Constructive comments on BOB historical accuracy in Acft skins/markings

[DoolittleRaider]

I believe that a great selling point for SOW:BOB (as with IL-2) is the great attention paid to historical accuracy and detail…aircraft modeling, flight modeling, damage modeling, aircraft armament, and a myriad of other details. I believe that many in the community will be expecting similar accuracy in matters relating to aircraft paint schemes, camouflage patterns, national markings, and tactical markings such as unit ID Codes, insignia, etc. Many IL-2 skinners have become expert in historical markings and have produced outstandingly accurate skins. A vast amount of information is available on such matters, free on the internet let alone in hard copy reference materials/books/etc.

In the interest of such historical accuracy, NOT to be nitpicking or unduly critical of all the work which has obviously gone into SOW:BOB, I offer the following observations/comments. I have seen the posts which mention that all the WIP updates we are seeing show only Works-in-Progress…and with regard to aircraft markings, I have seen posts saying that any errors noted are because the Skins are not final, just placeholders. Nevertheless, there seem to be some oddities (oft repeated/recurring ones) which I am sure the SOW team would not want to have slip through into the final Release version of SOW:BOB....and may, in fact, hint at some still incomplete research into historical facts/documentation.

So…in a positive vein, I offer the following:

Recent SOW:BOB update showing a Bf110 of Zerstorergeschwader 76, in this case the code letters indicating this would be the mount of the ZG76 II Gruppe staff adjutant
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/IIGruppeStabZG76110M8BC.jpg

What it should look like...note the shark teeth, specifically, which were on all II./ZG76 110's from the Battle of France onward, and also the camouflage paint scheme...a scheme of multi-green colors specifically dictated by RLM rather than the later browns and other colors in various theaters:

http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/IIgruppeZG76110M8DC.jpg


Another recent BOB update...this 110 would have been the mount of the Zerstorergeschwader 26 Kommodore. All Luftwaffe geschwader Commanders and their Staff had their individual aircraft letter in Blue. The first letter is the aircraft, in this case "A"indicates it is the first acft of that unit, which would always be the Commander's acft. Its color is based on the unit/staff it belonged to; In this case the second "A" indicates it is of the Geschwader staff, so the first "A" should be geschwader's color Blue, not green. Green would be correct if it were from the staff of any of the three subordinate Gruppes, whose Unit ID (second) letter would be B,C, or D...never "A".
Also, I do not believe that any 110's of any LW unit had the Code letters on the fuselage forward of the cockpit...that is a purely historically inaccurate placement.
The BOB update screenie:
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/BOB3Uaaskin.jpg


Here is a correct skin, with regard to the Code letters, for the ZG26 Kommodore...Also, by the time of the BofB, I believe all 110’s would have been using the Wide white bordered Balkenkruezen as shown in this Profile, not the Narrow white trim of the pre-war through 1939 timeframe.:
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/ZG26GeschwaderkommodoreBf1103UAA.jpg


Again, note the difference between the Balkenkreuzen on the SOW:BOB screencaptures of 110’s M8+BC and 3U+AA and the balkenkreuz in the photo below…and also all of the profiles of ZG76 aircraft:
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/IIGZG76110.jpg


The same balkenkreuz detail arises with the JU-87’s:
Recent SOW:BOB screenie:
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/JU87S2UN.jpg

Pre-war Stuka...note the balkenkreuz with narrow white trim/border:
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/PreWarStuka.jpg

1939 Polish front Stuka
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/Stuka1939A5AB.jpg

Battle of Britain Stuka..note the wide border balkenkreuz::
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/Stuka1940August.jpg




Meanwhile, with the update Screenies of Spitfires, I've seen that the Code letters are not historically accurate in several respects..Serial numbers which are fantasy and have no basis and, in other cases, Serial numbers which were not of aircraft assigned to a certain squadron...etc... For example, this recent BOB update...No Spit with serial number L1126 ever existed (L series was from L1000 through L1096, according to sources I've examined in the past): ZP is definitely a correct unit Code (74Sqdn) but all aircraft ever assigned to 74Sqdn are known, and all L series Spits were, as i understand it, assigned to other RAF squadrons.
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/SpitZPFnon-alignedcodelettersSerialaccurateorfantasyUNK-1.jpg


Also, as in the above screenie, almost all of the BOB Screenie Spits have the third letter unaligned with the first two, vertically above or below the first two. As far as I know, all RAF code letters were aligned, with the possible exception of just two specific squadrons (19 and 92). Below is another recent BOB UPdate...the Code letters and serial number are historically correct for 602Sqdn, but as you can see from the profile depiction further below, the three letters should be aligned.
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/SpitLOGX4382nonaligned-1.jpg
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/Spit602SqdnLOGX4382.jpg

