It all comes down to the interpretation of A9.61 "without any form of halved FP penalty imposed,"
Is the imposed +2 TH DRM (Case K) penalty a "form of halved FP penalty"? The Q&A says it is. I would suggest that the C.4 language says just that, i.e., "Instead" indicates that Ordnance's implementation of "Area Fire" penalty which normally caused halving of the FP on the IFT, "Instead" comes in the form of the Case k To Hit DRM. (don't confuse this with "Area Target Type", which is something completely different)
"C.4 ORDNANCE AREA FIRE: Ordnance Area Fire never halves the FP effect of any hit. Instead, any shot affected by any provision of Area Fire caused by the
target's status uses the Case K To Hit DRM (
6.2). "
You don't have to agree, you don't have to play that way, but the logic is just as sound (if not more so) as the opposite position, i.e., only a shot that has its FP halved prevents a MG from firing as ordnance, and since an AFV fired at using the Vehicle Target Type is immune to "FP" and can only be affected by the TH/TK process, there is never any use of "FP" let alone any halving, so the statement in A9.61 has no possible applicable situation and is just superfluous.