|
RE: What does weathering for us....
Not a question if I like weathered tanks are not.( I do) I am just stating when it comes to WWII, it is a free-for-all with respect to weathering. Just about anything goes.
http://battlearmorrc.weebly.com/uplo...1365213833.png |
RE: What does weathering for us....
ORIGINAL: YHR Respectfully I would like to suggest armor in WWII had a different life experience then armor at any other time. They were built, painted, shipped to action, and destroyed in a matter of months not years. For some the first chip on the paint was the round that destroyed it. Maybe what you say could be true for those in the beachhead at Normandy, but many Shermans went to Germany all the way. |
RE: What does weathering for us....
Yes the Shermans went all the way. After being repaired by welding up the holes, if they were salvageable, and washing out the blood while slapping another coat of paint over the spots.
Herman |
RE: What does weathering for us....
ORIGINAL: mcovalsk Hi Dan, I don't think so, just looking pictures in most of the WWII related books, you will see how they crossed Europe and got all what the weather can do. Just looking the Jumbo that broke the German’s line at Bastogne you will realize how battered those tanks were. Maybe what you say could be true for those in the beachhead at Normandy, but many Shermans went to Germany all the way. Any tank that showed up at Bastogne had a hellish trip just to get there. |
RE: What does weathering for us....
Dan, what I was getting at was longevity. Tanks on the line overseas are rarely new...as I mentioned, many of our 46s were retrofitted Pershings and held together with tons of of paint, bailing wire and green tape. Many crossthreaded bolts also on parts not
expected to be removed. The Shermans, Chaffees and half tracks were in no better shape. On two occasions post war, we left on a road march with 14 tanks and came back with 8...the rest repaired in the field or dragged in by our underpowered M-32 which had NO rubber left on the tracks. We got our "new" M-47s in April-May 1958 (during my 2nd tour) with the 46s having been in service since 1951...not even considering the mileage and wear of the old Pershing retrofited chassis. When a tank is 5 years old, it is regarded as due for replacement...but things don't always work that way. WW II was bit different in that tanks were built and shipped out in vast numbers, but the very hard duty in ETO and very little maintenance time along with nasty weather, concussion and enemy hits wore them badly. Crews had to make do with what they had which did not include cleanliness and painting. Camo paint was very crucial in many areas and like Germany, most done in the field. I see a lot of Pershing and Sherman models as well as zillions of Tigers, Panthers and Pz III & IVs...seems to represent a lot of tanks needing weathering of camo jobs. Best is to use a photo as a guide and weather accordingly. |
RE: What does weathering for us....
ORIGINAL: Green Amphibian Yes the Shermans went all the way. After being repaired by welding up the holes, if they were salvageable, and washing out the blood while slapping another coat of paint over the spots. Herman |
RE: What does weathering for us....
ORIGINAL: pattoncommander Dan, what I was getting at was longevity. Tanks on the line overseas are rarely new...as I mentioned, many of our 46s were retrofitted Pershings and held together with tons of of paint, bailing wire and green tape. Many crossthreaded bolts also on parts not expected to be removed. The Shermans, Chaffees and half tracks were in no better shape. On two occasions post war, we left on a road march with 14 tanks and came back with 8...the rest repaired in the field or dragged in by our underpowered M-32 which had NO rubber left on the tracks. We got our ''new'' M-47s in April-May 1958 (during my 2nd tour) with the 46s having been in service since 1951...not even considering the mileage and wear of the old Pershing retrofited chassis. When a tank is 5 years old, it is regarded as due for replacement...but things don't always work that way. WW II was bit different in that tanks were built and shipped out in vast numbers, but the very hard duty in ETO and very little maintenance time along with nasty weather, concussion and enemy hits wore them badly. Crews had to make do with what they had which did not include cleanliness and painting. Camo paint was very crucial in many areas and like Germany, most done in the field. I see a lot of Pershing and Sherman models as well as zillions of Tigers, Panthers and Pz III & IVs...seems to represent a lot of tanks needing weathering of camo jobs. Best is to use a photo as a guide and weather accordingly. People should not be reading that I have said weathering is a bad thing. I understand tanks had a hard service life and how they looked was not at the top of anyone's agenda. I just simply stated the fact that in WWII new tanks were thrown into the war regularly and that a tank does not need heavy weathering to be considered a prototypical look. Therefor the range of weathering on a WWII tank, in action in WWII, is quite varied. |
RE: What does weathering for us....
Tanks did not live long during WW2
<span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;"><![if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument><w:browserlevel></w:browserlevel> </w:worddocument></xml><![endif]></span>"…approximately 44,900 T-34s (82% of total production) being irrecoverably lost." When you have losses like that your only going to get a tank dirty for a few weeks. I wonder what the true Sherman losses were in Europe. http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-...ers2.html#an_8 <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Helvetica"> </span></p><span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;"><![if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:latentstyles></xml><![endif]><![if gte mso 10]><style type="text/css"> Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}</style><![endif]> </span> |
RE: What does weathering for us....
American tanks were made not to survive but to kill during the WWII. All us know that the best Sherman couldn’t resist a face to face with a Tiger, at least the Tiger's commander would be drunk LOL.
The point to give weathering is for getting the "stuff" alive. Frankly most of the real tanks just had dust and mud, and all that covered other kind of damage. In fact real tanks didn't have "color modulation", "washes", "pigments" ( other than real dust), neither "dry brush" and if they had rust it was covered for all the dust and mud. What we do, in my humble opinion, is to bring the scale plastic to live, realizing lights and shadows. As bigger a scale tank is, less "weathering" shouldn't have. |
RE: What does weathering for us....
Did some searching and found this
During World War II, approximately 19,247 M4 Shermans were issued to the US Army and from what I could dig up about 14,000 went to Europe, anyone know true total issued #'s? Figures from the SHAEF AFV&W Section, which may be considered definitive, are for all write offs to vehicles issued to US forces in the ETO from 6 June 1944 to 9 May 1945 (6th AG from 20 November) M4 Medium tank (75 and 76mm) 4,367 M4 Medium tank (105) 174 Max medium tank TO&E strength in theater approx 4,000 A dirty short life, not Europe but a cool color pic from Tunisia Battle of Keren. http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww...tleofkeren.jpg |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:57 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.