Armor Immunity (7.25) Confusion

[saracv3]

For some time I think (I can’t quite remember) that while a tank is certainly more difficult to kill than soft targets, there is a loophole on the DF and Bomb. Charts. When an X occurs on the charts, I’ve rolled a M2 on each surviving unit and the surviving step in the stack. (Roll an M for close top AFV, of M2) An AFV can be destroyed by direct fire by attrition.In this way, infantry fire does have a chance to destroy armor. Upon review of 7.25 (4th ed.) Armor Immunity, it states:

“If a unit has a printed armor value ... it is immune to all but an X or #X on the direct fire or bombardment fire tables. If the unit is an APC, any unit or leader it’s transporting is immune as well. Armor gives no protection on the Assault Table ....”

Pretty much straightforward, right? I think to myself that I’ve been wrong all this time.
But then things get a bit muddled. On both tables (4th ed.) under the X result: “All close top AFVs in hex must make M morale check. All other units take M2 check.” (Not to mention overlapping 7.61)

So there’s some confusion/dueling rules here.
here?

[cjsiam]

For some time I think (I can’t quite remember) that while a tank is certainly more difficult to kill than soft targets, there is a loophole on the DF and Bomb. Charts. When an X occurs on the charts, I’ve rolled a M2 on each surviving unit and the surviving step in the stack. (Roll an M for close top AFV, of M2) An AFV can be destroyed by direct fire by attrition.In this way, infantry fire does have a chance to destroy armor. Upon review of 7.25 (4th ed.) Armor Immunity, it states:

“If a unit has a printed armor value ... it is immune to all but an X or #X on the direct fire or bombardment fire tables. If the unit is an APC, any unit or leader it’s transporting is immune as well. Armor gives no protection on the Assault Table ....”

Pretty much straightforward, right? I think to myself that I’ve been wrong all this time.
But then things get a bit muddled. On both tables (4th ed.) under the X result: “All close top AFVs in hex must make M morale check. All other units take M2 check.” (Not to mention overlapping 7.61)

So there’s some confusion/dueling rules here.
here?

As I understand it...and X on DF/Bomb on a hex with a Closed Top AFV means the AFV rolls an M.....others take the loss and roll M2....
The only time you can force an M2 on a closed Top Armor is AT fire(on remaining step), or Assault.....(I think)...
If it is an X# you can take a step from an OPen Top AFV....but I think only Aircraft can force a step on closed top AFV with the X# result.

[saracv3]

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

[cjsiam]

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....

[saracv3]

Ah, yes, never stack 3. My cardinal rule, too, until this game. I’m experimenting w stacking 3 in woods and towns. The -2 defensive offset may be worth taking the column down although then there’s another +2 (thinking out loud here)for artillery. But if 3 105s are together, they’ve got a 48 bf at a range of 31. I contemplated putting them on reverse positions; rear facing in a stand of woods. But I couldn’t bring myself to do it. I still stacked 2 105s w same concept. This should punk up the infantry.

[J6A]

I try to avoid stacking 3....however, try playing something like First Axis sometime.  The units are so terrible that the only way to get any sort of effective attack is to stack 3.  Sometimes you just do that and hope for the best.

[leonard]

More than once, I succeeded to force a stack of 3 X T-34 to fall back because the sum of defending Direct Fire really was threatening. Indeed, you easily get to column 30+ and X results. When Soviet morale is low, it’s a good trick...