A Question About Weathering

[nheather]

I see loads of models on this site and others that inspire awe in me and put my skills to shame.  Many are heavily weather, really faded, rusting, grimy, chipped and don’t get wrong I think they look fantastic like this and it adds real interesting character.

 

But I often think did operational tanks really get that weathered in WWII.  Two things make me question it, how long did the average tank last and didn’t the crew have any pride in their vehicles - after all their lives depended on them.

 

Again, not a criticism of the models, I like the weathering, just wondering what it was like in real life.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

[JackG]

I know what you are saying, but when viewing other's works, we have to remind ourselves that not everyone is striving for historical accuracy  nor physical realism.  For some, the 'wow factor' is of upmost importance.  On top of the numerous modeling techniques out there, there is the post production software.   Completed photos are altered to such an extant that they don't resemble the original model on the work bench.

 

regards,

Jack

[Lawrence Tierney]

1 minute ago, JackG said:

I know what you are saying, but when viewing other's works, we have to remind ourselves that not everyone is striving for historical accuracy  nor physical realism.  For some, the 'wow factor' is of upmost importance.  On top of the numerous modeling techniques out there, there is the post production software.   Completed photos are altered to such an extant that they don't resemble the original model on the work bench.

 

regards,

Jack

What would be the sort of things commonly done in post production? 

[JackG]

Probably dialing up contrast and sharpness, which tends to make details pop even more.   When over done, details tend to have a shimmering lightness surrounding them. 

 

regards,

Jack

[nheather]

9 hours ago, JackG said:

I know what you are saying, but when viewing other's works, we have to remind ourselves that not everyone is striving for historical accuracy  nor physical realism.  For some, the 'wow factor' is of upmost importance.  On top of the numerous modeling techniques out there, there is the post production software.   Completed photos are altered to such an extant that they don't resemble the original model on the work bench.

 

regards,

Jack

Without doubt, I think it makes the models look really interesting, I was criticising just asking a question “how weathered did tanks get in real life - what was the life expectancy of a tank, I can’t imagine it was much for many”.

 

I can imagine some Russian tanks being rushed of the production line, being sent straight to the front and then getting shot destroyed before the paint barely had chance to dry.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

[Kingsman]

My two penneth.

 

There are very many over-weathered models out there, and I lay the blame at the feet of certain artistic modellers who have products to promote.

 

I don't mean dust and mud. Tanks could and did get very dusty and very muddy. Fuel and oil stains were commonplace.  But all of this would get cleaned from time to time: maybe a long time. Although tracks needed regular, even daily, maintenance.

 

Many that were in service for only weeks or months are made to look like 20 year range wrecks. On the Allied side, tanks were refurbished and repainted. British instructions recognised the importance of paint for preservation. US tanks were factory baked to harden the paint and bond it to the primer.

 

Tanks were expendable to the Soviets. As long as they worked, little else mattered. German ability to sustain tanks diminished as the war progressed, so they possibly did get most worn looking. But remember that hundreds could be lost in a single day.

 

There are basics that people ignore. Armour plate was a dark brown colour: not silvery and not graphite. It rusted slowly as it contained corrosion-inhibiting elements. Light mild plate parts like track guards and stowage bins would be brighter and would rust. Weld metal is bright silver and never rusts. Tracks were manganese steel, which is also neither silver nor graphite and also rusts slowly, to a sort of milky coffee colour. Tow cables would be oiled or greased.

[s.e.charles]

not meant to sidetrack, but to mirror: figure painting with so much highlighting & dark accents it begins to pass realism into artificial.

[Bullbasket]

My own personal opinion is that a tank can be weathered on a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being just off of the production line, and 10 being ready for the knacker's yard. If you are building a model of a RMASG Centaur in France, then it is only going to have light dust on it, as it's use could be measured in weeks, in fact some just days. But some tanks went ashore on D Day and fought all the way through to Berlin, and so looked tired by then.

Some modellers add mud to their models when they were supposed to be active in a theatre which saw very little rain. Covering a N. African Crusader in mud just doesn't come across as appropriate. By the same token, a parade ground finish is out of place when depicting a tank in a temperate theatre at a time when there was heavy rain. That would also apply to say for instance, a Sherman or a Lee fighting with the 14th Army in Burma.

So basically, it needs research to find out the conditions of the time. As has already been mentioned, rust is over used. Covering a tank's armour with rust is wrong, but having streaks of rust running down from some of the steel fixtures is OK, such as some of the tool tie downs and maybe the stowage boxes. 

 

John.

[Julien]

On 26/04/2020 at 01:45, Das Abteilung said:

My two penneth.

 

There are very many over-weathered models out there, and I lay the blame at the feet of certain artistic modellers who have products to promote.

 

I don't mean dust and mud. Tanks could and did get very dusty and very muddy. Fuel and oil stains were commonplace.  But all of this would get cleaned from time to time: maybe a long time. Although tracks needed regular, even daily, maintenance.

 

Many that were in service for only weeks or months are made to look like 20 year range wrecks. On the Allied side, tanks were refurbished and repainted. British instructions recognised the importance of paint for preservation. US tanks were factory baked to harden the paint and bond it to the primer.

 

Tanks were expendable to the Soviets. As long as they worked, little else mattered. German ability to sustain tanks diminished as the war progressed, so they possibly did get most worn looking. But remember that hundreds could be lost in a single day.

 

There are basics that people ignore. Armour plate was a dark brown colour: not silvery and not graphite. It rusted slowly as it contained corrosion-inhibiting elements. Light mild plate parts like track guards and stowage bins would be brighter and would rust. Weld metal is bright silver and never rusts. Tracks were manganese steel, which is also neither silver nor graphite and also rusts slowly, to a sort of milky coffee colour. Tow cables would be oiled or greased.

Pretty good advice, however weld will rust, the degree it will do so will be determined by the composition of the rod used, a higher nickel content will result in less corrosion than surrounding metal, but anything less than stainless will rust in the end given the right environment. 

 

Julien