I'm with you on that, Painless. All tanks were new when they rolled out of the factories, and I prefer my tanks to look new to begin with, before adding a little of that 'lived in' look. Some members display great skills in turning tanks into rust buckets. That's totally valid, and requires special techniques; but I don't think it can accurately portray Armour in active use, irrespective of the army the vehicles belonged to. Making battlefield hulks, ghosts, and totalled tanks (i.e. beyond repair in the field) is certainly an art; but one more linked to Diorama than RC models.PainlessWolf wrote:Good afternoon,
An argument can be made for either mode of appearance. I like to detail paint add on bits for a factory fresh look then go from there with weathering, etc. This is strictly my own preference and I see beautiful examples all the time here on the Forum of complete spray and camo jobs as well as detail painted accessories. It is all good.
regards,
Painless
I asked the question about painting in the field because i wondered what it would entail. Answers are not as easy to find as I'd imagined. I guess somewhere in the MOD archives, there'll be some directive about preparation, or repair, of vehicles in the field in Wartime.
I've often wondered why the USAAF stopped painting their Fighters and Bombers with camo in WW2. Maybe camouflage was ineffective, or too labour-intensive to apply.