1944 Group Build

Ok, so you paint as you go along. Look forward to seeing the pics.

Here are a couple of photos of the road wheels and main sprockets.

that's certainly coming along Nomad. How are you going to mask for the ambush scheme.

Bish

that's certainly coming along Nomad. How are you going to mask for the ambush scheme.

Thanks Bish.

Not sure on what to do with the paint scheme. I may try freehand with the airbrush. I do not know how to mask such a  complex paint scheme.

Doug

If you want to be accurate, that will need masking as its a hard edge scheme. I would suggest silly putty or white tac.

Nomad - I think the desert paint colour works fine, as does your brown.  On my screen the green looks pretty lively, I'd mix in some brown to get a more olive shade - again though my screen could be calibrated differently.

Here's a chart from Chory's book on wehrmacht camou colours.   Note he provides five samples of dark yellow, but this gives a good comparison to the other camou colours.

regards,

Jack

Great idea Bish. I think I can handle that.

jgeratic

Nomad - I think the desert paint colour works fine, as does your brown.  On my screen the green looks pretty lively, I'd mix in some brown to get a more olive shade - again though my screen could be calibrated differently.

Jack

Thanks Jack,

The color chart will help me out. (I just wish that it was in English) I still can redo the green as the road wheels is all I have painted at the time. I will make the green darker.

Thanks again,

Doug

Hello Everyone

Here are some photos of the latest progress on the B-17G. I was going to detail the fuselage interior but I put the two halves together and I couldn't see anything so I didn't want to waste the time or paint. I hope you all enjoy them.

Its really handy for schemes like this where you want a hard edge but not straight lines.

That deffo good advice on the green from jack. Although the colour for the German 3 tone camo did vary due to how it was thinned, the green was generally darker than this.

Jack, I can understand why so many shades of DY. I recall reading that even though this was factory applied, it did vary quite a bit depending on which company had supplied it.

J, nice work on the B-17. I look the look of the table at the front, how did you do that.

Bish

The table in the front had a wood grain already in it from the mold. I just used ModelMaster Wood Paint that I thinned and brushed on many coats to reval the wood grain. I'm glad you like it.

I did wonder how you got that sort of pattern on it by painting it. Nice work.

I need some help on how to add a Badge to my profile. I searched the forums and couldn't find anything. Thanks for your time on this.

Go to the community settings, its in the box top right, next to your name, messages and so on. In there you will see a box titled signature. You can load the badge in there the same way you do normal pics. But be aware, you can only have so many characters in your sig, 512. this is normally fine for one badge, but as you collect more, you will have to add them a different way.

Bish that worked but it is huge. Is there a way to make it smaller like everyone else? Thank you for all the help.

I darkened up the green on the road wheels. Tell me if this looks better.

Thanks,

Doug

Wheels looking fine to me.

I hate to quibble with my betters, but I wouldn't mask road wheels. You could hand paint them if you didn't want to free hand with the airbrush. I've been watching a series on YouTube called Tanks! and it's commentary comes from the people at Bovington. German camo was applied in the field usually with a big airbrush (although not always) but even a "hard" scheme when you look at the museum German tanks and a lot of pics the finish is really a little soft around the edges. (I'd guess some of the really "hard" ambush stuff was hand painted.)  Aside from that, wheels should be getting a whole lot of weathering. No matter how much weathering a modeler thinks is proper for tanks the things were dirty and dusty even in the most benign environment. The old school tank guru Tony Greenland said he modeled the tanks and not the mud they fought in. Pretty rare approach now and I think armor modeling has taken a real step forward. Anyway, if you can see the precise color below the fenders on the lower hull, I'd say the there's not enough pigment or whatever. My two cents.

Eric

J, you can edit it in Photobucket and shrink it there. What I do is have one file on my laptop with the original badges in and then have another with the ones I am using shrunk to size, I go for 60 pixels. But I shrink them with the photo editor on my laptop.

Eric, I agree, I do think there was anything like a true hard edge scheme, I can't imagine the guys in the field used masks. But then you have to consider how it would look when scaled down. You may well be right about those Tiger II's being hand painted.

