Am I being OCD?

If you want to be %100 historically accurate, your odds are pretty slim, unless you chance upon a photo of exactly what you want. But if you want to build something that is in your minds' eye, you can create a scene that is quite plausible. As long as you give yourself some guidelines such as area, unit, time period, and stick to them. Do research covering all those areas and you can come up with good hard rules. While the PAK 36 did see service through much of the war, it's use as an AT gun was grealy diminished by the time the Marders were in usage. But the option of the Tamiya kit of the bore loaded projectile (whatever it's called) is a later war option. Yes local commanders and crews had the lattitude to camoflage paint their vehicles and equipment to match local conditions, especially after early 43 when the three color camo was introduced. Another option you may want to look at is foliage. No matter how good your paint is, in a European setting, foliage added to a camo painted item will conceal it FAR BETTER.

Good luck with your diorama and post pics of it as it is coming along.

Was it possible for these two weapons systems to be at the same place defending a bridge? Maybe. What you'd want to do is reseach each item, when it went into service and when it went out of service. If there's an overlay of time, the possibility might exist. Then you'd want to research which units used them and where. Further, you'd want to consider risking assets to defend a bridge versus just blowing it and slowing the enemy down with minimal risk to personels and materiel.

Now, as to painting, before March 1943, virtually all German equipment was dark gray. At that point, the high command ordered all eqipment be delivered in dark yellow and crews be equipped with tins of dark green and red brown. Generally, there was no standardized pattern ordered, crews painted as the tank commander or whoever was in charge suggested. There was also no directive regarding the level of thinning or the method of application. Therefore some items had soft edges, sone hard edges; some had very thinned, almost translucent paint and some very dark paints. Some items were left all dark yellow, some were yellow and green, some brown and yellow and some had all three colors is an amazing variety of patterns.

I suspect the 37mm would have gone out of service pretty quickly as armor became impervious to its small shell. Look at the Stuart and Grant/Lee tanks. The Stuart saw some action in Europe as a recon tank only.

This probably only adds to your confusion, but consider this an adventure in learning. There are dozens of books on paint schemes from Ssquadron, Osprey and a host of other.

Thank you both for the replies. Well I must say that you guys have given me some direction, I was also reading some threads about the Marder and must say that I didn't realize the true purpose of it. This may change my approach. I like the idea a scene from the Operation Market Garden, more specifically the defense and planned destruction of the Wijchen bridge. It looks like I may be able to find enough information on this scene. I had just read that the 10th SS was there and was unsuccessful in destroying the bridge.

Let me know if this sounds wrong, since all this reading is making my head hurt

Makes sense the 37mm does seem to be out of place.

dallasa wrote:

Thank you both for the replies. Well I must say that you guys have given me some direction, I was also reading some threads about the Marder and must say that I didn't realize the true purpose of it. This may change my approach. I like the idea a scene from the Operation Market Garden, more specifically the defense and planned destruction of the Wijchen bridge. It looks like I may be able to find enough information on this scene. I had just read that the 10th SS was there and was unsuccessful in destroying the bridge.   Let me know if this sounds wrong, since all this reading is making my head hurt

me tinks it's time for 2 dio's

the pak perhaps behind a stone or brick wall with earlier ger. uniforms with some foliage and grass

When all else fails grab a book and start reading (and scratching my head). So I picked up "Panzer Battles" by Major General F.W. von Mellenthin (Cheif of Staff 4th German Panzer Army).

 I then was rather happy to read the section on the Battle of Kursk. Well it just so happens that the P.G.D. "Gross Deutchland" played a major role in this engagment. Why does this matter? Well I know I saw that name before in reference to the Marder II, I saw it on the instructions for my model (like that's a really good reference), and I know I saw it somewhere else but I have yet to find out where I read that "Gross Deutchland" had a fair number of Marder II's. Well if I can establish that they did then I can very easily convince myself that on July 7th 1943 the unit was pushing throught and past Ssyrew and over the River Pena (since I just read this in the book). I then read that on the afternoon of the 7th there was some strong armor resistance from the Russians. After I read this chapter of the book about 3 times it hit me. There is my scene After the Russian's were flanked by the "Gross Deutchland" Battle Group (consisting of recon and assault gun units) the main "Gross Deuchland" unit traveled over the bridge north of Ssyrew. I can definately prove that they crossed the bridge and were on the offensive at the time, now all I need to do if prove that they did infact have Marder II's in the mix (I gotta find where I read that they did).

