Comments:
Quite apart from the extremely displeasing situation involving the theft of Copyrighted material, Wing Masters No.2 "Barbarossa" is deserving of a full review on this site due to the very subject matter of the publication. Wing Masters should be congratulated for showing considerable interest in the VVS, especially during this early period, and all works on this matter are indeed welcome by modelers. Sadly, in terms of VVS content, this volume will let down those same modelers to a considerable degree.
It should be noted that we will review only the VVS portion of the material in "Barbarossa", as I have no competence at all to comment on the Luftwaffe material. This issue contains several modeling articles which are at least interesting from a model builder's point of view. The models themselves are of variable quality, as tends to be true in the modeling hobby, ranging from very good to very ordinary.
However, the VVS-related information contained in "Barbarossa" is the source of many great problems. Of utmost criticality to many modelers and enthusiasts will be the color captions and information, as the text is entirely in French. Here, the sheer depth of misinformation presented in "Barbarossa" is difficult to express adequately, and even more difficult to comprehend from whence these spurious ideas came. It is no mean claim, at all, to state almost categorically that any information which is not reproduced verbatim from another source (legally, or otherwise) will certainly be wrong. In fact, much of the copied information is also erroneous after interpretation by the Wing Masters authors and artists, to the complete confusion of the reader.
This situation, in all honesty, must simply be the result of a lack of research. The VVS-related material in "Barbarossa" is reminiscent of a Primary School book report, in that the author repeats information from a primary source without understanding the facts that have led to that information. Thus, whenever the text or artwork deviates from a precise copy of the primary source, the results are... well, predictable. This is all the more incomprehensible in this case, becuase the primary sources for "Barbarossa" are rather good. How, then, the artists and authors of this volume could arrive at the following conclusions is quite beyond any understanding.
Artwork
Looking to the color profiles, we find, starting on page 18-19, some I-16s. How the artist(s) responsible for these astonishing I-16 profiles could have arrived at the shape and detail information they have presented is a mystery. The cowling, in particular, resembles an I-180 more than an I-16, and clearly these persons have not familiarized themselves with the latest (or, perhaps any) research on I-16 type identification. Worse still, the artwork often directly contradicts the photographic evidence printed in this very book. I-16 Type 24 "White 13" of V. Pokrovskiy is drawn in "Barbarossa" with ShVAK guns in the wings, spurious red trim all over, and is attributed to a pilot "Surjenko", whomever that might be. This level of factual authority is, sadly, all too common. Furthermore, as stated, a picture of this machine is printed on page 72 which disproves all of these "findings".
Romanenko's I-16, copied from this web site, is also quite incorrect. The profile as it appears in our article "Art Deco" is actually out of date (and wrong, therefore), but as the Editor responsible for the "acquisition" of this information did not bother to check with its owner, these updates were unknown and not realized in "Barbarossa". It is also clear evidence that the Editor did not have access to any primary information of his own, as these errors would have been spotted and our site would have been corrected. The profiles for "54", "39", and "1" are all direct copies from our article, and therefore marginally correct, at least in terms of the text and coloration.
On page 30, the reader is treated to the amazingly outdated "RAF" camouflage brown/green combination on Grigorev's "6" [it is likely in white, not yellow], and also on the MiG-3 "White 27". As well, Grigorev's LaGG was photographed in August 1942 and was not the LaGG he piloted during his missions in defense of Moscow in 1942, and indifferent to the fact the he flew an I-16 for almost all of 1941. Following this, we have another spurious single-color Il-2, a hopelessly inaccurate profile of Su-2 "Red 5" [given as white, and also described as an "Su-2R", of which there is no such thing], and two generic unmarked profiles as well (Su-2 and Il-2).
Page 45 offers a profile of a DB-3F (early Il-4) which is copied from one of the book's primary sources, "Operatsiya Barbarossa" ("OB"). Since this is a direct copy, one is at a loss to understand how the Wing Masters artist has managed to draw the shape of the profile so incorrectly? Surely, simply copying the correct profile in "OB" would be easy enough? Apparently not. No attention was also paid to the appearance of AII Green in "OB", either (again quite correct, especially for CMYK printing), sadly enough. The Pe-2 scheme on the same page can best be described as, "remarkable".
