Jesse;

I guess I would like to offer some contrarian views:

First is about longevity or life-spans of German tanks... Many individual vehicles lasted a long time. There were many StuG III A - F that survived to 1945- which means many "lived" for 3 - 5 years, for example. Likewise, many Pz.. III, IV and Panther A, and even D, were still in action until the end. Even Pz. I and II, and many 38(t) - all of which tanks went off production by 1942 - were actually still around and in use (albeit those I and II were mostly being tractors and other jobs, and 38(t) relegated to anti-partisan and other less "demanding" (if one can speak of encountering attacking waves of Soviet tanks, for example, as being merely "demanding") roles. Elefants and early brummbars produced in 1942 and 1943 soldiered to the end, as did many StuG G. MOST German tanks seen in DAK and Tunisia at the end of those campaigns had been in action for more than a year before finally going down.

To further interest and complicate things: The Germans were sper-good at recovering and repairing damaged tanks - at least as long as they were more or less advancing. When the other side advanced, damaged vehicles were left behind. But up thru much of '43, many damaged tanks were recovered. They were either rear-shop repaired, of in many cases sent back to the factory for rebuilding. Rear shops probably did not do as much clean-up. A factory rebuild may well have been repainted inside (which effectively restarted the clock for the paint...).

My point here being that we should be cautious about arguing for appearance based on the notion that typically German tanks rushed off production lines, took a train to the front, got off, and... almost immediately blew up! Yes, many did do this, but others soldiered for years. One or 2 years-worth of wear and tear in field settings would be quite realistic- if the vehicle being modeled COULD have been that old (so a KingTiger may have enjoyed a mere couple - 3 months of use, because most came out pretty late, but other marks could have been around longer.)

Surely, when one looks at later-war pics there are many really tired-looking vehicles to be seen... and I would argue that they probably were just about as tired-looking inside as out.

Second... The field is DIRTY. Look at those pics from the DAK areas, and really from Russia. Dirt, mud, grunge. And, unlike being in base-camps with water hoses and stuff, frontline units simply got dirty and pretty much stayed that way...

And the insides of tanks could NOT AVOID getting really dirty. It takes only a couple of crew trips in and out into the road mud to track it back in. And YES, crew would probably TRY to minimize this- but for how long would that last? Been there many times in my family pick-up. How could anyone - even a neat-freak - avoid this fate? And getting the dirt OUT would be pretty difficult without being able to simple hose the thing out.

With respect to all who argue that they took good care of the equipment - yes they did, for the reasons given - lives depended on it. But having spent time in the field in both civilian and military capacity, getting dirty is the way it is. And the pics reflect this. Go, dirty. IF the outside got dirty, the inside will have followed. And it would not have been cleaned out when in the field.

One of the interesting things that may have differed between open-top vehs and tanks is the contributions made by blowing road dirt... so the tank might well have more streaky mud marks, whereas the open may be more dusted inside. Many period pics suggest vehicles which were essentially all dirt-coloured both inside and out.

Third... Wear and tear on paint... again, this would be the case, even with tough enamels used on equipment and the like. Take a look at a newer bulldozer in use- it's going to show boot wear pretty fast as boots have grit on them and this will sand paint off the edges of stuff and generally sand down paint where boots will be. You can try this out at home with your car... pull the floor mats out and see how long it takes to wear away the paint wear your feet flail around. Even when trying to be clean we will track in dirt. What may NOT have happened much is the "chipping" we like to use! That sort of wear comes from sharp blows and not from boots scuffing around. Look in the back of some older farm pick-up and see the worn paint ... I tend to think that the paint used was both thickly-applied and hard. It was there to protect the metal. But it will wear away by repeated abrasion.

Lastly; crew were human. Some were probably neater than were others, and some better at cleaning things up. I would place money that crew actually in the advance and retreat- where they were not camped in established sites but caught up on frequent movement and re-locations- were less likely to keep things clean. I know we always started to build up grunge, candy wrappers, debris, while on the road. When in lager, crew maintained stuff, maybe even cleaned interiors a bit. But probably the nooks and crannies and harder-to-reach places simply kept a growing dirt-load.

So, from this, I could suggest that one has a lot of options and choices- if you want to depict a vehicle with a longer service history, it could fairly be really dirty and worn and even chipped inside. A refurbed or newer vehicle would be less so.

Sadly, we can, to be sure, only offer our opinions on all of this! There are few pics taken inside wartime tanks in combat and fewer still in later-war German tanks. So, one can only posit from what you have experienced or think would have been the case. So this is, of course, MY OPINION!

I say, feel free to get all worn and grungy-looking- as long as you get a look you like which you feel could have been the way it was!

Cheers!

Bob