Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:56 pm
Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:56 pm
junkman9096 wrote:Has anyone done the research to reliably figure out post-war USAAF/USAF unit markings?
Like this one:
The buzz numbers are well known and I'm pretty sure the same unit wouldn't have differing unit codes, but....
I do have a pretty good grip on ETO Occupation markings. Just these ones seem to have a definite lack of documentation.
Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:34 am
Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:49 am
Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:36 am
Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:34 am
martin_sam_2000 wrote:
Is it just me or does that picture look like it has been digitally touched up, and very poorly for that matter. Lots of random gray pixels and that "H" looks digitally added to me. so does the "F" on the nose and the "join the AAF" titles..and the checkers on the nose...very odd.
Sean
Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:50 am
Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:40 pm
Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:45 pm
CraigQ wrote:martin_sam_2000 wrote:
Is it just me or does that picture look like it has been digitally touched up, and very poorly for that matter. Lots of random gray pixels and that "H" looks digitally added to me. so does the "F" on the nose and the "join the AAF" titles..and the checkers on the nose...very odd.
Sean
I think it's an image that's been turned into an Adobe .pdf: this format tries to recognize text and render it. So probably not doctored, but rather 'processed'.
Not just you, some real odd stuff going on in that picture. Like what is going on in front of the verticals of the closest two aircraft?
The empennage of the closest Mustang doesn't even look like it belongs there.
I agree the pic definitely looks to have been doctored.
Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:44 pm
Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:22 pm
4RG.I.'S wrote:Tom
Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:33 pm
Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:38 pm
Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:33 pm