heavy weathering true or false?

[noname]

I thought it would be interesting to continue a discussion about the use of heavy weathering on military vehicles. Specifically WWII armour but also aircraft and other era would be good too.

First off, I'd like to point out that if anybody likes to over weather a build for fun, that is their right. If someone likes to build them with what may be a more reaslistic light weathering, that is their business as well. I'm just trying to get a good idea of what really was possible.

I realise that most tanks etc. would not have lasted long enough to of had much heavy wear. I also understand that the odd tank may of had an unusual longer life span.

Wouldn't it be safe to say that a tank wouldn't have taken long to get nice and dirty, a bit of wear from crew tramping over the turret etc. day after day and many scratches from crashing through brush, trees, buildings etc.?

I personally haven't read alot on the subject myself so I really don't know. I'm sure some of the build fad of over weathering is over done. But maybe not....

Here is a neat pic of a plane I found with excessive wear on the wing. If this was done on a model we might think it a bit extreme, however as you can see....

For dicsussion purposes only


So maybe some of you more knowledgeable guys can chime in. If anybody has any good photos, please post them.

[robbo]

Yer right WWII tanks did take a battering with troops clambering all over them and remember in then days it was hobnail boots not rubber ones like know days.



These paint jobs was not ment to stand the test of time like modern paint jobs on modern tanks

I remember the Berlin Brigade taks had to be painted for every big parade and in Berlin there was many, they was spotlessly clean at all times

[deafpanzer]

You guys brought up an excellent point. I always thought about this especially if Axis armors had heavier weathering because Allies armors had shorter period of service except for Russkies? American and British armors arrived by ships and had shorter travel distance to the war front, etc.

[robbo]

Yup that link works Craig and will make for interesting reading mate

[noname]

It is a good little article. It is over ten years old tho. Modellers generally do things a little differently. New techniques are always coming about.

Basically he is just saying no to the heavy chipping. Maybe that is what most people have a problem with. I don't think anybody can deny mud, dirt, dust, oil stains among other superficial weathering.

I think Chris has pointed out some of my own way of thinking. These AFVs often didn't stay on the beaten path. I have a handful of photos showing dirt and grime. But have not seen much close up to reveal paint chipping.

Of course alot of this has to do with wether you are trying to build a super accurate model or using some artistic liscence to build an aesthetically pleasing model. I for one just can't get excited about a clean tank. That's just me.

I know one can look at contemporary equpiment to get an idea of how paint wears. But I don't think this will give you an exact picture. Paint technology has come along way. And even if the Shermans were painted with auto paint, they were not painted with a gloss clolour. I would assume this would make some sort of a differnce?

[spud]

I build and paint the way I want I don't give a toss for accuracy, the idea is to have fun I think going for realality is a killer in the fun factor.

Tanks got chipped a lot from driving trough buildings and walls, a gi would not chip the paint climbing on and off it he would at best wear the camo as the was applied in the field mostly.

So it's up to you how much fun you want to have,

Can you go to far with adding mud.. See fun above

[Deleted]

From my,(I freely admit) limited experience with armour in BAOR in the late 70's,Anything bolt on,on armour,would and did get bent,twisted,gouged,ripped off!The main hull may get heavily abraided,front and rear,from traversing peaks and troughs in the terrain,but generally,the upper hull would sustain relatively minor abrasions and chipping,apart from 'normal' use by crews....I realise that there are a lot of Axis builders on the site,so my opinion may differ from theirs....but think about it as a driver,would YOU drive into a house,for instance,if you didn't know if it had a basement,or cellar?You'd be well cooked then! ....Please feel free to amend,berate,chastise,as necessary..

[noname]

Well Chris, if you seen this kind of wear in a tank during the 70's I'm sure there would be that and more during WWII. Did this limited experience you mention take place in conflict or exercises?

Thanks for your thoughts guys. Anybody have any good pics to share?" Come on now, don't be shy.

[spud]

I may have a few in my books ill have a look see.

[Deleted]

Only exercises!!!!!....I'm a natural born coward!!

[spud]

ok i have a few Matt and ill Pm them to ya as there from a book or two and i dont want to get rob in trouble with copyright or anything like that

[noname]

Thanks for those Spud. I'm going to assume the really bad chipping on the sides of hulls etc. are worn whitewashes. Can you tell better having the book righ there?

