Arab-Israeli ASL

Gunner Scott

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,487
Reaction score
2,287
Location
Chicago, IL
Country
llUnited States
Trump was put in office by putin, so that scum bag aint my president.

OK, I admit it. I do want to do it. In fact, the project is on my wish list of things to do. It is sandwiched in between:
  • Be captured by Al Qaeda while while wearing a dogtag that has J on it, and
  • Reliving the 2016 US presidential election.
I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which of those things is immediately above a new ASL project on my wish list, and which is below it.
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
1,125
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
I am puzzled why some people have no interest in non-WWII, but to each his own.

As for Arab-Israeli wars in ASL:
- 1948-1949 war: very infantry-heavy with few vehicles of artillery, definitely suitable for ASL
- 1956 war: rifles, SMGs, MGs, Sherman tanks, halftracks, T-34-85 tanks in battles of manageable size -- an ideal conflict to be simulated with ASL
- 1967 war: still using surplus WWII equipment or first generation Cold War equipment (T-54, Patton and Centurion tanks) which were really just improvements to their WWII predecessors (nothing revolutionary); helos and ATGWs were present but had negligible battlefield effect and can easily be ignored -- still an easy fit for ASL
- 1973 war: need to add night vision equipment, ATGW, helos; a stretch but less than the Japanese and beach landings were
- 1982 war and more recent: modern technology, highly restrictive RoE -- much more difficult to fit into ASL

After spending nearly 20 years on the Korean War module, I'm burned out on ASL design and development, but if I wasn't, the Arab-Israeli wars would be my next project. I hope that somebody else takes it on, and if they do, I would be willing to do historical research. I have a large library on the subject.
I really appreciate all of your efforts on the Korea module, I've been waiting a long time for this one!
If Arab-Israeli ASL ever reaches further development, I would love to help with playtesting.
 

King Billy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
1,326
Reaction score
144
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
Going back to the T55/ Centurion clash, I read recently that the rate of fire put out by the Israeli Centurions was very high compared to the T55. "In one demonstration a Centurion ..... fired 15 rounds in 43 seconds at 15 different targets at ranges of 800 to 1000 yards, and hit every one of them." While this was no doubt under ideal conditions, it does demonstrate a high rate of fire given the size of the rounds. The source indicates an expectation that a Centurion crew could expect to get off four rounds for every one shot from a T55 crew.
Would the Centurion rate a ROF of 2? Seems a high rate. No other tank with a gun near that size has a ROF greater than 1. Even with no ROF for the T55, a ROF of 1 seems small for the Centurion.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,727
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Interesting question. The Israeli Centurion tank crews were not great until embarrassment at the results against Syrian construction equipment that were doing some irrigation and river diversion work near the Golan Heights caused an intensive training program to be implemented. Then they became quite accurate. I would be a tad sceptical about demonstration RoF for any nation, anyway.

I would be very, very reluctant to up the basic RoF of any vehicle with either a 20 lbr or 105mm from [1]. If a unit displayed such a both high and consistent RoF then do it by SSR, eg a Centurion with any AL gets a RoF of [2]. Earlier in this thread I pointed to a much earlier post (http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/1947-49-arab-israeli-war-how-to-represent.113181/page-3#post-1607751). In that I pointed out ways to hobble the Egyptian, Syrian and Iraqi, that though might not increase the disparity in RoF between Is. and E/S/I tanks much, should dramatically increase the disparity in overall combat effectiveness (iE the combination of TH and TK).

A further thought is that a Centurion round would be very approximately the same weight as an 88 (either 88L or 88LL). Thus I can't see how an Is Centurion crew could do much better than a crack SS Tiger crew without the benefit of an auto loader or rammer, neither which either tank has. The ASL RoF mechanism is very approximate at best. A Pz III L under ALS would get an average of 1.5 shots and a Tiger 1.2 for a ratio of 1.5:1.2 or 1.2:1, but in real life could manage 1.5 to 2 times the RoF. While the ASL AF steps get quite coarse, especially at the higher end (11+), the RoF is too fine for the real world differences.

Even with the limitations, I feel it better to stay within the ASL guide rails.
 

Bob Walters

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
868
Reaction score
360
Location
Santa Clara, California
Country
llUnited States
Going back to the T55/ Centurion clash, I read recently that the rate of fire put out by the Israeli Centurions was very high compared to the T55. "In one demonstration a Centurion ..... fired 15 rounds in 43 seconds at 15 different targets at ranges of 800 to 1000 yards, and hit every one of them." While this was no doubt under ideal conditions, it does demonstrate a high rate of fire given the size of the rounds. The source indicates an expectation that a Centurion crew could expect to get off four rounds for every one shot from a T55 crew.
Would the Centurion rate a ROF of 2? Seems a high rate. No other tank with a gun near that size has a ROF greater than 1. Even with no ROF for the T55, a ROF of 1 seems small for the Centurion.
I remember reading at the time that one of the main reasons for the difference in effectiveness was the training of the Israeli crews the tank commander especially. They were trained to spot and rapidly engage targets, the idea being that he who fires first survives. I read this a very long time ago so I may be misremember it but as I recall the Israeli commander was generally CE and he and the crew could accurately fire on the fly.
 

