I love weathering like that – really makes it look like a steel machine that’s seen some heavy duty weathering and scuffing and so on.
But how accurate is it? What’s the chances that, say, a Sherman in action for around two months would look like that? How about a panzer in the mid-late war period – my problem with weathering like that is that most panzers didn’t survive all that long, eventually being knocked out or abandoned inoperable, and the Germans did stress that you were supposed to touch up scuffs and battle damage.
So, what do you tankers think about this? If you take new vehicles, how long does it take for their paint job to get as messed up as this one? Some of the Abrams in Iraq have been there for a while, but I’ve never seen one with a paint job this messed up.
Do we have any tankers left here? I know we had Poniatowski, Rob G. and a really nice guy who posted lots of pics of M1s a while back. Remember guys this is one for the guys who ride around in tanks for long periods of time …
Depends on lots of things. You won’t see a modern armored vehicle like that. It is due mainly to advancements in paint and care taken by crew. It would still take a long time to get looking that bad. Even vehicles on static display outdoors take a long time to get that bad. I would say it is not realistic. However, on the art side of our hobby, it does look good. And I can’t attest to the quality of German WWII paint, especially on a tank that there were only a few actually built and none saw combat.
I agree it looks like it is ready to be drug down range for a hard target. I am one of the few who think people often overweather their armored vehicles. Yes there are times when a tank gets real dirty, but it usally gets cleaned and is reasonably clean most of the time. Dust and some faded paint is probably the most common weathering I have encountered.[2c]
Of course the E-100 never saw action, but that is hypothetical weathering at best. Still since I prefer a more subtle weathering myself, I’m kind of glad to hear that the heavy chipping and dirty look wouldn’t be as common as most modelers might believe.
I started out tanking on the M60A3 and they looked pretty good most of the time. There would be sections that would get a little stripped and they would rust up SUPER fast. However, those would be very small sections. The paint used today on AFVs is very tough stuff. It doesn’t flake very well and if it does they are very small sections. Mostly you get a fading effect.
Modern stuff also goes into get painted on a fairly regular basis. In my experience about once every year or two. Not much chance of getting too worn out that way huh?
There is no way that a vehicle in service would look that bad. Paint stands up well, but what most modelers miss is the fading of OD green and Camo patterns. Yes, paint will wear in areas such as hatch rims, around grille doors, access panels etc. But no where near like that E-100. The most accurate depictions will show the faded paint effect with a few paint chips and a lot of bent fenders.
I have a very difficult time reading what I am reading. I would think the absolute last thing on a tank crews mind as they are going through mud, snow, walls you name it is the way their vehicle looked. Now how it ran, I am sure they did everything possible to keep it going. But every thing I look at from WWII indicates to me that these things were far from pristine. Scraped paint, some rust, mud, dirt, sand and worn areas around access points had to be common. I asked my father in law who served in the signal corps in Korea about how tanks looked and he remarked, a mess. They were backed into trenches for firing and so forth and so on. When I build them, I weather them. That is why I have moved to armor for a while from aircraft. The detail is incredible. On aircraft, the most detail is in the cockpit. Unfortunatley, when we put canopies on, it is so hard to see. On armor, it is all over the place. I love armor right now. I particularly love to weather armor.
I dont know about WWII armor, I wasnt around then. LOL but for modern armor what the guys are telling you is accurate. I also dont know what an M1A1 costs, that would be a great piece of trivia from Arty or Rob, but I am sure its not cheap. And I know that the army is very prudent about maintance on its equipment, especially a high dollar item like a tank. A year in Iraq has taught me that even in a field environment this stuff is maintained. So I guess the answer would be to look at pics of the older stuff and go from there. For the modern stuff listen to the guys like Arty and Rob who run the equipment for their daily bread. They are a tremendous resource.
I tend to think that many models we see are overweathered – however then it goes to the question of artistic versus accurate. A 1/35 model will need enhancement to look real regardless with weathering and painting tricks. Then we have to get past the limitations of model photography and computer monitors. Oh well…
After 25 years on tanks I can tell you that yes tanks get muddy, they get weathered, fenders, sponson boxes tools get lost and damaged. But, to the crew, the vehicle is thier home. We lived like comparitive pigs in the field, but the question on the table is whether that picture of the E 100 represents a tank in the field, I feel it it does not. Tanks are maintained in the field, whether at war or not. Armor crewman take care of their tanks, because thier own lives depend on it.
