Rich Diak, posted this on another modelling forum that can be useful in our weathering methods for our US WW2 subjects:
“My uncle was a Sherman tank commander in the pacific and I have asked him about the condition of his tank during the war. I purposely asked him about paint finish, chips, nicks, wear and fading. He told me that unless hit by a small arms round that was not powerful enough to penetrate the tank the paint never did chip or have any nicks from wear. He told he hit a rock with his coming off a beach going into a jungle area and it scuffed the paint but never nicked it. He stated that the paint did fade after time in the hot sun but this took months. He said that it would wear shiny from the oils in your skin around the hatches and handles. He also stated the fuel spill stains were common until it rain enough to wash them out. Scuffs from people walking on the surface with rocks or sand in their boots usually around the fuel necks and while loading ammo. He was adamant that the paint did not chip from wear.”
That’s why I love seeing those color pics of WW2 vehicles all dusty and scruffy – with hand prints clearing off the dust on areas of contact.
Are you trying to start an argument? LOL [}:)] I’ve always thought that some modelers overdue the wear and tear, especially after listening to the current boys in the field about how meticulous they keep their rides in and why. Makes sense to me, but in combat, conditions will no doubt be put aside untill a better time. I appreciate your Uncle’s observations though.
I agree, some modellers do overdo paint chips! Has anyone here ever seen images of a panzer IV chipped up to hell, or any other tank? They were never in the field long enough! In the process of buildin’ my KV-1, i’ve been wrestlin’ with my own thoughts about chipped paint. I jus’ limited myself to showin’ chipped paint around where the tow cables were used, and in the front of the hull, where maybe armour was pushed out of the way! Even now, I feel I may have overdone it! I’ve never been able to believe some modellers when they show chipped paint around hatches, that seems totally illogical to me. Personally I cannot justify this in my own mind! Personally i’ll show chipped paint on armour, only where I believe the tank may have come in contact with other metals, not bootheels and skin! Winter whitewash is another matter, entirely!
I know from looking at the surplused Sherman tanks around my part of the world - at museum sites, etc. - that these machines certainly weathered the decades much better than some of those on the model bench. They have some really tenacious paint that seems to hold up hundreds of times better than today’s auto paints.
Remember there is the art side of our hobby. There are those who overly dramatize things for the same reason movies add a dramatic score of music. Could you imagine the opening sequence of Jaws with out the duh duh duh music in the background. It wouldn’t be nearly as exciting. Reality is seldom as exciting. The only peve I have is in those who confuse the two and truly believe that artistic creation is the reality. Usally some judge at a contest that I have entered. Greg
[^] I feel a lot of empathy with your post. A lot “Tanker” friends of mine from WW2, both of Africa and European theaters; state that their tanks were kept looking good. Any minor damage was quickly put right. Their thoughts were " If we are going to die, then we will die looking good"
Apart from their own personal pride there were regular inspections( is’nt there always).
I’ve shown them pics on this forum and they all say it’s a bit over done, mud and dust yes more than minor damage and they were pulled back for repair; even if it was back and by the side of the “road”…Kenny
Ditto! I agree! I’ve never seen a single image of a badly paint-chipped operational tank! Hmmmmm. It would be great if anyone has any info or pics, showin’ paint chips and other adverse effects on armour! I’d like to see 'em!
I have been stating this for a while now ,( been in construction type jobs for most of my life ) what most do not understand is the paint on heavy equipment is much more durable and applied in several coats so as to resist such damage . Damage did occur to paint , but not in the ways depicted on many models , not to mention the lifespan of a tank in WWII was weeks/ months not years on average .
About the only areas that i think shold show some chipping would be around the hatches and access panels. Since some of these are very heavy indeed (think of the rear louvered panels on a sherman) than it is ineviatable they might be slightly chipped from being dropped back into position. Looking at my military firetruck i can see the same wear from openignand closing these panels with very very light chipping. Personally i think the only place i have seen heavy chipping was North Africa since a lot of the german paint was applied in theater, so that being a thinner coat would wear away and chipp easier.
Also there is a fairly famous photo for a late panzer 4 that had pictures of it new,a nd when it was captured months later. Now it was very beat to hell, but there was very little recognisable paint chipping at all.
