One of my favourite blogs showing a Panzer 4, with scratches and chips to the zimmerite and to the turret armour.

https://www.scaledracula.com/historical-photo-of-the-day-3/

I hadn’t checked this thread for a while, so I was surprised to see a Sheridan in the photos above. Here’s my take on “chipping”. It’s pretty obvious, the longer a vehicle is in service, the more “chipping” will occur. Of course this is dependent on repaints, how well the crew maintains a vehicle, and the availability of painting materials and time. I know from my own experience in the 11th ACR 1976-80, if our vehicles had been in the field for any extended period (1-3 weeks), they’d begin to show some chipping effects (like the Sheridan above). This could even expose small (less than an inch) chunks of the aluminum hull beneath the paint. All this was dependent on the rate of wear in proportion to the rate of use. If we just sat for a while in a fixed position, the wear was actually higher from “boot traffic”. But moving from point to point would cause a combination of wear from stuff bouncing around, and onto the vehicle, in combination with “boot traffic”. Rubber soles don’t make a difference, as rubber tends to pick up small rocks that wear at the paint over time.

Fast forward To 2000, when I was associated with the repair depot at Camp Caroll Korea. The Depot was responsible for the rebuild and repaint of armored vehicles. Since CARC paint was universal by that time, the vehicles coming through the depot were usually in much better shape. CARC wears much better because of its Alkyd composition. It’s more like an epoxy finish than enamel based paints. I’d walk through the depot rebuild line, and see a vehicle that was damaged in an accident or being repainted for age. The CARC coating would come of bent fenders in great patches or strips, but it generally resisted chipping on armor plating. It would show scratches as lighter or darker colored area in the paint. Vehicles coming in for rebuild at the end of an age cycle always look well worn, generally more so than vehicles in the middle of their age cycle.

Bottom line, there are all kinds of factors that go into wear, and “chipping” in particular— time, age, quality of paint, how paint was applied, quality of maintenance, durability of the surface, texture of the surface paint is applied over, etc., etc, etc. So to say that there’s too much or to little wear to a model sitting on a contest table or in a display cabinet is rather subjective. The best way to tell is to have a reference, preferably a photo. I’m not sure a comment from a veteran is even a good source (including this one, but I do have a wide range of experience, over a 30 year period) as experiences are different, and not everyone will have the same experience. Some vehicles will last longer than others, they all won’t be replaced or repainted or refurbished at the same time. So to say something has too much or too little weathering is again, in general, is rather subjective. Time to pullout those references.
VR, Russ

WW2 pattern American boots had a rather flat tread pattern. Certainly nothing that could retain debris. Certainly nothing like contemporary designs .

Quoted Text

---

WW2 pattern American boots had a rather flat tread pattern. Certainly nothing that could retain debris. Certainly nothing like contemporary designs .

---

There are all kinds of boots worn by troops postwar from the cap toed tanker boots with a smooth sole like that to the ranger boots with complex tread.

You could kick a part and it'd chip. You step in mud and you track it everywhere. Boots is boots. My ten years I had four very different pairs and the wear they left was pretty uniform.

And CARC is pretty much like said above, except that some repainting was done so thick that it would just flake and even strip off.

Research, research, research. You find a look, replicate it. My favorite is tank in the rain. You can do gloss, dark versus light, fresh mud versus dry dirt all on one vehicle. And you can splatter mud everywhere when some idiot drives past your vehicle at speed and the muck flies everywhere.

A

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

WW2 pattern American boots had a rather flat tread pattern. Certainly nothing that could retain debris. Certainly nothing like contemporary designs .

---

There are all kinds of boots worn by troops postwar from the cap toed tanker boots with a smooth sole like that to the ranger boots with complex tread.

You could kick a part and it'd chip. You step in mud and you track it everywhere. Boots is boots. My ten years I had four very different pairs and the wear they left was pretty uniform.

And CARC is pretty much like said above, except that some repainting was done so thick that it would just flake and even strip off.

Research, research, research. You find a look, replicate it. My favorite is tank in the rain. You can do gloss, dark versus light, fresh mud versus dry dirt all on one vehicle. And you can splatter mud everywhere when some idiot drives past your vehicle at speed and the muck flies everywhere.

A

---

I don't think we should compare modern era wear to WW2.
The boots worn by the US were as I've shown. Unlike in later years, that was all that was available. Paint formulas and availability of touch up paint post WW2 further hinder a comparison. Finally, the limited average life span of a tank from WW2 is different than post war era tanks. Whether it's the quality of photos from back then or not we don't see chipping to the extent we do on modeler's renderings.
My daily driver is a Jeep Wrangler with factory painted door sills. No plastic guards. 4 years later there are no signs of paint wear. My footwear is 100% workboots, treads, dirt, pebbles and all.
I'm not trying to dictate what modelers do. Just realize it's your interpretation and not necessarily historically accurate.

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

WW2 pattern American boots had a rather flat tread pattern. Certainly nothing that could retain debris. Certainly nothing like contemporary designs .

---

There are all kinds of boots worn by troops postwar from the cap toed tanker boots with a smooth sole like that to the ranger boots with complex tread.

You could kick a part and it'd chip. You step in mud and you track it everywhere. Boots is boots. My ten years I had four very different pairs and the wear they left was pretty uniform.

And CARC is pretty much like said above, except that some repainting was done so thick that it would just flake and even strip off.

Research, research, research. You find a look, replicate it. My favorite is tank in the rain. You can do gloss, dark versus light, fresh mud versus dry dirt all on one vehicle. And you can splatter mud everywhere when some idiot drives past your vehicle at speed and the muck flies everywhere.

