Arab-Israeli ASL

[Misterhawk]

I'm all for an A/I ASL module or Historical Study-type product. I think ASL could easily model the early conflict(s) quite well.

I think it would handle 1948 well and might be pretty interesting... the system may even work past that but I don't think I'd care to find out.

 

[Yuri0352]

Regarding the theory that the '8' armor factor on the CH T-55's was lowered to reflect poor quality Arab AFV crew training/superior Israeli training...
By this 'logic', the Ti-67's used by Israel should approximately doubled armor values based upon their use by IDF crews. Despite the Ti-67's having been captured from the very same poorly trained Arab armies. Are we supposed to believe that upon capture by Israel, these vehicles magically increased their armor thickness by approx. 30mm like some kind of mollusk?

I have had occasion to examine the interior and exterior of a T-55 which was on display at Fort Ord back in the 80's (captured by the Israelis from the Egyptians BTW). The armor on the front hull and turret was massive for a vehicle of that size. Having also explored a few T-34/85's, I was impressed by the very similar robustness and simplicity of both of these tanks.

Regarding an acquisition of Genesis II, I would reconsider trying to buy a copy of I could find one at a sub-3 figure price. I suppose I could create a 'house SSR ' regarding the T-55 armor factors. It does make me wonder about the armor values of the other AFV'S though.

 

[Misterhawk]

I test drove a T-54/55 years ago ... ergonomically they are a nightmare; I would hate to go to war in one. Even just getting from 1st to 2nd gear with the manual transmission was a nightmare.

 

[Yuri0352]

I test drove a T-54/55 years ago ... ergonomically they are a nightmare; I would hate to go to war in one. Even just getting from 1st to 2nd gear with the manual transmission was a nightmare.

Agreed...
On top of that, I noticed that the driver's seat appeared to be bolted directly on to the floor. Although I'm 5' 9" ,the driver's compartment seemed to be a very tight fit.

 

[jrv]

Agreed...
On top of that, I noticed that the driver's seat appeared to be bolted directly on to the floor. Although I'm 5' 9" ,the driver's compartment seemed to be a very tight fit.

According to what I understand, Soviet tanks were designed for shorter individuals. This says 5' 6": https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=200396. But it's hard to pin down whether this was official or just myth.

edit: for the T-72 I found something quasi-reliable:

There is a widespread Cold War-era myth that T-72 and other Soviet tanks are so cramped that the small interior demands the use of shorter crewmen, with the maximum height set at 1.6 m (5 ft 3 in) in the Soviet Army. According to official regulations, however, the actual figure is 1.75 m (5 ft 9 in).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72

I have seen other comments that said that crewmen in certain positions were restricted by height.

The same is certainly true of modern (and probably older) American aircraft. I had a friend who was primed to be a fighter pilot but had a late growth spurt.

JR

 

[von Marwitz]

On top of that, I noticed that the driver's seat appeared to be bolted directly on to the floor.

Better hope not to drive over a mine...

von Marwitz

 

[echack]

The same is certainly true of modern (and probably older) American aircraft. I had a friend who was primed to be a fighter pilot but had a late growth spurt.

JR

Currently, US astronauts have to be 5'2" to 6'3". It was looser for a while (4'10.5" to 6'4" - one of my bosses was an astronaut and he was the tallest), and until we paid for modifications, the height band for Soyuz flights to ISS was tighter. Also, the original astronauts were on the short side as Mercury had a 5'11" height limit.

 

[von Marwitz]

According to what I understand, Soviet tanks were designed for shorter individuals. This says 5' 6": https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=200396. But it's hard to pin down whether this was official or just myth.

I do not know if they were specifically designed for shorter individuals, but I have read numerous times that many tank crews came from Mongolia (for example), where people were shorter on average, which suited the tanks well.

von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

Currently, US astronauts have to be 5'2" to 6'3". It was looser for a while (4'10.5" to 6'4" - one of my bosses was an astronaut and he was the tallest), and until we paid for modifications, the height band for Soyuz flights to ISS was tighter. Also, the original astronauts were on the short side as Mercury had a 5'11" height limit.

