Any idea what these AMT numbers are?

[Doggy]

I've got this kit. https://en.zvezda.org.ru/catalog/sbornye-modeli/aviatsiya/vtoraya-mirovaya-voyna/sovetskiy_istrebitel_mig_3_29193_25237/

 

But there's a mistake in the instructions and my Russian is terrible.

 

https://en.zvezda.org.ru/upload/iblock/8a8/7204_01.pdf

 

I want to paint it the camo but the numbers are missing from the legend and it's black and white too.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Doggy]

I'm not sure if it's green and black or 2 greens.

[Graham Boak]

Green and black.  Not two greens.  Quite possibly never two greens, despite it commonly appearing in artwork.  For more information see http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php,  There is a pretty good section on the MiG.3

Edited May 30, 2020 by Graham Boak

[BillyB]

The colours in the pdf are humbrol colours.

Hth,

Bill.....

[Doggy]

7 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Green and black.  Not two greens.  Quite possibly never two greens, despite it commonly appearing in artwork.  For more information see http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php,  There is a petty good section on the MiG.3

Thanks. Black and green it is.

[Doggy]

2 minutes ago, BillyB said:

The colours in the pdf are humbrol colours.

Hth,

Bill.....

Yes but the Russian has no numbers next to the legend. I don't use humbrol but I'm happy to buy AMT 4 paint if that's what the green is.

[Graham Boak]

Colour refrences are quoted in the site I posted,  Russian colours are available from Colourcoats, AKAN and (I think) Hakata.

[spitfire]

This is another web page to look at, https://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/mig3/colors.html

I built a Trumpeter 1/32 scale MiG 3 a few years back, there is a fair amount of information on the paints I used in it and why.

Dennis

Edited May 31, 2020 by spitfire
Updated

[Doggy]

This is good too.

 

https://boomandzoomgraphics.com/soviet_camo_guide.html

[John Thompson]

1 hour ago, Doggy said:

This is good too.

 

https://boomandzoomgraphics.com/soviet_camo_guide.html

 

Hey, not bad at all! Thanks for the link!

 

John

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, Doggy said:

This is good too.

 

https://boomandzoomgraphics.com/soviet_camo_guide.html

 

except for the comments on regional colours, and brown and green Il-2's

 

 

as well as the two tone green comments.

 

and that winter paint alsi included the use of gloss white and aluminium paint,  not washable, and winter paint schemes are only see in winter 41/42, and 42/43

 

So, no, not really useful.......

 

the linked  http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php

 

is the best source on VVS colours in English,  and is continually expanding, as more photos become available,  which are really expanding the the information and marking possibilities for VVS subjects.

2 hours ago, Doggy said:

This is good too.

 

https://boomandzoomgraphics.com/soviet_camo_guide.html

 

except for the comments on regional colours, and brown and green Il-2's

 

 

as well as the two tone green comments.

 

and that winter paint alsi included the use of gloss white and aluminium paint,  not washable, and winter paint schemes are only see in winter 41/42, and 42/43

 

So, no, not really useful.......

 

the linked  http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php

 

is the best source on VVS colours in English,  and is continually expanding, as more photos become available,  which are really expanding the the information and marking possibilities for VVS subjects.

[John Thompson]

Yeah, I guess I let my enthusiasm carry me away. I wonder if the author would consider revisions if asked politely. I only just noticed that his primary reference was apparently EP's book. Another error I see now is the "early war camouflage", which should have been AMT-4, AMT-6, and AMT-7, not the AII colours quoted. My bad, but I think it could still be helpful, especially with appropriate changes. I might not be the right person to do the asking, though.

 

John

[Doggy]

So is the green on my kit amt 4 or a 24m?

 

Thanks

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Doggy said:

So is the green on my kit amt 4 or a 24m?

 

Thanks

 

see here

https://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/colors/color-table.html

 

 

Quote

AMT-4 

black-green camouflage of mixed construction planes (Yak-1,7,9, LaGG-3, La-5, MiG-3, Il-2, Su-2, U-2, mixed-construction Il-4, Pe-2...)

Nitrocellulose lacquer for mixed construction planes

 

Quote

A-24m 

black-green camouflage of all-metal planes (Pe-2, Pe-8, all-metal Il-4...)

Oil paint for all-metal planes 
equivalent to AMT-4

 

[Doggy]

So AMT 4 then.

 

thanks.

[fritzthefox]

On 5/31/2020 at 11:18 AM, John Thompson said:

 I wonder if the author would consider revisions if asked politely. I only just noticed that his primary reference was apparently EP's book. Another error I see now is the "early war camouflage", which should have been AMT-4, AMT-6, and AMT-7, not the AII colours quoted. My bad, but I think it could still be helpful, especially with appropriate changes. I might not be the right person to do the asking, though.

 

John

As the author of the website in question, I would be very amenable to revising my work, if someone has new information they can offer from an authoritative source. Feel free to contact me at [email protected]. 

