Jump to content

Room for a little one...?


Recommended Posts

Hi folks.

 

ICM's 1/72 Polikarpov I-153 'Chaika' ('Gull') has been a snack between main modelling meals. 'Red 20' is one of the box options. The book by Erik Pilawski, 'Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours, 1941-1945', advised that Russian aluminium dope was a finish with 'highly reflective properties' that was applied all over, so I went with that, although Troy's comments below are welcome as ever, in appreciating that all that glisters...  

 

Having forgotten to prep for rigging before the top wing went on resulted in the necessity to innovate a little, so the modern convenience of elastic was married to the old fishing line and eyelet method to create removable / replaceable rigging.

 

21r.jpg

 

The principle is illustrated above modelled over scale, so it can be seen easily. Each rigging 'run' was measured and a piece of elastic cut about 1cm short. Both ends were inserted into pieces of brass micro tube and short sections of wire into each extremity and CA'd in place. The wire was bent into a hook to complete. With wire eyelets CA'd at the appropriate anchor points it was easy to hook each line up to complete the rigging. The 'hook and loop' system is convenient as it's assembled 'off model' until ready to install. It's a methodology that sits alongside other rigging techniques and which particularly suits tight, relatively inaccessible areas.    

 

ICM-Finished-I-153-15.jpg

 

ICM-Finished-I-153-19.jpg

 

ICM-Finished-I-153-17.jpg 

 

ICM-Finished-I-153-21.jpg 

 

 

TTFN

 

Steve 

 

 

Edited by Dances With Wolves
  • Like 61
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dances With Wolves said:

the superb book by Erik Pilawski, 'Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours, 1941-1945',

 

The model is a great piece of work Steve,  but whatever you do, don't trust the above book.  About half of it is correct, the other half is complete cobblers,  which, unless you know which is which,  makes it a useless reference. 

This has been much debated,  there is an interesting thread here on this

Corrections for Pilawski's book

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php?topic=1071.0

 

 

Overall aluminium I-153's exist,  but are rare

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/i15/i-153/i-153painting/i-153painting.htm

Quote

The standard look for I-153 built till 1940 was: AE-9 light grey on metal-skinned parts, and AII silver on fabric-skinned parts.

 

One very interesting thing in the field of VVS camouflage and marking is the amount if new photographs turning up on Russian websites,  which is greatly expands the sheer range of potential model subjects, 

An example of this is the Eduard Bella Airacobra dual kit,  which has schemes based on the work of Michal Sekula

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/lendlease/p-39/p-39.html

 

Hope of interest

cheers

T

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

 

The model is a great piece of work Steve,  but whatever you do, don't trust the above book.  About half of it is correct, the other half is complete cobblers,  which, unless you know which is which,  makes it a useless reference. 

This has been much debated,  there is an interesting thread here on this

Corrections for Pilawski's book

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php?topic=1071.0

 

 

Overall aluminium I-153's exist,  but are rare

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/i15/i-153/i-153painting/i-153painting.htm

 

One very interesting thing in the field of VVS camouflage and marking is the amount if new photographs turning up on Russian websites,  which is greatly expands the sheer range of potential model subjects, 

An example of this is the Eduard Bella Airacobra dual kit,  which has schemes based on the work of Michal Sekula

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/lendlease/p-39/p-39.html

 

Hope of interest

cheers

T

Hi Troy.

 

Sincere thanks for the above - the truth is all that matters and my trusting of a flawed publication is a useful reminder to remain always open to information that is new or unexpected, so again - thanks for posting the corrections.

 

I wasn't aware of the debate, so I'll be delving into your links to get properly abreast of the position. Funnily enough, a brother of mine was telling me recently how a certain military historian of renown and close friend of stand-up comedian Al Murray, has recently criticised the functional abilities of the MG42 machine gun and his perception of how it was operated. My brother, who is an extremely thorough researcher has looked at this from his own experiences with the weapon in a re-enactment group, who were widely praised for there obsession with authenticity (vets have told them their b & w photos are indistinguishable from WWII images of the Panzergrenadier Division "Großdeutschland") and extensive enquiries among vets and so forth and compiled a correct view of how the MG42 was actually used - so much so, that the leading German authority on the MG42 has described him as "the High Priest of the MG42". The point is, it's another example of how easy it is to get drawn by a book or individual. 