Again, on an historical point, an update included this Screenie of a spitfire. It should be noted that JU were the code letters used by 111Sqdn, which flew Hurricanes not Spits (until April1941).:
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/JUAnoserialSOWscreenie.jpg




Again, I offer the preceding comments in support of what I believe to be Oleg’s SOW team’s goal of producing an historically accurate Flight Sim, in all aspects. For the record, I am personally no expert but for a variety of reasons the matters which I have addressed above jump out at me, even though they might seem minor and insignificant to others. I hope they can be addressed and “tweaked” prior to the possibly imminent (relatively speaking) release of SOW:BOB.

Had SOW been designed to be an all World-encompassing, all theaters, all units, all aircraft, all nations...ranging from 1939 through 1945, I would understand that there would be a need to 'average things out', not expecting perfection in every minute detail. However, since Oleg has wisely chosen to kick things off with a single "limited" theater/campaign....SOW:BofB is relatively small in terms of specific forces involved, well known and documented units and even individual aircraft....that I think such detail and near-perfection could be attainable.

Respectfully and humbly submitted...

[TheGrunch]

From what I remember reading BoB allows the mission creator to type whatever serial numbers/apply whatever squadron codes they want. I imagine it is more going to be a question of whether the mission creator bothers. From the comments that team members have made it appears that the markings will generally be as accurate as people want to make them. How detailed the scope of this is remains to be seen, i.e. whether squadron letters and insignia can be edited and suchlike.

[baronWastelan]

What part of "increadible detail and excruciating historical accuracy" didn't you understand?

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d63/baronWastelan/increadible.jpg

[DoolittleRaider]

From what I remember reading BoB allows the mission creator to type whatever serial numbers/apply whatever squadron codes they want...

Yes, I've heard that there will be great flexibility and options, and that is very commendable,but I would like to see that the default set of aircraft/campaigns are at least as completely historically correct as possible.

Surely BOB will include from the get-go a couple of Off-Line Campaigns which are very historically based and researched...including historically accurate skins, etc. Everything should not be left for 3rd party Mission/campaign creators to research and modify (sorry) to make accurate.

With IL-2, it took a 3rd party person to create "Mat Manager" which provided historically correct tactical markings, varied insignia and markings by nationality and timeframes, etc... I can't recall the creator's name, but his contribution was invaluable to those of us concerned with historical accuracy and detail. Will SOW:BOB include the variety of historically researched markings for selection by the user, as did Mat manager?

On another note, some of my comments/observations referred to placement/locations of certain markings/code letters...If the locations are wrong, then i assume the "skin Template' might be wrong and not allow the user to make an historically correct skin by himself.

Hope I am continuing to sound positive, and supportive of Oleg's Team.

[TheGrunch]

Yes, but there are development shots that are not necessarily from missions anywhere more detailed in scope than the QMB and therefore not necessarily with feverishly-researched markings. I agree it would be nice to see the sharkmouths/correctly sized Balkenkreuze, though. :)

[DoolittleRaider]

What part of "increadible detail and excruciating historical accuracy" didn't you understand?

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d63/baronWastelan/increadible.jpg

Please don't move so quickly to turn this thread into a conflict...an all-is-good vs all-is-bad waste of time.

I tried very hard to make it clear that I am trying to offer positive suggestions for improvement on one facet of BOB. I never commented on any inaccuracies in the cockpit..that's not my forte or expertise or interest. Nor is the Cockpit relevant to the matter which I raised, which is aircraft national and tactical insignia and markings.

I also made it Very Clear in the first sentence of my original post that "I believe that a great selling point for SOW:BOB (as with IL-2) is the great attention paid to historical accuracy and detail…aircraft modeling, flight modeling, damage modeling, aircraft armament, and a myriad of other details".

What part of that statement didn't you understand, mate?

FYI: The definition of "myriad" is: constituting a very large, indefinite number; innumerable; composed of numerous diverse elements or facets. Excruciatingly accurate cockpits are clearly a praiseworthy element or facet of BOB.

[csThor]

Apart from the fuselage Balkenkreuz (which indeed needs to be the later broader type) I do not agree that SoW is going to be incorrect. As it is Ilya is the one taking screenshots and he simply did not bother to select the accurate combination of colours because he didn't have the time for it.

It will be up to the mission maker to select the proper colours and markings (since AFAIK any kind and colour combination can be used for any kind of unit, that solution seems to have been easier to code and allows greater flexibility for later marking changes). I most certainly provided Maddox Games with accurate information on camouflage & markings on the german units (except the bombers and recon units, which I could not finish due to real life issues).

