Hosted by Darren Baker
Chipping mythical
Removed by original poster on 10/23/08 - 10:09:22 (GMT).
taylgr
Joined: March 15, 2008
KitMaker: 152 posts
Armorama: 127 posts
Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 - 08:22 AM UTC
With reference to the Jagdpanther - is it overdone? perhaps a little - but the truth of the matter is -
paint DOES chip and scratch:
Water DOES get in under paint and around hatches and cause rust:
and damaged pieces DO get bent or fall off:
paint DOES chip and scratch:
Water DOES get in under paint and around hatches and cause rust:
and damaged pieces DO get bent or fall off:
lespauljames
Joined: January 06, 2007
KitMaker: 3,661 posts
Armorama: 2,764 posts
Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 - 08:36 AM UTC
ok 
taylgr
Joined: March 15, 2008
KitMaker: 152 posts
Armorama: 127 posts
Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 - 08:48 AM UTC
Quoted Text
With reference to the Jagdpanther - is it overdone? perhaps a little - but the truth of the matter is -
paint DOES chip and scratch:
Water DOES get in under paint and around hatches and cause rust:
and damaged pieces DO get bent or fall off:
And I guess while I'm at it - I'll give my comment on whether aircraft panel lines as represented on some models is realistic or not - on SOME aircraft - yes they really can get to look like that !!
johnlinford
Joined: October 28, 2006
KitMaker: 203 posts
Armorama: 195 posts
Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 - 09:13 AM UTC
Wow , this discussion has thrown up some amazing photos . I had a go at making the M10 with roof armour and I personally think thats more dirt , new and old rather than mostly chipped paint.
But some of the other photos certainly prove some points.
The Bovingdon Tiger does run , so its had some use . Apparentely they really resurched the paint on this example , and replicated it's original paint job as best as possible . So you can imagine what state it MIGHT have got in , in combat situations.
Food for thought eh.
John.
I can't spell researched .
But some of the other photos certainly prove some points.
The Bovingdon Tiger does run , so its had some use . Apparentely they really resurched the paint on this example , and replicated it's original paint job as best as possible . So you can imagine what state it MIGHT have got in , in combat situations.
Food for thought eh.
John.
I can't spell researched .
blaster76
Joined: September 15, 2002
KitMaker: 8,985 posts
Armorama: 3,034 posts
Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 - 09:19 AM UTC
Nice pictures. Problem for me. Most of the black and white either depict abandoned or damaged vehicles and the color ones are vehicles that are static in a museum setting for God knows how many years. The panther in front of the Cologne Cathedral is a colorized one and the tank in question was noted as burned out. (Saw this pic many many years ago on the last page of Squadrons Panther in Action)
Sure chipping does occur, I've been in a tank that slammed into a 10 inch diameter tree put a nice dent in the tree and a little scrach in the paint Months later there was a bit of rust showing, we rubbed it with a bit of sandpaper and put a dab of paint on it. A quarter inch scratch in real life equates to need a magnifying glass to see it in 35th. This point has been brought out time and time again in this thread and seems to be missed by alot of you too eager to prove a point rather than realize you are arguing grapes vs watermelons
Rusty tracks you bet. Look at your cars brake rotors after the car has stayed overnight in the garage after you used it in some rain the day before. Ohmigosh is that rust on the rotors???!!! Go a couple of blocks stop and look at them again. Gee???!!! Where did all the rust go???!!! Rust that gets that bad takes a long while to build up. Thus you see it heavy on spare track hanging and exhaust pipes. Same goes for the rust when folks chip and streak it downward. IF the tank had been sitting still never moving (abandoned) for a month or 2 I might believe it. But as has been pointed out, some of you out there are far more inclined for the "cool look" effect. That picture of the Jadgpather earlier in the thread makes the comment that it took second place in a modelling show. Accuracy / realism is not a criteria the judges use. It is a model and modelling skills are what is being judged....PERIOD
The beauty of these argumentative threads is, eventually realism wins out and the trend starts to disappear. I rarly see blackened muzzle ends and totatlly rusty tracks seem to be slowly disappearing. Given time I think this chipping craze will pretty much go the way of the hoola hoop
Sure chipping does occur, I've been in a tank that slammed into a 10 inch diameter tree put a nice dent in the tree and a little scrach in the paint Months later there was a bit of rust showing, we rubbed it with a bit of sandpaper and put a dab of paint on it. A quarter inch scratch in real life equates to need a magnifying glass to see it in 35th. This point has been brought out time and time again in this thread and seems to be missed by alot of you too eager to prove a point rather than realize you are arguing grapes vs watermelons
