"A Russian "Fury" " Topic
19 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleCan you buy a 15mm pre-painted Sherman for $3 USD at your local store?
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 14 Sep 2016 11:52 a.m. PST |
"If you've seen the movie "Fury", you may remember a scene where the crew of the immobilized titular tank remains to repel a German assault. Complaints have been made that the scene wasn't particularly realistic, as the crew did not favourably position themselves properly before battle. Here's an award order for someone that handled a similar situation in a much better way…" See here link Amicalement Armand |
Gamesman6 | 14 Sep 2016 1:02 p.m. PST |
yeah but Fury was inaccurate becau…….. yeah… |
HidaSeku | 14 Sep 2016 1:22 p.m. PST |
|
number4 | 14 Sep 2016 10:32 p.m. PST |
Thanks for posting this fascinating and useful story: "300 out of the 225 required engine hours" shows you how long these tanks lasted at the front – and also shows how wrong these artists who love to portray worn paintwork and rust on their models are! |
Patrick R | 15 Sep 2016 3:36 a.m. PST |
This doesn't mean the tank would be scrapped after 225 hours. This was the amount of time the engine was expected to run relatively trouble-free, after which wear and tear would start to affect performance and an overhaul or replacement was necessary. Most of the German tanks that fought in France in 1940 also exceeded their engine life expectancy and had to be sent off for repairs. And this remained a common problem for most of the war as units were rotated away from the front to fix their tanks. On any given day, about half of the available tanks would be considered operational and dropped sharply under adverse conditions such as winter etc. The requirement for US M4 tanks puts life expectancy at 1500-2000 miles. The M3 Light was expected to last 3500. Wear and tear depends on a wide variety of factors. What was the quality of the paintwork to start with ? In wartime there could be a lack of paint or primer, what are the conditions ? High humidity and heat will affect a tank very different than dry desert conditions, but both will still rust, even in the relative absence of water (it's oxidization, oxygen and steel will react unless protected, water is merely a catalyst) Constant exposure to sunlight may bleach or discolour areas and while some crews took care of their tanks others were not so careful. Even relatively new tanks will get scratches and nicks from hitting things, tools being dropped on surfaces, shells and casings being thrown about. Or simply the effect of people coming and going and touching the same surfaces when operating the tank. Even driving long enough through light vegetation can quickly damage the paintwork. Sand is a strong abrasive and gets between anything, simply moving something around on the tank can quickly damage the paintwork. And this is not exclusive to desert conditions, any sufficiently sandy and dry area like the plains of Ukraine or even certain parts of Northern Europe in summer can scratch that paintwork. You can't simply infer something like the longevity of an engine with the life expectancy of a tank and how it will end up looking. Even tanks that are used for display purposes or reenactment often show scuffs, scratches and discolouration and they often see a whole lot less action than tanks in the field. Even without actual documentary evidence of the condition of tanks in the field, it's easy to see how machines like diggers and bulldozers are affected by dirt, mud, rain and other adverse conditions and how their parts suffer. Ditto for things like skips and containers. If you want a more comprehensive look at tank life expectancy and how it developed during the war, I suggest you check out Zaloga's Armoured Champion, which goes on in detail about things that go beyond the usual rivet counting, armour thickness and ballistic tables, such as cost, reliability, overall effectiveness as a vehicle etc. |
nazrat | 15 Sep 2016 6:34 a.m. PST |
So one part of one sentence proves all hobbyists who chip, ding, and rust their models wrong? Man, that's a big jump to a really specious conclusion! |
PiersBrand | 15 Sep 2016 7:04 a.m. PST |
Someone tell that tank crew they have over weathered their tank… |
No longer can support TMP | 15 Sep 2016 7:09 a.m. PST |
The 225 hours operational lifespan was probably optimistic too, if one looks at the report the US made on the T34 they got sent for inspection. For 308 hours, there'd be some better than average maintenance by the crew along with a big dollop of luck as well. If all of the words of the report are taken at face value, that's some incredibly clumsy attacking by the Germans. I'm not denying the heroism of the tank crew, but I sense some exaggeration might be occurring. |
Patrick R | 15 Sep 2016 8:08 a.m. PST |
Actually, after the test the Soviets made a huge effort to increase the efficiency of their engines. The T-34 had a nominal warranty of 1,000 kilometers of operation before failures, but the head of the GABTU tank administration, Gen. Ya. N. Fedorenko, admitted that in 1942 the average was closer to 200 kilometers. A hand-picked T-34 delivered to the United States in 1942 went 343 kilometers before breaking down during trials at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Engine life for a V-2 diesel engine was 72 hours from a T-34 and 66 hours for the example from a KV-1 during the Aberdeen tests. The policy of testing new T-34 tanks on a test track in 1943 found that only a small fraction could run the minimum requirement of 300 kilometers before breaking down. By early 1944, this dismal record had been overcome, and T-34 reliability finally reached acceptable levels. During February 1944 tests, 79 percent of tanks reached 300 kilometers, and of the test batches 33 percent reached 1,000 kilometers. This became immediately apparent to the tank troops. The deputy commander of the 1st Guards Tank Army, P. G. Dyner, commented that tanks in 1943 would reach only 75 percent of their guaranteed life span in engine hours and mileage, but in 1944 they reached 150 percent. Just like you could jump to the conclusion that tanks can't be weathered because they don't spend enough time in the field to get dirty, assuming that Soviet tanks were crap and remained crap throughout is a bit of a fallacy. |
Bobgnar | 15 Sep 2016 9:42 a.m. PST |
Soviet tank policy: "Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time, become heroes." |
Tango01 | 15 Sep 2016 10:42 a.m. PST |
Happy you enjoyed the article boys!. (smile) Amicalement Armand |
number4 | 15 Sep 2016 11:26 p.m. PST |
