"Team Yankee new stuff: infantry "card" details" Topic

From Breakthrough Assault

link

Far more interesting than the tank preview. The Soviet Motor Riflemen get a nice array of kit. Check the above link for the full article and more info.

Yep, much better update. And the points cost for units has been serious scaled back (which I like better, by the way).

Interesting that there are no stats for the BTR motor rifles and that they do have stats for the BMP2. It was a BTR60 equipped unit that attacked the team at Hill 214.

It looks like you have a lot of leeway in picking the composition of your force too. A company can be as small as a three plus one vehicle platoon. I say that because the Soviets used three vehicle platoons, so maybe the 4 vehicle unit implies that the boxed sets will have four vehicles, which is what the US usually has as a platoon.

But it's gonna be expensive! The current US armored rifle platoon with all of the trimmings costs about $58. USD

link

These "platoons" are smaller vehicle total wise but the vehicles are probably as big as or bigger than the US M3 half-tracks and probably have about as many troops. So call it $45 USD-55 a kit on the low side? With that assumption a motor rifle company will set you back at least $120 USD (assuming you get 3 kits- you have to have three kits to make a 9 vehicle company, so the other three start your next company?) and a good battalion 2-4 times that.

I wonder if they'll put out a company/battalion command pack like they do now? One with the vehicles and troops for just the command unit?

A saving grace for us who don't want to mortgage the house again to play Team Yankee is that the lists as given all you to field a much smaller (and cheaper force). You won't have a full strength force, but you can field fractional companies and one box set will have a force you can put on the board as it.

I don't know if I'll play these as Flames of War, but I do see myself getting at least few kits to play Force on Force or something similar as 15mm skirmish. With that in mind each boxed set is an army in and of itself and $45 USD or so bucks isn't that bad at all. Plus $45 USD or so for a tank platoon is going to be pretty reasonable price for 15mm, especially for high detailed plastic kits that have lots of extra bits like Battlefront's awesome M113 kits (which I already have for Vietnam!).

Finally, the infantry, from what little can be seen in the cards, look great! I'm hoping they're plastic too as BF's plastic troops are very nice figures.

All in all, I'm really excited about this release!

If I do this at all it will be with MicroArmor.

Any news on a date for the rule book to be released?

I'm already raising forces in 6mm for this. I'm kind of shocked at all the RPGs that the Soviets have. A pack of Soviet infantry heavy weapons from GHQ only has 12 RPG armed men. I guess that I could just use regular inf. figures for the AK-74 teams that have RPGs and use the RPG minis for the RPG teams. It's either do this or buy another pack of the heavy weapons so that I can have an RPG guy on each infantry base. I may just get another pack because if I don't see the RPG on the base, I might forget that they have them!

I saw November mentioned somewhere as the probable release date.

Thanks for sharing the info.

I went back and looked at some of the news releases, and it says the October release date has been pushed back to November, assuming it gets released "on time".

For the 12 vehicle BMP Co., it appears the PKM platoon is a bit light – from everything I've read of late. It should have 4 x PKMs, not just 2.

I even ran across mention of 6x PKMs in the 2-vehicle platoon, but think that might have been for the BTR-60s (not 100% sure about that, but found it a bit surprising, since everything else I'd read mentioned four of them).

Yes I'm hoping for November. I've got to say, looking at these cards, I've got great hopes for Team Yankee – a few seemingly obvious oddities actually reveal a lot of research about period doctrine as it was trained for

- the apparent Soviet reluctance to assault for example – considered so WW2 – they wanted to close with firepower and pass through the suppressed positions, but I can see that dyed in the wool FOW fans will be puzzled.

I feel a podcast coming on…

Not sure I'm okay with some of the ratings, but see why they're doing that, in order to make the battles fit the narrative of the book, e.g. lower profile BMPs are hit on a 3+, but higher profile M113s are hit on a 4+?

Presumably, they're trying to take into account doctrine, crew training, firepower, etc., but those stand out a bit in my mind currently as being a bit different than anticipated.

I shall reserve judgment for the total package, to see if it appears to fit the expectations for mid-1980s Cold War combat.

Mako11 I agree about the M113 at 4+ versus the BMP-1 at 3+. Seems like it should be the other way around.

Hey Sparks you going to be at MOAB? Let me know so we can hook up and chat about that game you're planning for Hall of Heroes.

Great looking cards, but…

Why do you have the M249 SAW for the U.S. Mech Plt.

From wikipedia. link

Operational history:
"The M249 SAW was not used heavily before the 1991 Gulf War, though it has been used in every major U.S. conflict since. American personnel in Somalia in 1993, Bosnia in 1994, Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq since 2003 have been issued M249s. Surplus weapons were donated to Bolivia, Colombia and Tunisia."

If this is supposed to be for Team Yankee and the 1980's Cold War they would be carrying M60's.

