The picture is an excellent source for what a Pather muzzle brake will look like after firing the gun a few times, not what the entire tank will look like. The muzzle brake has the paint blasted off by the firing of the gun.

Look past the muzzle and at the Panther just behind it. In particular look at the mess tin hanging on the turret. It has paint chipped, or burnt or scraped off down to bare metal. No where on the tank itself can be clearly seen the same type of damage to the zimmerit as to the muzzle brake or the mess tin. The reflection of the bare metal shows on the muzzle brake, the mess tin and on the leading edges of the tracks. I tried to find a clearer copy of the picture, but no luck.

I am still willing to bet that the upper deck, where the crew walked, would be badly worn by the hob nails.

Greg,

I am not one of the people that say there was no chipping. Just having the crew walk on the tank will cause damage to the paint.

I am one of the people that say a Panther G that drove from the factory out to the combat zone and saw very little combat probably did not sections of paint chipped down to bare metal, that are 3 inches (76mm), or larger, in size on the sides of the hull and turret. These tank were not ever shipped by boat, and were loaded on trains by driving with their own tracks.

You have great examples of dirty, stained and combat weary tanks. However, November 1944 to May 1945 production Panthers G's, and Tiger II's are the vehicles that Herbert is complaining about:


The picture shows a late Panther G, no zimmerrit, extensive damage to the rear bins (as always) suffered damage to the road wheels, has typical wear to the paint on the hatches, and two marks on the turret side from shell splinters or bullets. What is missing are several large sections on the turret sides and hull where the paint has been chipped down to bare metal. The paint by the large gouge in the turret goes right up to the edge. There is plenty of evidence of small chipping in a few areas, see the hand crank, tow pin and clevis. Just no big enexplained chips on the hull and turret. The stripe on the back hatch is part of a 1, the tanks number is 301.

Now, if said tank driving along and a close shell burst knocked a building down on it, then maybe there probably were chips in the paint that might be of good size.

Quoted Text

---

Greg,

I am not one of the people that say there was no chipping. Just having the crew walk on the tank will cause damage to the paint.

I am one of the people that say a Panther G that drove from the factory out to the combat zone and saw very little combat probably did not sections of paint chipped down to bare metal, that are 3 inches (76mm), or larger, in size on the sides of the hull and turret. These tank were not ever shipped by boat, and were loaded on trains by driving with their own tracks.

You have great examples of dirty, stained and combat weary tanks. However, November 1944 to May 1945 production Panthers G's, and Tiger II's are the vehicles that Herbert is complaining about:


The picture shows a late Panther G, no zimmerrit, extensive damage to the rear bins (as always) suffered damage to the road wheels, has typical wear to the paint on the hatches, and two marks on the turret side from shell splinters or bullets. What is missing are several large sections on the turret sides and hull where the paint has been chipped down to bare metal. The paint by the large gouge in the turret goes right up to the edge. There is plenty of evidence of small chipping in a few areas, see the hand crank, tow pin and clevis. Just no big enexplained chips on the hull and turret. The stripe on the back hatch is part of a 1, the tanks number is 301.

Now, if said tank driving along and a close shell burst knocked a building down on it, then maybe there probably were chips in the paint that might be of good size.

---

Randall,

Yep, I'm with you -

My point is and always will be - that no statement can be made categorically, that if I choose to finish my MODEL vehicle, depicting wear and chipping, (to whatever extent) it is subject to criticism, simply on the basis of "OH it just didn't happen like that" - I think that as long the "modelled" wear and tear is done on the basis of what is consistent - the modeller should feel free to do as he sees fit, without copping an earfull about not being historically consistent

As I said above it would be wrong to consider the Panther barrel pic as EVIDENCE that it only looked this way - it didn't -


By the way - Nice pic of the panther that you posted - what's that out of?

Greg

Quoted Text

---

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 ?

---

Footsie,

Amen brother - and that's as it should be !!

Greg

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

---

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 ?

---

Footsie,

Amen brother - and that's as it should be !!

Greg

---

i saw that model minigun in use recently on the Military Channel. it is a sight to behold! i couldn't imagine being on the receiving end of it. its accuracy was amazing!
Tony

Even poor old Vanessa here, has to put up with the ravages of paint chipping



hehehehehehe - she gets my vote for Miss World

Greg