On Monday we show cased the new Team Yankee unit cards, this post caused a bit of a stir as it featured the T-72 and Abrams. Without all the information people started to try and put two and two together and a debate started about how "balanced" the tanks would be fighting each other.
I will let the pictures do most of the talking here
Red Banner Tank Battalion Commander
Next week we will have two Team Yankee posts out, one of the formation cards as we said on Monday, followed on Wednesday by another post like this one focusing on the infantry platoons for both sides.
Thanks for your time
Ben
Thanks guys, that clears a lot of things up. Looking good!
ReplyDeleteWill have too say that it looks like a walk in the park for the yanks.
ReplyDelete4 Abrahams will destroy 7 T-72. they have 8 shots on the move and hit the T-72 on 3+.
While the T-72 have 7 shots which hit on 4+. It is also much harder to get more tanks in line of fire with terrain and such, with more tanks.
too top the cake, the Abraham have more range and faster movement.
Looks like a bad day for soviet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf those stats are meant to represent abrams and T-72As then it is a very poor representation. The abrams better ability to fire while moving, longer range and thermal imager is accurate IMHO, as is the better penetration of the T-72s main gun. The poorly represented part however is that IRL a T-72A has pretty much equivalent (slightly better according to many sources) front armour versus KE (APFSDS projectiles). Another issue is that a stationary T-72A has almost the same rate of fire as a stationary abrams, not half. Accurancy up to 1.5 kilometres would also be pretty much the same so the better to hit scores against T-72s could represent both better skill when it comes to using terrain and slightly higher ROF.
DeleteI sincerely hope that the designers have made a good effort at making both sides of this conflict fun to play and collect. IMHO that means absolutely no downgrading of any kind. I may be mistaken but I firmly belive that the popularity of this game is all about making both sides fun to play what I have seen so far does not really inspire confidence.
1991, Persian Gulf, Battle of 73 Eastings. Yep. Of course to be fair that was an upgraded 120mm smoothbore cannon on the Abrams and the export version of the T-72. Still...
DeleteYou get a discount on the first three T72? If you take 3x3 T72 it´s only 36 points, 8 T72 in one Company are 37 points.
ReplyDeleteI don´t like such small values because you can´t differentiate that much.
I had missed that, good spot. Time to re think my lists.
DeleteAh, this clears up a lot. Super-thanks. Sooo looking forward to this...
ReplyDeleteMove and shoot plus no smoke penalties is pretty huge imho. You could smoke the enemy and blast them while their return fire will be quite pathetic if the standard concealed, GTG rules apply.
ReplyDeleteI think the moral of the story here is if you're going to preview the rules for a unit, preview ALL of them, not just some.
ReplyDeleteThat definitely looks a lot better, it seems like they're trying to set it up so that the Abrams is tougher, faster and more accurate, while the T-72 is more numerous and has a punchier main gun (taking the controversial ROF difference aside for a minute) and has some extra utility with the mine clearing device add-on. That seems reasonable enough, especially since I imagine a lot of the other advantages of a T-72, like a lighter weight, could be hard to represent in the game without things getting too complicated.
I still think that double ROF on the Abrams is a bit excessive though. I know it has really good fire control and targeting equipment, but surely that would be represented well enough by the extra range and accuracy bonuses (which would still balance out the Abrams' numerical deficiency on their own, since they would be able to pick off T-72s from a greater distance to level the playing field)?
Likewise I suppose it could be there to represent the supposedly greater rate of fire a human loader can produce, but again this feels like something that could be better represented by a special rule (after all, even the most skilled loader gets tired sooner or later), say for example the ability to double the main gun's ROF once per game - which could be mirrored by a Soviet tank ability to fire a long range ATGM from the tank gun once per game to produce some interesting tactical options, with the two groups of tanks being able to temporarily overcome the limitations of their main guns at a critical moment, but with one use only would have to be used wisely.
I'm interested to see the infantry rules next week - that will be really important for me, as infantry are one of the things I'm most interested in using here (along with air support), so how they're handled could make or break this new system for me.
I'm not going to play WWII Soviet horde vs German elite again, especially since not only is a boring game but is completely not true to historical facts.
ReplyDeleteSorry Battlefront, but you totally botched it on this one, not touching this wtih a 10 foot pole.
The models however look good to playing with other gaming systems.
>is completely not true to historical facts
DeleteI must have missed the Soviet exercises that *didn't* involve massed Russian tank formations...
Care to enlighten us mere mortals on the correct application of a Soviet Tank Battalion in the Fulda gap? I mean, someone must have corrected all the eighties era texts since the wall fell...
Sure I will.
DeleteFirst: Give me the choice if I want to play horde or not, in wich case I will use a historically massed formation of old T62's against an army consisting of only the latests most technological tanks NATO had at the time. Otherwise let me use updated T72's (updated, not stock stuff from the 70's, we are in the mid 80's).
Second: appropiatedly up to date T-80's were at the very least equal to any Abrams, kontak armor used in updated T72's and t-80's at the time could stop uranium APDS fired from M1A1's 120mm guns, this was tested.