As for the modern ways of doing things, I am not to sure I completely agree with them. I build diorama's but not only do I want the model to match the scene it was in, it needs to fit the story as well.

personally, I don't think armour modelling ahs taken a step forward. Its taken a step towards being more arty fide than realistic. People go on about colour modulation and adding depth and all sorts of stuff and I just think your talking total crap. Your right, real armour did get dirty and dusty, but there are times when they are not like that. You just have to get the balance right for what your trying to portray.

I'll grant the art-house over-kill coming from modelers like Rinaldi or others in the Spanish School (Wilder, Mig J etc) but in general think they have a point. One very good modeler on Armorama defended the elaborate chipping, modulation etc very simply: the real world, he claimed, was boring and he was taking his chance to make it more interesting. In point of fact if you look through enough photos you can find examples of AFVs that for whatever reason lasted far longer than average and toward war's end looked a total fright. (This is certainly true of ships. I have a small collection of color photos of WWII warships that show why salt and metal don't like each other. A famous color photo of KGV from 1942 illustrates the point as well as any). So if you wanted to find a real world example of the kind of vehicle that resembled a really over the top model they existed.

They weren't the norm however. Most tanks had a very short lifetime in battle (it was a lucky T-34 that was running six months after introduction - and it had probably been rebuilt.) Ditto with Shermans and most German tanks. (The way the Germans used big ticket items like Tigers might well have allowed for a longer life span simply because commanders knew their value lay in their ability to engage at long range and thus avoided knife fights unless a counter attack was required. The only reason Stugs and PZ IVs might have stuck around was that the Germans spent the last two years on the defensive - very desirable for armor kill ratios, but bad news if caught in a noose like Falaise or the Ruhr.) So yea, elaborate chipping and signs of wear - especially on well painted US AFVs - really doesn't represent anything like the norm.

I don't think, however, that Rinaldi and company are wrong about things like modulation and serious measures to emulate scale. Any object, especially if outside, is actually a riot of colors that the brain has to work hard at to make sense of - shadow alone will ensure that. As Mig Jimenez points out it's impossible to make a "realistic" model because small things don't look like big ones. That said, I think tricking the eye to give the subject some depth is perfectly okay even if it doesn't require every product made by MIG or AK. (It is true that a lot of the present AFV gurus are also pushing product lines and have made some money doing it.) And, as noted earlier, every AFV that ever saw serious was covered with dust and dirt within hours. So to my humble eyes it's very easy to over-do chipping & wear (battle damage I can live with - I'd guess many a tank was struck by shrapnel or small arms fire) but also easy to under-do dirt, mud (depending upon time of year) and dust.  I haven't found the right balance yet and probably never will. Keeps you on your toes though.

Eric

O, I have no doubt they existed, but as you say, they were certainly not the norm. I certainly don't get the modulation thing. Why would a panel be lighter in the middle than it did at the sides. I would seriously question any claim that it was realistic. If they want to do this to make it more interesting, then that fine. But its now become the standard that others are supposed to follow and anyone who doesn't is criticised for it.

I used to be a warrior driver. I drove the same vehicle for 6 years. During that time it never got re painted. It went to Iraq twice and probably spent close to a year on various exercises. Just about every day I was in work, I was climbing on it for some reason or another. So not only did I drive it for longer than the duration of WW2, it probably spent more time in the field and in Iraq than the life expectancy of most WW2 armour. After all that time, it was hardly chipped, a little on the ice breaker perhaps, were I and everyone else would stand when climbing on, and a little round the hatches. And even after the best wash down, it just had a dusty grimy look.

But I really don't get this idea of depth. I just don't see it. Either on models or the real thing. And neither have I seen a panel that looks 'modulated' again, I don't get it. As to scale colour, that another one that seems to be ingrained. I have a book on modelling armour by a guy called John Pringent, and he doesn't seem to follow it. As he says, scale colour depicts something you are looking at from a distance. But your not, you looking at something small that's close to you. I painted my 144 Ju 87 in the exact some colour I did my 72nd one and I see no difference.

