Looking at pic's of AFV's in the galleries and in the forums, I noticed that some people add a lot of rust to their models. This seems to be more prolific with German Armour than Allied, probably because rust doesn't show as well on a background of OD.
This rust can range from scratches to 'runs' down the side of a turret or vehicle.
Is it me, or is the likelyhood of a lot of rust on a 'working' AFV rather unlikely? I can't imagine that a crew would maintain their vehicle so bad that rust could take hold, never mind being allowed to do so for a prolonged period of time. How long would it take for armour plate to start rusting when exposed to the elements? I'm not refering to those auxillery fittings, like lights or smoke launchers, which would have been made of normal steel, and therefore rusted easily and created the 'rundown' streaks.
Is this something that is taken into account when a model is judged in a comp.?
I do like the effect sometimes, if very subtle around steel fitttings, but not when I see big patches or scratches with rust. Bit like painting a tank orange and saying 'It could have happened..'
Just my ramblings, maybe I should go out more often, or go to bed when I come home from work.. Jim, how about a wide eyed, "I can't sleep" smiley for us creatures of the night.. :-) :-) :-)

Cheers
Henk

I agree with you Henk. Typically modellers tend to over do the rust (by 10 yrs or so) but realism aside they sure look cool, and I'm always tempted to go alittle overboard myself. I think maybe because the results are so pronouced and the rewards for alittle patience is so great!

Bruce

Henk, I totally agree! This effect is totally overdone. It takes a while for armored plate to rust as you pointed out. Some rust will occur but, not so much that the whole turret or hull will show rust streaks. The exhaust system is the only place that significant rust might occur frequently. I guess it is a matter of personal prefference in the end.

Perhaps you can post a few examples of how much rust you would like to see? I for one really only drybrush rust but hit hinges and exhaust and track

I agree too. I think because its such a dramatic effect to many people go overboard on it.

Esp. when it comes to tracks.

Alan, it's not that I want to see a specific amount of rust (or not), but I was just musing that sometimes the effect is rather overdone. Slug mentions that the effect looks 'cool' and I do agree that the effect can be very attractive. The object of my post was not to put down the efforts of those who add rust to their models, just that the amount of rust is not accurate, an issue which we sometimes go to great lenghts to assure, just look at the various treads debating the deployment of certain units and vehicles and if the markings would be correct etc. etc..
The question of accident damage is similar one, some models (including mine... ) have a vast amount of scrapes, scratches and dents added, which would have been repaired or repainted almost immediately in the field. AFAIA tanks 'retreated' to a rear lager for the night, to refuel and restock their ammo and take care of maintanance. Also the Allies had good supply lines and didn't need to keep badly mauled vehicles in the frontline.
It's just that of late I have started to build without adding as much damage, as since I have been researching on the net, I have realised that most vehicles were not damaged to such an extent. Just a personal opinion, and no slur on those who do portray damaged/ rusted vehicles.

Cheers
Henk

I agree too Henk. I am planning on repainting a ready to go 1:18 scale Tiger, so I did a lot of research lately to figure out what they exactly looked like.
Rust was often depicted in the models that I found and I had the same sceptisism as you.
I even wonder about the tracks in fact...Sure they rust quickly I guess, but isn;t the rust worn off practically immediatly as soon as the vehicle starts moving?
Exhausts may be be a different thing though...

Nice topic! thanks for bringing it up!

Frans

I have to agree. You could probably expect a bit of rust on the tracks (not around the moving parts). You would probably have 'runs', but not rust 'runs'. The average tank in WW2 would probably be less than 2 years old (just a guess), and max. 5 years, and the older tanks would have changed paint scheme several times, so....

regards,
Steen

Henk, I agree too. IMHO a lot of people overdo this. While I can appreciate the skill that goes into achieving these effects, I have to say that from photographic evidence they are not realistic.
Armour plate is high grade steel, it doesn't just rot like normal mild steel. I have seen old vehicles for scrap that have been sitting in a field for years, & they can look quite bad, but not a vehicle that's in constant use.
Like wise the paint chipping that seems to be the fashion @ the moment. I've seen some that make the vehicle look like it's been sitting in a scrapyard for years.
If one is looking @ late war German vehicles, for instance, they just weren't old enough to get that battered, e.g. Battle of the Bulge tanks were factory fresh on the whole.
I accept that vehicles used on the Eastern Front got a real battering, mainly due to the lack of metalled roads, but once again, the same applies as to service life.
Personally I don't tend to weather my vehicles that heavily, mainly confining the effects to "dust". My logic for this is that the unit I'm modelling fought mainly in the West, where there was a good road network, & even tracked vehicles will use a good surface if possible, because the fuel consumption skyrockets off-road. Also the weather is not so extreme, so a heavy dust coat is a reasonable catch-all, I think.
One also has to add the human angle. I think most ex-servicemen will agree that out of action the unit sergeant-major will find something to keep the men occupied! In a mechanised unit, the maintenance , repair & sprucing up of vehicles is an obvious first task!
Yes, I accept that service will wear paint, but only on projecting corners, & heavy traffic areas. Also when "battering" a tank, apart from battle damage (e.g. shell hits) you have to consider what it's likely to hit that won't come off 2nd best, & the answer is "not much"!