Rusty tracks you bet. Look at your cars brake rotors after the car has stayed overnight in the garage after you used it in some rain the day before. Ohmigosh is that rust on the rotors???!!! Go a couple of blocks stop and look at them again. Gee???!!! Where did all the rust go???!!! Rust that gets that bad takes a long while to build up. Thus you see it heavy on spare track hanging and exhaust pipes. Same goes for the rust when folks chip and streak it downward. IF the tank had been sitting still never moving (abandoned) for a month or 2 I might believe it. But as has been pointed out, some of you out there are far more inclined for the "cool look" effect. That picture of the Jadgpather earlier in the thread makes the comment that it took second place in a modelling show. Accuracy / realism is not a criteria the judges use. It is a model and modelling skills are what is being judged....PERIOD
The beauty of these argumentative threads is, eventually realism wins out and the trend starts to disappear. I rarly see blackened muzzle ends and totatlly rusty tracks seem to be slowly disappearing. Given time I think this chipping craze will pretty much go the way of the hoola hoop
taylgr
Joined: March 15, 2008
KitMaker: 152 posts
Armorama: 127 posts
Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 - 09:34 AM UTC
Steve,
I note most of your comments - however regardless of the status (museum or otherwise) - these are REAL AFV's and they do weather and scratch - I agree the panther out front of the cathedral is a colourised pic - but heres a Pzkpfw II under similar conditions and this one isn't colourised:
If German AFV's showed signs of wear on their interiors then by definition and extension - you would have to presuppose that the outsides would probably wear even more:
- here are some pics of our APC's and Centurions on exercise (and active service) - yes whilst we are on ops - they scratch, when we get 'em home we clean 'em up, but it depends on what you're modelling - I think the secret is DON'T OVERDO THE EFFECT - subtle is always going to be better:
I note most of your comments - however regardless of the status (museum or otherwise) - these are REAL AFV's and they do weather and scratch - I agree the panther out front of the cathedral is a colourised pic - but heres a Pzkpfw II under similar conditions and this one isn't colourised:
If German AFV's showed signs of wear on their interiors then by definition and extension - you would have to presuppose that the outsides would probably wear even more:
- here are some pics of our APC's and Centurions on exercise (and active service) - yes whilst we are on ops - they scratch, when we get 'em home we clean 'em up, but it depends on what you're modelling - I think the secret is DON'T OVERDO THE EFFECT - subtle is always going to be better:
Removed by original poster on 10/23/08 - 10:10:36 (GMT).
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 - 11:35 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Steve,
I note most of your comments - however regardless of the status (museum or otherwise) - these are REAL AFV's and they do weather and scratch - I agree the panther out front of the cathedral is a colourised pic - but heres a Pzkpfw II under similar conditions and this one isn't colourised:
Yes, but this is clearly one that has "brewed up" after taking a round in the lower hull/chassis. Same thing with the Panther, when a tank catches fire the extreme heat will cause the paint to burn off and leave the bare metal exposed which will then promptly oxidize as it cools once the fire is out. That's just simple physics at work. Throwing this one out as an example of how a "real" AFV would weather just doesn't match up.
Nice set of photos though on the modern stuff and the wear it gets out on maneuvers. 
pzcreations
Joined: May 24, 2006
KitMaker: 2,106 posts
Armorama: 1,116 posts
Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 - 12:01 PM UTC
fweeewww ... man did it take a while to read all that.
just from reading the many points of view, it sounds like really theyre all right. It just depends on the individual tank and at what time your modeling it in . Did paint chipping happen? seems there are many many photos to prove so. Just look in the many up close photos available. Theres plenty in Rytons Panzertruppe, which show alot of photos of tank crewman on their tanks. yes, you can see plenty of paint wear and chips. On the other hand, the crews and maintenance crews as well repaired, repainted, touched-up what ever may be needed. But, how often really could that happen? Not every day for sure, especially in combat for days on end. With these in mind, whose to say the model in question is accurate ? at what point in time is the modeler depicting the tank? right after the paint touch-ups? right after the shell exploded next to it? during a lull in combat ..when the crew is just too tired to get out the paint? should the modeler be required to post the exact moment in history the model is depicting in order to be accepted as "correct" ?
