Were tank tools and spares the same colour as the tank?

[43rdRecceReg]

Good afternoon,
An argument can be made for either mode of appearance. I like to detail paint add on bits for a factory fresh look then go from there with weathering, etc. This is strictly my own preference and I see beautiful examples all the time here on the Forum of complete spray and camo jobs as well as detail painted accessories. It is all good.
regards,
Painless

I'm with you on that, Painless. All tanks were new when they rolled out of the factories, and I prefer my tanks to look new to begin with, before adding a little of that 'lived in' look. Some members display great skills in turning tanks into rust buckets. That's totally valid, and requires special techniques; but I don't think it can accurately portray Armour in active use, irrespective of the army the vehicles belonged to. Making battlefield hulks, ghosts, and totalled tanks (i.e. beyond repair in the field) is certainly an art; but one more linked to Diorama than RC models.
I asked the question about painting in the field because i wondered what it would entail. Answers are not as easy to find as I'd imagined. I guess somewhere in the MOD archives, there'll be some directive about preparation, or repair, of vehicles in the field in Wartime.
I've often wondered why the USAAF stopped painting their Fighters and Bombers with camo in WW2. Maybe camouflage was ineffective, or too labour-intensive to apply.

[RobW]

I've often wondered why the USAAF stopped painting their Fighters and Bombers with camo in WW2. Maybe camouflage was ineffective, or too labour-intensive to apply.

Possibly a combination of weight, ease of repair and friction? It's also quite hard to hide a bomber formation so why bother?

[rochesb]

All tanks were new when they rolled out of the factories, and I prefer my tanks to look new to begin with, before adding a little of that 'lived in' look. Some members display great skills in turning tanks into rust buckets. That's totally valid, and requires special techniques; but I don't think it can accurately portray Armour in active use, irrespective of the army the vehicles belonged to.

I have often wondered about this too; I cannot help thinking that battlefield armour had quite a short life expectancy & may not have survived in an operational state long enough to get seriously rusty.

Has anyone any idea what the typical in-service life was for a tank in WWII?

[RobW]

I read some of the Russian armour lasted hours at the front; but may have been rebuilt/recrewed 4-5 times before being scrapped. It could also have been on a train for a week or more after they moved the factories.

Similarly the Sherman's may only have lasted hours/days at the front but have been on a cargo ship deck for a few weeks crossing the Atlantic.

Rust will also depend on the environment and quality of steel used. There's that T34 they pulled out of the swamp that's pretty much as it left the factory, and wrecks in the desert that are badly eroded (sand storms) but little rust.

[Max-U52]

Good afternoon,
An argument can be made for either mode of appearance. I like to detail paint add on bits for a factory fresh look then go from there with weathering, etc. This is strictly my own preference and I see beautiful examples all the time here on the Forum of complete spray and camo jobs as well as detail painted accessories. It is all good.
regards,
Painless

I'm with you on that, Painless. All tanks were new when they rolled out of the factories, and I prefer my tanks to look new to begin with, before adding a little of that 'lived in' look. Some members display great skills in turning tanks into rust buckets. That's totally valid, and requires special techniques; but I don't think it can accurately portray Armour in active use, irrespective of the army the vehicles belonged to. Making battlefield hulks, ghosts, and totalled tanks (i.e. beyond repair in the field) is certainly an art; but one more linked to Diorama than RC models.
I asked the question about painting in the field because i wondered what it would entail. Answers are not as easy to find as I'd imagined. I guess somewhere in the MOD archives, there'll be some directive about preparation, or repair, of vehicles in the field in Wartime.
I've often wondered why the USAAF stopped painting their Fighters and Bombers with camo in WW2. Maybe camouflage was ineffective, or too labour-intensive to apply.

I'm with you on that, Roy, 100%. Some of these guys weather and rust their tanks until they look like they've been sitting in a field for 50 years. A perfect example is a member that recently put up a tank that was supposedly commanded by Michael Wittmann. He did some really really great work on that tank and all the bullet holes and missing fender skirts look very impressive, but I can almost guarantee you that Michael Wittmann never commanded a tank that looked anything like that. Whitman was a tank Ace and a true hero of the Fatherland and both he and his crew were extremely proud of their Elite status and the elite equipment they were given. The German tanks in World War II were extremely well-maintained for their entire, albeit short life. The only time the 007 ever looked the way it was depicted recently would be as a battlefield Hulk, and then, as you so wisely pointed out, Roy, the turret should be missing.

[silversurfer1947]

Back to the tools. If they were painted to match the camouflage, as soon as they were used, the paint would start to disappear. The shovel blade would soon have a polish, as would the faces of the hammers and picks. Additionally, the paint would wear off the handles where they are gripped.

[43rdRecceReg]

Back to the tools. If they were painted to match the camouflage, as soon as they were used, the paint would start to disappear. The shovel blade would soon have a polish, as would the faces of the hammers and picks. Additionally, the paint would wear off the handles where they are gripped.

That is also quite likely, Richard. I wonder, though, how often the tools were used before the tank was wrecked, or needed to be towed away by a maintenance unit. Probably not all that often, I'd guess, and mostly to repair a track, I'd imagine....or to attach tow cables for tanks that got stuck in the mud.

[HERMAN BIX]

I have heard through unverified channels that as for U.S. production figures, each asset was given a projected combat life expectancy in order to justify manufacturing volumes.
something like

Jeep- 6 hours
6X6 GMC truck - 30 hours
Sherman tank - 72 hours.
This of course was purely a production volume estimate and would not have had a reflection of actual operational experiences.

I have read that the loss rate of t34 all versions was such that few of them made it to the first oil change interval.
As was mentioned, a week or so on a train and march to the front could have been its longest period of existence.

As for painted tools, I reckon 2 trains of thought
- factory new paint & camo applied- tools clean & placed after painting.
- field adjusted for geographical features and theatre of operation- tools left on & painted over.

[Raminator]

Back to the tools. If they were painted to match the camouflage, as soon as they were used, the paint would start to disappear. The shovel blade would soon have a polish, as would the faces of the hammers and picks. Additionally, the paint would wear off the handles where they are gripped.

That is also quite likely, Richard. I wonder, though, how often the tools were used before the tank was wrecked, or needed to be towed away by a maintenance unit. Probably not all that often, I'd guess, and mostly to repair a track, I'd imagine....or to attach tow cables for tanks that got stuck in the mud.

If they're anything like me, those tankers would need to be digging a latrine more than once a day. I'd get my money's worth out of that shovel, believe you me.

I approach model building by going for authenticity over accuracy. Rather than trying to model a particular vehicle from a photo or whatever other documentary evidence, I try to build the tank and its accoutrements as if I were the vehicle's commander. What stowage, tools, paint, spare parts, etc. would be important to me, personally? So yeah, if it were up to me, I'd take the tools off before repainting the tank because I am insufferable like that.

[Jnewboy]

The only time tools are ever painted over is the application of white wash. It was done in a hurry and with brooms, rags and anything they could find. Yes it wore off so tools used often should be clear of paint but other stuff like a jack or tow cables should have white wash.

Also I believe the USAA f change the paint policy due to fratricide. And it was cheaper. Camouflage was no longer needed as they wanted the enemy to find them it would be easier than hunting for them all the time and it's much easier to know who's who when all the aluminum planes are on your side and any other ones that have camouflage shoot Em Down.