[baronWastelan]

Please don't move so quickly to turn this thread into a conflict...an all-is-good vs all-is-bad waste of time.

I tried very hard to make it clear that I am trying to offer positive suggestions for improvement on one facet of BOB. I never commented on any inaccuracies in the cockpit..that's not my forte or expertise or interest. Nor is the Cockpit relevant to the matter which I raised, which is aircraft national and tactical insignia and markings.

I also made it Very Clear in the first sentence of my original post that "I believe that a great selling point for SOW:BOB (as with IL-2) is the great attention paid to historical accuracy and detail…aircraft modeling, flight modeling, damage modeling, aircraft armament, and a myriad of other details".

What part of that statement didn't you understand, mate?

FYI: The definition of "myriad" is: constituting a very large, indefinite number; innumerable; composed of numerous diverse elements or facets. Excruciatingly accurate cockpits are clearly a praiseworthy element or facet of BOB.

You are making suggestions based on development screenshots; Oleg has made it clear that those do not represent the level of "historical accuracy" that will be in the final product. You have a lot of excellent info but at this stage of development these exterior markings are all to be taken as "place-holders".

[Tree_UK]

A very good post though Doolittle, It would be nice to see the correct paint schemes, but at this stage of the development its probably not that important, I would imagine these will be corrected later when the game is optimized etc.

[jameson]

Doolittle, whilst in broad agreement with your proposals, I have to say that your "catholic" rules regarding Spitfire lettering are a bit over the top, given that these were applied locally by groundcrew to comply with some broad interpretation regarding aircraft identification, (The Air Ministry or Duxford may know what these were).

If you look at the photographs here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

you will see that you will need to add other squadrons to those of 19 & 22, which had stepped lettering.

Even those squadrons which had even lettering, had aircraft within them with slightly eccentric application, probably due to time constraints or inexperience of the lad that painted them on. I suspect that if it could be clearly read, it got passed as ok.

If you wish to enforce rules then please supply photographs of the aircraft of every squadron that flew Spitfires (and Hurricanes!), and for each month of the battle as it's likely that markings varied over the months, (replacement aircraft being painted by different people as one example). Photos of warbird repaints and pretty profiles will not do if accuracy is your aim.

Yours constructively.

[JG52Krupi]

Is this a joke?

The community skinners create specific skins and usually to a much higher quality as they spend a lot of time and effort making them.

Its unreasonable to ask for this, generic skins should be available from the start.

What they should do is something like ROF have a historic skin and fictional skin pack which is updated with every patch.

http://riseofflight.com/en/community/usefulmaterials

[Flying Pencil]

excellent research!!



Also, I do not believe that any 110's of any LW unit had the Code letters on the fuselage forward of the cockpit...that is a purely historically inaccurate placement.
The BOB update screenie:
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/BOB3Uaaskin.jpg



I too saw that, and think it is a dynamic application of codes, and in this care the AA is meant to be a staffelwappen stand-in.

Remains to be seen.

[csThor]

Guys ... Again!!!

The code letters simply show that something can be placed there. Why? Because Stab/ZG 26 and Stab I./ZG 26 are known to have used fighter-style markings there.

http://home.arcor.de/csthor/Bf110_ZG26_01.png

http://home.arcor.de/csthor/Bf110_ZG26_02.png

[kendo65]

Recent SOW:BOB update showing a Bf110 of Zerstorergeschwader 76, in this case the code letters indicating this would be the mount of the ZG76 II Gruppe staff adjutant
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/IIGruppeStabZG76110M8BC.jpg

What it should look like...note the shark teeth, specifically, which were on all II./ZG76 110's from the Battle of France onward, and also the camouflage paint scheme...a scheme of multi-green colors specifically dictated by RLM rather than the later browns and other colors in various theaters:

http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/IIgruppeZG76110M8DC.jpg

If the marking/skins system is anything like il-2, the 'discrepancy' is down to the use of an initially limited set of 'generic' skins for each aircraft. The player can choose to select any skin and apply any unit markings on top - the result in most cases will not be 100% accurate historically, but it gives a reasonably economical way of covering a vast number of aircraft and units.

The solution for the accuracy fiends - as in il2 - will be when skinners make dedicated 100% accurate recreations of individual aircraft (or whole squadrons :) )

Also, I don't think Luthier (?) was necessarily trying to nail a particular aircraft in accurate detail - it's probably more of a rough thrown-together illustration.

Similar comments on the Spits too I think.

The marking system is more complex than il-2 regarding postioning and options but still generic - for the final word in accuracy it'll be down to the skinners.

