biplanes.
The important fact is not how many planes were painted in this way. It is that this painting was possible, and that if a photo shows a plane painted with brush strokes, it's not right to suppose that the photo is wrong and the plane had to be painted with bands only because regulations said so.
Regulations say also that all bombers in 1945 had to be painted with grey-grey scheme, but there are practically no photos compatible with these templates.
Regards
Massimo

"Improvized camouflage" that is correct description for cases like your Mig.  You are on the right track!

What is the total number of Mig-3 photos that you have?  Maybe 200? 2% is a small proportion.  How representative are 2%?  Not very representative, in statistics they are called outliers.  How relevant are four exotic Mig-3 cases (maybe unique) for I-16 camouflage.  Are exotic Mig-3s more relevant then June 1941 order?

SB bombers, DB-3s and I-153s are mostly from another story.  Some of them are for example Halkin-Gol veterans - nothing to do with 1941 camouflage order.  It's not right to mix apples and oranges.

Nobody said that the photo was wrong and that stripes were not there!!!
It is important how many planes were painted this way.  You are assuming that this scheme was possible on other Migs and on other types like I-16.  IMHO we should  apply some basic statistics and probability in this case.

Regards,
KL

Hi Konstantin,
statistic is unrelevant here. There is a photo of a plane that looks with stripes, there are other photos of airplanes of the same period with other stripes... enough to say that the first plane was likely striped too. We are not speaking of all I-16s, but of the one of the photo, I think.
Regards
Massimo

Hi Massimo,
I think you're missing what Konstantin is trying to establish i.e. that improvised, non-standard, field-applied, what not schemes did exist however
1. they were pretty rare
2. they remain very poorly documented.
Well this is called conjecture, and rather groundless. You could make such a conclusion having pictures positively taken on the same day and in the same unit.
And btw where are pix of the rest of the Mig-3 airframe having nose "tiger-striped" you posted here? And yet we have beautiful profiles showing some a/c fully striped ;)
Cheers,
Mario

As per Massimo at http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/baikov.html

The characteristics not appearing on the photo are hypothized on the base of other similar aircraft:

(http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/baikov2.jpg)

One may hypothesize that there should be a red star on the tailfin - the plane is painted in green-black, it does have something in comon with June 1941 order!

Regards,
KL

Exactly!!!  That is why we have to accept official schemes and try to understand them.

Official schemes are:
?   Much better documented
?   By far more common
?   More relevant


Cheers,
KL

Hi Marian and Konstantin,
of course, every characteristic not visible in the photo is hypothized. It has only to be clear on what basis.
This is true also for the supposed 'standard' schemes.
For example, the template of 1941 inspired the camouflages of many types, but no one is identical to the sketch.
I am now starting the work on the bombers after 1943, but I suspect that the situation is even worse, ie the templates were scarcely respected, mixed etc. Perhaps not respeced at all.
To say nothing of the scheme of 1945, that probably was never applied.
If you think that all colors and all schemes are already written in few words and few sketches without need of photographic confirmation, by sure this is not fantasy, but it is faith. Not a good thing for the research.
Regards
Massimo

I agree with this!  Unusual markings are OK as a modeling subject - they could be eye catching, some have certain aesthetic qualities, etc.

Massimo, reconstructing colouration of an individual plane using photos is the only correct way.  More photos, more information and the reconstruction will be more accurate.

The problem here is something else:  you are using ?photographic evidence? to draw conclusions about the rules (regulations/orders/directives). That is exactly what Pilawskii did ? his concept is:

Variability in schemes = no rules = everything possible (incl. tractor green!)

You are saying something very similar:


You can not prove above statements using limited number of photos.  It doesn?t work that way?

Just my two pesos.

