Gotta agree. If you would resize the pics, it would help us all see 'em better. I think 640
pixels wide is even better than 800 for viewing on this forum.
That said, here are a few observations on the models.
First off, I think they look pretty good. I don't know how much experience you have
painting minis in general, nor micro-armor in particular, but you are definitely in the
"more advanced painters" category in my book.
I like the detail. Detail adds a lot, even at this scale. Tail lights -- yeah! Red cross
decals? Excellent. Roadwheels painted too? Great. Muzzles blacked? Good show.
It is hard for me to judge the overall color. Pics are not reliable in reproducing color ... I
don't know if that's how your models look in that particular lighting, or if the camera, or
my monitor, changes what your eye on the spot actually sees.
But it does look a bit splotchy to me. That's not necessarily bad. Maybe what you are
looking for. But it is not a common effect. In particular, the splotches seem to be darker
(more brown) than the base color. In my own painting I often go heavy-handed on the
dark washes, but that seldom leaves a splotch on open flat surfaces. I also often go
heavy-handed with the dry-brush, which sometimes DOES leave splotches on more
open surfaces, but those splotches are lighter, not darker, than the base tone. Just an
observation.
Also, the more important issues to my eye ... the paint looks to be on rather thicker than
needs be, and there is a noticeable gloss on several models. It may be that the thickness
I see is related to the gloss -- maybe a very thick overcoat material (like floor wax?) is
being used? The thickness seems to highlight some of the painting anomolies (like the
blotches), and also seems to obscure some of the model details.
I know some painting approaches put gloss overcoats on for some intentional effect. I'm
not a fan of gloss on a military model, no matter the scale. If you like it, that's fine. But I
much prefer very flat military miniatures (except for glass or other reflective surfaces).
Still, do as you like, no need to change to please me.
If I may be so bold as to make some suggestions, I have two areas of detailing you may
want to consider.
First is painting some of the tools. You are already getting the tail lights, and the missile
warheads, etc. So why not try the picks and shovels, too. Particularly on the six-wheel
APCs, there are a couple tools pictured on the hull sides that are just crying to be hit
with some dark brown and gun-metal silver/gray.
Second is putting some more variety into the soft-vehicles' canvas tops. I have recently
adopted a couple approaches to give some subtle variety to canvas surfaces,
particularly on truck covers. To my observation, canvas left in the weather changes
color at an infinitely variable rate, so no two canvas-covered items left outside will have
the same color for long. So I try to imitate that characteristic of canvas.
I've taken to under-coating the canvas surfaces of a group of vehicles with notably
different colors, and then also choosing two or three top-coat colors that are all rather
similar, yet not identical.
Here is an example with some Italian WW2 trucks I did several months ago ...

Some of the canvas tops were undercoated white, some the same green-grey as the
bodies, and some olive green. Also, on some I undercoated the cab roof canvas a
different color than the body canvas. Then I used two different colors for the top
coats. One is Polly-S "Olive Green", the other is Polly-S "Khaki", which is a tan khaki.
Again, I painted some cabs differently from the body canvas. With that number of
variables, out of five trucks no two were painted the same.
But with identical washes and dry-brushing, the colors converge to become only subtly
different. I rather like the character this gives. They look to me like they may have all
faded or gotten dirty at their own rates.
Just an idea. Use or ignore at your discretion.