Quoted Text

---

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

Gary

---

Thanks Gary, appreciate the comment.


@ Dennis - that's pretty much exactly how I paint. A mix of old and new (ish) techniques.

My point wasn't about boring finishes so much as why people that appreciate minimal weathering don't comment more on builds like that .... if everyone that's expressed a dislike for the "show modelling" trend of hyper modulation and overuse of "brand" weathering products commented when a simpler build was posted maybe there'd be more of them shown.

The other thing I think that's clouding the issue is that extreme modulation (not controlled), the weathering that's often associated with it (particularly rust) and the products designed for it have never really been about realism per se. One of the brands associated with founding modulation clearly mentions it's an artistic representation. Personally I don't like it that much. Sometimes it suits the subject while any times it doesn't. It is striking though and that's what it attracts so many comments.

Either way I appreciate all sorts of models, artistic and clean. I always try to take away something from them all that will improve my own modelling or finishing ability.

Brent

I think alot of the things that are actually seen in the field would look unrealistic to some if built as a standalone scale model. As an example, I've posted below two photos of trucks with mud smeared over the body as camouflage. It's not natural weathering and it obscures the contours of the vehicles (and would involve tons of visible brush strokes) all of which are things that many modellers would consider anathema, but it painting a vehicle with brushstrokes, not highlighting of contours etc would be a realistic representation of what's out in the field.

Quoted Text

---

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..?

---

There are plenty of ways a real tank gets dirty without obscuring detail. The only reason for putting tons of mud on a tank is if you're building a tank in lots of mud. But properly depicted dried mud doesn't obscure detail. It obscures paint and markings; but photo-etch detail no. in fact PE is a wonderful tool to depict properly beat up sheet metal fittings on tanks. And properly done dripping mud splattered on a photo-etched detail can be very evocative of a real tank in service.


But then how many modelers here have put all the storage box handles on an M48 or M60 in a perfect row? Going over any rough terrain can knock them all over the place except for the one with the lock on it.

Quoted Text

---

I think alot of the things that are actually seen in the field would look unrealistic to some if built as a standalone scale model. As an example, I've posted below two photos of trucks with mud smeared over the body as camouflage. It's not natural weathering and it obscures the contours of the vehicles (and would involve tons of visible brush strokes) all of which are things that many modellers would consider anathema, but it painting a vehicle with brushstrokes, not highlighting of contours etc would be a realistic representation of what's out in the field.

---

I am reminded of the picture of the SdKfz 232 in North Africa -- I believe it was in the first Panzer Colors book -- that was done like this; you could see the sweeping strokes where the crew had mixed up a slurry of fine dirt and water and spread it over the panzer grey to reduce its contrast against the terrain. It was captioned as an example of field-expedient camouflage, noting that it would wear off quickly, but could be reapplied as needed.

Interestingly Jonathan I had exactly the opposite experience; I stopped modeling and competitiing in the armor classes b/c it seemed that the judges looked right past my "real weathering" approach and always gave the prize to those models that had the "artistic" panel highlighting /modulation/ rust streak treatments.

Quoted Text

---

Interestingly Jonathan I had exactly the opposite experience; I stopped modeling and competitiing in the armor classes b/c it seemed that the judges looked right past my "real weathering" approach and always gave the prize to those models that had the "artistic" panel highlighting /modulation/ rust streak treatments.

---

Sorry to hear that man. It really sucks when others knock your work just because they don't like your style.

Personally, I go for the more artistic look with rust, streaks, and modulation. But then again, I don't care much for replicating a specific vehicle...rather I build and paint the way I want to (which I know is unrealistic). Now, I can certainly understand if you get enjoyment from doing the research and trying to make it realistic. That's awesome; it's just not my cup of tea.

What I hate is when people judge my work as inferior or ridiculous because they don't like the style I use. I just got back from a show recently and some of the judges reamed me because they didn't like the modulation I used, and that really annoyed me.

Again, I enjoy the art of the hobby, and I do respect the hours of research and building that the historical-focus modelers go for. I just wish there wasn't this "that's the wrong way to do ____" mentality for another person's style.

But that's just my 4 cents

... as if the modeler was trying to apply at once all effects that he ever heard of or read about.

Dennis, Thanks for that quote from your Uncle. It helps a lot!

Personally, I go for the more artistic look with rust, streaks, and modulation. But then again, I don't care much for replicating a specific vehicle...rather I build and paint the way I want to (which I know is unrealistic). Now, I can certainly understand if you get enjoyment from doing the research and trying to make it realistic. That's awesome; it's just not my cup of tea.

