WWII Weathering Fallacy or Truth. Accuracy.

[OldManModeler]

So, this is in the armor or armour subsection, depending on your english.

There is the artist - modeler -mindset, and the reality.

You fellow modelers do know, that the WWII armored and soft-skinned vehicles never lasted more than a few years. Maybe 3 or 4 years at the very best. Most less than a year. So the deep weathering that I see on many models is most likely due to the 'modelers realm' of realism. Which is about art, not reality. The 'modeler's realm'.

The modeler's realm of realism is that look.; Like the vehicle went through 20 years of weather and combat.

WWII tanks with rust lines down the full side hull, is just art. In reality those tanks were blown to pieces or repainted in the field. Long before those rust lines hit the ground. Unless you are building an artifact relic 20 years after the war ended.

That being said, for those whom strive, and maybe loose sleep over a model kits accuracy; Might do well to consider the life of these vehicles. Weathering looks good as a model. It looks incredible. But for a purist, it was not the reality.

I appreciate the beauty of deeply weathered WWII vehicles as an observer of built models. Just like you all. But if you think that deep weathering such that it looks like it was a war vehicle for decades is your goal; Consider the reality.

I am convinced that weathering model plastic kits has fallen into antique visual stimulation that is not accurate. It is stimulating to the eye, and people may say that is very cool. And even to the purist modeler. But was it real?

With all good intents. Continued...

Be well. Model on.

Eric

 

[OldManModeler]

So, this takes us to a place, in WWII modeling. Does one seek reality or the art form?

Reality? Or the modelers realm?

The common acceptance of a great model is based on and in the skilled modelers realm, which is the art form. Deep weathering and rust all over and such. Looks like the vehicle went to hell and back and still keeps going. Faded paint, etc.

But that is not the reality of the actual vehicles that were in use back then. Because that reality was, and is; Boring.

So the two directions are; What the common modelling community likes. Or what was real. Continued...

Be well. Model on.

Eric

 

[OldManModeler]

Because of this concept and observation, I try to build as close to reality as possible. In my own kit builds. And I will win no awards.

But, I like and appreciate the fictional built kits in the modelers realm. They look better than my kits do. Because they are art. Not necessarily reality.

It's like seeing a beautiful picture, woman or car. The beauty of the eye is catching and crazy attractive, but the reality is that it's a lot of work, may not be real, and it is expensive. But most everyone likes it.

Be well. Model on.

Eric

 

[Rob]

Very well said. Very well indeed.

 

[BarleyBop]

But was it real?

Art, theater, smoke and mirrors.
Perception. Imagination.
I think there are more than a few things at play here.

I believe you are correct in your assessment of the popular 'drift' towards an improbable rendering of historic vehicles...

I also think that it is only natural for us to attribute deep weathering (corrosion) to these artifacts that were in their prime for a few months in the 1940s. It must be old! I just saw an old guy in the bathroom mirror brushing my teeth!

Now weathering that is the normal wear of steel against steel, with mud, rain, dust, improvised camo, sloppy field painting, graffiti, that is something else.

Then there is the fact that freshly painted plastic looks like, well, freshly painted plastic. We want it to look heavy, and solid, and tough: the easiest way is to peel away the paint, show some rust, right down to the bare metal. See, it's cast iron!
Now that looks like a real vehicle!

My last point might seem a bit academic, but bear with me. The theory of simulacra. It was popularized in the movies the Matrix among others. Basically it says that the idea of something developed in a culture becomes more real to the people in that culture than the actual reality.
'Mainstreet USA.' That reality only exists at Disney World, and in our shared imagination and recollection of something that never really existed in quite the same way.
So when the perceived reality becomes so widespread, you will get a lot of pushback.

Maybe we do it just because it is so darn fun!

 

[OldManModeler]

Art, theater, smoke and mirrors.
Perception. Imagination.
I think there are more than a few things at play here.

I believe you are correct in your assessment of the popular 'drift' towards an improbable rendering of historic vehicles...

My last point might seem a bit academic, but bear with me. The theory of simulacra. It was popularized in the movies the Matrix among others. Basically it says that the idea of something developed in a culture becomes more real to the people in that culture than the actual reality.
'Mainstreet USA.' That reality only exists at Disney World, and in our shared imagination and recollection of something that never really existed in quite the same way.
So when the perceived reality becomes so widespread, you will get a lot of pushback.

Maybe we do it just because it is so darn fun!

Sir, thank you. You are on point. As usual with you.

I don't take it as far as physical existentialism as in the Matrix films message. But the there is a paradigmatic shift (in modeling) that some just don't realize.

The 'reality' that they perceive as truth, is just an illusion. What they perceive as being correct and beautiful is very simply; Very good art. The reality was something different and not nearly as beautiful.

Be well. Model on.

