Am I ageing WW2 vehicles too much?

[Ian M]

The excessive use of chips and rust have always been a point of wonder for me as well. Countless models that would be great if the meaning was they should look 50 - 90 years old.
Modern armour the paint is almost bullet proof, so I have been told. I saw a documentary about the US MBT. If they had to be repainted the old paint was removed both chemically and with steel shot blasting as nowt else would touch it. So I guess a beaten modern US tank would not be chipped to bits and rusty.

[Gary MacKenzie]

A slight deviation , to today , A USSR vehicle, screen grab from news footage, the amount of wear and tear to paint on this amazes me.
Either their paint is very poor quality, or these vehicles are really old and never repainted?

[eddiesolo]

A slight deviation , to today , A USSR vehicle, screen grab from news footage, the amount of wear and tear to paint on this amazes me.
Either their paint is very poor quality, or these vehicles are really old and never repainted?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1170957[/ATTACH]

These vehicles could have been painted many, many times and had many lived outside under basic wraps. The vehicle in the picture is a AMPHI, APC. I have the RC version. YOu would be surprised how battered our vehicles looked when they came back from Afghanistan, the Chally's certainly needed a respray.

[Panzerwrecker]

I would answer firstly with whatever pleases your eye, it's your model, however, once posted on social media or on a modelling forum you are opening yourself up for critique and possible criticism.

If you do like to portray a dirty, rusty, or a well weathered vehicle in both respects, then it’s advisable to use some ref pics and try to achieve a good scale representation. Also, be aware of how the vehicle you model would be affected by the terrain or conditions it operated in/on.

Farm and construction machinery make extremely good references if no colour war time pics are available. Knocks and bangs, scratches, different types of bare metal exposure, dust and rain effects and dirt build up around wheels and tracks can all be found on many clear modern pics of these types of vehicles. I have been found on occasion, whilst sat in queuing traffic, taking pics of quarry trucks sat alongside me. Dusty vehicles are quite difficult to portray without overdoing the effect so it’s all good reference material.

It’s the same with the tools and materials available today. There is a bewildering range on offer. Whether you decide to make your own or achieve constantly good effects with mainstream brands go with whatever works for you but don’t be afraid to experiment.

Lastly be prepared to take advice as there is always someone out there who will have some valuable information to help make the process of finishing and weathering your models to a far better standard. That is what I have always loved about this hobby. The fact that most of us are completely happy in sharing new methods and techniques.

[Guest]

Farm and construction machinery make extremely good references

I’m not so sure. Those vehicles are typically in use for years with little or no maintenance to the paintwork, whereas military vehicles in most armies do tend to get touched up when the paintwork starts to show wear. Plus, if you’re talking Second World War, then most vehicles would be at most a couple of years old, and in active theatres a lot would never reach anywhere near that age before being destroyed or captured.

[eddiesolo]

MOD vehicles routinely are touched up, rust treatment etc. They are working vehicles, not rust buckets, this applies to all armies.

However, major conflicts like WWII meant that vehicles lived outside in all weather for months at at time.

It depends on what you are working on.

Los is correct on one thing, build for you, it is your model and you paint, weather and display how you want.

There are modellers of all types, purist to slap it on with roller, enjoy it.

[Mini Me]

As the man said Jakko, Reference pictures say it all....I have pored over thousands of pictures of East front vehicles in various stages of disrepair, damage and just purely run down for lack of care and maintenance. not to mention the beatings they took on the Pasputitsa. I'm not saying they were "rust buckets" but as the war progressed and the losing side had to make do with less and less I have seen the resulting weather and lack of proper maintenance on the increase to the point of wondering how the damn things even ran.........just some observations over a second cuppa. Rick H.

[Panzerwrecker]

I’m not so sure. Those vehicles are typically in use for years with little or no maintenance to the paintwork, whereas military vehicles in most armies do tend to get touched up when the paintwork starts to show wear. Plus, if you’re talking Second World War, then most vehicles would be at most a couple of years old, and in active theatres a lot would never reach anywhere near that age before being destroyed or captured.

