Some component parts of US manufactured items were dipped or sprayed in either red oxide or a grey oxide primer. But then, most large parts were just painted in the lusterless OD and then baked on. This finish was extremely tough and you can go up to many unrestored Allied AFVs today and see mostly intact Olive drab. You'd be pretty historically inaccurate to mimic the fad of paint chipping so often overdone in the German armor field.

Often what is seen is a deeply ingrained dust over all external elements with areas of wear, IMHO. The wear would be the base coat Olive drab. Thus you see mostly dust-impregnated surfaces with edges and areas of contact rubbed clean of dust -- to a the original OD. For a great discussion of this, look at Mike Rinaldi's Tank Art Vol 2, Allied Tanks.

Have a look here:

Quoted Text

---

Some component parts of US manufactured items were dipped or sprayed in either red oxide or a grey oxide primer. But then, most large parts were just painted in the lusterless OD and then baked on. This finish was extremely tough and you can go up to many unrestored Allied AFVs today and see mostly intact Olive drab. You'd be pretty historically inaccurate to mimic the fad of paint chipping so often overdone in the German armor field.

Often what is seen is a deeply ingrained dust over all external elements with areas of wear, IMHO. The wear would be the base coat Olive drab. Thus you see mostly dust-impregnated surfaces with edges and areas of contact rubbed clean of dust -- to a the original OD. For a great discussion of this, look at Mike Rinaldi's Tank Art Vol 2, Allied Tanks.

Have a look here:

---

Hi, All! I'm in FULL AGREEMENT with ROY in that the VAST MAJORITY of models depicting WWII AFVs, Aircraft, etc, ARE WAAAAAYYY OVERDONE as far as weathering and chipping go.

Let's not forget that WWII vehicles had a VERY SHORT LIFESPAN when compared to civilian vehicles. The US Army projected that your average Deuce-and-a-halves" had a service life of 10,000 miles- and that's for vehicles that had MINIMAL EXPOSURE to combat.

Conversely, the life expectancy of GERMAN vehicles of all types could be measured in a matter of hours. Once they were exposed to combat environments in FRANCE and ITALY, where US and ALLIED air activity reigned supreme, GERMAN AFVs and Softskins had such a short life-span that they COULDN'T get as beat-up and rusty as many modellers are so fond of depicting. Dirty? Yes, but only to a point. Rusted hulks? Yes, if the vehicles had been shot up, torn apart and/or burned into being FUBAR...

It's JUST PLAIN WRONG to depict a combat vehicle in such a deplorable state of decomposition as one would find after having parked it at the bottom of the ocean for twenty years. Yes, I understand that modellers JUST LOVE to show off their "weathering skills"- well and good. But IMO, I think that "less is more"...


The moral of the story: "CHECK YOUR REFERENCES"...

Agree 100% Dennis. Indeed, I always remember one of our old (then) BAOR interpreters in the early 1980's was a former member of 2nd SS 'Das Reich' who had been captured in Normandy.I showed him my collection of Tamiya and Italeri 1/35 AFVs and tanks (no Dragon or Tasca back then!) which had been weathered in the old Verlinden Style with dents and rust everywhere and was the 'Spanish School', 'chipping' and 'colour modulation' technique of its day. Having taken a long hard look he smiled, shook his head and said " Nice models Gary......if only the reals ones had lasted long enough to get so beat up, dirty and rusty."

He then went on to comment that German vehicles in NWE by 44/45 were lasting days at most a couple of weeks before being K.O.d. Some were even driven from the rail yards brand new and simply abandoned after the tank of fuel (gas) that they arrived with had run out due to lack or spares or re-supply.

That comment and observation has stayed with me throughout my model making life and my WW2 models are made to represent vehicles that had a short combat lifespan rather than depicted to look like something that has just fired up it's engine having been exposed to the elements for 25 years whilst sitting idle in a farmer's muddy field.

Great art and painting skills by the model maker are often exhibited on 1/35 models, but their historical accuracy in terms of finish often leaves much to be desired.

