"Rust and chips on tanks" Topic

I know a lot of people like the weathered look when it comes to tanks, as do I. But I was wondering how weathered a tank would actually be in real life? Would they really be as chipped and rusty as some people make them? I thought primer paint was supposed to stop rust and the actual bodywork paint would be pretty thick and hard wearing. Plus wouldn't they would be regularly resprayed when taken out of the front line? what do the combat veterans in here think of this?

Yes to the above.

I'm also a 1/35 scale armor model, and the whole chipping thing was a big fad several years ago, and crossed over to wargaming. But IMHO in real life most tanks would not last so long in combat to become the rusty wrecks some modelers choose to do. While a small amount of chipping might be called for, IMHO some really overdo the effect. Next time you see construction equipment, take a look. I'll bet there will be a lot less chipping evident, and these things never get repainted!

Damon.

Agreed.

No.

Plenty of photos on the net, certainly none of our armour on Op Telic 1 suffered from massive chips more liberal coverings of dust and mud, grease, oil and egg yolk!

Tally Ho!

They fade a bit in the desert sun.

There are too many variables to give a single answer. Quality of paint is important, of course, but the biggest factor is the environment. I tend to think armor modelers overdo it to show off their skills – most WWII tanks wouldn't last the years necessary for the paint to get ruined and the metal rusty like some of the models we see out there.

Look up photos of the vehicle you're trying to replicate and copy that.

(I'm former USMC armor, if that helps.)

I think it must vary by theatre and time frame.

By probability some tanks survive a long time even in heavy combat – though they are the exceptions. These would be rusty and chipped as the crew and any passengers clamber all over them. Add in the effects of small pieces of shrapnel and stones/grit thrown about when on the march or in combat.

I don't think tanks get pulled out of the line for a respray all that often in wartime either.

But I do agree it would not be the case all the time and perhaps some wargamers overdo it – ignoring the 'less is more' thing.

This was discussed extensively here link

IMO it's just a trend, much like basing your figures on what look like miniature Japanese gardens ;)

I've had the experience of serving on some old vehicles. M113s that were as old as I was. They had been repainted who knows how many times over the years. I don't think any of the old paint had been removed first. It was easy to see painted over chipped spots. But these vehicles were made of aluminum. So no rust was evident. Just coats of paint applied one over the other like an old house.
I also crewed some old M48s. They had the same painted over and over again issues. But they were made of steel. I only saw rust on parts like sponson boxes and fenders. Not on the hulls or turrets.
Now, old hard targets. They got rusty. But many of them probably sat out on those ranges for decades.
I served in Germany, South Korea and in Ft. Lewis in Washington State. So I saw most kinds of weather. Including lots of rain.

IMO chipping is an exercise in b.s. from a historical standpoint – though I have to admit that it does look good when well executed.

Another question on what may also be a fad, where do people stand on painting tools on vehicles? There seem to be contradictory opinions on this. I always used to do them in the base colour of the vehicle and just highlight/weather them a bit. But the current trend seems to be to make them look like something fresh out of the hardware store…

What about mufflers on WWII tanks? Would they have a heavy coat of rust or not?

Opinions aside, in the army – any army, everything gets painted, if only to protect it from the elements. The tools come from the factory painted with the same stuff they use to paint the vehicles themselves – be it green, gray or dark yellow. Metal parts blackened for obvious reasons.

Mufflers are also painted in the factory but the paint soon burned off and left a patina (not a heavy coat) of rust. What you didn't see was the same process happening to gun muzzles – they are just too thick – nor did they look like wood stove chimneys after a few firings as modern propellents don't leave the kind of soot deposits we see on some models.

I imagine most WW2 vehicles were destroyed or wrecked before they could get that decrepit :)

I still use the Tony Greenland books , his extensive work on 1/35th German armour serialised in Military Modelling back in the day shows no chipping at all . I wonder what his take would be ?

