I often tell my art students, quoting Picasso, that "art is not truth, it is a lie that helps us realize the truth" and I guess this, to some extent applies to our finishing techniques. ...

Hi everyone, I'd appreciate if someone could explain why putting so many rust streaks on a typical AFV model became nearly a tradition lately?

No, I'm not talking about specifics of the "Spanish style" (Mig Jimenez and Co.) which, at least as far as I could guess, assumes that the more of different "effects" you put on the model the better (and more "realistic") it should become.

I just wanted to understand why so many of our fellow modelers think that paint chips always cause rust streaks on a typical AFV.

I personally saw a lot of real tanks and halftracks exposed to some severe weathering, I have studied lots of archive photos - and my personal experience was that armor steel does not get rusted easily.

The last example that I could see was about a year ago - when in the Armed Forces Museum in Moscow, Russia several tanks had their bare metal armor fully exposed (all paint and underlying primer coats were completely removed during the restoration work) to rains, etc. for over a month - and there was nothing near to what we could see leaking from under those tiny paint chips on many models

...... That rusty USMC Abrams tells this story: it had done water fording in heavy salt water. That rusts metal fast. But it rusted joints and bolts and not panels at random ......

......Verisimilitude?

Quoted Text

---

...... That rusty USMC Abrams tells this story: it had done water fording in heavy salt water. That rusts metal fast. But it rusted joints and bolts and not panels at random ......

---

My attempt at replicating the look (not the actual vehicle) of that particular Abrams .... I must admit there's some random streaking and fading in there. It's just my way of building up the layers of wear and tear.

Brent

And as an aside why don't more people comment on well built but plainly finished models? If people are thinking that current modelling trends have been too heavily influenced by the barrage of coverage and volumes of glowing comments over heavily weathered models then why aren't other builds better supported to redress the trend?

If you think that armor takes a beating, check out any color, or even black-and-white photos of steam locomotives that have seen long, hard use. Many American steam locomotives that were built at the turn of the 19th Century into the 20th, didn't see the end of their careers until the late 1960s...

Quoted Text

---

Not sure however about mud hiding the "true self" - if part of its duty is to get covered in mud but still be able to operate (after all, that's one of the reasons for using tracks) then that is a part of its true self.

---

Maybe I was not 100% clear on what I meant by a "true self". Let me be more specific now.

I meant that when building models modelers usually pay lots of attention not only to how it looks in general (= to weathering and painting), but also to how precisely it represents the prototype.

A prototype could be, depending on what is being built, either a specific unit (e.g. the one specific vehicle that was seen on photos, etc.) or just a "standard" unit of a particular time of production (e.g. an STZ T-34/76 made in Aug. 1942; or a KV-2 mod. 1940 built Oct.-Nov. 1940, etc.).

All these units have loads of unique "facial features" - like type of track links used, type of road and support wheels, type and shape of fenders, hull plates, number / location / type of stowage boxes, weapons type and location, even turret weld numbers / locations, etc. Features that are so bold and "screaming" that errors there look as obvious as seeing Luke Skywalker with AK-47 instead of a lightsaber

And correctly replicating those facial features is one of the most important aspects (if not THE most important one) of building a model of a particular prototype - of course, if one wants to build a TRUE authentic _model_, and not just "glue together a tank".

If all of this is covered by extensive mud, all of the defining characteristic of a particular model, its facial features, are hidden. Thus ruining days and months of precious work of studying a particular prototype and then correctly replicating it in a model.

Sure, I agree with what Phil has just written- That excessive mud covers up A LOT of the beautiful detailing that we get right "out of the box", and the additional stuff that we add to our models in the way of resin bits and pieces and PE. I happen to be one of those modelers that LOVES PE, and I have no qualms about using it, PROVIDING IT IS AN ACCURATE representation of what should be there. The same applies to resin. WHY go to all the trouble of adding/correcting detail, when it's only going to be obscured by adding 6 pounds of mud..?

Quoted Text

---

And as an aside why don't more people comment on well built but plainly finished models? If people are thinking that current modelling trends have been too heavily influenced by the barrage of coverage and volumes of glowing comments over heavily weathered models then why aren't other builds better supported to redress the trend?

---

A plainly finished vehicle can be simply percieved as being boring. There is nothing to bring out the details, to break the monotony. Just look at aircraft models, all that pre-shading and washing going on. Another problem I see that the photos are not stellar and often dont do justice.

WOW Brent....Fantastic Abrams build fella!!! BTW, that photo of the Abrams is my favorite. I hope to build one similar some day.

Gary

If you want to add interest to your model, rather than just generic streaks and other unreal fantasy how about using the weathering to actually tell the story of the vehicle? The character as it has grown over time?

That rusty USMC Abrams tells this story: it had done water fording in heavy salt water. That rusts metal fast. But it rusted joints and bolts and not panels at random.

I crewed tanks where I knew every stain and rust streak. Yeah those stripped bolts were from changing the head light and over a week those exposed bolts rusted. Refueling there was a nasty stain and the chain on the cap rusted up and steaked. Slamming the loader's hatch chipped the paint and a week of rain put little chips of rust on the hatch lip.

