Inherent FP vs partially armored AFV

[Bjoernar]

Hello

I have some doubts how to treat inherent firepower vs. partially armored AFV's

Consider this:

1)
Assume that a US 666 squad with a 9-2 fires its inherent FP at a partially armored vehicle through an unarmed target facing. e.g. They fires at a Marder II from the rear where they hit the unarmored upper-superstructure.

The question is: Is the vehicle treated as an AFV or as an unarmored vehicle against this firepower. I find the rules somewhat ambiguous about this.

I have noted two points below:
D1.2 Every vehicle falls into at least one of four Armor Status categories. If a vehicle has any armor (1.6) it is referred to as an Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV) and is subject to many special rules. The main advantage of an AFV is that it cannot be harmed by Small Arms on the IFT (although its PRC may be Vulnerable to such fire in certain situations) unless struck through an unarmored Target Facing/Aspect.

Last sentence: Is the AFV vulnerable or only the crew?

Rule D5.311 indicates that a crew may suffer a KIA, which it won’t if the AFV is treated as an unarmored vehicle that is eliminated instead of being unaffected by the squads FP. The crew instead must take a CS.

If the vehicle is treated as an AFV, it is unharmed by the squad’s fire and gets marked with an abandonment counter if the crew is eliminated.

2)
Is a partially armored AFV in the same location as a squad treated as an AFV or as an unarmored vehicle vs. the squads own FP?



In essence: What does happen when a squad fires inherent FP at a partially armored AFV?


I hope my points are clear.




Regards
Bjørnar

 

[Brian W]

In essence: What does happen when a squad fires inherent FP at a partially armored AFV?

It is treated as an unarmored vehicle and a DR on the * line of the IFT is made per A7.308. Additionally, the PRC suffer a General Collateral attack unless the vehicle is destroyed, in which case they must roll CS.

 

[Bjoernar]

Thanks! I hoped it would be that simple.

The fact that rule D5.311 indicates that a crew kan get a KIA result confused me a bit. I thought that by rolling low enough you could kill the crew but not the AFV.

 

[Brian W]

The fact that rule D5.311 indicates that a crew kan get a KIA result confused me a bit. I thought that by rolling low enough you could kill the crew but not the AFV.

It is possible in some circumstances--most notably when elevation effects/Air Bursts lower CE DRM. I have never actually seen a K or a KIA happen such a way though, so I have to think it is rather rare.

Brian

 

[Bjoernar]

Hi!

My concern about the KIA result is that the AFV, which is now treated as an unarmored vehicle, is eliminated at a higher final DR number than would be necessary for a KIA on the crew (as far as I could see from the IFT). Because of this, I do not see how a crew may actually get a KIA result without also eliminating the AFV. I think that by writing K/# and KIA results indicate that if e.g. the crew get an boxcar when rolling a MC it is eliminated. Maybe the writing of the rule is just done this way to cower all possible cases if there should be some. If this line of thinking is wrong it would be nice with an example showing me this


BTW. I have a little problem to understand the meaning of a small phrasing in the D5.311 rule:

....that AFV is instead treated as unarmored and the attack vs it - but not vs its PRC - is resolved .....

What is the meaning/point of the - but not vs its PRC- part? If the AFV is treated just as an unarmored vehicle then why insert such a part. I believe that the crew get collaterally attacked normally if the vehicle did not get eliminated, just as a crew/passenger in a regular truck would, and because of that I do not see the point of this writing. Or, have I missed something here?



Regards
Bjørnar