Granted , I have seen some outrageous overly done chipped paint. Im guilty myself. That to me goes along with using the same judgment IPMS uses in contests for paint job. They cannot judge as to whether the colors are accurate or not, but they have to use some judgement when it comes to the application of the paint. And if a Panther G late (for example) has been modeled for a scene in late 44 and it looks like a rust bucket from a 1920 junk yard.. well, what would you think? many of you have made the compliment of my models having "subtle paint chipping" . which is what I like , my preference. On the other hand, as many of you know, I sell most of my armor models on ebay. IF I do not weather the hell outta my models, and beat them all to hell with rust and paint chips, then most likely the model will not sell ,or not gain a nice amount to make it worth while. Point being, even though the rust buckets may not be realistic, or "accurate" , they do make for more appealing models by viewers and collectors. Theres plenty of room in this hobby for everyone, large paint chipping, no paint chips,... or flying purple Elefants... as long as your not claiming that "your model is 100% accurate" and everyone else is wrong.. then just keep doing what you like whether anyone else agrees or not.
just from reading the many points of view, it sounds like really theyre all right. It just depends on the individual tank and at what time your modeling it in . Did paint chipping happen? seems there are many many photos to prove so. Just look in the many up close photos available. Theres plenty in Rytons Panzertruppe, which show alot of photos of tank crewman on their tanks. yes, you can see plenty of paint wear and chips. On the other hand, the crews and maintenance crews as well repaired, repainted, touched-up what ever may be needed. But, how often really could that happen? Not every day for sure, especially in combat for days on end. With these in mind, whose to say the model in question is accurate ? at what point in time is the modeler depicting the tank? right after the paint touch-ups? right after the shell exploded next to it? during a lull in combat ..when the crew is just too tired to get out the paint? should the modeler be required to post the exact moment in history the model is depicting in order to be accepted as "correct" ?
Granted , I have seen some outrageous overly done chipped paint. Im guilty myself. That to me goes along with using the same judgment IPMS uses in contests for paint job. They cannot judge as to whether the colors are accurate or not, but they have to use some judgement when it comes to the application of the paint. And if a Panther G late (for example) has been modeled for a scene in late 44 and it looks like a rust bucket from a 1920 junk yard.. well, what would you think? many of you have made the compliment of my models having "subtle paint chipping" . which is what I like , my preference. On the other hand, as many of you know, I sell most of my armor models on ebay. IF I do not weather the hell outta my models, and beat them all to hell with rust and paint chips, then most likely the model will not sell ,or not gain a nice amount to make it worth while. Point being, even though the rust buckets may not be realistic, or "accurate" , they do make for more appealing models by viewers and collectors. Theres plenty of room in this hobby for everyone, large paint chipping, no paint chips,... or flying purple Elefants... as long as your not claiming that "your model is 100% accurate" and everyone else is wrong.. then just keep doing what you like whether anyone else agrees or not.
DaGreatQueeg
Joined: August 01, 2005
KitMaker: 1,049 posts
Armorama: 841 posts
Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 - 12:07 PM UTC
Quoted Text
The JagdPanther shown is a prime example of how accuracy has plummeted down the list of priorities in building and finishing a kit.
For instance, the Schürzen are WRONG! They don't overlap, are bent and pieces missing, which just is not possible. Anything happen, these sheets would be lost.
The rust is hugely overdone, just completely insane for a late model JagdPanther, as is the chipping.
And THAT, the fact that "oow it looks nice" is the current trend is what I find very very sad in this hobby. The general consensus has nothing to do anymore with making things look accurate.
Is it something that is like the more accurate the kits in basis, the less interested the modeller gets in being accurate?
