Corrections for Pilawski's book

[KL]

Massimo, I agree with you:

No need for ?kicking a dead horse?.

Same, there is absolutely no need to defend ?Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours? and its author.

KL

[mholly]

Massimo, Konstantin:

However, by that text EP caused great discredit to himself and the end of his fame of expert.

Absolutely, but we also need to tell that to the people who are new to the topic or were not following "debates with EP".
Only yesterday somebody on Hyperscale posted a link to this website, namely table of colors, so happy with this "discovery" and "new thing", calling however VVS coloration a "snake pit".

there is absolutely no need to defend ?Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours? and its author

Right on the money, he had plenty of opportunities to do so, was personally challenged (some people will continue saying "attacked") by you, myself, Massimo...
Let's move forward, still many things to do.
Cheers,
Mario

[JP]

Well, here's my 2 pesos.  What I do NOT see here is a one-sided Pilawski bash-fest.  What I do see in this thread is a healthy discussion on a subject/person who elicits strong emotions from people, whether we like that or not.  I further see reasonable people who I'm sure can come to an agreement on how to treat this hot topic like mature adults and move forward.

The original intent when this site/forum was created was to have an atmosphere of complete academic freedom.  Not a personal fiefdom where a certain point of view would be protected against competing notions.  This was the idea that originally brought Massimo and I together.    In order to find truth, you must always be prepared for the eventuality that what you think now may later be proved wrong.  It can't be a personal thing, or you are already in the wrong.

I think it helps to keep in mind some perspective - at the end of the day, this is all basically over little plastic airplanes and some source material, and the majority of the people we know in life think we're giant nerds for even concerning ourselves with such things.  In fact, I am actually in the Air Force of my country, and no one I know could tell a P-40 from a Yak.   

Any truly constructive comment is welcome here.  I think we can do that without bringing personal issues into our common interest in Soviet warplanes.  Truth comes from people questioning assumptions and reasoning.  (Also consider that much of what we discuss will probably never be definitively answered.)  In short, you must argue like Germans - as passionately as if you were about to fight over it, but at the end still clear headed enough to go share a beer afterward.   

[KL]

Let me start with something constructive, something that is relevant and probably unknown to the most of those who are following this dispute ? what Russian experts see as SAFFC?s major problems:

Problem No 1:
Those who are familiar with the subject are saying that SAFFC creates a picture of totally unregulated field:  NKAP (ministry of Aviation Production) issued only ?recommendations?, factories could create there own schemes or use paints they just ?prefer?.  Workers could paint planes how they wanted and with anything that was handy.  Girls could invent their own camouflage schemes, factories competed to create more colorful schemes.  Camouflage schemes and even the type of national markings were just more ?popular? at certain times ? something like wartime fashion.

Those same people, who are familiar with the subject, are saying that the camouflage and the colouring were regulated.  NKAP and VVS High Command issued directives and orders that were mandatory.  Planes were accepted by military commissions and those did pay attention how planes were painted.  Paint production was standardized and their use was clearly defined in technical documentation.

Problem No 2:
Russian researchers who worked in archives have many doubts about author?s work in those archives.  For example, some of the documents listed in ?Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours? simply don?t exist.


So, the dispute is not really about the shade of any particular colour (how acidic is Aii Green or how dark is AKAN?s AMT-11).  It?s about more fundamental things - the treatment of official documents and the real sources.

?Albom Nakrasok? is pretty much irrelevant for this case!

Hope this helps,
KL

[learstang]

Konstantin, I think that states things pretty well.  And JP, when I first came on this site, I was wrong about many things regarding VVS colours, but thanks to members such as Konstantin and Mario, I was put on the straight and narrow.  And now I know everything there is to know about VVS colours and paint schemes.

Regards,

Jason

[mholly]

One brilliant summary Kosta, superb, thanks a lot!
Mario

[KL]

Regardless of what SAFFC?s author and the publisher say about the work in archives, VVS camouflage schemes are based on b/w photo analysis.  SAFFC?s author describes his research in the ?Anatomy of the Colo(u)r? text posted on his web site:

?In my own research on VVS subjects, I rely mainly on the photographic evidence that I have collected over the years. In my case, I keep a notebook (well, many, as a matter of fact) of all of the photographs that I have ever seen in any collection; I have done this faithfully since 1987. For each photograph I make a description using a notation system of my own invention to describe the subject(s) of the photo. The collection, reference number, negative information, caption information, and date are all recorded, if available. In many cases, a small sketch accompanies the description in the margin. The grand total over the years has come to many thousands of Notebook entries, needless to say, but certainly not all of these are unique examples; many photographs, or copies thereof, are to be found throughout a number of collections.?

Source at:  http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Markings/Yak7_White03/index.php

In SAFFC author mentions some 17,000 photos.  From photo captions it is clear that he had heavily relied on G. Petrov?s collection.  Photos from Monino, CDAK and popular literature are also mentioned both in SAFFC and on his web-site.

Author tried to identify different camouflage schemes, to sort them, to date them and even to assign them to different factories.  This type of effort would have been justified in 1980es when information about VVS colouring was scarce.  If  SAFFC was published 10 years earlier, in 1993, it would have been a valuable contribution to the understanding of VVS colouring.

But, it just happened that Russian researchers V. Vahlamov and M. Orlov had published a series of texts about VVS camouflage and colours in late 1990es. Those authors relied on documents in their research.  Their research outlines the history and chronology of camouflage in Soviet Union for the first time.