Im currently in the active Army and I see tanks and howitzers everyday, counts on how you look at it, it could be a good or bad thing.
However, most vehicles, in combat, do show a good amount of wear. The tank in question looks almost neglected, it actually reminded me of how destroyed Iraqi armor looked, and think about the conditions those vehicles saw, no paint for years, operators poorly trained, maintenance on occasion. The Abrams on the same page looks pretty closer to the wear and tear you can expect.
Gjek is right, the only tanks I ever saw that were that bad were hard targets or destroyed tanks that burned on the battlefields in southern Iraq. Tanks get banged around and walked on and all of that, but the crews do touch them up and make repairs on sheet metal parts etc. I think in the artist aspect of this hobby we all over do rust, but that’s okay cause I believe most of us build primarily for ourselves anyway.
Granted they were not tanks, but I remember coming back in from the field with our vehicles covered in mud during a rain storm and the first place we stopped was the wash-rack to clean the mud off.
I think it is a question of maintenance as well as the local conditions the tank is in.
I am no expert so I may ask…how often does the tank crew in WWII were able to repaint their tanks? (Granting of course they were provided with materials for repainting).
I work for a construction company and I have worked closely with heavy equipment. I have seen equipment of some of our subcontractors which are in worse conditions as the tank shown meaning they have not been repainted for years while some have kept theirs in very good paint conditions. I know heavy construction equipment are not tanks but I guess there is a certain level of similarity in the way they attract mud, dust, grime, dirt, scratches, bents, dents…etc.
Its a fact that we maintain our gear at all times. Our tankers are pmcsing thier gear all the time in the field or not. The wash rack is thier friend. I am in an aviation unit and our aircraft get washed regularly with not exceptions. The modern paints and constant “attention to detail” is what keeps your horse happy. I will see if i can find some of our M1A1s that have been recently replaced by the STRYKER. Even the M1’s that have been sitting in the weather for the last 2 years look good. Nothing a wash rack couldn’t fix.
Even the vehicles I had in Iraq for 15 months in Iraq last year didnt look that bad. The main problems we had were dust, mud, and rust on the unpainted improvised armor. The crews cleaned the vehicles regularly, it just makes life on the vehicle easier. The tankers take even better care of their equipment, that tank is their house, home and money maker.
I’ve always tended toward the moderation side of weathering personally. Unless there’s some context to go with the vehicle (diorama or base) it’s hard to justify really heavy weathering on a shelf display IMHO. If you are putting the kit into a muddy road type of situation, then heavy weathering may be called for. A lot of the reference pics show vehicles on the move or in the field and this may add fuel to the perception that the vehicles were always dirty all the time and never had maintenance performed on them. Another factor to take into consideration was how long the average vehicle survived once it saw active combat…except for a few rare occasions, my guess would be that they wouldn’t have survived long enough to get the heavy weathering many apply, but that’s just a hunch.
One of the common misperceptions about AFVs is that they were in the line 100% of the time in combat until destroyed when in fact this is not true and they often had periods of downtime where maintenance could be and was performed.
The one inescapable fact is that rust weakens metal…a prime example would be the extreme amount of care devoted to ships exposed to saltwater…it’s a never ending battle against keeping the rust at bay. Weakend armor plate due to rust would be a bad thing for tank crews I’m thinking and they no doubt would take any chance they could get to keep their vehicle in the best possible fighting condition.
Having said all that, I can also understand the artistic inclination to represent vehicles a certain way. Once that artistic license is applied, the connection to “historically accurate” has a tendency to fall by the wayside though. Unless clearly stated, someone looking at a given model may not know that and just react with the “gee that’s cool!” and try to recreate it themselves thinking it IS accurate and then it gets propagated. Before long, it becomes the norm as a popular representation…no problem with that at all from an artistic perspective, just don’t make the claim that it’s also realistic. [:)]