Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
If you have a close look at the paint work, the scratches are actually there. However, they are not as high-contrast as they were previously. The reason is that there is much less bare metal exposed. There is an undercoat of broken-down paint that is visible under the old paint layer. There are chips and small amounts of exposed primer. It is tidy, but not perfectly new.
Poddubnyy documents the instructions for re-painting used by the Red Army. Accordingly, re-painting is included in every routine inspection and repair cycle in wartime as well as once a year in spring, when winter camouflage is removed. Therefore, any armour that is new (or fully repaired) was supposed to be re-painted. This is well supported by period photography.
Perhaps some extra dirt might do the trick instead?