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?

Personally I think some people over-do it . But I do have loads of photos of second world war tanks that have chipped paint . Mainly German , and usually around the hatches. Also seen Abrams paint chipped off , around the turret area where all the crew clutter goes .
The truth is out there...

Couldn't agree more Herb. Something that was started by a few modelers, more concerned with artistic liscence than reality. It's a fad that will come and go like everything else.

When I was in the military I saw plenty of chipped paint. I crewed on an M-88 ARV and paint chipped off on hinges of brackets which were often over painted and would crack when the brackets were moved. Same for door hinges/pivots. Chipping occurred where the tow bars were mounted because they were heavy as hell and were not capable of being put gracefully in place. If you've never muscled one you can't imagine. Same with areas that chains, slings, tankers bars, and the like were stowed or dropped on. The area around the oxy-acetylene tanks were also prone to chipping when the tanks got banged around. Chips were common around towing points and pintles. Any removable deck such as an engine deck usually had the cover bolts painted over as well so there again was chipping when the bolts were removed. Almost any hatch, access cover, and door would strike another metal surface when fully opened chipping the paint at those impact spots. Again, citing the M88 as an example, the step that swung out from the side access doors had a metal on metal contact at the sop block and inside when folded in. There were chips caused by dropped tools, stowage, slips with the 50 cal, and other stuff. I can also vouch for stones thrown up by tracks and tires chipping things, especially when travelling in close convoys. If you look at many heavy equipment transporters the tractor rear tires and ofter all the trailer tires are fully exposed. The quality of the paint, the application of the same, and most importantly preparation of the surfaces to be painted are critical to a durable paint job. We used to joke that OD stood for "over dirt" and I assure you paint was certainly applied that way. Again, it's not rocket science to know paint covering a poorly prepped surface blisters and flakes off. This is really true on external fuel tanks which were seldom cleaned properly before repainting. While not truly a chip, the paint over fuel and oil residue blisters up and flakes off leaving a spot similar to a chip. It often didn't take much to cause such damage to paint applied over clean surfaces because sometimes paint was thinned with gasoline which made for a very brittle paint coat, or way over-thinned. In use leading edges on the vehicle, such as the blade on the front of the 88, were also prone to chip from both impact against trees and such going cross country and because the blade was lowered face down onto the ground and the the vehicle was driven forward so the blade provided support & stability for the crane's operation. I can assure you paint of any sort over metal when pressed into the ground by 56 tons will chip! The same was true with the outrigger surfaces on wreckers, and I'm sure any artillery piece that had stabilization arms with pads. If you looked under the fenders of the 5 ton wreckers of our department I assure you that there was lots of chipping. Any place dust or mud would be thrown from the tires on any wheeled vehicle was susceptible to the same stone and debris damage. The more stoney or gravelly the terrain, the more likely and severe the phenomenon. Considering tales of desert sand wreaking havoc on vehicle paint why would the same paint be immune to chips? I have a 98 4WD F150 with 260,000 miles on it that has never been really off-roaded or even seriously gravel roaded and I can show you lots of paint chips on it along the rocker panels benind each wheel well. My little red sporty type car that has 120,000 on it has them too along the rocker panels and under the nose pan. My wife's Mustang, same thing. All have virtually nothing but highway miles on good roads. These are modern vehicles with modern paint. My motorcycles have them as well. I really don't think chipped paint is avaidable 100% of the time even under ideal circumstances, much less on combat vehicles operating cross country, thru rubble and debris and the like. No to forget the aircraft folks, but leading edges of wings and tail sections get their share and I'm sure engine cowlings, especially on prop driven craft get chipped, too.

So, no- paint chipping is not some imaginary thing dreamt up by modelers. What may be subject to question is the SIZE of the represented damage. If you expanded chipping on a 1/35 to full size it would be too huge to be accurate. If it was scaled down correctly it would be almost impossible to see. I have difficulty thinking in metric terms except I know the white part of a cigarette is 100 mm, each band equal to 1 mm. If a common sized stone chip may be 5 mm, in 1/35 scale it would be .142 mm across, or smaller than a single band around a smoke! In inches that would be about .005 - five thousands of an inch! You'd barely see it much less accurately represent it in 1/35! In 1/48 or 1/72 no way could you see or paint it.

