_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Non-slip surface photos
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 05:57 AM UTC
After seeing comments made by modelers regarding non-slip surfaces on M1A1 series tanks being too rough, it made me wonder if those people have actually seen the non-slip coating on an more than one tank. Perhaps their only reference is an old National Guard M1A1 that they climbed on once or photos they saw in a book or online.

I decided to take some quick shots of the non-slip coating on a late M1A1. This tank is still in its original factory applied paint scheme and has not been used operationally. You will notice that the surface differs. Some places the non-slip coating is really rough and in others, it is finer (but still rough). The final photograph in the album is an early M1A1 that is also in its original paint scheme. Its coating is not as pronounced and the application is not uniform. In fact in person, you can tell that it was applied with a brush prior to the tank being spray painted.

IMHO the coating on the Italeri M1A2 kit accurately depicts the non-slip coating used on late M1A1s and M1A2s.




Early M1A1 not so rough coating.


Additional photos are here: Non-slip Coating Photos
zer0_co0l
Visit this Community
Limburg, Netherlands
Joined: January 04, 2003
KitMaker: 1,432 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 07:42 AM UTC
oi sabot Im not into modern armor but I have a question.


you say the first 2 pictures are a late m1a1 with original factory paint.

so this means its a new tank am I right?

if so whats that rusty part doing their? or doesnt it belong their?
sorry if this is a stupid question but I was just wondering
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 07:53 AM UTC

Quoted Text

oi sabot Im not into modern armor but I have a question.


you say the first 2 pictures are a late m1a1 with original factory paint.

so this means its a new tank am I right?

if so whats that rusty part doing their? or doesnt it belong their?
sorry if this is a stupid question but I was just wondering
That is a metal plate that normally covers a portion of the engine fittings. The engine of this tank is indoors on a stand for mechanics to train on. The piece is normally mounted within the tank, but when the engine was pulled it was just left on top of the turret. It is unpainted steel, hence the rust on it. It does not normally belong there.
TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Armorama: 2,868 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 07:57 AM UTC
Howdy Rob,

First, thanks for the pics. Secondly, this new evidence makes me think that our good member Vodnik did TOO good a job in his application of the non-slip surface. His looks just great. Uniform, nice edges, etc. But your pics make it look like a gaggle of blind dwarfs, armed with putty knives and white-wash brushes applied the stuff!

As the monocled german soldier on 'Laugh-in' used to say......" Veeeeerrry Interesting!"

Tread.
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 07:58 AM UTC
Great photos, Rob. Thanks!

I think my recipe for non-slip coating (with Mr.Surfacer) is great for the kind of coating visible on sponson boxes and blast panels. It gives too regular and too "smooth" surface for the main turret coating. The advantage of my technique is that it allows for creating geometric shapes easily, like the one around the sponson box handles (it worked great around bolt heads on my M3A2). I must now think about some way to create more rough and less regular coating for my future Abrams projects...

BTW: I generally agree with you regarding Italeri kit, but take a look at blast panels in this kit. I don't know why they did it the way they did, but it looks just BAD... On other turret parts it looks much better. My guess is they forgot about coating on blast panels and added it in the last moment, when the rest of the mold was already finished and they used different technique for these parts.

Regards,
Pawel
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:07 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Secondly, this new evidence makes me think that our good member Vodnik did TOO good a job in his application of the non-slip surface. His looks just great. Uniform, nice edges, etc. But your pics make it look like a gaggle of blind dwarfs, armed with putty knives and white-wash brushes applied the stuff!


Well, I didn't start any of my Abrams kits yet, so you can't say how my coating on them will look like Coating on Bradleys, at least those shown in Verlinden book, is very regular, uniform and not as rough as on Abrams turret. Quite like the one on sponson box on second Rob's photo above, and also on this one:



Coating on Abrams hull also seems more regular and relatively "smooth" compare to this on the turret, so my technique should also work here, although I would try to use a brush dipped in lacquer thinner to make it less regular:




But I agree that for turrets of my M1s I'll need to find some other way to apply more rough and irregular non-slip coating.

Rgds,
Pawel
TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Armorama: 2,868 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:12 AM UTC


LOL.... Well, I must say. The difference between Rob's pics #1 & #3, and Vodnik's new pics #1 & #2, is like night and day!
Hey Vodnik, your effect on the M2A2 is superb! Now.....if you can figure out some method to simulate the rather 'hodgepodge' method performed on the Abrams.....well, you're missing a healthy career in 'Faux' finishes!! #:-)

Tread.
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:17 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The difference between Rob's pics #1 & #3, and Vodnik's new pics #1 & #2, is like night and day!


Those two are also Rob's photos - the whole set is in Motorpool.


Quoted Text

Now.....if you can figure out some method to simulate the rather 'hodgepodge' method performed on the Abrams.....


I'll do my best to find some way to do it!

Rgds,
Pawel
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:27 AM UTC

Quoted Text

BTW: I generally agree with you regarding Italeri kit, but take a look at blast panels in this kit. I don't know why they did it the way they did, but it looks just BAD...
This I agree with. I planned on extending the coating to the edges of the blast panels like they are on the above photo. The area where the lifting rings are will remain smooth though.
TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Armorama: 2,868 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:35 AM UTC



Understood Vodnik. Didn't know from wence they came...but the difference is still night and day!

Tread.

Ya know. One of the ways we would shoot stuff like that (in the building industry) was to mix the stuff overly 'thick'...then it tends to really 'spit' irregularly. Maybe that's an idea?
Vodnik
Visit this Community
Warszawa, Poland
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 08:57 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Ya know. One of the ways we would shoot stuff like that (in the building industry) was to mix the stuff overly 'thick'...then it tends to really 'spit' irregularly. Maybe that's an idea?


That's exactly the idea I use for my "regular" non-slip coaing - to use Mr.Surfacer 500 undiluted. To make it thicker I would have to mix it with some regular putty, like Tamiya one, but I'm afraid that it could become too dangerous for my airbrush (some say that my technique is too dangerous already). I need to experiment with alternative way of using Mr.Surfacer - instead of high pressure and thick putty, I will try to use thinned Surfacer, but airbrush it at very low pressure, just enough to have anything coming through the nozzle. It should also spit heavily.

Rgds,
Pawel
TreadHead
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 12, 2002
KitMaker: 5,000 posts
Armorama: 2,868 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 09:45 AM UTC



You're obviously 'on the ball'

Tread.
straightedge
Visit this Community
Ohio, United States
Joined: January 18, 2004
KitMaker: 1,352 posts
Armorama: 629 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 10:56 AM UTC
Heres my two cents worth, now Vodnik, I believe your way with the Mr Surfacer looks great, nice and clean, and we all want to represent history the way it was, well I'd think we'd want to represent the good, not the bad, now most looks like your way, and these recent photos looks like a beginner done the job, now if all look like this, then I'd say we haft to make ours that rough, but if most looks uniform like yours then I would keep with what you have, and forget the few that look bad. Remember it is a model, and you also want it to look good, and the photos I've seen of yours now they look like a professional done the job, and not a beginner. I'd bet after they get more practice the real tanks will look better. When I spent most of the day at that base in Texas, now that painter I talked to took pride in his work, and he wouldn't let any of the painters that didn't have enough experience touch the camo jobs until they proved themselves, but evidently there is other places that don't take the same pride.The way I remember history, they taught the good that was done. This is just my opinion.
 _GOTOTOP