I don't mean to start a flame-war, or a heated discussion, but there's one thing that has been bothering me ever since I got interested in armor.
So hear me out, please, and think it over.
When you take a look at the dioramas, overwhelming majority depicts Germans doing whatever they did on the front. The explanation is relatively simple, and quite believable: there are more German subjects on the market. (And add to this the fascination with Nazi Germany, you got your present ratio. When I say fascination, I don't necessarily mean "adoration". Somehow people are always more fascinated by Darth Vader than Luke Skywalker )

But what really bugs me is the following: on dioramas where actual combat is depicted, the overwhelming majority of the cases you see glorious, charging Germans, and knocked-out T-34s with dead Russians everywhere. Or just take a look at dioramas where destroyed AFVs depicted: most of them are Russian vehicles. (And hardly ever see the glorious Germans charging Americans, for that matter.) You'd think the Germans won that war...

What's up with that? It isn't about market: a quick ebay search shows that there are just as many dead German figures available than Russians. There are plenty of Russian figures available that can be depicted in action. It's just as easy to make a burned-out pnzVI than T-34.
I haven't done an actual statistical analysis on the matter, but due to my interest in knocked-out vehicles I do have a huge collection of diorama-photos, which support my observation.
What do you think is the underlying cause? I tend to think it's ideological.

Andras,
Part of the reason why is that from purely an artistic standpoint the German uniforms, gear and, cammo was just simply way cooler than the allied counterparts. Honestly i find dark green tanks (or OD green) boring. I think that for the most part allied stuff on the ground simply bores me.

Second, to a certain extent like the confederates in the American Civil War the German story is much more interesting and compelling, IMHO. Add to that the fact that man for man they had better training and (on a tactical level) better leadership then you have a winning combo. What a model builder does is try their best to depict a reality. All things considerd the Germans DID charge past piles of Russian tanks. That is reflected in the dioramas one sees.

Last I think that everyone realizes (or at least should by now) that the average (99.9999999999%) German soldier was neither Nazi nor tyrant (but by no means an angel) but simply a soldier thrown into war and doing the best he can to make it through. That is also true of allied troops as well. So that the argument that the "Nazis" charge past "heroic" Soviet tanks that have been blown apart depicts some sort of glorification of a political ideology is a bit one sided.

(I think also the Russian Army's role has been downplayed in the west. Most folks are content to say that the US won the whole war pretty much on their own. This would be a wole other thread)

So basically I think it's down to the fact that the Germans simply have a more interesting subject, and the western allies have still yet to admit the great efforts put forth by the Russian army.

Thats my $0.02.

Hi,
I actually said that in the first few sentences of my post. This isn't the question. I, too, have more German subjects in my closet waiting to be built, than Allied, and there are reasons for that: the subjects themselves (the weird-looking, makeshift, modified vehicles), interesting historically, not to mention it's a pure pleasure to build some of the -newer- kits. (There are many colorful Allied vehicles, too -the "olive drab is boring" argument does not really stand strong.) And you don't have to tell me that the average German soldier was probably not Nazi -though reading memoirs of both Allied and German soldiers one can wonder where did all the Nazis went? Herr Grossjohann asks the same question, but that's subject for another topic.) Be assured: I am capable of seeing the world in shades, and not only black and white.

The question was the following. I don't understand is that why in 99% of the cases the Germans are charging among burned-out T-34s (the other 1% is usually done by Russian modelers), and not vice versa, when actual combat is depicted. (The same is true when just knocked-out vehicles are displayed. How many burned-out KV-2 dios have you seen, and how many burned-out Tigers?) This discrepancy cannot be contributed to the nice camo, and interesting uniform: the color of the destroyed T-34s, and the uniform of the dead Russians are still very boring. (To some .) So my humble question is: why are the Germans are the ones who are always charging? There must be a reason. Not the "interesting" factor, that's for sure -then what else? (I have my theory, but would like to know what others think.)
Because by looking at these dioramas (online, or at any modeling competition) one would conclude that the Germans won.

