Too bad we can't get clearer, higher resolution period photos......
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!
TBH I think you guys are talking about two different issues:
1. Chipping from "normal" usage of the vehicle, like crewmen climbing in and out.
2. Chipping from battle damage, like bullet holes etc...
Of course the latter is normal and can be found in many photos. However, the first I still need to see as a common thing.
DAK vehicles, winter white and zimmerit will chip heavily, as those where applied in hast and of poor quality.
Good ol' german factory paint and primer filled with lead will stay on forever- as seen from the many tanks recovered from swamps all over eastern Europe.
The question about replacement parts was if there were parts still in primer put on tanks. We established that it does happen, at least once. Using dark grey wheels on a tank painted yellow was very common during the transition period, and in Afrika.
The pictures of the Tiger I turret in the open air display do not show the same type of wear as those of the picture of the top of the Tiger II turret, there is a big difference. I am not sure if the Tiger II one was taken of a tank on display, or one after the battle, but the wear on the paint is not all that bad. Actually, it shows little wear when you take into account that the crew would be climbing in there with hob nailed boots.
The next picture, looking into the drivers hatch, is a better example of worn paint with dirt from the crews boots. It is the really the best example of the entire group. Are there any other pictures of this tank to show the over-all condition?
I do have a question about the Aberdeen Tiger II. I am asking because I am not a big Tiger II nut. Is the paint in the color picture original? The paint sceme looks odd to me.
The question about replacement parts was if there were parts still in primer put on tanks. We established that it does happen, at least once. Using dark grey wheels on a tank painted yellow was very common during the transition period, and in Afrika.
The pictures of the Tiger I turret in the open air display do not show the same type of wear as those of the picture of the top of the Tiger II turret, there is a big difference. I am not sure if the Tiger II one was taken of a tank on display, or one after the battle, but the wear on the paint is not all that bad. Actually, it shows little wear when you take into account that the crew would be climbing in there with hob nailed boots.
The next picture, looking into the drivers hatch, is a better example of worn paint with dirt from the crews boots. It is the really the best example of the entire group. Are there any other pictures of this tank to show the over-all condition?
I do have a question about the Aberdeen Tiger II. I am asking because I am not a big Tiger II nut. Is the paint in the color picture original? The paint sceme looks odd to me.
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!
Quoted TextThe question about replacement parts was if there were parts still in primer put on tanks. We established that it does happen, at least once. Using dark grey wheels on a tank painted yellow was very common during the transition period, and in Afrika.
The pictures of the Tiger I turret in the open air display do not show the same type of wear as those of the picture of the top of the Tiger II turret, there is a big difference. I am not sure if the Tiger II one was taken of a tank on display, or one after the battle, but the wear on the paint is not all that bad. Actually, it shows little wear when you take into account that the crew would be climbing in there with hob nailed boots.
The next picture, looking into the drivers hatch, is a better example of worn paint with dirt from the crews boots. It is the really the best example of the entire group. Are there any other pictures of this tank to show the over-all condition?
I do have a question about the Aberdeen Tiger II. I am asking because I am not a big Tiger II nut. Is the paint in the color picture original? The paint sceme looks odd to me.
If the original question was about parts in primer red, how where we able to decipher from black and white photos which ones were in the red oxide finish, as opposed to say, grey - how do I make the distinction that the Marder's wheel is in fact grey? and what colour are the ones on this Stug?
Greg
Randall
The scheme that old 332 is showm in is entirely original - I have another couple of grainy colour shots of her in this condition, and more importantly, quite a few black and white ones of her after capture by the allies and in europe - some of them show her being loaded onto tank transporters (presumably for movement back to the states) - careful examination of those b/w pics confirms that the colour shots are indeed her original finish
Greg
The question about replacement parts was if there were parts still in primer put on tanks. We established that it does happen, at least once. Using dark grey wheels on a tank painted yellow was very common during the transition period, and in Afrika.
The pictures of the Tiger I turret in the open air display do not show the same type of wear as those of the picture of the top of the Tiger II turret, there is a big difference. I am not sure if the Tiger II one was taken of a tank on display, or one after the battle, but the wear on the paint is not all that bad. Actually, it shows little wear when you take into account that the crew would be climbing in there with hob nailed boots.
The next picture, looking into the drivers hatch, is a better example of worn paint with dirt from the crews boots. It is the really the best example of the entire group. Are there any other pictures of this tank to show the over-all condition?
I do have a question about the Aberdeen Tiger II. I am asking because I am not a big Tiger II nut. Is the paint in the color picture original? The paint sceme looks odd to me.
Quoted Text
Randall
Mate, you are absolutely correct - 332 is in brilliant shape, and I'm guessing that this was one of the reasons that this chassis was picked by the GI's for recovery -no doubt that the upper wearing surface is probably chipped and scratched pretty badly - but the rest of her has not escaped scot free either
- scratches along the bottom of the mud guards - all the fixing points on the hull sides rubbed back to bare metal (again as I say I have other pics of this chassis) and as I pointed out in an earlier post you really need "close up pics" to get a good fair dinkum look at the wear and chip patterns - it doesn't mean that it's not there - unless the pics are close up sometimes it's just not readily visible
Greg
Scott
Got to agree mate, can't see any evidence anywhere to pull this myth "out of the fire" (so to speak)
Greg
Consigliere
I have certainly enjoyed reading this thread.
I'm not going to enter the discussion,
 |