I said 'many clear modern pics of these types of vehicles' what I meant to say is modern machinery so yeah, like you say; stuff that hasnt been around for years

[AlanG]

once posted on social media or on a modelling forum you are opening yourself up for critique and possible criticism.

Not on here Los. Instead you'll find that the majority give you positive encouragement for your builds. Further to that if you do indeed ask for critique, then it is offered in a positive and polite way also. That's how this forum has and always will be run/used.

[eddiesolo]

Not on here Los. Instead you'll find that the majority give you positive encouragement for your builds. Further to that if you do indeed ask for critique, then it is offered in a positive and polite way also. that's how this forum has and always will be run/used.

Yep, spot on Alan, always been like this, in fact I am sure, that this is the mission statement of this forum. Always been like that, no heavy handed remarks, after all, they be pieces of plastic and it is a hobby, the main goal is yes, get better, but enjoy yourself-if not then what is the point of making stuff?

[minitnkr]

The Russians in WWII used 60 days as armored design lifetimes whereas the Germans built for years. Thus German tanks cost four or more times as much as Russian & US armor. US paint specs. were & are very stringent.

[Panzerwrecker]

Not on here Los. Instead you'll find that the majority give you positive encouragement for your builds. Further to that if you do indeed ask for critique, then it is offered in a positive and polite way also. That's how this forum has and always will be run/used.

Glad to hear.

[rtfoe]

Just to make it clear I am not in favour of over weathering but here's another spanner thrown into the whole mix...what if it's a lucky tank that survives through the whole conflict from 1940 to 45. Even a year old modern construction site vehicle is pretty battered save for a water wash up of mud and grease for the running gear and it's straight to the next construction job. So, 5 years of attrition, bullet hits, fires, shell deflections, shrapnel, weather, terrain, infantry hobnailed boots, metal stowage like jerry cans and tools will create some sort of weathering. But of course not a junkyard relic. :smiling6: You can do that too if you like...your build.
I believe most Shermans were needed at the battlefronts and were fitted in the field as the column moved so repainting is least on the agenda, maintenance of the engine, gun and running gear would be priority. The Desert Rats went to Italy still in their African campaign colors complete with whatever sand skirts still attached. At some point they may have been hurriedly painted and wateproofed while deployed back to UK for the Overlord invasion. So if there is any sign of chipping you might see some desert scheme underneath I'm assuming or did they go the ETO still in their desert scheme? It all boils down to reference and of course how you want it to look and have fun with.

Cheers,
Richard

[Guest]

At some point they may have been hurriedly painted and wateproofed while deployed back to UK for the Overlord invasion.

IIRC, only the men were redeployed, their vehicles etc. staying behind in the MTO. Once in the UK they were re-equipped with what was available there.

There are, though, pictures like this of American Sherman:



This photo was taken on 1 February 1945, but that’s an M4A1 produced in about early to mid-1942, as evidenced by things like the early bogies that have the return roller on top, the lack of extra armour plates on the sides, no sandshield attachment strips either, the early M34 gun shield, and more. It had none of the later upgrades that were fitted to Shermans, not even ones that could be (and were) fitted in the field by maintenance workshops.

The explanation in this case is that the tank belongs to a unit that was deployed to Italy, then took part in the invasion of southern France in August 1944 and fought its way northward, eventually into Germany. Units in the UK, earmarked for the invasion of Normandy, got all the new kit and had their old kit updated to the latest standards; units in Italy got almost none of that and mostly had to make do with what they had arrived there with.

(Also see this thread )

[minitnkr]

Another old timer is parked behind it. Maybe part of an armored battalion HQ, note carbine (not M1 or Thompson) of well equipped (gloves & gollashes) GI not MP.