Question on D-Day invasion stripes

[The Phantom]

Well as you can see from these and theres plenty of evidence, makeshift quick stripes were quite common as the timeframe required quick thinking.

It doesn't get modelled too often because its messy, a shame because in real time it happened

 

A couple of Examples:

 

 

 

[docdodj01]

Jeff, thank you for your help. I kind of assume that during D-day even allied planes got shot down by flak if not by the luftwaffe, or replaced due to wear and tear. Which would probably explain why by september, the stripes in most aircraft where either gone or seemed much better done than during D-day. To prove my point, I watched "the war" a documentary, and there was one pilot by the name of quentin aanenson. He had a P-47 which had both color and b/w pics. again it's just my opinion. And I really appreciated your, and the other people's help in this.

The colored image from a video file

[docdodj01]

And the plane after being shot down

you can even see here 2 things:

1. fuselage stripes where not applied. (my theory is according to one of my readings the stock of white and black paint ran out)

2. The stripes on the landing gear cover seemed a bit off. (application while the plane is parked with gear down, so the crew painted using the 18 inch rule. kinda makes me wonder what the striped looked liked on the ground)

[rotary]

phantom raises a good point re. 'messy' invasion stripes------sometimes they were very crudely applied but you don't very often see them done like that on models-------i wonder why? we go to (sometimes) incredible lengths to get every(most) little bit of detail--- and research like mad to get the finish correct to the nth. degree, then recoil from dodgy stripes!!!! is it because the 'artist' in us takes over from the 'realist'? which would then beg the question where do we draw the line? are rivets, and panel lines and 'pre-shading' (never understood that particular one) the artist or the realist, and will the model not look odd without something to break the smooth contours----but is that real or artistic licence? if licence how far ought we to allow ourselves to go? these are after all miniature 'bits' of history, do we go for the perfect "restoration' look with a bit of weathering thrown in to make it 'real'---or try the historical accurate 'warts and all' and risk the obsever going away thinking we can't paint a straight line? my take is ----never model from 'modern restorations' unless thats what your'e modelling----and if the period photo(s) shows patches, painted over markings (or crudely applied anything) duplicate it. nothing new here i know---but ---back to the point---how many 'crude' finishes do we see on models?

 

just a thought,

dave.

[DaveJ]

phantom raises a good point re. 'messy' invasion stripes------sometimes they were very crudely applied but you don't very often see them done like that on models-------i wonder why? we go to (sometimes) incredible lengths to get every(most) little bit of detail--- and research like mad to get the finish correct to the nth. degree, then recoil from dodgy stripes!!!! is it because the 'artist' in us takes over from the 'realist'? which would then beg the question where do we draw the line? are rivets, and panel lines and 'pre-shading' (never understood that particular one) the artist or the realist, and will the model not look odd without something to break the smooth contours----but is that real or artistic licence? if licence how far ought we to allow ourselves to go? these are after all miniature 'bits' of history, do we go for the perfect "restoration' look with a bit of weathering thrown in to make it 'real'---or try the historical accurate 'warts and all' and risk the obsever going away thinking we can't paint a straight line? my take is ----never model from 'modern restorations' unless thats what your'e modelling----and if the period photo(s) shows patches, painted over markings (or crudely applied anything) duplicate it. nothing new here i know---but ---back to the point---how many 'crude' finishes do we see on models?

 

just a thought,

dave.

 

I agree in theory, but the truth is that messy stripes on a model would be interpreted by the vast majority of observers as horrible painting! You'd need a very clear picture of the sloppy stripes on the actual aircraft right beside the model to even try to dispel the notion in observers minds that it was on purpose and not the work of a hack. Oddly enough that doesn't seem to be the case as much with armor modelers. I've seen many accurate depictions of crudely applied markings on tank models, and these are usually accepted and appreciated as what they are; accurately depicted markings being duplicated properly. Odd.

[rotary]

to even try to dispel the notion in observers minds that it was on purpose and not the work of a hack.

but that was what i was alluding to dave---- do we ---in the final analysis(don't mean to sound so serious) model for the kudos to be gained from appreciative onlookers--or for our sense of personal satisfaction at 'getting it right'----i claim no definitive answers---and we do as we like, of course, but your'e right about armour models---hadn't thought of it ----they often do---and we generally don't!! i'm happy, personally, to have wavy stripes(my tired old eyes)!! if the one i'm modelling has them----in just the same way as i feel it important to(old soapbox) have hard edge camo when the original had it---or take more than usual care to get the 'pattern' correct-------but i'm not claiming unique status here at all---some do, some don't, we model as we want.

dave.

[LSP_Ray]

I have seen some instances where the stripes were purposely made a little crude to portray accurately how they were applied. It was on one of the new PCM Spits reviewed in a mag I believe. They painted them near-perfect, then went back with a small brush and added a little wavy-ness to the lines. Tied in with subtle weathering, it looked spectacular! So it can be done. Of course, I guess it helps to have in an article so the modeler can explain what he had done!!! Who knows in a judged competition (if you care about such things)!

