Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't recall ever seeing a tank having certain parts of their barrel being unpainted and you'd think it would be more beneficial, and efficient, to just paint the whole thing. To achieve that look they would have to paint some parts and then assemble the thing. It would also leave the thing open to corrosion too and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Is this just a "Oh, it's the way GW does it and looks cool" thing or is there a benefit to it?

I can understand Lascannons have silver parts, somewhat, as you have to change out the barrel but you'd think they'd at least give it some paint to protect it from rust (And to stop it from giving the tank away).

Well, you are making the assumption that its made of iron or steel and thus can even rust at all.

It might not be made of iron or steel but instead an unknown alloy or metal that doesn't rust and is resistant to corrosion.

Gun barrels have to be replaced occasionally because the inside gets worn away too much, and there might not be enough time to paint the replacement.

Assuming the barrels weren't rusted, any scratches that are deep will have some shine to them. Look at any military rifle that's been beat used. You won't find much (if any) rust, but there is some shiny metal showing.

It breaks up the model so it isn't all just flat zones of one color scheme, and draws attention to the armament itself. I think it's more of a visual decision than a "How would this work in real life?" decision.

I'm with Brother SRM on this one. It's purely aesthetics.

Space wizards did it.

Because Adamantium don't rust, I'd think.

Besides it looks cooler.

 sing your life wrote:
Because Adamantium don't rust, I'd think.

Besides it looks cooler.

There is no mention of the exact materials of what the barrel is made out of. From my Codex the only material mentioned is something called Ferro-Steel (Strange name since it implies it's an alloy of steel and iron which would just make it a lower quality steel) and that's the hull. Iron is prone to rusting and Leman Russ tanks are occasionally depicted with rust so whatever it is does corrode.

Maybe an "In Universe" explanation is that the admech feels that the paint would gunk up the inner workings so they only allow the outer cases to be painted? (Assuming they are separate parts). I also like Peregrine's explanation as it does fit the "Forget practically, we need those guns ASAP!" mentality of the guard.

As mentioned, many times it is to represent a barrel that has been replaced in a hot warzone. You'll occasionally catch a story or piece of fluff where they talk about the tanks firing so much that they were changing barrels almost daily. If they are wearing out that fast, then most likely, they are not worried about corrosion.

The artist painted it the way he wanted to. Paint yours the way you want to. Stop asking questions with answers you already know.

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:
The artist painted it the way he wanted to. Paint yours the way you want to. Stop asking questions with answers you already know.

Congratulations on this incredibly useful and constructive post. I'm sure the OP will benefit greatly from your advice.

Because of the reason some Bolters are black, some are red and some are gold ... it's purely aesthetic / colour scheme

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:
The artist painted it the way he wanted to. Paint yours the way you want to. Stop asking questions with answers you already know.

It's not just the GW artist. A lot of Guard players paint their tanks that way and it struck me as odd as no tank I've ever seen had a barrel that looked like that. I just wanted to know if there was a actual reason beyond "It looks cool". So far I'm satisfied with answers I've gotten.

Depending on the gun system, sometimes the recoil will cause a barrel to retract into a larger cylinder which scrapes off the outer paint along a short portion of the barrel length or that section will simply be left unpainted. Pretty rare to ever see an entire barrel in RL not painted, but this is a game of troops wearing bright red or yellow so anything goes.

Edit: don't confuse this with a bore evacuator which is a widened area along the barrel's length that is designed to prevent toxic fumes from blowing back into the crew compartment.

People paint their models in a way that's unrealistic?

I'm shocked. SHOCKED!

 Ailaros wrote:
People paint their models in a way that's unrealistic?

I'm shocked. SHOCKED!

I know! It's a total disgrace to everything 40k stands for. I joined this game for it's gritty realism. To see these ignorant kids paint their tanks with silver barrels just.. just disgusts me to my very core.


On a serious note, I don't have an issue with it I'm just wondering if there is a reason, in universe, why this is done.

@amanita I've considered that and it's a possibility with some weapon systems like the Demolisher and Eradicator. Their recoil dampeners appear to be external and I'm sure with enough firing that snazzy paintjob is coming right off. Though with the Vanquisher and Battle Tank I believe the dampeners are on the inside.

Even if the shock absorption is mounted externally, as long as the barrel retracts into a support cylinder, paint will get removed along however long the portion that slides inside. All the tanks you mentioned are good candidates for a ring of exposed 'steel' from recoil. Not quite so much the russ, but it's all a matter of taste I suppose.

Have a look at a modern howitzer here -

- for an example. The area that retracts gets polished by the action. I would expect that they would not paint that section initially, since there's no point, and the paint will gum up the cylinder it is retracting into.

Thanks for the picture; it explains what I was trying to say much more clearly. I've seen it done both ways, either unpainted or painted but worn from use but you are right - it seems a little silly to allow paint scrapings into the action. It probably has very little affect however.

 amanita wrote:
Thanks for the picture; it explains what I was trying to say much more clearly. I've seen it done both ways, either unpainted or painted but worn from use but you are right - it seems a little silly to allow paint scrapings into the action. It probably has very little affect however.

Depends how much you want your massive artillery piece to explode instead of firing, I guess...

majendie wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Thanks for the picture; it explains what I was trying to say much more clearly. I've seen it done both ways, either unpainted or painted but worn from use but you are right - it seems a little silly to allow paint scrapings into the action. It probably has very little affect however.

Depends how much you want your massive artillery piece to explode instead of firing, I guess...

All the time.
I want it to explode instead of firing, all the time.

 purplefood wrote:

majendie wrote:

 amanita wrote:
Thanks for the picture; it explains what I was trying to say much more clearly. I've seen it done both ways, either unpainted or painted but worn from use but you are right - it seems a little silly to allow paint scrapings into the action. It probably has very little affect however.

Depends how much you want your massive artillery piece to explode instead of firing, I guess...

All the time.
I want it to explode instead of firing, all the time.

Lols.