It is partly because we are used to 'old' stuff looking 'old'. One of my re-enactor pals was very pleased with the weathering on his helmet as 'it made it look 70 years old'.

Well it wasn't 70 years old in 1942….

Mud and dust, yes fine, but rusty chipped paint? When I used to do aero modelling, the weathering was typically based on that seen in photos – oil and soot streaks, scuffed aluminimum around the cockpit etc.

I figured that my opinion on this would be pretty much mirrored by others. As an archaeologist I work on construction sites a lot and am in contact with a lot of industrial machinery that works all day, every day for years and there are hardly any major chips, bigger than a few centimetres on most. There are scratches and other slight damage, but in general from a distance they look OK.

I do actually pay a lot of attention to where mud and dirt gather on the tracks, for the purposes of modelling!

As for painting tools on vehicles, I have seen plenty of period photos (WW2) that show the tools to be unpainted. But I guess this isn't a practise in every situation.

When new tools were issued to us they arrived as from the hardware store. Very unmilitary looking. We were set to paint them very soon thereafter.

A difficult one to answer . Paint being chipped can be caused by bullets , explosions , scraping against buildings, pushing past knocked out vehicles and shunting other vehicles out of the way eg out of fuel etc. I dare say there are many more examples .

There are many variables that can be considered which I think is great for the modeller/artist.

My only experience is in the Navy and rust was your constant enemy. Of course, the salty wet environment isn't too common for tanks…

BTW, if you want to see major paint damage try cleaning up after a missile shoot. Charred and black.

I spent last year evaluating the USN / USMC corrosion prevention processes for ships, planes, ground vehicles, and facilities across CONUS and PACOM. Not too surprisingly, the ground gear in the Pacific is really hard to keep from corroding especially if it is near the salt spray. This is especially true for the portions that have wear surfaces in ground contact (things like tracks, dozer blades, stabilizing spades / trails, etc.) or wear surfaces that see a lot of scuffing (truck beds, trailers, tailgates, etc.).

Stuff that is CONUS or in CENTCOM do not see the same level of problems (although UV and sand erosion take their toll on gear in the desert, but lacks the humidity to cause much corrosion). Here are some pictures of wrecked Iraqi / Iranian gear that I took back in the day that mostly just shows dust – not much rust although it had been pretty abused and left in the open for years link

I should also point out that for environmental reasons many of our modern coatings are note as durable as the high solvent, lead paints used back in the day so this is not necessarily a case of modern gear being more durable.

So translating this to WWII, I would expect to see significant corrosion on IJA / USMC gear in the Pacific theaters, but not much for Allied / Axis gear in North Africa, the Med or NWE.

Paint can be chipped by bullet sure, but bullet splash looks a LOT different – very distinctive.

We tend to forget that tanks especially didn't spend 24/7 in the front line as well as the frequent breakdowns caused by pushing 1940's technology to the limit and battle damage, they also got pulled from the line for routine maintenance. Pick any date on the calendar and look at the figures for available tanks vs those in workshops….

Track bashing takes hours, engine overhauls can take longer especially swapping stuff out on some of the German big cats (heck, even modern German cars are a schwein to work on), and those crew members not involved in swinging hammers & wrenches get to clean and paint things. At least they did under British sgt majors! I can't imagine oberwachtmeisters or starshina being much different. YMMV

Never been on tanks, but worked on ships for a couple of decades. Anything near salt water (or salty air) goes rusty in hours. Dock vehicles show this all the time (forklifts etc). I would imagine that post D-Day, many Allied tanks had heavy streakings of rust. Russian or German tanks, very little.
Just look at a picture of a U Boat after a mission. It looks like its going to the scrap yard.
One of our most annoying jobs was cleaning rust from the inside of gym equipment, and that was inside, away from the elements, in an air conditioned gym!

The amount of rust and chipped paint present on vehicles would be inversely proportional to the proximity of the Sergeant Major!