Third: ROF should not be based on disputable autoloading vs human loading speeds (not to mention huma loaders get tired, autoloaders don't, and NATO expected too much from their loaders than it was realistically possible). ROF should be based on target accquisition and designation as well as obserbation and range finding (you are not going to fire unless you have acquired a target and calculations to hit) things in wich up to date 72's and T80's were at least equal than an Abrahms.
DeleteI think you`re overstating the quality of Soviet tanks just a tad. T80 still does not match the Abrams or Challenger/Leopard 2, although is not a bad tank. Crew training far inferior as well as targeting systems. Kontakt 1 would not have withstood a 120mm round, it was mostly viable vs chemical warheads, not kinetic.
DeleteAs far as hordes of Soviet vehicles attacking west...have you ever seen the tank balance in the western heater at this timeframe? If you did not represent a horde of Soviet vehicles, it would be ahistorical.
One thing is for sure....the Soviets may have pushed through the gap and elsewhere, but there would be a trail of burning hulks of wrecked T64s, T72s, T80s along the way.
Either way I'm not going to play a game that limits me to use inferior tanks that have to be used in a 2 to 1 advantage to have any kind of fairness when I can play games like Cold War Commander that lets me choose wich type of tank to field icluding simmilar point value counterparts.
DeleteKomtakt 5 was already in service by 1985 equipping T-80U's
Deletedo you see any T80Us in the team yankee previews?
DeleteNo, but if they are including Abrahms I'd like to see them, and we are still not solving the greater issue. I can live without the armor, but ROF 2? That's the biggest issue here, as someone pointed out before, 4 Abrams will massacre 7 T-72's, especially when being more accurate. I played this in Tour of Duty, and it wasn't fun at all, you would have to field an insane number of T55's to counter the pattons and you still were on a disadvantage, the Pattons with their rangefinders and ROF of 2 would just anihilate several of them each trun before they even had a cance to close in, you would had to have a lot of intervening terrain for them to have a chance to get close at the Pattons.
DeleteSo no, I already didn't like that, so if it's the same here, thanks but no, there are other games that are more fun to play, and the miniatures look sweet to be used by them. o if there is something I look forward to is the models, not the gam, wich aso far does exactly what I expected it to do, make the Soviet playing experience terrible.
*ROF of 1 in the T-72 is the issue
DeleteHow about ROF 2 at ranges up to 16"? At close range the gun isn't making a big elevation change to reach the single point where the autoloader can operate. Because of that it's much faster to get back on target.
Deleteto point out one thing. this is based a novel of alternate history, the units present in the initial release are all from that book. with more to come in later months. the Abrams tech represented in its is mostly 1st generation tech. as to ROF. the t-72 had a much more limited fire control system, with the gunner having to manually enter data, where as NATO equipment was much more automated.
DeleteI will please ask you to cite the source/book whatever you get you info from, especially if it was written by a westener befor ethe wall even fell. Soviets were pioneer in the use of laser range-finding, when introduced in the T-64 at the time no other tank had this technology, the same with composite armor, also introduced with the T-64. We are also forgeting the important difference between tank versions, since they were constantly updated as technology was adapted and developed, T-72 for example is a VERY generic term to designate a tank, so I will assume this was the first version from the 70's, in wich case it would be an unrealistic option as T-72B's would had been readily available at this time period.
ReplyDeleteAlso, citing inferior training is another of those arguable points as it is immensely difficult to meassure. Soviets conscripts at the time had a 2 year conscription service in wich they recieved extensive training in all of their equipment, the general impresion of russians being a near mongoloid untrained soldiers is not a reliable way of meassuring this, especially when even US Army manuals as I recall described them as quite proficient at combat and not to be underestimated.
ReplyDeletenobody is calling them untrained mongoloids, but the superior training of US tankers was clearly evident in the gulf war which is 6 years past TY timeframe. Yes, it was vs woeful Iraqi tankers, but the Soviets did not have the training to match their western counterparts. Western commanders knew that their quality would have to defeat the Soviet quantity if war broke out, it was all they had.
ReplyDeleteGulf War is another terrible way to compare things. Iraquis were not the Soviets and used not only old but second grade equipment, this comparison in particular is what is the most misleading of them all, and everybody does it. How are you going to compare a for export version of a t-72 made in checoslovaquia with plain steel armor and not even night vision, they even used outdated ammo, to an up to date T-72B wit both ERA and composite armor, the latest in range finders, night vision, and up to date ammunition, they are two completely different animals. The Abrahms could see and shoot them in conditions and ranges where the Iraquis had no idea what was hitting them, they could not even shoot back because they could not see who was shooting them, it was like shooting fish in a barrel, you don't need that much training to win under those circumstances. So no, I don't think how the US did in Iraq is a good measurement to find out how well trained were the soviets in comparison.
