Question - Did forces on the eastern front allow their vehicles to accumulate rust?

[Agua]

Just wondering because some of these mods are really pouring the rust on. I would think that whenever a vehicle wasn't actually engaged in combat, *some* type of surface maintenance would be performed in order to limit rusting. I mean, really, did the historic forces have no maintenance policy with regard to treating rust? That's the impression one would gather from looking at the CMBB AFV mods. That may be accurate, I don't know, the gut feeling is the opposite.

[tracer]

what I have read about maintaining the vehicles,the units had thier own painting equipment out in the field for the mechanics and the crews to use. Also a lot of the camo that is seen on the soldiers helmets were done using this equipment by the soldiers themselvs. I guess during the last years of the war the armor probably wasn't maintian as good due to the lack of supplies and parts.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Didn't the Soviets sometimes drive their tanks from the assembly line to the front line without any paint? That might account for rust, although I don't know if they lived long enough to rust.

[Bruno Weiss]

Not sure about the Soviets, but didn't the Germans have the Waffenschleppenvasher. Style! That's what the bloody Bosch had, style.

[tracer]

I don't know a lot about the russians (I need to read up on them). I was talking about the germans,but as desperate as the rusky's were I wouldn't be surprised if they drove them straight from the factory to the front.

[Jonny Hun]

i watched a show once that said during the battle of stalingrad, tanks were driven out of the factory with only their front armour in place.

the rationale behind this being that only the factory was behind them, so the only armour needed was on the front portions of the vehicle.

of course i could just be a victim of SKYTV skollob, but it sounds pretty damn russian to me.

if anyone can verify/disprove this, i`d be interested to know. i kind of liked this anecdote about the urgency of soviet war manufacturing.

[jamgra]

Rust? Where? I was under the impression that the brownish spots on the tank mods were supposed to be dirt/dust.

[Michael Dorosh]

Rust would probably build up on surfaces that were dinged (partial penetrations, bent schurzen or fenders, sprocket teeth - any surface where the paint and primer were rubbed off - this includes large surface areas where the tank has driven through trees, rubble, scrub, etc - especially the lower front hull and running gear). The area would first be silver (bare metal) and in the absence of touch up paint (which just doesn't happen in the military, unless it is before a parade - which didn't happen in the East!) the area would eventually oxidize and turn red/brown.

Large patches of rust would be unlikely (like on a 76 Datsun or Chevy pickup), but even in the current Canadian military, I've seen floorboards on Iltises, say, rust right through despite being washed on a regular basis.

"Surface maintenance" is just not a priority - daily maintenance for an AFV includes cleaning all the weapons, keeping the track pins tightened and greased, refuelling (usually by hand I would say), rebombing (passing 26 pound shells into the turret by hand also), in addition to engine work, camouflaging the vehicle (which had to be done with fresh foliage at least once a day (in summer, at any rate, otherwise it wilts and turns brown and stands out from the fresh foliage)....

Touch up painting just wouldn't happen, or if it did, would not be a priority. Given the wet climate in Russia, especially in spring and autumn, rust would be a fairly common sight on the areas mentioned - probably also on the wheels and running gear - even the military trucks I drive regularly have rusty wheel nuts, running boards, and tailgates. There's no way to prevent it, and other things to worry about.

[ November 15, 2002, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Commissar]

Basically had the same question. Even if rust does occur quickly on tanks of the era, the average short life span of a tank during the War would seem to make the opportunity for that kind of junkyard look not all that common, especially for Soviet armor.

[Agua]

Thanks. That's the kind of answer I was looking for. Well, honestly, I guess I was *looking* for "of course they don't allow rust to accumulate to the extent seen on some of the mods", but at least that won't be bugging me now.

[Edited to include the following:] Ooops, now I'm wondering about it again. I guess it would be pretty hard to distinguish rust from grime on black and white photos, maybe color photos as well, for that matter.

[ November 15, 2002, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Agua ]

[Mace]

Exhausts were probably the only area that suffered rust due to accelerated oxidation by heat.

Mace

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Commissar:

...the average short life span of a tank during the War would seem to make the opportunity for that kind of junkyard look not all that common...

That's an exceptionally good point, actually. Of course, the trucks I drive are all 20 to 30 years old, so take what I said with a grain of salt!

[HeadHunter]

The tracks and drive sprockets, etc. would rust while the vehicle was not being used, but a very short period of operation would wear that away to bare metal anyhow. Sort of like how it happens on railroad tracks...

[Snarker]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Not sure about the Soviets, but didn't the Germans have the Waffenschleppenvasher. Style! That's what the bloody Bosch had, style.

LOL!!! Yeah, and they're not in the European version because of Bundergoofenlaw.

[-E]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Not sure about the Soviets, but didn't the Germans have the Waffenschleppenvasher. Style! That's what the bloody Bosch had, style.

ROFL! Yeah, they had that!

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by jamgra:

Rust? Where? I was under the impression that the brownish spots on the tank mods were supposed to be dirt/dust.

Same here.

[Mikser]

Originally posted by Jonny Hun:

i watched a show once that said during the battle of stalingrad, tanks were driven out of the factory with only their front armour in place.

the rationale behind this being that only the factory was behind them, so the only armour needed was on the front portions of the vehicle.

of course i could just be a victim of SKYTV skollob, but it sounds pretty damn russian to me.

if anyone can verify/disprove this, i`d be interested to know. i kind of liked this anecdote about the urgency of soviet war manufacturing.

They, of course, left the factory unpainted, not with armour missing.

