The Official Armortek Forum - World leader in one sixth scale metal kits

Hi guys...

Ultimately it is a case of to each their own...
I was just curious as to how many prefer their models to look fresh off the production line, weathered after years of use or somewhere in-between.

Cheers...

To me light weathering is a way of adding "depth" to a model. I don't think that vehicles would have lasted years in WWII. They would have either been destroyed or repaired in some way. There are some that were pretty beaten up through use but that is slightly different to weathering.

Hi David,

It depends what sort of model we are talking about, if it's a Tank it should be lightly weathered in my opinion! My reasoning behind that is, all tanks especially WWII tanks were constantly being refitted, so they would only have a couple of months heavy ware.

Paul .

Allan Richards wrote:To me light weathering is a way of adding "depth" to a model. I don't think that vehicles would have lasted years in WWII. .

Hi Allen,

Both good points. I would have expected some vehicles to have lasted at least a couple of years without a major paint redo.

I was thinking along the lines of rusting and mud spatters in the manner of the Unimax models.

Cheers...

Paul Wills wrote:Hi David,

It depends what sort of model we are talking about, if it's a Tank it should be lightly weathered in my opinion! My reasoning behind that is, all tanks especially WWII tanks were constantly being refitted, so they would only have a couple of months heavy ware.

Paul .

Hi Paul,

I think the "light weathering" brigade have definitively spoken judging by the poll results which did surprise me.

Cheers...

Another point to consider is that those who run their vehicles may to prefer to add their weathering the old fashioned way, with mud

That way it can be both lightly or heavily weathered, depending upon the state of the running ground.

Adrian.

To me a light to moderate weathering is right, especially for a German tank. The Germans probably painted their tanks 2 to 3 times a year, (spring, summer and winter camo schemes) so I don't think they would have had the chance to rust real bad.

Hi, all

Light weathering is the way for me in the production of the model. By go in the free one the tank gets completely only use tracks, scratches, dirt, repair, prove a realistic picture in runs to the time. From the military service each him knows was present that vehicles are already absolutely dirty after a short time, and in the war application damages exist by shrapnel and flying around remains by every application. Armoured steel does not rust, only flight rust can easily form.

regards
Holger

Well I am for light weathering also. I do like the brand new look to, however it is much more realistic with some weathering and a little battle damage.

I suppose the best choice will depend on the period and theater of the war. For example firemen and soldiers with much spare time look after their gear. In war on the western front in early to mid 1944 the equipment should look pretty good and revitalized, while on the Eastern Front the tanks of that period would probably look much more worn, with some surface rust maybe missing or with damaged nonessential parts, etc. Later in the war one even sees turrets from one model atop another chassis, etc. - anything to get the thing back into the battle.

So my personal preference is 'whatever is appropriate'.

Of course, I could be wrong