I reckon with 18,000 applicants for 12 jobs as an astronaut, there's still plenty to choose from...

von Marwitz

 

[Yuri0352]

According to what I understand, Soviet tanks were designed for shorter individuals. This says 5' 6": https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=200396. But it's hard to pin down whether this was official or just myth.

edit: for the T-72 I found something quasi-reliable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72

I have seen other comments that said that crewmen in certain positions were restricted by height.

The same is certainly true of modern (and probably older) American aircraft. I had a friend who was primed to be a fighter pilot but had a late growth spurt.

JR

5' 9" would certainly seem to be the max height for a T-72 crewman. A few years back I explored the interior of an operational, former East German T-72 up at Ft. Irwin. I sat in the (gunner's ?) seat in the left side of the turret, and with the hatch closed, I could not comfortably sit upright in the seat, and was forced to sit leaning over to the right somewhat. In my very limited experience , I found the T-34/85 turret to be more spacious/ comfortable than either the T-55 or T-72.

Interesting side note...The soldiers at Ft. Irwin told me that although the T-72 is fully operational, Army regulations prohibit the firing of the main gun due to the hazards to the crew from the operating characteristics of the autoloader.

 

[Justiciar]

...

Interesting side note...The soldiers at Ft. Irwin told me that although the T-72 is fully operational, Army regulations prohibit the firing of the main gun due to the hazards to the crew from the operating characteristics of the autoloader.

I am not a treadhead expert. But my understanding from reading accounts about autoloaders, is that when they fail to eject the round, out that little hatch at the back, it bounces around inside the turret, to not much in the way of beneficial effect.

It is also my understanding from reading that actually a well trained crew with human loader can out perform an 'autoloader'. And having that crewman, to help with other duties in maintenance, etc, is also more beneficial.

One for Tank Mythbusters:. Is it not the case that T-xxx sought 'small' crewman so as to conform to the 'lower' silhouette of such tanks?

In any case, to the OP topic. Frank Meier, who appears here on a blue moon, with a M1A1 Avatar, has done a lot on AIW, something which I helped him with and so did Fredrik Scheuer, who also appear here from time to time. And yes the Sagger and the time frame to counter it, think a Reaction Fire Phase, has been accounted for. AIW can be done. Whether it's you cup of tea is another question, just like KWASL...though that would be Kimchi.

Andy

 

[Misterhawk]

I am not a treadhead expert. But my understanding from reading accounts about autoloaders, is that when they fail to eject the round, out that little hatch at the back, it bounces around inside the turret, to not much in the way of beneficial effect.

It is also my understanding from reading that actually a well trained crew with human loader can out perform an 'autoloader'. And having that crewman, to help with other duties in maintenance, etc, is also more beneficial.

A good crew can outperform any autoloader I ever heard of and, while it may seem like a wonderful idea in the G-1 section of the Pentagon to reduce the size of a crew from 4 to 3, having one less crew member to help with maintenance and all the other duties related to operating and fighting a tank would degrade the overall value of the weapons system. I never actually met a tanker who thought autoloaders were a good idea.

 

[Yuri0352]

A good crew can outperform any autoloader I ever heard of and, while it may seem like a wonderful idea in the G-1 section of the Pentagon to reduce the size of a crew from 4 to 3, having one less crew member to help with maintenance and all the other duties related to operating and fighting a tank would degrade the overall value of the weapons system. I never actually met a tanker who thought autoloaders were a good idea.

Some of my ex-neighbors who were Desert Storm tankers were of the same opinion.

 

[Yuri0352]

In any case, to the OP topic. Frank Meier, who appears here on a blue moon, with a M1A1 Avatar, has done a lot on AIW, something which I helped him with and so did Fredrik Scheuer, who also appear here from time to time. And yes the Sagger and the time frame to counter it, think a Reaction Fire Phase, has been accounted for. AIW can be done. Whether it's you cup of tea is another question, just like KWASL...though that would be Kimchi.

Andy

Arab-Israeli ASL would be my cup of tea, as will be Korea.
Have any of Frank or Fredrik's work been published or otherwise seen the light of day? Very interesting to hear that someone is tackling the ATGM rules.

