As I return to the hobby, I've been more than a little surprised by the number of cool weathering techniques, materials, and paints/washes/etc.

But I've also been surprised at how much weathering seems to be applied to the standard armor model. Looking at pictures online of WWII era, in particular, it's hard to tell how much deep weathering has actually happened because of the generally low quality photos.

I can understand that combat wreaks havoc on a piece of equipment, but at the same time, we're talking about the military, not a Mad Max band of warriors. I was curious what the reality of combat is on this topic, so I reached out to my grandfather (the WWII 82nd Airborne paratrooper) and here's what he had to say (he's responding to an "overly" weathered model I shared with him as part of my question):

"It would take a few years of negligence to match the picture and from June 1944 to May 1945 is 11 months. Never have I seen corrosion or paint deterioration as shown. Keep in mind that jeeps were seldom on the front line for more than an excursion or so even in armored units and rear echelon maintenance was close and very good. Try to envisage Patton seeing the jeep pictured! Weapon and vehicle maintenance was always top priority."

So I guess my question is ... how much is too much weathering? How are people making decisions on what's realistic vs. what's cool?

this is my opinion as an amateur model builder and historian(sic).
I will not comment on what i have read in modeling magazines and blogs in the past 12 years.
It is my belief that most vehicles would not exihibit that much wear. A tiger maybe,as according to the histories of individual histories, most were damaged and put back into action numerous times.

It would also depend on the theatre of war. Sand will wreak havok on any finish. Any storms of or moving oarts will end up being sandblasted in a way. I worked at Sikorsky Aircraft back in the early ninties, and when Desert Storm was ongoing, that was one of the concerns.
For rust wear on AFVs in the winter,as far I know, it is all speculationj. Did the armies in WWII use salt for ice melting?
Like i said, this is an ametuer opinion. One who never served, but has been workming around heavy excavating machines for almost 20 years.

Not being combative here, just stating an opinion, but it's beauty in the eyes of the beholder.

I like the "gate guard look" or fresh from the factory doors. Some mud or dirt, maybe a black wash but the chipping and certainly the rust to me is a bit over done.

But, to each his own. Anyone can paint a tank a solid color and camo, but those that do the "weathering" correctly have the Midas touch!









~ Jeff

Jake,

From my perspective, there are two sides to weathering:

(1) Applying scruffs, chips and rust to painted surfaces.
(2) Applying dirt, dust and mud.

I feel most active military vehicles get dirty (VERY dirty) while in the field but their exposure to the elements may be short enough to not damage the paint.

Take this M1A1 Abrams for example:



It is very "weathered" but it actually is more #2 (dirty) than #1 (aged, rusty, chipped). If they wash the mud off it, the vehicle will look what we often call "factory fresh".

I seriously think that in order for a tank to be severely chipped, paint faded and rusty, it needs to have been sitting in a yard, exposed to the elements, for years. Which is pretty much what this vehicle looks like:



That is a Singaporean M551 Sheridan. I picked that as an example since Singapore is in the tropics, it rains a lot and when it doesn't rain the equatorial sun beats on the paint. Furthermore, it would accumulate algae and moss since the weather is very humid and patches of water will accumulate on the vehicle.

The example above is an extreme case of weathering.

An example of a vehicle left in a European yard and then salvaged to the dry Californian weather (residing in the Military Vehicle Technology Foundation):



Notice severe chipping with rust showing underneath.

So my hypothesis is: An active military vehicle will not see much Type 1 weathering but will see lots of Type 2 weathering. Type 1 weathering only occurs if the vehicle has been left unattended and exposed to the elements for a long time.

Either that OR it has to be operational in an environment that is very hostile to vehicle finishes, like a desert where abrasive sand will strip and rust the vehicle.

Cheers!
+Y.C.

This question comes up from time to time, and there is no one answer.

Vehicles on the Eastern Front took more of a pounding by the weather than those in other fronts, with the possible exception of North Africa. But most AFVs did not last long in combat, so their weathering was mostly a loss of whitewash during the Winter combat season, for example.

German AFVs either were destroyed, abandoned, captured, or recovered and sent to the rear (or even Germany) for repair. If you follow the accounts in Tigers in Combat that show the present-for-duty and what happened to various tanks, you'll see that most of them didn't stick around enough to get rusty and corroded.

"Weathering"... I am pretty much with those who think that stuff has become, shall we say, often over-done.