DeleteAlso, while the Warsaw Pact had more tanks (many of them old and modernized old tanks mostly kept as reserves and in support roles and not the frontline newer ones), the total personnel between NATO and WARPAC was similar, as this article from 1989 shows. http://articles.latimes.com/1989-01-31/news/mn-1242_1_warsaw-pact/2
DeleteDo you understand that M1's were killing T72's and ranges greater than 3600 meters? The rounds were so effective against Iraqi armor that they we went from bore sighting at 1200 meters to bore sighting at 3000 meters. Now I have to ask you how much more effective do you think Dolly Parton's were? Maybe they would die at 2000 meters? 2500? Believe me at 1200-1500 meters it would be like cutting butter.
DeleteI also find it amusing when people completely dismiss the results of the 91 gulf war. The complete and utter destruction of the Iraqi armed forces scared the eastern bloc countries to death. I think the Soviets had no real understanding how devastating western forces had become. Granted, 1985 is a little different, and the M60 series of tanks would have been outmathed by the T72 (but not in training), but the abrams is far beyond in capabilities. Keep thinking otherwise if you wish.
DeleteYou were shooting at for-export tanks whose only protection was steel, no composite, no kontakt, no way to see you at night, and had at least half the effective range when shooting, you may as well had been shooting WWII tanks. A T-90 is nothing else than the basic T-72 with technology and armor added into it, if you fail to have either you may as well be figthing in an early production T-55. The ammo the Iraquis used was also out of date by 1970's standards.
DeleteSame with Egyptian Abrams, they are not the same than what the US has, otherwise we would be able to conclude that currently in service US Abrams tanks can easely be destroyed by old Soviet ATGM's from the 70's.
DeleteATGM's hit the same from 100 meters to 5000 meters, distance has no effect on the impact of the weapon. APFSDS is a kinetic energy weapon that slows down with every meter it travels and is even effected by gravity. We went to war with rounds that we expected to be effective from 1500-1800 meters and found them effective at 3600+ meters. Again I will ask you how much better do you think T72B's were?
DeleteAnd I have seen video's of Export M1's being kidded by ATGM's and none of them attack the frontal armor. They are all side shots on the turret were the armor is much thinner. Not even worth talking about. I am talking about frontal penetrations at over 3600 meters away. That's serious.
Like I said, you found it effective a 3600+ because they were naked steel, so my guess would bee that T-74BU would had been 1500-1800. However the T-72BU fires an ATGM from 4000-5000 meters from it's 125mm main gun that can easely penetrate up to 900mm worth of armor, so where does that put you?
DeleteThe main thing here is being able to hit, even with their outdated ammunition a frontal hit from the 125mm gun would had been very likely to knock out an Abrams even if the crew resulted unharmed, so that's not the poin. I mean, I don't even know why we are even discussing penetration when the main pont is that no Abrams were so much as touched by the iraquis, so it's not a matter of armor penetration, you were able to see and shoot at them, and they had no chance shooting you back.
A T-72BU was equipped with laser rangefinders (just as the Abrams) and guess what, those rangefinders can target you at the forementioned 4000-5000 meters. The Iraquis had nothing like that. And soviet tanks also had propper night vision as well, the Iraquis didn't.
*where it says T-72BU replace for T-72B.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere is no +1 to hit unless they move over 10 inches. Like above wait until you gavs tried the game before you mark up your mind. Having read the rules I can say I think the soviets are better than the U.S., why? You'll have to wait to see, but I will say the only "shoehorning" will be the U.S. trying to fit everything they need into a list.
DeleteFrankly I pity anyone who has already made their mind up on the strength of a partial review without waiting to read the rules or play the game! I am confident that Battlefront and their playtesters have produced a great game that is fun and playable, but will allow players to replay 'historical' scenarios, which of course envisaged the Soviets as having an overall theatre advantage of 2:1, and localised advantages at the points of attack of 3:1.
ReplyDeleteUnless they are national rules not shown on the cards (which I think would defeat the purpose of the cards) people should note that there is no mention of HnC and smoke rounds anywhere I see.
ReplyDeleteSome of the comments seem to assume they are in the game though at the moment there is no evidence for it.
In addition I see no mention of stabilizers giving American Tanks ROF 2 on the move, just that they remove a penalty for shooting over a certain range when moving. This would lead me to believe that in Team Yankee tanks can move their tactical movement and still shoot full RoF without penalty.
These two things change the calculations a bit IMHO.
In addition we need to see the infantry stats and costs as well. It looks to me that one of the advantages of the soviets would be the granularity of their unit costs. Battlefront may be intending the standard point value of a Team Yankee game to be somewhere in the range of 50-100 points. Loading up on expensive Abrams may leave little room for support, something that may not be a problem for the soviets.
Yes it does mention that if you choose to move Tactical at 14", you suffer a +1 with the T-72, implying that going Tactical 10" has no penalty for shooting. So it sounds like maybe they've done away with the +1 to hit for moving, which will be good news to T-72 players. Only if you choose to move 14" will you have +1. That would be a nice mechanic I think.