A

---

I don't think we should compare modern era wear to WW2.
The boots worn by the US were as I've shown. Unlike in later years, that was all that was available. Paint formulas and availability of touch up paint post WW2 further hinder a comparison. Finally, the limited average life span of a tank from WW2 is different than post war era tanks. Whether it's the quality of photos from back then or not we don't see chipping to the extent we do on modeler's renderings.
My daily driver is a Jeep Wrangler with factory painted door sills. No plastic guards. 4 years later there are no signs of paint wear. My footwear is 100% workboots, treads, dirt, pebbles and all.
I'm not trying to dictate what modelers do. Just realize it's your interpretation and not necessarily historically accurate.

---

Yes, but your Jeep Wrangler has 3-4 coats of dipped primer and sprayed Acrylic Lacquer PPG paint with an overcoat or clear acrylic lacquer. No WWII vehicle had that. What they got was usually 1 coat of lead based primer paint, with a Camo coat. Not really a fair comparison. And really, how much difference in sole pattern is there between those WWII boots and issue boots of the 70s? My issue boots certainly didn’t have the copper rivets, they were nylon stitched. But my crew and I managed to do a considerable amount of wear on our Sheridan (see the vehicle in the photo posted earlier) now, granted, that’s not just from dirty boots, as I mentioned above, but dirty boots are a contributing factor. and as mentioned, wear is really a combination of time, action, paint quality, maintenance, and weather. These factors are really the primary ingredients in ”chipping” and weathering, and will vary as the conditions vary. Again, check references for accuracy when choosing levels of weathering. Don’t think of such things in “general terms”.
VR, Russ

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

WW2 pattern American boots had a rather flat tread pattern. Certainly nothing that could retain debris. Certainly nothing like contemporary designs .

---

There are all kinds of boots worn by troops postwar from the cap toed tanker boots with a smooth sole like that to the ranger boots with complex tread.

You could kick a part and it'd chip. You step in mud and you track it everywhere. Boots is boots. My ten years I had four very different pairs and the wear they left was pretty uniform.

And CARC is pretty much like said above, except that some repainting was done so thick that it would just flake and even strip off.

Research, research, research. You find a look, replicate it. My favorite is tank in the rain. You can do gloss, dark versus light, fresh mud versus dry dirt all on one vehicle. And you can splatter mud everywhere when some idiot drives past your vehicle at speed and the muck flies everywhere.

A

---

I don't think we should compare modern era wear to WW2.
The boots worn by the US were as I've shown. Unlike in later years, that was all that was available. Paint formulas and availability of touch up paint post WW2 further hinder a comparison. Finally, the limited average life span of a tank from WW2 is different than post war era tanks. Whether it's the quality of photos from back then or not we don't see chipping to the extent we do on modeler's renderings.
My daily driver is a Jeep Wrangler with factory painted door sills. No plastic guards. 4 years later there are no signs of paint wear. My footwear is 100% workboots, treads, dirt, pebbles and all.
I'm not trying to dictate what modelers do. Just realize it's your interpretation and not necessarily historically accurate.

---

Yes, but your Jeep Wrangler has 3-4 coats of dipped primer and sprayed Acrylic Lacquer PPG paint with an overcoat or clear acrylic lacquer. No WWII vehicle had that. What they got was usually 1 coat of lead based primer paint, with a Camo coat. Not really a fair comparison. And really, how much difference in sole pattern is there between those WWII boots and issue boots of the 70s? My issue boots certainly didn’t have the copper rivets, they were nylon stitched. But my crew and I managed to do a considerable amount of wear on our Sheridan (see the vehicle in the photo posted earlier) now, granted, that’s not just from dirty boots, as I mentioned above, but dirty boots are a contributing factor. and as mentioned, wear is really a combination of time, action, paint quality, maintenance, and weather. These factors are really the primary ingredients in ”chipping” and weathering, and will vary as the conditions vary. Again, check references for accuracy when choosing levels of weathering. Don’t think of such things in “general terms”.
VR, Russ

---

All I'm saying is both boot configurations and paint quality have changed for the better since WW2. Paint is more durable and boots have drastically better traction. With that boot improvement comes the ability to retain pebbles and dirt. My Jeep reference is to show that paint used for strictly civilian use is holding up pretty darned well. Certainly CARC is even more durable than that. Despite that we just don't see evidence of American tanks with appreciable wear compared to that depicts on models.

Here are two photos of PZIV's. One is fairly well knackered and the other relatively fresh. They show the extremes of paint damage and wear and tear.

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/panzer-iv/im-westen-panzer-iv-2-2/

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/panzer-iv/italien-panzer-iv-6/

Quoted Text

---

Here are two photos of PZIV's. One is fairly well knackered and the other relatively fresh. They show the extremes of paint damage and wear and tear.

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/panzer-iv/im-westen-panzer-iv-2-2/

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/panzer-iv/italien-panzer-iv-6/

---

Bear in mind the second image is a period, judging by the clothing, in Winter and it looks like maybe even a now faded winter whitewash applied on the tanks so due to its composition its bound to show greater wear and tear than the underlying paint finish. Plus the mud on the tracks would indicate what the ground was like, so highly likely a lot of the marks on the tank are mud/dirty based in origin rather than chips in the paintwork.

Sorry about the last un-nimble repeat. I was about to complement you on the observation. We often don't want to admit to the artistic side of our chosen hobby.

I admit that I appreciate the artistry.

the main thing is we all have fun in our chosen way

This Panzer IV ausf G is well beat up.

Quoted Text

---

This Panzer IV ausf G is well beat up.

---

But even from this, you can see that chipping is minimal. The weathering is mostly grime i'd say.

Chipping is most likely to occur around bolt heads in my experience.