Wow - this thread has been very interesting. some good points and in general a healthy debate.
I do think we need to be a little careful about making constructive crtisms about peoples work rather than just running it down completely. Its pretty easy to pick on someones model and junk it just for the sake of it however how much experience had this modeller had - what refs did he have - and god forbid - was he just making the kit and entering for the fun of it? How dare he ..............
And yeah I chip and am proud of it. Didnt really know what i was doing until someone called it chipping on my models. I use it to represent everything from scratches and scrapes to general grime and thinks its adds some life to a static model. We are after all (most of us) trying to make something attractive to look at .
A small % are after max detail and correct or scatch everything they can to achieve that and while I dont have the time or ability to go to these lengths I can really admire their work. But do I run the effort down when its under a monotone or bland coat of paint. Heck no - why should I, I can respect the effort and thank them for bothering to post their work, which I can still take somethig out of. I expect at least the same in return though from the anti weathering fraternity ...........
btw if chipping is so hated I'd be interested in hearing thoughts about Colour Modulation ? I have to say I think Adam Wilders modulated stuff is almost the most beautiful stuff I've ever seen. But would the same colour paint fade in so many different ways - maybe, maybe not. You've gotta admit though its glorious to look at ............
cheers
Brent
Removed by original poster on 10/23/08 - 10:11:07 (GMT).
m4sherman
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 - 02:02 PM UTC
Quoted Text
if the inside chips the outside will also chip !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Interiors would probably show more chipping. Interior painting would be less common after leaving the factory. Out of sight and out of mind.
lespauljames
Joined: January 06, 2007
KitMaker: 3,661 posts
Armorama: 2,764 posts
Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 - 10:04 PM UTC
why dosent someone make a dio of soemone repairing paint chips
everybody will be happy then
everybody will be happy then
taylgr
Joined: March 15, 2008
KitMaker: 152 posts
Armorama: 127 posts
Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 - 11:20 PM UTC
[quote]
No argument here - the only reason I included brewed up vehicles was the comment from the Authors initial comments at the start of the thread that he had reviewed all the Panzerwreck series - and almost all of those vehicles are either disabled or by action or abandoned - this pic of the Pz II and the panther are the extreme end of the spectrum - there are many shades in between:
from "factory fresh"
to well worn:
right through to "geez" how did they keep this sucker running?
Also important to remember that most AFV's (german or allied) were not usually "driven" all the way into their TAO's but were transported by train or other means - when vehicles are transported in this manner - they are almost certain to be scratched - anyone who's ever seen an MBT being "shanked" off a transport flatbed with chains will know that those chains rubbing across the edges of stowage baskets or across sharp edges will take paint with them.
Great thread - thanks for the opportunity to participate - cheers
Greg
Quoted Text
Steve,
I note most of your comments - however regardless of the status (museum or otherwise) - these are REAL AFV's and they do weather and scratch - I agree the panther out front of the cathedral is a colourised pic - but heres a Pzkpfw II under similar conditions and this one isn't colourised:
Yes, but this is clearly one that has "brewed up" after taking a round in the lower hull/chassis. Same thing with the Panther, when a tank catches fire the extreme heat will cause the paint to burn off and leave the bare metal exposed which will then promptly oxidize as it cools once the fire is out. That's just simple physics at work. Throwing this one out as an example of how a "real" AFV would weather just doesn't match up.
No argument here - the only reason I included brewed up vehicles was the comment from the Authors initial comments at the start of the thread that he had reviewed all the Panzerwreck series - and almost all of those vehicles are either disabled or by action or abandoned - this pic of the Pz II and the panther are the extreme end of the spectrum - there are many shades in between:
from "factory fresh"
to well worn:
right through to "geez" how did they keep this sucker running?
Also important to remember that most AFV's (german or allied) were not usually "driven" all the way into their TAO's but were transported by train or other means - when vehicles are transported in this manner - they are almost certain to be scratched - anyone who's ever seen an MBT being "shanked" off a transport flatbed with chains will know that those chains rubbing across the edges of stowage baskets or across sharp edges will take paint with them.
