Quoted Text

---

Here's something that says that barrel blackening is mythical too.
linkname

---

Scott

Got to agree mate, can't see any evidence anywhere to pull this myth "out of the fire" (so to speak)



Greg

Okay.

So I went over the pics on my HD, gone through PanzerWrecks 1 to 5, looked in other books and I can't find it.

I can not find a picture that says "Yes, chipping happened".

So what is it? Where did this chipping myth come from? Not from pictures, because when even those in PanzerWrecks don't show it, where does the idea of chipping come from?

It just looks nice? Is that it? That warrants it's existence over any photographic proof against it being a fact?

Even those areas where one might expect even ONE chip, like hatches, or the lockers on 250's and 251's I don't see that chipping happened.

Dirt and muck and dust and oilstains yes, but chipping?

And I personally also don't think it is even possible. Panzers and other armour aren't finished in Humbrol paints.

For starters, Rot Oxid primer is THOUGH, really really though, To get a chip on that is virtually not possible. Next, the factory grade paints used were of a different kind, one that can take all the going though bushes, being clambered over constantly, being driven through debris and such.

So where do these models come from that have almost more chipping than paint on 'm?

Herbert

I'm not trying to belittle you - and I don't intend to take this thread into a flame war - if you really believe that AFV's don't suffer significant paint chipping during active service - then so be it - I have crewed both LRV's and tracked mortar carriers and MBT's and I have seen it first hand - and I choose to believe (and I believe there is enough photographic evidence to support that fact) that it was NO DIFFERENT for German crews pushing thier vehicles down rubble filled streets or through heavily wooded terrain.

You choose to believe that german tank production standards were so strict that once orders regarding finishing from factories were issued that these were strictly adhered to - I choose to believe (like Jentz) that things were substantially more disorganised and that exceptions occurred

Thanks for initiating the thread - believe what you will -

I choose not to agree with you - based on a number of things - MY EXPERIENCE - my examination of plenty of photos- and common sense

I will also apologise to the gentlemen who completed the Jagdpanther - I initially commented that I thought perhaps the finish was overdone - I retract that statement - he probably wasn't that far off the mark (damaged side skirts and all) - IN MY OPINION:


Greg Taylor

on all it's SIX legs.

Quoted Text

---

Okay.

So I went over the pics on my HD, gone through PanzerWrecks 1 to 5, looked in other books and I can't find it.

I can not find a picture that says "Yes, chipping happened".

So what is it? Where did this chipping myth come from? Not from pictures, because when even those in PanzerWrecks don't show it, where does the idea of chipping come from?

It just looks nice? Is that it? That warrants it's existence over any photographic proof against it being a fact?

Even those areas where one might expect even ONE chip, like hatches, or the lockers on 250's and 251's I don't see that chipping happened.

Dirt and muck and dust and oilstains yes, but chipping?

And I personally also don't think it is even possible. Panzers and other armour aren't finished in Humbrol paints.

For starters, Rot Oxid primer is THOUGH, really really though, To get a chip on that is virtually not possible. Next, the factory grade paints used were of a different kind, one that can take all the going though bushes, being clambered over constantly, being driven through debris and such.

So where do these models come from that have almost more chipping than paint on 'm?

---

Herbert: Above is the quote from your original post. It does apply to real vehicles. You plainly say that model builders who chip their vehicles are making it up because you never saw any evidence that it happened in real life. In response to your statements references were cited, pictures were posted, people posted their personal experiences from their time in service that showed pretty convincingly the basis for your claim was wrong. It didn't seem to matter because you and others that believe the same wouldn't accept anything offered. I really don't think anybody or anything will ever convince you or those who believe as you do and nothing is going to change their minds either. I guess some people have a need to be right no matter what. But, along the line you have switched your argument from saying you said chipping never happened to chipping as portrayed by model builders is overdone. It seems you wanted to argue more than you wanted information. One of my favorite sayings is "Don't ask the question if you aren't prepared to deal with the answer." And I think I'll leave it at that.

