Sovietwarplanes
September 20, 2019, 03:39:06 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]
  Print  
Author Topic: Il-2 in nonstandard grey-grey camo  (Read 7725 times)
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1509

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« on: January 13, 2015, 10:45:12 AM »

Hi,
today I had interesting communication with one profile painter who currently draws profile of Il-2m3 for one Czech club.
Czech guys insisted on that at least some czecholovak Il-2 did not have light brown camouflage color.
This I found at Massimo's Mig3 pages:

http://www.mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/il-2/il2-camo/uil-2/uil-2.html:
Standard VVS camouflage:


Czechoslovak UIL-2:

with the description:
"An UIL-2 photographed in Prague in July 1945.
The use of grey instead of brown looks apparent on this photo, but it's not granted that this is an original fotocolor, it looks colorized to my eye, so it has not probative value.
(Photo from 4+ Publications-Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik)"

and
http://www.mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/il-2/il2-camo/postwarforeign/postwarforeign.htm

with the description:
"This color photo was taken in Prague, July 1945; this image suggests that blue-grey could really have been utilized in substitution of the brown. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that this color photo is real; it likely is a colorized b/w photo.
(Photo from 4+ Publications-Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik)"


Seems there was a lot of improvisation in Czechosloval units within VVS, note also cs. La-5FN with nonstandard AMT-12 blotches:


This probably coud explain strange painting on Il-2s. Green AMT-4 had the same pigment as tank green 4BO. Cs. units had tanks. Cs. fighter units used both grey AMT-11 and AMT-12. So green and grey paints were on hands. However there was probably shortage of the light brown used only for Sturmoviks. So during repairs in cs. units (after the WWII) they used what they had - simply replaced missing light brown with blue-grey.
As a result there could be interesting 3-color camo scheme for upper surfaces: green AMT-4 plus blue-grey AMT-11 (replaced light brown) plus dark grey AMT-12.
Regards,
   66misos
« Last Edit: February 06, 2015, 03:46:05 PM by 66misos » Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2015, 03:58:07 PM »

Hi Misos,
I think that those were not real color photos.
To repaint a whole line of planes can be done, if necessary, but I don't see evidence of repaintings on the bw versions of the photos, and the planes had to be relatively new in summer 1945.
There is one reason to repaint the nose of a La-5FN: it was very subject to wearing during maintenance. The rear part of the plane looks as painted originally in factory, indicative of the fact that Czechs didn't paint surfaces without necessity.  By the way, it's a very nice photo of La-5FN.
So, unless anything new should emerge (an interview, a piece etc) I think that those photos were colorized, and the real colors of the planes were as usual.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1509

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2015, 03:36:42 PM »

Hi Massimo,
here I combined info from your Mig3 pages and Czech modelforum:

1. Petlyakov Pe-2/Pe-3 camouflage evolution
http://www.mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/pe2/pe2camo/pe2camo.htm
In late 1944 the Soviet Air Force had altready reached a position of superiority over the German Luftwaffe and its alleys. While Germans reverted to green/brown camouflages to hide better their planes on the ground, the Soviets decided to extend to all planes the blue grey/dark grey camouflage that has been successful for fighters since August 1943.
On October 1, 1944, the Resolution n.6339 was approved, but burocratic delays retarded its publication till January 1945.
Used colors: light blue AMT-7, blue-grey AMT-11, dark grey AMT-12 and ther oil equivalents.
The resolution included templates for many types of planes:


Accoding to Orlov, on Pe-2 the old camouflage was rather simply updated by overpainting:
- green fields with gray-blue paint
- light brown with dark gray, except for the paint on the left side of the tail
- dark grey should, of course, be left unchanged.
This style of repainting would generate a camouflage where the dark grey is predominant over blue grey, but from photos it seems that this was not the case of many planes.

It is possible that many Pe-2s had the light brown areas replaced by blue-grey as happened on some Il-2s, but this would be undetectable on bw photos.

It seems, instead, that many Pe-2 had a repainting where a light shade covered all the previous light brown areas, plus other ones that were previously painted in green or dark grey, generating a nearly-uniform light plane. Lacking of a reason for a so wide light brown painting, this could be the form assumed by many blue-grey repaintings. The veteran Anisimov confirms the existance of grey Pe-2s, describing them as unformly painted.

2. Tupolev Tu-2 camouflage evolution
http://www.mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/tu-2/tu-2camo/tu-2camo.htm
The new grey-grey template for Pe-2 was intended for the Tu-2 too. As it is traced here, it doesn't appear on any photo or wartime or postwar Tu-2.

Rare color image of Tu-2s, probably after the war. The most of them seem to have bands of light brown, only one of the planes, far on the left, seems to have a grey-grey livery.

3. Yermolaev Yer-2 camouflage evolution
http://www.mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/Yer-2/Yer-2camo/yer-2camo.htm
No any template was provided for the Yer-2 bomber, but, as on previous instructions, the template of Pe-2 was of some help.

This image of Yer-2 of 327 BAP, possibly taken in spring 1945 shows a surprising two-shades splinter camouflage having some resemblance to the 1945 grey/grey template for Pe-2.

