Sovietwarplanes
May 22, 2019, 07:13:27 AM *
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: Variability in standard camo schemes  (Read 5782 times)
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« on: September 16, 2014, 06:37:25 PM »

Hi Misos,
if it was someone else I would not waste my time; but since you appear to be quite involved and enthusiastic about VVS camouflage, I will try to explain again!

- right upper wing painting scheme fits NKAP 1943 template only partially, especially at the wing root.



You are nitpicking again...  to see what is nitpicking check here:  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nitpick

-  To be concerned with or find fault with insignificant details.
-  to criticize by focusing on minute details.
-  be overly critical; criticize minor details.

All 6th giap Yak-9Ds show clearly an attempt to follow 1943 NKAP template; every single dark gray blotch is there, the shape of every bloch is recognizable on NKAP's scetch!!!

Try to understand that:
- worker who painted this plane sprayed from memory - he probably painted tens/hundreds of planes before and after this particular Yak you are analyzing.
- NKAP's scetch is extremely generalized, it provides only a rough guide.
- when a straight line is sprayed on a curved surface (fuselage sides etc.) it becomes curved - it was practically impossible to replicate NKAP's sketch.
- although NKAP's scetch shows sharp borders between camouflage fields, mass production and technology required sprayed borders, so sharp borders are rarely seen.

IMHO, details you are commenting are normal "variations in execution".  All these photos show how 1943 NKAP scheme has been executed in real life, nothing else.
Even more important, this is the real 1943 NKAP scheme on real planes - it hasn't been "modified", it hasn't been "ignored".  It is what it is...

If you say that this isn't 1943 NKAP scheme, you have to explain what scheme it is.  Was there a special 1944 scheme for Yak-9Ds? I don't think so...
If you say this is "modified 1943 NKAP scheme", you have to explain who modified it, when and why... and you don't have those answers!

Hope you will understand this.  Smiley  and thanks for photos, profiles and information!  I also enjoy discovering stories!  Smiley Smiley Smiley

Regards,
KL


  
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 05:58:33 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1474

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2014, 08:02:25 PM »

HI KL,
thanks for reply, it really makes me happy Smiley
Anyhow, it is probably a matter of (my) interpretation of "what really is", "what is only attempt" and "modification". My understanding is that if it differs from template, it is modification. If some template say to paint 5 squares somewhere and I paint 5 circles, it is (my) modification of template, although all 5 blotches is there.
So I have to make a shift in my mindset - not to take NKAP 1943 template so strictly/dogmatic - as you write NKAP's scetch is extremely generalized, it provides only a rough guide. If result ressembles template in the main areas/features, then it is scheme according to the template, although it differs in (smaller/bigger) details.


All planes in this photo have blotches according to the NKAP 1943 template, although these blotches differ in shape from those on the template. So it is not field modification, it is "variations in execution".

If you say that this isn't 1943 NKAP scheme, you have to explain what scheme it is.  Was there a special 1944 scheme for Yak-9Ds? I don't think so...
I do not say it is not NKAP 1943 scheme, i only say that on some areas (especially right wing) it differs from template, so it is kind of modification.

If you say this is "modified 1943 NKAP scheme", you have to explain who modified it, when and why... and you don't have those answers!  
There was no official modification. This modification was done by field technician/painter who sprayed the curved surfaces (fuselage sides etc.) during repair/repaint from memory, because he understood NKAP 1943 template only as a rough guide, enabling "variations in execution".

My new understanding Wink is that also here (Czechoslovak La-5FN during Slovak National Uprising) are only "variations in execution", not modification of of NKAP 1943 template:


I have no problem with that. I only want to be sure with interpretation in English as it is not my native language.
Thankx again for your time.

Regards,
    66misos
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 05:58:52 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged

KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2014, 10:00:01 PM »

So I have to make a shift in my mindset - not to take NKAP 1943 template so strictly/dogmatic - as you write NKAP's scetch is extremely generalized, it provides only a rough guide. If result ressembles template in the main areas/features, then it is scheme according to the template, although it differs in (smaller/bigger) details.

Yes, nicely said...   Smiley



I know for sure that photo shows a collection of Yak-3s made at various times.  N-N regiment has received Yak-3s in several "waves", so some of the Yaks were made in different times in 1944, some in early 1945.  Few planes were replacement planes that were received from other 303 iad regiments or storage, just before N-N left Germany.

I can only guess that:
- most planes actually display factory painting
- some planes were repaired and repairs were over-painted, but without knowing individual plane histories, it's hard to say which plane was repaired in field
- there is a small probability that some planes were actually overhauled and completely over-painted.  Again, without hard evidence (documents) better not to guess which one.

