Rich Diak, posted this on another modelling forum:

"My uncle was a Sherman tank commander in the pacific and I have asked him about the condition of his tank during the war. I purposely asked him about paint finish, chips, nicks, wear and fading. He told me that unless hit by a small arms round that was not powerful enough to penetrate the tank the paint never did chip or have any nicks from wear. He told he hit a rock with his coming off a beach going into a jungle area and it scuffed the paint but never nicked it. He stated that the paint did fade after time in the hot sun but this took months. He said that it would wear shiny from the oils in your skin around the hatches and handles. He also stated the fuel spill stains were common until it rain enough to wash them out. Scuffs from people walking on the surface with rocks or sand in their boots usually around the fuel necks and while loading ammo. He was adamant that the paint did not chip from wear."

That's why I love seeing those color pics of WW2 vehicles all dusty and scruffy -- with hand prints clearing off the dust on areas of contact.

A very interesting post Roy .
Over doing paintchipping is something that I have started to steer away from and I find myself concentrating more on giving my projects more of a dusty/dirty look depending on the subject.
However at the end of the day its is a personel preference I suppose in getting a fine balance between realism an artistic licence


Ian

Always neat to get a historical perspective on things and hear the voice of the veterans who actually used the equipment.

A lot of what is considered "accepted" practice is really based on aesthetic appreciation more than realism and lends the "art" to the hobby in the process.