"Team Yankee Unit Cards" Topic

You might want to get contemporary pictures of the M2 and M3 not ones seperated by what looks like a decade.or so.

The only external visible clue to distinguish a M2 from a M3 in the late 80s would be that the rear passenger gun ports on the M3 are bolted shut. Internally the M3 would have more TOW missiles storage.

Are they using the rounded sides on both vehicles? I remember the Bradleys looking like the pictures above. But maybe it was my unit using old/new mixes.

You wont see those bigger flat side armor panels with all the bolts until later versions. Both M2s and M3s got that upgrade.

Depending on the fielding schedule it's possible to have had different versions at the same time where you were. Your battalion scouts and the Div Cav M3s might very well have been upgraded before the Mech Infantry units' M2s. But eventually they'd all be upgraded.

I'm not 100% sure but when the M2s went to then bigger side armor plates like in your 2nd photo that they also had the rear passenger gun ports closed off just like the M3s making it even harder to tell one from the other just by looking at them.

Slightly off topic, but:

"I'm willing to bet that there's a greater impact on shooter effectiveness from how good the targets are at hiding than how good the shooters are at hitting. Has anyone done a study?"

The only study I can think of was in 1982 where application of fire combined with aggressive fire and manoeuvre defeated a well dug in and positioned enemy. Yes they were conscripts but they were well sited in excellent defencive positions.

Tally Ho!

M3 Bradleys are for the Cav Scouts, and are almost identical to M2s visually. IIRC, the difference is the plated-over gun ports on the M3.

That was the point of my post, the "book" mentions the upgrade for the Scout platoon, but they don't appear to in the initial release going by the info on the data cards that we have seen.

So as we are hopefully guessing there will be a staged release of kit depending on success of the initial offering

Just mark the boxes as M2/M3 Bradleys.

The M3A0 Brads were literally M2s off the production line.

You've seen pretty much all the vehicles. There are no brdm, Bradley in the game…yet.

The lists themselves are a hodgepodge of items that you would find spread across a division from either side. There are units that you'd only find at division level, and it's missing stuff you'd find at battalion level. But it's a start, the first wave of releases and the first book are to test the waters.

I suspect the Bradleys will be along shortly.

Can't have M1s out there, without them, really, especially in the mid-1980s.

No doubt they will, but not yet. I was hoping for BRDM's and BMP 1P's, but no dice.

My guess is that next they'll introduce a new list, either BAOR or Bundeswher, and that will see expansions to the soviet arsenal as well. It's what they do with the second book that I'm eager to see, will we get an actual cold war list, or more Clancy/Coyle type lists?

Or to be more precise show me Chieftains with stillbrew, T64s and 80s, Leopard 1A3s and 2's. I want this to work as I have faith BF can make an engaging game mechanic, but I'm not so confident about their knowledge of the era. I'm still scratching my head over the decision to do a licenced Team Yankee game as opposed to an IP free cold war game. Great book and all, but not something that was widely read even back in the day. Red Storm Rising would have been a far richer IP anyway, especially as that particular cold war gone hot story runs longer than the conflict in Team Yankee. Would have been damn expensive naming rights mind you.

I dunno, IIRC Red Storm Rising was written to give the modern Harpoon gamers an excuse!

So, if I've done the math correctly, for front on front engagements only, it appears that the M1, with its 2 x ROF per turn, can kill, or force a bailout of a T-72 about 67% of the time.

The T-72 can only kill/bailout the M-1 about 33% of the time, assuming a 50:50 split between firing on the move (+1 shooting penalty for that), and when standing still. It's ROF is only 1 per turn. Also, its gun range is 32", vs. the 40" range for the M-1 tank, so if you factor that in, it appears to only be about 40% of the effectiveness of the M-1's lethality.

Granted, I'm glossing over a lot of other factors, e.g. side armor, special rules, vehicle speed, etc., etc.. However, for a straight up, frontal attack battle, that's the way things appear to stack up to me.

If you can negate the range advantage of the M-1s gun, in close terrain, the T-72 is about 50% as effective as the Abrams tank, from a firepower and armor standpoint.

The M-1 costs 8 points per vehicle, and the T-72 is 4.7 points. Not sure why the latter isn't a bit lower, so will need to investigate that a bit more. Perhaps some of the special rules for the T-72 make it a bit better than it appears at first glance.

But then Kyote we used a slide in the mid 80s "Quantity has a quality all of it's own!"

And certainly there were far more T-64s and T-80s in GSFG than we had tanks!

Tally Ho!

I'm assuming that Soviet tanks get cheaper the more you take, like in FoW.

No they don't – indeed the points per tank work out lowest if you take the smallest companies possible (5 points per tank, minus 3 points for the unit), so presumably large units are a strength not a liability in-game, with small companies being easy to lose and affect formation morale.

(The discount in the WWII rules mainly reflects the fact that "hen and chicks" makes large units hard to use to full effect, not an issue here.)

link