Cheers,
KL

Hi Konstantin,
Just what I was doing with that I-16, if I don't miss. I said that it was just what it seems.
But how many planes are photographed on all sides? Very few, I would say. If one wants to paint a model, he has to look for similar planes.
One can't prove a rule basing on a limited number of photos, but he can prove it false if the limited number of photo provides a huge number of exceptions.
For me, the idea of EP of obtaining templates from photos was not bad, if one shows a certain number of photos compatible with that scheme.
Then, to say if his schemes are good or not, one has to check them one by one and see if it is compatible with one plane only or with a good number of planes.
I know that he is not beloved by many people for known reasons, but let's avoid to say that all he did is wrong because it was he that did it.
Regards
Massimo

A glaring example of Pilawskii's research:

(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm13/klesnikov/Modeling%20Aircraft%20of%20the%20Sov%20VVS/I-16Maskirovka1939Pg116-1.jpg)

Relaying on "photographic evidence" and 15 years of ?research?, Philawskii concluded following:

?   Black-green scheme appeared in 1939!!!
?   Black-green scheme was factory applied on I-16s!!!
?   Green-Dark Green scheme appeared in 1940!!!
?   Soviet camouflage schemes had propensity to follow panel lines?!?!?

Could you tell me please what is true there???
From your experience, how common was Green-Dark Green scheme?  How many I-16s were painted in this scheme?
How relevant is Pilawskii's template?

Hi Konstantin,
but other templates could be good. I can't exclude this before having examined them and their photographic support. However, I'm not doing the work on this base.
Regards
Massimo

The problem is text, not the patern.  1939 instead of 1941, the whole story about the camouflage development is made up!  Author relied on a handfull of photos obviously.


The rules (orders/directives) are what they are.  The photos depict real planes, or how rules were applied in real life.  The problem with the photos is that they are not reliable.

You (and Pilawski before you) are trying to establish new rules where they maybe even didn't exist (you are looking for regularities among field applied camouflages).  At the same time, you interpret variability or lack of photographic evidence as proofs that official rules were not followed (or didn't exist).

two pesos more.

Regards,
KL

Hi Konstantin,

On factory applied camouflages, mainly.
Haven't you thought that there can be some official document (NKAP, VVS or other authority) that we don't know and that modified the already known ones? If we believe in the known ones in acritical way, we could go out of the reality.

Regards
Massimo

In historiography, skepticism is positive.  For example:  historians should be skeptical with the ?official histories?.  Official Soviet history is known to be biased.


This view is something different; it?s called denial of evidence*.  You minimize importance of known documents to promote your own hypothesis.  You think that there could be another document, but you write as there is that another document.

Your 1942 gray-gray scheme is such a case:  You hypothesize that this scheme was introduced in 1942 but you write as there is a known order which had modified 1941 black-green order.

Trying to help, as usual.  :)

Cheers,
KL

* Check for holocaust denial or climate change denial...

Hi Konstantin,
I think to be skeptical.
(http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/colors/1941-43/i26-7.jpg)
Here is the UTI-26 of mid 1940
(http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/colors/1941-43/i-28yak.jpg)
here is the I-28 of late 1940. All Yakovlev's planes.
Now, we know that the black-green became a standard for all planes in June 1941. Is there any official known document that authorized Yakovlev to make his planes painted in such way?
By the way, Yakovlev has another important role, besides to that of plane designer, isn't it? Wasn't he the deputy minister of the NKAP or something similar, am I wrong? So, he made his planes painted as he preferred, and later imposed his own standards to all the other producers.
I think that ignoring a mess of photos that can be explained only in this way, sustaining maybe that the planes of these photos have to be painted in solid green because the rule says so, would be denial of evidence.
The same could be a prejudicial opposition to the grey-grey explanation of those photos, unless there is some other argument in favour of a different theory. At least a pair of photos where the same planes have the typical look of black-green planes, for example.
Regards
Massimo :)

Massimo,
check my March 07 and 08 posts at  http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=957.0

didn't I post the same photos 3 months ago?
Why are  those planes so special now? Orlov has already explained their role, we discussed them at this forum and you included them in your 1941 black-green camouflage page.