[DoolittleRaider]

Doolittle, whilst in broad agreement with your proposals, I have to say that your "catholic" rules regarding Spitfire lettering are a bit over the top...
I agree that I may have made too "catholic" a statement on 'alignment' of Spit code letters. To clarify...one point of reference, data source, here at Wings Pallette (http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww2/f/52/9) shows over 300 Spitfire Profiles, of which perhaps only a half dozen (in the 39-40 timeframe) have extremely non-aligned/stepped third Letters. I now note a 610Sqdn Spit profile in addition to 19S and 92S. However, the overwhelming (90%) majority of the profiles (of that same limited timeframe) show aligned letters. Later on, 41 onward, it seems alignment was even more uniformly applied.

In contrast, the fact that all the Spits in the WIP updates showed non-aligned Third letters caught my eye...even if these are just placeholders so that users can apply whatever letter they choose, I question whether the location of the third letter in the skin/template will be flexible for mission builders/skinners. If not, then I should think going with the 90+% aligned scheme would be the best choice for being mostly accurate.

If you look at the photographs here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

you will see that you will need to add other squadrons to those of 19 & 22, which had stepped lettering.
True, there are additional non-aligned Spit photos, 603 Sqdn for example. I find it interesting that at your linked document, there is a photo of 610Sqdn DW-T extremely Non-aligned supposedly in May '40, yet further down there is a photo of two other 610S Spits, DW-O and DW-K with very neatly aligned letters supposedly in June '40.
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/SpitDWTphoto.jpg http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/DWOandDWKphotoSmall.jpg





Even those squadrons which had even lettering, had aircraft within them with slightly eccentric application, probably due to time constraints or inexperience of the lad that painted them on. I suspect that if it could be clearly read, it got passed as ok.I agree. I've seen other indications that in general standards/dictates of all sorts were loosely applied/implemented, certainly early on in the war.

If you wish to enforce rules...
I have neither the authority nor desire to "enforce" anything. I've simply made some observations which I believe could be considered in order to preclude any significant historical errors at time of SOW:BOB release. I also made no claims to being an Expert on the subjects at hand.

Photos of warbird repaints and pretty profiles will not do if accuracy is your aim.
I agree that not every Profile will be perfect, but they come from various sources and they seem to be based on reasonable research/documentation. In almost every case where I have compared a Profile (from the Wings Pallette collection, for example) with an available photo, they have been consistent in details. For example, at your linked document, there is this photo of 602S Spit LO+G.
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/SpitLOGPhoto-1.jpg
Here is the Wings Pallette Profile.
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/Spit602SqdnLOGX4382.jpg
Here is the SOW WIP placeholder LO+G.
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/SpitLOGX4382nonaligned-1.jpg


Also DW+Oand DW+K profiles
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/SpitDWO.jpg
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/SpitDWK.jpg

The DW+O and DW+K photo. Note that even the somewhat uniquely and seemingly extremely slanted angle of the DW+K is accurately reproduced in the Profile. :
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/DWOandDWKphoto.jpg

I repeat that I did not start this thread to be critical of the SOW:BOB team, but rather to offer additional historical information, hopefully well-founded, on matters which appeared in the updates to not have been taken into consideration.

Aside from SOW:BOB, an exchange of views and supporting data/references is, in any event, an interesting endeavor for some of us who are historian hobbyists...on this matter of WWII aircraft markings as well as on many other subjects.

If everything is coming along perfectly in the accurate skinning of SOW:BOB aircraft, that is absolutely wonderful. My comments and 'evidence' can be completely disregarded as having been unnecessary. No harm done.

S!

[DoolittleRaider]

If the marking/skins system is anything like il-2, the 'discrepancy' is down to the use of an initially limited set of 'generic' skins for each aircraft. The player can choose to select any skin and apply any unit markings on top ...

The solution for the accuracy fiends - as in il2 - will be when skinners make dedicated 100% accurate recreations of individual aircraft (or whole squadrons
...
The marking system is more complex than il-2 regarding postioning and options but still generic - for the final word in accuracy it'll be down to the skinners. The increased complexity/detail of the SOW:BOB marking system is a Big Plus and a welcome feature....and I agree that ultimately skinners will win the day in the end. I think part of my comments have reflected a concern that some basic 'positioning' and 'optional' markings/colors might not yet have been incorporated...therefore, I commented on the need for the 'correct' balkenkreuz for 1940 LW acft/operations, and on the 'postioning' of the third letter on Spits, and I think suggesting/hoping that items such as the II.ZG76 Shark teeth (and wasp for III./ZG76) be included as options from the get-go.
Perhaps in a future update a sampling of such optional markings might be shown

[WTE_Galway]

With IL-2, it took a 3rd party person to create "Mat Manager" which provided historically correct tactical markings, varied insignia and markings by nationality and timeframes, etc... I can't recall the creator's name, but his contribution was invaluable to those of us concerned with historical accuracy and detail. Will SOW:BOB include the variety of historically researched markings for selection by the user, as did Mat manager?

