heavy tank armour

Moderators: Vis Bellica, Laffe

Post Reply
User avatar
JOHN BOND 001
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:58 am

heavy tank armour

Post by JOHN BOND 001 » Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:26 am

Can someone please point me to the heavy armour info when targeting heavy tanks?
do you need a 6 to Hit frontal armour, 5,6,
to Hit side armour
4,5,6 for rear armour on a heavy armoured tank?
cheers John

Morgan
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:39 pm

Re: heavy tank armour

Post by Morgan » Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:48 am

It's in the FAQ (page 5):

http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/wp-cont ... -FAQ-1.pdf

Heavy Armour:
Heavy armour indicates that an AFV has good all-round protection. When rolling to penetrate its armour in Step Three of section 12.1, its opponent will treat its side armour as frontal armour, needing 5 or 6 to penetrate. Against its rear armour they will require 4 to 6 to penetrate as opposed to the normal 3 to 6 for rear armour. In simple terms, side armour is treated as frontal armour; rear armour is treated as side armour.
Use the Consolidated Arsenal! It's here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... E/htmlview

User avatar
JOHN BOND 001
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:58 am

Re: heavy tank armour

Post by JOHN BOND 001 » Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:55 am

Thanks Morgan

Wulf
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:23 am

Re: heavy tank armour

Post by Wulf » Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:39 pm

I find it oddly amusing that very early war, flimsy tanks should be given the characteristic of 'Heavy armour' as their armour was often the same on all sides - albeit only 10-15mm thick!

User avatar
MLB
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:57 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: heavy tank armour

Post by MLB » Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:55 pm

I guess it is all relative to the opposition’s anti tank capability. It’s a bit like the support tables, the support cost of an AFV really only matters relative to the support cost of its likely opponent.
The Tactical Painter
Painting little soldiers for tactical battles on the table top

BaronVonWreckedoften
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:28 am

Re: heavy tank armour

Post by BaronVonWreckedoften » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:20 am

Wulf wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:39 pm
I find it oddly amusing that very early war, flimsy tanks should be given the characteristic of 'Heavy armour' as their armour was often the same on all sides - albeit only 10-15mm thick!
I don't think those are the tanks that are having the "heavy armour" label attached - one would hardly describe the Char B1 bis as "flimsy"!

Wulf
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:23 am

Re: heavy tank armour

Post by Wulf » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:04 pm

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:20 am
I don't think those are the tanks that are having the "heavy armour" label attached - one would hardly describe the Char B1 bis as "flimsy"!
They aren't - my point is, if the term 'Heavy Armour' refers to tanks with side armour as effective as front armour, the actual thickness of the armour is not a factor - so the very thinnest armoured tanks should have the 'Heavy Armour' trait.

Post Reply