Just to refresh your memory:
A handfull of prototypes designed by Yakovlev OKB between summer 1940 and summer 1941 were painted in black-green camouflage scheme.  Thosands of series planes (including Yak-1s) made during the same period were painted according to May 1940 directive in solid green.

What is the analogy with those 1942 serpentine gray-gray Yaks?

Cheers,
KL

Hi Konstantin,

It is noticeable that, instead of painting prototypes red or silver, they camouflaged them in the same way that became standard eight months later.

I know that there are some rare photos of production Yak-1 with uniform green, but giving their poor number, it's still to demonstrate that all of them were delivered so. Part of them could have been delivered already camouflaged. But this could be an object of a separate topic.

What is clear is that Yakovlev had his own ideas on camouflage and the power to impose them.
Besides, the lack of lead and chromium oxide for AMT-4 green dates back since 1942, and it's likely that the deputy minister of the aeronautical production was very aware of this and started to study how to spare it much before imposing his way to all the factories.

Regards
Massimo :)

Here's my two bobs, or cents, or whatever ..... (forgive my English, as I am not a native speaker)


AFAIK, there were NO black-green prototypes BEFORE June 1941. (... UTI-26 in the photo was finished in June 1941)


Pre-June '41 I-26 were finished in solid green uppersurface scheme - please have a look at Stepanec's book on Yak-1

Neither Yakovlev nor anyone else would dare (or care, for that matter) to play with camouflage. Do not forget that the black-green camo is a direct result of the Winter War experience + camo scheme testing

Nor could anyone invent grey-grey scheme just like that, and start using it. As I already stated in a previous post, in was a sure path to repercussions. Even in Western countries, do you think UK MAP would accept, say, Spitfire fighters with a totally new and irregular camouflage ? In military, there is always bureaucracy present to a degree... Such experiments were possible only in the field and under very special circumstances (like 1941). Thus, btw, the 1942 grey-grey scheme is, I'm afraid, no more than a mere wish

Seems to me that there is lately a tendency to consider ideas or guesses as hard facts.
PLEASE, do not walk in Pilawski's shoes !

Hi Boris,
for what I see on Yakovlev piston-engined fighters of Gordon and Khazanov, the I-26-1 in the photo was flown in July 1941, and the photograph is taken during manufacturer's flight tests. On 30 August an incident occurred during taxiing due to defective landing gear, and the work continued on I-26-2. Orlov too states that the photo is of 1940. I think that you should prove your affirmation that it's of 1941, if it is possible.
For what I've read on Orlov, the experiments on camouflages of 1940 were about polichromatic schemes. Despite their success, black-green camo was hurrily chosen in 3 days because Stalin imposed a brief time for the decision, and was influenced by the availability of black paint instead of many shades not yet in mass production.

I don't think so. The lack of components for green was a fact, and experiments of new camos on planes made in factory (LaGG-3 and Pe-2s) in 1942 are citated by Orlov. I think that the arguments based on a good number of photos have to be taken in serious consideration, and not ignored as fantasies.
Regards
Massimo

Massimo,  :)
Could you please change tread title into something more meaningful. Few suggestions: 

?   Photographic evidence vs. official documents
?   Limits of photographic evidence
?   Documents are irrelevant, photos are the only truth
?   Corrections of Vahlamov & Orlov?s research based on photographic evidence
?   How to use EP?s methods to prove that V&O were wrong

Thanks in advance,
KL  8) 

Hi Konstantin,
or maybe: comparing all available sources  with common sense?
Regards
Massimo :)

Better:  Use common sense with available sources!!!

Pilawskii's SAFFC is technically a source - a source of some valid information and tons of misinformation.  B/W photos are a source, but not reliable, especially if you are looking for colours.
So, use common sense with those sources.

Honestly, the title should be changed because the subject is important...

Cheers,
KL  :D