[John Thompson]

45 minutes ago, fritzthefox said:

As the author of the website in question, I would be very amenable to revising my work, if someone has new information they can offer from an authoritative source. Feel free to contact me at [email protected]. 

Hi Barry! Here's a useful reference which may be helpful:

https://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/colors/quickguide/quickguide.htm

 

And here's the whole nine yards, for when you have time:

https://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/index.html

 

John

[STAVKA]

On 31/05/2020 at 17:18, John Thompson said:

. "I only just noticed that his primary reference was apparently EP's book. Another error I see now is the "early war camouflage", which should have been AMT-4, AMT-6, and AMT-7, not the AII colours quoted."

 

Oh, really? And do please educate us all-- me particularly-- how and why this information is in error? I am sure that having read all of the now available documentation (ex. the 1942 Yak remont, the T.O. for the Yak-1, I-153,  I-16 M-25, LaGG-3, I-301, Pe-3, ad nauseum, we can go on for pages) which specify them, AND examined the recently recovered Yak-1, IL-2 airframes wearing these paints, which by the way correspond to the 100+ physical samples of this paint I have already collected and reported upon, that you must have developed quite a remarkable set of hypotheses to discount such a mountain of evidence? I'd love to hear it.

Moreover, for anyone wishing to critique my work you may feel to do so. But, for god god's sake, have the decency to address something remotely contemporary. Trying to drag my name through the mud deliberately by referencing 25 year old material is out of order and extremely tedious.

Lastly, I am sorry that this entire fiasco of the dogma surrounding these 1948 chips has gotten so far out of hand. May I suggest with all respect that persons examine the latest article on my site, thereby referencing factual evidence and logical analysis, and judge for yourself which colour chip assortment you think to have the most accurate appearance? Just for starters...

 

[Troy Smith]

@STAVKA

Good afternoon Mr. Pilawskii

Your reply will be easier to read if you don't put it in the bit you just quoted, yes, it drops down, but is confusing.

for clarity, you wrote in response

 

"Oh, really? And do please educate us all-- me particularly-- how and why this information is in error? I am sure that having read all of the now available documentation (ex. the 1942 Yak remont, the T.O. for the Yak-1, I-153,  I-16 M-25, LaGG-3, I-301, Pe-3, ad nauseum, we can go on for pages) which specify them, AND examined the recently recovered Yak-1, IL-2 airframes wearing these paints, which by the way correspond to the 100+ physical samples of this paint I have already collected and reported upon, that you must have developed quite a remarkable set of hypotheses to discount such a mountain of evidence? I'd love to hear it.

Moreover, for anyone wishing to critique my work you may feel to do so. But, for god god's sake, have the decency to address something remotely contemporary. Trying to drag my name through the mud deliberately by referencing 25 year old material is out of order and extremely tedious.

Lastly, I am sorry that this entire fiasco of the dogma surrounding these 1948 chips has gotten so far out of hand. May I suggest with all respect that persons examine the latest article on my site, thereby referencing factual evidence and logical analysis, and judge for yourself which colour chip assortment you think to have the most accurate appearance? Just for starters..."

 

You perhaps may wish to link this,  I presume this is the article you refer too? 

http://redbanner.co.uk/History/1948/1948_DOA.html

 

I note you recently asked for a thread critical of your work to be removed (a thread I started BTW) , and on occasion we have had other threads locked and members warned for intemperate posting, particularly on colour discussion, and this applies across the board to all members.   

 

It has been noted that you have not engaged with critics of your work for some time in a public discussion, more usually your response has been that of postings on your site, which I have linked.

 

There are members here who would be interested in discussing your research and conclusions, which have been discussed here on occasion,  but if your responses are of the ilk of the linked article,  I forsee them being locked or removed. 

 

This is merely some guidance as to the site etiquette,  I am not one of the moderators,  but I have seen various 'storms in teacup' fights erupt, and the consequences.  

 

Anyway, welcome to the site, I hope you take this opportunity to engage in the debates on the subjects of your research.  

@John Thompson @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies @dragonlanceHR @DLinevitch @Massimo Tessitori @Learstang  @Graham Boak @spitfire  are some among many members, who have been involved in VVS debates, so I'll tag them above,  along with many others over the years.  

 

HTH

T

 

[Learstang]

Yes, welcome to the Britmodeller site indeed, Mr. Pilawskii!

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

[John Thompson]

2 hours ago, STAVKA said:

"Oh, really? And do please educate us all-- me particularly-- how and why this information is in error? I am sure that having read all of the now available documentation (ex. the 1942 Yak remont, the T.O. for the Yak-1, I-153,  I-16 M-25, LaGG-3, I-301, Pe-3, ad nauseum, we can go on for pages) which specify them, AND examined the recently recovered Yak-1, IL-2 airframes wearing these paints, which by the way correspond to the 100+ physical samples of this paint I have already collected and reported upon, that you must have developed quite a remarkable set of hypotheses to discount such a mountain of evidence? I'd love to hear it.

