Tuomo
Keeper of the Funk
So where should they send their resume, including pictures of their cat?Of course. Even in the interwar and WW2 period, many, many others have provided information that far exceeded my knowledge.
So where should they send their resume, including pictures of their cat?Of course. Even in the interwar and WW2 period, many, many others have provided information that far exceeded my knowledge.
Lord, no. We don't know diddly.Oh no! Hive-Tuomo and a clone army of Pauls. I'm not sure reality can survive ...
Bo???Lord, no. We don't know diddly.
It should be remembered that SL/ASL was supposed to primarily represent small unit infantry actions. The armor aspects of the game were not as well portrayed even though it has become a major part of the system.The 20 pdr APCBC round (m.v. 1020 m/sec) could penetrate 210mm of armour while the APDS round could penetrate 300mm (m.v. 1465 m/sec). There was also HE and canister ammunition available.
The NATO 105mm L7 was developed because of issues the 84mm and 90mm guns had with dealing with the T-55 at longer ranges and oblique angles due to its sloped/rounded armour. Depending on the ammunition used and date (improvements by all sides to ammunition), the L7 could penetrate between 350mm and 500mm of armour at 1000m.
Even so, the L7 soon had its own problems by the early 70s when the WP began to deploy the T-64 and then the T-72. Even the latest APFSDS rounds would struggle against the layered steel/aluminium/steel armour (more than 500mm in the turret front). Even Chieftain was threatened by 1973. Thus the drive for 120mm smoothbore found on modern MBTs.
Anyway!!Back to the T-55. If CH has an AF of 8 (square or not) for this tank it is not in the least bit accurate. As noted above, by the mid 50s the US 90mm and British 84mm would have struggled with long range penetration vs the turret (ranges >1000m). Then again, in western Germany the average LOS was about 800m (somewhate further in the north) and was often closer to 500m (ie: Fulda Gap). Note that we don't often see even 500m of open terrain in an ASL scenario unless one side is on a hill.
One should also consider that most tanks knocked out were penetrated from the side, not the front. ASL does not model this aspect of tactical warfare very well due to the overly cluttered, narrow maps and small size of the scenarios. Besides, most ASL maps are more representative of mixed village/woodlands than actual European rural terrain.
Agreed on CH's interpretation of the T54/55 - it's fantasy land stuff. Considering it was designed in the closing stages of WW2 to completely nullify Pak43 8.8cm rounds frontally it's no wonder the western equivalents would have trouble.The 20 pdr APCBC round (m.v. 1020 m/sec) could penetrate 210mm of armour while the APDS round could penetrate 300mm (m.v. 1465 m/sec). There was also HE and canister ammunition available.
The NATO 105mm L7 was developed because of issues the 84mm and 90mm guns had with dealing with the T-55 at longer ranges and oblique angles due to its sloped/rounded armour. Depending on the ammunition used and date (improvements by all sides to ammunition), the L7 could penetrate between 350mm and 500mm of armour at 1000m.
Even so, the L7 soon had its own problems by the early 70s when the WP began to deploy the T-64 and then the T-72. Even the latest APFSDS rounds would struggle against the layered steel/aluminium/steel armour (more than 500mm in the turret front). Even Chieftain was threatened by 1973. Thus the drive for 120mm smoothbore found on modern MBTs.
Anyway!!Back to the T-55. If CH has an AF of 8 (square or not) for this tank it is not in the least bit accurate. As noted above, by the mid 50s the US 90mm and British 84mm would have struggled with long range penetration vs the turret (ranges >1000m). Then again, in western Germany the average LOS was about 800m (somewhate further in the north) and was often closer to 500m (ie: Fulda Gap). Note that we don't often see even 500m of open terrain in an ASL scenario unless one side is on a hill.
One should also consider that most tanks knocked out were penetrated from the side, not the front. ASL does not model this aspect of tactical warfare very well due to the overly cluttered, narrow maps and small size of the scenarios. Besides, most ASL maps are more representative of mixed village/woodlands than actual European rural terrain.
Could be. The reference I saw used the term 'aluminum alloy' but if that is part of the glass textolite composition I can't say. From my readings the front turret of the T-64 would have been a very tough nut to crack....have you mixed up aluminium with glass textolite in a T-64's upper glacis array or have I missed something?
This is nonsense. There is a reason the T-54/55 was known as the AK-47 of tanks and has been in use for so long. What is described above is junk and the T-54/55 was certainly not junk. The Israelis dominated the battlefield in 56, 67 and, with a return to combines arms, 1973 due to training/tactics, excellent optics and the L7 105mm gun from long range. To be accurate you would need to be using map boards covering in excess of 50-60 hexes deep and the same wide using desert terrain (with hillocks acting as hills in the Golan)....However the rules for the tank are very harsh; perhaps because it represents use by Egyptian crews. +1 to hit, +2 for Gun Duels. No IF, B11, no BFF, no ROF, the 100L Gun has a lower TK than normal. They are really laying on the disadvantages. Personally I would ignore all that if I were to use the counters in a non CH scenario/CG....
Luckily, they don't need to...To be honest, ASL armour rules don't translate well past Korea.
Apologies; you are right. The front turret of the vanilla T-64 had aluminum infills - had to follow up on this as you'd piqued my interest!Could be. The reference I saw used the term 'aluminum alloy' but if that is part of the glass textolite composition I can't say. From my readings the front turret of the T-64 would have been a very tough nut to crack.