SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Mud! Where's the Mud!

2910 views
16 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 15, 2004 9:07 PM
Ok now... I was hesitant to get in on this because I am one of those who tends to nudge people to weather their tanks.

Lets face it I was never in the military so I have no first hand experiance but I do study pictures in books before and while I am building and if i can see it in a photograph then I will include on my model. I don't encourage simply spattering mud all over a tank in a hap-hazard fashion. One must think about how and where mud would end up on a vehicle of whatever type. Obviously having a muddy rig during the hot summer months in Russia would look silly but it would be COVERED in dust... As would a clean tank in the middle of a winter offensive. No matter how new it is the tanks get muddy the minute they leave the transort train... If my truck can get a complete film of dust on it crossing the parking lot at my office then why wouldn't I put dirt and dust on a tank that spends its entire life toolin around the countryside. As far as chipping an scratching well thats a hotty contested subject that I personally try and stay out of.
I think I went over board on the scratches and chips on my last paint job. But the mud and crud was though out and researched as best I could.... Ya'll tell me if it was too heavy...






Great topic and I guess the bottom line is that opinons vary and its all up to personal preference. Within reason .....Big Smile [:D]

Peace Ya'll...
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Philippines
Posted by Dwight Ta-ala on Sunday, August 15, 2004 8:38 PM
For me I weather with respect to the environment of the diorama where I want to use the tank/vehicle on. The reason mainly is to blend the vehicle with the base. So adding mud for me is dependent on what I wanted the vehicle to represent with respect to the dio scenery.

When I build a tank without a base, I seldom put too much mud or too heavy weathering. Just subtle weathering is enough for me.


Sometimes I just show how beat up tanks can be from the normal usage without really going overboard with mud...just dirt.Big Smile [:D]


And most of the time I let the diorama environment dictate the kind of weathering (or mudding upBig Smile [:D]) that goes on the tank or vehicle.




In the end however, the personal preferences of modelers will dictate as to how much mud goes to the tank. The choice of weathering can be based on pictures or just based on imagination.

Smile [:)]

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Texas
Posted by wbill76 on Saturday, August 14, 2004 11:51 PM
Interesting theory foster, it could be a contributing factor, however I doubt it's the only one.

Scale modelling, while generally referred to as a hobby, is also an art form. As such, it's subject to evolution/changes in the generally accepted criteria for what makes a model "great". Weathering is often cited as one of those areas and some of the driving forces behind the degree of weathering that is required/acceptable could be due to changing times and perceptions based on current events.

Just as model molding and materials evolve, so have the materials available to modelers for creating various weathering effects evolved. It's relatively easy to weather models now with the widespread information available on the Internet and common materials and the increased commonality of this method being employed has also subsequently decreased the "wow" factor in favor of the now rarer, cleaner builds. I think this has a lot to do with the tide beginning to shift in the opposite direction and is a cyclical pattern common to any art form.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 14, 2004 10:30 PM
I personally don't care for "mudding" my tanks.. Not for the sake of historical accuracy, because, believe it or not, these tanks did not come from the factory with mud.. At one time they were clean.. Maybe not for long, but if they went to the front in the summer, there might not be much in the way of muddy terrain.
Nothing bothers me more than to post a pic of a completed model and have someone knock it because there isn't mud up to the fenders..
I say compliment/comment the model, not the mud...
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Pensacola, FL
Posted by Foster7155 on Saturday, August 14, 2004 10:23 PM
Although...

After reading everyone's excellent responses thus far - and I'd like to thank you all for your inputs - another thought came to mind. (Scary, I know)

Perhaps one of the reasons we've seen such an apparent reduction in heavily weathered vehicles in a factor of time.

Until 1990, the only conflicts that a modeler could represent with their armor builds were WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Oh, there were the odd small-scale conflicts like Grenada or Panama, but nothing like the "Big 4". In all of these major conflicts, a significant amount of tank warfare took place on wet, muddy battlefields. There were, of course, the desert campaigns in WWII and many battles in the dry, dusty summer. But a significant number of battles took place in very wet conditions. Vietnam was wet nearly year-round!

Since 1990, there have been two major desert wars. In both of these conflicts there has been virtually no rainfall of any appreciable measure. Since model building, particularly by younger modelers, seems driven to a great extent by current events (Nascar, space programs, movies, etc.), I'm willing to concede that this is possiblity the most significant contributing factor. It's hard to put mud on an Abrams or Humvee when they're in the desert. Perhaps some of these desert builds are beginning to affect the way modelers of subjects from the earlier wars are displaying their builds? It's a possiblity.