Quoted Text

---

Herbert

I'm not trying to belittle you - and I don't intend to take this thread into a flame war - if you really believe that AFV's don't suffer significant paint chipping during active service - then so be it - I have crewed both LRV's and tracked mortar carriers and MBT's and I have seen it first hand - and I choose to believe (and I believe there is enough photographic evidence to support that fact) that it was NO DIFFERENT for German crews pushing thier vehicles down rubble filled streets or through heavily wooded terrain.

You choose to believe that german tank production standards were so strict that once orders regarding finishing from factories were issued that these were strictly adhered to - I choose to believe (like Jentz) that things were substantially more disorganised and that exceptions occurred

---

This picture actually shows how WELL organised the production actually was.

The Tiger-E in the foreground is ready to be shipped out to it's unit, the one in the background (Fgst. Nr 250238) is still in Rot Oxid primer as it's major components at that timeperiod were delivered in by Krupp and DHHV. The tank is leaving the factory on it's way to acceptance tests.

So nothing hap-hazzard or dis-organised.

And you say Jentz is someone who says production was dis-organised? My view of Jentz based on what I read of his work is that he puts quite strict dates in his publications about when production changes happened. Even when photographs tell differently.

Good example. Jentz puts the introduction of the Kampfraumheizung in December 1944. He says that in Panther Quest for Combat Supremacy as well as Panzer Tracts 5-3 and 5-4.

How then would he explain the picture in Panzer Wrecks 2, page 14, of a Panther Ausf. G knocked out by by B Company, 5ht Battalion Duke of Cornwalls near Elst on 22-23 September 1944?

Jentz says that he bases all his research on official documents and by following that method he apparantly either ignores or does not look into pictures like the one in PW-2.

In VK4502 to Tiger-II he writes that changes in Tiger-B production were implemented but that it could take months for completed vehicles to all have such a modification, the reason being the tendency to adhere to a "first in, last out" use of supplied components by Henschel during final assembly. Thusly, older parts became accessible only after the stock of later delivered parts were used up.

Does that indicate dis-organised work at Henschel? No, just a way of working through their stock. FILO is a business choice.

Quoted Text

---

Thanks for initiating the thread - believe what you will -

I choose not to agree with you - based on a number of things - MY EXPERIENCE - my examination of plenty of photos- and common sense

I will also apologise to the gentlemen who completed the Jagdpanther - I initially commented that I thought perhaps the finish was overdone - I retract that statement - he probably wasn't that far off the mark (damaged side skirts and all) - IN MY OPINION:


Greg Taylor

---

Would you care to take a really good look at HOW the skirts are hung on the side of the JagdPanther?

The Schürzen overlap front to back. The Schürzen were designed to be placed this way to increase the rigidity of the whole set. They were hung on the holders back to front, starting at the rear, the next one is placed ON TOP of the leading edge of the rearmost Schürze and so on forward.

The model shows the Schürzen as not overlapping at all. And that is just plain wrong.

Quoted Text

---

herb, why do you say museum vehicles excluded ?, the point of the pics was to show if a museum tank will chip down to the bare metal then a tank in the field WILL CHIP, and will chip a hell of a lot worse, i have been fortunate or unfortunate (depending on how you look at it) to have served my country in war and i can tell you after just a few days in the field things can get pretty well messed up, so back to my original question WHY exclude museum pics ? i refer to the tiger and hetzer pics, or will you please post some pics of your models to show us how its done, please don't take this the wrong way but if you judge other peoples work then you should display your own work and let others judge it !!!!!

---

The point about museum vehicles is 2 fold:

First, these vehicles are often repainted after being stripped down to bare metal. Thusly, the Rot Oxid primer is also gone, therefore, the subsequent re-painting results in a covering that is inferior to the original.

