In a recent thread, Roy Chow made an excellent comment about painting camo on German vehicles. I wanted to comment there, but didn´t want the thread to go off topic, so I started a new thread.



I must say I agree that this is all very logical, and would probably be the realistic way to make such camo. This is one topic of many, that I have been reading different opinions on lately ... drybrushed whitewash with damp pastels for a true finish versus sprayed on "perfect" whitewash ... to chip or not to chip ... pioneer tools being natural or vehicle colour ..etc.
I personally admit, I´ll do something wrong to please the eye, rather doing it right, and not being entirely happy with it. Im not trying to open up old wounds or start a "right and wrong" war either, but I when I thought about Roy´s post, eventhough it sounded sensible, logical and most likely accurate, I dont think I could ever bring myself around to, breaking up a camo scheme, for realisms sake, if it didnt look appealing to me.
But as modellers, is it better to have irregular camo with natural "scale" breaks to ensure realism, or have a perfect technique that consistently provides the unbroken 15 foot camo snakes? If looking at a scale model would the realistic finish give the impression of a failed airbrush technique, or does a perfect camo give the impression of artistic license?
Is a well done technique as important on a scale model, as it being 100% historically accurate?

It really sounds logical indeed. I also sometimes wonder when I look at some models: sure, absolutely beautiful, but this is a war vehicle, not some vehicle to parade around. It's supposed to be a war machine, and camouflage is a purely functional thing, intended to increase the changes of survival of the crew. And the crew wouldn't spend more time and effort then necessary to achieve that goal.

On the other hand, we musn't forget that we're building models, not the real stuff. And building models is all about effects, and tricking the eyes of the observer (trompe l'oeil, you know). No tank had drybrush, no tank had washes,... but these things dó help the model look more realistic.

So, the 'best' approach lies probably somewhere in the middle of pure realism and complete artistic license. And so modelling becomes a metaphor of life, as the truth always lies in between

I think that it all comes down to the builder.

If your going for realism or "Gucci'ness" i think either way is acceptable to me.

cheers

I hold modelling to be a hobby, an interest, a diversion, i.e.- fun. For some reason I like looking at things in miniature, and models give me the chance to integrate several craftsy aspects into one: gluing pieces together and painting them. I admire those who strive for accuracy and authenticity. I find that personally, however, I cannot do so without pain and consternation setting in when I do not achieve 100% accuracy. So, I often invoke my artistic license. Although my models may not wholly represent an actual tank, ship, or plane that existed, they remind me of them. In that respect, I may not put in as much time, attention, and research as others, but I would argue I enjoy the hobby as much as anyone else does. I am simply looking for a constructive diversion to enjoy... everyone has their own quest.

I strive for realism more so than artistic license. But the problem is, big difference painting a 30 foot long tank and a 12 inch one. It is easier for us as modelers to do that "15 foot snake" than bust it up for true realism. I think most of us do the best we and our temperments and skills can do or stand to do. Some guys will take 6 months to build a perfect tank, another will pop the same kit out in a week or less. The operate phrase would be "Whatever makes YOU happy"

Back in the old days when we used to re-paint the tanks ourselves, most of the vehicles did not have the neatest of appearances after we were done. It's just the way it is. The tanks were not painted to be works of art.

They were painted as neatly as the crew desired or had time for. In a garrison environment, all the externally stowed equipment was removed prior to painting. In the field, the crews painted right over everything and needed to do it as quickly as possible.

Colors were not masked off, foot prints could be seen on the hulls and fenders as the crewmen painted the second color on the turret. If you missed an area under the turret overhang, who cares?

Yeah but if you did too crummy a job, wasn't there hell to pay?! That was my limited experience of maintaining my equipment in tip top shape. Mud and dirt didn't last very long either. Of course, in combat I'm sure it was a different story altogether.

Great thread,

Gary

There are many things that are done as "accepted" practice within the hobby that are for artistic/aesthetic reasons vs. accuracy/realism. Different schools of thought exist as to what's the right balance between them, but ultimately in the end the product is still an individual work, an expression of the builder, be it highly accurate or highly artistic or both. When that work is put on display, it's up to the beholder then to make a determination if they like or don't like the result....but that doesn't mean that the builder has to conform to that interpretation unless they desire to for their own enjoyment/betterment/satisfaction. Appreciation for the variety within the hobby is one of the things that makes it so enjoyable to see what different individuals interpret and produce. In short, do what you like and like what you do. Everything else is secondary.

