安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题









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?