dieseltaylor Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 A friend has just purchased a memoir by Stuart Hamilton MC of the 8th RTR. Speaking of the Valentine the author was listing the reasons why he fought engine compartment first: Engine compartment tough as front and angled to bounce shells. Saved his driver sitting there counting shells coming towards him. Engine compartment penetration less dangerous. Awkward silhouette to identify As most often fighting rearguard action it allowed for quick escapes, and confusing manouevres I see in CMAK the rear armour is shown as 0 degrees when from the model it looks more like a 30 degree slope. What gives? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Look at the model, the lower part IS 60mm @ 90 degress [or 0 degress] and upper hull rear is also 60mm. The actual tank according to onwar and Encylopepdia of Tanks os 60mm @90 degrees, and the upper hull would be 17mm @30 degrees which is actually LESS protection then what the game gives. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted November 25, 2004 Author Share Posted November 25, 2004 "Boo Radley: "Thanks, Rune (Words I never thought I'd have to utter.)"" I can only quote : ) BTW the JPZIV apparently was never in Italy so is it gamey to use them there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Originally posted by dieseltaylor: the JPZIV apparently was never in Italy so is it gamey to use them there? No it's not gamey because they were there. In 'Panzers in Italy 1943-1945' (Concord) there are two photos of the 75/L48 equipped early JgPz IV. Mace 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.