"Dear BF, please don't mess up Team Yankee." Topic

Well, if they do, there are always other options, and the vehicles look to be pretty decent, given their previews.

My interest in FoW waned quite a while ago, but I have thought a lot about doing a Red Storm Rising hot war game for years. If they come out with nice resin vehicles at an acceptable price, I might buy the figures for use with Force On Force. And if there was enough local interest, I could probably be prodded into buying the TY books eventually too…

Maybe they will come up with a rule for reaction fire in the new set…?

Depends what you mean by mess up.

I hope that they don't end up just making the Americans into AIW Israeli style Germans clones and giving the Russians the joys of RoF 1 guns and hen and chicks.

You know that just because you asked that….they are gonna do it….

And, of course, there will be no rules for "reaction fire", or overwatch defense.

You'll be surprised. Whether pleasantly depends on many things.

What's your email kyote?

I hope this is not intended as a provocative OP!

It could be read to imply that BF have somehow 'messed up' WW2 and the AIW. How good tabletop rules are at recreating warfare is of course entirely subjective.

What cannot be objectively denied is that Battlefront's Flames of War have massively opened up and popularised WW2 wargaming, and I have no doubt that 'Team Yankee' will do the same for 'Cold War Gone Hot'…

For the record, IMHO, whilst FOW is by no means the perfect set of WW2 company level rules out there, they are better than some and perfectly adequate when given a fair go and assessed from a holistic stand point of the overall scenario being played, the sum of its parts; rather than microscopically criticised because this or that range doesn't make sense, or there no standing overwatch, or what have you.

I also am very excited about the 'Team Yankee' project, and hope that they won't have too much preconceived baggage from the wargaming community to overcome before they've even published the rules!

I have a low opinion of rules critics who haven't played the rules they are criticising, my opinion of critics of rules who haven't even read them is unprintable, but to imply a set of rules will be 'messed up' before they've even been published…that would be poor form, so I hope that is not intended here!

WWII was very popular before BF/FOW, but I'm sure they have reached a few new people that didn't participate in miniatures gaming.

Hmmm…Will we see M60A3 TTS?, (At a decent, affordable price?)…Let's hope so!!!!

No M60 tanks in the Team Yankee novel, so I'd guess no.

I've been enjoying the 6day war games,
so looking forward to Team Yankee

I seem to remember the Cav who retreat through them before their first engagement had M-60's.

Fatman

Well I'm in the middle of reading up on the Six Day War now, so am no expert, but it seems to me that Arab armoured tactics were as taught by their Soviet instructors, but without even the level of direct leadership that requires provided by an officer class who felt operating vehicles beneath them. Hen and Chicks might well be the most elegant solution to replicating the hesitant and relatively caustions UAR tactics…

Someone who likes having lots of tanks. :-)

I would be very hesitant to use the Six Day War as demonstrating anything but what happens when you lose your air superiority in a desert war. Not to detract from the amazing performance of Israeli armour, but the real killer blow for the Egyptians was losing the air war. Jordanian armour showed a lot of balls, but then their big influence was British and not Russian.

I hear you.

If you do, please make sure they produce T-64s for the Russians, on our behalf.

Khurasan has a range of T64 coming out, keen to see how they shape up before investing in more QRF.

Yeah but if you need 25 tanks for the UAR and only 5 for the IDF….and still lose. Who's going to buy the UAR ????

I know two guys in my gaming group (yes, they like tanks and lots of them), and I was wanting to play Jordanians.

QRF also makes T80s.

For the Fulda Gap option T-80 (8 Guards Army)

Tally Ho!

If you don't like the effect of the "hens and chicks" rule, just don't use them for a more balanced outcome . . . on the other hand, the Arab forces were trained by their Soviet advisors and consequently had their asses handed to them by the Israelis. It is what it is – the history speaks for itself.

The Syrians were massacred in '73, as in '67 even though they heavily outnumbered by the Israelis on the Golan Heights. The Egyptians faired well, initially, due to their absolute surprise attack coupled with their new "Sagger" anti-tank missles, and their new SAM AA missles, they were provided with. But, soon lost the initiative and tactical advantage, and were in turn thrown further back by the Israelis onto Egyptian ground, after a miraculous Israeli comeback. As for the Jordanians, they were a consistently better force than their Arab compatriots, but ultimately succumbed, as well. As for the Iraqis, they were about as lousy as the Syrians. So, that's just the nature of the beast – inferior tactics and training lost them each war. And, they used pure Soviet tactics, as the Soviet doctrine dictated for Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces in Europe at the time, which is essentially, "Hens and Chicks".

The Arabs had no T-64's, and aside from a plethora of T-55's they had plenty of new T-62's in '73, which of course were, in the final analysis, not much better than their T-55 predecessors, even though they sported the larger caliber 115mm smoothbore gun.

The T-64's never really was found in great numbers in they Soviet inventory and were exclusively only in Soviet inventories and not exported. They were almost simultaneously superceded by the T-72 family of tanks, that include the T-72 and T-80 variations (and, now the recent T-90's) as the mainstay tank of the Soviet forces during the 1980's and 1990's first echelon tank forces. The T-72 variant was heavily exported of course and even licensed for production abroad by various countries. It is interesting to note, that the T-55's were still quite prevalent in the Soviet force structure in the 1980's fleshing out their 3rd echelon and reserve tank units. The T-64 also never were produced in any great numbers and were a sort of "odd duckling" with issues, not the least of which, IIRC were also too expensive to produce, and became a sort of white elephant.

Some more, accurate facts of the T-64 can be read at this link.

link

The T-64's never really was found in great numbers in they Soviet inventory and were exclusively only in Soviet inventories and not exported. They were almost simultaneously superceded by the T-72 family of tanks, that include the T-72 and T-80 variations (and, now the recent T-90's) as the mainstay tank of the Soviet forces during the 1980's and 1990's first echelon tank forces.

In Europe T-64 was replaced by T-80 in GSFG, we watched the arrival of the new big Kamaz tanker trucks, the T-64 were lined up at the railheads, loaded and went as the T-80 were unloaded. No T-72.

Tally Ho!

I thought the T80 was a T64 update?

No completely different tank, gas turbine engine for starters, hence the requirement for bigger tanker trucks,

Tally Ho!

T-64s were pretty much a failure but the Soviets were able to keep it quiet until well after they were replaced by the T-80