Further to what I said above, I've also been looking closely @ construction type vehicles I see on the road (dumpers, bulldozers on low-loaders etc - how sad am I?), & even quite old vehicles don't have that much rust on them. Now I know these are more modern vehicles, but of course they are also moving faster, & they tend to be less "oily" than old vehicles were.
As regards the tracks, most tanks seem to have them painted a gloss black to begin with, this wears off very rapidly, except in the nooks & crannies, but because the track plates are quite hefty castings, they then seem to take on a mid-to-dark brown surface rust, that wears off to bright metal on contact areas. When the vehicle stops for any period, this surface rusts, but as soon as it sets off again, this is rubbed off. Even vehicles with rubber tyred road wheels seem to polish the treads where they run.

The same is true of trucks. Most would not be allowed to get to the stage in either weathering or rusting without some officer having his troops all over it with paint brushes and paint hand painting it or in the nearest river/dam washing it even if it is only in the short periods between battles.

I have pics here of 3 or 4 soldiers handpainting a truck watched by an officer (Australians)

So yes it seems everything in weathering a model is overdone.

I think that the rust cannot be exaggerated therefore can give to the vehicle the effect of rotten, what is not truth. I used in some points such as: hinges, handles, handspikes. I more exaggerate a little in the exhaust pipes and tracks. Taking in consideration the climate and the place where the tank acted.

People after my own heart!

I've been saying this for ages. Modelers have taken to using other models as resources instead of archival photographs. You see a model with a little weathering and rust and think it looks good so you adda a little more. Yours is seen by the next builder who wants to make his look more "realistic" than yours so he pushes the envelope. Another guy sees the third model and pushes the envelope even more. Before you know it, the standard is building battered, mud covered rust buckets.

I think a lot of the trouble started with people looking at the pictures of tanks setting in the junk yards for 60 years, and with this being the only other thing outside of a completely refinished, they took it on themselves as this being what they looked like, not thinking they have been setting for 60 years.

You know how first impressions work, but as you have pointed out, and more and more are noticing. Now if you look at most of the models, outside of they got them in running condition, but the rust looks like they did when they were found the real item in the fields, still all rusted up, all they done was take away all the weeds that growed up around them.

Now bare metal will rust fast, but it will be of the orange powder kind, not the deep pitted dark, that took 60 years to produce.

Now on modern semi trailers, lets take Fruehauf, cause I own one, and I know exactly how the frame is. From the factory they are junk paint, always have been, they start to rust by every cross member in the corners by the welds the very first month you own it.

The only way to stop that, is like a few of my friends did. They had it taken to a paint shop brand new, and had the frame repainted as soon as they bought them, with good paint, and primer, and done right.

I didn't, so within 5 years some of the corner angle pieces have rusted holes through them, cause they are paper thin to save weight,

I have a spread axle van, and the heavy beams they put under to support the axles, won't hold paint to save my life, I even had them painted 3 or 4 times, and they keep pealing off, but everything under the floor is steel, but everything above the floor is aluminum.

All the other trailers have the same trouble, in the pockets, and joints, it seems as though they can't get the steel clean enough to hold paint well. Then they build them so fast, it is like they don't care. This holds true with flatbeds and drop-decks as well

Cause my friends that had theirs taken to other professional painters to repaint while it was still new, theirs held up, hardly no rust after 5 years, maybe where something might of hit it, and knocked some paint off is the only reason theirs rusted in a few hard to see places.

You go look at any steel flatbed, and look at the paint, there will be more paint chips then you can count, from the constant loading and unloading, and under it, they start to rust real quick at every corner, weld and joint.

Now at a distance you don't notice it much, but when you stand close, you will see all this, cause they use the cheapest primer if any, I've always wondered about that and paint. Another thing Colors I don't know about now, but it used to be only a few different colors you could choose from to, I guess that cheap paint only comes in a few colors. But all the rust will look like little chips, or scratches, until you look at the frame, then it starts in the corners and ends and works out after the first month of use.