As a US vet in SEA and the FRG in the mid-70's, I'd say that I never saw either US or NATO vehicles so ratty-looking (in ref to damaged paint and chipping - LOTS of mud was available) as some are now portrayed in kits - and we did have vehicles which never saw a repaint over 3+ years I served in them! But that is only my experience, and I'm sure others will say (indeed, this topic having been around the table many times - have said) different, with all manner of detailed supporting descriptions!

And it IS hard to imagine, from what several of my older relatives have told me of their experiences in Europe and the PTO in WWII, Korea, etc., that the likes of Patton would ever have tolerated such!

This does not mean that paint did not fade, scratches happen, fenders and corners get bashed, etc. And stuff certainly did get really really dirty! Plenty of pics gloriously affirm General Mud was in command!

But I would agree with all who say it wasn't (generally) "Mad Max"! Vehicles mostly were maintained and, until shot-up, mostly not too dinged-looking.

That said, it is also true that specific theatres - north Africa in WWII, for example, were apparently really hard on paint from wind-blown sand, etc! The NA campaigns and some other specific events provide, I think, "fair and right" opportunities to wear away more then average. I've done that one myself on an old Horch DAK gun-truck, so I won't be the pot calling any kettles black there!



German panzers between SEP 1943 and OCT 1944 may have had a special place in the apparent wear and tear world... All tanks, StuG, and jagdpanzers (but not halftracks, open-top spg, armored cars, etc.) were coated with Zimmerit per regulation during this period. This stuff - a sort of cement-like coating - did chip and spall from bullet and shrapnel-strikes, etc. And such chipping would reveal the underlying primer-coats and maybe bare (and later rusted) metal. But that's a fairly narrowly-defined, multiple-theatre, temporal-based case, I think.

And the other general case I think heavy wear is realistic in is when dealing with stuff such as the whitewash applied on European WWII winter vehicles - this was not enamel and would rather quickly wash or wear off. So I think portraying worn whitewash probably fits well with what we see in pics...

But the extreme weathering we sometimes see is also an interesting and often very skillful and expressive technique in our modeling world - and who says we all have to try to be "right" all the time! I prefer lightly-chipped - but heavy dirt is A-OK, but that's only my pref. Have fun!

Bob

Yeah, I agree with Bob on this one. The only truly scuffed up active duty vehicle with rust and chipping that I can think of is this one:



On the other hand, this tank to my knowledge was kept on a ship ready for action, so it may have been exposed to salt air (lots of rust). Also, it was serving in a desert where the sand would become a perfect abrasive on exposed surfaces, causing more rust.

Cheers!
+Y.C.

No right answers here, just interpretation. Here's mine.
Tanks get filthy with mud and dust and grime. That's indesputable. I like my models filthy, but then again I have always lived filthy construction equipment.
As for chips- I have seen close up pics of Abrams in Iraq that had small chips. Paint can very well chip off metal when a soldiers boot hits it, or a bullet or scrapple hit. Plus, it is feasible that a troop hit his weapon against the paint while he was using it for transport. Also keep in mind that branches and rocks can get flown into the air by exploding ordnance, or just scraped against the vehicle.
As for rust streaks, exposed steal can rust, and if there is more rain, the water can drag the rust down.

I think the secret word is moderation. Strategically placed chips is realistic, to me at least, just like cakes of mud and stowage. That's just my opinion, feel free to have your own

Regarding this tank being kept on a "Prepositioning" vessel: my job in the Reserves involves inspecting such vessels; the rolling stock stored on these vessels is kept below decks,and as such doesn't get exposed to salt air. The tanks I have seen come off of these ships are pretty much in pristine condition, with the only rust being on track links, and the only other weathering being some dusty type grime from storage.

Hi

My biggest gripe with weathering is that I never know when to stop and quite often end up with too much weathering.

So for me the art in weathering is knowing where that fine line between enough and ruined is.

Paul

Yeah, what he said! After watching tanks in the field for even a day, the dirt, dust, mud levels are amazingly high. A few hours even will have a layer of filth over much of the tank, to the point where I under-represent it because I like being able to view the camo scheme. I will say on that I've been much inspired recently at the technique Joaquin Garcia Gazquez for haing a dirty looking vehicle that is still visually interesting and has the camo pattern shine through.

I think chipping is more of an artistic thing these days, certainly there are a lot of master painters out there right now who emphasize chipping to the point that they look like one of the desecrated Aberdeen Museum field queens. It looks cool and is a visual draw-in but whether it's realistic is a pretty heated debate.

My personal process is to do chipping and rust quite sparingly but ladle on the dirt and dust. It feels right to me. I will say that filters and oil paint dots are massively useful and well worth practicing up.