Granted I was a 19D Cavalry Scout.
But I was in Armor Bn's, Mech Inf Bn's, Div Cav Sqdn's and the 11th ACR and we never saw them till just after Desert Storm.

Most everyone was still using the HOG the M-60 Machine Gun.

Just saying.

Perhaps they meant the M240 (and the M249 is a typo), which was supposedly used by the Army and Marines from the late 1970s, but its unclear to me how widely that was as well.

IIRC, one Marine here mentioned that they didn't get those down at the infantry level until the very end of the Cold War/just after the Cold War (1989), but they were installed on their vehicles.

Here's the wiki page for the M240:

link

I suspect these won't be the only inaccuracies that may crop up. Hopefully, they'll work on correcting them.

Mako11 I agree about the M113 at 4+ versus the BMP-1 at 3+. Seems like it should be the other way around.

Maybe it's a training thing. Like the BMP could be a 2+ because of a rotten crew, but the vehicle's lower profile makes it a 3+?

Ditto for the M113. Maybe it should be a 3+ but better training has knocked it up to a 4+.

Ah, looks like the M240s were not used by either the US Army or Marines, in their infantry squads either, until after the Cold War was over:

"The test applies only to the 1970s-era versions tested. The MAG itself underwent some improvements and the M60E2 was a specialized coaxial variant that differed from some of the other types. The qualities of the M60 variants vary considerably, such as between the M60E4 and the M60C. That aside, for these types the clear winner was the MAG, which was designated as the M240 in 1977 after the Army competition. It went on to replace many older types for the vehicle/coaxial role in the 1980s. The M240 proved popular enough that it was adapted by the infantry later on, spawning the M240B and M240G. The USMC adopted the M240G for this role in 1991, where it not only replaced the rather worn M60s used by the (marine) infantry, but also the M60E3 that the Marines had started using in the 1980s. In the late 1990s, the Army adopted the M240B for the infantry role….".

The above quote is from the Wiki article I linked to above.

The Army and Marines did use some for their vehicles though, before the end of the Cold War.

Yea, I suspect that is probably part of their equation, Tgunner, so we'll just have to see how the whole combined arms thing, rates of fire and movement, etc., pan out.

Oh yea, I know the M240C well.
It's what we had coaxial mounted next to our 25mm on our M3 Bradley's and its a damn good MG.
But it would be very difficult to operate dismounted.

From your reference: link
M240C

The M240C is a variation on the original coaxial (installed alongside the main weapon) M240, but with a right-handed feed for use on the M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle and LAV as the coaxial machine gun. It is fed from the left on the M1 Abramsand other M1 variant (M1A1, M1A2, M1A2 SEP) tanks. The 240C uses a charging cable instead of a charging handle, has a cut off pistol grip and has a special paddle assembly that allows the trigger to be actuated by means of a solenoid. Since the machine gun is not meant to be handled during use, the barrel is fully exposed and must be handled with asbestos mittens during barrel changes.

And for the M60 Tank they carried a M219 as a coaxial mounted MG next to the main gun.

link

I have a feeling that someone just made an assumption that the U.S. Army had the M249 SAW as the Dismounts MG during this time period.

It is still early in the building phase of T.Y. to make corrections like this.

When not sure, ask the gamers that were veterans of that time. We can remember most things. Like Ammunition loads and even load plans.

Hey Sparks you going to be at MOAB? Let me know so we can hook up and chat about that game you're planning for Hall of Heroes.

Yes mate – there early on the Saturday, probably most of the day. I'll be the big fat baldy dude with a maroon Waterloo 200 T shirt on – probably with a mug of tea in one hand and a bacon butty in the other…Be great to catch up!

Good stuff. I'm swinging by Saturday too so will cross paths with you I'm sure.

So, does anyone have an "in" with the Battlefront people, and/or access to their forums, so they can consider fixing the MG issue(s), before the rules get published, and the minis made?

Of course, if they're going off a work of fiction, and those SAWs are mentioned in the infantry units in the book, it will probably be a moot point anyway.

On the plus side, the SAWs will work for the "Ultra-Modern", post Cold War period.

However, I, and I suspect a lot of others would prefer to see the correct TO&Es and equipment for the infantry units, and the Soviet MG platoon(s), not to mention the infantry figures produced for Team Yankee.

Seems like a relatively easy fix, since they already produce M60s and figures carrying/firing them, for their Vietnam range.

Like the Greater Satan Battlefront has gotten so big that it is susceptible to what is commonly known as "corporate inertia."

If they're planning a big release party in time for Xmas, chances are the book and cards have already gone to press and the masters are already at the manufacturers in China.

It's all locked in and production has been in full swing for several weeks. There will be plenty of angst about stats and rules for plenty of kit once we've all got our mitts on it.