That's like Mack Tractors for a long time you could get any color you wanted as long as it was red blue or green.
Kerry

Kerry, thanks for that, not owning anything bigger than the average family car it's instructive to hear from someone with experience of real working vehicles!
I do have some experience of classic stuff, & it's noticeable that older stuff tends to be more heavily built, if you look at old trucks, they have a ladder frame that is really thick & would take forever to rust through, especially when it's steeped in oil, since the engines always used to leak a bit even the best of them! Like wise the body work is also thicker so there's more metal to go at.
I have a mate who is part owner of a 1940 21/2 ton Jimmy, he says the engine (all cast iron) was built to last 5000 miles before overhaul, the presumption being that there was no point in making it last longer as it was likely to be a casualty by then! So I don't think being rusty from long service would be a feature! Like wise the service life of a Churchill engine is about 500 (yes 500!) miles before changing.
Maybe the peripheral parts like bazooka plates & sandshields might get battered & rusty, they are made from much thinner steel, & are disposable to some extent, but the main carapace of the tank I think not.
With some of the more "ersatz" vehicles, e.g. German Marders & other SP guns, which have much thinner plating, there may be some rusting of the top half, but not the chassisto the same extent.
Sepp Dietrich actually presented Iron Crosses to the workshop personnel of 1 SS Pz Corps in Normandy for their efforts in keeping his tanks running. I'm sure damaged vehicles would have been plundered of usable parts (e.g. skirts) to get a less damaged tank back into line.

It's good to see that I was not alone in my observations. It's one of the things which is great about this hobby, that it constantly evolves. Some of the models that where achived thirty years ago by pro's, are now build by you and me, with a little help of PE and /or resin. The proliferation of the internet has made it possible for thousands of (everyday) modelers to exchange their views, techniques and opinions as if they were chatting over a cup of coffee.
Whereas ten years ago the only information and reference was available in magazines, which would inevitably feature the work of only a few pro's. There would have been less variety off, and therefore experimentation with, styles and techniques. I think what we see is a snowball effect, which has gathered quicker because of the influence of the internet. This is a good thing, as it keeps the hobby fresh and alive, and the skills learned for a effect can be used for other effects. And who says that all tanks should be uniformly green?
As for me, seeing as I do like the rust effect, will incorporate something in my next dio that requires a lot of rust, such as an abandoned old vehicle or something... For example Faust's little vingette " Gold in the Junkyard" is a perfect example of what can be achived if you think a little out of the box.

Thanks all for your replies and participation

Henk

This is a very interesting discussion, and a very timely for me as I (finally) have a few models moving though the paintshop, and will be undergoing weathering, etc. in the near future. Much food for thought here, and I appreciate all of the comments to date.

Rust is something that I'd only apply if I thought that the circumstances that the model is placed in demands it. Most WW2 equipment didn't last long enough to rust unless it was hit and/or burnt in some way as heat adversly affects the resistance of iron and steel to corrosion.
Mud & dust was an everyday occurance and would only be cleaned off if the vehicle driven through standing water or the crew was in a rear (rest) area and had the time to do so.

I fell the same about paint chipping. I have seen some kits that look like they weathered a six day sand storm. Some chipping does occur, but I feel people sometimes go overboard with the chipping. Maybe it's just me, but that's the way I see chipping.

Patrick

Like Cliff said, he has some pictures of some officers over seeing the troops painting the vehicle if it started to look a little bad. They had to keep these machines in the best running condition they could, their lives depended on it.

Then looks is good for moral. About looks that even holds true today, the company I was leased to, you could lease on any age truck just as long as it was in tip top running condition, and another main thing, it had to look good.
A guy came in with a truck that he bought the sleeper from another truck, but had good paint on it, and the cab had good paint, and he had a wreck, and had to put on a new front end making that a totally different color, so he had 3 different colors on the tractor, white fenders, blue cab, and green sleeper.

Now all the paint was new, but none of it matched, so they wouldn't let him sign on until he got it to match, and look good, just because it had new paint didn't matter, it also had to look good.

So you know with the camouflage and everything back then, they would keep up pretty good to, like they said in most cases the German tank carried the equipment on board to paint as they go, I've heard some discarded them, but I'd imagine not all.
Kerry

You're dead right mate. King Tigers at least had a compressor fitted in the engine bay & were provided with a spray gun so they could be repainted in the field. I've seen the pictures!
It's noticeable amongst the elite units that their vehicles tend to look good and they tend to be painted with similar schemes to achieve uniformity. I'm sure that a lot of this is "bull", but it has it's place where morale is concerned.

I forgot to mention I also like to rust areas that are damaged since many times there is damage through the paint, primer, etc all the way to bare metal. Hence a little more rust