Poopyhead
Posts: 612
Joined: 3/17/2004 Status: offline
|
Yes, from what I’ve read, these thick plates were riveted to the tanks in the field. The problem with this was that a direct hit sometimes shattered the rivets and the plates fell off. The tracks, however, were thin enough to weld to the flat surfaces. I have several books where this is apparent in pictures of III’s, IV’s and even StuG’s and a Wespe (I even have a picture of an Italian M.13 with sandbags the size of hay bales in the front.). The question remains, is the actual historical armor thickness correctly represented in the game? The game says the long barreled Mk IV has 54 mm of armor sloped at, I believe, 12 degrees in the front. Anyone who looks at a picture of a Mk IV can see that a lot of the surface in the front is not sloped at all. So is this game number already a compromise? If an engineer tank gets extra forward armor for the dozer blade (which seems to be the case), then maybe some of the other tanks (Allied as well) deserve to get extra armor too. This may seem like a can of worms, but no more than any other tweak for the sake of realism.
_____________________________
Astrologers believe that your future is determined on the day that you are born. Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.
|