mcovalsk

What does weathering for us.... turret not worked yet.
A reader asked me if really weathering is a must for military builders, as he only liked to build the kits. I don't think so really, I mean if you just want to build without painting is fine for you, finally modeling is to have fun. However the weathering makes military models bring to life.

I have been building models during the last 50 years, seriously since 40, most of my builds were cars and motorcycles and when I used to build military didn't exist the weathering as we know nowadays. Verlinden was one of the guys that began all.

Now I’m trying to build military models in the way they looks like real ones and now I’m just beginning to understand what weathering means, no matter the technique you use of where you choice goes.

yellowshaker

My Feedback: (1)

Very well put. I am like you, I like tanks that I build to look like they have seen action...or even worse sometimes. It is all about ebjoying the build and having fun. I have been asked alot of questions lately on how to perform weatheirng techniques and decided to begin a blog on my site to demonstrate different ways to do this.

Panther F

I like weathering... seriously, I do. But most times it's over done as those tanks in service were so new they were mostly just dirty and not all chipped and rusted up.

Personally, I like the gate guard look. But out on the battlefield it is not so appealing but a good look for a static piece.


So it all comes down to what you like and the application.



~ Jeff

ausf

I'm a weather-holic.

I can't help myself, for some reason I feel the need to alter whatever surface in some fashion. I'm not much of an AC builder, but even when I do, I have to dirty them up in some fashion. And that's not even finished, I'll need to add the trails from the MGs, the oil staining after the cowl and then the mud spray on the undercarriage.

yellowshaker

My Feedback: (1)

Ausf, you are not...well, no more than me...LOL

ausf

You illustrate my point perfectly Yellowshaker, that flat plane of a surface is so much more alive after your treatment.

This Tiger is barely weathered at all, but the worn/removed whitewash adds a lot of texture to it.

yellowshaker

My Feedback: (1)

Thank you very much.

I agree. I have heard positive and negative things about my tanks and the weathering, but I have yet to see a real one, that has been in any combat environment, that is not damaged, or weathered in some way. If I do a build for someone, I will paint it any way they like, most prefer light weathering, and some want it to look beat to hell. It is preference. Me? Well...I have a little of both. I sure am not afraid to get them dirty though

pattoncommander

Jeff, as you stated....application..but if you want to portray a tank with only dirt and no paint chipping..it will have to be a stateside training unit where the emphasis is on impressing the local silly-villians, full time maintenance and many daily inspections with constant washing and repainting. In a training environment, tanks are relatively recent production models and well maintained.

On overseas deployed units, most tanks have been in service many years (not new) with most of the time in the field with minimal maintenance and plenty of dings, minor field damage and spot painting with whatever shade OD (or OG) is available. Durring the post Korea, cold war-Vietnam eras we went through too many basic color changes and tanks had a dozen or more coats of various hues...just covered the glass parts with grease and spray over whats there.

Paint is generally worn off tops of grab handles, lifting eyes and hatch entrances and footprints of mud/scrapes are common on sponson boxes, bow plates and turret sides as well as oil spill areas on the engine deck and filler cap locations. Bent supports, bent/creased fenders and pioneer tools not where they are supposed to be is SOP.

The only tank I ever had that was "new" was a stateside M-41. M-47 was 2 yrs old but already had 6-8 coats of stateside paint. One M-46 was a rebuilt Pershing ...none of my 46s were maintained inside, being covered only by a 12 x 12 tarp.. and showed the wear. The average age of my M-48s was 6 years. Deployed tank units (until Iraq) rarely have clean, new vehicles.

Most modellers want to build a tank representing a tank in use with a combat unit so weathering should reflect the normal condition of the tank, taking into consideration location and weather. Stateside training tanks and museum exhibits are mostly clean with good paint. Not TO&E deployed tanks.

Forgot one tank..we tested the POS M-60 at (then) Camp Irwin, CA in 1959-60. They were all brand new with only one of 6 having a TC cupola as it had not yet been accepted.

DaveBcool

I agree that weathering brings it to life.
I also agree that is is a challenge to know when to say when and not over-do it.
This panther was my first real attempt at weathering and chipping.
I found painting all the little chips to be a zen-like meditative experience.

ausf

That's excellent. Really comes off as steel. I never get tired of seeing a few pounds of plastic, aluminum and pot metal appear to be 45 tons.