I agree with you Jim. In all my years on tanks I saw plenty of chipped paint. I would think that paint is paint whether is was from 1940 or 1998, it still chips when roughed up. You are correct in the size and amount that modellers apply to their kits that could use some toning down.

I thought it was something of a myth myself, until i bought the "After the Battle" publication, "Ruckmarsch". There are some very clear close up photos of German equipment in this book, guess what they show? Having said that , it does seem to be concentrated around hatches etc. My personal theory about the chipping thing is this. The only full size WW2 German equipment is now 60 years old. They will all have been repainted to a varying standard over the years. Even vehicles parked inside will show some corrosion & paint damage after that number of years. So even if you go & look at the real thing, you will come away with a false impression. The other factor in WW2 German equipment is that on the whole it didn't make old bones. Yes, there may have been some vehicles that made it all the way through from 1939 - 45, but they were very few, & I very much doubt if they saw much front line service. Most had a service life of at most months, or even days. They just didn't have time to get damaged paint (well at least until the final "brew-up"). Conversely, modern vehicles get just such a battering because some stay in service for upwards of 30 years. There were Cent ARVs or AVREs used in the Gulf that entered service in the 50s! Although these type of vehicles are repainted, anything that takes 40 years of squaddie abuse is going to look a bit 2nd hand!

If I understand Herbert right, he is refering to WWII in his question. Having worked with original WWII paint on jeeps, trucks (CCKW, WC) during restorations I found that the only paint that chipped was the stuff layered on after it went into civilian use, or when the paint was applied over oil or greace. Often the civilian paint would chip off leaving the OD behind. I have a 1/2 ton Dodge hood that was run over by a CCKW (he forgot where he put it!) and the original 66 year old paint did not chip or crack where I thought it should. In the few places where paint did chip while I was working on an MV, usually on a bend that was straightened out, the red primer was still there. In Toadmans tank pictures is M4 Composite that took a large number of hits from a rapid fire cannon. The paint goes right up to the very edge of these hits with chipping that would be fractional in 1/35th scale.

Modern paint is different from WWII paint. I also had a ex-Army Guard 1975 CJ-5 jeep and the paint chipped where the fender was bent all the way to bare metal. I have seen the same thing on other MV's of the era. The Isreali tanks in museums and in service often show a good amount of chipping.

In WWII it is possible that there could be more chipping around hatches where there was a greater amount of wear due to the crew climbing in and out. These areas could be painted more often so the layers of paint would be more prone to chipping than other areas. The same can be said for the places where the crew contacts the sides of trucks and bodies of vehicles. After only one trip in a parade my jeep clutch petal was worn down to the metal on the anti slip surface, and the edge of the body where you rub as you get in was polished smooth. This would have happened in service, and probably these areas would not be painted regularly. The worn off paint can resemble a chipped surface in pictures.

It's an interesting debate for sure, but I think that the bottom line is that it's down to personal preference, what works for you.

If I like a build that I see, then I like that build. Simple as that.

So unless it's something that stands out like a sore thumb (say a Panzer I in late-war 'ambush' camo), I try not to get too hung up about whether it's strictly "accurate" or not because let's face it, in a lot of cases we can't know for exact 100% sure (most reference photos in b&w, the fading memories and sometimes conflicting accounts of a rapidly dwindling number of living WWII combat vets etc.).

I've also seem some amazing builds depicting tanks and vehicles that have been chipped and scratched to death, and others that look equally good with minimal or no chipping. So I tend to stand back and look at each build (whether it's my own or someone else's) on its own artistic merits without obsessing too much about the historical accuracy issue.

- Steve

Hi
I think Steve's post touches on very relevant points. We should build to please ourselves and whatever criteria we have in our heads as to what we want to obtain from modelling. The problem comes when you publish or show your work and how you describe it.

Most come to this site to share their knowledge and experience, gain help and advice. Most also are very passionate about their hobby and interest in their chosen subject. To many being as accurate as possible is an aspect that really matters and to me this it's what pushes me to build a kit better. Out of the box is something you rarely see here.