What I hate is when people judge my work as inferior or ridiculous because they don't like the style I use. I just got back from a show recently and some of the judges reamed me because they didn't like the modulation I used, and that really annoyed me.

Again, I enjoy the art of the hobby, and I do respect the hours of research and building that the historical-focus modelers go for. I just wish there wasn't this "that's the wrong way to do ____" mentality for another person's style.

But that's just my 4 cents

not only that but..rust itself is over done. Chipping also. The one area in WW 2 where chipping would be extensive is the desert war. Vehicles being sand blasted.
Vehicles would be dusty, muddy, dented up, some chips, worn areas around the hatches..no black soot at the end of the barrel..but inside the barrel would be silvery/bare steel , faded paint from the sun , some hit marks from the enemy (maybe) , watermarks from rain & or mud / wet or dry. That's about it.
Spare tracks on the tank would not be rusty..maybe if they sat for 20 years.
Countries used "good steel"...if they used crappy steel, then yes, paint would peel off badly & the whole tank would rust out. The Military Spec for Canada & USA is very specific / tedious when it comes to sandblasting & painting in real life. I imagine other countries standards are the same. What I'm getting at is...these vehicles could take a beating & would "not" rust..."everything" is covered in a protective coating..either zinc or epoxy primer. Some parts are "dipped" in big tanks of paint etc...some tanks use synthetic materials/ composites that do not rust at all.

After reading the thread I felt I had to add my 2cents. I'm a realism builder I was an armor crewman for 27 years on 6 different tanks so I build judged on my experiance. I know where the mud builds up, how a crew tracks mud and what rusts. Also the last tank in a colum is covered in dust the first tank is fairly clean, I was the #3 tank PSGs wing man always tail end charlie with Div 86. I looked like I was wearing khakis instead of BDUs. In addition don't forget plant material, if you drive through a field grass and plants get mixed in the mud and soil and they harden into bricks.
When I was in the 11th ACR we had to keep the tanks fully operational but we didn't run around spot painting. Tools were natural wood. One time they were painted for in IG inspection and had to be scraped clean thats what the IG wanted. Also tools are only mounted externally in the field in the motorpool they are locked up unless you want them filling someone elses inventory short fall. US tanks store all tools in the sponson boxes.
Also you can never get the tank totally clean you don't use soap and a scrub brush. You chip at mud and use a hose. A faint patina of dirt will remain.
In Fort Drum and probally elsewhere they recycle the wash rack water so after a few tanks are washed you are spraying the tank with dirty water so it leaves a film after it drys. Its also really nasty for wash rack hose fights and new guy baptisms.
I can appreciate the artistic paint jobs but I know its art and not for me. Its like comparing a gold plated m1 Garand to a surplus one that may have seen action. Its nice to look at but I'll take the shooter.
Contests are a rough thing every judge brings their own prejudice to the judging table. I gave up on them and build for me and an ocasional commission.

Tom

Thats why I started helping to judge at last years AMPS show. Tired of watching the artsy tanks win. I am a realist when it comes to models. Not a rivet counter but when it comes to weathering I look for realism. I have 20 some years of Artillery/Armor experience and a few years on Humvees so I call on that to help me. Believe me at a table of 4 judges (myself included) you would be amazed how you have to reign some guys in. But at least I know I have shared my opinion and maybe just maybe got someone to see things in a different perspective. You want a clean tank go to the assembly line. They are rained on, snowed on, baked in the sun, built for war time use not not clear coated by Detroit. We take the best care of them we can with what we have available to ensure they are FMC and will get us into battle as well as out of it. Yes some parts rust, yes some areas chip and they are always for the most part covered in some sort of dirt from top to bottom inside and out. Ok I'm done.

Personally, I go for the more artistic look with rust, streaks, and modulation. But then again, I don't care much for replicating a specific vehicle...rather I build and paint the way I want to (which I know is unrealistic). Now, I can certainly understand if you get enjoyment from doing the research and trying to make it realistic. That's awesome; it's just not my cup of tea.

What I hate is when people judge my work as inferior or ridiculous because they don't like the style I use. I just got back from a show recently and some of the judges reamed me because they didn't like the modulation I used, and that really annoyed me.

Again, I enjoy the art of the hobby, and I do respect the hours of research and building that the historical-focus modelers go for. I just wish there wasn't this "that's the wrong way to do ____" mentality for another person's style.

But that's just my 4 cents