[Bruno Weiss]

Aaarrrggg. Okay, let's look at the saturation. Military vehicles of both sides did not have the best paint ever invented even when they did get a primer and a final coat. Add to that, constant wear and tear, (who stopped to wash a tank, much less wax it?), constant weathering, dirt, grease, grime, dust, sun, rain, and so on. Coupled with what Dorosh said, damage to any parts. Even a scrape that might dig into or scratch the metal surface.

Now, what happens when dust coats metal and remains for long periods of time. Right, it absorbs any dampness. Even a misty dew on a summers dawn, would be enough to cause the dust to retain the moisture. And then what happens when the sun pops out? Right, it acks as yet another deteroriating agent. Look at vehicles (metal), left in the desert climates. Which, rusts without any moisture.

Given that, I would surmise that rust inevitably formed and rather quickly at that on most vehicles. Particularly in cracks and crevasses of the vehicle, or any damaged areas, and especially in areas where metals parts joined at 90 degree angles. How much and how fast? Like everything else in life, probably differed on a case by case basis. But my guess would be that rust probably started forming within a few weeks/months of service. Did it cover the whole vehicle, no ofcourse not. Large patches of it? Maybe, but I doubt it.

While some have envisioned that on the whole no vehicle survived longer than a few days or weeks (I'd like to see some data to prove that), I would submit that many many vehicles were in service for extended periods of time, particularly those more apt to be in the rear areas or reserve. And remember too, there were front line combat units that were not engaged for long periods of time even when other units in their organization were.

Therefore IMO, rust is altogether appropriate in moderate amounts on the models, but should be used with a common sense application. Small areas, more like lines really along 90 degree angles where metal parts meet, around damage, and so forth. For example, not the flush finish of the door of a truck, but possibly a little bit (A LITTLE BIT), where the door hinges were.

Moderation, that's the key, moderation.

[ November 16, 2002, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Old Dog]

I'm with Bruno here.

Paint and primer technology 60 years ago were nowhere near where they are now, and the priority was to get those AFVs into the field, not make the finish "pretty".

Once it's gouged or any finish is loosened, rusting happens to mild steel in a matter of a couple of days or even less outdoors, it's not a matter of weeks or months. And we're talking about war-time equipment that saw some *serious* rough handling and abuse, not peactime or rear area units where the men had a lot of time to touch up and clean up and the officers had nothing better for their men to do than hold field days.

Hell, these guys often didn't even have time to wash themselves.

- Old Dog

[Bruno Weiss]

Old Dog wrote:

...rusting happens to mild steel in a matter of a couple of days or even less outdoors, it's not a matter of weeks or months.

I would agree. I was more or less allowing for climatic differences, but certainly in climates with a lot of humidity or moisture the acceleration of rusting would be more pronounced. I would add also, that any spare time combat troops might acquire to take care of their equipment/vehicles, was more than likely devoted to the weapons, engines, and functional systems.

One thing I'd note. There is a distance factor here. When viewing a model, we see it at a particular scale, whereas we can get up close and personal to a real vehicle. Therefore, rust which is visable on a model as opposed to a real vehicle has to be approached with this scale differential in mind. Taking me back to what I said earlier. The application of rust should for the most part, be in moderation, more subtle than pronounced, less obvious than other weathering factors like dirt, dust, grime, and stains. With certain exceptions maybe like gas cans, steel cables, fenders, and hinge areas where it might be slightly more obvious on the model.

[ November 16, 2002, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Jagdratt]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

I would agree. I was more or less allowing for climatic differences, but certainly in climates with a lot of humidity or moisture the acceleration of rusting would be more pronounced. I would add also, that any spare time combat troops might acquire to take care of their equipment/vehicles, was more than likely devoted to the weapons, engines, and functional systems.

[/QB]

I certainly agree with Bruno on this.

An important consideration is not to look at AFV through the eyes of the owner of a civilian vehicle. On my beloved VW Passat the appearance of even the smallest amount of rust is cause for panic. After all, how thick is the sheet metal on the fender? Not very - rust can perforate the fender in short order.

Now if I was driving a Tiger with 80mm side armour, that patch of rust above the wheels suddenly seems inconsequential. I suspect May 1945 will arrive long before the rust perforates the hull.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Jagdratt:

I certainly agree with Bruno on this.

An important consideration is not to look at AFV through the eyes of the owner of a civilian vehicle. On my beloved VW Passat the appearance of even the smallest amount of rust is cause for panic. After all, how thick is the sheet metal on the fender? Not very - rust can perforate the fender in short order.

Now if I was driving a Tiger with 80mm side armour, that patch of rust above the wheels suddenly seems inconsequential. I suspect May 1945 will arrive long before the rust perforates the hull.

Heh...perforation isn't the issue, it's unsightliness! A peacetime sergeant major would have a cow, man! Not because a patch of rust represents any danger to armour integrity, but because in peace time, units are rated - and given preferential treatment for - how well they march, how clean their equipment is, how fit their soldiers are (ie how many have self-inflicted wounds like sunburn, sexually transmitted disease, etc.) and all the other lovely "chicken" that accompanies life outside the combat zone.

I think the point to take away from this discussion is that in the field, standards are maintained, but they are not necessarily peace time standards. Units in combat zones do still get rated according to how well they march, how good they look - but this is usually secondary in importance to how well they fight. And a bit of rust on a tank is not really an indication of discipline since as has been well stated by several posters now - it just plain happened and there was not much anyone could do about it.

Now, rust in a machine gun or rifle barrel is a different story.

[ November 16, 2002, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]