SK 7/2: Armor Efficient? (FoF)

[Poor Yorek]

In FoF, the SK 7/2 are defined as SPA (citing 5.64) even though they have no printed armor value (treated as a truck with armor = -1).

The question, though, is whether its 2-5 AT value is efficient as an AFV? AFV's, of course, are defined as "any unit with a printed armor value, even one of zero." On the face of it, then, these are not AFVs and, therefore would not qualify for armor efficiency (in comparison with such as the Wespe with its 5-6 AT value and '1' armor).

Yet, these are light AT weapons mounted in an mechanized "half-track" - technically the SK7 prime mover. Is this so different from SPW 251's mounting AT capable weapons which are AFV's? I suppose one could return by arguing that the latter weapons were designed "into" the half-track, not simply "carried in the back" and, of course, the SPW 251 was "armored." Note, however from Wikipedia: "The Sd.Kfz. 7/2 was armed with a single 3.7 cm FlaK 36 anti-aircraft gun. On many of these variants, the driver's position and the engine cover was armored[1]"

In any case, just wondering whether anyone else has adjudicated this and whether there were any consensus. The literal rules would seem to suggest "NO" to armor efficiency, but just curious if this was a case of something slipping between the rules.

[joe_oppenheimer]

I would not give them armor efficiency. They are specifically defined as SPA and special rule #10 says that "German tanks" have armor efficiency.

[vince hughes]

There will be a dissenter somewhere, but I'm with you two. Not effecient as not an AFV.

Also, as SPA, I think they are activated by foot leaders and don't even have any tank leaders.

Im at work, no rules or scenario booklet with me, so unable to confirm this.

[Poor Yorek]

I think the real key is the identity as or not as an AFV. If an AFV, then a "tank" leader activates it (3.3). For example, a Wespe is an SPA unit, but it is an AFV and is thus activated by "tank" leaders and is efficient (being German).

Since the SK 7/2 does not have a printed armor value, by the book it cannot be an AFV; cannot be efficient as per 11.2; and, presumably is then activated by regular leaders, not by "tank" leaders. (as an aside, I really wish APL would have referred to the latter as AFV leaders to avoid ambiguity).

I was just wondering whether this particular unit might have "slipped through the cracks." We - TheDoctor and I - began to discuss why the armor value determined the AT fire efficiency status (or, put another way, why are not AT guns efficient). The best we could rationalize is that the crew of such a weakly protected weapon (not "armored" whether closed or open-topped) would have to be worried about self-preservation (ducking) sufficiently to impair the fire rate.

[vince hughes]

" We - TheDoctor and I - began to discuss why the armor value determined the AT fire efficiency status (or, put another way, why are not AT guns efficient). The best we could rationalize is that the crew of such a weakly protected weapon (not "armored" whether closed or open-topped) would have to be worried about self-preservation (ducking) sufficiently to impair the fire rate.

Perhaps also the speed of which the gun can be traversed and aimed maybe ?

AT crews having to lift the gun and turn it under their own steam and muscle however many degrees against moving targets ?

Bloody hard work, even for an elf !

[Poor Yorek]

Perhaps also the speed of which the gun can be traversed and aimed maybe ?
AT crews having to lift the gun and turn it under their own steam and muscle however many degrees against moving targets ?

Yep, thought of that. Didn't many German tank models have hand-traverse turrets, though? I seem to recall reading that this was a serious problem for (at least latter war) German crews, particularly, when traversing the turret to aim towards a up-hill opponent. Not to mention assault guns and tank destroyers vs. true tanks - that's why we tended towards the protection aspect.

[vince hughes]

I thought of all those too but avoided it in a long post. I'd still say that I'd rather hand-traverse (wheel-spin) a tank turret, or pivot on one track (for assault guns) rather than lunking a cannon to and fro, left and right and so on.

In other words, as an obvious example, if there was a StG and a 75mm AT gun in the same spot and enemy tanks were 1000 yards to the left at a 60 degree angle and the same to the right at a 60 degree angle. I think the StG would be able to shoot left, pivot on one track and then shoot right. The humpsters with the AT guns would have to flex the muscles and the lungs to cart the gun about in differing angles and trajectories so as to get shots off in both directions. (Unless they are on a traverse wheel like some guns) which I suspect would take a bit longer.

But with all that said, I'm not sure myself why ALL AT guns have a one shot ability and no more.

Whats that ? Did I hear somebody demand a ROF rule :-)

[waynebaumber]

Whats that ? Did I hear somebody demand a ROF rule :-)

No

Interesting discussion though. I think I am right that Vince and I only play that SPA are activated buy tank leader if they have a tank symbol on the counter but buy other leaders if they have the artillery symbol. I am thinking here with my Soviet head on and in particular of the SU76.
They never last very long in our games anyway, but if they were tied to Tank Leader they would have a very short life span indeed. I believe historically they were used to bolster foot assaults and tried to avoid enemy tanks.

I also think it strange that A/T guns do not get to fire twice the smaller ones like the German 37mm had good rates of fire and were quite "easy" to push/pull around by hand, however such a change would completely unbalance some scenarios so I am not proposing is has a house rule.

[campsawyer]

I thought of all those too but avoided it in a long post. I'd still say that I'd rather hand-traverse (wheel-spin) a tank turret, or pivot on one track (for assault guns) rather than lunking a cannon to and fro, left and right and so on.

If that is the case then the M4 should get "highly efficient" for there powered turrets. Possibly giving them more shots.

As for AT guns, the smaller ones are easier to move but all still had a problem tracking there targets. I am of the belief that the hidden AT gun HS is best for these deadly snakes.

[larry marak]

The smaller the gun, the more nimble the gun, but unfortunately also the less effective the round in anti-tank warfare. (anyone fire off 12 37mm rounds and one 75mm round from a Grant in the Avalon Hill version of Tobruk?--my wrist still hurts remembering). The best we could do would be to make them efficient against armored cars and kugelwagons only.