(By the way, dead Russian soldiers. Once I asked if the "blood and gore" part of war is not too disrespectful to the fallen to depict. I would think it is. The answer was that these were the realities of war. I've never seen a diorama where German officers shoot rows after rows of civilians in mass graves. Or pose in front of hanged villagers. I've seen dozens of photos, though.)

There are couple of influencing factors that I can think of, firstly the Cold War where the USSR went from distant ally to enemy and the Germans rebadged themselves as friends and advisors. Just coincidentally of course making sure that a very distorted picture of the fighting in the Great Patriotic War entered the western mind. Couldn't have people believing the Red Army out thought and out fought the Herrenvolk could they? Since most of us here grew up during the Cold War it's not so surprising that the mindset is so common. Though it does make me want to rant, constantly reading drivel about the Germans being the defenders of German culture...

Secondly the Axis is amazingly popular in the Far East, where understandably colonial powers like Britain and France (and the US for different reasons) are not always popular. And that's where most of the models come from.

The urge to model destroyed Soviet tanks reflects the huge numbers of photos out there that the Germans took early on in the war. Propaganda again... there are plenty of photos of destroyed German tanks that don't get such an airing.

BTW anyone who seriously thinks that Allied tanks are green and nothing else deserves to live on a diet of dunkelgrau - the most boring colour ever applied to armour...

David

"I've never seen a diorama where German officers shoot rows after rows of civilians in mass graves. Or pose in front of hanged villagers. I've seen dozens of photos, though."

You've also never seen the helpful and encouraging Tokarev pistol being used to boost the morale of Russian soldiers either. Or for that matter Russian soldiers "liberating" the civilians in eastern europe


Ok ok let me clarify my answer...

When I sit down and build, my thoughts lean to what find most interesting. At nearly $50 a pop a kit had better be what I like. What I like are Panzers, Stugs and Marders. If I chose to add one to a diorama I am not likely to mangle another $50 kit. If I did add a destroyed T-34 or sherman next to a panther or Stug I wouldnt feel so bad as that did happen and this whole hobby is about depicting events that did occur.

The Russian Army overwhelmed the German Army. Even the Russians will tell you that.

On an aside I've learned one thing; I do NOT get into tit-for-tat arguments about atrocities. It could go on forever and honestly there is a heap of bad information out there, half truths and propaganda told so often it becomes the truth.

"There are couple of influencing factors that I can think of, firstly the Cold War where the USSR went from distant ally to enemy and the Germans rebadged themselves as friends and advisors. Just coincidentally of course making sure that a very distorted picture of the fighting in the Great Patriotic War entered the western mind. Couldn't have people believing the Red Army out thought and out fought the Herrenvolk could they? Since most of us here grew up during the Cold War it's not so surprising that the mindset is so common. Though it does make me want to rant, constantly reading drivel about the Germans being the defenders of German culture..."

Great Patriotic War? hmmm.... drivel...... next you're going to tell us all about the merciful and benevolent British Empire......

Umm, thats what the Russians call it.

Exactly, the Russians call it "The Great Patriotic War". Using one side's propaganda slogan will not lend one to be seen as impartial.

Personally I have no axe to grind with anyone.

" I am not afraid........."








You can generaly get away with blood and slaughter in dios about the civil war and earlier. After that period of mayhem,there are too many living relatives that feel that the written history 'just isn't right' for one reason or another. One reason you see a lot of 'German armor-advancing-past-Russian-hulks' settings is the sheer magnitude of "Barbarossa". The initial front that German forces launched,in one day, was almost 1300 miles in length. That's about the entire coastline of California. Very understandable about Russian hulks,don't you agree?
Cheers for scenes of history!

David,
I think, you're right on mark there. (At least it makes me feel good thinking that, as it coincides with my opinion... )

Rick,
Nice dio (What is that tank?)
(At the beginning of Barbarossa -when most of the running among knocked out Russian tanks occured - T-34s were scarce, and they weren't knocked out easily. They only became available around Kursk in bigger numbers, and the German AT capabilities got up to date only around that time. And probably the victorious Germans should not wear late-war camo, either, in those dios )
I still think, by the way, that picturing dead and dying is not very respectable.