 

You never stop learning... 🙂     

 

 

TTFN

 

Steve    

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

The model is a great piece of work Steve,  but whatever you do, don't trust the above book.  About half of it is correct, the other half is complete cobblers,  which, unless you know which is which,  makes it a useless reference. 

This has been much debated,  there is an interesting thread here on this

Corrections for Pilawski's book

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php?topic=1071.0

 

So where are the accurate corrections sir - the above link contains a lot of back-and-forth personal attacks. I do not know Mr Pilawski, but I do have his book and it seems he did the best he could with the available resources. What is your proof that half of his book is incorrect? I am no expert on the colors of Soviet aircraft during World War II, but I do have many volumes on the history of the war on the Eastern Front. One of the best is Simon Sebag Montefiore's Stalin - The Court of the Red Tsar. This remarkable book really shows how overwhelmed and overmatched the Russians were at times during 1941 and 1942. There were instances when the Soviet military and political leadership were completely clueless and running around like chickens with their heads cut off.  It is also important to remember that many factories in "European Russia" were dismantled and moved by rail east to the safer parts of Russia. These operations were often done haphazardly with little time to spare. The bottom line is that it would seem to me that the last thing on the mind of a Russian mechanic or factory worker was making sure that their aircraft were painted correctly (survival and fighting back were their main focus). Considering how horrible the Russian supply network was at this time, they probably just used whatever paint was available. So unless someone invents a time machine, there is really no way to be 100% certain how a certain aircraft was painted at a particular point in time. When you're dealing with nothing but poor quality black and white photos, you are in the realm of pure speculation. So ... website threads dealing with the "errors" in Pilawski's book seem a bit far-fetched and infantile to me. Everyone needs to relax and just have fun building models. Dances With Wolves built an incredibly beautiful I-153 that may well be 100% accurate!!!

Edited by Hobo
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Robert_ said:

Interesting thread so far, hope it doesn't detract from a great piece of work here! Thanks for sharing.

I agree with you 100% Robert and I hope my post does not take away from the beautiful model that Dances With Wolves created. My apologies if it did. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hobo said:

So ... website threads dealing with the "errors" in Pilawski's book seem a bit far-fetched and infantile to me.

go to the linked site, read the threads, especially the one on corrections, as it detail the works faults. .  Read the link on the painting of the I-153.  Read the other posts.  It's a forum open to discussion and input.  Pilawskii is not.  The book is seriously flawed.

In what way are the criticisms far fetched?

 

The Pilawskii book was oooh and aaahd at, until the Russians read it, and said what was wrong.

 

He then spat his dummy out that anyone dared to contradict him.  He still writes utter rubbish on a regular basis now.  He talked about measuring the pH of paint in dissolved in white spirit (pH requires an water based solution)  as well as being able to determine colours from B/W photos,  but colour photos are not useful, the foolishness goes on and on. 

 

 We have world class researchers who regularly post here, who engage and list sources, and revise work in light of new information.

Good research is open to new ideas, new information,  critiques, discussion,  and Mr Pilawskii is not. 

 

There are several member on the sovietwarplanes site who are members here,  @Massimo Tessitori, @Learstang @John Thompson @dragonlanceHR   who can recount various stories,   what you say is if I started a thread saying my reference on Luftwaffe colours was the Karl Ries series of books,  which were the standard in the 1960's, someone would tell me that had been superseded by newer research. 

 

1 hour ago, Hobo said:

The bottom line is that it would seem to me that the last thing on the mind of a Russian mechanic or factory worker was making sure that their aircraft were painted correctly (survival and fighting back were their main focus). Considering how horrible the Russian supply network was at this time, they probably just used whatever paint was available.

Aircraft need special paint,   while there are periods of chaos, there wasn't pre war,  and considering the VVS used nearly 150,000 aircraft during the GPW,  I suggest the idea of Soviet chaos is vastly over stated.  The Soviet state was rigid, you got sent to the Gulag for getting things wrong, Aircraft were important, read Stalin in the IL-2.

So, for the sake of argument, there is an era in Soviet production where rules were not followed.  It's not a long period,  and considering how complex aircraft are, and you need all those bits for it too work,  why should getting paint be any different?  This was a priority.  Camouflage is important.   The Germans were still building and camouflaging planes until the end of the war

 

The photographic evidence shows overall conformity with what was ordered.   There are variations, see the IL-2 references, in which certain plants can be identified by quirks in the application of the specified scheme.   In the same way that it's possible to identify which factory built what batch of Bf109's and fw190D's by their paint scheme, (see the JaPo books on this) but that has only happened after years and years of looking at photos and cross referencing data.

