Pz IVh armor value

[uannayven]

Hopefully easy question.  PzIVh tanks have an armor value of 5. However the exact same tank in Syrian use in Sword of Israel has an armor value of 6. Anyone know how armor factors are determined?

Mike

[plloyd1010]

I'm not sure there is a real answer for that. I've mostly gotten the impression that is a sort of relativistic rating, as it is with the guns/AT ratings. For example,: the M4/76 of counter attack still has and armor of 3 and an AT of 6-7, despite the retro fits and the now abundance of reliable T4 ammunition. Or the Pak 40 vs. the Kwk 40; did the the extra 2" really make that big of a difference?

So far ass I know, the only updates the Syrians made to their PzKw IV's was to replace the engines and some of the machine guns. Thus, no real change. The Syrians were also very concerned about breakdowns, therefore drove the tanks rather slowly. No reason for the Syrian Pz IV to be rated better, apart from a potential of a different armor/AT scale.

[dirk]

The  Syrian PzIVh is representing  a dug-in inmoblie tank. Its movement value is 0 and armor is 6. In my thought the increase in armor value is because it is dug-in to show the extra defensive value of it being dug-in. It has been raised to 6 instead of 5.
I can't remember and don't have the rules in front me, if the Syrian Pz IVh can be using a dug-in status from the special rules.

[plloyd1010]

I hadn't noticed the 0 movement. Nor have I played a scenario with them. Interesting... Not having fuel in them and a potentially lower profile, a 6 defense may not be so bad. They only appear in 3 scenarios. Nothing says they cannot dig in.

[uannayven]

Hmmm, I also did not notice the zero movement. So basically the armor value was changed to reflect the permanent dug-in AT modifier. So for me then these tanks will not be allowed to dig in.
Actually I feel any unit with a movement of zero should not be allowed to dig-in. As the rules mention the unit must spend its entire movement allowance to dig-in. So a unit with no movement allowance cannot dig in. 


Mike

[plloyd1010]

Looking at the RaW and the scenario book. There is nothing that says they cannot dig in. In all 3 scenarios, the placement instructions say that all eligible units may dig in. Having a movement of 0 does not prevent guns from digging in, so I do not expect that is a useful argument. On the other hand, their having a movement of 0 suggests they are semi-buried (dug in) positions.