ARMOR FANS.
Been building models for over 30 yrs. Doing regional/national comps for maybe 10 yrs. And this litte birdy still seem to choke my gullet. HOW many modelers actually, have seen aircraft and armor with all those scratches, dirt, nicks, and the ever heeped on mudd. Not many I think.
I dont want to seem critical of the followers of our GREAT HOBBY, but I dont ever recall my ACFT or my Armored vehicle ever being in that deplorable wear and tear shape. If it were your plt sgt. told you "you must be bored" "grab a wrench and a rag and get to work" I think we have to reflect on our brush strokes and be a little more suttle.
OK so shoot me if Im out of place.........but it was just a thought. Todd

I'm sure what you say is likely true of US armor, but for models of Russian, and even the typically detail-oriented Germans (after Barbarossa started) - well, they were usually far too consumed with important things to worry about appearance.

I say that because no way did either army have the incredible logistics behind them that the US army did, to pull them out of the lines and repair and refurb.
(You have to wonder sometimes how the panzer armies would have fared, had dufus put as much effort into battlefield recovery and logistics as he did in having super tanks developed. I mean, two of the worlds largest prime-movers to recover a single Tiger? Or a Tiger lost to break down trying to recover a Tiger? But I digress. )

So, IMHO, heavily weathered models of battle-beaten Russian, German, Jap, or, modern armor as used in a 3rd World army - look "as expected" all soddy and paint-chipped.

Restraint is the word. I agree with the idea that a vehicle on active duty would be maintained as much as possible. Some fading, some painted over repair spots, dust during the dry season and some mud during the spring or wet season. The fading may be intense depending on where the vehicle is. Having said all of that, it still comes down to what the builder of the model wants the vehicle to look like. I personally like the look of faded, dusty vehicles, so that is how I try to make mine look. I have seen vehicles I like that where much cleaner than mine and much dirtier. I do not really like a really muddy vehicle unless it is in a diorama and needs to be that way to help the idea. The bottom line is, does the vehicle work for the maker? I will get off( trip, fall?) my soapbox now. Happy modelling!
capnjock

ok now ever been 2 a field exercise?

in muddy scotland?

or someth..
sometimes I think vehicles are to clean no bogged down mud everywhere.....

but thats my 2 euro cts

I base alot of my vehicles on scenes in books etc, but re. weathering - A Churchill crewman in Normandy said that while the vehicles were mechanically on top line, but were not cleaned on purpose as the best camouflage was the natural environment that they were in at the time.

i base my work on photos.there is a lot of truth to the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words"

Try living on a tank for several months. No, not in a tent or hootch next to a tank, but on the top of the turret, back deck, front slope. No cots, just that little foam sleeping mat between you and 63 tons of steel, protruding bolts, uneven panels, etc. Not a whole lot of fun.

I've probably relieved myself off of the side of a tank more times than most of you have been next to one.

During field exercises in Hohenfels, our tanks looked like little battleships floating on a sea of mud. You couldn't see the road wheels on tanks travelling next to you. Mud was everywhere and if you were missing a fender or mud flap, chances are it was all over the top of the tank as well.

In the desert, the drifting sands were everywhere. Flies were everywhere. It was fairly nasty.

Hi I think it just depends on what the modeler is trying to depict on his vehicle or diorama scene as to how much 'weathering' they wish to put on said vehicle(s).

And since the very vast portion of photos taken during W.W.II are in black and white it does leave a lot to the imagination as to how to truly represent the weathering in actual colors, not even counting on the 'scale effect' of things as well

And of course, for those who never served in the military or saw any action if they did, we kind of have to go on what these photos show to us, or what we may imagine we see in them, combined with, again, what we are trying to achieve and how well we can do it with our talents that vary with each and every one of us.

I remember an interview I read once of a British para who served during the Market Garden campaign about what he thought of the movie "A Bridge Too Far" when it first came out and he said that it was okay, but in the real battle the soldiers, and everything else, was a hundred times dirtier.

So to each his own. A happy medium will come about.

Take care, sgirty

You never see this in movies. How do you relieve yourself during battle when inside a tank ? Probably adds to the ambience (++) ! Or when you discover your stomach can't handle the veggies you had for lunch ... when you're in the hot seat of an F16 ?

To All,
My post was not to offend anyone. I deffinately agree w/ a lot that has been said.
I speek from experiance. I've lived in "THE BOX" on said behemeth, all over the countryside of VILSEK< HOENFELS & GRAF, so I think the level of ill repair is fitting for a diorama to potray the scene.( Note taken). ...........The relation to real life versus our hobby presentation is really what I was inquiring about. Hey what they heck THIS GREAT hobby is all about what we all enjoy. We all hold history in our hands. Now get back to the bench!!!!LOL