Thank you Mal.

Does that mean the use of the bold outline boxes was an error, or was
it used to differentiate between the 5.9's and the 4.1's?
(for me personally, 2 different sizes of thin outline boxes would
have done that better).

Btw, brilliant job on the deluxe ship logs, the amount work that
saves for later war scenarios, especially where ships vs aircraft or
subs apply.
I'll look forward to the US and Japanese ones.

regards,

Andy

--- In GenQuarters@yahoogroups.com, "Mal Wright (Gallopingjack)"
<mgwright@...> wrote:
>
> The lack of Armour for the 5.9" guns on pocket battleships is
because they
> only had gun shields, not turrets.
>
>  
> Mal Wright
> Non-torsii subligarium
> (Dont get your knickers in a twist)
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Andy Siviter
> Date: 8/01/2009 9:59:22 PM
> To: GenQuarters@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [GenQuarters] Couple of Quick GQ3 Questions
>
> having finally gotten my games room back, I have finally been able
to
> play the GQ3 I bought as soon as came out.
> So far it seems everything I hoped it would be :)
>
> 2 points came to my notice concerning secondary batteries on the
> ships logs.
>
> Firstly the German pocket battleships show armoured (thicker
outline)
> boxes on the display, but no smaller font armour factor.
> Which is correct? I assume the 5.9" guns were armoured to a degree
> and the 4.1" not as for the later German capital ships, but what is
> their armour value?
>
> Secondly, the later US battleships seem to show the reverse - they
> list an armour value for the 5" DP guns, but the boxes on the ships
> log appear to be the unarmoured (thin outline) type.
>
> I purchased the deluxe ship logs, and noticed the Pocket
battleships
> were still without an armour value the the 5.9" guns.
>
> Hopefully one or more of you "old campaigners" will have already
> noticed and resolved these issues :)
>
> Thanks for your help,
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>