Weathering down to the 'metal'

[tomkil]

There's some fantastic weathering on these threads, so much so that it's difficult to believe you're looking at something made of plastic rather than metal. I just wonder sometimes whether the wear down to the metal accurately represents the kind of wear you would see on an actual vehicle. What I mean is that it can look a bit like the kind of wear you'd see on a Dinky car rather than something full size. Does that make sense? It's hugely impressive but somehow doesn't look quite right. Not that I'm pretending I would be remotely capable of producing the correct effect myself!

[pigsty]

My eight farthings' worth: it's often overdone.

Your old Dinky cars wore down so much because you were playing with them all the time, stomping on them, arranging collisions, bunging them off the roof etc, and they're not that well painted to begin with. Armour, even in wartime, is better made and it spends a great deal of time sitting doing nothing. The survival rate once it does get engaged in fighting can be vanishingly low. So a lot of armour wouldn't get the chance to weather heavily, especially not late-war stuff. Also, to go down to the metal you have to scrape through several layers of paint and primer, which isn't as easy as it sounds. And once that has happened, great long streaks of dirty rust (or the bright orange stuff) don't appear overnight.

Another example of overdoing it is to make it seem as though every projecting corner has taken a hammering and there's rust and staining everywhere. This overlooks the fact that even a projecting corner has to touch something to be abraded, and many are very unlikely to do that in normal use - eg being dinged in collisions, or by overhanging trees.

Having said all that, this approach does look impressive. I've learned from it myself: how to do it, and when not to do it. I use it sparingly.

[Lazlo Woodbine]

I totally agree with pigsty's post above, the tanks look as though they have been driven through a forest of hammers,chains and chisels and then rained on by rusty water, they are praised to high heaven as having 'realistic weathering' and other hyperbole but when you look at photos of the real thing very little of this chipping, pre shading, faded centres to panels and black washes etc are present. The only time I have seen anything come close to this look is on a building site. The sad thing is that people are using these overdone models as reference and overdoing it further. It's also happening to aircraft modelling too, some good modelling ruined(for me anyway) by ott pre shading and black panel lines looking like they've been standing in a field for years

I don't pretend to be a master modeller and wouldn't dream of telling people what to do, but the style is not for me, for a good example of a modellers work I like, see Mark Bannerman's builds in military modelling.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest

Gary

Edited May 29, 2014 by Lazlo Woodbine

[Matt182]

I've mentioned before that scale effect and reality is often trumped by artistic license and it can be very difficult to make a model realistic and attractive at the same time. We each have our own preferences but I think most are driven simply by what they and their audience like. Many of the current trends are driven by forums like these and when you see the plaudits some get, many for hopelessly inaccurate models, it is no surprise that others follow suit. Then you also have some of the big brands like AK and MIG pushing this over weathering trend with all these new products.

But is there anything wrong with this approach? Is it a problem that many models are far from accurate? No, not at all. There is no denying that heavily weathered / inaccurate model can look brilliant from an artistic point of view. I really admire the artistic talent of modellers who pull it off well as it is not easy to do. I also find that a super accurate build with all the right details and correct paint shades can be utterly dull to look at if you are not well versed in the subject. it's all down to preference. Personally I like to see a mixture of both accuracy and artistic license.

Having said that, can we please see an end to every tank being attacked with a chisel or being sent to the desert / building site before being sent to the front line?

[Brad]

I think rust get's overdone on tanks, just like pre and post shading of panel lines on aircraft, but chipping and paint wear is not all that out of the realms of possibility. It's not just combat that will cause paint chips, but driving it to the front lines, the crew and soldiers walking all over it etc and then we come to mud and dust. Just park your car outside for a day or two and it will get filthy, just image how dusty and dirty a tank would get driving through the desert or the Russian rasputitsa for a couple of days.

[Paul A H]

I agree that wearing the paint down to the metal should be used sparingly, but it can look very effective. If you're going to aim for that effect, it's worth remembering that, in the case of welded angles, there may not be any rust at all, depending on the type of weld used:

[spruecutter96]

Just to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons here....

Are we just a bit too obsessed with capturing "realism" when we paint our kits?

Personally, I would much rather see a tank weathered to within an inch of its life and fully exhibiting the maker's painting skills, than one which looks like it's just rolled off a production line. The reason? For my money, brand new tanks are just pretty BORING to look at.

Francois Verlinden is a good case in point. OK, so his dioramas have never matched any wartime photos you've ever seen, but for simple "artistry" and execution, I think he's in the top three plastic model-makers in history (some may disagree... and that's fair enough).

The short version of my argument is that the "appearance" of a finished kit is actually a lot more important than how close it looks to a particular, historical photo.

Simply my two-penneth, folks. This is really not intended to cause a huge row on Britmodeller......

Chris.

[Panzer Vor!!!]

The Russians expected their tanks to last six weeks max if longer all well and good ,the German army expected tanks to last at least two to three months before being knocked out.

As far as i know we expected our tanks to last six weeks as well but im not sure on this point .

D

[Tarheellaw]

Chris is right. On historical tanks, I weather around the tracks and bend a fender here and there but I don't go overboard. In fact I usually only go overboard building warhammer tanks and weathering them but those are a gajillion years old. It makes more sense from that sci fi context.

[Graeme]

Remember also that a lot of modern MBT's are covered in cosmetic plates to hide the Chobham (or variant of it) armour underneath - certainly that was the case with Challenger, especially on the front of the turret and around the drivers hatch.

The very first Challenger taken into service in Fallingbostel in early '84 was parked outside the Royal Hussars' Guardroom, and kept under armed guard to make sure no-one tried to remove the plating to get a look at the then brand-new, secret, armour

[fingers]

My personal mantra when doing a model is to give it a rough life to include age, usage, situation and current weather this allows me to determine the weathering/wear I feel I want.

Many models are overdone but I remember the story of a Universal carrier trapped in a desert storm, after the storm was over the crew found that the wind side was blasted to bare metal in many places.

I think the wear on a Bedford truck that has been around for a while and a six week old T34 or a nice new Spit are all going to be very different.