Let me know what you guys think?

My prime reference here is the old Squadron book on "Grossdeutschland". In it, there are some tables of organization and equipment ("TOE"), LOTS of photos for the appropriate time periods, and brief histories for each year along with timelines and maps. During Kursk/Citadel, GD had recently been reformed/redesignated as a Panzer Grenadier division and brought up to full strength as such for the offensive. It's status as an elite unit within the regular army means it would have had priority for the latest equipment. By 1942, it was already using the 75mm PAK 40 as it's primary towed AT gun, not the 37mm PAK 36. Photos show this weapon being used by them during this time period. As far as the Marder useage goes, it does show under their old TOE as a Motorized Infantry Division during 1942, but the book skips a year for the next TOE until 1944 as a PG division. By that point it shows no Marders. But 1943 at Kursk is not shown either way. The bridge scenario sounds quite possible, but not with a PAK 36 for 1943 as part of GD.

There are several good kits of the PAK 40 (Tamiya, Dragon, Itlaeri) out there in 1/35 if you feel you need an AT gun by the bridge from that time.

   Can i ask how far do we have to go to make a diorama 'accurate'?  In my opinion, i think accuracy is achieved more by the use of unit markings and vehicle types that depict the time period you want to model. As to terrain and structures, i would have to say that there is a lot of room for doing whatever looks good. Ok, obvious stuff ups like pine trees in a desert diorama, or snow in a Normandy diorama may not work. The dio base and setting is where we have to freedom to let our imagination and creativity take over and build something different. I am sure that there were many areas of battle and fire fights that were not photographed. If the setting we have looks good and fits the time we are depicting who can dispute the intricate details of that?

  I refer to a dio posted by Manstein, the 'Excuse me miss....' one. Some said the trough was out of context. But was it really? Model Maniac posted a viginette featuring a small hut supposedly in a city battlefield. Who said the scene depicted wasn't on the outskirts of that city? My father had an old tin shed in his back yard that should have been out on a farm somewhere. Only thing was, we lived right in town..... And guess what, he also had two goats in that lived in it! Put that in a city battle diorama, would it be excepted as accurate?

  Does this idea of having to be accurate take away from our fun of using our imagination, or does it tie us down to just trying to replicate a photograph? It is up to each individual which way they want to model. I just think that sometimes, dios are criticised on points (supposedly not accurate) that really are plausible.

  Just my opinion, and some questions for us to debate on. We like debates now don't we..

  Boomer...

Boomer,

Hey thanks for the input, I like your point of view! Well with that said I think I will start drawing up a sketch tonight, I will keep everyone posted on my progress.

Dallas

Well this is my first crude digital mockup I am thinking I will add rubble on the other side of the bridge, and maybe a broken road sign and a crater caused by advancing armor

When you place ruins, think about where the rest of the building was before. There was another dio up recently that had an incongruous stone pillar, for no reason. I'd guess that a little road or a series of quays ran along your river- the buildings would be squared up along it. That digital mockup is a nice technique.

Another thought occured to me. This is going to be a big diorama. In general those have a single viewing angle. For models set in the Northern hemisphere, like this one, east is generally modelled to the right and west to the left. That puts the sun, and your photo lighting behind you shining forward over your shoulder. You seem to be correct there... Germans retreating east in a rearguard.

Thanks for the input, I get what you are saying unfortunately I am not a master as photoshop my intent will be to have the buildings be square with the road I envisioned a road between the two ruins. Man I had not even consider the lighting and shadows of the sun.

While I am thinking about it anyone have a reference to creating crater holes?

Your layout looks good.

 For crater holes it all depends on the soil. I have seen 155mm rounds leave huge holes in  damp earth in green field open terrain, but only a slight blast crater larger around but very shallow in hard rocky desert terrain. Both from the same type of HE round. 

stikpusher wrote:

Your layout looks good.  For crater holes it all depends on the soil. I have seen 155mm rounds leave huge holes in  damp earth in green field open terrain, but only a slight blast crater larger around but very shallow in hard rocky desert terrain. Both from the same type of HE round.

I have been reading alot on the area of interest and know that the land was sandy and swampy. I can assume the the area around the banks of the river will be even more sandy since the river would be depositing additional silt.