Am I ageing WW2 vehicles too much?

[GerryW]

Ok, so I might be opening a can of worms here, but it's crossed my mind when attacking/weathering kits.
Given that WW2 lasted roughly 6 years, in that time a lot of innovation/r&d/upgrades took place, plus attrition on the battlefield/air strikes/partisan activities, just how long would a vehicle last?
Next question, how rusty and worn would that vehicle be after being used and abused for 12 months?
Why am I putting faded paint effects and rusty metal on a sub 52 week old vehicle?

 

[AlanG]

Having read about the battles in Normandy, i'd be surprised if a tank there lasted more than 5 weeks. Dirty yes. Rusty...not so sure.

 

[GerryW]

Having read about the battles in Normandy, i'd be surprised if a tank there lasted more than 5 weeks. Dirty yes. Rusty...not so sure.

That's the sort of thing - I've spent a good few (enjoyable) hours getting the effect of faded paint and rusty metal. Just sat here drinking coffee this morning, and it's suddenly dawned on me just how much of that wasn't needed.

 

[Tim Marlow]

Depends upon the environment too Gerry. Desert areas are very harsh on paint finishes, temperate zones much less so. Not only that, armour plate etc is a very different thing to sheet mild steel, so doesn’t rust as readily. I think contemporary farm vehicles would suffer similar weathering, apart from obvious battle damage, so should be a good touch stone for ideas.

 

[David Lovell]

Ok, so I might be opening a can of worms here, but it's crossed my mind when attacking/weathering kits.
Given that WW2 lasted roughly 6 years, in that time a lot of innovation/r&d/upgrades took place, plus attrition on the battlefield/air strikes/partisan activities, just how long would a vehicle last?
Next question, how rusty and worn would that vehicle be after being used and abused for 12 months?
Why am I putting faded paint effects and rusty metal on a sub 52 week old vehicle?

Gerry weathering has become somewhat of a art form there are some eye blistering models being built a walk around the tables at shows is mind boggling wether realistic or not being your question ,I guess in the majority of cases not but its all in the eye of the beholder, its your model you do what you want and feel is correct in your own eyes no one will tell you that what you've done is wrong there are no rules you should be doing this for your own pleasure.
I find things like rear decking with enough stowage to fill a lorry ,covering air vents and filters ,even worse denying 360 rotation of the weapon, vehicles driven into courtyards to take a bit of time out and a brew ok but driving in is a massive no no but I wouldn't care about how weathered it was I think now we all look and accept the picture being presented. My biggest thing is why does it seem every model built has a bloody bucket hung on the back.
Please Gerry do what you want do it for yourself worrying about other people's compared to your own is the quickest way to fall out of love with this fabulous pass time. Dave

 

[Jakko]

If realism is the goal, then most AFV kits get far too much chipped paint and rust added to them by modellers — and possibly not enough dust, dirt and fuel stains. A derelict tank that’s been standing in a field in western Europe for a couple of years since the war, sure, that would have rust on a lot of parts that aren’t armour steel or welds (welding rods were usually stainless steel in the 1940s). One that was still in use would not have much, or any, rust on it: the crew would be performing regular maintenance on it and pretty quickly get rid of rust (or at least paint over it). Same with any chipped paint.

As Tim says, in the desert it’s a very different matter. I’ve read that the bottoms of tanks in Egypt and Libya would often be nothing but bare steel because of the scouring action of the sand, and certainly the tracks would be after any amount of driving through it (whereas in the mornings, after having been parked overnight, tracks often had a very thin layer of rust on them, caused by dew). Faded paint would also be far more common in a desert environment than in western Europe.

Whereas dust and dirt build up very quickly on operations, and crews would not be cleaning their vehicles to parade-ground condition after operations, especially if the weather was going to be bad anyway. Spilled fuel is another thing that leaves noticeable stains, and for much longer than dirt. Russian tanks were probably the worst in this, there are photos where it looks like the crew poured more fuel next to the filler cap than into it … American tanks also frequently have noticeable spilled fuel down their sides. I suppose German tanks would have few stains, as due to their general fuel shortage I would expect German crews to try and minimise waste.