I did consider trying modulation and a few other things early this year. But then I thought why, what's the point.

I don't think we will ever get a balance that suits everyone, but it would be nice if some people just opened their minds a bit and not expect a model to follow the current trends.

Bish

I would have to agree with you on this one. I have been in the military going on almost 22 years now and I have never seen any modulation in the paint. I have seen faded paint and worn areas where everyone and their brother has steped or grabed.

The only time I ever see and modulation is when a older canvas top is put on a newer truck. The paintball fades the same from what I have seen in my career.

I will take some photo's here at work and post them later tonight so you all can see what I'm talking about.

don't pay the ransom, i've escaped. this looks like a fun discussion to stick my nose into. first multi-color road wheels. i don't do them. when driving they create a kaleidoscope effect and attract the eye. i do have my own tell, especially with warwheels. instead of painting all 8 tire hubs the base color i will take the camo color and, if the pattern would flow into the hub, paint it the other color. unless i'm doing a specific vehicle with photos. our M60A2s were brand new when we got them in '75 and that's how the road wheels were. and even though they were airbrushed the camo still had a sharp edge. but sharp vs soft edge on armor camo isn't a "fall on my sword" issue

i do paint road wheel tires dark gray instead of black and wash black rubber tires with a dark gray so they look used.

while we are here the whole rusty track thing doesn't do it for me either UNLESS it's an inactive vehicle. our steel wear plates behind the aluminum roadwheels would rust in the motor pool as would the track end connectors. nice dark brown rust and bright rust. half a day in the field and they are steel color shiny and dull, all the rust gone. someone here mentioned taking M-113s out for national guard training and 2 weeks later the entire belly plate was shiny aluminum from the paint wearing off.

some folks just paint everything below the fenders dirt/mud color and leave it.

now i do get artsy on some builds. i will make wood handles on tools wood instead of base coat painted just to add some color. i will wash with various oils to emphasis hatches, etc.  i don't do a lot of chipping for the reasons for the same reason Bish says. as for environmental dirt and grime we had a platoon come back from, i think, baumholder and, because of the red clay, they were almost pink. and the trees along the the main tank trail at grafenwehr are permanently stained from the dirt mist that is sprayed from vehicles.

all that being said, this doesn't hold true throughout the world. i am doing a libyan BM-21 and have a bunch of pictures and these things are beat all to hell, chipped, faded paint, hand scrawled arab numbers and letters. i will show the kit when finished with the photos for proof. OTOH i am doing a URAL-4320 6x6 in orange civilian colors and it will be near pristine, just some road grime.

i better quit or my verbosity will cause folks to swear at the kidnappers for allowing me to escape.

It's all about 'artistic licence', really. I agree that you simply cannot make plastic and paint look like true life metal war machines. I've been in the Canadian Army for 25 years. In my time in operational units, WE constantly painted our vehicles as it was a matter of 'detachment pride'. I personally hand painted a 2.5 ton truck with a paintbrush, so, hard vs. soft edges is a matter for what the modeller wants to represent on his model. BUT, you are always gonna have that armchair general tell you that Canadian MLVWs sported soft edged black on green cam jobs, and, here's the photo reference!! My last LAV was solid OD green and the guy next to me was NATO standard, so, getting it right is going to always be difficult to understand by those other than the guy who builds the kit.

I like what most guys have said about adding interest to the kit. That's it really. It is plain and simply more fun and interesting to add depth to mono colour and chip and crack the heck out of military vehicles, IMHO, of course!!

Rob Sherman

I like what most guys have said about adding interest to the kit. That's it really. It is plain and simply more fun and interesting to add depth to mono colour and chip and crack the heck out of military vehicles, IMHO, of course!!

that it is. i will beat up ww2 trucks much more than modern trucks. we need to think about another canadian GB perhaps starting in january. i have a ww2 15cwt 4x4 and 3 6x6 "animals" in the stash.

Looking for some help and ideas from everyone. I put the two halves of my B-17 today and there are some gaps and bad seams. What's the best way to fill and smooth it out. I don't want to sand it to much and chance sanding off the panel lines. Thanks for any help on this one.