Second, comparing a vehicle that has stood either outside for DECADES with people going up and over it to a combat vehicle that in essence of German tanks was most often lost in a matter of several monts and at the end in days is just simply absurd.

And again, I'm also getting tired of having to keep saying this, I have a big issue with the SIZE and NUMBER of the chips on models.

Also, what do MY models have to do with anything about what we are talking about. Yeah, they don't have these chips, no they don't.

And I do not criticise ANY modellers skill here, so where you get that idea beats me.

I do object to the unbased use of showing oversized chips and the abundance of them on models.

Greg,

I believe that the photographs you posted actually reinforce Herbert's modified statement when he refers to the size and number of paint "chips".

None of the photographs illustrate "chipping" of paint to the extent of the Jagdpanther model earlier in the thread. Even the photo of the Tiger I turret illustrates paint that has blistered and peeled due to fire, not from "chipping".

They largely illustrate dirty and stained vehicles with paint that appears to be worn in some areas. Some of the smaller spots could be "chipped" paint but the "chips" would be relatively minute on a 1/35 scale model.

I agree that bare metal is exposed on the front bumper of the Puma, apparently from scratching the paint after coming into contact with a hard surface. I also agree that bare metal is exposed on the rotating cupola of the Puma. This appears to be the result of wear from rubbing rather than "chipping".

Clearly "chipping" of paint occurs to some extent as illustrated in the factory photo of the towing shackle earlier in the thread. Small "chipped" and scratched areas are visible but once again, they would be minute on a model.

Clearly paint will "chip" if it is struck by a tool or some other hard object. The size of the "chip" will be determined by the size of the object that struck the paint. Once again, I feel that paint "chips" in general would be relatively small on a model.

Scratching of paint is a different scenario and could account for large areas of paint damage (i.e. driving against a stone wall).

"Chipping" has become a catch-all phrase for all types of paint damage (chipping, scratching, & wear/rubbing) when they should probably be described separately.

"Chipping" has become a catch-all phrase for all types of paint damage (chipping, scratching, & wear/rubbing) when they should probably be described separately.

Fledermaus

There's an hour or so of my life I won't get back. I feel stupider (is that a word ) for having taken the time to actually read this entire thread. Who gives a rats A** if folks chip, scratch or otherwise weather their model. Its a hobby folks. Get over it. Life is too short to hammer each other over what it right and what is wrong with a models finsh. Think of all the models that you guys could have been working on instead of hashing out who's right and wrong here.... The sun's gonna come up tomorrow and I'll be building another model, finished and/or weathered to my liking ...And guess what?? I'll be happy about it.....
"Q"

Quoted Text

---

Greg,

I believe that the photographs you posted actually reinforce Herbert's modified statement when he refers to the size and number of paint "chips".

None of the photographs illustrate "chipping" of paint to the extent of the Jagdpanther model earlier in the thread. Even the photo of the Tiger I turret illustrates paint that has blistered and peeled due to fire, not from "chipping".

They largely illustrate dirty and stained vehicles with paint that appears to be worn in some areas. Some of the smaller spots could be "chipped" paint but the "chips" would be relatively minute on a 1/35 scale model.

I agree that bare metal is exposed on the front bumper of the Puma, apparently from scratching the paint after coming into contact with a hard surface. I also agree that bare metal is exposed on the rotating cupola of the Puma. This appears to be the result of wear from rubbing rather than "chipping".

Clearly "chipping" of paint occurs to some extent as illustrated in the factory photo of the towing shackle earlier in the thread. Small "chipped" and scratched areas are visible but once again, they would be minute on a model.

Clearly paint will "chip" if it is struck by a tool or some other hard object. The size of the "chip" will be determined by the size of the object that struck the paint. Once again, I feel that paint "chips" in general would be relatively small on a model.

Scratching of paint is a different scenario and could account for large areas of paint damage (i.e. driving against a stone wall).