My view/option is that whilst it is a great effect and can be accurate more often than not it's simply overdone given the vehicle, timeframe etc. it is trying to represent......if you are looking to put the model forward as an accurate representation.

If you just want to put forward an artistic one fine, but that then begs the question why get hung up on correct markings, extra PE, correcting dimensional or detail errors, correct camo colours and styles if you are saying it's just artistic rather than accurate.

The trouble in many ways is that the distinction between artistic and accurate over time and with popularity can get fuzzy and in the end people believe this is how it was completely. Most of Hollywood's war film output is a perfect example.

Happy modelling.

Alan

Hi Alan & Steve. I agree 100% with you that untimately a person should build to please themself. I also agree that a build does not have to be 100% accurate to be neat looking. The opening post challenged whether chipping actually occured or if it was an effect added simply because modelers had a means to represent the effect.

As pointed out by other posts and by mine, yes it does occur and for a variety of reasons.

I've seen vehicles that have served for decades, like an M88A1 armored recovery vehicle or deuce and a half truck in a modern motor pool, which do indeed show paint damage in high wear areas, and certainly a dozer blade or recoil spade that actually grinds into the earth will be scuffed, even polished. But World War Two tanks often had service lives measured in weeks (or days), and degraded paint finishes often simply didn't have time to occur. And, as mentioned, the high lead paints used during the war years were very durable, more so than "environmentally friendly" modern finishes.
So why all the chipped paint on scale models? I suspect the inspiration comes first from photos of Afrika Korps vehicles with poorly applied desert finishes over factory coats of dark gray. In the early stages of the African campaign, the desert colors were applied hastily over dirty surfaces, and had poor adhesion, particularly in conditions when wind and vehicle movement were throwing sand against it (later, equipment was painted properly before being shipped across the Mediterranean, and you don't see such damage quite as often). US equipment sent to Kuwait in 1991 was likewise finished hastily in theater, and photos show that some vehicles lost huge swathes of paint in their first dust storm. But the underlying, factory-applied CARC paint was untouched. Likewise, the temporary paints used for winter camouflage in Europe were not designed to be durable--quite the opposite, they had to be easily removable (spring thaw happens quite suddenly, and you don't want a white tank after it happens). These chipped and scuffed easily, and this, too shows up in period photos.
So once modelers figured out how to simulate chipped paint, it turned into a fad, and like all fads, nobody knows when to stop. When planning a painting strategy, the builder should first think, just how old was this vehicle, and how often had it been repainted? Paint that is field applied is more likely to chip or scuff, particularly if it is an older machine. From September, 1944, all German vehicles had factory applied camouflage, and these would probably be more durable finishes than the field applied patterns seen in the previous two years. But look first to reference photos, not other models, for your inspiration.
The best strategy with any weathering effect is to stop just before you think it's "enough."

Another reason why some of the 'chipping' is (seemingly) overdone, is scale of distance. If you stand back 20 feet / 6 meters from a real vehicle, all but the largest scrapes will be virtually invisible.
I think that a lot of the 'confusion' stems from the interpretation of those old, grainy black and white photo's. What is often perceived to be 'scratches' are probably sap strokes and other marks that have been left ON the paint, by branches and other objects that the vehicle scraped against.
Camouflage paint is a notorious example of how difficult it is to determine the shade and colour from black and white photos. Not to mention pre and early war German two tone camouflage, where the difference between the two colours is so small, that it is virtually impossible to determine it from a photograph. Factor in shadows, damage to the original photograph, and possible annomalities during the development and printing process of the photo, and your 'proof' of what a vehicle looked like is suddenly a lot less water proof.
Even with surviving colour chips, the 'correct' shades of colours such as Olive Drab, Khaki Drab, Schwartzgrau, and Dunkelgelb are a constant source of debate.

It's one of those debates that keeps the hobby from becoming a stale procession of identical models.

Paint that contains lead is better. Period. As the owner of a home built in the 1920s (ancient by American standards), I see this first-hand: the old paint wears like iron and is hard to remove.