In the rush to shoot the messenger,you all miss the point. Weathering is one thing, worn paintwork and rust is another deal entirely. Rust is a slow, corroding process, that takes a long time to deeply pit and rot a metal surface, certainly longer than the two weeks or so a WW2 would last before being knocked out, or pulled back for overhaul. Nobody said anything about them not getting dirty!! The photo Piers posted illustrates my point very well: lots of "weathering" in form of dust, mud and general crud. If any paintwork is worn and chipped, guess where it is? Exactly, it's beneath all that mud, dust and crud. Even without actual documentary evidence of the condition of tanks in the field, it's easy to see how machines like diggers and bulldozers are affected by dirt, mud, rain and other adverse conditions and how their parts suffer. Ditto for things like skips and containers. Diggers and skips (the machines, not the Australians) don't get pulled back to battalion workshops for overhaul after 200 engine hours. Not do they get blown up very often (even in Baltimore) |
PiersBrand | 16 Sep 2016 1:20 a.m. PST |
Apart from those metallic looking chips though… ;) |
Patrick R | 16 Sep 2016 7:36 a.m. PST |
There is corrosion and there is corrosion. Steel beams, fresh from the production line, left out in the open for only a few days will get orange patches, even without rain if the conditions are right. I've seen beams turn completely orange in a week's time if the humidity was high enough and it happens even when they are stored away from rain. Beams that have been left in the hot sun during the day will be covered in dew if it's a colder night and will rust very quickly. Friends of ours had an accident in the South of France, their car went off the road, fortunately nobody got hurt. But by the time they were settled down, called a tow truck and pulled it back on the road they noticed that the dented areas had been badly rusted, the proximity of the sea (a few hundred yards away) probably considerably accelerated this progress. Some areas like hatches and tracks get a huge amount of friction and will not easily rust and look like bare metal, but many scratches that go through the paint left out in the open for a few rainy days will start to rust and streak. There are modellers that overdo it and leave no surface untouched, but you'd be surprised by how quickly sun, rain and other conditions will hurt the paintwork and attack the metal. I was specifically looking at reenactment vehicles that are kept in far better conditions than they would be in service and even they had patches of discoloration, scratches, and the odd area that was showing a hint of rust. Often these are too small and subtle to show on smaller models (1/35th might be pushing it) It's also unfair to compare modern vehicles that are extremely well protected by modern primers and coatings with war-time vehicles that would often have corners cut when it came to paint etc. Many people will remember that cars in the last quarter of the 20th century could develop a very nasty rusting habit even when taken care of. Personally I prefer a "less is more approach" Allied Vehicles operating in Western Europe will look better than a Russian tank in winter or one in the desert. Indeed it was noted by some North Africa veterans they could tell which unit was nearby by the amount of wear on their vehicles as tanks were often replaced in batches. |
Plasticviking3 | 18 Sep 2016 10:29 p.m. PST |
Soviets used hero actions as a standard propoganda tool. Many quoted actions were simply made up. 'About this time in the war we need a pointless heroic action…write one up' type of thing. Look at Zętsev story and here link etc Hollywood is the western version delayed a few years maybe. For UK see Victor comic. Fail to see why engine hours exceeded means tanks should be spruced-up, agree with Pat-R. |
No longer can support TMP | 19 Sep 2016 8:11 a.m. PST |
Thanks for that info, Patrick. I think there's no denying that Soviet tanks became much more reliable towards the end of the war but they were starting from a very low point. |
Lion in the Stars | 19 Sep 2016 12:04 p.m. PST |
In the rush to shoot the messenger,you all miss the point. Weathering is one thing, worn paintwork and rust is another deal entirely. Rust is a slow, corroding process, that takes a long time to deeply pit and rot a metal surface, certainly longer than the two weeks or so a WW2 would last before being knocked out, or pulled back for overhaul. Steel tracks in the desert will rust *instantly* if you got them wet. Because they are completely bare steel with no corrosion-protection at all. The sand will wear any paint off in very short order. Diggers and skips (the machines, not the Australians) don't get pulled back to battalion workshops for overhaul after 200 engine hours. Not do they get blown up very often (even in Baltimore) No, US stuff is built to far longer service life. The Soviets chose to push their engines harder to get greater performance, at the cost of lower Time Between Overhauls. It's the difference between a race car engine and a street car engine. US aircraft engines are built to run at least 2000 hours between overhauls, for example, though the nasty radials usually only make it about 1000 hours with today's quality control. And often made it about 500 hours during the War due to the hard use they faced. A 1940s car engine would be worn out after 50,000 miles, about 2000 hours of operation (assuming city driving). Modern engines do significantly better. My Jeep's 4.0L straight-6 has nearly 160k miles on it and is still going strong, not burning oil. A friend of mine had a Jeep 4.0L with 225k miles on it before he sold it. |
Marc at work | 20 Sep 2016 7:15 a.m. PST |
So are we saying that the beautifully and artfully chipped and rusted tanks are "accurate" in scale terms, or are painted for effect to "suggest" an appearance? For my money, I love seeing models "weathered" but often doubt whether they looked anything like that in operational use. Any "real" tankers reading care to chip in? |
Lion in the Stars | 20 Sep 2016 1:41 p.m. PST |
My desert tanks get bright metal tracks, and will get covered in dust when I figure out how to use pigments. My other tanks stay pretty rust-free, too, now that I think about it. The only tank I would intentionally rust the crud out of is one of those bare metal T34s rolling out of the factory and straight into combat in Stalingrad. |
christot | 21 Sep 2016 3:46 a.m. PST |
I think a lot of folk totally over-weather their vehicles, particularly in the smaller scales…but…this is a modelling hobby…and they can, so why not? |
|