Matt

I try to keep it simple. I am by no means an expert modeler, I am a novice learning and slowly building. Having been in the US Army, I drove armor, M113, M577 and so on.

This is what it's all about for me. You have to ask yourself a few questions before you start the process, these simple questions will determine how much weathering you do.

1- How long has the vehicle been at war without it's crew being able to clean it, repair it or paint it.

2- How much of that work was done in the war zone. Did the vehicle go back to the rear for overhauls?

3- The place the vehicle was fighting, what war and when, as in year and what season.

4- How many or if any modifications were made. Was it rebuilt and re-gunned and sent back to war or rebuilt and sent to war 20 years later like a new vehicle rolling off the assembly line. For that matter was it a new vehicle on it's first day in war, like a D-Day Sherman coming off the boat. Or a brand new shiny T34 attacking the Germans.

I am concentrating on only Vietnam era US armor mostly and it really depends on those things. If it is the rainy season the mud color is different and you have more of it. Dry season and some mud but a lot of dust all over everything. Humidity rusts things fast and makes everything look a little darker, sit in the sun for a few days and it would bleach the paint out real fast, your vehicle could have a hundred shades of green paint and reddish mud and dirt in every crevice which also looks like rust.

During the war most units slapped on a 50 cal or M60 anywhere they could. Even used mini guns they got off of downed choppers, anything they could weld or strap on to add fire power they would and that's what makes it fun to build. I have a picture of a M551 Sheridan with dual 50 cals for the commander and a pair of M73's at the gunner hatch. Every M48A3 had it's fenders bent or even taken off from jungle busting.

So I make a list of what I am trying to portray and work from that. If I wanted a new vehicle out of the box on it's first day in house I know there would be minimal weathering, but what fun would that be?

At the other end of the spectrum are all the vehicles I see winning contests that look like models. They look plastic and painted for a model contest.

Not saying everything should be covered in mud and chipped on the edges, but some of the stuff that wins is just not realistic-looking.

Bill - I will agree with you. The over chipping....super modulation....etc, etc are artistic techniques....most times pushed by artists in the modeling area who have never spent a day with the real deal. It's art not scale.

It depends what you want....I strive to please myself and build a true "scale" model. Many are more interested in the show circuit and winning awards. To each their own

I think the current look will fade just as the "Verlinden look" faded.

Rounds Complete!!

If you live long enough you will see everything cycle. Things that become the new fad was stuff being done 10 years before.

I don't pay attention to fads, I do what an artist does, I follow my own mind. I do what I want to and if nobody likes it who cares, as long as I am happy with it.

I learned that being a musician for 45 years, some people thought I sucked and some I was the greatest. I just do my best at whatever I do.

I think it's fine to make a model look like a model, that's not easy to do. Weathering is difficult to get correct. The hardest part is painting faces on 1/35 figures, some can and some can't.

Step back and like any work of art if it moves you that's all that counts.

To be honest there are those whose work is in another class that few can ever achieve. I have not and probably will not ever reach that height. But I will keep trying.

Well, I'll add my two cents...

One thing that hasn't benn mentioned by anyone so far is the blurring of the line between "wethering" and "finishing for scale lighting." (Mike "Redleg12" touches on it.)

By this I mean, that a lot of what some might call weathering is not only done to show the effects of the terrain and age and wear and tear, but is also done in order to highlight or emphasize detail and vary the tones of the base colors in order to overcome the issues of scale lighting.

When you focus the discussion only on the technically realistic aspects of weathing, you forget the "artistic" aspect of it and how a model's finish is (or should be) a unified effort.

For example, take the "classic" wash and dry-brush techniques that Shep Paine advocated. These techniques not only show the effects of age and dirt, but also serve to add artificial (i.e. modeler added) highlights and shadows to the model in order to overcome the effcts of scale lighting. The reasons for this are the same as the reasons for adding shadows and highlights to figure models.

However, as modelers move away from reliance on just the classic wash and dry-brush for their "weathering," the problems of scale lighting don't simply go away. Newer techniques need to be employed in order to accomplish the same desired results of emphasizing shadows, planes and highlights on the model.

I agree that many "weathering" techniques are often overdone - that is the way they might be used on a particular model is counter-productive to a "realisitc" overall finish. A prime example is massive amounts of chipping substituted for what would have dry-brushing in the past. The modeler has chipped each and every edge, corner and protruding detail in order to emphasize them, making these stand out from the other planes of the model.