Strato50

Im nominating this as best post of all time.

hairy46

My Feedback: (1)

Some really great work guys! They look real"

pattoncommander

Nice Panther Dave.....you might want to use an Exacto knife and trim off that mold seam on the mantlet.

Paint chips are normal and come from water getting under the paint from extreme cold, also heat and from high pressure water hoses used to wash off the caked on mud. What was/is normally done is to use a hammer and chisel/screwdriver to get rid of the flakes and spot paint over it....if available. Chips also come from small rounds or schrapnel bouncing off the armor, so these are were constant PITA. (persicopes unfortunately don't chip and are NOT easy to remove once hit.)

Very nice looking Tiger. Very realistic and looks like the typical weathering of a crew applied winter camo. KV looks like a typical Russian tank where funtionality took precidence over appearance.

Strato50...thanks. Comes from years living in and working with 1;1 scale armor and later restoring my own. Books and museum artifacts do not portray everything.

DaveBcool

Why would I wreck a detail that I paid good money for?
This is the after market mantlet from schumo to replicate the casting line found on some G mantlets.

pattoncommander

OMG[X(]....I stand corrected......have never seen a mantlet with a mould crease[:-]..thanks for the info. Nice Panther.

Panther F

You tell 'em Dave. I added one to my stock Tamiya mantlet.

It's not a Patton tank so more readin' up is in need for someone.



~ Jeff

DaveBcool

No problem, thanks for the compliments.

Panther F

I'm still hard at my Panther. Hmmmm, someday.



~ Jeff

mcovalsk

Don't ask what your Panther can do for you but what you can do for your Panther LOL

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.

Panther F

Yeah, I'm embarrassed that I haven't finished it yet.

I really haven't had the energy, strength or the drive lately.



~ Jeff

ausf

Yeah but think of the trip to that first shot. They roll out of a Detroit factory, put on a train (I doubt covered), sit around in a yard around NYC, craned by the lifting lugs onto a freighter, possibly sitting on deck or in a hold, craned onto a pier, maybe loaded into a LST and dumped on a beach, then driven or trained across battered country-side. There's a lot of opportunity for abuse and grime well before battle.

Any recoverable US tank was repaired, the interior repainted as not to discourage the new crew, and back into action.

The Germans moved their stuff all over the place, besides the constant maintenance, etc. Imagine what a Tiger would go through with battle and travel tracks change outs, outer roadwheels, etc. just to get it to the first encounter, let alone refueling, rearming...I don't know how any sheet metal would survive long, let alone paint.

Then there's the keeping fires lit under the engine so the oil remained fluid in Russia, or using the muzzle break cover as a latrine during combat. So many possibilities...

pattoncommander

About half the M-46s in my Battalion were converted veteran M-26s with some being reconverted M-26A1s. The Marine 1 & 2d Divs had the newer stuff, having been able to get fully equipt before deployment. Our company had 5 or 6 tanks damaged 46s returned as M-46A1s, but the Army had to piecemeal everything and there was no ideas about getting new tanks...just upgrading as we went. (The 46A1 had only internal changes with relocation of the driver's control panel moved from center behind the front plate to the right of the driver.)

Many WW II tanks also served in Korea and beyond. Even obsolete Stuarts served through the entire war and were used as armored police or border security for a short time after 45.

YHR

Agreed, but that speaks to WWII reused tanks in Korea which is not totally representative of what some are modeling. So a WWII tank can almost be modeled anyway you want as there probably is good photographic evidence confirming it. From almost new to four years of a hard service life. Throw some dust and a few nicks on the hull or do up something like Ausf has done and both can be considered prototypical of a WWII tank.

As Ausf has stated be mindful of the trip to the front but some of the tanks also had paint jobs while in the field. Shermans were knocked out easy, but a lot of times they were repaired, "cleaned up" inside and back to the front with some new paint, so literally just about anything goes.

yellowshaker

My Feedback: (1)

Well, if you don't like weathered up/dirty tanks, stay off the 008 thread