On another note, some of my comments/observations referred to placement/locations of certain markings/code letters...If the locations are wrong, then i assume the "skin Template' might be wrong and not allow the user to make an historically correct skin by himself.

Hope I am continuing to sound positive, and supportive of Oleg's Team.


Many people use MAT manager in IL2 just for the weathered markings. To put it quite bluntly the default markings in IL2 are ugly and look like model airplane decals. The IL2_MAT manager lets you replace them with something that looks more like what you see in actual photo's (the alternative of course is to use skins with markings provided bu the skinner).

So far the markings in SOW still have this stick on decal effect however I am pretty sure I read somewhere weathering effects are being implemented in the final game.

The other issue with default placements is that RAF markings seem to vary as to whether the right hand side placement reversed the order of Squadron ID and aircraft ID or just mirrored the left side.

[kendo65]

...
I think part of my comments have reflected a concern that some basic 'positioning' and 'optional' markings/colors might not yet have been incorporated...therefore, I commented on the need for the 'correct' balkenkreuz for 1940 LW acft/operations, and on the 'postioning' of the third letter on Spits, and I think suggesting/hoping that items such as the II.ZG76 Shark teeth (and wasp for III./ZG76) be included as options from the get-go.
Perhaps in a future update a sampling of such optional markings might be shown

Good points there. I didn't comment about them in my post in order to keep it short, but correcting the balkankreuz and changing the letter positioning to what seems to be the more common style would both be good ideas.

Would also be nice to see dedicated shark teeth skin too - if it applies for whole gruppe then can make a good case for having it.

WTE_Galway, I think the SOW markings are much better than the stock il-2 (which I agree were poor - I used Mat Manager too). SOW may not have shown much weathering on the markings (or on the skins either for that matter), but they integrate really well into the paintschemes. I really disagree that it is a stuck-on decal effect. I thought that they'd done a really good job.

[DoolittleRaider]

...
Would also be nice to see dedicated shark teeth skin too - if it applies for whole gruppe then can make a good case for having it.
...
Yes, based on input from true experts, I think we can very definitely conclude that all aircraft of II./ZG76 had the shark teeth.

[WTE_Galway]

WTE_Galway, I think the SOW markings are much better than the stock il-2 (which I agree were poor - I used Mat Manager too). SOW may not have shown much weathering on the markings (or on the skins either for that matter), but they integrate really well into the paintschemes. I really disagree that it is a stuck-on decal effect. I thought that they'd done a really good job.

SOW is definitely better than IL2 in this regard but the WIP photos still have unnatural markings. For example the balkencruz on the left wing in this shot from earlier in the thread:

http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/BOB3Uaaskin.jpg

[Rodolphe]

...



What it should look like...note the shark teeth, specifically, which were on all II./ZG76 110's from the Battle of France onward, and also the camouflage paint scheme...a scheme of multi-green colors specifically dictated by RLM rather than the later browns and other colors in various theaters.


Though a march 2008 screen, this "Haifisch" skin could be available in this game.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Bf110C4.jpg




Also, by the time of the BofB, I believe all 110’s would have been using the Wide white bordered Balkenkruezen as shown in this Profile, not the Narrow white trim of the pre-war through 1939 timeframe.


There are always some counter examples.

Bf 110 [/B]3M+AA ZG 2flown by Oblt.Wilhem Schaefer shot down on September 4th 1940.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/3MAA.jpg



Bf 110 C-1 U8+HL W. nr. 1372 ZG 26 crewed by Fw. Hermann Brinkmann and uffz. Erwin Grüschow shot down on September 11th 1940.

Note the I. Gruppe white nose and rear fuselage band applied in the latter stage of the Battle of Britain.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/U8HL.jpg



On the Russian theatre, this Bf 110 E S9+AH, 1./SKG 210 (SchnellKampfGeschwader 210)
of Oblt Wolfgang Schenk has been seen at Seschtchinskaya in september 1941 wearing these "early style Balkenkreuz".

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/AH.jpg





But it will be nice to have the fuselage "larger Balkenkreuz" for the game Bf110. ; )


...

[Rodolphe]

...


I could have missed the "perfect" game screen but
I haven't seen any BoB SoW Bf 110 screen with the aircraft letter codes duplicated on the upper wing like on those actual Zerstörer pictures.