Interest? How about that phantom wet spot on an otherwise dry vehicle? The effects of that one mud hole your driver just had to find on that last road march that totally ruined your beautiful coat of dust. Dust over mud over wet dirt over dust? More visual interest than any of your arty fantasy pieces.

When things get dirty they grow a character, but random streaking and artistic fading is paint by numbers as opposed to filling an empty canvas with color.

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

And as an aside why don't more people comment on well built but plainly finished models? If people are thinking that current modelling trends have been too heavily influenced by the barrage of coverage and volumes of glowing comments over heavily weathered models then why aren't other builds better supported to redress the trend?

---

A plainly finished vehicle can be simply percieved as being boring. There is nothing to bring out the details, to break the monotony. Just look at aircraft models, all that pre-shading and washing going on. Another problem I see that the photos are not stellar and often dont do justice.

---

Oh, wait a minute! What's wrong with pre-shading? I don't care for overall washes- They're messy, wasteful and time-consuming. It's not just aircraft that get "all that pre-shading and washing". Many armor and soft-skin builders use these two techniques as well, with beatiful results. As to monochromatic finishes such as US OLIVE DRAB, BRITISH BRONZE GREEN, and RUSSIAN 4BO GREEN, they don't have to be "boring", if one follows a few basic techniques in order to make them "interesting"...

Take for instance a "boring color" such as US OLIVE DRAB, British Army BRONZE-GREEN or Russian 4BO... These colors, if done the right way, can be anything BUT "BORING".

I like to mix and spray on a DARK BASE color, then I spray on my "new-from-the-factory" color, taking care to leave the base color in it's original form in places that will naturally be darker, as would be seen in "shadow effects". With my 1/48 aircraft, I combine the techniques of pre-shading and the judicious use of weathering powders to achieve the illusions of depth, shadow, etc.

On my 1/35 stuff, I augment this in places by using darker or even BLACK weathering powders. Then, I like to modulate my "factory color" by airbrushing successively slightly lighter colors, especially in areas that are exposed to the sun; at most, I use 2 lighter variations of the "new factory" color. The lighter modulation colors are sprayed on to depict SLIGHT fading, not distressed to the point of making the paint look like it's been exposed to desert sun for 100 years! Once the modulation has been done to my satisfaction, I like to apply a few scuff marks.

I also like to use a No.2 or 2 1/2 graphite pencil to show wear around the hatch orifices, and on metal handles, latches and on the cutting edges of my axes and spade shovels.

I like to apply ARCHER's Dry Transfers to depict my serial numbers, national, divisional, and company insignia. I then spray a coat of TESTORS 1960 Lusterless Flat, or my own mix of FLAT, with a few drops of DUST, not too heavy mind you, because I don't want to obscure the colors that I've sprayed on my subject, just to seal everything up.

I like to use a pin wash in my grilles, gratings, and any finely depicted recesses, such as would be seen in the case of a closed hatch cover. I also use a thinned version of my pin wash around bolts, hinges, clasps, etc. I keep the rust to a barely perceptible minimum, confining it to VERY FEW places and you wouldn't even see it, unless you were looking hard for it. I keep my rust very light, precisely because of the same reasons that some of my fellow modellers have expressed throughout this thread. Same goes with streaking- I keep that to an absolute minimum, just as well; barely perceptible. At this point, I start in with my weathering powders, going in places to create a tiny bit of "shadow" and also to depict depth around features that stand "proud" of flat surfaces. This, again, is meant only to enhance such things as hinges, latches, etc. I also use my weathering powders to depict road dust, dirt, and a bit of dried mud in the lower hull areas, suspension, sprockets, idlers and road-wheels. Then, I revert to an older technique that many modellers seen to have forsaken in the last 10 years or so: That is dry-brushing...

I will dry-brush only the highest points of my raised details, and once in a blue moon, to depict the dirty scuffing that tankers leave behind with their boots in selected places. I will also highlight my weapons with graphite and POLISHED STEEL, these places being the high points, receivers, muzzles and edges of my "Parkerized" MGs and the muzzle of my main gun, in the case of tanks. I keep my dry-brushing very subtle, as it should be. The whole "megillah" is once again subjected to a coat of FLAT CLEAR, and this will very nicely blend it all together in a nice effect of uniformity.

THAT'S how I avoid the "boring" looks of my US OLIVE DRAB, BRITISH ARMY BRONZE GREEN, and RUSSIAN 4BO GREEN. You'd be surprised at how "interesting" these colors can be made, just by following a few basic techniques. It's not that hard; all one needs is just a bit of practice, and RESTRAINT...

And for those of you who like to put their talents to the test with "artistic license", try figure painting. There are several excellent publications out there that will show you the proper way to paint figures, and will dispel your fears of not being able to make a fine job of your efforts. These techniques can also help you to create realistic-looking stowage on your vehicles. May I recommend OSPREY's "BILL HORAN's MILITARY MODELLING MASTERCLASS of FIGURE PAINTING"- you'll NEVER regret buying this book, TRUST ME...

Just wanted to share some AAV rust ...