Research presented in SAFFC was outdated and redundant when published in 2003.   My two pesos! 

KL

[Massimo Tessitori]

Hi Konstantin
the work of EP has many limits in its reliability, but the basic idea of obtaining conclusions from photos, at least on templates, isn't bad, any source should be utilized and compared.
My doubts is on if/how it was done. First, 17000 photos is an enormous amount, scarcely credible.
Second, he wrote to have not the photos under his eyes when he traced sketches and obtained conclusions, and this makes the work weak.
The fact that Vaklamov and Orlov published important articles in Russian some years before doesn't delete the utility of a book in English where a lot of photos, profiles, templates and descriptions of colors are collected in two hundred pages.
What ruins the value of this book is that, when one goes to the sources to check a drawing or a description, too often he has to discover that it's in some way wrong, and the attitude of the author is not to discuss and correct it.
There is still a lot of work to do to clarify painting and templates of Soviet planes, and we can't avoid to use photos for this.
Regards
Massimo

[KL]

... but the basic idea of obtaining conclusions from photos, at least on templates, isn't bad....

Schemes presented in "Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours" are supposed to represent standard factory templates.  They are bad because:

-  in many cases represent scheme that is applicable to a single plane (or single photograph) - only something used on many planes can be called a "template"
-  in many cases represent a field applied camouflage, not a factory scheme

when you trace a template from a single photograph, how do you know how many other planes were camouflaged the same way?  That plane could be unique.

Pilawskii's last two books, I-16 and Mig-3, are much better:  color profiles represent individual (particualar) planes with all their individual markings etc.

In my opinion, official template is only that crude black-and-white drawing that accompnied the order.  everything else that we see on photos are interpretations of that template or its modifications, in factories , in units etc.

Regards,
KL

[mholly]

basic idea of obtaining conclusions from photos, at least on templates, isn't bad

Agreed BUT he did make wrong conclusions-loop patterns, Bukhanova's schemes, zavod this zavod that patterns...
B&w pictures analysis does have its validity but only as a supplement to the primary research which is working with period documents and extant relics.
This is not just my personal opinion. There are other aviation color researchers out there, such as Dana Bell, Nick Millman, Jim Maas..., who will confirm that.
Cheers,
Mario

[Massimo Tessitori]

Hi Konstantin and Mario,
many types of planes show repetitive schemes that are similar to the 1941 nkap template, but not identical.
The most of black-green Pe-2 are painted according to one scheme, and the most of LaGG-3 and La-5 are well standardized. For what I have seen on a fair number of photos, all Il-4 have variations of two base templates. A photo of a Il-2 factory shows dozens of Il-2 painted in the same way. So, nearly all Li-2 are painted according to variations of one or two templates.
I don't know if the difference is due to the factory, or what else.
Other types are refractary to schematism: I haven't seen two Su-2 identical one another.
About loops, I have found photos of a Yak-9 with a loop on the left wing; at present I am not able to say how representative is it, but I have seen photos of lines of Yaks identical each other, so it's fully possible that the plane was representative of its batch.
So at present time I am not able to say if the templates of EP are right or wrong, even if I am working hard on photos.
Regards
Massimo

[dragonlanceHR]

My two cents...

Can we form a club of folks threatened wit libel case by EP?

I treasure his (long deleted, but saved on my HDD) ARC post calling me some not-so nice names and threats... and yet I (and others) am the one accused of "vitriolic personal attacks".

Can't we just ignore the aforementioned person? My heart bleeds when I see a two-tone poison green MiG (recently on HS forum), but I can live with it.

We have this forum, Massimo has an ever-improving website, so let's leave EP to history.

Vedran

[KL]

Hi Vedran, 
Good to see you again!

Can we form a club of folks threatened wit libel case by EP?

This is going to be and international club!
Some of those who were attacked by Erik Pilawskii include:

Russia:  MN and YeV
Finland: KL (this is about the use of silver paint in VVS and ?Finnish Conspyracy?)
Serbia:  SB
Croatia:  VK
Italy:  MT

Initials used to protect victims privacy and integrity!

I treasure his (long deleted, but saved on my HDD) ARC post calling me some not-so nice names and threats..

Why don?t you post here some of Pilawskii?s attacks? just for the reference? for those who are trying to protect aforementioned person?

Cheers, 
KL (not related to the ?Finnish Conspiracy?)

[michman]

Dear Colleagues,

I am a new member. So, perhaps I missed some new development.
Are you making reference to this book of 2004 year by E. Pilawskii?
http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Fighter-Colours-1941-45-Classic/dp/190322330X

If we speak of a work authored by a foreigner, and almost 10 years ago .... well .... what would an American expect of "USAAC Colors of World War Two" authored by a Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov, "famous aviation researcher of Pskov", or some such, based on some tourism in the USA?
In my personal opinion, we might very happily ignore such a work.

One must say that if an author does not have Russian, and does not constantly participate in the Russian aviation research world (to communicate with archive researchers, aircraft restorers and collectors, scalemodels.ru, MHobby publications, etc., etc.), it is assured that many errors will be made.

But if these errors have been recently repeated, I would be very surprised - even with E. Pilawskii. So, has there been some new, addtional or more recent "update" that still maintains the problems of the original?

Thank you for any clarification.

[JP]

I think the main issue of contention stems from the author's choice of how to respond to honest and well-meaning inquiring and questions relating to his work.