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Upper.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Upper1.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Upper2.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Upper3.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Upper4.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Upper5.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Upper6.jpg



Not to mention the Do 17, He 111, Ju 87, Ju 88 ...

...

[DoolittleRaider]

Rodolphe,

Thanks for posting those photos. It's clear from them that at least some 110's had not changed their balkenkreuzen by the time of the BofB. I'll pass those photos on to the Eagles over Europe Project (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=15183) which is a massive database on WWII aircraft and operations.

With regard to the aircraft letter codes on 110 wings, I agree that they should be there, just as they should be on Ju-87's (which I had researched for another project)...I just thought that I had already thrown enough 'constructive' suggestions/tweaks into the mix.

I think that at some point in the war after BofB they may have stopped placing the ID letters on the 110 wings.

Also, thanks for digging up that 2008 WIP screenie with the shark teeth. It's very comforting and reassuring to know that the teeth are out there, somewhere.

[JG53Frankyboy]

i hope the the JG53 gets its Ace of Spades back if the mission is after 20.November 1940 ;)

[csThor]

According to my information that date's outside the scope. I did not make the "Ace of Spades" emblem ...

[DoolittleRaider]

@cs Thor...Just curious if you included the Griffin emblem of St. G 3, shown below on a customized IL2 skin and in the profiles below that. I have a specific interest in this unit as a result of my work on this Stuka website (http://www.heinzmigeod.com/)... Ultimately I would like to replace all/most of the IL2 images at the website with higher quality/detailed SOW:BofB Stuka aircraft screenies, and video clips.

http://www.heinzmigeod.com/resources/Image4.jpg.opt838x513o0,0s838x513.jpg

http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/Ju87B-2S1CB3-StG3France40Small.jpg


Emblem clearly shown below...please disregard that this is a Spring 1941 paint scheme

http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/Ju87B-2S7DK2-StG3BelicaBulgariaApr41Small.jpg

[csThor]

For the BoB StG 3 (and only Stab and I./StG 3!) was raised and as a brand new unit it did not use emblems before spring 1941. It was a PITA to research that but all evidence I managed to find points to this.

There're quite a lot of mixups about german emblems around and it was not easy to find the grains of truth here.

[jameson]

Doolittle, this is why profiles are useless:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/602to607.html

This the RAF's, Mod's official site, you'd think they would know! But it's obvious from the original B&W photo that their profile is incorrect.

Good luck with your projects.

[DoolittleRaider]

For the BoB StG 3 (and only Stab and I./StG 3!) was raised and as a brand new unit it did not use emblems before spring 1941. It was a PITA to research that but all evidence I managed to find points to this.

There're quite a lot of mixups about german emblems around and it was not easy to find the grains of truth here.

As a matter of historical interest only, (NOT a criticism in any way of SOW:BOB WIP updates) I've learned that St.G76 had used the Griffin emblem (white griffin on green shield) since possibly as early as the Poland campaign. The Stukas of I./St.G 76 became on/about 9 July 1940 the 1st Gruppe of the newly created St.G3, and seem to have retained their griffin emblem which continued to be displayed through the Balkan and maybe 1941 Med campaigns. Likewise, the aircraft/unit also carried forward the Code letters S1 of the de-activated St.G 76 until as late as the deployment to North Africa, whereas the other Gruppen of St.G 3 used the newly created S7 code of St.G 3.
Source is Eagles over Europe Project and also this modeller (Tango 098 )'s reference, among others:
"It was also common for Stuka units to carry their respective emblems on both sides of the forward fuselage just beneath the windscreen and in the case of the I./St.G.76 this was a white Steiermark Griffon on a green shield which the unit is known to have still been using on some of its Stukas in August 1940". http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t52525.html

So it would appear that Stukas of I./St.G3, at least, during Battle of France and early Battle of Britain would have continued to carry the griffin emblem. I assume that later the emblem may have been applied to other St.G3 gruppen.

Of course, by the time St.G 3 was deployed to North Africa, the emblem seems to have been removed from all St.G 3 Stukas.

[csThor]

Unfortunately it's not as clear-cut with these Stuka units. Apparently some of the "established facts" which can be found in various books and websites seem to be less clear. I did ask a number of questions on 12o'clockhigh and among the most disputed units was I./StG 3 (the other was III./StG 77).

There's a lot of nonsense about Luftwaffe units around and if you dig deeper into the matter you'll find less and less clear facts and more and more discrepancies. :-?

[Friendly_flyer]

Unlike Doolittle, I do not mind if it is possible to put markings from a Spitfire squadron on a Hurricane (or a He 111 for that matter). Neither do I object to being able to change squadron code colour, size or placement, nor the possibility of making "fantasy" squadrons. It is a game after all, and made for enjoyment.