 

[The Smythe Meister]

To quote a Famous Punk Band...........
"Oh you silly thing,you`ve really gone and done it now".............

 

[AlanG]

 

[outrunner]

I only use light weathering now and again on a few models basically because I am not very good at it and it is so easy to go over the top. Most of my models are just left with the basic paint job, let's face it, they were all brand new from the factory initially.

Andy.

 

[GerryW]

Depends upon the environment too Gerry. Desert areas are very harsh on paint finishes, temperate zones much less so. Not only that, armour plate etc is a very different thing to sheet mild steel, so doesn’t rust as readily. I think contemporary farm vehicles would suffer similar weathering, apart from obvious battle damage, so should be a good touch stone for ideas.

Yes Tim, I've read that desert sand will act like sand paper/a grit blaster, though not done any desert models for years. Sort of tempted now though.

Gerry weathering has become somewhat of a art form there are some eye blistering models being built a walk around the tables at shows is mind boggling wether realistic or not being your question ,I guess in the majority of cases not but its all in the eye of the beholder, its your model you do what you want and feel is correct in your own eyes no one will tell you that what you've done is wrong there are no rules you should be doing this for your own pleasure.
I find things like rear decking with enough stowage to fill a lorry ,covering air vents and filters ,even worse denying 360 rotation of the weapon, vehicles driven into courtyards to take a bit of time out and a brew ok but driving in is a massive no no but I wouldn't care about how weathered it was I think now we all look and accept the picture being presented. My biggest thing is why does it seem every model built has a bloody bucket hung on the back.
Please Gerry do what you want do it for yourself worrying about other people's compared to your own is the quickest way to fall out of love with this fabulous pass time. Dave

Dave, think that loading something up to the gunnels depends on how it's going to be presented - behind the lines, maybe but covering vents/cooling grills I'd like to think that I'd notice - must admit that I enjoy working with rust and faded paint effects, so might still do it.

If realism is the goal, then most AFV kits get far too much chipped paint and rust added to them by modellers — and possibly not enough dust, dirt and fuel stains. A derelict tank that’s been standing in a field in western Europe for a couple of years since the war, sure, that would have rust on a lot of parts that aren’t armour steel or welds (welding rods were usually stainless steel in the 1940s). One that was still in use would not have much, or any, rust on it: the crew would be performing regular maintenance on it and pretty quickly get rid of rust (or at least paint over it). Same with any chipped paint.

As Tim says, in the desert it’s a very different matter. I’ve read that the bottoms of tanks in Egypt and Libya would often be nothing but bare steel because of the scouring action of the sand, and certainly the tracks would be after any amount of driving through it (whereas in the mornings, after having been parked overnight, tracks often had a very thin layer of rust on them, caused by dew). Faded paint would also be far more common in a desert environment than in western Europe.

Whereas dust and dirt build up very quickly on operations, and crews would not be cleaning their vehicles to parade-ground condition after operations, especially if the weather was going to be bad anyway. Spilled fuel is another thing that leaves noticeable stains, and for much longer than dirt. Russian tanks were probably the worst in this, there are photos where it looks like the crew poured more fuel next to the filler cap than into it … American tanks also frequently have noticeable spilled fuel down their sides. I suppose German tanks would have few stains, as due to their general fuel shortage I would expect German crews to try and minimise waste.

Sort of take your choice of 'realism' and 'enjoyment'. Possibly the wrong phrase.
Staining by fuel is a 'nasty', and that's one of my 'goals' - getting the dirt/fuel mix running down from the filler cap, one of these days I might be able to do it!

I only use light weathering now and again on a few models basically because I am not very good at it and it is so easy to go over the top. Most of my models are just left with the basic paint job, let's face it, they were all brand new from the factory initially.

Andy.

Andy, is a good thought, and it's going to have been issued to someone as a new vehicle

 

[AlanG]

Yes Tim, I've read that desert sand will act like sand paper/a grit blaster,

Hence why sand is sometimes used as a medium for shot blasting paint removal. It's very good at the job

 

[JR]

Gerry.
As said its in the eye of the beholder, manufactures are having a field day selling us all sorts of brews to achieve the " look."
To me its part of the fun of modelling, you want to make it your own, oh and plenty of mud !

