Not to start a war, however on another post on another forum a person brought up this topic in a round about way. It got me thinking (never a good thing according to my wife) :-) about how beat up armored vechicals got during the second world war. So i turned to my resources of about 30 books on german fighting vechicals and in there i found some interesting things. There was some serious paint problems in africa due to hastly applied sandish color applied over german gray. So in that part of the war i can see modeling paint chipping. White wash was another area where you could get the appeareance of paint scuffing and wearing away. However in pictures of german armor from 1943 on when dark yellow became standard i found evidence of very little paint chipping. There is a great picture of a tiger with two hits to the right side of the turret and some chipping around that, but even then the chipping is very light. Looking thru all these books i just could not find evidence of "heavy" chipping.
So i turned to two other sources i have, one is a 82 year old combat engineer from the US army who served from Torch thru 1945. He could not recall paint chipping, wearing away and getting shiny especially on US vechicals but not really chipping except around the tow hook area and where metal tools came in contact with the hull. Also he said that the heavier access doors like the backs of shermans over the engines were routinely dropped in place becasue of the weight but even then the paint did not chip alot. On the german side i have another neighbor who fought on the eastern front for 3 years. He told me that there would have been very little paint chipping on vechicals because there was allways a supply of paint to keep their vechicals looking good. Unit pride and such was mentioned and a tank had to look proper or there was hell to pay.

I enjoy reading many of the british armor magizines as i feel their articals are more indepth, and i confess the chipping method does look great. But in the interest of historical accuracy are we doing a disservice to present vechicals not as they should be, but as we think they should look?
They are my models and i enjoy them greatly, and what i enjoy making them look like is my business. However to have other people complain that they are not "beat up enough" kinda gets my goat.
Well thanks for listening to my rambeling post, i will enjoy hearing what you all think.

Bill

I agree that the effects on some of the models has gone too far with the chipping and wearing of the paint. Some people are doing chipping and rust ,etc. that the climate and or damage wouldn't have been capable of producing. I also have a couple of friends that were armor people and they echo the point of having paint to touch up shiney spots for the reasons you stated.
I do agree that there is wear and tear and it takes an incredible talent to make it look realistic. Please don't think I don't appreciate that work!!! All I'm saying is if it's going to be portrayed as such, please do it correctly for the subject picked .Also one last comment..please respect everyones choice in how they show their subject and remember it is a hobby and everyone sees it differently at times.Be fair!!!
Mac

I think its something that has become "fashionable" for lack of a better word.

A few great pictures of somebodys fantastic work and others begin to think thats what all vehicles looked like and it grows from there. Soon people just assume thats what they really looked like. Chipping and rust (ie tracks) seem to be the worst cases of this but by no means the only ones. Blackened muzzles are another.

For somebody like me who never served on armoured vehicles its easy to see somebodys outstanding build and just assume thats what they must look like.

Some of the models I have seen on certain sites, while they are fantastic, look like they have been sitting in a scrap yard for 10 years. No way they would be front line vehicles.

I have often thought that winter camo schemes also fall into this trap. Most of the models you see have what I call an artistic white wash scheme. I think everyone knows what I mean. The heavily weathered fading scheme that looks like its in late spring. I was looking through some of my pictures of the Germans and their winter schemes. Alot show them pouring paint and just slopping it all over the place with brooms and rags and its dripping down the sides. Splashed all over windows and covering the tires and whatever else was in the way. It looks like hell and isn't very pretty which is probably why hardly anybody does it on their models.

I guess what i am saying that their is a certian amount of artistic license. If we were to paint and weather our models like they really looked like they might not be as exciting as what we "think" they should look like.

I know I am guilty of this but its okay cause I like the results and I am always trying to find that balance between realism and making a good looking model.

I am having fun still so its all good.

Jeff

You are dead-on. I will go further. It appears that with the weathering trend the way it is, before AFV's were rolled out to battle, they sat under positively the most acidic conifer for 50 years.
I am pretty laid back and think guys should do what they want. However, the adherents to the gonzo-extreme chipping, rusting and filth do not have an authoritative or factual leg to stand on.

The tanks are indeed well maintained which is probably true. But have we considered that the tank being represented by the modeler is not during the lull in war where they can re-paint and repair the damages areas but rather during or right after the actual battle. Surely those tanks even well maintained will suffer chips here and there.

I'm not justifying nor contradicting anything or anyone, its just my opinion

Cheers

First let me say that some of the chipping I have seen does give the model an interesting look. However, it si often way over done. I have seen many people argue that dry burshing isn't realistic for bringing out the highlights, but yet some of the same then go and chip all of the edges that dry brushing would have brought out.

This is definately a preference/realism/realistic arguement. In the end its what makes you happy. For me it just gets over done. there are of course exceptions like the forementioned desert vehicles.