DeleteModern tanks dont have smoke ammo, smoke is artillery delivered. And I agree it looks like an M1 can move 14 inches and fire at ROF2 at long range with no penalty. That's big! But IMHO is realistic. I have gunned on M60A3's and M1's and can attest to how good the M1 is. All stabilizer systems were junk compared to the M1. With the M60 we use to fire at what was called a short halt. Moving at more than 5 miles an hour made it almost impossible to hit anything. But to give credit to the M60, from a defensive position it was better than the M1.
ReplyDeleteThe Thermal sites on the M1 mention that smoke and darkness do not block line of site. So smoke must be a factor.
ReplyDeleteI can't really speak for everyone, but I think the main concern - for me at least - is that people don't want the Soviet side to be stereotyped. Aside from the normal unfortunate implications that come from stereotyping in general, this particular one isn't always accurate. Yes it might have held true in some areas, but not everywhere.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand the Soviet army was an enormous thing, with varying degrees in training and equipment quality. Yes, some parts might have been hastily trained conscripts with sup-par weaponry, but there were also a fair few very well-trained and highly skilled groups (VDV, anyone?) with top-of-the-line equipment more than capable of going toe-to-toe with the best of NATO/the United States. And I think the concern some people, myself included, might be having is that Battlefront might not fully represent that wide range, instead just focusing on one end at the expense of the other.
Which is all well and good if you want one of the conscript forces, but what if someone wants to play a Guards formation or a VDV force? I for one am slighly worried such an option might not be there.
I think the best solution would be a couple of different alternate army lists with different levels of skill or training (and adjusted points costs to compensate), that way everyone is happy. If they do that, I think everything will be fine.
Any of you besides me read the book? It is set in the time period when the Abrams M1 with 105mm gun is being issued in Europe. Only the M3 CFV is available to the U.S. Infantry as the IFV version was delayed (transmission and production problems). The M1 has a 105mm gun and the original amor package. First vehicle deliveries to Europe started with production deliveries in 1981. First units to get the Abrams and Bradley IFV/CFV were the independent Cavalry Regiments on the border. In the book only the T62 and T72 tanks are encountered. Any T80 or T64 models are engaged on the North German Plains against British and German forces. Those T-64B and T-80B tanks are not encountered in Bavaria. My best guess is Team Yankee is set in 1982-83 time frame. Kontact 5 was introduced in 1985 with the T-80 MBT. Improvements to the M1 armor was made in 1983 with production deliveries starting after the period the book covers. The RA used by the Soviets did not counter depleted uranium long rod penetrators at the time, but the T-72 armor could withstand frontal hits in some locations much like the Panther in WW2 could withstand 17 pdr APDS frontally, in some locations. RoF. The auto-loaders load slower than a human but can keep up the pace for longer. However, a Russian tank would have 2/3 of its ammo load HE-Frag so only about 12 rounds would be APDS. RoF is 6-8 rounds per minute while human can, for that first minute, get 12 rounds loaded. I think the M1 RoF 2 versus a T-72 or T-62 RoF of 1 is realistic. I also agree that the Thermal Sights provide an edge over IR sights, especially since IR has to use IR searchlights to be useful. TI sights are also better than Night Vision Scopes which use moonlight and starlight to see by. The rules actually make the TI sights less useful than they really are since their use in the daytime eliminates the ability to hide AFV unless the AFV have had their engines (and heaters if any) off long enough to cool down. Otherwise they stand out in a treeline as do people. TI also has 2x the range of Night Vision Scopes or Low Light TV. Turning on IR searchlight to spot US tanks at night pinpoints the location of the Soviet tanks out to max US gun range just as if they used white light. Both the Gulf Wars can't be used to compare US/British vs Soviet armor. Number 1 we used only M1A1 tanks (except for the USMC which had one battalion of M60A1(TI) w/RA) tanks with 120mmL44 guns and the Iraqi's, as pointed out, had the export version of the T-74 with IR night vision and Iraqi produced steel APDS ammunition. The 125mm ATGM fired out of the 125mm tank gun was in production in 1983 - but for only the T-64B tank and then the T-80 tank, not Soviet tanks in the book. The T-74B would be an upgrade.
ReplyDeleteAs for training, a Soviet tank gunner was lucky to have fired 3 actual rounds from his tank per year. Most of their training was on simulators or in older models such as the T-62 or T-55 tank. They trained to use Tactical Drills which could give them an edge versus U.S. forces. The T-62 has an auto-loader which requires the turret to stop, the gun to elevate, the casing to be tossed out of the tank by a small "catapult", and the auto-loader to put the next round into the breech. The turret unfreezes and the gun goes back to the elevation it was at when the gun fired. If the T-72 loader works the same way, then RoF 1 is definitely right. Now, lets see if they make the DRAGON ATGM as bad as it actually was.
Let's demistify some things. Here are a couple of videos of taks firing.
DeleteTake the time from after the round is fired and another round inserted into the chamber. Both tanks are firing on the move.
Leopard 2 (extremely simmilar to an Abrams where you have the ammo storage on the back of the turret with the automated door. It takes the loader 9 secods to reload the main gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EISdt3qyiY4
The following is a T-64 (the T-62 didn't had an autoloader, just a mechanism to eject empty cases, the T-64 was the first one to adopt it and it's almost the same used in the T-72)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4B4Yd6q-zg
The T-64 takes 11 seconds to reload and the weapon is ready to fire again, that is only 2 seconds difference, hadly twice as fast for the manual loader.