I agree with you Spector, the attrition rates for all this armour was very high! Halftracks, Famo’s, and maybe supply trucks, I say yeah, bring on the chips! Yum!
I like to look at heavy construction equipments and excavation machinery. The way they are used and maintained must be pretty similar to tanks in action and I like to refer to them for weathering. The bucket of a loader will be on bare metal and will rust on the edge and you can see some chipped paint on thin metal like cover plates or tool boxes but not on heavy plates. Most pivots are greasy and dirty and there is also sign of age where the crew is stepping on like the ladder and around the cab but all this is rather subtile. That machinery is easily accessible and I think it is as close as I can get from the real thing. The only thing heavy machinery will not show is the sun effect cause machinery do have a gloss coat to protect from sun rays but tanks were usually left uncoated to minimize reflects of the sun which could be horrible for camouflage purposes so sun will attack the paint of a tank more rapidly than construction machinery and will blemish a lot.
I think the main thing I would counter on this is that tanks are NOT used the same way as heavy construction equipment.
Construction equipment - bulldozers, backhoes, etc. - is sent out in all-terrain for combat against the terrain itself. Therefore that is where the battle damage comes from - repeated impact and banging against the earth itself.
Tanks are vehicles sent out in all-terrain in for combat against personnel, vehicles, buildings, etc. The tank is designed to pass over difficult terrain with fairly low impact in the process. The tank is not attempting to plow through the earth itself. It goes up against brush and small trees, but the nature of the paint surface and the armor plating is such that it resists most of such resistance with no marring aside from a scuffing that can be wiped off with a good washing. Slam the tank against a sizeable boulder and you would get some resulting damage, but a tank driver is not out to tackle boulders. He’s out to drive the easiest path he can spot - going around big trees and boulders. After all, there are issues of safe driving even with tank operations in all-terrain situations. The driver is still dedicated to getting to his destination without hanging up because gettign hung up means becoming a easy target.
I guess almost anything COULD have happened but if you read Aric’s reply, this kind of action you describe is for Hollywood and comic books more than reality. Why would a driver intentionally wreck his fenders, possibly throw a track, jar his optics or other gear if he had the option to drive around something? Sure you can imagine an emergency situation where he had to back out of the line of fire or some imminent danger but moving KOd equipment is left to the dozers mostly.
Still the better way to replicate a model is to have good pictures of a real one in action. But that is sometimes really hard to get. Anyway, I now look at thnigs differently and I cannot pass a truck on the highway without looking for signs of wear and weather.[:)]
The truck on the road has likely been running on the road for many thousands of miles and a good number of years at speeds that increase the impact of any small object. (Consider the energy of a rock tossed up at 20 miles an hour vs. one thrown up at 70 miles an hour.) Many of those roads are covered in salt for a good part of the year. A tank will not likely encounter salt again once it has crossed the beach head.
Hollywood and comics are good enough for me! They fill the gap, of not havin’ any precise information or reference material on hand! Mind you, I like world cinema, better! [:)]
My personal experience in this area was some 40 years later as a mech infantryman. The colors on ALL vehicles in the MERDC scheme faded fairly rapidly and then stayed at a certain point and faded no more. The chipping of paint was rare except on sprockets, engine decks where maint crews had pulled open the decks to replace major items, and on tow hooks. Only if an area recieved a constant amount of metal to metal contact did you see this occuring. Most driver were young and full of pi$$ and vinegar as the saying goes, and therefor tended to treat their tracks as ultimate road and offroad machines. When mishaps occured (veh vs tree, snapped track shoe at high speed, etc) other than damaged sheet metal fenders and scuffed paint, there was usually not much other visible evidence. But road wheels and track pads showed major wear (rubber vs rock, rock always wins… no wonder its not part of rocks paper scissors). yes there was very minor weear around hatches, but that was minimal. In garrison, vehicles were immediately cleaned upon return from the field and kept that way, inside and out. The only wear seen was rust on the tracks. In the field two words MUD and DUST in large amount depending on weather and terrain. As soon as vehicles left the paved roads they became part of the local terrain. And fuel spills. A tired 19 year old at midnite with less than four hours sleep filling by red lens flashight can get sloppy after a long busy day.[2c]