I do guess that squadrons come with a sort of default for their markings (also regarding colour, placement etc), at least for the kites they actually flew. I realize that the markings varied even within squadrons and varied with time (the fin-flashes on the Hurricanes being a good example, they went from non in early 1940, through various "large" versions during the summer to be replaced with the regulation 24'' by 27'' square at various points during from late summer to the end of the battle), but some sort of "typical" settings for each squadrons would be nice. When a non-historical plane/squadron is used, the default setting should be the one most common for the plane.

[DoolittleRaider]

With regard to St.G76 use of the Griffin emblem, the Director of the EOE project stated this in a recent post at TOCH on the subject:
"I just did a quick run through of examples of I./StG 76 images in our DB (51 of them) and this insignia appears to have been universally used during the WC Blitzkrieg of May-June, and there are a few examples of it with the 1939-style fuselage crosses which presumably date back to 1939, and likely to the Polish Campaign."



It is really a shame that Heinz Migeod passed away two months ago before this discussion/thread arose. First hand accounts and memories surely superceed a stack of supposedly well-researched books,or tertiary research derived from such secondary books/sources.


He was there, he flew with 2./I./St.G76 and 2./I./St.G3; his Flugbuch clearly shows that he was flying his Ju-87 Stuka S1+DK in June and still flying it on 10 July a day after some Luftwaffe orders had been published redesignating his unit as 2./I./St.G3. It is very difficult to believe that he and his Staffel mates would have removed their St.G76 griffon emblems in the midst of an ongoing battle/campaign, then at a later date after their less than one month involvement in the BofB, re-applied those same emblems as the unit re-deployed to the Balkans. Heinz in his interviews made no mention of any such 'temporary/interim' removal.

Heinz Migeod in July 2010 with his shall I say 'cherished' I./St.G76, and I./St.G3 griffon emblem.
http://www.heinzmigeod.com/resources/foto%20met%202de%20staffel%20wapen.jpg.opt556x371o 0,0s556x371.jpg

[DoolittleRaider]

...When a non-historical plane/squadron is used, the default setting should be the one most common for the plane.

I totally agree with regard to default settings! The typical, most commonly seen/documented, version of paint schemes, unit ID code lettering, fin-flashes, placement of serial numbers, should be used...not the anomalous versions seen rarely. I refer, again, to the most commonly seen Aligned Code letters, versus the non-aligned/stepped variation.

[Rodolphe]

...


There are also some stories about Heinz-Georg Migeod in the February 2011 edition of Fly Past.


Spotlight Junkers Ju 87:

Farewell to England
Tide of War
Bouncing Kittyhawks
Down in the Desert
;)




Bouncing Kittyhawks

...

I was 400 to 500 metres high and, with no engine, had to force-land.
It was all silent with the battle now behind me when my Bordfunker shouted;
Turn right - Fighter behind us !
I put the nose down, dived and landed but the fighter didn't shoot; He was a gentleman.

...


http://www.flypast.com/central/images/covers/large/797.jpg


http://www.flypast.com/view_issue.asp?ID=797


...

[DoolittleRaider]

Very interesting! Thanks for the heads up, Rodolphe.

If you've not seen it, here is the interview of Heinz concerning the 11 Nov '42 'Bouncing Kittyhawks' engagement, including a recreation of the events of that day using IL2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHyWMkc6MCk&feature=player_embedded


Unfortunately, in spite of my obvious penchant for historical accuracy, we were unable to obtain custom historically accurate skins in time to be included in this video recreation, the expeditious completion of which was a primary consideration back in May 2010. (I say 'we', but the video in this case was actually made in its entirety by 'Biltongbru'...My contribution at the Migeod website was primarily that of providing supporting historical research and gathering customized IL-2 skins.)

[Theshark888]

I have to say that your "catholic" rules regarding Spitfire lettering are a bit over the top

Speaking of over the top.............Thank goodness he wasn't being "anglican!":rolleyes:

[DoolittleRaider]

You are making suggestions based on development screenshots; Oleg has made it clear that those do not represent the level of "historical accuracy" that will be in the final product. You have a lot of excellent info but at this stage of development these exterior markings are all to be taken as "place-holders".

Re-igniting this thread. Several posts in this thread a month or more ago were similar to the one above. They expressed the opinion (or paraphrased an Oleg comment) that all the weekly update Screencaps were merely 'fillers', WIP's, etc, and that historical accuracy considerations and critiques were therefore unfounded, inappropriate.....Not to worry oneself over. Assurances were made that the the final product would, of course, show historically correct skins.