The first pic. is the most telling. It clearly shows a fair amount of chipping around the hatch. Is that tank suppose to be in the desert can you tell? Seems desert vehicles recieve more chipping. I'm thinking the sand is quite abrasive on the paint.

[spud]

it was a Panzerbeobachtungswagen III armored observation tank, It was found by Canadian forces abandoned in France of 1944, that and the brumbar are the best pics of chipping,

There is a panther with a heavy worn w/w, The the others dont mention w/w. but looking at some they look more like they were taken during the summer,

oh and its always best to have the book at hand,

[noname]

Ya, I don't have any books. But they would come in handy.

Some of those are more worn than I would even expect. I bet a fella could find a few on that "internet". I believe that is what they call it. ;D

Chris B, you just wanted to stay on the right side of the sod.

[spud]

yea browsing trough some of them WWII forums or even the library here you will find stuff

[paulh.]

Aug 14, 2012 13:29:45 GMT -5 spud said:

I build and paint the way I want I don't give a toss for accuracy, the idea is to have fun I think going for realality is a killer in the fun factor.

Tanks got chipped a lot from driving trough buildings and walls, a gi would not chip the paint climbing on and off it he would at best wear the camo as the was applied in the field mostly.

So it's up to you how much fun you want to have,

+1
AFAIAC for me this is a hobby!
Most of my builds are for relaxation and wind down- though i have been less than happy with one or two where I went too far with the mud etc - but it all feeds into the next build.

[noname]

..."and sherman crews couldn't fill the tanks without spilling half of it down the side "

Now that is a useful little bit of info. To be honest, I don't even know where you put the fuel in a Sherman.

[Deleted]

I think we could safely assume that it would be placed in the tanks provided for that purpose!! ;D
What didn't get spilt,anyway!

[noname]

Oh, you mean the fuel tank? Why there? ;D

[Deleted]

[wbill76]

First off, a small disclaimer that I personally appreciate the full aesthetic range of finishes that are possible when it comes to WW2 armor. Photos abound of vehicles in varying conditions depending on their context, theater, circumstances, etc. There's a reason that the "Panzerwrecks" series of books are so popular! It is possible to find photos of specific vehicles that have been through the ringer just like it is possible to find photos of vehicles in brand-new condition at training depots or just off the train at the front. Vehicles had a "life"...some were shorter than others and some were remarkably long-lived...there are some very strange examples of old warhorse vehicles that show up in Normandy in '44 and again later on in '45 as the end approached.

I have never served myself and don't have an first hand experience working on tanks or heavy vehicles...but from what I've read the need for maintenance was paramount from the crews perspective on all sides (perhaps a bit less so on the Soviet side but things still needed to "run" to be effective.) For example German crews would pull their vehicles back from the line at night for security reasons and would perform maintenance and upkeep before driving back out the next morning. Rinse and repeat on a daily basis. Not every vehicle was in constant combat every day of its existence and while dirt and dust would no doubt accumulate, chipping down to the steel invites rust and rust weakens armor...and weakened armor can get you killed.

Field workshops were present even in the far reaches of the Eastern Front and vehicles were constantly being sent back to Germany for repair/overhaul if they were beyond the abilities of the field workshops to put them back into service. Walter Spielberger, of reference book fame, served in a maintenance company and provides a fascinating glimpse into that world in the Appendix of one of his books (can't recall the exact one but believe it was the Pz IV book).

We tend to think in "Hollywood" terms of vehicles lumbering about and constantly crashing and barging into things as they tore across the countryside or through ruined towns and cities. The reality is something less spectacular I think.

These kinds of discussions are healthy and promote awareness and knowledge, always a good thing. It doesn't mean that there's a 'right' or a 'wrong' way to finish a model, one of my best model-building buddies once said that he liked to apply the heavy weathering because he thought it conveyed a sense of the "brutality" of warfare...which is pretty appropriate when you think about it. ;D

[spud]

Aug 15, 2012 20:44:51 GMT -5 @brutus1175 said:

But I have to admit, I am a sucker for anything with a winter camo set in a muddy, snowy, nasty enviroment

Yep same here i just love winter and white washes, you can do so much more and have a lota fun doing it

[TRM]

Very well put Bill and I can agree with what you say!! (as you can see below and never caught your post till now)

(still missed a couple more posts while I was writing too!!! )

Aug 14, 2012 8:40:47 GMT -5 noname said:

First off, I'd like to point out that if anybody likes to over weather a build for fun, that is their right. If someone likes to build them with what may be a more reaslistic light weathering, that is their business as well. I'm just trying to get a good idea of what really was possible.