The trick I think is a subtile combination of all methods and techniques applied with logic and forethought. So, back to the example above, some chipping, perhaps even quite heavy, might be appropriate in some areas of a model, while other areas might require some good old fashioned dry-brushing to emphasize them, and still others might benefit from dark or light washes to make them stand out.

Chipping can add realism and highlights and emphasis if it is used in ares where there is logical wear and abrasion of the paint, but in other areas, this makes no sense, and some other weathering technique should be substituted to achieve the desired emphasis and contrasts.

The point is, that each technique should be selected and applied only where it is best suited while thinking through how the effect achieved will contribute to the model's overall look and what desired finished result is. The modeler needs to start the finishing process with a clear mental vision of what it is he wants to achieve.

I think a lot of modelers simply start following a suggested sequence of technique and willy-nilly apply this or that effect with little to no thought to the final result. Add to that that some techniques are quite easy to do (like chipping sharp edges and corners) and this ease of application leads the modeler to keep going when he should stop and switch methods.

Thirty years ago we would be having this same discussion, only them we would be critisizing a model that had been "over dry-brushed" creating a stark and too highly contrasting finish. In the end, no particular technique is good or bad. All that matters is whether it's used well.

The tool kit of available weathing techniques has gotten larger, but the need to use them judiciously hasn't changed.

My .02...

When I was stationed in Germany in the Mid 1990's we had some ratty looking equipment. The Bradleys' we had where from Desert Storm and where repainted I guess in 1991 or 92 and I got there in 1995. They had rust and chipped paint (from wear and tear on them) The M981 and M113A3's weren't that old either...and some of them had the CARC paint chipped down to the aluminum on them! The problem is that even with them looking generally ratty looking, they don't look "that" bad in the photos.

I have photos scanned in at home and I should post them, but in all seriousness, most German equipment or even US WW2 equipment wouldn't have lasted 6 months before being destroyed or rebuilt/repainted after being damaged.

Another thing is that "real world" weathering is quite boring in 1/35 scale. I had a friend of mine weather his M60's he was on in the NJANG the same way as the photos provided, but got skunked in judging because of that. Weathering done on models is more about a look then how it really happened, because how it really was done is quite boring or unattractive it is in 1/35 scale.

It is easy to get carried away. A precise weathering is so complex and difficult to achieved. You should have a great amount of understanding how nature acts/reacts on things or objects. Interaction of different materials, substance, elements, cicumstances, human activity etc.
As a modeller, the goal is to trick the brain in believing that what the eye see is the real deal. The only way to do this is a direct copy of the subject either on the spot or photograph and this is just impossible as we do not have an inch by inch picture. We tried to bridge this gap by haveing a good thought and planning in order to re-create what we think is the likely thing to happen.
Obviously we can notice if a particular technique has been over done or applied incorrectly. But most of the time we are doing an estimation. I think that one can only be as close to the real subject as possible by having a photographic reference of a particular subject the want and base their weathering on this. Not that you have to copy everything but just a guide to help you achieved the level of weathering you want. This way no one can say you have overdone it. You also have to consider your own preference. I myself like a well weathered model that gives the impression that it saw action. I usually just go searching for pictures and see how it looks like in the field and roughly be guided by it.

Some great opinions folks! Sounds like the following could be curated out of the discussion:

* There is no "right" answer
* Great weathering is a combination of reality (how things really get weathered in real life conditions) and art (how to make things look great/fun/awesome) in a personally appealing combination.
* Too many people ARE going way way too far in their weathering
* You have to take history into account (WWII tanks got turned far faster than Iraq War tanks, for instance)
* You need to pick a "story" for your model and represent that. (i.e. is this a vehicle fresh off the line, or has it been rebuild in the rear, or has it been successful at staying in the battlefield)

Great feedback, everyone!

Jake

It is an impossible question to give a fully covering answer. There are simply too many variables

I focus mainly on WW2 armor and often it is hard to determine the state of paintwork in most black and white pictures because as you say often they are too grainy or fuzzy. However not taking destroyed vehicles into account. There are plenty of pictures of vehicles that look like they have been standing in a dusty barn since they left factory and there are pictures of vehicles quite badly scratched up, Full of chips, missing complete fenders and in some cases even more heavy damage. But still pretty much doing their thing on the battlefield.
And everything in between most likely happened as well be it in front or outside the view of the camera.
If you can get your hands on the book Panzer of Kasserine. You will find numerous pictures of German vehicles in Service of the Afrika Korps that have been running ragged for quite some time. Missing wheels, Extremely damaged paint. Fenders bend, broken completely missing. Similar pics can be found in the hard to get German Armored Units at Arnhem from Concord. SdKfz 250/3 neu with missing fender and extremely dented scratched and scuffed storagebins. There are a lot of pictures of vehicles with Schurzen in very bad shape. Etc. etc.
Probably vehicles from this day and age will have better and stronger paints and there are enough pictures to be found of early vehicles in pristine condition. But in my mind the rule is... If you can think it up it probably already has happened.