Jon,
It seems the subject does touch a raw nerve. A few things, though.
The "Great Patriotic War" was what the name implies -and no propaganda. The viciousness of the German occupation made even the Orthodox church to ally itself with Stalin. I would like to point out that the cost in human life in the Eastern Front (in the SU, actually) was 17 million !!!! civilians, and an additional 4 million soldiers. Those who fought the Germans there did not fight for Uncle Joe. They fought against an army that torched, and murdered in an unprecedented scale. (At the beginning of the campaign, most of the people greeted the Germans as liberators. After a few million dead they kind of thought that maybe it's better under Stalin after all.) Does this mean, I like (or they liked) Stalinism? No. it doesn't. It just means that they fought a more evil force. Stalinism claimed 20-50 million people -but the Communists had 40 years. The amount of suffering cannot be weighted -but one thing you cannot possibly take away from the Russians: they fought for their motherland, and not for Stalin.
And the raping and looting, you say. Well, one of my grandfather was a sapper in the Hungarian army at the Don. My other grandfather was in the Red Army -I have a pretty good perspective from both sides (my grandfather actually enjoyed the hospitality of the Russian POW camps, and came back weighting 45 kg). After the Red Army reconquered the lost territories, and was faced by the incredible scale of atrocities, they cannot be blamed for not behaving themselves when they set foot on the enemy homeland. (And I say that despite of having them raping and murdering across my country.) I do not think it's a right thing to do. But as sure as hell I understand it. They had 21 million reasons to be angry.
This very strong anti-Russian feeling is especially present at home, by the way -but a revolution choked in blood and 60 years of occupation does that to you. When I got into a discussion online about the different armor-designs and philosophies, I was called traitor and worse, simply for suggesting that the T-34 wasn't a pile of junk. The Red Army didn't just overwhelm the Germans. The T-34 was actually a superior weapon -unlike the Sherman, for example. It successfully incorporated all the contradicting requirements of armor-mobility-firepower-cost. And if you want to find something that stands up for heavy armor on its own, take the IS-2. (It's another long argument, so let's leave it.) Also, until the newer Western tanks (Leopard2 and M1A1) the Russians did have an edge in armor -and until the F-15 is completely retired, they still have an edge in air-superiority fighters, too...
(We seem to agree about the merciful British Empire. I might add the American Empire didn't fare better, either.)

Hi Andras

The tank is one of these http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps183001/ps183001.html , possibly the Techmod kit.

David

Andras my friend I want to apologize.

I let my emotion get the better of me. I said some things that were a bit brash and i too have some background that lends me to see things in a different way. What is a peeve of mine is that so many horrible thngs were committed by all parties involved. I however have a strong connection with the boys in field grey (call it a Sudeten thing). So often it was portrayed that all of them were brutes and thugs and that simply wasnt the case (nor was it the case in the Red Army, or any others for that matter). There wer certainly devils everywhere in those years.

I agree that the T34 was all things considerd better than anything the Germans fielded in the war (mainly for production/economic reasons.).

So I apologize If I came over as being a bit raw.

My final answer to your original question: I just like German army stuff better.

I am getting to this thread a bit late but historically speaking I hope no one is going to attempt to convince me that the Soviets treated their prisoners any better than the Germans.
Sure, the Soviets took massive amounts of losses but most of those were because Stalin was a butcher.

Shaun

Maybe this thread would be better served in the History forum, if the mods want to move it...

I think a T-70: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-70

LOL,
No I did not forget I was a moderator but I did forget I could move a topic to a different forum.

Cheers,
Shaun

[quote]

It's a T-50, a very rare tank. Only about 60 or so produced. Believe it or not, this was the tank that the Red Army planned to use to replace the T-26 as their most numerous Infantry-support tank. For the time (1941) it was an advanced design with heavy sloped armor all around, three-man turret, 45mm gun, and torsion-bar suspension. But it used abrand-new V-4 diesel that they could just not get to work reliably, and it cost about as much to build as a T-34.

Really interesting question. I wonder if it is like this worldwide or only in the US ?

