Weathering armor.

I appreciate the heavy weathering effects but personally tend to lean towards the "used but not abused" arena myself. I tend to think that under most conditions, the troops in the field would keep their vehicle maintained as if their lives depended on it and only under extreme conditions would this not be possible.

I think it also depends on whether or not the finished subject will be going into a diorama or not. Stand-alone kits that are heavily weathered don't look right because they are out of context whereas a diorama supplies that needed context and the vehicle makes sense.

In the end, it's really all about how you the author want your kit to look like and give you satisfaction as to the end product. There's plenty of room across the spectrum from factory new to rolling junk heap, it all depends on the eye of the beholder.


My

Ditto,

I haven't yet produced a "heavy" weathering job on any of my builds, but there will be some in the future. I agree that to build every subject with extreme weathering, just doesn't do justice to the men who maintained these vehicles - for the most part - in excellent running order.

I personally like to vary my weathering based on the age of the vehicle, which theater it is located in, the time of year, and which unit own it. All of these things will help to determine the most appropriate weathering scheme.

Everyone has there own preference. That's one of the great things about this hobby.

Enjoy your modeling...

I agree with wbill76, it depends on what you want.
Maintenace was always the first thing we did when coming out of the field. When your life depends on your equipment you maintain it. When we were not in the field it was the first thing we did in the morning after our first formation. This was done regardless of weather. Stateside or overseas.
I can remember coming out of the field in a driving rainstorm and the first thing we did was go to the washrack. Needed to wash all the mud, etc. from our vehicles. Then we had to put the canvas back on.
Samething applies to aircraft, last thing we did was our daily to be ready for tomorrow then be with the pilots in the morning for thier pre-flight. Remember at 10,000ft. there is no side of the road.
John
helicopters don't fly, they beat the air into submission

I'm in general agreement with the others, I tend to do my weathering based on a vehicle in the motor pool or laid up for R and R. The vehicle has to be clean enough for maintenance to be done on it. Tanks usually have big piles of mud when they are operating, but they get cleaned up pretty regularly as well. I think a lot of guys over do rust as well, but it's up to what you like. I'll make tracks rusty if the vehicle has been sitting for a few days. They'll rust over night in most cases. This caused by the heat building up during operation. That's my two cents.

Depends on what you're trying to portray. If your AFV is fresh off the production line or a few days into Kursk. You don't have much time to clean your tank up if your engaged in combat. You'd do just the field repairs to keep it operating. Realistic battle damage is fun to do and if done right looks great. If I'm doing a super detailed aromor kit I like to keep it clean. I've done Tiger's on rail cars being unloaded. I used Tiger transport tracks and removed the necessary road wheels for rail transport. It looked really nice and you don't see Tigers done that way very often. Botton line is have fun do what you want with the beast. Semper Fi, Mud

Not much more to be said other than I see a lot of forum members with the opinion that if it ain't covered with slime from head to toe it ain't right! As a former tanker myself I can tell you that maintenance was king. Sure, there were times when you mashed a fender or went thru mudholes, but as a rule, you kept your equipment in the best shape you could because your life depended on it. I also feel that alot of modelers use "excess" weathering to hide defects in thier builds. I prefer the light weathering effects, to take advantage of the time effort and painting that I worked so hard to acheive.

Steve

I tend to weather my tanks fairly heavily. The only thing I don't like on a model is overdone mud effects. Makes the thing look too cartooney (?!?) and out of context, unless it is in a dio.

Yep, yep, and yep. Ive got about 40 113's parked outside of my window now waiting for the wash rack so they can go home. Realy they are not that dirty and these get used almost everyday. Im not a tanker, but I am surrounded by them. They are constatly cleaning and maintaining their mounts. I agree, the weathering does get taken to extremes. The next thing you know you get caught up in it too. "Everyone says I gotta make it more dirty to look right so I guess I'll make the next one more dirty." Deep in my heart I know its not right but peer preasure sets in! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

Here is a pic of the 113's waiting to be washed to make my point.