 

 It's a still developing area of research,  which make it interesting.

 

22 minutes ago, Hobo said:

built an incredibly beautiful I-153 that may well be 100% accurate!!!

I praised the model, I mentioned in my post there are photos of overall silver I-153's,  I linked a page showing this.  Its has a colour photo showing silver and grey as well, as well as many other photos. 

1 hour ago, Hobo said:

When you're dealing with nothing but poor quality black and white photos, you are in the realm of pure speculation.

 

Many photos of VVS types, certainly early war,  are from German sources as well, and are not poor photos.  There are even a few in colour,  one classic is an I-16 with a Bf109,  so you have a set of known colours. on the Bf109

The I-16 is not in bright blue and acid green as per SAFFC book.

 

7b01b3ae8d231ff1d15b739228e03d3f.jpg

see https://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/i16/i16painting/I16painting.htm

 

And more keep turning up.  And there are specified paint schemes, and they photos correspond with what was specified. 

 

It's not pure speculation.  

 

There are some photos that do not fit the specifications,  and in those cases, are open to speculation, there are MiG-3 like this, https://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/mig3/colors5.html

and some polychromatic Pe-2's as well. 

https://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/pe2/pe2-earlycamo24/pe2-earlycamo24.htm

 

Over silver, or upper colours in silver were a variant of winter camo  in the VVS BTW.    

1 hour ago, Hobo said:

but I do have this book and it seems he did the best he could with the available resources.

The book came out in 2003 IIRC?  An awful lot more has come out since.  

1 hour ago, Hobo said:

What is your proof that half of this book is incorrect?

The proof that half the book in incorrect is discussed in the linked thread,  and, if you get the book, and then look at the relevant parts of the website I have linked, which discusses the work of Russian researchers, and has scans of period documents.

1 hour ago, Hobo said:

I am no expert on the colors of Soviet aircraft during World War II,

Then why are you defending a book that the experts say is flawed.   

 

see for some detailed critiques 

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php?topic=1071.msg6259#msg6259

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php?topic=1071.msg6289#msg6289

 

you have the book? Look up the South Front Yak scheme

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php?topic=1071.msg8279#msg8279

 

I've been following the developments in VVS research for about 10 years now, and have been interested in the VVS since I bought Red Stars in the Sky 1, when I was about 15, which is a long time ago, and that was a groundbreaking book when it was issued.    I commented in the thread as when first issued it seemed authoritative, I mean, it looks the part,  and as such it was accepted as such. 

 

In a similar vein, AK  issued a book recently, Real Colors of WW2, on armour.  Looks very impressive,  lots of colour,  and then in thread here, I did some searching

note the quotes from the "author" of the British section on how his work was treated

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235049761-british-olive-drab-no15/&do=findComment&comment=3252695

 

@Dances With Wolves, if this a clutter/diversion on your thread, say and I'll edit it out.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Gorby said:

Beautiful job! And I really like that rigging method. 

 

16 hours ago, dogsbody said:

My gast has been completely flabbered! That's awesome, Steve.

 

 

 

Chris

 

11 hours ago, Wulfman said:

I’m no expert on Russian camouflage, but your Chaika looks superb !

 

Wulfman

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Robert_ said:

Interesting thread so far, hope it doesn't detract from a great piece of work here! Thanks for sharing.

 

10 hours ago, Hobo said:

I agree with you 100% Robert and I hope my post does not take away from the beautiful model that Dances With Wolves created. My apologies if it did. 

 

8 hours ago, Procopius said:

That rigging is bananas.

 

2 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Beautiful work. :thumbsup:

 

1 hour ago, bigbadbadge said:

Wow, great work. What a lovely model.  I like the rigging idea too , thanks for sharing

All the best

Chris

 

1 hour ago, HOUSTON said:

Steve.

 

INCREDIBLY  STUNNING model.  :wow:

Liking your Rigging techniques. 

Always  learning in modeling.

 

:goodjob:    :mike:

 

Thank you to all for dropping by on this one - I have no issue or problem with the thread acting as a springboard for debate that's conducted within forum rules, as it acts as a conduit to better understanding and knowledge.