If it is different elsewhere, then I would take a guess that after 50 years of the cold war, a lot of Americans (especially us baby boomers) think of the Soviets as sort of "the enemy" even though we were allies in WW2. But I wouldn't expect a modeler from, say, Spain or China to feel the same way, so if there's no difference, the explanation must lie elsewhere.

Jon, no need to apologize. This conflict still has too much emotion in it. (Too bad, the politicians can't learn from these unfortunate events.) It's heartbreaking to think of all the unnecessary suffering a few lunatics can wreak on the world. Whenever people argue about how great the Tiger is (or any other tank, for that matter), they tend to forget that in every destroyed vehicle people die horrendous death.

I have more German armor than anything else -the second most abundant is Russian-made . From post-war period I mostly build Russian, because I think all other tanks are plain repulsive -it's a matter of taste, really. I like the simple, ugly, and brutal geometry of the German designs, and the soft, almost "organic" lines of the Russian ones.
But the first point still stands: whenever only a single Russian-made tank is displayed on a dio, it tends to be knocked-out. (So building preference does not come into the equation here.) Much greater proportion than any other made vehicle. (How many models of the 007 Tiger were made? How many of these depict the vehicle with the turret blown off?) I wonder why that is. I think this question was answered, but since it agreed with my private assessment, I might be biased.
I did not mean to provoke strong feelings -it's just an academic question.
(I do have questions, though that could provoke really strong feelings...)

Danny,
My fellow modelers from Hungary -and from many other Eastern-bloc countries- rabidly hate everything Russian. Germans, and West Europeans were kept in fear of waves of Russian tanks rolling over the Iron Curtain, so they have some strong aversions, too.
The motion, I think, is to think of anything Russian (or Soviet, to be more exact) to be inferior, low-quality. It's how the Western propaganda tried -and succeeded- to depict the "enemy". The problem is that it's eerily similar to the official WWII German stand. (The Russians did the same by the way -first hand experience.) Instead of respecting the adversary you learn to despise him. Bad strategy -this is what's going on with the whole idiotic "islamofascist" scaremongering, and with Iran in particular.

T-50? I need to find better tank-guide books. None of them has any word on it. (I knew they suck before, anyway.)

Note to Shaun, I'm not 100% sure this belongs in The History Forum either, but I'll let it slide as it seems to have turned more that way.

As to the basic question, of why German forces are seen victorious over Russian forces more often I would have to say it's for several reasons. One, from a basic modeling point of view, I maintain that there are more German kits available, especially in figures, than Russian. This even comes down to the number of Russian, and French, tanks that are marketed with German markings. It's simply easier to make a dio with victorious German forces than the other way around. As for the reason why you don't see as many German victorious over American or British I think partly that is because, frankly, the Russians post war were considered just as bad, or to some worse, than the Germans. Many people, I believe, would have been happy to see the Germans beat the Russians. This can also be seen in popular culture. How are Germans portrayed, blond haired, blue eyed, handsome, even when totally evil, compared to Russians shown as brutish, semi-human creatures. (At least that is the way it is in the West, I can't speak for Eastern cultures)

For myself I can't bring myself to model German subjects any more unless they are knocked out or captured. That is a personal decision that I made for myself that I don't attempt to try to convince anybody else of.

Here goes, IMHO I think it has to do with the feeling that the german war machine was "invincible." They enjoyed so many large successes it is easy to imagine a diorama where they are kicking butt. For me personally, I like to model german subjects because of the wide array of vehicles. You can only model so many t-34's and sherman's before you want to puke! I also think that it is easy to diorama germany "on the offensive" or "on the run"

Another interesting topic in the history club!

Firstly lets just say, there are no completely innocent sides in war, soldiers at the end of the day are soldiers, they fight to stay alive and for their freinds, very few are fighting for an ideology. All sides in the second world war have blood on their hands, and while the western allies where better behaved and held a higher respect for the rules of war, they weren't always angels. Saying that the Nazi regime commited huge atrocities, and Stalin wasn't much better (worse in the long run, as mentioned), coupled with this the nature of combat on the eastern front, we can safely say things were a lot nastier.

