Korea and Beyond

[Psycho]

for the vietcong?

For the large number of Waffen SS POWs the Foreign Legion accepted.

 

[Frank]

Hi,

I just wanted to post some information of thew Modern-ASL (MASL) project.
Currently we have the Core rules covering everything from ATGMs to Helicopters.
Besides these core rules there are several modules covering the various post-WWII conflicts.

- Falklands War module is in playtest state
- Vietnam module is in draft version
- Cold War module (Germany 1989) is in development
- Arab-Israeli Wars is in development

Generally, the ASL system IS suitable to cover the modern rules for ATGMs and helicopters.
The MASL Core rules stick as much to the original ASL rules as possible.

Frank

 

[Whizbang1963]

Hi,


- Falklands War module is in playtest state
- Vietnam module is in draft version
- Cold War module (Germany 1989) is in development
- Arab-Israeli Wars is in development

Generally, the ASL system IS suitable to cover the modern rules for ATGMs and helicopters.
The MASL Core rules stick as much to the original ASL rules as possible.

Frank

Okay I'm intrigued...MMP project (eventually) or someone else?

 

[olli]

Okay I'm intrigued...MMP project (eventually) or someone else?

LFT would do it proud!!!!

 

[Whizbang1963]

LFT would do it proud!!!!

So would Bounding Fire, but neither may be what the group has in mind <G>

 

[Chaim628]

Hi,
- Falklands War module is in playtest state
- Vietnam module is in draft version
- Cold War module (Germany 1989) is in development
- Arab-Israeli Wars is in development

Generally, the ASL system IS suitable to cover the modern rules for ATGMs and helicopters.
The MASL Core rules stick as much to the original ASL rules as possible.
Frank

Probably you'd have to have variant rules for each decennium. We are talking here of 60 years warfare evolution, not just 6 years of WWII.
Will be pretty tough to get this from the ground, but let's see...

 

[Gunner Scott]

Hi,

- Cold War module (Germany 1989) is in development

Frank

Wow, there was a war in Germany in 1989? Learn something new everyday.



Scott

 

[Psycho]

Wow, there was a war in Germany in 1989? Learn something new everyday.



Scott

Don't mention the war! :hush:

[YOUTUBE]vgAi7DYHA94[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Michael Dorosh]

So would Bounding Fire, but neither may be what the group has in mind <G>

Anyone ever tell you that you're more than just a pretty face, kiddo?

 

[Psycho]

Anyone ever tell you that you're more than just a pretty face, kiddo?

He's the guy in the avatar, not one of the chicks... oh, look who I'm talking to. Never mind.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

He's the guy in the avatar, not one of the chicks... oh, look who I'm talking to. Never mind.

more than

 

[Kenneth P. Katz]

A T-55 or an M60A1 is closer to a World War II tank in technology and age than it is to a T-80BV or an M1A1. Still any of those four are still tanks, with a basic function and role that is no different than a Pz II or T-26.

I beleive the AFVs will be good enough until the Sinia 1956. Maybe even with just a few "updated" counters for the real fights that occurred.

Not the vehicles that fought the "Cold War" in too many REFORGER exercises.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

A T-55 or an M60A1 is closer to a World War II tank in technology and age than it is to a T-80BV or an M1A1. Still any of those four are still tanks, with a basic function and role that is no different than a Pz II or T-26.

There is no such thing as a "World War II tank" in my opinion, since comparing an M4 Jumbo with "Easy 8" suspension and gyrostabilizer to a Renault with 2 man turret and no wireless is really no contest...the state of the art progressed so rapidly from 1939 to 1945 that to point to a single vehicle type and say "that's a typical tank" would be doing them all a disservice. Your own examples kind of illustrate that - the Panzerkampfwagen II was essentially a reconnaissance vehicle with, essentially, a 20mm machine gun in the turret and a limited size crew. I don't know why you would compare it in "role and function" to what we now call a main battle tank. There is also the reality that doctrinal differences in the Second World War separated "tanks" and "tank destroyers" in the British, German and American armies, a distinction no longer made (or necessary).

 

[Barryrk]

Just give me new 5/8" counters- One shot, One kill. Better add alot of blaze counters. Seriously, Korea is fine with me-after that I don't know( Falklands could be quite cool).JMO

 

[King Billy]

Not alot of M1A1s in Vietnam. Not alot of wire guided ATM either. I think many actions in Vietnam could be managed with the current ASL rules.

I'd like to see how the M79 grenade launcher (and the M203) is modelled though.

Bill

 

[pward]

I'd like to see how the M79 grenade launcher (and the M203) is modeled though.

Bill

Justify that it replaces rifle grenades and leave FP alone, or increase FP somewhat (like US squads need more inherent). Or make it a 1PP, 4FP SW, maybe 1 ROF, range would be decided compared to effective ranges for the weapon. (Too lazy to look it up at this time.)

Or use the PF method (my preference). Is your M79/M203 gunner in a position to fire effectively on the target? -1 drm if it's not an infantry target (instead of the -1 when not an AFV). Give it some AP rounds (if such existed) and leave out the -1 for AFV... Give a standard range and FP effect for the inherent weapon. Same penalties for SW use as a PF.

