Re: Another Camoflage Question

At 03:37 PM 6/27/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>How much do cammo schemes vary between different vehicles in the same
>>force?  And by same force, I mean tanks that are deployed
side-by-side, not
>>just in the same army.  Would in be unheard of to have some tanks in
cammo,
>>and some in just a base coat?
>
>
>How about this:  those clever scientists of the 22nd century have
developed
>mission adaptive colour coatings for armoured vehicles.  They adapt to
the
>local requirements as needed - active camoflage.  There is no reason
that 2
>vehicles of the same type in the same unit can't look different, if
>assuming this type of coating.  You wouldn't want to have more than a
>couple of different schemes in your force, or it will look shoddy as a
>group of models - no unity of theme - but no reason not to have camo on
the
>big ones and plain on the others.

Some of my ICE "Space Rangers" -- the best powered armor I''ve yet seen,
and a bargain at 50 figures for $25.00 -- are going to have each unit
painted in a different form of cammo.  One in arctic, one in jungle, one
in
urban....  Breaks up the monontony of painting the same thing over and
over
again.

>The US Airforce is presently experimenting with coloured film coatings
for
>aircraft that are applied like a big peel-and-stick decal.  The idea
here
>is that they might be a) a lot cheaper than repainting the aircraft
with
>expensive paint every few years, b) a lot lighter than the paint,
thereby
>increasing useful load, and c) able to have interesting additive
coatings
>for radar absorbtion, etc.  Maybe your tanks use this, and the camo
pattern
>is simply big sheets of stick on film that has been applied to some,
but
>not all, of the vehicles.

I find this idea oddly appealing.  I've always liked the idea of the
liquid
crystal paint scheme that can be changed at the click of a button, too.

>From a modelling perspective, it is difficult to paint a good camo
scheme
>on small models that looks even remotely realistic.  From what I've
seen
>most people try to do this by painting simply a smaller version of
their
>"big model" schemes, using the same paints.  This will generally
obscure
>detail on a small model, unless you are very carful OR are using very
light
>colours for your paint scheme.  The contrast between dark greens and
>browns, for example, should become a lot less obvious at a great
distance,
>and if you want a more "realistic" looking scheme on small models,
paint
>them with colours that are much lighter than you would on a big model,
and
>with less contrast.  If the paint scheme is very subtle, it will look
>better on small models.  And as someone else suggested, if you're
painting
>with a light scheme, you can darken it with an inkwash, and pick out
the
>details.

I don't worry about realism as much as I do over what looks good, and
what
looks right on the table.  And ink is great stuff.  Gray ink is
especially
useful, I've found.
John X Crimmins
johncrim@voicenet.com
  "...is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information.  Don't ever piss one off."
  --Spider Robinson, The Callahan Touch.