Constructive comments on BOB historical accuracy in Acft skins/markings

[DoolittleRaider]

Originally Posted by 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...

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 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.

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.

Here is the Wings Pallette Profile.

Here is the SOW WIP placeholder LO+G.



Also DW+Oand DW+K profiles



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. :


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!