Great thread - thanks for the opportunity to participate - cheers
Greg
Splinty
Joined: February 06, 2004
KitMaker: 114 posts
Armorama: 103 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 12:57 AM UTC
On the modern U.S. part of this subject, the CARC paint used on U.S. vehicles sprays on almost 1/16th of an inch thick. It is very tough and chip resistant, however as previously stated, it can and does scratch and chip. If a coat of paint that thick can, what's regular ole' lead based paint gonna do? OTOH the effect should be subtle and not overdone.
m4sherman
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 03:03 AM UTC
[quote]
On the Ford Jeep, the body edge alongside the drivers seat has a worn area that is shiny from where the drivers rump rubs as he climbs in. On the cowling there is an area that has been worn down to bare metal where the rubber strip on the under side of the windshield contacts the cowl. This Jeep hit something very hard on the left side because the protective sump for the gas tanks front edge has been crunched, and the body above has a dent. The clips that secure the windshield up usually get worn down to bare metal quickly, and some of the clamps were cast brass on the early Jeeps, with steel hinge parts. The steering wheel is an early design where the spokes were cast in rubber. Later steering wheels had no rubber, just an early plastic grip. It is a great picture of an early Ford Jeep. Too bad the bumper codes were scratched off. Can anyone with sharp eyes identify the shoulder patches?
Quoted Text
Quoted TextSteve,
I note most of your comments - however regardless of the status (museum or otherwise) - these are REAL AFV's and they do weather and scratch - I agree the panther out front of the cathedral is a colourised pic - but heres a Pzkpfw II under similar conditions and this one isn't colourised:
Yes, but this is clearly one that has "brewed up" after taking a round in the lower hull/chassis. Same thing with the Panther, when a tank catches fire the extreme heat will cause the paint to burn off and leave the bare metal exposed which will then promptly oxidize as it cools once the fire is out. That's just simple physics at work. Throwing this one out as an example of how a "real" AFV would weather just doesn't match up.
No argument here - the only reason I included brewed up vehicles was the comment from the Authors initial comments at the start of the thread that he had reviewed all the Panzerwreck series - and almost all of those vehicles are either disabled or by action or abandoned - this pic of the Pz II and the panther are the extreme end of the spectrum - there are many shades in between:
from "factory fresh"
to well worn:
right through to "geez" how did they keep this sucker running?
Also important to remember that most AFV's (german or allied) were not usually "driven" all the way into their TAO's but were transported by train or other means - when vehicles are transported in this manner - they are almost certain to be scratched - anyone who's ever seen an MBT being "shanked" off a transport flatbed with chains will know that those chains rubbing across the edges of stowage baskets or across sharp edges will take paint with them.
Great thread - thanks for the opportunity to participate - cheers
Greg
On the Ford Jeep, the body edge alongside the drivers seat has a worn area that is shiny from where the drivers rump rubs as he climbs in. On the cowling there is an area that has been worn down to bare metal where the rubber strip on the under side of the windshield contacts the cowl. This Jeep hit something very hard on the left side because the protective sump for the gas tanks front edge has been crunched, and the body above has a dent. The clips that secure the windshield up usually get worn down to bare metal quickly, and some of the clamps were cast brass on the early Jeeps, with steel hinge parts. The steering wheel is an early design where the spokes were cast in rubber. Later steering wheels had no rubber, just an early plastic grip. It is a great picture of an early Ford Jeep. Too bad the bumper codes were scratched off. Can anyone with sharp eyes identify the shoulder patches?
H_Ackermans
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 03:40 AM UTC
Lots of pictures, lots of great input, I'm glad this thread is being debated on facts and not turned into a "did - did not - did - did not" fest.
Still, most pictures of chipping are of allied vehicles. Oh one thing, I had to chuckle about the Imperial Japanese aircraft, these are known to loose paint from flying alone as the quality of the paint was horrible.
But I challenge anyone to post pics of greatly chipped Tiger-Bs or Panther-Gs.
Somehow there also seems to be an idea that it is about weathering in general, that's not the point at all.
Of course German late war armour also got mucked and dirty and greasy. But nothing to the extent as shown on models, like the posted Jagdpanther. That is simply grossly overdone.