Regardless of my guesses, IMHO, all planes were definitively camouflaged according to 1943 NKAP scheme.  There is no doubt that all planes were painted in blue-gray + dark gray.

To use this photo as a proof that NKAP template was ignored by factories (that is what SAFFC author is trying to proove) is a fairytail for naive readers.  Same is applicable to what St is trying to proove:  that planes were painted with whatever was available in factories or in field (green + dark green scheme, green + brown scheme) - urban myths for modellers who are eager to see exotics.  

HTH,
KL

« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 05:59:14 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged
Pascal
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 90



« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2014, 10:43:04 AM »

Hi !

This subject interests me a lot! The case reported by Konstantin also appear very often in discussions on the French camouflage of 1940: I am always amazed by the amount of non-standard paints that could be found on military airfields (and even plants!) and lack of standard products, whether in France or the eastern front!

I agree with KL in its conclusions.

Pascal
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 05:59:32 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged

KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2014, 08:45:10 PM »

...I am always amazed by the amount of non-standard paints that could be found on military airfields (and even plants!) and lack of standard products, whether in France or the eastern front!

Hi Pascal,
yes, this thread veered into a discussion about standard vs. non-standard, variation vs. modification etc.

I don't know why, but modellers in general prefer non-standard over standard.  Some of them preach that non-standard was a norm:  I have seen on various forums posts in which people wrote how Soviets didn't have a standard green colour for tanks, how planes were painted with whatever was available including tractor paints, how Soviet planes were painted with American and British paints received through Land-Lease.

Then, there is Pilawskii who writes that standards did exist, but they were issued by bureaucrats, and factories actually newer followed those standards.  Instead, each factory could choose paints and invent camouflage schemes for planes they produced.  He describes aircraft production in Soviet Union during the war as an anarchy in which girls painted "loops" on fighter planes (supposedly, those "loops" were well received in combat units...).

Pilawskii isn't alone, there are authors in Russia who believe that standards existed on paper only.  Reality in factories or on the front-line was different and planes were painted with whatever was available or however someone thought it was appropriate.  This view is well received among some modellers who believe that "rules are there to be broken"  (even in the Army!?!).

My views are different:  I believe that standard camouflage schemes did exist in Soviet VVS during the GPW and that camouflage schemes have been mandatory for Soviet aviation factories during the war.  Needles to say, I believe that planes were painted only with standard aviation paints.  My views are based on documents, written orders, period literature and planes/relics preserved in museums.        

Back to the subject of this thread:  IMHO, both 6th giap Yak-9Ds and N-N Yak-3s were painted in standard 1943 NKAP scheme.  In both cases planes are painted with standard AMT paints.  But, photos posted in this thread illustrate that 1943 NKAP template wasn't followed strictly:  borders between colours were sprayed, lines were in many cases curved instead of being straight.  So, the conclusion is that the sketch which accompanied 1943 NKAP order was a rough guide only.  It's similar situation with AMT paints; now we know that significant variations in shades were actually allowed for AMT-11 and AMT-12.  So, although the contrast between AMT-11 and AMT-12 is different on various planes, all of them were painted with standard AMT paints.

HTH,
KL

 
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 06:00:06 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged
xan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 456



WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2014, 09:17:19 PM »

I belong to the same school than pascal and Konstantin.
Another strong argument is that I do believe in the idea that private initiative was a very dangerous game in the Staline's USSR...
Xan
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 06:00:27 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged

KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2014, 09:18:31 PM »

to make this clear:  non-standard camouflage schemes did exist in Soviet VVS.  They were widespread during the 1939-1940 wars and in 1941/42 and always field applied.  Following are examples of those non-standard camouflage schemes:  









In 1943-45 only individual planes were painted in non-standard schemes, again always in the field.  Planes in non-standard colours were extremely rare!











It should be quite clear now what is "standard" and what is "non-standard" camouflage...  Smiley

HTH,
KL
 
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 06:00:43 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1474

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2014, 10:51:10 AM »

Hi KL,
I already agree with outcome from this "standard vs. nonstandard" discussion. Wink
This picture from Aviakolektia 12/2008 shows painter Popov painting the plane (Yak?) in PARM-1 of 562 iap PVO:


He has no picture of NKAP 1943 template either in his hands or on the board somewhere near, he just spraying what he remember from instructions. This picture also supports statement:
...planes are painted with standard AMT paints.  But, photos posted in this thread illustrate that 1943 NKAP template wasn't followed strictly:  borders between colours were sprayed, lines were in many cases curved instead of being straight.  So, the conclusion is that the sketch which accompanied 1943 NKAP order was a rough guide only.  