 

[Justiciar]

Arab-Israeli ASL would be my cup of tea, as will be Korea.
Have any of Frank or Fredrik's work been published or otherwise seen the light of day? Very interesting to hear that someone is tackling the ATGM rules.

Not that I am aware. The plan was (as I helped out too along with several others) was to await until Korea appeared, then move on to what we called "MASL". Modern ASL.

 

[Tuomo]

Regarding the theory that the '8' armor factor on the CH T-55's was lowered to reflect poor quality Arab AFV crew training/superior Israeli training...
By this 'logic', the Ti-67's used by Israel should approximately doubled armor values based upon their use by IDF crews. Despite the Ti-67's having been captured from the very same poorly trained Arab armies. Are we supposed to believe that upon capture by Israel, these vehicles magically increased their armor thickness by approx. 30mm like some kind of mollusk?

I agree, but: isn't there actually a bizarre thing of that sort in the game already, WRT the German MMG/HMG? Same weapon, just assuming there's a more stable mount and more ammo? "It was used like an HMG so we're giving it HMG numbers", seems to be the rationale.

Heck, at some level, the entire Morale concept works that way. ML8 guys can stand faster because, well, they did. Even with Inherent Firepower, which is a mish-mash of real-life factors that all boil down to whether a squad gets 3, 4, 5, even 8 FP because that's the right "feel" in the game. And isn't there some squishiness to Vehicular Movement Points, based on doctrinal use rather than sheer horsepower and carriage weight?

No, I'm not foolish enough to think CH was actually taking advantage of a Game Design Pattern rather than just being lazy (or heck, even having a proofing typo on the counters), especially with a discrepancy of this magnitude. Just sayin' that the overall concept isn't completely foreign to ASL.

 

[Helmseye]

I really enjoyed the two scenarios of genesis II I played.

(ducks as he waits for bullets to fly towards him)

But I must admit I do love asl being in other than WW2 settings which I view as a compliment to the rules

 

[Yuri0352]

I agree, but: isn't there actually a bizarre thing of that sort in the game already, WRT the German MMG/HMG? Same weapon, just assuming there's a more stable mount and more ammo? "It was used like an HMG so we're giving it HMG numbers", seems to be the rationale.

Heck, at some level, the entire Morale concept works that way. ML8 guys can stand faster because, well, they did. Even with Inherent Firepower, which is a mish-mash of real-life factors that all boil down to whether a squad gets 3, 4, 5, even 8 FP because that's the right "feel" in the game. And isn't there some squishiness to Vehicular Movement Points, based on doctrinal use rather than sheer horsepower and carriage weight?

No, I'm not foolish enough to think CH was actually taking advantage of a Game Design Pattern rather than just being lazy (or heck, even having a proofing typo on the counters), especially with a discrepancy of this magnitude. Just sayin' that the overall concept isn't completely foreign to ASL.

I agree with your points re: German MG/HMG. Regarding the doctrinal 'squishiness ' of vehicular MP, the ASLRB has addressed some of these with Convoy, Platoon Movement and Soviet Early War Doctrine.

The idea of applying doctrinal variables to AFV armor thickness and the kinetic energy of an incoming AP shell is ludicrous. A T-55 will experience the same level of protection to a hit from a shell regardless of whether it was crewed by a marginally trained Egyptian or Michael Wittman.

Until we hear an explanation from one of the designers of Genesis II regarding this issue, I'm inclined to accept the '8' armor value on the T-55 as a proofreading error. Nothing else makes any sense.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

I think the 1948 conflict could be interesting, if put together by a reputable producer.

After that, I'm in Von Marwitz's camp as I have limited interest in ASL Korea and less in subsequent conflicts.

I've played most of the scenarios from the original Gen48, and they were great, not just good, but great. Passing without trying (if you have the chance) is one in the personal loss column, IMHuO.

 

[GeorgeBates]

Perhaps change the 8 to an 18 with a fine Sharpie?

Or just not buy the "product" to begin with...?