Sovietwarplanes
November 12, 2019, 07:02:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: This forum replaces the old sovietwarplanes.com whose domain has expired in January 2017. It has been updated with the posts of the year 2016.
The new location of the site 'Sovietwarplanes pages' is at http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Discussion on rules and photos  (Read 10096 times)
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« on: June 09, 2011, 08:53:02 PM »

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
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 09:00:09 PM by KL » Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5801


« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2011, 10:02:02 AM »

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
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2011, 05:25:40 PM »

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.

"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.
Quote
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.

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
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5801


« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2011, 06:26:34 PM »

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
Logged
mholly
Full Member
***
Posts: 117


« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2011, 08:35:31 PM »

Hi Massimo,
Quote
statistic is unrelevant here
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.
Quote
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
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 Wink
Cheers,
Mario
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2011, 09:16:01 PM »

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 Wink

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:



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
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2011, 09:31:59 PM »

improvised schemes did exist, however

1. they were pretty rare
2. they remain very poorly documented.

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
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5801


« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2011, 10:23:59 PM »

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
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2011, 05:17:26 PM »

Quote
those strangely-marked aeroplanes that make such interesting models.

Quote
unusual markings or modifications are very interesting and can be represented by very attractive models.

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:

Quote
? but no one is identical to the sketch.
the templates were scarcely respected, mixed etc. Perhaps not respeced at all.
? probably was never applied.

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

Just my two pesos.

Cheers,
KL
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5801


« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2011, 09:11:53 PM »

Hi Konstantin,
Quote
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.
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
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2011, 11:30:51 PM »

For me, the idea of EP of obtaining templates from photos was not bad

A glaring example of Pilawskii's research:



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?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 11:39:21 PM by KL » Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5801


« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2011, 06:08:47 AM »

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
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #12 on: June 12, 2011, 10:07:51 PM »

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.

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.

Quote
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.

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
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 01:21:22 AM by KL » Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5801


« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2011, 07:40:27 AM »

Hi Konstantin,
Quote
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).

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
Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2011, 10:20:34 PM »

If we believe in the known ones in acritical way, we could go out of the reality.

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

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?

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.  Smiley

Cheers,
KL

* Check for holocaust denial or climate change denial...
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!