Does a nick in paint happen? sure. But the chance of getting through Rot Oxid primer down to bare metal is highly unlikely, that is really REALLY tough primer, as shown by recovered vehicles like the recent STUG IV which shows no wear and a pristine cover in Rot Oxid.
A few things to remember:
- Field applied camo (Rot Braun and Oliv Grün) were subject of how the paste was thinned and to which degree by the field company applying it. Thusly, the quality varied and therefore, these 2 colors could scratch and reveal the underlying Dunkel Gelb basecoat.
- Early DAK was painted desert color over Schwarz Grau and this paint DID chip/flake easily. Hence, mucho chipo on those. Later DAK vehicles were standard painted in desert color and this paint was of much better quality.
- Mud splatters can be misconceived as chips
- Late war German Armour didn't last long enough to get all beaten up as shown in models like the Jagdpanther here
- Modern service vehicles cannot be used as benchmark due to their long service life. The amount of wear over time is due to repeated scoffing/rotating/twisting and simple use.
- Japanese aircraft..........
- Comparing jeeps to tanks.........
- Museum vehicles to wartime vehicles..............
Can one find pics of chipped German armour? Sure.
Can one find many pics of chipped German armour? Sure
Can these pics be used as proof that German armour chipped as a rule? No way!
Still, most pictures of chipping are of allied vehicles. Oh one thing, I had to chuckle about the Imperial Japanese aircraft, these are known to loose paint from flying alone as the quality of the paint was horrible.
But I challenge anyone to post pics of greatly chipped Tiger-Bs or Panther-Gs.
Somehow there also seems to be an idea that it is about weathering in general, that's not the point at all.
Of course German late war armour also got mucked and dirty and greasy. But nothing to the extent as shown on models, like the posted Jagdpanther. That is simply grossly overdone.
Does a nick in paint happen? sure. But the chance of getting through Rot Oxid primer down to bare metal is highly unlikely, that is really REALLY tough primer, as shown by recovered vehicles like the recent STUG IV which shows no wear and a pristine cover in Rot Oxid.
A few things to remember:
- Field applied camo (Rot Braun and Oliv Grün) were subject of how the paste was thinned and to which degree by the field company applying it. Thusly, the quality varied and therefore, these 2 colors could scratch and reveal the underlying Dunkel Gelb basecoat.
- Early DAK was painted desert color over Schwarz Grau and this paint DID chip/flake easily. Hence, mucho chipo on those. Later DAK vehicles were standard painted in desert color and this paint was of much better quality.
- Mud splatters can be misconceived as chips
- Late war German Armour didn't last long enough to get all beaten up as shown in models like the Jagdpanther here
- Modern service vehicles cannot be used as benchmark due to their long service life. The amount of wear over time is due to repeated scoffing/rotating/twisting and simple use.
- Japanese aircraft..........
- Comparing jeeps to tanks.........
- Museum vehicles to wartime vehicles..............
Can one find pics of chipped German armour? Sure.
Can one find many pics of chipped German armour? Sure
Can these pics be used as proof that German armour chipped as a rule? No way!
Spiff
Joined: September 07, 2002
KitMaker: 807 posts
Armorama: 671 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 04:12 AM UTC
Chipping happens all the time, even on German armor. Think about all the shrapnel from mortars and artillery shells peppering the tanks all the time. What about machine gun bullets bouncing off the tanks? Think about Hans Panzerschlepper banging on the tank with a wrench or whatever to loosen a bolt for maintenance.
Paint is not "bullet proof".
Paint is not "bullet proof".
Bratushka
Joined: May 09, 2008
KitMaker: 1,019 posts
Armorama: 657 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 07:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Can one find pics of chipped German armour? Sure.
Can one find many pics of chipped German armour? Sure
Can these pics be used as proof that German armour chipped as a rule? No way!