I, too have made comments about cammo shot by 20' tall painters as being less than real,-for my taste.If the builder was happy,far out. Can artistic license and realistic cammo exist on the same tank? Sure can.
I try to apply cammo as if I was the young gunner of the crew who may or may not have had the time and resources to apply the paint. French and Italian cammo schemes are exceptionally beautiful in color and complexity.Some Wermacht equipment was surely done as well also.As the war went on,however,there was usually little time for units to inject a quality approach to the schemes.Branches and boughs instead of paint sort of attitude.
As far as winter white wash goes........well when was it usually put on?Right! when just about EVERYTHING around was white.The painter on the Russian front may or may not have proper attire for the season.He may or may not have talent or skill or patience for the job.All he knows is his butt will have a better chance of making it home if his tank looks like everything else.With that said,I feel a lot of some model winter schemes are done too careful and neat,a product of ideal conditions that didn't have much chance of existance. They look great but not real close to period photos.
In the end it still and will always be up to the individual builder as long as they/we have fun and enjoy it.
Too long for .02$............

Wrong or right, aesthetic or actual, I think alot of model finishing is driven by the trends in contests and judging. The expectations of both judge and exhibitor and current trends in the trade literature.

If we truly did it for fun and our own enjoyment, we would neither care what others said or seek acceptance by others in the hobby. We would just do, leaving it up to others to make their own assumptions based upon their individual likes and tastes and take any criticism as just that. Someone elses opinion. No hard feelings, no flames, no hurt egos or umbrages.

In some of the Concord books on the Sherman series,I saw some photos of where the US Army engineers added camo to the tanks,they would spray the paint on any gear/equipment left on the vehicle

Hey Frank: Thanks for taking my thoughts to start this thread. I thought about the same thing but got too lazy :-) and had to get going LOL

Like some other posters, I believe there's a middle ground. I know there are painting effects that are trompe l'oeil (or tricking the eye for those who skipped high school French class) that I enjoy and employ myself.

When I look at the finishing effects of an Adam Wilder or Cheehong Ahn or various others, I'm really in awe.

I enjoy the many discussions and definitely fall further on the "realism" side versus the "artistic" side however. Like I said in my earlier post, part of my enjoyment is transferring the form and function of these machines to their miniature counterparts.

For instance, I really am trying to work my weathering technique where the crews' hand prints and areas their fatigues wore off dust coatings shows through.

Thnx again Frank

I really admire those who are able to realisticaly model every nut and bolt. It gives me something to strive for. But at the same time, I do use alot of artistic licence because often I become so hung up on the details that the project I was working on becomes a chore and no longer fun. So, I guess it is like so many others have said....do what you can do, but above all have fun.

Theres a lot of truth being spoken here, and some very good points being raised.
I think a happy medium is enjoyed by most modellers - choosing the correct camo for the environment and tank being the most important, with less emphasis on how it is applied. Ive been known to swap transfers probably creating a tank (or even a unit!) that never existed for the sake of making the model look good to me and be what I wanted to portray in a model.
Each to his own and go with what makes you a happy modeller!

James

Chevalier makes a good point about judges and contests' influence on building I believe. I personally enjoy judging at contests because you really get some good time to pore over the best models on the table.

I know that I try to be aware of my biases and pet peeves (dangling chains) before undertaking the task however. I think the single most important thing for those of us who might volunteer as judges is this:

Follow the guidelines of the hosting club/organization. For instance, if it's a contest with IPMS standard rules, abide by what those rules reward: basic construction and finish. While personally, you may be a detail fetishist (like me), you must reward the models on the table for what the rules state are of most importance.

Open system rules or AMPS style judging allows for different emphases and that's fine. Then adjust your "judging eye" accordingly

I personally enjoy the AMPS/Open judging more but I'm still grateful for IPMS organizations who bring armor models onto the table, regardless.

How about the late-war German schemes which appear to have been applied at the factory using a template? Looking at the painting of the 234/4 there appears to be a common pattern there. As a matter of interest, how would a model that departs from the pattern get judged?

BTW Roy I'm coming round to agreeing with you on the way the outlines were applied to the camouflage on the hulls of the B1 bis.

David

HI

Good points all.

While I appreciate the works put into achieving a beautifully symmetric finish, I know that it is not "real".

I fully agree that it boils down to the builder. If he/she wants to paint finish off the kit by spending weeks applying a meticulous finish, where everything is perfect then all the power to them. If someone wants to slap on a coat of hand-brushed paint and call it a day, super.

I see all the pix on the various DG's and I try to be subjective in my criticism be cause you do not know the skill level of the pers involved. While I have seen some incredible builds, I have also seen some that were less than stellar. As long as the person seeking criticism accepts it and those giving it are fair then all is righteous in the universe. Unfortunately as we have seen, things go wayyyy too far.

The unfortunate thing is that the new style of finishing kits (talking WWII here) is coming when most of those who were there are dieing. They should be the ones to judge as to the accuracy of the finish.

This debate is not limited to armour. Aircraft builders face the same problem, the whole "shading" issue is a constant source of heated threads.

Remember that you are looking at a scale replica from 35 feet away and that everyone sees things differently.