4.) (some) Czechoslovak Il-2 in April/May 1945

This picture looks like:
- light brown AMT-1 replaced by bluegrey AMT-11,
- green AMT-4 replaced by dark grey AMT-12,
- dark grey AMT-12 kept untouched.
As a result there would be Il-2 in 2-color grey-grey camo, whey shapes of the camo fields would resemble original standard 3-color painting:

- light areas - originally light brown, now bluegrey (the tip of the left wing should be in original light brown like on the photo, not green like on the profile),
- dark areas - originally green and dark grey together now as dark grey.
Regards,
   66misos
« Last Edit: February 06, 2015, 03:41:27 PM by 66misos » Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2015, 09:56:16 PM »

Hi Misos,
it's true that I wrote those things two or three years ago, but there are not sure facts.
Well' I'm still convinced about the grey camouflage of Yermolaev, Li-2, U-2 and probably of some Pe-2 and Tu-2; it's true that there are abnormal amounts of a light color on some pe-2 and tu-2 of late 1944 and 1945.
The thing on the replacement of colors on Pe-2 and Tu-2... well, for how I read it for the first time, it looked that the real planes were repainted in that way. But reading again the part of Vaklamov and Orlov, I think that he was describing the templates of 1945 with a comparison to those of 1943, so he is speaking of sketches and not of real planes. You can read the original Russian text and see if you agree or not with my latest interpretation of it.
There were the color photos of the Il-2s on 4+ that seemed to support this interpretation, but there is no any guarantee that they are real color photos. If one can prove that the colors are real, well. But the colors have the same position and darkness of usual brown, so the bw photos show very usually painted Il-2s. The green and the dark grey are usually undistinguishable on bw photos. The light tip of the left wing is too few to say that the painting was anomalous.
Consider how long is the hypothetical dark green band from the rear of the canopy to the nose: what other camouflage shows a so large band of the same color?
Is there any report of grey camouflaged Il-2s independant by those photos on 4+ (presumably taken from some magazione of the period) or from the sketch that I put on the site three years ago, and then changed? If so, I'm very interested to know of it.
Regards
Massimo
 
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1509

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2015, 09:45:52 AM »

Hi,
Here is the work of arthur66 from modelforum.cz:



EDIT:
Requestor/customer insisted on repainted green-grey camo, but "for sure" arthur66 made also the profile in the standard green-grey-brown camo.
Regards,
   66misos
« Last Edit: April 11, 2015, 05:09:48 PM by 66misos » Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2015, 04:39:56 PM »

Hi Misos, who knows...
You could ask the author of the 4+ monograph to know if the photos are surely original photocolors or there is the possibility that they are colorized.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2015, 01:57:20 PM »

To tell the truth, stars seem too high, not well proportioned.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1509

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2015, 05:09:02 PM »

Hi Massimo,
the original picture is too big. I mistakenly did not constrain proportions when scaling it down. I replaced it with the profile in both alternatives.
Regards,
   66misos
Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5777


« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2015, 01:46:13 PM »

Hi Misos,
it's much better now.
Another small thing: I see the prop blades are moving, but the starter tooth is static.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
learstang
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1763



WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2015, 05:54:06 PM »

Those are nice profiles, but I just noticed that there are faint panel lines on the rear fuselage and fin, as if those were metal. They weren't; they were wooden and should be smooth.

Regards,

Jason
Logged

"I'll sleep when I'm dead."

- Warren William Zevon

http://www.learstang.com
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1509

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2015, 05:31:52 PM »

Hi,
thank you for comments. I will inform him.
Jason, are you sure about that wooden fuselage? Sorry for silly question, but I am far from beeing expert on Il-2 ;-)
Regards,
   66misos
Logged

learstang
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1763



WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2015, 02:57:47 AM »

Yes; although one source mentions Zavod 18 in Kuibyshev (today's Samara) as producing metal-fuselaged arrows before the end of the war, I have seen no other evidence of this, so I remain skeptical. On Il-2's that did indeed have the metal fuselage, such as some early war single-seaters, it is easy to see the panel lines, especially on the fin. I see no evidence of that on these photographs.

Regards,

Jason

P.S. It's not a silly question; many people are unclear about the usage of the metal rear fuselages on the Il-2.
Logged

"I'll sleep when I'm dead."

- Warren William Zevon

http://www.learstang.com
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1509

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2015, 10:44:20 AM »

Hi,
I was told by arthur1966 that there no metal plates on the rear fuselage in the profile, he knows about wooden fuselage, and that he made that lines according to this drawing from Modelist-konstruktor:


and these photos:
 

Regards,
   66misos
Logged

John Thompson
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1498



« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2015, 02:55:21 PM »

I'm guessing that the lines on the MK drawing are intended to represent the locations of internal formers (the frames that give the fuselage its cross-sectional shape), not external panel lines.

John
Logged
learstang
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1763



WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 03, 2015, 05:53:27 PM »

You're probably correct, John. Regarding that one line immediately below where the gunner's aluminium flashing around his position ends, I've seen it before. There's some sort of reinforcement there, very likely to a former. Otherwise, the wooden fuselage was very smooth. It was not like the very thin aluminium plates that were attached to metal stressed-skin fuselages, where the interior structure could show through; the 'shpon' or plywood covering over the internal structure was very stiff, and didn't bend like thin metal plates would have. Those lines don't belong on those new pictures.

Regards,

Jason
Logged

"I'll sleep when I'm dead."

- Warren William Zevon

http://www.learstang.com
Pages: [1]
  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!