 

[Dave Ward]

Gerry,
I'm pretty much in the dirt first school, rusting might occur on small items, like shovels, buckets etc, but main bodywork, no ( unless maybe a crumpled fender ). What always amazes me is the amount of excess baggage that was roped & strapped on in any convenient space - all open to weather and dirt! Mud & general grime are the first priority.
Dave

 

[eddiesolo]

First off: Armoured vehicles tended to have a much thicker paint coat and despite crew climbing all over, dragging shells up etc they only got slightly marked. Of course more damage occured when hitting hard items, tress, buildings etc.

Softskins tended to be mild steel construction so damage was more.

You have to think of the vehicle you are working on and weak points: fenders, guards etc, items lower down on the chassis and hull. Bolt areas, stowage box hinges would all be prone to wear and rust.

The overall finish would fade with weather, rain, wind, sand, sun. 90% of these vehicles once they left the factory lived outside.

Now, they wouldn't be rust buckets, commanders or maintenance staff would repaint and replace broken items if they could. A tank is no good if parts seize or rust solid.

 

[Tim Marlow]

Some great responses here My pet hate is things that are chipped to death..it’s rare to see chipping in pictures, but sometimes every model tank looks like it’s been attacked by the enemy armed with chipping hammers…..

 

[Ian M]

The excessive use of chips and rust have always been a point of wonder for me as well. Countless models that would be great if the meaning was they should look 50 - 90 years old.
Modern armour the paint is almost bullet proof, so I have been told. I saw a documentary about the US MBT. If they had to be repainted the old paint was removed both chemically and with steel shot blasting as nowt else would touch it. So I guess a beaten modern US tank would not be chipped to bits and rusty.

 

[Gary MacKenzie]

A slight deviation , to today , A USSR vehicle, screen grab from news footage, the amount of wear and tear to paint on this amazes me.
Either their paint is very poor quality, or these vehicles are really old and never repainted?

 

[eddiesolo]

A slight deviation , to today , A USSR vehicle, screen grab from news footage, the amount of wear and tear to paint on this amazes me.
Either their paint is very poor quality, or these vehicles are really old and never repainted?

View attachment 447564

These vehicles could have been painted many, many times and had many lived outside under basic wraps. The vehicle in the picture is a AMPHI, APC. I have the RC version. YOu would be surprised how battered our vehicles looked when they came back from Afghanistan, the Chally's certainly needed a respray.

 

[Panzerwrecker]

I would answer firstly with whatever pleases your eye, it's your model, however, once posted on social media or on a modelling forum you are opening yourself up for critique and possible criticism.

If you do like to portray a dirty, rusty, or a well weathered vehicle in both respects, then it’s advisable to use some ref pics and try to achieve a good scale representation. Also, be aware of how the vehicle you model would be affected by the terrain or conditions it operated in/on.

Farm and construction machinery make extremely good references if no colour war time pics are available. Knocks and bangs, scratches, different types of bare metal exposure, dust and rain effects and dirt build up around wheels and tracks can all be found on many clear modern pics of these types of vehicles. I have been found on occasion, whilst sat in queuing traffic, taking pics of quarry trucks sat alongside me. Dusty vehicles are quite difficult to portray without overdoing the effect so it’s all good reference material.

It’s the same with the tools and materials available today. There is a bewildering range on offer. Whether you decide to make your own or achieve constantly good effects with mainstream brands go with whatever works for you but don’t be afraid to experiment.

Lastly be prepared to take advice as there is always someone out there who will have some valuable information to help make the process of finishing and weathering your models to a far better standard. That is what I have always loved about this hobby. The fact that most of us are completely happy in sharing new methods and techniques.

 

[Jakko]

Farm and construction machinery make extremely good references

I’m not so sure. Those vehicles are typically in use for years with little or no maintenance to the paintwork, whereas military vehicles in most armies do tend to get touched up when the paintwork starts to show wear. Plus, if you’re talking Second World War, then most vehicles would be at most a couple of years old, and in active theatres a lot would never reach anywhere near that age before being destroyed or captured.