Eric

 

[Jakko]

IMHO, chipped paint, rust, and similar has little place on a military vehicle unless you can show it was there on the real thing. Some armies just do bad maintenance and rust is common, but most will try to keep their vehicles looking at least serviceable, and like you say, in the Second World War, the vast majority of those vehicles would have been no more than a few years old. The Spanish School of chipping everything and rusting what remains may look good, but only if you're building a model of a tank in a scrapyard — or one from a poor country or some rebel movement that just doesn't do much maintenance.

On the other hand, dirt, mud, grime, spilled fuel, etc. do have a place on military vehicles, especially AFVs. Unless you're building a truck of an army in barracks ("Driver, you seem to have nothing to do, so go clean your truck." "OK, now your truck is clean, go and deliver this small thing to that little base way out in the country." "Driver, your truck appears to be dirty, go clean it."), it will probably be dirty in some way. Vehicles actually in the field, whether at war or on exercise, will generally be dirty to very dirty, which is a good thing to replicate on a model even if it's not on a diorama, if you ask me.

 

[Pantherman]

Because of this concept and observation, I try to build as close to reality as possible. In my own kit builds. And I will win no awards.

But, I like and appreciate the fictional built kits in the modelers realm. They look better than my kits do. Because they are art. Not necessarily reality.

It's like seeing a beautiful picture, woman or car. The beauty of the eye is catching and crazy attractive, but the reality is that it's a lot of work, may not be real, and it is expensive. But most everyone likes it.

Be well. Model on.

Eric

I hear what you say and agree that you should do what you feel is right/correct with your builds.

Many others will also have their opinions and their ways of doing the builds the way they feel is right.

I build because I have found a hobby that helps me step away from life's stress and gives me a bit of fun and camaraderie with my fellow modelers. To that end I often build what I'm happy with whether it be accurate, almost accurate or completely outrageous.

Have fun and enjoy your hobby your way. Pantherman

 

[plastickjunkie]

It's mostly art and not reality. I see way too much rust, tear and wear on vehicles and aircraft that had either very limited combat time like the He162 Salamander as an example. I once saw on one of the European modeling magazines that was a work of art. The wear, tear and fading effects were amazing. Only one problem with this, the 162 barely got over 10 hours of combat time being out so late so they were practically new. The exception I say applies to U Boats returning from long patrols exhibiting heavy weathering from the elements. Another exception are DAK vehicles that were used and abused till the end.
Something else that captures my attention is the huge amounts of stowage on some armor models specially obstructing cooling and exhaust venting, some looking like the loaded up truck from the Beverly Hillbillies.
As previously mentioned, mud, dust and fuel/oil stains will be more realistic than tons of rust IMO.

 

[Jakko]

the huge amounts of stowage on some armor models

Some of that is realistic, but a lot of it is, IMHO, down to manufacturers (Black Dog and Legend, I'm looking at you) of stowage sets selling hugely extensive mounds of stowage that would suffice for two or three vehicles, but which many buyers all stick onto a single one.

 

[BarleyBop]

the huge amounts of stowage

Ya, dunno about other theaters, and I doubt there was ever anything like the Red Ball Express in North Africa, so there are photos of outrageously burdened vehicles, with troops and kit piled high, precisely because there was a lack of trucks, especially on the Axis side.
There are also photos of vehicles quite bare of kit, high-tailing it back to a defensive line... the distances the front line moved back and forth multiple times also a factor.

My biggest gripe, not having been there to see how it was actually done, is how model stowage just seems to stick to vehicles in the most precarious places, as if by some magic magnetic force, no straps, ropes, tethers or gravity!

 

[MJY65]

WWII tanks with rust lines down the full side hull, is just art. In reality those tanks were blown to pieces or repainted in the field. Long before those rust lines hit the ground. Unless you are building an artifact relic 20 years after the war ended.


Eric

I realize you are referring to armor specifically, but I'd imagine the same would be true (maybe even to a greater extent of aircraft). Everyone loves a heavily faded, weathered F-4U or P-38 from the Pacific theater, but most of those planes were only a few years old.

 

[MeMillion]

So, this is in the armor or armour subsection, depending on your english.

There is the artist - modeler -mindset, and the reality.

You fellow modelers do know, that the WWII armored and soft-skinned vehicles never lasted more than a few years. Maybe 3 or 4 years at the very best. Most less than a year. So the deep weathering that I see on many models is most likely due to the 'modelers realm' of realism. Which is about art, not reality. The 'modeler's realm'.

The modeler's realm of realism is that look.; Like the vehicle went through 20 years of weather and combat.

WWII tanks with rust lines down the full side hull, is just art. In reality those tanks were blown to pieces or repainted in the field. Long before those rust lines hit the ground. Unless you are building an artifact relic 20 years after the war ended.

That being said, for those whom strive, and maybe loose sleep over a model kits accuracy; Might do well to consider the life of these vehicles. Weathering looks good as a model. It looks incredible. But for a purist, it was not the reality.