And I still say the target acquisition and rangefinding is much more of a factor when determining ROF, and both the Abrams and the T-72 had laser rangefinders and used hunter-killer tactics for the comander-gunner coordination.
And actually, all that aside you do make a good point. If it's based on a book, and the book says what it says, and Battlefront decides that the ROF is based only on the notion an Abrams in battle conditions can put out 12 rounds a minute, this in turn based only on the fact of how fast a loader can work (a very strong loader it would seem). I mean, sure, who am I to argue, perhaps they are right, I mean, I disagree, but it's their game, so.
DeleteSo leaving that aside. It's the same as with the Tour of Duty T-55's. I already played that tank duel, and I didn't found it particualrly amusing, specially being the vietnamese. So, based on that experience, and seeing we still have the thing I complined the most in Tour of Duty (ROF of 1), and the same as being a soviet tank player in WWII, where, if they move your tanks are totally useless and you have german tanks sniping at you from longer ranges, I think I can safely conclude being the soviets will suck... once again.
So, I really look forward to the models, but I think I will be testing them on the 3rd Generation Warfare books that just came out as well as using them in my games of Cold War Commander instead of Playing much Team Yankee. If a PDF version comes out I'll probably buy and test it anyway, because why not, but after being frustrated about how it plays and being forced to purchase an insane ammount of tanks to face my opponent's single tank platoon I'll probably go back to CWC.
That's it guys, so far I really don't like it at all, I'm kind of tired at being horde all the tame if I want to play the soviets and having no "elite" options. That much I can call personal taste, and so far, i don't like what I see.
And yes, I still disagree with the historical part, but then again it's based on a book and an interpretation of how things were, not the absolute facts.
The T62 has a manual loader as part of the crew of 4, not an autoloader. it has an empty case disposal system and the gun still returns to a set position for reloading - even with the manual loader. The T64 was the first Soviet tank with an auto loader.
DeleteFrom the battle of 73 Easting. Just listen to the Tank commander talk about how his loader was pumping a round every 3 seconds.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/aBG_G678Trg
In the middle of a battle, being able to say exactly how many seconds, you see, if we had a video showing it from inside the turret of how fast could it actually be done, instead all we have are these videos where the loader take their sweet 8 to 9 seconds, even some of them with a round already in their hand by the time they start loading (I suppose cramped space doesn't halp).
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Z7fnNwIgw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eETvj6bIpuA
Actually if there is something that is consistent is 9 seconds. In the second video the loader seems to try to go as fast as he can for the secons round, the reload after firing, again, 9 seconds.
Fastest that I could find, 6 to 7 seconds, still not 3, but *almost* twice as fast as the auto loader.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjqtsyKEY8U
This video suggests a round in a T-72 can be loaded in 6-7 seconds, if we count since stabilized the breach stops moving and the loading mechanism starts functioning at 01:55.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm0YsjGZKKs
In this video this loader loads 3 round in 5 seconds or less. The requirement to pass in training is 5 seconds.
Deletehttp://youtu.be/Ns5NJVa_XKo
If we are using the same meassurement I used with the auto wich is immediately after empty shell ejection to breach fully closed again the first one was 6 and the third 7, second one not counting with the camera falling and all that. And then we have a T-72 loading (granted, not reloading) a round in 6-7 seconds. But yeah, I'm being nit-picky. Let's say that generally speaking a human loader is faster, maybe even almost twice as fast, and then let's not account that the round being loaded doesn't automatically mean that in a combat situation you already acquired the target and decided to fire, and then more and less seconds start adding and substracting.
DeleteI wonder if the capacity to reload a main gun can change the effectiveness of a tank in battle the same way an ROF of 1 vs one of 2 in the rules of a FOW game changes the mathematical chances of soviet tanks surviving in combat to the point where you need almost a 2 to 1 advantage in numbers if you want to even hope a chance to equalize it.
The autoloader in T-72 was and still is crap. Some comments from a user, translated with Google translate:
Delete"I talked with a guy, who rode the T -72 . The carousel was able to stutter. "Treatment" followed using 5 - pound hammer, a proprietary obligatory equipment in the fighting compartment.
In addition, other interesting observation - if it happened a bullet that was needed was on the other end of the carousel, before loading, you had to wait for the carousel until the bullet arrived. In addition, he claimed that manually loading a bullet in T-55 (Merida ) was faster ( although smaller caliber, but cartridge combined )..."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteif only having a laser rangefinder was all that mattered. That range has to be entered into a computer which also has to adjust for vehicle movement, target movement, gravity, wind speed, gun barrel temperature, etc. Are you saying that the T72 did that as effectively as the Abrams?? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteBetter training, better ballistic computer, loading speed, etc all goes into why the ROF is twice as good for the Abrams over T72.
and I'm not sure what people are complaining about. The T72 penetration vs the Abrams is the same as the Abrams vs the T72 in Team Yankee, I think that's pretty generous. I want my Soviets to have overwhelming tanks, Hind gunships in support, artillery raining down, the business.