I have not even touched the subject of nature's influence that is a whole different cup of tea. Sun, Sand, Rain all have their own effects.

And mud, dust and sand get everywhere. I have spend a considerable amount of my youth among heavy farm equipment. You can hose a vehicle down in the morning but you will have to do it again after an hour on the job.

Just the 2 cents of somebody who is not near being an expert.

Mike has expanded very elegantly on my thought so I will condense back....

What we do, scale model... is ART. Art by definition is an interpretation by the individual artist. Each individual is by definition different.

We try to hide this by calling the place we work the bench....it is a studio.

We talk about our stash rather than our preferred medium.

One artists perfection is another artists insanity.

So in conclusion....learn, expand you talent, we do this for fun, if you like it it is good and lastly remember all judging at shows for the most part are arbitrary and co precious...enjoy the friends not just the awards.

A few extra pennies

Rounds Complete!!

Can't agree more, and the same goes for airplanes. Often, rivets are weathered to the level that they would have to be 2 inch bolts to be so visble in 1/48 or 1/32 scale.

and i have seen dirty planes in my many trips to airshows and military airbases, but very rarely a plane where oil had been leaking from in buckets and had never been cleaned.

Exactly! We seem to be thinking along very similar lines here, Mike.

To your list, I'd add the elements of individual styles which can be combined or grouped into various schools of finishing techniques and results.

Most modelers either develope their own style or try to imitate the styles that they like (and thus develope their own unique style). In this way, each model builder is both an individual and a member of a school of finishing. The result is just what you might find in the world of "fine arts" where the debates are endless about the merits of one style and school over another. When is one result mere "fashion" and when does it become more than that?

And just as with those debates, there are actually no right or wrong answers except to let your own preferences be your guide. Build for yourself first and let your critics have their say. At the end of the day, the only person that has to be happy with your build is you.

Pre-shading, post-shading or Zinithal lighting? To chip or not to chip? Prototype paint matches or adjust for scale lighting? To modulate or to use filters or to do both? Dark washes with lighter dry-brushing or lighter washes made from pigments and forego the dry-brushing? Factory fresh, lightly weathered or heavily weathered? Etc, etc, etc...

Of course, the similarities between model building and other fine arts don't just end there. You only have to look at the way the rules sets and judging are done for model competitions to see that the influences of the debates about what is "acceptable" and "avant guard" and how those opinions sway the results and promote or advocate for one style or school over another.

And if you want to go there, then ask yourself exactly who are the trend setters and arbritrators of the most current model-building fashions and styles and how the commercial aspects of trends and styles influence things. From Sheppard Paine and Monogram Models, through Verlinden, and on down to today's "big names" in the model-building world, there's always been more than just a little influence from the money side of things on how we build and finish.

And what about the influence of magazines, books, and the internet? Does the use (or not) of some particular product or technique influence what's published and how? How often do we see an article in a magazine that shows a step-by-step for using some product or product line only to see a full-page advert for those same products in the same magazine? How does that influence what model builders and critics think is the best or most cutting edge finishing technique?

The great patrons of the Rennaissance art world who supported the masters of yester-year have their counterparts in todays model-building world. And just like those patrons of old had their own agendas for what art should be produced and why, the patrons of today also have thier own agendas.

An interesting discussion...

^^ That right there sums up my feelings on this topic.

It's a hobby, one that consists of little plastic models so I personally try not to take it too seriously. Who am I to say what is over weathered for someone else? According to what parameters do I base said actions on? Who am I to dictate what the 'proper way' someone spends their time should be.

It would be incredibly presumptuous of me to think I have the right to judge how someone else enjoys what they do.

Model shows have meant there have to be "objective" criteria for a subjective reaction. If a judge thinks you've weathered your vehicle too much, he'll mark you down. I remember judging in a show where one of the entries had a tread that didn't quite hit the ground completely, but was brilliantly done. Another was less-brilliant, but the modeler had embedded his AFV in mud up to its axles. The other judges said since we couldn't see his treads on the ground, but could see a minor defect in the other, we had to give the mud-bound AFV the prize.

Not to get too over-the-top, but Sophocles' "Oedipus Rex" got second prize at the annual Athens play fest in Ought Ought BC. The first place winner has not survived.