QUOTE: Originally posted by crockett I prefer the light weathering effects, to take advantage of the time effort and painting that I worked so hard to acheive. Steve

This is how I feel too, for now at least. I also agree with Bill, that unless a heavily muddied up tank were in a diorama, it would look out of place on the shelf. So far mine are all on the shelf, and I want to be able to admire detail. Does anyone ever admire line drawings and ever say, gee I wish they dirtied it up more? Well, as has been said already, to each their own. I'd never disagree with a modelers approach lest it be in a diorama and something was out of place.

For me, weathering is another way of bringing the vehicle "to life". And, like it has been already mentioned above several times, it all depends on how you want to display the vehicle and what kind of "action" it has seen in the period of time previous to your depiction of it. Nonetheless, I hate to add heavy caked mud to a superdetailed AFV...all that time and money spent on PE and scratchbuilding, only to have it covered up? Don't think so!! The flip side of it is, if your model has poorly detailed suspension and/or roadwheels, then some mud here and there will make it less obvious.

Okay guys, (and gals)

You gotta know where I'm coming from on this one. I've been on armored vehicles since 1975 (ouch!) and really like the look of them in the field. I think the best weathering I've seen on a model is in that ad for the airbrush(?) with the rear of a Tiger I.... very NICE, it's in FSM this month, take a look. Faded, dirty, but filled with detail.. wow!

Now, to me, a clean, lightly weathered vehicle (as in the article, NICE build though, don't get me wrong!) means one of two things. First, it's in the motor pool, off the wash rack, or on parade or inspection, my Paladin is that clean right now. Only in the driest of weather does my vehicle stay clean and that's not for very long! Dirt will gather under the sponsons and fenders even in the driest of conditions and mud us just wonderful! Wow, all that stuff thrown twelve feet or more (four meters!) into the air on the trail.. !!! Love it.

Anyhoo, my driver will wipe only the dirt away that he needs to in the field in order to either check suspension, lube points etc, or perform other maintenance. He has other work to do when he's not doing PMCS (Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services), so if I saw him scraping dirt from road wheels or worse yet, tracks, without meaning to replace them (or check a suspected loose nut), I'd have a talk with him. In other words, dirt doesn't mean poor maintenance, it means use in a fun environment. We don't really, thoroughly, clean the vehicles entirely until the wash rack after days (or weeks) in the field... or if we find a REALLY big puddle!!

Try putting some mud up under sponsons and fenders, behind the road wheels and under the front and rear of the hull where it splashes a lot. It won't hide any detail, but will make your models look as if they've been in use (They'll even have that type of spatter if moving into an urban environment)! Not that they don't look nice without heavy weathering... just in case you want to, you know, muck it up a bit. Another two cents.

Ron

Thanks for sharing those pics armydogdoc!

I like Poniatowski's advice on well-placed mud. Too often I see modellers that seem to think it rained mud. Realistic weathering has everything to do with placement. Those driplines that occur after spending the better part of a week in a soaking rain and appear when the first hot sun hits that metal, and the one that shows up after she's been fueled a couple of times all around (and down) the fill spout. Fading that happens when the paint on the top of the vehicle gets bleached by the sun. And the dust that collects in every nook and cranny (my favorite for that is foot powder, mmm model smells good). All in all, not so much the quantity of weathering, but where each aspect of weathering goes. I just finished this piece in 1-87th scale, check it out:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/stryper50/detail?.dir=/4cc7&.dnm=390a.jpg

Wow, 1/87th? That's got to be tiny. Very nice weathering on such a small subject.

Well, in the magazine, he did call it a "middle of the road" effect. I have actually never tried washing any tanks yet, but look forward to doing so. In gerenal, though, there definitely are more hevily weathered tanks compared to lightly weathered tanks in combat.