Since then, there have been a number of new postings around the internet, including unofficial videos and official Trailers for the Product.

Every Spitfire shown in any screencap or video has depicted the misaligned, 'stepped', Code Letter pattern...which was quite clearly the exception to the norm of WWII RAF code letter pattern. Easily an estimated 90%, admittedly not all, of all Spitfire photos and artist 'Profiles' show the letters horzontally aligned.

On the other hand, all COD Hurricanes seem to have the code letters correctly/appropriately aligned.

Now that Release of COD is just a bit over one month away, can one assume that the Spitfires will, in fact, have historically accurate skins for those RAF Sqdns included? After all, if the default template for all the SOW:BOB Spit skins had been created during WIP development with the stepped, non-aligned place holder lettering, surely there has been sufficient time to make the required correction before release of COD.

Bottom line: If the lettering can be done correctly for the Hurricanes and other aircraft (the Blenheims for example),it would seem easily doable/correctable for the Spitfires as well...before release.

imho

[FlatSpinMan]

Commented over at Ubi but just watched the video. Very very interesting. Thanks to you and Biltongbru for making it. It really helped tell the story.

[DoolittleRaider]

I posted the commetns below in the 4 March Update Thread, but I am putting them here also so as to keep all comments on RAF and LW ID Code lettering in one thread....just in case someone wants to use this as a quick reference to correcting the COD skins at some point:

Very nice wallpapers! Oleg and team are doing a great job; all aircraft look realistic and historically correct as far as I know (I'm not particularly knowledgable on detailed features of aircraft design).

In this thread, http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17959, I did offer some constructive comments with regard to historical accuracy in aircraft markings, both RAF and LW, specifically unit/aircraft Identification Codes.

I have to constructively note again that the markings(code letters) on the two Stukas in the Stuka Wallpapers are incorrect...as had been the code letter markings on some Bf110's in an earlier update. A small point, perhaps, but one offered with good intentions and constructively.

The Stuka S2+AC would have been the mount of the Commander of II Gruppe of St. G 77.
S2 would designate St. G77
The third letter refers to the unique aircraft of a 'unit'. Its color is based on the unit/staff it belonged to.
The last letter refers to the Staffel or Gruppe...in this case "C", which is the letter for II Gruppe Stab (staff).
All Gruppe Stab (I., II., and III.) aircraft had Green third letters.
Thus, the "A" on this Stuka should be Green, not white.

The Stuka S2+KC would be the aircraft of some other officer on the II. Gruppe staff, though it would be unusual for it to be a "K" (tenth or so aircraft of the staff), as the Gruppe Staff probably didn't have more than 4 or 5 officers, I should think. Again, the third letter "K" should be Green, not white, because it is a Gruppe staff aircraft.

http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/Ju_87_KC.jpg
http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq121/Doolittle81/Ju_87_AC.jpg

The use of the older Narrow white-bordered balkankreuz rather than the Wide white-border has been noted in the other thread,as well.

[DoolittleRaider]

That GUI screen is interesting...I'd overlooked it in the updates, I guess.

However, it's not clear what the Color Selections are for. It shows three color choices for RAF acft...in this case, Yellow White and Black. Individual RAF aircraft did not have differently colored ID letters according to Squadron Flight or Wing, etc... as did the Luftwaffe aircraft for Gruppe Stab's and Staffels.

Without a manual, it is hard to determine what the Color Selections relate to...

I'd certainly like to see a similar Selection screen for Luftwaffe aircraft.

[=KAG=Bersrk]

Gents: in final version all will be ok.

[jocko417]

Interesting posts, I did a lot of RAF skins for IL-2 so I'm a bit of a markings and colours nerd too.

I'm willing to accept the discrepencies as noted as I think the default skins in CoD are a HUGE improvement over what IL-2 had, and to be honest we won't know what is 'wrong' until we have the final version in hand and can see for ourselves what choices we have in the GUI for markings.

Having said that, I have three things to point out about the RAF paintschemes I've seen so far in the screenies that really do bother me as they are such basic items:

1) Why is there no B camo pattern seen on any RAF aircraft, all I've seen is the A scheme? Odd and even numbered serials carried different camo patterns, A for odd, B for even. A simple matter of assigning a mirror image camo layer to the aircraft if an even numbered serial is chosen in the GUI.

2) Red in RAF nationality markings is far too orange, especially under certain lighting.

3) Font used for RAF serials is unlike any I've seen in period photos. Different manufacturers had different fonts but they didn't look anything like what CoD is using. Stands out like a sore thumb.

BTW, if I've learned anything from skinning it's that artist's profiles are usually inaccurate. Period photos for the win.