Apply equally well to RPG armed Soviet bloc squads when that becomes available. Or LAWS/<whatever other acronyms there are>...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Justify that it replaces rifle grenades and leave FP alone, or increase FP somewhat (like US squads need more inherent). Or make it a 1PP, 4FP SW, maybe 1 ROF, range would be decided compared to effective ranges for the weapon. (Too lazy to look it up at this time.)

Or use the PF method (my preference). Is your M79/M203 gunner in a position to fire effectively on the target? -1 drm if it's not an infantry target (instead of the -1 when not an AFV). Give it some AP rounds (if such existed) and leave out the -1 for AFV... Give a standard range and FP effect for the inherent weapon. Same penalties for SW use as a PF.

Apply equally well to RPG armed Soviet bloc squads when that becomes available. Or LAWS/<whatever other acronyms there are>...

Peter, what is it you think the M79 and M203 Grenade launcher is used for, out of curiosity? For someone who apparently has little idea what its tactical role is in an infantry section, you seem to have some strong opinions on how it should be modeled.

Comparing the M79, which fired dozens of rounds in a typical action, or the M203, which is commonly deployed two or more to an infantry squad which also carries dozens of rounds into action, with the single shot PF, which was used for entirely different tactical purposes seems a little odd, but perhaps I'm not understanding clearly your rationale.

 

[pward]

Peter, what is it you think the M79 and M203 Grenade launcher is used for, out of curiosity? For someone who apparently has little idea what its tactical role is in an infantry section, you seem to have some strong opinions on how it should be modeled.

Comparing the M79, which fired dozens of rounds in a typical action, or the M203, which is commonly deployed two or more to an infantry squad which also carries dozens of rounds into action, with the single shot PF, which was used for entirely different tactical purposes seems a little odd, but perhaps I'm not understanding clearly your rationale.

Er, design for effect... so you can reuse the existing squad counters and don't need additional SW counters.

Thanks for pointing out there is a problem with my rule suggestions and failing to offer a counter example of "suitable" rules to use. I await your rule suggestion for dealing with the grenade launcher in the infantry squad.

The grenade launcher is another tool in the tactical arsenal of the squad. The squad machine gun (or guns depending on TOE) is still the primary killing weapon of the squad. The grenade launchers are extra FP and utility with special purpose rounds.

As a breech loading weapon, I wouldn't consider either one a "rapid fire" item. One specific attack by the squad seems reasonable. Always having the option to use that weapon doesn't, which blends well with the PF mechanic we already have. A dozen rounds fired in an action equates to one fired per player turn in a 6 turn scenario. Call it 8 turns because of the occasional failed usage dr.

We could also model it using similar dr before any attack, using it as a game mechanic of an effective hit with the round increasing the FP of the squad. It probably shouldn't incur pin results, and it would be limited to 6 hexes or so. (Guess on range.) Whether or not it's SW usage, depends on the effect you want them to have...

I'm aware of HE, smoke and illumination (I think) rounds in 40mm, but I don't recall there being an AP or some of the more interesting newer variants during the Vietnam war. (I want to say there's a canister/beehive/shotgun round that was available, but wouldn't bet on it.)

(To say nothing of the beastly grenade machine guns like the Mk19... definitely a SW counter required for those, with room to discuss a 5/8" counter and crew requirements.)

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Er, design for effect... so you can reuse the existing squad counters and don't need additional SW counters.

Thanks for pointing out there is a problem with my rule suggestions and failing to offer a counter example of "suitable" rules to use. I await your rule suggestion for dealing with the grenade launcher in the infantry squad.

I've taken part in those discussions in the MASL group already. You don't necessarily need new counters to properly model the M79/M203, but I'm not at liberty to share the rules either. If you want to see what has been hashed out, I'd suggest joining the yahoo group and contributing constructively there. Though given your comments on Korean-war era airmobile operations, armour-piercing rounds for grenade launchers and other flights of fancy and outright fiction, I have to be honest and say I'm a bit dubious as to what you might be able to bring to the table.

Suffice to say, though, that the MASL group has given serious thought to these questions and come up with some interesting solutions. I think ASL players will be pleased when the day comes for them to see what has been developed.

 

[pward]

I've taken part in those discussions in the MASL group already. You don't necessarily need new counters to properly model the M79/M203, but I'm not at liberty to share the rules either. If you want to see what has been hashed out, I'd suggest joining the yahoo group and contributing constructively there. Though given your comments on Korean-war era airmobile operations, armour-piercing rounds for grenade launchers and other flights of fancy and outright fiction, I have to be honest and say I'm a bit dubious as to what you might be able to bring to the table.

Suffice to say, though, that the MASL group has given serious thought to these questions and come up with some interesting solutions. I think ASL players will be pleased when the day comes for them to see what has been developed.

Thanks for your vote of confidence, and your complete mis-communication of my previous posts.

I did qualify the AP round for 40mm with an "if there is one", and stated that the helicopter wasn't part of the Korean war as a significant battlefield role.

Pay attention.