I agree that chipping is overdone, but I disaggree that we're free to do whatever we like. Why not paint that Tiger rose red? Or put DAK markings on a whitewashed tank (IMO, the DAK markings are the coolest in the Wehrmacht with the exception of the sPA units).

Sorry, folks, we're trying to RE-CREATE an historical vehicle(s). Why put out $40 for a kit, $20-$100 for AM upgrades and tracks, $10 for paints, $10-$20 for dry transfers and then $#@& up the whole thing by painting it the wrong colors or overdoing the chipping?

Most of the surviving photos don't show a lot of chipping, and I don't think it's a question of scale. But we also don't have a lot of photos (other than the wrecks) of vehicles in extremis, either in combat or near the end of their useful life. The surviving German photos are taken in periods of calm and relaxation ("Look, Muttie, here we are crossing the Dniester...."), and usually fairly early in the war. By the time the vehicle got well-seasoned, the Germans especially were up to their nipples in alligators and were just happy not to end up in a Russian Gulag or pushing up daisies.

Just my opinion, but I think historical accuracy is the major imperative in doing all this.

And great topic, Herbert!

Hear. hear!

It always gets me when the question of why build German stuff comes up, some modelers portray themselves as the last great hope of preserving history. That somehow, shelves of 1/35 scale German tanks will prevent another holocaust or blitzkrieg. Yet, these same people refuse to do basic research or use archival photos as reference, instead usiing some other under researched project as a reference.

Curly "Well, Moe added some chipping and he says it makes his tank more realistic, so I added more and mine is more realistic."

Larry: "Curly's extra chipping madehis tank even more realistic than Moe's so I added more than Curley and mine is even more realistic."

Moe: "Larry's tank looks way more relaistic than my original one so I added even more chippng than he did, now mine is the most realistic of them all."

Curly: "Moe's tank is so realistic, I wanted mine to look more..."

And on it goes.

Rust, sagging tracks and sooty main gun barrels have been the subject of controversy for years. On the one side you have those of us who actually served in tanks and base our opinions on that versus those who might have an old black and white photo from back then. The points have been haggled back and forth for years on this site sometimes getting ugly. Track sags, chipping does occur and yes some gun tubes do get sooty at the tip. But some folks overdo it. Sure the models look incredible are well constructed and probaly win all sorts of prizes at model shows. There are also those who want every bolt and strap on piece of equipment to be perfect. and coleect tons and tons of photographic evidence to back themselves up. Me, well I walk middle of the road and as I stated many years ago. None of us has seen every tank that was ever built or used during the war. Field modifications were done, crews also did their own thing and some vehicles saw rougher service than others. My argument is quite simple. It is only a model make it the ay you awnt detailed to the max or simple OOB. It's a hobby, not life and death. I argue against chipping because rust is the enemy of steel and steel protects me from the other guy to some extent (a high velocity 120mm depleted uranium Sabot round ain't gonna be stopped). I argue against track sag because I've seen a tank throw a track. And I argue against sooty gun barrels becasue we stopped using black powder in the 19th century. But it looks so cool and I can understand why folks do it

I can't say much about armored vehicles but it' been my experience that if you use a piece of heavy equipment long enough and/or hard enough the paint is going to get scratched or chipped. You can only it so may trees, rocks, vines sticks, chipmunks, etc. before the paint gets beat on. A friend of mine who works in construction quoted his boss as saying "if you don't break something every once in a while you aren't working hard enough".

Do people go over-board with chipping? Well isn't that human nature?

Grizz

Thanks for al the well thought through replies!

The often used statement phrase "if you like it, it is your model so do it" applies to this only up to a certain degree.

As very nicely explained by Moe and Curly, the method of chipping these days isn't about wether or not it's accurate (probably lowest on the list) or wether it is up to individuals personal taste (very high up) but it seems more like "it is mandatory" (Numero uno).

How often doesn't one read a build log which enters into final finishing and the phrase pops up "next, I am going/need to/will be/shall be/have to add the chipping"?

