SALUT!
I have not (yet) entered a model in a contest. However, looking at some pictures taken from IPMS Nationals, I am wondering the degree to which historical accuracy, or lack thereof, can preclude an otherwise well-executed model from further consideration. My question is inspired from a picture I saw of a Type IX U Boat, beautifully painted, well modelled, but painted with an anti=fouling red hull--perhaps the single most egregious error one can make in modelling a U Boat. (It is accessible via modelwarships.com) In my mind, a mistake like that cannot be more glaring. In some popular media, the portrayal of U Boats with the anti-fouling red seems ever prevalent. But even a cursory inquiry online or elsewhere would instruct one about the historically accurate color schemes. In my mind, painting a U Boat in anti fouling red is worse than builing a late Tiger without zimmerit, for example.
With that said, would it be possible for a model to place notwithstanding such a cardinal sin? Please note that I am not talking about arcane, subtle errors (on another forum one fellow protested that a model of a Stug III placed notwithstanding the fact that it was not equipped with the historically accurate engine, as the engine it was equipped with was only installed on slightly later models of the Stug III), or inaccuracies inherited in the kit(like the Hornet bow on the Trumpeter kit) that are difficult to correct and reveal themselves only upon close inspection. My questions seeks to focus on open and obvious errors that anyone with even minimal general knowledge about that subject would spot right away. Like the lack of zimmerit on a late Tiger or anti-fouling red on a u-boat.

Einsamer Wolf