Hi,
some comments on a recent article of Him at
http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/1948/1948_DOA.html.
Many of you already know it after the thread on Britmodeller at
https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235074348-any-idea-what-these-amt-numbers-are/, after that he made close a previous thread
https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235085135-russian-spitfire-flies-again-and-the-legacy-of-a-certain-researcher-on-markings/page/2/#comment-3930004Well, one has certainly the right, and even the due, to defend his own research in public, and someone hoped that some more things about his sources and methods would have emerged.
Unfortunately the most part of His posts there can be resumed in 'I am The Resarcher, I know all the real chips of wartime planes as preserved now, all other people are fools believers in dogma, interested only in 'likes' etc.'. These posts irritated some people that gave just a moderately critical answer, but all this gained warnings by the moderators of that forum, rightly willing to avoid a burst. This limited their possibility to answer to Him with the same freedom He had taken.
The only punctual thing that He wrote on these posts was that the darker layer of blue on the undersurfaces of the stripped Yak-3 in Bourget was a French layer of paint, and an underlying lighter layer was found demonstrating that AMT-7 was much lighter and saturate, according to His chips. Unfortunately for him, I asked to Mr. Arnaud of the museum of Bourget that executed the stripping of the paint, and he disconfirmed this, saying that the 'dark' AMT-7 was the real original paint, just as expected by 'Nakrasok dogma's believers'.
Let's go to the article at
http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/1948/1948_DOA.html.
The title is 'Dead on Arrival, The End of "1948 Chip" Dogma In Our Time'. Very dramatic, I wonder why One that has so much dramatic sense to transform a boring question on old chips of paints into an historic revelation is losing His time to write of old paints instead of writing novels.
I have read the article only in partial way because it is full of self-promotion and denigration of the other researchers and of the whole world. I haven't psycological competence enough for discuss this.
What is the new revelation of the article? That some Soviet document of september 1948 said that the colors of planes had to be reformulated.
His interpretation of this is that the colors as AMT-4,7 etc visible on the Nakrasok alboom of 1948 had nothing to see with those in use with those of 1941-45. Besides He wrote that those colors, being no longer in use for planes, were for any other use as cars etc.
Now, the chips of colors in question are in the pages of Nakrasok alboom dedicated to planes, not to cars or what else. The A of AMT, AGT, A-xx is for Avialak. How can one sustain that they were for cars?
The document of September 1948, even supposing that it is authentic, is about the complete reformulation of the way to paint planes, not to the change of some shades of existing colors making them more grey or darker. In facts, the Soviet planes as MiG-15 started to be left in natural metal or painted in silver just after that year.
So, the Nakrasok still depicted the colors as in use few years before. Making such a book should have required much more than a week. Planes with these colors still existed in 1947-48, and the paints too at least as old stocks, even if the painting instructions of the planes had already changed.
If this was the revelation of the article, I would say that was very poor.
The most evident thing is the table where He compares His own chips to those of the Nakrasok: the chips that He attributes to Nakrasok are altered and darkened, probably taken by a bad photo; who has seen good images of those chips compared to other known chips of modelling paints or FS chips knows that the real colors aren't so dark. So He utilized just a darkened image to try to demonstrate that the colors of Nakrasok are too dark.
Any thoughts?
Massimo