[LSP_Kevin]

I think most people prefer their models to look good, rather than realistic. If that wasn't the case, most of the finishing techniques and effects modellers employ would never have come into being. I think wobbly invasion stripes violate the former aesthetic to serve the latter, and most modellers (consciously or unconsciously) prefer it the other way round. Of course, wobbly invasion stripes seem terribly hard to do convincingly, with more potential to stuff it up than get it right, so I guess most folks don't go there.

 

Kev

[rotary]

i have to doubt that 'most people' don't prefer there models realistic! that is an unlikely reason for not following through on what amounts to scale accuracy! sorry kevin, there has to be something else here or we might as well buy die cast --and live with what seems to me to be a poorer aspect of scale modelling. iv'e seen the same thing many times over in many, many years-----models absolutely loaded with the most incredible detail ---- time consuming and minute attention to just about every little detail, regardless of if it can be seen or not----and sometimes page afte page of reference materiel checked and counter checked the end result being a veritable tour de force of the modellers art----spoilt by the lack of the same attention given to the camo. and/or markings----i won't get on a soapbox about hard edge/ soft edge----incorrect camo. patterns---incorrectly placed roundels or proportions---stars and bars upside down etc. etc. the final finish, in my humble, is the single most important aspect of making or breaking the 'believeability' of a model-----long debate and much care(real care--i'm not being flippant) over authentic colour on a spit i saw recently can not hide the mistake(more serious than colour shade) in the fuse. roundel proportion (the 7inch centre red anomoly on some b.o.b. spits.) it resulted in a heated debate with a fellow modeller i know, who would, nevertheless hotly contest the notion that he did'nt seek 'realism' he is a fanatic for it! i don't know what it is but it's not as easy as that kevin.

dave.

[LSP_Kevin]

i have to doubt that 'most people' don't prefer there models realistic! that is an unlikely reason for not following through on what amounts to scale accuracy! sorry kevin, there has to be something else here or we might as well buy die cast --and live with what seems to me to be a poorer aspect of scale modelling. iv'e seen the same thing many times over in many, many years-----models absolutely loaded with the most incredible detail ---- time consuming and minute attention to just about every little detail, regardless of if it can be seen or not----and sometimes page afte page of reference materiel checked and counter checked the end result being a veritable tour de force of the modellers art----spoilt by the lack of the same attention given to the camo. and/or markings----i won't get on a soapbox about hard edge/ soft edge----incorrect camo. patterns---incorrectly placed roundels or proportions---stars and bars upside down etc. etc. the final finish, in my humble, is the single most important aspect of making or breaking the 'believeability' of a model-----long debate and much care(real care--i'm not being flippant) over authentic colour on a spit i saw recently can not hide the mistake(more serious than colour shade) in the fuse. roundel proportion (the 7inch centre red anomoly on some b.o.b. spits.) it resulted in a heated debate with a fellow modeller i know, who would, nevertheless hotly contest the notion that he did'nt seek 'realism' he is a fanatic for it! i don't know what it is but it's not as easy as that kevin.

dave.

 

Sorry Dave, but what you're alluding to doesn't apply to 'most people' (ie, most modellers). Rivet counters are in the minority, and most people don't take it that seriously. Nobody would pre- or post-shade if realism and accuracy were primary. Nobody would do panel line washes if realism and accuracy were primary. There are lots of techniques that (nearly) everybody practises that have nothing to do with realism or accuracy, but rather, creating a dynamic and interesting finish. You yourself state that many highly-detailed builds are spoiled by careless (viz accuracy) finishing. Most modellers prefer detail and 'interest' over accuracy and realism. Mostly, it is that simple Dave. It's an emotional thing, not a technical thing.

 

Oh, by the way, happy birthday for tomorrow!

 

 

Kev

[rotary]

thanks kev. perhaps this getting old game makes one tetchy! but getting back on track---wer'e gonna have to agree to differ on this one i think! but careful reading of my posts should make it clear that i'm happy we model the way we want-----it's a hobby. but if you are right that most modellers prefer 'detail and interest' above accuracy and realism then i for one am plunged into a much cooler world! perhaps on some aspects i did'nt clarify well enough---i have no interest in rivet counting but allow those that do the right, on the scrupulous reasoning that we try to make scale models of a 'real' thing and striving for accuracy is a cornerstone of 'scale modelling surely! allow, or disallow the fine (some would say pernickety) detailing, but it can't just be an emotional thing at the paint and finish stage otherwise a large percentage of the tips, tricks and reflection of meticulous study of photos and factory finishing standards etc. that we talk about on this site is mere posturing!!! that can't be true surely? if accuracy and realism are not what we increasingly demand from manufacturers(and these pages sometimes resonate with loud condemnations of even minor failings in this) then i don't know what else we could demand of them. also remember kev when you say it 'is that simple' what --i trust---you mean is in your opinion it is. my opinion is that accuracy and realism are the two things most modellers do strive for--but that in the area(which is where we started) of duplicating poor quality full size finishes most modellers shy away for the reasons stated earlier which have nothing to do with 'detail' and little to do with interest(it could only add interest surely) lets try to remember that scale modelling, whilst being an art form, can fail in it's main 'theatre of operations' if it decides to become more arty than scaley-----phew, no hard feelings though kev. just helps me excuse wavy invasion stripes by claiming 'thats the way they were!!!

dave.