No offense, but your final statement sure seems flawed. You made perfect sense with all of your points until that bit. First, you restate and accept evidence of damaged paint that has been well established. Then your conclusion denies the validity of the very same proofs you accept. Granted "as a rule" is as vague a statement as "how high is up". What does it mean? Is it statictically provable? Is the argument that without photos of paint damage, it didn't happen? I think it has been reasonably established that any paint of any era is subject to damage given the right abuse. If the abuse falls within reasonable expectations of what would be contained in the environmental conditions the vehicle operates in it has to be accepted that damage occurred. I can't see the reason of how the type of vehicle said paint is applied to will render the paint more durable in and of itself. Perhaps your point is that late in the war, much armor was either destroyed, abandoned, captured, etc. before it had enough use to get torn up. Maybe production numbers of particular vehicles meant fewer of them were in service at a given point in the conflict. I think where people involved in discussions like this one err is their use of all inclusive generalized statements that include terms like "never", "all", and their kin. There may be a valid causation that makes your final statement correct, but I believe it lies elsewhere beyond the ability of the paint to resist damage.
m4sherman
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 07:50 AM UTC
"But I challenge anyone to post pics of greatly chipped Tiger-Bs or Panther-Gs."
Here is the position I think that Herbert is taking on this. I will change it a little:
Please show pictures of an German Tiger-B or Panther-G of 1945 production that has large sections of paint chipped all the way down to "bare metal" in multiple areas on the hull and turret.
There is plenty of evidence that damage to the paint is very common. Shell, hob nails, bullets and just use, will all leave a mark. From reading his posts, Herbert accepts that the paint will chip and get worn.
Jim, our posts hit at the same time. I was not responding to what you were stating!
Here is the position I think that Herbert is taking on this. I will change it a little:
Please show pictures of an German Tiger-B or Panther-G of 1945 production that has large sections of paint chipped all the way down to "bare metal" in multiple areas on the hull and turret.
There is plenty of evidence that damage to the paint is very common. Shell, hob nails, bullets and just use, will all leave a mark. From reading his posts, Herbert accepts that the paint will chip and get worn.
Jim, our posts hit at the same time. I was not responding to what you were stating!
taylgr
Joined: March 15, 2008
KitMaker: 152 posts
Armorama: 127 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 09:15 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Lots of pictures, lots of great input, I'm glad this thread is being debated on facts and not turned into a "did - did not - did - did not" fest.
Still, most pictures of chipping are of allied vehicles. Oh one thing, I had to chuckle about the Imperial Japanese aircraft, these are known to loose paint from flying alone as the quality of the paint was horrible.
But I challenge anyone to post pics of greatly chipped Tiger-Bs or Panther-Gs.
Somehow there also seems to be an idea that it is about weathering in general, that's not the point at all.
Of course German late war armour also got mucked and dirty and greasy. But nothing to the extent as shown on models, like the posted Jagdpanther. That is simply grossly overdone.
Does a nick in paint happen? sure. But the chance of getting through Rot Oxid primer down to bare metal is highly unlikely, that is really REALLY tough primer, as shown by recovered vehicles like the recent STUG IV which shows no wear and a pristine cover in Rot Oxid.
A few things to remember:
- Field applied camo (Rot Braun and Oliv Grün) were subject of how the paste was thinned and to which degree by the field company applying it. Thusly, the quality varied and therefore, these 2 colors could scratch and reveal the underlying Dunkel Gelb basecoat.
- Early DAK was painted desert color over Schwarz Grau and this paint DID chip/flake easily. Hence, mucho chipo on those. Later DAK vehicles were standard painted in desert color and this paint was of much better quality.
- Mud splatters can be misconceived as chips
- Late war German Armour didn't last long enough to get all beaten up as shown in models like the Jagdpanther here
- Modern service vehicles cannot be used as benchmark due to their long service life. The amount of wear over time is due to repeated scoffing/rotating/twisting and simple use.
- Japanese aircraft..........
- Comparing jeeps to tanks.........
- Museum vehicles to wartime vehicles..............
Can one find pics of chipped German armour? Sure.
Can one find many pics of chipped German armour? Sure
Can these pics be used as proof that German armour chipped as a rule? No way!