I appreciate the beauty of deeply weathered WWII vehicles as an observer of built models. Just like you all. But if you think that deep weathering such that it looks like it was a war vehicle for decades is your goal; Consider the reality.

I am convinced that weathering model plastic kits has fallen into antique visual stimulation that is not accurate. It is stimulating to the eye, and people may say that is very cool. And even to the purist modeler. But was it real?

With all good intents. Continued...

Be well. Model on.

Eric

I do love this topic. Model making is art and art is artifice. Trickery. Approximation. Illusion. The "reality" in which imbue a small piece of plastic has a lot more to do with our intentions. How much we research. How painstakingly we attempt to recreate history. How many 'rivets we count'. In the end, it should always be enjoyable. Rewarding, regardless the outcome. Be well and model on, indeed!

 

[Edbert]

Great subject, and as with many things, three people will have four different opinions.

Most vintage pictures are too grainy, overexposed or just B&W that makes it hard to say what is dirt and what it chipped paint. However in the modern world of high resolution color photography that is not as big of an issue.

How dirty and worn a particular subject gets "in real life" really depends on the subject itself. My primary interest is aircraft, so I make no testimony on armor and trucks, other than the ones I see driving along IH-35 in convoys, they look about as dirty as the average vehicle on the road.

During peacetime USAF planes are really well maintained (in general), even greasy handprints from servicing get wiped down and canopies polished. I'm equally positive that when the aircraft is running multiple sorties a day in combat conditions for a decade, less time is spent wiping off leaks.

Visible wear also depends greatly on where the aircraft is operating, the airbases in Germany are not as destructive to paint as say the sands of Qatar. Naval aircraft are exposed to worse, and I know enough Navy vets from aircraft carriers who will attest that after a year at sea the planes are utterly filthy and "beat". Anti-corrosion requirements will have applies multiple colors of spray paint to bits of the exteriors too.

What I think is most "overmodeled" in aircraft is the darker shading around panel lines. It is eye-candy (to me) but utterly unrealistic. That said, I do it too, because it looks cool, which is really my only goal.

 

[plastickjunkie]

What I think is most "overmodeled" in aircraft is the darker shading around panel lines. It is eye-candy (to me) but utterly unrealistic. That said, I do it too, because it looks cool, which is really my only goal.

Yes agree specially the over shading of panels that look very unrealistic. I prefer marbling to break up the monotone colors.

 

[urumomo]

They wash the aircraft when we are deployed .
Even during the Gulf War .
They use a ton of water washing aircraft because it is a necessary maintenance item .

 

[BarleyBop]

ton of water

Hmmm, never thought about that, must be one massive desalination plant on board! and heavy! On that note, how much bilge is pumped from a carrier?

 

[urumomo]

We had 4 , 100K gallon / day steam distilling units .
Normally 2 running at 200K gal / day .
Those are in the main machinery room with the main engines , we didn't deal with them , that's the non-nuke MMR guys .

During the war , the birds were so heavy with ordnance you could feel the cat shots .
That was the only time we ever felt the cat shots , and I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't felt them myself .
We were 113, 700 tons when we went thru the Suez . Amazing that we could feel the recoil with that much ship .
Those catapults eat up our feed water supply big time and the heavier the plane the more water over the side .
The electromagnetic cats are def the way to go .

Plus , for a period of time we kept getting salinity alarms from our steam generators which require a full bottom blowdown of that generator which quickly dumps 30,000 gallons of feed water over the side .
Then we'd see the airdales hosing the planes down like it was a water park attraction , lol .
They have to do it but for a time we were really low on make-up water for the plant .

There isn't really that much bilge water to deal with .
There is a constant feed of it to the bilges though , from steam drains and pump packing .

 

[Rob]

We had 4 , 100K gallon / day steam distilling units .
Normally 2 running at 200K gal / day .
Those are in the main machinery room with the main engines , we didn't deal with them , that's the non-nuke MMR guys .

During the war , the birds were so heavy with ordnance you could feel the cat shots .
That was the only time we ever felt the cat shots , and I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't felt them myself .
We were 113, 700 tons when we went thru the Suez . Amazing that we could feel the recoil with that much ship .
Those catapults eat up our feed water supply big time and the heavier the plane the more water over the side .
The electromagnetic cats are def the way to go .

Plus , for a period of time we kept getting salinity alarms from our steam generators which require a full bottom blowdown of that generator which quickly dumps 30,000 gallons of feed water over the side .
Then we'd see the airdales hosing the planes down like it was a water park attraction , lol .
They have to do it but for a time we were really low on make-up water for the plant .

There isn't really that much bilge water to deal with .
There is a constant feed of it to the bilges though , from steam drains and pump packing .

Hey momo? That was a very interesting read, thank you for sharing.

 

[BarleyBop]

30,000 gallons

Holy flush batman! 125 tons in one shot!?