I personally haven't read alot on the subject myself so I really don't know. I'm sure some of the build fad of over weathering is over done. But maybe not....

Hey Matt...fellas! I have to laugh, because I love pretty much all discussions especially when some interesting questions come up. I suppose To Weather, Or Not To Weather, That Is The Question! LOL I honestly made 4 or 5 attempts prior to this to comment. And each time I withdrew as I tend to get long winded a bit and...LOL, I ran out of time.

First off, I think the majority here would agree that building and subsequently finishing a model is merely the perception of the builder/craftsman/artist of said piece. Also I will go out on a limb and say that it would be safe to say that just about ANY model, whether you like the genre it is in or not, gains a certain respect from most modelers as they can enjoy or appreciate if you will a build solely on the basis that it is a well built model.

With that said, I highlighted a couple sections from your original post Matt...if only in the interest of the discussion. It's funny that you say "If someone likes to build them with what may be a more realistic light weathering"...I point this out not in a bad way, but, only to recognize that I have read a few times the interpretation of how weathering "should" or "should not" be done. "Some", perceive every build to be how they think it should be not seeing the piece as it should be as one's own interpretation. The one thing I do know is that the plausibility of ANYTHING is possible. Chipping, dust, dirt heavy weathering and whatnot all happen. This happens to all degrees. Who is to say that a tank in a battle situation, even over a month or so, will not come out unscathed or heavily chipped and worn? Desert vehicles will chip heavily from wind blown sand, wear and tear. I think we see more evidence of this more in the past as improvements in paints and the obvious maintenance of the more modern items has improved greatly. Not even to mention under sever battle conditions there would be no stopping to clean and maintain the exterior of the vehicles.
The pictures are out there, it’s just a matter of the time to take a look and research them. I do love the look of a well build, perfectly clean parade model and this does show the high level of quality of model building when it is done, however, I really enjoy seeing all the different levels of weathering effects even more as this depicts a level of realism to the build. I can identify with the dirt, scratches and rust that is life! I guess it tells a story.

As for the “fad” factor, yes….it is indeed popular now. I do think though it is here to stay. If you turn back several pages to a time before the onset of all the newer weathering products there was not a lot of mud, dirt and rust added as it did not have the “real” feeling to it, not to say the ones that did weather it up did a bad job...imaginge what they could have done with the good stuff. Once the materials improved the weathering improved. A tank rolling through the mud of South Vietnam can be convincingly obtained now. This touches slightly on the “Golden Age” of modeling that we live in. These are the best times to be building hands down. This is shown in the newer up and coming youth of the hobby. They are creating a level of modeling others have worked a lifetime to achieve and they are at that level being 15, 16 and 17 years old.
Matt, I think you may understand, as you are great at depicting the old, beat-up look (pat on the back for you). This is often judged by others as being the “wrong” way to build. The best one I heard was when it is mentioned that it is easier to build a wrecked vehicle than it is to punch out a pristine showroom finish. The only thing that divides the builds is the level of FUN that one has while they are building!!! I have FUN wrecking something. I plan out what I will do or a basic idea of what I would like the kit to look like and then have FUN! Let it happen. If you have FUN building straight and polishing to perfection the finish…Awesome and I would be the first to say go forth and build. I think there are a number of individuals that would love to beat down a kit and wreck something; they just have not gotten to the point to bring themselves to trying it! They may never do so…this is OK too!!


Back on point with the possibility of chipping in the world of WWII tanks…heavy or not, it all happens! You touched on a great discussion Matt…many thanks for bringing it up! I leave you all (for the moment)with these great pics…

For discussion purposes only


For discussion purposes only

For discussion purposes only


One of my favorite all time pics!!! Look at the spare wheels and tracks…the drums all mashed on there…LOL The Pig on top….Love it!!
For discussion purposes only


I hear what you are saying Craig!! Anyone can chip, its making it convincing! Random chipping and paint removal is not the key! Plausibility is!!

In conclusion, weather it or don’t weather it….It is no concern to me. If you have built something that you think is great and to the best of your abilities at that particular time..OUTSTANDING!! If not, then you try harder next time, either way I will support you and I wont condemn a build because it is too clean or too dirty!

OK…crawling back into my cave now for the night!!

[TRM]

Next time that I "take a wrong turn at Albuquerque" I will be sure to take you up on that offer Sir!!