Even great builders like Mirko have shown Panther-Gs and Tiger-Bs full of chips and lots of muck and dirt and paint fading etc.

And hordes of people are praising those models.

The earlier mentioned the first vehicles sent to Afrika were indeed finished in a rush, and even the very first groups arrived and fought in plain Panzer Grey. I do agree that there is a great source for the inspiration indeed. Afrika has both these vehicles with a poor paintjob AND sandstorm, sandy environment, heat and such which isn't very good for a paintjob.

But really, in PanzerWrecks are wrecks which have been all but completely obliterated but STILL show no signs of chipping, even on mangled, twisted areas of either armour plate or regular steel. Even cracked armour is still neatly in it's camou-finish, no chips even on the edges of the cracks.

And to just go back to the "it's your model" comment. I often find this statement is used to sort of put down those modellers who DO put a lot of effort into keeping it real. I think it is unfair to them.

Despite what the Testors' weathering suggestions said in the early 80's, the analogy between an AFV and a bulldozer is not complete. The bulldozer rams itself into rocks, dirt, asphalt, cement and trees on just about a daily basis, maybe 5 days a week for months on end for many years. A world war II front line tank, only spent a fraction of its time in combat or moving to combat. Its operational life might have been counted in hours rather than decades. If the bulldozer breaks, it may cost the contractor some money. If a tank breaks, it may cost the crew its lives.

I sympathise with your thoughts. For as long as I can remember there has been a debate on how real it should be. Back in the "old" days it was more about the thickness of parts and the detail, or lack of detail. I have seen many very well built models loose out to poorly built, but flashily painted "in the style" models over the years. If I see a new "style" that I do not like, I don't use it. If that costs me at contest time, or I get ridiculed for not "doing it THE way" so be it. There are some superb builders here that I enjoy reading and looking at their models even though I might not agree with the way they paint and weather the finished model.

To me the model under the paint is more important than the paint on the model.

some months back i started a thread wherein i asked if tanks and such were actually operational in as poor a condition as some models depicted them. what prompted my inquiry was my first hand experience with driving armored vehicles, supporting armored vehicles, and seeing what they looked like after having been used on target ranges. while i saw much i never saw the degree of rusting and corrosion, especially on critical areas such as access door hinges, in real life. again, my experience told me a crew operating a tank that would ignore the degradation of certain key areas were fools and/or negligent. the work was magnificent in its portrayal of rust and corrosion, but it just looked like way too much to be accurate. so i asked about it. as in this thread there were a few responses that answered my actual question while most didn't, but but took issue of one side of the debate about "build 'em as you like 'em" vs. "build 'em accurate." apparently this truly is an emotional issue because the debate has resurfaced here with the discussion of technique and building methods rather than what was initially asked: does paint chip?

Never quite understood the trend of blackening barrels as there's no evidence for it that I know of.

Other trends:

The near-fluorescent grass green in place of olivgrun on panzer models. I believe this was started by Mirko Bayerl.

Red oxide components on late-war panzers such as single roadwheels and main gun barrels (!). Is there any photographic evidence for this anywhere? What crew would want to get into a vehicle with such a prominent bright red aiming point?

As red was used in camoflage it is possible for a wheel to be all red, barrels, maybe. A comment made by a surviving German tank commander was that a panzer column often looked like a circus caravan because of all the bright colors. I am not sure what color of green you are talking about, but depending on how the paste was thinned, the color was variable in shade.

Well, I'm not about to touch the red oxide base coat as camo controversy, but my question is if there is any photographic evidence (if possible) at all for the single red wheels, barrels and other components. Is there any anecotal evidence in which someone specified that say, his tank had a single red wheel? Why would all wheels be camo painted (as I've seen on some models), save for one red wheel? Why would they say, "Hey, let's not paint this one!"

It may look good, but in most likelihood is wildly inaccurate to portray a vehicle as such. Others may want to believe that such a thing commonly occurred, but in my humble opinion, such things are quite doubtful.

I guess with the Sci-Fi Afrika Korps 1947 Invasion of South Africa Tiger IIIs, you can have all the red components one would want, but the late-war Panthers with sore thumb red fittings — I don't know about this...