However, back on topic now, what is it with knocked out T-34's? I can see your point Andras, there are a fair few dio's with knocked out Russian AFV's in them, though I have seen plenty with German AFV's knocked out and dios of knocked out US and commenwealth AFV's.
The reasons for this? As mentioned there are far more German figure sets out there, and so easier to depict a scene with Germans than any other nationality (If you think its hard with Russians, try doing it with Brits!), therefore a charging or advancing scene, is easier to do with Germans, and so depending on the theater the other side will have to be the one with the KO'd tank (as it can be great to get a knocked out AFV in there to add perspective to a scene), and given the fact that a lot of combat went on along the eastern front the Russians will be the ones getting it in the neck here.
Also there is a much greater variation of Axis armour, and so it is more likely to be the focus of the dio and therefore unlikely to be shown knocked out. Personally, when i'm building a dio, I develop an affinity with the main AFV and so want it to be the focus, and probably victorious over its enemy (whichever side that is). This will vary on the dio and the AFV and therefore the axis or allied powers. What I don't do is have an overall rule saying that one side should always be shown in a better light than the other. It depends on the scene I want to portray.
This leads me onto the feeling I get that some people feel guilty for modelling german (or dare I say it 'nazi') armour, and therefore cant show it in victorious or good sense in a dio. Yes the German army was 'bad' but it was 60 years ago and we like to build model kits. Build the scene you want, not the scene you feel you should.
If you want a Tiger rolling triumphantly through a field of destroyed T-34's, do it, don't feel bad about it because the Germans shouldn't have won. Its not real, its a diorama.

After saying this, I have just started building my first ever T-34 (not my first Russian AFV but for some reason I missed the obvious one out!) and guess what..........
I'm planning on doing it knocked out! SHOCK HORROR! but guess what else, i'm planning on having German troops advancing carefully past it, but wait for it, while a small squad of Russians wait in ambush on the other side.
Hopefully the scene should show the German's impending doom, and therefore, while including a knocked out T-34 should actually be pro-Russian.
Why choose this scene? What are my motives?
Because I had the neccesary spares in my stash to create what I thought would be an interesting scene. Not because of any pre-meditated political ideologies.

This is not meant as a rant or to offend anyone, it's just my observations and views on the subject, please treat it as such! Lets enjoy modelling for what it is, the fun of building something from nothing and the ability to be artistic with it!

Thanks for reading,

James

labeling soldiers as "Nazis" or "Communists" doesn't make much sense, that's true. But I beg to differ about the Western Allies. While the fighting wasn't as savage as on the eastern front (well, ask the thousands who died), have you read "Slaughterhouse Number Five"? The systematic bombing of civilians was as big of a war-crime than any committed during the war. (And the colonial politics of these powers weren't much better, either. They were just racists against brown people, not Jewish and Slavic origin -while talking about fighting "freedom" and "democracy".)

Anyway, there are lots of possible reasons -I think we have covered all. I'm building and planning several damaged/destroyed models, and most of them happen to be German. (Simply because I have more of these kits...) I guess the first one I'll show in a few weeks here, on armorama -I'm kind of nervous. First snow, first dio, first whitewash, first everything.