On Page 63 we see a profile of a TB-3 as an aviamatka machine in Zveno 6 configuration. Alas, despite the claims of the text, the Zveno 6 configuration was not the operational aviamatka arrangement during the War, which instead was the Zveno SPB. The SPB configuration did not make use of the I-16 Type 5, but rather the purpose built I-16 Type 24 SPB. Moreover, the TB-3 in the profile is not a Zveno machine at all, but one from the 3 DBAD, as correctly identified in the text of "OB" (the source of the photo). However these artist's "findings" came about is a startling mystery.
Text
Unfortunately, the text appearing in "Barbarossa" is equally errant. However, here I wish to make clear as strongly as I possibly can that the astounding misinformation in "Barbarossa" is in NO way the fault of the primary source material for the volume, "Operatsiya Barbarossa", upon which the former is supposed to be based. "OB" is in fact an excellent reference, and the text is competent and very well researched. Similarly, Kulikov and Moshanskiy are authors with proper research credentials, and this shows in their writing by all means. Rather quite the opposite is evident in Wing Masters No.2.
A truly comprehensive review of the factual errors in "Barbarossa" would be too exhaustive to contemplate realistically. However, some scope of the level of problems evident in this text can be gleaned from some specific examples.
On page 16 the reader encounters the history of the Polikarpov I-16. Herein the Editor takes great liberty to deviate wildly from the text in "OB", resulting in some amazing assertions. Here we find the old ideas about the I-16 "Type 6" as a major variant, and the concept that the Type 5 was powered by the original M-25 radial. The M-62 engine is described as a "copy of the Wright Cyclone R-1820-G-5". This idea is so outdated and ridiculous, I have to honestly say that I had not heard it for probably a decade prior this example. In fact, the original M-25 was a License built (not a "copy") Wright Cyclone R-1820-G, but was built in very small quantities and never used in the I-16 programme (indeed, not at all for series manufacture with any programme). The M-25A was a significant development of the Wright 1820, so different in fact that Wright agreed with Shvetsov (in writing) that no further License was required for manufacture. The vastly removed M-62 shared nothing whatever in common with the Cyclone apart from the number of cylinders in the motor. This hoary old myth dates directly to the Cold War, and its attendant mentality.
Further on we read that "20,000" I-16s were manufactured in its history. Perhaps Editor Breffort has taken heart that this total is only twice that of the actual figure of 10,292, thereby making it one of the more accurate assertions in the volume. The careful reader is also treated to the 'revelation' that the I-16 Type 12 was armed with 23mm cannon, that the Type 5 makes up an "I-16 SPB", and that Krichevskiy's Type 24 "White 27" is in fact an example of the previously unknown "Type 21" variety. Truly, these are remarkable revelations.
So far as the text of Wing Masters No.2 mimics that of "Operatsiya Barbarossa", it is valid enough. However, one must have to be rather fluent in both French and Russian to attempt a reading of "Barbarossa", as the text deviates from the original material in "OB" randomly, and with demonstrably disastrous results. Similarly, information copied and stolen from other sources can at times be accurate, but only when it is printed verbatim. Any attempt on the part of the Wing Masters staff to exercise interpolation or extrapolation in this volume ends in spurious disaster.
Conclusions:
Apart from the ugly behavior of Wing Masters which is described elsewhere, the volume No.2 "Barbarossa" is an appallingly inaccurate look at modeling the VVS of the early GPW period. It is all the more incomprehensible in that a simple copying exercise would have been sufficient at least to provide accurate data. But, as mentioned, this is the inevitable result of working with material that one does not understand to any degree whatever, and for which one has performed not the remotest second of proper research. Sadly, one also can see in the attitude and behavior of this publication the penchant for producing "facts" out of thin air (or other less savory locations), and the arrogance and/or indifference to believe that no one will be able to catch them out and point to their extraordinary blunders.
The VVS related material in this book is significant retrograde step in the advancement of information on this topic. Indeed, this volume must be said to represent a serious blow to proper modeling of VVS subject matter, and will undoubtedly lead many erstwhile enthusiasts of the subject very badly astray. Barbarossa: Les Faucons de Staline Contra la Luftwaffe (Juin-Decembre 1941) is a grossly incompetent volume which should be avoided at all costs.