Challenge accepted - I'm going out the door to work right now and will see you in about 8 hours to pick this up again - but judging from the wear patterns along the sharp edges of the fenders of this vehicle - I'm pretty sure there is not going to be too much trouble finding evidence of chipping elsewhere
Greg
ninjrk
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 09:23 AM UTC
Having read the thread, two things occur to me. One is that these discussions tend to devolve to one of extremes. In this case: AFV paint would stop a bolt from God and not chip or AFV paint has the durability of dry-erase marker. I've been going through the photos from my visits to the restoration sheds at the Patton Museum and I have found signs of chipping on tanks that have been carefully stored inside since shortly after WW2 but it is pretty uncommon. In addition, I have to view them on full magnification to find the paint scratches, they are really small. Personally, I think the "problem" is that for the longest time I and the people I wanted to emulate did do rust and graphite pencil chipping at the likely areas. Then the newer version where it was more accurately and attractively done came over. Then it got overdone and hence the reactions. Whenever I get my darned Sherman done I'll likely use some light new-style chipping around the likely areas (hatches, grab handles, and such) and some minor rust spots and be happy. I think it's like pre-shading aircraft panels; if it's so restrained that it gets picked up by the subconcious it works really well, if your first thought is "man, that tank looks beat to h@ll" it's probably overdone.
The other thing that occured to me is that so many of these models have beautiful pristine paint-jobs that are beat to heck but undirtied. If a tank is pummeled into chipped and rusted oblivion it probably shouldn't look freshly washed. I also tend to think that a lot of the scratches we do see in B&W photos are really scratches through the dust and grime down to the paint. Anyone seen the second volume of Auriga Publishings "Advanced Techniques" with the Panzer IV/ Chipped all over, lots of beautiful rust stains and it looks like it was washed and turtle-waxed! Personally, when I've played with the chipping effects they look a lot more interesting when they're faded under a dust layer. It also allows some interesting effects with fresh paint scratches under a corresponding longer scratch in the dust.
Matt
The other thing that occured to me is that so many of these models have beautiful pristine paint-jobs that are beat to heck but undirtied. If a tank is pummeled into chipped and rusted oblivion it probably shouldn't look freshly washed. I also tend to think that a lot of the scratches we do see in B&W photos are really scratches through the dust and grime down to the paint. Anyone seen the second volume of Auriga Publishings "Advanced Techniques" with the Panzer IV/ Chipped all over, lots of beautiful rust stains and it looks like it was washed and turtle-waxed! Personally, when I've played with the chipping effects they look a lot more interesting when they're faded under a dust layer. It also allows some interesting effects with fresh paint scratches under a corresponding longer scratch in the dust.
Matt
Spiff
Joined: September 07, 2002
KitMaker: 807 posts
Armorama: 671 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 09:45 AM UTC
Too bad we can't get clearer, higher resolution period photos......
kevinb120
Joined: May 09, 2006
KitMaker: 1,349 posts
Armorama: 1,267 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 12:44 PM UTC
I believe in chipping 100%, even fresh built M1's are scuffed before getting outside the doors of the plant. It's all about dating the combat life, but yes, it gets overdone quickly. Personally everything I ever do is virtually invisible at 2' viewing distance. As for the impervious paint arguement, there is no way paint was more durable back then, even modern epoxy coated, anodized, or powder-coated parts show wear quickly. I also agree with Matt two posts above, everything needs to make SENSE. Extensive chipping with no worn-to metal areas such as around a copola or perfectly 'clean'(of mud/grime) models with rust streaks doesn't make much sense either, and sun-fading needs to match the other indicators of the 'life-span' of the model depicted. If it had to be exposed for a certain time period to get one type of wear, then others have to happen. The problem with a given weathering technique is that one needs to completley commit to the level of wear on every part to make it all gel. There's also nothing wrong with a pristine build with just the slightest pin washes and drybrushing/airbrush shading around panels to give a touch of depth without a chip on it.
The weathering effect I do want to see done more is footprints on the vehicles, I still think armor in dios with figures look kinda naked even when heavilly weathered as it always appears the crew just spawns in their positions
Hell, they are walked all over constantly when being built, not to mention when someone is standing on one and applying a whitewash in the field at the same time..
The weathering effect I do want to see done more is footprints on the vehicles, I still think armor in dios with figures look kinda naked even when heavilly weathered as it always appears the crew just spawns in their positions
Hell, they are walked all over constantly when being built, not to mention when someone is standing on one and applying a whitewash in the field at the same time..
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.