There will always be different camps when it come to finishing kits and while you may not agree with the others means and methods we can all learn from one another and help those new to the hobby explore the various ways to paint their kits .. ( how naive is that .. :-) )

Anyway, I ramble. I think I will crack open the Tasca FIREFLY ... OH NOO NOT ANOTHER rivet counters debate .. ahhahahahaha

T

It's just a HOBBY!! Meant to help you RELAX !! Modeling is a HOBBY not a lifestyle !! hahah

I think you have to try and balance both, though each person will lean one way or the other. For example, by most accounts tamiya OD is almost spot on for WWII OD used on US vehicles. However, if you paint your sherman in just the OD, as well as the tools you have an accurate color sherman, but not a very visually appealing sherman. IMHO, you definately need to do what Steve Zaloga describes as scale effect to make it visually appealing. Remeber this scale effect is effectively using an artistic license to reacreate something more visual yet accurate, which hits both sides of the coin. It becomes up to the person how much they want to/are able to get the effect down. In the case of the German camo, if you want a more accurate field applied version, defiantely do the research and attempt the challenge of recreating it in 1/35 or 1/72. However, if you want the prettier factory applied, then by all means do that.

BTW Roy brings up some great points to think about form the accuracy side and this is an excellent thread.

In the end as most have said it is a hobby for your enjoyment first and you must do what makes you happy.

Sean

Good post Frank. I too wondered about this. I have another quibble to pick on. This thin about pin wash and all the fine weathering terms that majority of the modelers try to accomplish here. The major reason is to bring out the detail. Well, you do not see anything like this on the real model. So my only understanding is to make the model look pretty. Of course it does look nice but really is not realistic, if you want to keep it real. I see many modelers doing this at events and this seems the way to get big points with the judges. Well, as all that is nice it's pretty much a waste of time but then again it's up to the individual. In that case, it's all good.

For someone who gets more inspiration from actual models, than the real thing, this has been interesting reading. No matter what side of the fence you are standing on ... realism V artistic license .... or even with a leg on each side (ouch!), there is much to take from both sides. There´s no right or wrong either, as each modeller is entitled to finish their model as they fit, but I find it fascinating that people are always pushing the limits to what can be done in scale.

To me, my criteria is if the finished model is close to what I see in my mind's eye. Most of the time it is a feeling or response to a vehicle I am trying to capture. So in that case I guess I lean more toward the artistic side. In any event, If I am pleased with the model when it sits on my shelf I am happy. The learning of the techniques necessary to bring to life what I see in my mind is also what allows me to be more creative in solving the problems/challenges of each build. So at this point the model is a canvas to expore. Of course, I also try to keep developing good building skills so that the entire experience is the best that I can produce.
capnjock

I tend to apply artistic license if I think I will like the end result or if it will make the vehicle (or plane) look "just different enough" from others' work.

While I greatly admire and respect those who put lots of hours into research and/or building their kits to be as close as possible to the example they are replicating, I also admire those who like to modify their kits.

For example, I *just* finished my Dragon M1A1 with Echelon's Pt.4 US Army decals. I did mine in NATO 3-tone camo from 1AD - and I decided to add the kit-supplied photo-etch BRE to it even though those racks were apparently only on 2BDE 3ID tanks. I liked the way it looked, so I put it on.

I also painted a few of the road wheels Sand to make it appear that this tank may have had to have a few parts replaced during operations (this was not called out on the decal sheet, but I've seen some pics of Sand -colored Abrams with a few green road wheels, so I thought I'd do the opposite).

Is it "accurate"? Not in the strictest sense, I guess. But I enjoy the results, and enjoyed building it (even if some of the PE was too small for my fat fingers).

To me, that is what makes the hobby enjoyable - building what you want, how you want - and being happy with the outcome.

Just MHO, gents.

You pays your money, you takes your choice...

In my particular interest, WW2 German, there is plenty of photographic evidence for both camps. There is a photo at the beginning of "Panzer Colours" which clearly shows a panzer crewman carefully spraying a text-book scheme, using the spray equipment supplied with the King Tiger he is working on (yes, German vehicles were supplied with spray equipment). In the same book, there is a picture of an airman painting a Horch white with a yard broom. The same book also has a photo of a PzIV with scribbled lines of chalk as winter camo. This is just one book!

There is plenty of evidence that the more elite (e.g. SS) German units were very painstaking with their painting - uniform applications across a unit in matching colours. Presumably this was done while the unit was out of the line, perhaps when new equipment was issued.

The general trend seems to be that basic camo was carefully applied if possible, but winter white, which was, after all temporary, was far more slap-dash.

Yep, I can see myself being either guy painting with a "mop" or "airbrushing with a spray gun". I
think the finished effect would depend on when and where the cammo was done. Since there is evidence in WWII of cammo being painted "anywhere", the result on your model can look like it was painted "anywhere"

Cheers, Michael

Rob was right on with his statement. I myself have painted quite a few full scale verisons. We use the camoflage tm , painted an overall basecoat of forest green chalked off the cammo pattern and when from there. As long as you followed the the TM patteren you were good to go.