Is this for real

Re:Is this for real

Na, obviously the owner has got a new airbrush and just wants to demonstrate his prowess....
 
Re:Is this for real

Hi Chris,

it is not for starting a basic discussion, i think looking on that model it isnt worth that either.
But just a minute of thinking.
Dont wanna go too way off-topic, but i agree: THATS what i mean! Lets think about the motivation of the "converter".

Thanks.


Greetings

Frank
 
Re:Is this for real

two of my dads dr steam locos have been named Irma Grese and Eva Braun. Just light hearted tongue in cheek fun.
 
Re:Is this for real

I don't see anything wrong in representing a military train even if the prototype loco never carried that livery, the camo is a bit gaudy and not really typical of any German scheme mind you. I have a armoured railcar built from the Revell kit in 1/35 on a 45mm gauge chassis. Trumpeter also do a complete armoured train in 1/35 at £60-70 per vehicle that could be used to make an accurate model. The eagle and swastika were carried by many reichsbahn locos in that period so I wouldn't call that sinister really. The swastika has become associated too much with the Nazis ignoring it's use for thousands of years, the Fins also used it.
The Harz was connected to the infamous V2 factory at Nordhausen so should we avoid modelling that in wartime? I have 1/24th scale tanks that could be used alongside the 2-6-2 or mallets in a timeframe that is historically correct, while the 2-10-2's are post war in the current condition. 222 in original form is correct historically but not in the Harz.
I think bad taste would be modelling any of the prisoner trains in anything but a museum context with full historical backup. That aspect is never going to come under playing trains.
 
Re:Is this for real

coyote97 said:
If anyone is able to show me a camouflaged narrow gauge train like that, i may change my mind. If a prototypical compareance exists, the whole story above gets another touch.


Greetings

Frank
To my knowledge, the only narrow gauge railway equipment from Germany that did get "tarnmuster", were the railbuses of one of the island railways during WWII. LGB had photos of these in their magazine around 1980 when they released their Wismar bus.

But my question has always been, what WAS the correct color for WWI and interwar German military steam locos (I care nothing about WWII). Roco and some of the preserved HF110C locos have been painted in Wermacht grey, but these are WWII era.

Also, there is merit to the LGB mallet and military service, when one looks at the history of LGB's model of DRG 99 201:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Gts_2x3/3

http://www.malletlok.de/ge/ge_d/99201.htm
 
Re:Is this for real

I really don't think there is anything sinister in this - the markings are obviously covered up to conform to the rules of German eBay, which presumably forbids the display of anything with a swastika on it - but that aside there were many camouflaged trains and rolling stock used by all forces in WW2. German camouflage is an incredibly complex and varied subject, much argued over and almost impossible to pin down due to the very haphazard nature of its application. In the case of AFVs, the vehicles came from the assembly lines in a standard basecoat (sand brown from around 1942-43 onwards) and the crews were supplied with two cans of concentrated pigment in the mid-green and red-brown shades. When (and sometimes if) they had the opportunity, the individual vehicle crews would thin these paints with anything they had to hand (petrol was supposed to be used, but was often in such short supply that water was commonly used instead) and then apply one or both colours in a camouflage pattern using anything from proper spray equipment to a rag on a stick. There were "official" recommended patterns for the camo, but these were apparently seldom followed, resulting in a huge variety of patterns, not to mention shade and effect variations due to the thinning media and the methods of application, as well as paint batch variations. I'm sure that the same circumstances applied to locos and rolling stock in many cases.

Jon.
 
Re:Is this for real

korm kormsen said:
i don't understand the problem.
if i would want a mallet, and could get one cheap, but with swastica, i just would just buy it and repaint it.

The problem is Korm that a huge amount of people really seriously hate that symbol. Equally, a huge amount of people want to put the times of its use behind them.
As has been noted earlier in this thread, its display is illegal in some countries, including Germany I believe.
It is a personal choice - but a great many people would question why, and for what motive, the symbol was on the loco in the first place and would not wish to be associated with it in anyway - especially handing money over for it.
As I say, its a personal thing and in many ways depends on your perception of those times when this symbol was in general use.
 
Re:Is this for real

Chris M said:
I agree. On an historically correct model it is acceptable, maybe even important, as a portrait of what was.

Putting such a symbol on a "just for fun" model makes me question the motives of the builder. Either a lack of understanding or maybe something worse.
I am also of the same mind, a thing/museum piece should be authentic. I remember getting a bit annoyed when I saw the "replacement square".
An interesting thing I did find trough some more looking is that from 44 onwards it was not uncommon for German pilots to scratch of the tail swastika themselves. if you happen across pictures of late model ME109s and FW190s quite a few have painted over the swastika even when still in service.

I also agree that putting the eagle and insignia on a crappy un athentic camo job just reaks of "takky" and inappropriate. It's not a BR52...
 
Back
Top