Michael R

Minor Hero
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
4,158
Reaction score
3,246
Location
La Belle Province
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I read this a very long time ago so I may be misremember it but as I recall the Israeli commander was generally CE and he and the crew could accurately fire on the fly.
I read the same more recently. I also read that many tank commander corpses had no head.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,398
Reaction score
4,420
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Interesting question. The Israeli Centurion tank crews were not great until embarrassment at the results against Syrian construction equipment that were doing some irrigation and river diversion work near the Golan Heights caused an intensive training program to be implemented. Then they became quite accurate. I would be a tad sceptical about demonstration RoF for any nation, anyway.

I would be very, very reluctant to up the basic RoF of any vehicle with either a 20 lbr or 105mm from [1]. If a unit displayed such a both high and consistent RoF then do it by SSR, eg a Centurion with any AL gets a RoF of [2]. Earlier in this thread I pointed to a much earlier post (http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/1947-49-arab-israeli-war-how-to-represent.113181/page-3#post-1607751). In that I pointed out ways to hobble the Egyptian, Syrian and Iraqi, that though might not increase the disparity in RoF between Is. and E/S/I tanks much, should dramatically increase the disparity in overall combat effectiveness (iE the combination of TH and TK).

A further thought is that a Centurion round would be very approximately the same weight as an 88 (either 88L or 88LL). Thus I can't see how an Is Centurion crew could do much better than a crack SS Tiger crew without the benefit of an auto loader or rammer, neither which either tank has. The ASL RoF mechanism is very approximate at best. A Pz III L under ALS would get an average of 1.5 shots and a Tiger 1.2 for a ratio of 1.5:1.2 or 1.2:1, but in real life could manage 1.5 to 2 times the RoF. While the ASL AF steps get quite coarse, especially at the higher end (11+), the RoF is too fine for the real world differences.

Even with the limitations, I feel it better to stay within the ASL guide rails.
When I was in armor on M60A1/A3 (105mm) type tanks we were able to get off our initial 2 rounds in approx. 11 sec. while firing on Table 8 Combat Engagement Range (Move-Acquire-Shoot) to a stationary or moving target engaging the target from a short halt. Our tactic was to put two rounds of steel on target, per target. I suppose you could maintain that ROF if remaining stationary for a short period of time (say 45 sec), but fatigue would surely set in in short order for the loader not to mention depletion of the ready rack ammo. Barring an immediate catastrophic kill (Immediate explosion & Fire), you would always fire at least two rounds per target (more possibly) to ensure a kill even if you were sure of a hit.

I agree that retaining a common ASL ROF for large tank ordnance is more in keeping with actual practice as a single shot in ASL probably represents several rounds being fired. The actual ROF more than likely represents the ability to rapidly re-acquire another target and have the ammo readily available for that engagement. The inside of a tank is a busy place for not many people, and just because you have the time or the targets, you may not have the ammo readily available (or any combination of factors thereof). In the instance of ground mounted large ordnance, you'll have a bigger crew with better access to immediate ammo availability and the ability to spot and acquire targets of opportunity more rapidly, hence I can certainly understand their higher ROF.
 

Sand Bar Bill

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
252
Location
Putin's backyard
Country
llUnited States
To commemorate today's 50th anniversary of the start of the Six Day War, I would like to open a discussion of the various Arab-Israeli conflicts as viewed in the context of ASL.

My personal ASL experience in this conflict has been limited to the old, original CH module of the 1948 war. I would be especially interested in hearing of anyone's experiences or opinions regarding the later CH module, Genesis II, which includes actions from the 1956, 1967 and Yom Kippur wars.
I have read the Genesis II product review on the Desperation Morale site, however many questions remain regarding gameplay, historical accuracy, etc.

I realize that this subject is very esoteric even for ASL, even so I would love to hear it there have been any other Arab-Israeli ASL products produced or if there could be any such projects in development or consideration. To be clear, I am most interested in hearing about anything dealing with the later, post-1948 conflicts, especially the Six Day War or Yom Kippur.I

Thanks for reading.
Somewhat off subject , I recently purchase SPI's old game (from 1977!), October War. It is a tactical simulation of the 1973 war at the platoon level. Being limited to a single generic map for muliple scenarios it might be a little dry but the actions are so armor heavy and the distances so great, I am not sure ASL would ever be the right vehicle (so to speak!) to simulate many of the 1973 engagements.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,201
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Somewhat off subject , I recently purchase SPI's old game (from 1977!), October War. It is a tactical simulation of the 1973 war at the platoon level. Being limited to a single generic map for muliple scenarios it might be a little dry but the actions are so armor heavy and the distances so great, I am not sure ASL would ever be the right vehicle (so to speak!) to simulate many of the 1973 engagements.
Flying Turrets! [BFP104]

JR
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,727
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Ah, October War, such happy memories.