Sean

I really, really look up to those guys who can make a piece of plastic look extremely rusty, chipped and dirty.
The thing is, that everywhere I read about it, it was stated that most of the tanks/vehicles did not survive a season, let alone years that could account for the accumulation of degradation sometimes depicted. (The "boneyard-thing" occured to me, too.) For artillery pieces it's another thing: they were always at a relatively safe place, didn't move to much to get the paint chipped - if the enemy got close, usually it meant intense blackening and deformation due to HE shells and grenadates.
The mud is another thing: a moving vehicle "sheds" the mud; it's not "gued" on. Not to mention that a tank covered with (scale) inches of mud would throw its tracks in an instant.
But ultimately it's like the black panel line vs no panel line discussion: everybody has to decide for themselves. (It only matters at competitions where the models are judged by the actual "fashion".)

My two cents:

I think weathering/chipping for the most part has gone to far and is considered to be too "mandatory". In some cases vehicles were absolutely beat up and looked horrible but it was the exception and not the rule. In my 18 years (currently working on 19) I've never seen modern vehicles look as run down as some modelers make them look.

The great thing about a hobby is, you can do it any way you want.

Gentlemen,
Are we at Armorama the vanguard? Are we the ones to begin the reversal of the absurdist, modelistic trend in weathering that is paint chipping? I've been seeing this increase online and in magazines for several years now, especially since a certain publication popularized the so called "salt technique" of paint chipping.
This technique shows the often poor concept of research. Use primary references first and formost. For our purposes, there are hundreds of photos of period vehicles to use, yet many builders use other models as reference, as I've said before, trying to increase the realism by expanding what the previous builder has done.

Hi Al: The debate of heavy handed paint chipping has come up before. I'm pretty sure that Bill's original post was in reply to a thread that I began (please correct me if I'm wrong Bill).

I posted a topic entitled "WW2 Veteran's recollection on Paint wear" and posted it onto several AFV sites simultaneously. It's gotten some interesting replies. Here's the thread here on Armorama:

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/77372&page=1

While I'm happy and proud to be part of the Armorama community, let's not wrench our arms out of socket patting ourselves on the back because we Armorama folks are so superior.

The quote from Rich Diak was in reply to a post about paint chipping on Shermans on another site. I asked Rich if I couldn't copy it and post it on other sites. I posted it here, ML and on FSM.

That being said, I personally find the most interesting weathering on dark basecoats (OD, Dunkelgrau, etc.) to be areas of worn off dust by hands, crew clothes, etc.

(I'm in 100% agreement with you on your points however Al. I'm also one of the secret society who refuses to put soot on muzzle breaks!! [gesturing the secret hand signs towards the computer screen as I type] Our secret though, OK?)

IMHO yes! I think that is is like any other weathering trick. "A little looks really good so the more I can put on the better". I know all too well how that goes, because I'm addicted to blackened muzzles.

In my time with modern AFV's ( I know they are different) I saw very very little paint chipping. If anything I would see mostly dents and dings followed by scrapes caused by brush and trees.

Just my two cents!

I agree that chipping and rusting is very 'fashionable' right now.
Personally, I prefer the look a something built as if it has just come off the assembly line, looking all nice and new.
I can see how some chipping has happened to vehicles and armour but I do think we have gone too far. I've also heard some complaints that in WWII subjects that German and Japanese subjects built are more weathered than allied subjects. (Is there some subconscious prejudice here?)
Mud and goop added are fine, along with some rusting, but not as much as we have seen on some builds.
Maybe we at Big A can start a more sensible and realistic style trend.

I once talked with a man who had a former SS Panzer tanker as a neighbor. He said that the German Army and such knew that resources were limited as far as tank production and that the tank crews had to take care of their tanks. He said that during any lull in battle or during refuel/resupply, one or more of the crew was to wipe down, oil and lube various parts plus clean off mud and touch up paint whenever possible. One of the things that he mentioned was that the crews were to wipe down exhaust pipes and mufflers to help reduce of slow down rust.

I myself have been guilty of too many chips but am now shying away from the super heavy rubbed to the metal area that was usually a rust zone.

Wading in here with my 2 bits...Like dry brushing was in the Eighties, paintchipping is a style, a trend or as an earlier poster nailed it, it's "fashionable"...and your honor I'm guilty as charged... to a point.
I love the way the style has developed, I think it has created dimension and a very lifelike quality, even though it may not be entirely accurate.....
Combining a realistic amount of chipping, a minimum of rust , colour filters and pastel and pigment treatments,, some builders are creating true masterpieces, the key, I think, is to observe and not copy, use other builders models as inspiration not duplication.
Just my opinion, means nothing, it's your model.
Regards
Pete

I have thought that this is the case for a while now. I think it's a consquence of people wanting to show their talent with certain techniques (not that there's anything wrong with that!) na dwanting to pick out certain details on their model. If we study contemporary pictures of vehicles in the field, they are often coated with a thick layer of dust that would add a very monochrome tone to the model if reproduced faithfully: more accurate, but less pleasing to the eye.

The modelling community should be able to embrace all styles. i prefer my models to be lightly weathered, so the viewer can get an idea of the form of the original vehicle (a Platonic stance I suppose ), but in certain situations (eg: a diorama) I might add heavier weathering.


Sean

Yes.

I'm puzzled by the turret from the "recent contribution", was that the final finish? It's white rather than ivory, and the underside of the turret outside the ring would surely have been left in primer...it's not an interior space.