Gary

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Some component parts of US manufactured items were dipped or sprayed in either red oxide or a grey oxide primer. But then, most large parts were just painted in the lusterless OD and then baked on. This finish was extremely tough and you can go up to many unrestored Allied AFVs today and see mostly intact Olive drab. You'd be pretty historically inaccurate to mimic the fad of paint chipping so often overdone in the German armor field.

Often what is seen is a deeply ingrained dust over all external elements with areas of wear, IMHO. The wear would be the base coat Olive drab. Thus you see mostly dust-impregnated surfaces with edges and areas of contact rubbed clean of dust -- to a the original OD. For a great discussion of this, look at Mike Rinaldi's Tank Art Vol 2, Allied Tanks.

Have a look here:

---

Hi, All! I'm in FULL AGREEMENT with ROY in that the VAST MAJORITY of models depicting WWII AFVs, Aircraft, etc, ARE WAAAAAYYY OVERDONE as far as weathering and chipping go.

Let's not forget that WWII vehicles had a VERY SHORT LIFESPAN when compared to civilian vehicles. The US Army projected that your average Deuce-and-a-halves" had a service life of 10,000 miles- and that's for vehicles that had MINIMAL EXPOSURE to combat.

Conversely, the life expectancy of GERMAN vehicles of all types could be measured in a matter of hours. Once they were exposed to combat environments in FRANCE and ITALY, where US and ALLIED air activity reigned supreme, GERMAN AFVs and Softskins had such a short life-span that they COULDN'T get as beat-up and rusty as many modellers are so fond of depicting. Dirty? Yes, but only to a point. Rusted hulks? Yes, if the vehicles had been shot up, torn apart and/or burned into being FUBAR...

It's JUST PLAIN WRONG to depict a combat vehicle in such a deplorable state of decomposition as one would find after having parked it at the bottom of the ocean for twenty years. Yes, I understand that modellers JUST LOVE to show off their "weathering skills"- well and good. But IMO, I think that "less is more"...


The moral of the story: "CHECK YOUR REFERENCES"...

---

Ahh ok, I kind of backtracked a bit anyway with just a few stuff marks and such and am now building up layers of dirt, this is my first build so experimenting anyway, but thanks for the input.

Danny

Hello all
I would agree with the chipping aspect and the rust to a degree. But I regularly see Challengers fresh out of their hangers at Bovington Camp in Dorset UK in a clean state only to be turned into a dusty buff colour after an hour of driving across Bovington Heath.
I cannot see that any other Tank what ever its Nationality would be any different.
I tried to upload some photos of a Challenger on this page but it would not work. Go to my profile and you will see what I mean

Regards Luke

It is not desirable that vehicles painted with lusterless enamel be kept as clean as vehicles were kept when glossy paint was used. A small accumulation of dust increases the camouflage value. Grease spots should be removed with SOLVENT, dry cleaning. Whatever portion of the spot cannot be so removed should be allowed to remain.

Quoted Text

---

Hello all
I would agree with the chipping aspect and the rust to a degree. But I regularly see Challengers fresh out of their hangers at Bovington Camp in Dorset UK in a clean state only to be turned into a dusty buff colour after an hour of driving across Bovington Heath.
I cannot see that any other Tank what ever its Nationality would be any different.
I tried to upload some photos of a Challenger on this page but it would not work. Go to my profile and you will see what I mean

Regards Luke

---

True
I was lucky enough to see a Stug in running order at Parola tank Museum a few years ago. It had been raining and within a very short time the lower hull of the Stug was incredibly filthy and the upper hull was also covered in mud from a few people clambering on board.
Mud is a natural camouflage and I can't see crews removing it to keep their tanks clean in combat.

To get back on topic here is the SOP for Painting the M4 Tank which includes the instruction

Quoted Text

---

It is not desirable that vehicles painted with lusterless enamel be kept as clean as vehicles were kept when glossy paint was used. A small accumulation of dust increases the camouflage value. Grease spots should be removed with SOLVENT, dry cleaning. Whatever portion of the spot cannot be so removed should be allowed to remain.

---