Rangefinder sends data to the computer automatically, all you have to do is push a button. How do you know the T-72 had inferior tech on this matter, specially after being the Soviets the first to ever use it. Can you cite anything that suggests it?
DeleteIt's all well and good that you want your overwhelming mass-attack Soviets, but I want my Soviets to be a highly competent well-oiled killing machine. With Hinds. In an ideal world we could both get what we want, but I'm worried there will only be options for the former and not the latter.
DeleteThe Soviets weren't the first to use a laser range finder, the British Chieftain mk 5 had a Barr & Stroud Laser rangefinder installed from 1971 onwards.
DeleteThe laser rangefinder was first fitted to the T64B in 1976 and was introduced as an upgrade in the early 80's to replace the original co-incidental rangefinder in earlier T64A tanks.
The T72 in the TY book is a T72A model which doesn't have the ATGM or any Kontakt ERA anyway.
If it is a T72A then it makes sense, all the same, it's almost like pitting a T-80 with an early M-60 late M-48. Either way they concentrate on having the one scenario with the few latest generation tanks NATO had against tanks used almost exclusively as support for motorized rifle divisions, not allowing the soviets to field their best stuff against NATO's best stuff. Thanks. Just like I told Mike, they are based on a book, the book says what it says (newest near prototype tanks vs early versions of T-72's). Now we know where the historical accuracy comes from, pitt a 3rd generation tank vs a 2nd generation one and make the latter ones hoardy. And this is what I've been complaining from a start. But Mike is right, it's based on a book and the specific situation in the book.
Deletewell d'uh the data goes into a computer, nobody is sat their with a bunch of manuals running algorithms. Just hate to tell you that the tech in the Abrams was far better than the T72 at that time. The Soviets built a lot of decent tanks, but crew comfort and survivability was not an important concept. They wanted a big gun in a tank that had a low silhouette and could be sent in large numbers through a breakthrough in western lines. Western MBTs wanted a quality product that could acquire, hit and kill a target efficiently. A lot of misses would ultimately mean failure. The entire concept of facing Soviet armour in that period was hoping quality would prevail over quantity.
DeleteAgain, you better back that with some specific info or a reliable source, a 3rd gen tank is going to be better than a 2nd gen, but 3rd gen Soviet tanks were AT LEAST on par with any NATO 3rd gen tank if not better. My complain is that there are no 3rd gen Soviet tanks in this game.
DeleteAs an example, citing the ATGM cappabilities and armor of a T-80U, already available in 1985 they would had been able to start picking off Abrams tanks at 4000-5000 meters and when Abrams managed to close in to return fire Kontakt5 would had been able to stop the uranium APFSDS rounds. Totally opposite situation than with T72A's. 3rd gen vs 3rd gen, fair is fair.
DeleteGuys can we stop with the "who knows more about Cold War era tanks" chatter. If this continues I will start deleting posts.
DeleteYou all clearly have differing views and fortunately as WW3 never happened we'll never know if battlefront has got it right or not. I will say I think the rules look good, fun and balanced, if you don't agree then that's fine but wait until you have played the game before you "decide" the rules/stats will make for a bad game.
Ben
To me, it yet again looks like the Soviets have been "allocated" significantly worse gear and equipment to shoehorn them into a "horde" playing style. This is effectively "confident veteran" elite US tanks vs. "fearless trained" Soviet tanks with what effectively amounts to the Hen & Chicks rule on the table top with the 1+ to hit when moving.
ReplyDeleteIt's exactly what I hoped that the game would not boil down to, as I have played that game many times before in MW&LW WWII, and therefore do not bring a lot of new, interesting features to the table.
It's a shame really, because the new miniatures look absolutely gorgeous. I hope that they have something more interesting to show with the Soviet mechanized infantry, as I hope that it won't just be an update of the Rota Razvedki.
There is no +1 to hit unless they move over 10 inches. Like above wait until you gavs tried the game before you mark up your mind. Having read the rules I can say I think the soviets are better than the U.S., why? You'll have to wait to see, but I will say the only "shoehorning" will be the U.S. trying to fit everything they need into a list.
DeleteThanks for the quick answer Ben!
DeleteThe problem with this unit card preview, as I think someone said already, is that the only way we can judge these rules, is based on existing FoW rules, since we do not know how much the new rules differ from the existing. That can create a lot of skepticism, especially with myself, as I do not simply want to play something that feels like LW FoW over again.
Now I'm interested in the Soviets after all.
It still does mean that you have to purchase and paint a lot more vehicles than any US player, so I hope that the Soviet support options make up for it in quality. I hope that the mechanized infantry will be able to perform more offensively against tanks and combined arms armies with the appropriate support.
I can see that Christian and no worries. There is a line for Phil in the WI article and the podcast we have coming out soon where we interviewed him, "it's best to treat this as a new rule set". Yes some things are similar, but a lot of rules work very differently.