I'll spare you the color theory I studied when trying to figure out how to use Golden Fluid Acrylics on styrene which required the use of a lot of primes. (Well worth the effort I'd say.) However, when you look at something your brain really is processing a megaton of data that we call color and it gets very dense when looking at something with three dimensions.

I had a real education when I was trying to figure out how to create the elusive authentic gray-green-amber look of early war Zeros and (close) Vals. I had some really good photos of a real Zero that was being restored in North Dakota (back in Japan now I think.) I put an image into Corel Photo Paint and started moving the cursor around the body - it was remarkable how much the RGB numbers changed even when moving around in a very small area containing color that looked more or less the same. Then you start really looking at the thing and you can see, yup there are a ton of colors there. You don't notice it because you're eyeball is acting like a computer on everything, creating a kind of color mix that appears much more uniform than it really is. (Color nuts do argue about whether a color is what you see or not: people like Isaac Newton were fascinated by the spectrum so it's not really idle twaddle.)

If you watch the DVDs that Adam Wilder and Mig Jimenez made a few years back you can see the theory behind the modulation style. Wilder introduces one by showing how the Baroque painter Caravaggio (maybe my favorite painter - a very sinful Catholic - I know the type) tried to use complex shading to create shadow and a kind of three dimensional effect on canvas that went beyond perspective and simple shading.  The problem is that a figures in a Caravaggio don't look like a real people (they really weren't supposed to) but they sure take the eye for a ride.

To some extent the modulation effect makes sense if you're really good because it could evoke how an object would look if it was subject from a light source with a given degree coming at a given angle. (I've seen some Rinaldi models that almost do this - the guy's good.) The problem is that you've got to really know what you're doing to accomplish this, so to get some of the potential effect Wilder, Mig J and company have kind of watered down the thing. Ironically, I think if you follow the bouncing ball on one of their books or DVDs you actually end up with something that's pretty predictable. That's exactly what you don't want.  For a couple of years I've tried a number of things to break the visual plane of the model to give the finish an irregular look and it's helped my humble efforts.

Maybe these guys are pushing the envelope (and making a profit doing it) but when I look back at some old modeling books I picked up that show very crisp panel lines, lots of dry brushing etc I think, "that's a really good model." But it looks like a model with an unrealistic precision. (I think a lot of aircraft suffer from this still.)  I've been told that in years back judges at shows really rewarded the approach, but now the fancy stuff is gaining favor. Yet if I had to chose between the best of Tony Greenland or Rinaldi, it would be Rinaldi without hesitation.

In my case it's only part of the fun because I won't be as good as either no matter what. I'd be perfectly happy if some of my stuff equaled the better models that show up on this forum regularly.

Eric  

run a strip of tape down either side close to the seam. slather on and press in the putty. let it overlap onto the tape. as soon as you finish packing in the putty while it is still soft, , remove the tape. this leaves a thin line of putty. take some acetone and use a qtip to smooth the putty down so its just a bit taller than the plastic. let it dry.

when you are ready to sand put down tape again and start sanding. check the tape and when its frayed from sanding replace with more tape. this will help prevent sanding the panel lines. i bit more difficult than sanding gun barrel seams. i think there might be an FSM how to tutorial.

Interesting discussion!  I couldn't be "artsy" if I tried.

Jsmyth, are you doing OD and Neutral Gray or natural metal?  

For NMF, I like CA/superglues.  You can buff and polish them up pretty slick to prepare the surface for the metallic paint.

For OD/NG, fillers like Squadron's Green Putty are OK.

Here's a NMF B-17.  I used superglue on the wing seams and fuselage.

Here's an OD/NG.  I probably used superglue on it too.  I've come to prefer superglues for both assembly and filling obnoxious gaps, joints and seams.  They seem to give me better control, and the less filler you can put on, the less you have to sand off again.

I use gap-filling superglue (Zap-A-Gap); apply it; wait no longer than one hour (often less), then start to sand.  It's usually cured enough by then, but still soft enough to sand without using power tools to do it.

These are both 1/72, though.

Whatever you use, good luck with it.