Your continued comments are more than welcome.

Enjoy your modeling...

Robert Foster

Pensacola Modeleers

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 14, 2004 9:35 PM
Interesting, thoughtful post, Robert.

I am not actually in a camp as such, I am hoping that my collection will include both heavily and lightly weathered vehicles, some with mud, some without. I am making a conscious effort to build a collection that will appeal to people that aren't interested in WW2 and armour as well as other modellers, so variety is the key.

All my models go on scenic bases, so some grime is needed to blend the model into the base, even if it is a street. I have to keep myself in check when it comes to weathering, as I really enjoy that part of a build, and can get carried away!
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Southern California, USA
Posted by ABARNE on Saturday, August 14, 2004 8:40 PM
I think it comes down to personal preference and what the modeler is trying to achieve. In terms of historical accuracy, just about anything imaginable could and did happen at one point or another to an example of any given tank type. You can find photos of Shermans and T-34s that looked simply a bit dusty to being completely covered in mud and filth. You can find photos of vehicles in virtually factory condition to those that are incredibly beat up. Any possible gradation in between those extremes can be found as well.

On the other hand, mud and battle damage ideally should not be used to cover up poor modeling, but simply used to tell whatever story the builder wishes to tell.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 14, 2004 10:38 AM
We got two issues: If you leave it clean your not afraid of covering any mistakes, but you might be risking historical accuracy. If you mud up your tank you don't want to have people think you covered mistakes, but you don't want to overdo it. I personally don't like too clean armor. In some instances, like in a desert or on a dry dusting road you'd get minimal dirt clogage in the treads and dust would be all over. That's the only reason why I think there should be a mudless tank. But this is my opinion though, so this might conflict. It all depends on the situation you put your tank in. Create a balance of so much mud/dirt/dust to what location your tank is serving. For MTD I put mud on my tiger becuase I made huge gaps in my treads. But I put the tank next to a river and showed evidence of a reason for it to be heavily mudded. It's all about evidence and historical accuracy. If you want a muddy tank, make sure the tank your building was able to get muddy in it's evironment where it served. Then show evidence of how muddy the situation is. Show a muddy trail it just went through, or melted snow on dirt roads, but you got to give a reason (evidence) for the amount of mud you put on the tank. But if someone has a clean tank, I just look to see if they show me the evidence that there tank should be clean. I like muddier tanks, but clean ones are great to look at becuase you get an unabstructed view of the modeler's work. But if you've got the historical research and evidence that a certain tank in a certain part of the world was clean, then that's great!
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:22 AM
To quote author Tony Greenland; "..My collection is planned to show the vehicles used by the German Wehrmacht - not the mud and dust they fought in!" Hey, I like mud just as much as the next guy, (probably even more so, since I crawl around through caves as a hobby too), but as has been said, too often mud is used as make-up to cover one's less than show winning craftsmanship. On the other hand, you can get hit with; "Hey man, they didn't wax these things!" attitude too. My Sturmtiger in my signature is a prime example. This particular vehicle only fought in 3 engagements with a total in service time of about a month. It was captured intact by US forces with all of it's fender skirts still intact and barely even dented. That is why I modeled it virtually spanky clean and no dents in the skirts, it's supposed to be a new vehicle!
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Rain USA, Vancouver WA
Posted by tigerman on Saturday, August 14, 2004 1:19 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Foster7155

Before I start my oratory, let me say that I know there are as many opinions about how to weather armor as there are armor kits...or so it seems sometimes. It is actually quite nice to see diversity in weathering approaches and everyone is welcome to their own personal taste. After all, as long as you are happy with your build, it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.


For awhile I thought I was in the minority. I don't want showroom looking builds, but I also don't want the over the top weathered ones either. Since my builds are all on the shelf and not in diorama form as of yet, I prefer the subtle approach. A heavily muddy static build in a non-diorama situation to me would look out of place. Just my My 2 cents [2c]

   http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/wing_nut_5o/PANZERJAGERGB.jpg

 Eric 

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: SO CAL
Posted by cplchilly on Saturday, August 14, 2004 12:53 AM
I actually have removed some of the celluclay/mud from a tiger Im doing as it looked a little heavy and I will probably remove a bit more. By the way I did it by putting it in bowl large so that the lower hull would be covered by the fairly hot water and let it soak a few minutes.
[img]http://members.fcc.net/ice9/badge.jpg
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Newport News VA
Posted by Buddho on Friday, August 13, 2004 9:37 PM
I built a M50 awhile back and added only minimal weathering to it . I figured the dry arid desert climate would delay rust and mud. ( I could be wrong! )



Dan

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Texas
Posted by wbill76 on Friday, August 13, 2004 8:58 PM
Very well said Foster. I'm in the moderation camp for weathering...a little goes a long way. In terms of severe paint chipping, scratching, etc. I've always thought the "rolling junkheap" look was a little unrealistic. After all fighting men in any arena depend heavily on their equipment to survive and consequently look after it as much as possible. It's to their benefit to keep it well maintained and I've always tried to follow this with my own weathering, approaching it from the standpoint of replicating a "used" feel over the "abused" look.