DeleteJust trust us for now, once the combined arms is add to the game it'll seem more balanced. I can't talk about it too much yet, but spoiler alert, I think the Soviet might be slightly (and I mean slightly) better than the US.
I love the stuff you do guys, but these reviews are sounding pretty uncritical. Statements like "so you can see why the T-72 vs the Abrams looks like quite an even fight!" when we can see pretty clearly that it is no such thing does little for your credibility.
ReplyDeleteHave to say, TY not looking too good here, which is a shame as the models are stonking!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCristian and Marcelo,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be jumping to your own conclusions, to suit your own pre determined outcomes, without anywhere near enough information, using selective arguments based on prejudice, not fact. If you don't like what you think you know (but actually have no clue) about the game, then play something else, just stop banging on with all the negativity.
And remember its a game, based on a book, not a simulation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAlright, I'll try not to be too much of a skeptic then :)
DeleteI think it's because of bad treatment from other game companies in the past that I have gotten used to expecting the worst possible outcome with new games and rules updates.
I think we dedicated Soviet players are just afraid, since we do not want to see our favorite faction end up as faceless henchmen of the communist party serving as cannon-fodder against the enemy forces, since that has been a bit of a tendency in WWII FoW due to lack of unique briefings in comparison to the other factions.
As long as the two opposing sides in Team Yankee are treated equally, then I will be very happy!
The as I said earlier, the miniatures look absolutely gorgeous. I hope that we will get rules for the Polish People's Army at some point, as it would be interesting to play something a little different.
I guess I can give the benefit of the doubt too, but all I have to compare to is past experience, and so far what I've seen only confirmed that past experience. But if you say it will be a "whole different game" I'll take your word for it.
DeleteI'll buy the manual (and was going to anyway) to test the game regardless, because it's a period that interests me, I'm not going into one of those "I'm not giving you my money" rage fits, I'm not like that. So I will definitely see if my fears are confirmed or disproved, hopefully the latter.
And the models are sweet all around just the same, so even if I don't end up liking the rules (let's emphasize that IF so no one says I'm being negative), I'm still very looking forward to the models.
So there, I'll reserve final judgement until I played a couple of games.
BF is going well with this project and models, however I believe that some corrections or revisions have to be made. It is just a game anyway (based on a novel) but It would be more preferable to choose the skill and the formation, against lower-higher cost, of the army that player wishes to use. Soviets have been based on large formations including even airborne armies (not just divisions) with rapid deployment and encircling populated areas (thus no nukes due to gaged population) but that is another story. It is just a nice game based on finction however BF and YT should somehow balance things otherwise will reach at the point of the overpowered Israelis issued in the initial AIS. I will be waiting to see the whole project of rules, arsenals, formations as I dont wish to end up playing a game that the one side will be loosing by default. Also there are many models of this era that have not been showed yet however I believe that BF and YT will produce in future. Ending, Yom Kipur is missing and I believe that it is a great gap as it was a fully historical area of battles during this era.
ReplyDeleteJust to add in my comment... CARRY ON BF and YT, YOU ARE DOING GREAT. The models are fantastic and the idea with the unit cards is brilliant. A nice rule book and arsenals will rise this game up to sky. After all, you have the experience of all these FoW years.
ReplyDeleteJust my 2c worth - I don't think you should judge this game just on the 105mm Abrams vs T72 duel that it comes out with. Those are obviously just two of many lists that this system will expand to later. BF have already said that they see expansions with the BAOR and Bundeswehr kit and I'm sure they won't neglect the alternate Soviet equipment like T80, T64 and the older kit like T62, T55 that served in some of the Category 3 divisions and Warpact allies. Also remember that the Sov infantry we have seen is the BMP mounted variety but much of the mech infantry in their Motor Rifle Divisions would be mounted in BTRs. Hopefully we will also eventually get things like Naval infantry and VDV/Spetsnaz airborne stuff
ReplyDeleteI am thinking the same way. Its too early to judge whether somebody likes the game or not, unless the whole rule book and arsenals appear. My main thought is that it is just a game and not a simulation. Definately and whether BF and TY is reading this thread, by giving a players' choise of morale, skill and strength formation (as in FoW multiple choise in each army formation) my belief is that the game will be much more interesting. Based on what we have seen up to now, a player is aware of the oposing army list. However we have seen only two sample cards and only BF and TY know whats next. Thus waiting....it is hypothetical therefore with a very very long future.....
DeleteYeah, I'm really interested to see follow-on releases, because I think we'll see better ratings & vehicles for the WarPac forces (and also worse ratings and vehicles maybe!), to compliment the Brits and Germans in other areas of Germany.
DeleteIt would be kind of fun to play true Category C units (i.e. Polish T-55's, which would be a true horde army!). I am definitely going to buy into this in 15mm from BF as the models looks great, but our local Calgary group has several groups already heavily invested in MicroArmour just waiting for these rules (we tried the GHQ rules a few years back but they were terrible).