 

Well, perhaps my terminology was careless - by "early war". I meant early GPW; in other words, post-Barbarossa. To my mind, that means the colour specifications of July 1941; see here, and scroll down to "July1941-July 1943":

https://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/colors/quickguide/quickguide.htm

 

My bad, and I'm sorry; please let's not let this become another locked-down flame war.

 

John

[dragonlanceHR]

Ah, nothing like the words "1948 Albom Nakrasok dogma" to make me dismiss the whole thread. I'll cease&desist now.

 

Vedran

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

I might be interested in discussing AMT-7.

 

Your own photographs appear to disprove your own AMT-7 renders as excessively saturated which is the general complaint about your chips overall.

 

Moreover, to achieve what you portray as AMT-7 requires sizable quantities of fairly expensive pigments as to achieve such strong chroma requires a high ratio of colour pigments into a typical white base.

 

The photographs used on the link Troy posted showing underside blue-greys look nothing like your "As specified by me" AMT-7 renders, but rather a lot more like the substantially less saturated portrayals offered by Massimo Tessitori.

 

I would be interested to hear how this is justified. How did you arrive at such a strong, bright blue when the photographs you selected to support your case so obviously show something very different?

[DLinevitch]

The whole irony of the VVS's color question is that the only objective source of information is the technical catalog of industrial paints, which, although publicly available (unclassified), its location is not disclosed by those people who found it and use this knowledge in commercial interests. By the way, I don't know where it is.

15 years of communication with aviation restorers and military archaeologists led me to the idea that determining the shade of paint from the wreckage of real artifacts is an extremely vicious practice, no one has ever tried to compare the result of chemical analyzes, washes, spectrophototests with the original colors from the "Catalog". Even if it is very often simply not possible to distinguish blue paint from gray and silver paint (changed by corrosion), then what can we say about shades of gray or what color is real green? In general, this is all unprofessional, in my opinion.

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by DLinevitch

[STAVKA]

Sorry for the delayed response, I am dealing with some hypertension and anger management issues just now. Calm, calm. Mr Psy06, your idea that there exists some kind of secret mystical "document" revealing all is fanciful and untrue. There is no Great Conspiracy here, not by me nor anyone else. You seem to be asserting that the analysis of paint samples from various old machinery is effectively impossible, something which will come as a profound shock to those professionals who conduct this activity on a daily basis in various industrial applications around the world. I must repeat here something which I do so often: simply because you do not understand some procedure, this does not render it "illegitimate".

 

Jamie-- I don't think the photos I posted show something different. The problem with photographic evidence is that the interpretation of such requires enormous experience and expertise in period photographic emulsion and chemistry. It is not something which can be done accurately by an amateur. I have written extensively on this topic across my web site, something which you'd note if looking about. The short answer is easy: the colour I chose matches the physical evidence I have collected. You might be interested to know that, as well, I have been assisted in some analysis over the course of work for Warbird Colour by very large and expert companies such as Akzo Nobel. They dot not, I assure you, blindly accept some RGB value from me. Rather, they received some flakes which I sent and we subsequently agreed an appearance for AMT-7 for use on a project. It is basically identical to my chip.

 

Troy-- Apologies for my poor formatting, I am not very experienced with fora. You wonder why I have avoided the public for the last 15 years? I believe that any fair-minded person will agree that a 20 year hate campaign directed at me, personally, is sufficient reason. However, enough is enough, and now I have returned-- if for one thing-- to end this sickening hate bile. That will happen, let me assure you.

 

As for the rest...

I'd like to relate a little story (100% true, by the way), if I may be allowed, which should shed a better light on my own perspective regarding the criticism and complaints regarding my work which are doing the rounds than any long-worded explanation. I sometimes draw artistic profiles of the P-51 Mustang, and I sell a few. Over the last ten years not a single month has ever gone by-- and often more frequently than that-- in which I have not received some form of communique (email, post, etc) from one of our NewGen darlings which is virtually identical to the following:

"Dear Mister, Your profiles of Mustangs are rubbish. I wish you would stop making them as they are an embarrassment. I have been to many air shows in my life, and even two this year. Every Mustang I have ever seen clearly has TWO seats and two pilots, but your drawings all have only one. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Your research is a joke. You obviously need to watch Wings Over Whatever on the Discovery Channel or Hooray For Mustangs on YouTube to find out what they were really like. Stop ripping off people with these fakes.  --Timmy"

I suspect that virtually every person on this forum will crack a wry smile and grasp the totality of the error and self-delusion inherent in this communication. Some might interpret this stuff as youthful naivety, and some perhaps as childish petulance. Whatever the case, we can observe that it is profoundly ignorant. However, what many do not see-- and perhaps cannot appreciate-- is that I regard the complaints of these various Internet Luminaries identically to Timmy's email, with exactly the same level of self-delusion, hubris and irony. And so, too, do the various private owners, museums and other collections around the world with whom I work, who view these vile internet postings with categorical disbelief. Just a little food for thought.