David

I spent three years active duty in a tank battalion in Germany. We slammed those big boys into trees, ditches, each other. Oh we'ld bend the heck out of fenders and some of those got chipped a bit. Of course we kept a set of fenders for "show" in a shed. Do modelers overdo everything, you bet. So much rust, chipped paint, weathering that it is ridiculous and don't get me started on track sag. Shoot if the track was as loose as these guys make it you couldn't have gone straight down a paved road a mile before you would have thrown it. But hey, as you say it is your model and whatever you think looks good is up to you. I don't get involved in model competitions any more because of things like that.

A possible solution to this could be to seperate models into two catagories, those that are built to actually represent a certai ntank in a picture, and those that are made to demonstrate teh skills of the builder, when it comes to finishing them.

As many ppl have already said, there is very little evidence to support excessive paint chipping etc, except where they are used in harsh environments.

I guess we will have to live with the fact that there are those who build "artistic" models, and those who build more realistic ones........and i am not being rude about the "artistic" ones here, just my opinion

Personally i try to find at least one picture of the tank i am building, and study that to get an idea of how the vehicle might have looked, and try to capture that on my model.

Mind you, now that we have all said our piece here, i bet someone is going to post a picture of a tank with excessive paint chipping that has not been used in the desert, or in winter

Regards from the Swamp

Hawkeye

All aspects of weathering a model in moderation are fine, but if one goes overboard with a certain technique, (dry brushing, chipped paint, washes, pastels) then it tends to take away from the model. My biggest concern these days is the overuse of pastels to weather a model, some models displayed have pastels covered from 'head to toe' making them look like they spent years in a sand box, in my opinion, pastels seem to be used to hide painting flaws, similar to the 'model covered in tarps' remedy seen all too frequently.

Frank

I have to agree with the general feeling on this thread that the paint chipping has gone too far. At the risk of getting too far from the basic subject I'd like to expand the discussion to another practice that seems very popular. That is the use of gear and equipment stowed on tanks. I was a tanker for 11 years, and I think the other vets would agree people have too much junk on the outside of their models. You see everything from personal weapons and helmets to main gun rounds just kind of laying around. In my experience if something wasn't strapped down then you lost it very soon after you began to move.

[quote] . There was some serious paint problems in africa due to hastly applied sandish color applied over german gray.



Just to sort of reinforce that statement this is a picture of one of our Scimitars with just such a hasty painting with desert colours. It's all but worn off in some areas after fighting the war but I wouldn't say it's looking particularly chipped!!

Just feel I have to add my 2 penn'orth, even though this subject has come up before & most of my points have already been mentioned.
As regards WW2 german vehicles, I believe it has been overdone. The problem is that all the existing full size reference vehicles are at least 60 years old now. Any existing original paint is going to look pretty bad, especially if the vehicles been outside. The alternative is a repainted one which won't give an accurate representation of colours either, unless very well researched - look at some of the Russian museum schemes.
As I've mentioned in another thread, most of the vehicles in wartime photos are comparatively new, they just didn't last long enough to get really battered. If you don't beleive me just look at pictures of knocked out Tigers in Villers Bocage. Despite the combat damage, they are otherwise almost pristine. Excessive chipping is just not accurate.
I think from my observations of modern British vehicles being moved around here, that this is also true of modern vehicles.
The exception is the desert, where the sand gets everywhere, & is highly abrasive (especially in sand storms). I would recommend anyone modelling desert scenarios to visit the IWM, there is an LRDG vehicle there just as it was recovered after 50 years in the desert; virtually no paint & virtually no rust either!
My personal view is that it just a fashion. I remember that when we all first saw Verlinden's models in the 70's, suddenly everyone had to have black washes & highlighting - it was the look. My own vehicles tend to just get heavy dusting, I still do a bit of restrained dry brushing to oick out highlights. I don't like a lot of mud - hides all the fine detail we get nowadays!

Well, this is just my opinions, but here goes:

Chipping etc:

We have to take some points into consideration regarding ww2 armor:

1) Tanks were made to last
2) they rarely did!

Meaning that how much chipping would a 1 year old well kept tank have ?

Any tank recieving major damage would go to depotlevel or factory level repairs, including a new paintjob.

Any tank in the field would continuely be repaired at the unit and repainted to prevent rust and corrosion and to reflect the diffent times of the year.

Especially the germans were wellknown for repainting and changing camoschemes according to time of year and surrounding terrain.

Not much chance of chipping ...

Personally im the former owner of a M151A1 used often and violent in terrain :-), i have over the 5 years i owend it, never seen any chipping!, Some light wear where i used to place my left foot when driving on-road, but thats all!

Dust and mud on the other hand ... woaw, this dark greed M151 would turn light beige within a few hours in the dusty summer terrain with the heavy buildups at the bottom, but still a lot of dust on hood and interior.

Mud goes everywhere ...! both on the inside and outside of the windscreen, even on the dash board, the seats and ... thats whats fun driving off-road .. on the driver!

So imho - bring on the dust and mud!