Using MicroArmour will allow for super affordable armies that can be very large as well, allowing for those crazy T-55 hordes trying to smash their way through, or for more modern armies of T-80's. GHQ figs are lovely with crazy detail for 6mm. I think the ranges actually work far better in 6mm, especially with artillery on the board.
But as I said, I'm a BF fan too, so they will still be getting my dollars. :)
This is the phrase that I am repeating over and over when I read all the posts above...
ReplyDelete"This is a game, based on a book, based on a war that did not happen."
Amen brother.
DeleteAmen
DeleteHey Ben, please don't give up on us. You'll always get a few who are determined to dis TY before even having read the rules, let alone played a game, but the majority of us are really very grateful for the effort you mob are putting into these tasty previews!
ReplyDeleteAs a general point, TY the Novel, as Harold Coyle makes very clear, is set within the context of General Sir John Hackett's 'The Third World War', a proto history written in 1978 but set in 1985. Therefore TY is set in 1985.
I'd also like to point out the by the end of WW2, Soviet Guards formations differed only from other Category 1 GSFG formations by title - they had no additional training, manpower or equipment, and were largely composed of 2 year conscripts same as all others - including Senior NCOs.
Don't worry I haven't given up on you guys. :-)
DeleteReally looking forward to team Yankee, just think people need to stop making a snap decision on one tank vs one tank when it's a combine arms game.
Excellent! - And yes - just plain common-sense really!
DeleteIf you feel that the rules are not realistic enough to suit you when published, they can certainly be "house-ruled" on your gaming table as you see fit. I wonder how much the performance of the Soviet tanks in the TY book has influenced the design of the rules?
ReplyDeleteThis module has me once again interested in an era that I haven't given a second thought to since the Berlin Wall came down, and I'm really looking forward to the finished product. I have been painting & basing 6mm Cold War era AFVs every night for the last 3 weeks. November seems like an eternity away.
The gun goes to full elevation on the T62 to eject the casing and be reloaded. I am assuming the same for the 125mm, which is 2 piece round, shell and case. Gun actually has less distance to travel in elevation at long range. T62 round was hand loaded but gun had to elevate for the 115mm round to be loaded, and cases ejected through auto opening hatch in rear oF turret to keep ca sings from jam ming up turret.. T64 and T72, T80, T90 all with 125mm have two piece ammunition, which the auto-loader must select and move to tray for rammer to put into breach. US M68 105mm uses single piece round loader pulls out of turret ammo rack, pivots 90 degrees and pushes into open breech. Same for US/German 120mm which is also one piece. British 120mm is round plus two propellant bags.
ReplyDeleteHaving served in the US 3rd Inf Division at the time of the book. You all have missed a dew simple facts Soviet turrets also are more cramp than NATO turrets which effect movement especially the WG LEO 2 which the loader can fully stand up and load.Soviet auto loaders at the time were prone to occasional catching the loaders arm in them much to the loader chagrin. ATGMS flight times at longer ranges far exceeded target acquisition and main gun projectile flight times which if a AFV in overwatch detected the ATGM vehicle or crew might be able to engage and destroy it not to mention cause the gunner to flinch which would cause the atgm to crash.Since atgm in this time period are wire guided a ATGM using vehicle would have to remain stationary while guiding the ATGM to target increasing the chance of being engaged after firing.Most antitank ambushes are initiated from the flank because of these facts. The T 74 was the new toy the Soviets had and was only assigned to Guard units the closest ones were in Poland.This led to a amusing story, NATO wanted to know what size the gun was as this was a closely guarded secret so the British sent in a SAS team the measure the barrel in the motor pool, the US used satalite imagery to determine the caliber and the French ambassador got the Soviet military attache drunk at a party and gave afull description o f the new wonder tank
Delete1978. Abrams MBT and Bradley R&D contracts signed in 1976 with proto-types delivered 1978-80 for the Abrams. All of these LRIP vehicles went to Ft Hood for troop testing. 1981 first production vehicles delivered plus major rebuild of LRIP vehicles . First Abrams delivery in Europe in 1981 to Cavalry Regiments on border. 24th Inf and NG units received Abrams at same time as Regular Army, if I recall right, due to upgrade of US reserve units.
ReplyDelete1978. Abrams MBT and Bradley R&D contracts signed in 1976 with proto-types delivered 1978-80 for the Abrams. All of these LRIP vehicles went to Ft Hood for troop testing. 1981 first production vehicles delivered plus major rebuild of LRIP vehicles . First Abrams delivery in Europe in 1981 to Cavalry Regiments on border. 24th Inf and NG units received Abrams at same time as Regular Army, if I recall right, due to upgrade of US reserve units.
ReplyDeleteIs it just me or is there a typo on the Soviet cards; '"Machine guns cannot Shoot Team cannot assault". Should there be an 'and' between 'Shoot' and 'Team'?
ReplyDeleteCharles. If I remember correctly it was the BMP-1 that loaded the gunner's arm. The T-72 occasionally loaded the gunner's leg.
ReplyDeleteCharles. If I remember correctly it was the BMP-1 that loaded the gunner's arm. The T-72 occasionally loaded the gunner's leg.
ReplyDelete