On the other hand I can also appreciate the time and effort put into producing a realistic scaled heavy weathering look and my hat's off to those who can reproduce it in that fashion and favor that style.

Like any medium, trends will rise and fall, methods rise and fall in popularity, and people make choices based on their preferences. Looks like the pendulum is swinging back to the cleaner is better side of things.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 13, 2004 8:33 PM
people need to put their tank into context, a Tiger in Tunisia ( that sound good... A Tiger Tank in Tunisia) aint gonna have layers of mud.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, August 13, 2004 8:24 PM
Well, When i think of the word TANK, I think of mud. Its synonomous with the ground dwelling grunt. I do agree that maybe some modelers take advantage of weathering to hide boo boos. I have no problem with that. It just seems that a clean AFV is sort of out of place. I dont particularly go crazy with the mud myself, I prefer good ol dirt and dust. Insightful post indeed.
Ryan
(ugh, used too many I's again)
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Montreal
Posted by buff on Friday, August 13, 2004 8:18 PM
Thanks for taking the time to offer your insights. I don't see modeling at AMPS or IPMS national level, so having an idea of what the top people are doing is a great resource.

On the bench: 1/32 Spit IXc

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Pensacola, FL
Mud! Where's the Mud!
Posted by Foster7155 on Friday, August 13, 2004 8:08 PM
Before I start my oratory, let me say that I know there are as many opinions about how to weather armor as there are armor kits...or so it seems sometimes. It is actually quite nice to see diversity in weathering approaches and everyone is welcome to their own personal taste. After all, as long as you are happy with your build, it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

However, lately - or maybe more than lately and I just haven't noticed - there have been quite a few comments regarding armor builds that say things like, "a little more mud", "it looks too clean to me" or "get it dirty". My comments here are directed more toward the younger armor modelers since most of the veteran modelers are already aware of these observations.

For many years, armor modelers built fairly clean models with little if any weathering. Once modelers began to discover the value of washes, dry brushing, and pastels, weathering on armor seemed to progress to more and more severe interpretations of weathering. A few years ago, it seemed that more than half of all armor models built had extremely weathered appearances with heavily chipped paint, an entire platoon's worth of shell hits, and mud up to your armpits. Some of these models looked extremely good and many such models garnered awards at both IPMS and AMPS modeling shows.

It now appears that we are swinging back in the other direction a bit and getting away from the really heavy weathering of the recent past. Part of this could be caused by the perception that heavy weathering, particularly mud packs, are used by modelers to cover mistakes in construction or allow the modeler to skip clean-up of parts that will be covered with mud. It might also be due to some modelers realizing that heavy mud applications, in order to be realistic, should be limited to a small number of modeling situations. Mud, afterall, will come of most vehicles during the first good rainfall or the next time the vehicle is washed.

Obviously, a diorama of German vehicles traveling down a temporary European dirt road in the early spring would be a situation where mud is more than appropriate. But what about a simple static display of a Sherman tank? Is it appropriate to cover the entire lower hull and tracks with a thick layer of mud? Again, your personal taste will determine how you answer this question, but if recent contests are any indication, the answer for the most part is no.

I would highly encourage armor modelers to review the photos of both the most recent AMPS national show and the IPMS convention at their respective home pages. It becomes readily apparent that most of the recent award winning models are fairly clean, with very subtle applications of dirt and dust. There are exceptions - particularly in the diorama categories. But overall, the trend seems to be heading away from the very severe weathering patterns of the recent past.

This is not a critique of anyone's work and not intended as a slap in the face of anyone who wants to use mud on every one of their armor builds. As I said, everyone has their own personal taste and that is one of the things that makes this a great hobby. I just wanted to write this column to raise the questions and present some observations for the members as a whole. I hope you've found the information useful or at least as something that you may consider for future reference.

Enjoy your modeling...

Robert Foster

Pensacola Modeleers

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.