Edit: Missed the second post! That is one of the many reasons Rob started this haven...like minded, respectful individuals (I have said this too many time) Building what you like, When you like and How you like....as long as it FUN!!! (MSC Tag Line)

[spud]

I enjoyed that Toby and the pics ate fantastic

[wouter]

I think especially Germanwise (possibly the rest as well) there wouldn't be too much chipping. From what I understand from reading about it I believe the German paints had a good quality to them as well as indeed the short lifespan of material - together (as Bill mentioned) with regular maintenance I don't think much chipping would be seen.

However, I do like a good portion of chipping on a model. It adds lots of drama interest to it. I tend to chip moderately on my models, but still think it's unrealistic. On the other hand, one has to look at it like film adaptions: sometimes one needs a bit of dramatisation of the reality to make it more interesting.

So indeed: realistic or not, I don't think that's the point really, as said most important is that one loves doing what he does, and I pretty sure many people do like to look at a chipped and heavy weathered model ^^

Cheers

[spud]

Very nice images Carlos

[noname]

Bill, well said. You were as diplomatic as I was trying to be at the start. Glad everyone is civil. I refuse to argue about models. Now politics, that is a different story!

Thanks for your input T. Yes I should have put "fad " in quotation marks. I guess people see it as a fad due to the onslaught of new weathering products, books etc. that didn't exist before. I think some people feel pressured to weather as if there is now a pigment pusher on every street corner. ;D

Like I say I'm just trying to determine the reality that actually was for my own interest. Like alot of you, I will choose to depict the more veteran tanks than the less weathered tanks because I personally find them more pleasing to look at. I love old worn, metal, wood, etc. Sometimes it is just as pleasing however to see a lesser weathered vehicle if it is done well. There is a knack to capturing subtleties convincingly.

I've seen quite a few pics of Shermans etc. that were nothing less than filthy pigs. I've seen alot of pics like I'm sure the rest of you had, of extreme mud, dents etc. And Spud had shared a few a good pics of chipped paint around a commanders hatch(?) and the front of a tank that had obviously driven through or over something. Like T said anything is possible even if it weren't the norm.

I'd like to see some more pics if anyone has any. A pic is worth a 867 words you know. ;D

[martyncrowther.]

What bothers me is there are so many other techniques out there to make your model look interesting and fairly accurate instead of plastering it in scratches and copious amounts of rust!

Martyn

[406 Silverado]

Well fellas I finally got to catch up on this thread, but I haven't much time to post a long comment like Toby ;D

Seems we all agree on the fact that military vehicles, equipment etc gets dirty, very dirty at times. The main topic I think is chipping. You can find this same discussion on nearly every forum or website, and you'll get different opinions. This is a good thing , like Bill said, because we all can learn from it, or at least get something from it. Of course some will get heated because they are right and others are wrong. This of course won't happen here right, because there is a moto here which T has pointed out.

My opinion..... ...well yes and no as far as chipping, be it heavy or light chipping. Yes the German paint was durable and maybe most tanks didn't last long enough to get chipped. But this will also depend on the time period. Early war the crews and maint shops had time to clean and repaint, but less during the last couple of years. Think about it..enemy on all fronts pushing you back, who has time to paint.

From my 8 years in the military and being a section leader with many vehicles under me, I can tell you a couple of things. Yes every week my guys would do maint on their vehicles and one thing that I was on top of was chipped paint and rust. We had three cans of paint and some brushes and it would go from one vehicle to the other touching up any chips, and a wire brush for the rust. So that was my Combat Eng unit I was in. Did all units in the 3AD do that...hell no. Everytime I would go to another post I would see some vehicles with chipping and rust, not to mention be dirty. We did have wash racks and vehicles got washed down before leaving the field and a good wash when we got back.
OK that was during the Cold War, piece time. During Desert Storm there was no time for any of that, even with the maint units not far behind. When your moving forward and stop for a bit, you eat, sleep and dig holes. I did live in my vehicles for nearly six months and it did get chipped and beat up...in the desert. Now in Europe there are trees bushes etc etc that will wear and tear, not to mention get things dirty.

So in short, yes and no. All depends on how long the vehicle was in action, when it was in service, what unit it was in and if they were keen on vehicle maint. So there are a lot of factors just like there were thousands of tanks, HT's and trucks built. I would think a few of those got dirty and chipped.

Oh and I will gladly take the blame....me loves rusty tanks too ;D ;D ;D