The weakness of the approach you're demonstrating is in trying to have compartive AF for a modern T-80 MBT and a WW2 T-80 LT. The standard TK tables and AF ranges are designed for mid-century technology, but I think their usefulness post-Korea is limited.
What might be even more important than the difficulties of determining the comparative AF is the following IMHO:
In WW2 ASL - already - the typical ranges in actual gaming practice in which tanks engage each other is almost always much lower than historically. This is mostly due to the terrain on the geoboards which does not allow for longer LOSes in which historical engagements would have happended most of the time [EXC: langer stretches of open terrain like in the ASL desert.]
In modern times, ranges of engagement are larger then they were in WW2. So with the scale of 1 hex = approx. 40 meters, we will get into trouble with regard to 'table space'. The same is true with regard to movement: Modern tanks are capable of much faster movement than their WW2 counterparts - and able to fire while moving much more precisely.
These factors make it very difficult to reflect modern engagements with the tools offered by the ASL system unless in very restricted terrain. And even in very restricted terrain, the role of OBA and other sorts of "offboard-type" weapon systems would be higher than in WW2. That said, we have to remember that even the WW2 ASL understates the role that OBA has played in engagements.
The more precise weapons become and the longer their effective ranges, the more units on the battlefield disperse (the 'empty' battlefield). This makes it very challenging to portray squad-centered
tactical engagements making use of the full array of weaponry (i.e. including MBTs etc.) for board-games.
von Marwitz