"Chipping" has become a catch-all phrase for all types of paint damage (chipping, scratching, & wear/rubbing) when they should probably be described separately.

---

Maus,

Thanks for the comments - I wish someone on this thread would tell me what it is we are directly talking about - paint whether it comes of as a "chip" or a "worn area" is still paint that has been removed.

CHIPPING (to my mind) will occur - anytime that any vehicle gets,
- unloaded with cranes and/or chains from a ship or a train (these vehicles DID NOT DRIVE all the way to their TAO's), or
- when it is driven onto or loaded or unloaded on a train flatbed and all the unbolted gear gets thrown up on the hull for transport with the rest of the chassis,
- when it crashes through the corner of a brickwall, or
- through a hedgerow,
- when it get hits by small arms fire or
- a close by grenade detonation,
- in the case of german armor, if it gets hit by a glancing blow from an allied vehicle/shoulder fired AT round - not capable of penetrating the armor thickness
-when a vehicle gets destroyed by direct fire from a penetrating anti tank round
-when stand off armor prematurely detonates an incoming AT round
-when an allied tank who has run out of AT ammo fires a HE round in an attempt to secure it's egress, hits the outside armor of a vehicle

As I have said before in this thread - most of the wear on these vehicles is not going to be readily visible from the types of photos of WW2 that have widely been published over the last 6 decades - BUT there are plenty out there that show paint removed from these vehicles, I wasn't actually present at the site of each and every photo, and so can't AND WON'T state categorically if the paint was worn or chipped - BUT IT WAS REMOVED

But others here have made eloquent and perfectly sensible statements - how close do you have to get to a motor car to see a scratch? Doesn't the existence of scratches on modern day motor cars, not in day to day armoured combat, but simply driving around and crashing into each other - prove by extension that AFV's also got scratched and CHIPPED down to bare metal in one of the world's most destructive global conflicts in history.

(If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is present - does it make a noise).

Wake up to yourselves.

Greg

Just a short comment and not meant to fuel the debate one way or the other (I am enjoying seeing all the photos posted pro/con)...the Pz IV color shot posted from a museum is of a DAK vehicle...and they, like whitewash finishes, represent a "special" case when it comes to the debate ongoing about paint wear and chipping. It's an early 1941 vehicle, which means it would've been sent over in Panzer Gray and then painted hastily in the field before it got to this color (assuming it is the original color) and then was subsequently captured. Some of the dramatic wear in that photo may not be bare metal but may instead be the Panzer Gray (a very dark color, almost black contrary to the way it's often modelled) showing through.

And that, I think, is one of the reasons why this type of debate is so multi-faceted...the possibility of dirt, whitewash, field-applied paint, etc. means that it's hard to deal in 100% guarateed generalities and instead becomes more of a case-by-case assessment of what is likely/probable.

I asked a friend of mine who has worked his whole life for DuPont with paints about this issue of the durability of German paints of that era. Here's the gist of his reply:

"Hahaha! Sounds like ... someone who knows absolutely nothing about paint. Hmmm... no real good epoxy primers or polyurethanes back then that I am aware of. Probably mostly alkyd enamels. Lets see those stand up vs. today's Urethanes in a chip-resistance test :-) Geeeez! Lead certainly helped for coverage (especially in reds, oranges and yellows) but I do not believe it really had anything to do with durability. However, not a chemist by trade."

Greg,

As I said, I've enjoyed the back-and-forth and the photos posted, good stuff! Made me go back and look through many of my own references (the Trojca "at war" books in particular) and certainly gave me a different perspective when looking at them.

passionate hobby, passionate people, passionate thread, i hope we have many more debates of this kind. but in the end we will all carry on doing what we love in our own individual style and thats what counts......................... isn't it ?

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Here's something that says that barrel blackening is mythical too.
linkname

---

Scott

Got to agree mate, can't see any evidence anywhere to pull this myth "out of the fire" (so to speak)



Greg

---

This pic from earlier is all you need to use.