 

When I was deciding on a scheme, I was already aware that Soviet colours are quite the minefield (!) but very much unaware of the issues with the book I referenced (as I mentioned previously, I'm grateful to Troy for highlighting the same). In the end, I went with an option provided by ICM in the kit, in conjunction with an image in Pilawski's book.

 

So, thanks again to all - have a great weekend!

 

 

TTFN

 

Steve   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beautiful job on that Chaika! As far as Soviet GPW colours are concerned, they were (olive) green, black, (sky) blue, dark grey (rather like EDSG), a medium slightly bluish grey, a slightly greyish-tinged light brown (tan), and a neutral grey on the interior. And the temporary white for the winter camouflage. That's pretty much it. Not much of a minefield. As far as Troy Smith, wot he said. By the way, I love the quote from the late, great Rutger Hauer from Bladerunner on your signature line.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

Edited by Learstang
Additional comments added.
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gary Brantley said:

Really fine little gem here!  :clap2: I think the model looks great and yes, I will have to try that rigging method.  Thanks for the tip on that! 🍻

Hi Gary.

 

Thanks - wish you well with the rigging; I know it's been described above as "...bananas..." but it's entirely practical in 1/72 when you've a 3.5 mag Optiviser nailed to yer nut, so 1/48 (where I'll be using it next on a real 'rigging monster') and 1/32 will be that much simpler.

I can't overstate the advantage of not having to grope around the model with CA and all the attendant risk of getting it where it'd be screamingly unwelcome - all the messy stuff is conducted 'off piste'. It made rigging an absolute stress free pleasure. 🙂

 

3 hours ago, Learstang said:

Beautiful job on that Chaika! As far as Soviet GPW colours are concerned, they were (olive) green, black, (sky) blue, dark grey (rather like EDSG), a medium slightly bluish grey, a slightly greyish-tinged light brown (tan), and a neutral grey on the interior. And the temporary white for the winter camouflage. That's pretty much it. Not much of a minefield. As far as Troy Smith, wot he said. By the way, I love the quote from the late, great Rutger Hauer from Bladerunner on your signature line.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

Cheers Jason but when you've a brain as addled as mine in the wake of a life of full throttle sex, drugs and rockin' kits, even a fork in the road is a 'minefield'... 

Edited by Dances With Wolves
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dances With Wolves said:

I was already aware that Soviet colours are quite the minefield (!)

 

No, they are not. 

 

They are, actually, surprisingly uniform. Dull almost.

 The vast majority of VVS aircraft were supplied in  factory applied camo schemes to specified  pattern during WW2.

Fighters

1940-41

Uppers olive green, undersides light blue

1941 - black disruptive pattern applied on uppers. field applied black varies in pattern.    This is similar to the Finnish colours, and is a defensive scheme, for ground concealment. 

 

winter 41/42  temporary white applied, or aluminium. 

 

1942 - black /green uppers, undersides light blue

winter - more aluminium winter finish seen

 

1943-45 Dark grey/Grey uppers replace the black/green, underside remain pale blue. this is a change to an offensive scheme, as also sen in

the Luftwaffe 74/75 greys and the RAF day Fighter Scheme

lend lease types retained their delivery camouflage except in case of major repairs.

 

 Do you want the bombers and IL-2 ?  Up to 1943, as the per the fighters.  

Post 1943 the bombers get 3 colour uppers,  green, dark grey,  light brown , but a milky brown, undersides are light blue, or black.

Land Lease, retained the delivery colours, though later B-25s were camouflaged at the factory in the US in the tri colour uppers with bacl undersides.

I have avoided using the paint numbers. 

 

That's it.  There are exceptions,  but I'd say the above will cover 95% of VVS paint jobs in the GPW....

 

I just did this from memory, it's that basic. 

 

a more detail study of the above is here

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/colors/colors.html

 

Best reference on the subject AFAIK.

 

apologies @Learstang, missed your even more succinct summary

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2020 at 1:34 PM, Troy Smith said:

a more detail study of the above is here

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/colors/colors.html

 

Best reference on the subject AFAIK.

Hello Troy,

Thank you very much for the above link. It is a valuable resource that I had not seen before. I will definitely reference it for my future builds. I was not aware that people in Russia are able to access original documents in order to clarify the colors used by the Soviet Union during World War II. Thank you for making me aware of it. By the way, one of these researchers - Mikhail Orlov - has written about his findings in the following book:

https://ak-interactive.com/product/real-colors-of-wwii-aircraft/

Thank you again Troy for the links and I stand corrected. Cheers.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...