Let me recall some boardgaming approximate history. SPI produced S&T Magazine and one of its early S&T games whose name I can't recall ended up being reworked and sold to AH who produced it as Panzerblitz. The combat mechanism was 'odds ratio' based and SPI did a number of similar variants including "Red Star, White Star".

Later they went to a 'factor difference' system and that evolved and produced WW3, WE '44, NA and WE '40 (as Kampfpanzer?) games. All of those had a problem in that like Panzerblitz, unless you got a kill result, the less severe, a disruption, was recoverable. October War, the last of their 'factor difference' line but hard targets at least were effectively step reduced (3 or 4 steps?) and had a fire combat table for each step state. To my mind it simply was the best of the SPI generic platoon level tactical games. I even back fitted the OW rules to their earlier 'factor difference' games, self generating the step based combat tables.

The closest equivalent I can think of is MMP's Panzerblitz 2. SPI did produce a later pair of platoon games but had a unique combat system, using 'saving rolls' for armour protection if I remember correctly, amongst other things. L'n'L WaW series uses something similar and maybe shared other aspects but is clearly a different game, much simpler. Maybe WaW's developers had vague memories of the earlier SPI game but I suspect that if you are trying to avoid using the more usual combat systems, the alternatives are few and picking a rarer idea and building it into a complete combat system may force you into similar design decisions as others. A case of convergent evolution or development.

It definitely was the best platoon level armour game of it's time and only my seduction by SL/CoI and ASL dampened my interest.
 

Sand Bar Bill

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
252
Location
Putin's backyard
Country
llUnited States
Ah, October War, such happy memories.

Let me recall some boardgaming approximate history. SPI produced S&T Magazine and one of its early S&T games whose name I can't recall ended up being reworked and sold to AH who produced it as Panzerblitz. The combat mechanism was 'odds ratio' based and SPI did a number of similar variants including "Red Star, White Star".

Later they went to a 'factor difference' system and that evolved and produced WW3, WE '44, NA and WE '40 (as Kampfpanzer?) games. All of those had a problem in that like Panzerblitz, unless you got a kill result, the less severe, a disruption, was recoverable. October War, the last of their 'factor difference' line but hard targets at least were effectively step reduced (3 or 4 steps?) and had a fire combat table for each step state. To my mind it simply was the best of the SPI generic platoon level tactical games. I even back fitted the OW rules to their earlier 'factor difference' games, self generating the step based combat tables.

The closest equivalent I can think of is MMP's Panzerblitz 2. SPI did produce a later pair of platoon games but had a unique combat system, using 'saving rolls' for armour protection if I remember correctly, amongst other things. L'n'L WaW series uses something similar and maybe shared other aspects but is clearly a different game, much simpler. Maybe WaW's developers had vague memories of the earlier SPI game but I suspect that if you are trying to avoid using the more usual combat systems, the alternatives are few and picking a rarer idea and building it into a complete combat system may force you into similar design decisions as others. A case of convergent evolution or development.

It definitely was the best platoon level armour game of it's time and only my seduction by SL/CoI and ASL dampened my interest.
Thanks Paul for that history! I am going to start my first scenario tonight. It actually looks quite good. It is step based (three steps) with differentiation of hard, protected and soft targets.

As to porting the '73 war to ASL, you would have things like SAGGER teams that I suppose would effectively operate like glorified bazookas with 50-hex ranges (!).

I am not sure what the lifespan of an enemy tank would be on the distance of a single geomorphic ASL board or two, but not too long!

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) learned about the Sagger’s effectiveness a year later when Egyptian and Syrian combined arms offensives launched the Yom Kippur War. The prolific use of Sagger missiles by Egyptian infantry wrecked the IDF’s early counteroffensives in the Sinai and battered its tank fleet. These disasters proved how British-made Centurions and American-made M60 tanks faced an existential threat against Sagger missiles, whose maximum effective range of 2 500 meters at the hands of a well-trained operator was far more accurate than Western 105 mm guns. The Sagger could penetrate 430 mm (17 inches) of steel armor and there was nothing that could blunt its explosive force. Examining Soviet accounts reveals the IDF lost hundreds of tanks to Sagger missiles within a few days.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,008
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
....

As to porting the '73 war to ASL, you would have things like SAGGER teams that I suppose would effectively operate like glorified bazookas with 50-hex ranges (!).

....
The work on MASL and IAW with regards to this weapon system has a "Reaction Fire Phase" prior to the Sagger type weapons making their DR. With DRMs depending on status of RF firer / range to ATGM / chance to deploy sD, etc. etc. I don't want to divulge the MO.

But yes a hit would not be a good thing in the end. But there counter measures, in the early days at least.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,727
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
What about Avalon Hill's Arab Israeli Wars from the '70s based Panzerblitz and Panzer Leader?
I had that as well. Its mechanisms were the same as Panzerblitz/Panzerleader, a odds based system. However they cooked the factors so a T-34/85 was much weaker in AIW than in PB. As it was a platoon level game that was a legitimate design decision, unlike CH's mangling of ASL hard factors, but I was really not happy, so I far, far preferred SPI's OW. From memory the Is. units were what I judged to be in line with PB/PL, only the Ar units were shaved.
 
Top