A little sidenote. I just read “Tigers in the mud”, and I think, it is a very fine example of the stereotypes, and the historical distortions many people still believe in. Carius lists all the typical arguments: Germany heroically fought against Communism, they protected the Western World against the “Ivan”, it was the honorable thing to serve in the war, real soldiers were vilified, etc.
He conveniently forgets about the fact that Nazi Germany attacked first in all fronts, and not for fear of the spreading Communism. Stalin and his empire very much isolated itself from the world. The Nazis –however crazy it might sound- actually wanted to establish some Teutonic empire on the ruins of Eastern Europe, with much of the Slavic, Jewish, etc population terminated, the rest serving as slaves. That’s hardly an honorable thing to fight for. He also claims that those who deserted are traitors. I think –and it’s not just me, but the general consensus- that a real patriot can turn against the establishment if he or she feels that the current rulers hurt the country. (Like “them damned hippies” in the ‘60s.) The patriotic thing would have been to put a bullet in Hitler’s head in ’39. The military instead rolled over cowardly. The assassination attempt came only because the war didn’t work out, not because they disagreed with it. (Big difference.) A soldier can’t claim that he just followed orders – Nuremberg showed that- and can’t claim it to be the honorable thing, either. By the way, the German soldiers did not fight for Germany. They fought for Hitler. Another big difference.
Carius does not have any excuses not to educate himself on the horror of the Third Reich in the decades that have passed since. He, as a tanker, might not have been a witness –or a facilitator- to the war crimes, and crimes against humanity, that the German Armed Forces (and not just the SS) committed on a grand scale, but these things are known now. He –and others- see this conflict as a war honorably fought and lost between gentlemen (Germans and Western Allies), and those bestial Russians. It might have been true for WWI, but the Germans did everything but behave honorably in this war –never once you can read about this ugly little fact.
He does mention that many Americans did expect to join the Germans and fight against the Soviets later on –something I have read about before. Apparently, many professional, high-ranking soldiers in the US Armed forces, and many leading industrialists were convinced they were fighting the wrong enemy. (Mass-murder is only wrong if your opponent does it. It’s OK, when an ally commits it. Eerily familiar notion.)
I think this is the mentality that’s responsible for most of these “anomalies”.* The same goes to the “US lost Vietnam, and not the Vietnamese won” arguments, for that matter, and many others, too. People should learn history, accept history, even if it’s not to their liking, instead of fabricating some alternative version of the facts.

By the way, the book was very interesting reading about tank warfare, and a first-hand account how the Germans saw those “inferior” Slavic hordes. It seems that Carius had a great respect for the T-34 and IS-2, and attributes most of the losses the Russians suffered
to poor training, and tactics. He doesn’t even come close to the appraisal –and glorification - of the Tiger you can read about in military and history forums. Perhaps he should have stuck to the actual events, instead of bringing on the propaganda.

*Disclaimer: “most”, and not “all”. Many just like German stuff as was discussed

Very interesting discussion. It sort of crept away from the original intent, but that's how things go. In the 1930's and ealy 1940's the Soviets agressively moved West. Finland was attacked, and some parts of Eastern Europe. These people were sacrificed because no one in the "West" cared all that much. However, to some one with a mind set like Hitler, it was only a matter of time before they moved west again. Even the Soviets have admitted that much. The bulk of the Soviet army was actually stationed in conquered territories that suffered huge privations under the Soviets. When NATO depolyed in what they called the "Forward Defense" posture it looked very much like how the Soviet army was deployed in 1941. The Soviets beleived that they were going to be attacked by Nato because of this deployement. It was just what they were doing in 1941.

I read a story about a young 16 year old youth that lost his entire family to the fire storm in Hamburg. I read it a long time ago, but he joined the Army at 17 so he could get a chance to kill British soldiers. He got his chance in Normandy. He fought because of Hitler, but not for him. There is a difference.

The most compelling reason why the Soviets called it The Great Patriotic War was explained by a Soviet nurse who fled to the west after WWII. When asked why she had served under a tyrant like Stalin, if Hitler was no better or worse she replied, "I decided to fight for the tyrant that spoke Russain." It makes sense for BOTH sides.

For myself, the reason I make disable and destroyed Soviet tanks is because I like to build them more that the waaaaaaaaay overbuilt German stuff. I like the rugged simplicity of the T-34.

The people of eastern Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and part of Rumania were of course sacrificed to Stalin by Hitler as part of their alliance. Hitler cared for them even less than the west, who at least tried to help Finland, and had his own long-held plans for moving east.

David

David, I agree. I have always felt sympathy for those small countries stuck between wolves and cast aside like an old can in world politics. And people wonder why they dislike us so much.

I had a teacher that was 100% Polish for my Wold History class at a community college. He was a US Army WWII vet, both parents were immigrants in the 20's. He told us a story he heard before the war about a Polish farmer that found a magic lamp. When granted three wishes the farmer asked for the Chinese to come and invade Poland, then go home! This was the same wish for number 2 and 3! When the genie asked why in the world would you want the Chinese to invade Poland three times, and go home every time he replied. They would have to cross Russia SIX times. Ouch! I think this joke is at least as old as the Mongols and their campaigns into Eastern Europe, but it shows how the Polish people felt about the Russians.