(04-22-2020, 03:04 AM)saracv3 Wrote: Sounds like we’re saying the same thing. I don’t think an AFV can take a direct X, buf a build up of wounds, so to speak, can do it in. Failure of morale checks in various ways can cause step loss. And this can be caused by Direct Fire. But 7.25 makes a different statement in saying that armor can never be harmed...” Maybe I’m being a rules lawyer here.
FitS #21 is a great test of this rule. Benninghof writes (I’m assuming he’s the author) in the conclusion of the battle that German 105mm howitzers were quite effective against even T34s. Eyewitness accounts by Russian tank crews say that turrets and tracks could not withstand the 105s (there are four batteries in the scenario ) . Hulls however, were not penetrated.
I
Never being directly harmed (as in taking a step loss due to fire) yes, but harmed by compounding morale failures, yes.....so yes, you are being a (insert adjective) rules lawyer in this case.
Also---105mm german howitzer does have a 5-6 AT ...meaning it could be nasty to T34s within AT range....even 3AT at 9 is not to be ignored.....1/12 chance....
The 16BF gives you a 1 in 36 chance, but if you can see the target it moves to 1 in 18 with Bombardment (and if he stacks 3...goes to 1 in 6)....(never stack 3...)
And give you could easily put in two batteries at 32Bf...not visible puts you at 1in6 of X, if you can see them 1in4....if they stack 3 in visible range 1in3 (never stack 3...)
I was bitching to one of guys in local club about another set of mini-rules where if you fire enough 37mm at a tiger eventually you can knock it out---I felt that not appropriate,
he related how when the ferdinands were introduced on the eastern front there was an engagement where a similar 45mm fired and jammed the GunMantle somehow--the
equipment had to be abandoned.....So...shxt happens.....the spectrum of what kind of things might cause impacts can get pretty wide....