These are quite important results:
1.) 1943 NKAP order was a rough guide only and when field technician/painter sprayed the scheme on the curved surfaces (fuselage sides etc.) during repair/repaint from memory, the final work resulted in "variations in execution".
2.) "right" color of AMT paint was defined by interval, not by one strict chip. Therefore when e.g. AMT-11 from "darker end" of interval met AMT-12 from "lighter end" of interval, contrast was much smaller, than AMT-11 from "lighter end" of interval against AMT-12 from "darker end" of interval.
3.) So if there is several planes from different time and/or factories together in one photograph, one can see tonal/shape variation of one standard template (e.g. N-N planes above). This tonal/shape variation of one standard template also can be found on the planes partially repainted in the field or PARM (e.g. Yak-9D "22" or "31" above).

Massimo,
these outcome are applicable generally for VVS planes, not only for Yaks. IMHO it could be worth to move or copy everything from Reply no. 10 of this thread to the separate Topic named "Standard vs. Nonstandard painting schemes" either in "Colors, schemes, & research" or "Painting standards during the GPW". It would be pity if after some time it is lost in this thread. What do you think?

Regards,
     66misos
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 06:01:03 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5693


« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2014, 11:53:54 AM »

Hi Misos, hi all,
to tell the truth, I followed this discussion with only relative interest because the variability of the camouflage and shades was already known. I fully agree with the conclusions. Beautiful images indeed, anyway.
You have posted an interesting image. This plane wasn't painted according to NKAP template at all. It enters in the category discussed with scarce consensus in this topic: http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=1085.0
The explanation suggested by Ruchovsky is that all these planes (both prototypes and operative) were modified in Z.115; interestingly this style of painting appears on some Yak-1, 1M, 7B and 9, that were built in different factories. It appeared in late 1942, before the NKAP pattern of 1943, but this photo is said to be of 1945, and the plane (Yak-9M or T) is a model of 1944, the only one known with this style of camouflage after the introduction of the new official scheme.
If anyone has interest to discuss this, please do it in the linked topic.
Regards
Massimo
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 06:01:22 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged
KL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1678


« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2014, 07:08:44 PM »

Massimo,
these outcome are applicable generally for VVS planes, not only for Yaks. IMHO it could be worth to move or copy everything from Reply no. 10 of this thread to the separate Topic named "Standard vs. Nonstandard painting schemes" either in "Colors, schemes, & research" or "Painting standards during the GPW". It would be pity if after some time it is lost in this thread. What do you think?

Hi Misos, hi all,
to tell the truth, I followed this discussion with only relative interest because the variability of the camouflage and shades was already known...
Regards
Massimo

Hi all,
IMHO, the new topic named "Standard vs. Nonstandard painting schemes" is worth starting.  It will be especially interesting for those who have missed information about the variability of the camouflage and shades.
Regards,
KL  

« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 06:01:35 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1474

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2014, 09:01:58 PM »

Hi Massimo,
I would see there three main areas within "standard vs. nonstandard AMT-11/12 painting schemes":

1.) about summer 1943, when standard NKAP 1943 template was going to be / was published - different black/green or grey/grey "wave" or "arc" schemes (e.g. http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=1085.0)


2.) situation when standard NKAP 1943 template was apparently used but there are or could be different variations in executions. Not necessary always to paint splinter (like German) camo (as examples N-N Yaks or Black See Fleet Yaks at http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=1869.0)


3.) late-war (exceptional) single grey painting (as example some Yaks in Bari or Poltava).


Different Allg vs. Allg+Black vs. AMT-4 green+black schemes or Allb vs. AMT-7 blue from the beginning of war is different topic.

Regards,
    66misos
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 08:33:44 AM by 66misos » Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5693


« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2014, 09:54:44 PM »

Hi Misos, hi all,
do you want I rename or split this discussion, or prefer to start a new topic at all?
Regards
Massimo
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 06:02:05 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1474

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2014, 10:28:28 PM »

Hi Massimo,
if I could propose, everything until post #9, please, let as it is and everything from post #10 included move to the different thread - as I wrote in my post #17 above.
Thank you very much.
Regards,
     66misos
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 06:02:17 AM by Massimo Tessitori » Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5693


« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2014, 06:06:54 AM »

Hi,
I've done.
I hope you all will find satisfactory how I have splitted and renamed it.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1474

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2014, 08:37:06 AM »

Hi Massimo,
it is exactly what I meant. Smiley I already updated my Post #10 above - added links and pictures.
Thankx.
Regards,
   66misos
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 08:39:13 AM by 66misos » 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!