Going by the process used in the past, the dev team does a very good job listening to conversations on their forum, and they have a very robust playtester community. They do take note of what folks think are problems etc. If its an issue of rules comprehension they prepare a "Lessons from the Front" type response. If the underlying rules engine causes grief they note it all down in their book of "stuff to fix in v2". If its due to historical accuracy, it can be harder. Some stuff is down to opinion, like "this unit was far better/worse than the list represents". Other stuff is more OOB related, and finally you get equipment being wrong.

Team Yankee is likely to have a few teething problems because it's a new engine, which is to be expected, but apart from that IMHO most other problems will be related to OOBs and equipment.

I've had some involvement with Battlefront in the past. My experience was they were far more attuned to player feedback and sentiment than most would suspect, but unless there's been a complete fumble they usually deal with issues over a longer time frame then most would want, due to the sheer volume of work they have on their plates.

So, I guess it will be interesting to see the response, if any, to the e-mail message I sent to them (Battlefront's e-mail address listing here on TMP), about the two MG issues:

1. M60s for the Cold War troops, and no M240s or M249s for them (just for vehicles), until after the Cold War; and

2. the Soviet MG platoons of 2 x BTRs or 2 x BMPs need 4 x PKM MGs, not 2 (one thread mentioned 6 of them in the 2 extra company vehicles.

I'll let you know if I receive a reply.

Probably couldn't hurt if others express the same concerns, if we want to get things changed. That might be possible, if the cards haven't gone to print yet, but I doubt it, given the above, since I suspect they do need some lead time for printing all the cards, rulebooks, etc..

If not, perhaps they can fix it for the next edition's printing.

How do the stats for the M249 MG compare to the M60, listed for their Vietnam rules?

For the 12 vehicle BMP Co., it appears the PKM platoon is a bit light – from everything I've read of late. It should have 4 x PKMs, not just 2.

I even ran across mention of 6x PKMs in the 2-vehicle platoon, but think that might have been for the BTR-60s (not 100% sure about that, but found it a bit surprising, since everything else I'd read mentioned four of them).

I assume its a game balance thing. 7 shots apiece adds up.

I'm doing 6mm and am going to try 2 stands with 2 PKMs each. Hopefully it doesn't look too weird. This may be what they're thinking, but it would probably be stranger looking in 15mm.

I was reading the spiel about the upcoming TY game in this month's issue of Wargames Illustrated. It really sounds pretty good to me. I will be using my existing micro armour to play though : )

Mako – Knock it off!!! That SAW gunner looks great for some late 80s thru 90s USMC fireteams ;)

And I'm with Shilka regarding the PKMs: FOW/ToD/FoaN/TY all appear to use team basing, so my guess would be two PKMs equals two, two-gun sections, but only using one model per base.

V/R,
Jack

Am I the only one slightly bothered with the firepower of APC/IFV weaponry? I find the 3+ on the BMP-1 a bit high if 125mm guns are 2+ and 20mm guns are 5+.

I would probably rate the 73mm gun at somewhere around 4+, since it only ever fired heat, and a fairly narrow beam at that. Good for penetration, but lower behind armour effect. It was also considered to have to little frag-effect to be useful against infantry, hence later additions (first as fieldmodifications in Afghanistan) of plamyia automatic grenade launchers. With a 3+ firepower it would rock the socks of any dug in infantry.

I'm also not that happy with a 5+ rating for 30mm autocannons in relations to 5+ rating for .50 cal machineguns. I just find the ability to fire grenades rather than bullets makes for a bit of a difference between the machinegun and the autocannon.. WWII air-combat would suggest quite the difference.

Well they can't both be 4+ I suppose (even though they could, since they have different anti-tank ratings) is it really just the granularity that is bothering me?

Yea, that's the problem with D6s.

How does the M47 Dragon have a min range of 8" but also has an Assaut rating of 5? Asuming that's the Tank Assault Rating for the team. Do they use the M47 as an improvised stachel charge or something?

Seems like its a typo and the Assult 5 should go under the M72 Law, which noticbale as no assault rating where it should.

So maybe we are not looking at final cards here? I hope not so this and the M60/M249 issue might still be fixed on the final ones.

Also, if the same "range" convetions of FoW are in effect, the M60 should have a 16" range.

Isn't the assault rating what you need to hit in assault, it's worse than normal since you are lugging a big piece of kit. Same as the Russian AA team?

Yep, the new "Assault 5" rating isn't to be confused with the old FoW "tank assault" values.

Regarding the dragon, am I correct in thinking the stats reflects a Dragon II or better. I always considered the original dragon to be a long range LAW when it came to penetration. No idea about difference in behind armour effect or firepower rating for the different weapons. Other than comparing it with the BMP-1 cannon.

How do the stats for the M249 MG compare to the M60, listed for their Vietnam rules?

M60 is range 16", ROF3 (ROF2 when moving or pinned), Firepower 6.

I suspect that the M249's Firepower 5+ comes from the M203 GL, since the LRDG troops with lots of Rifle Grenades had FP5+ on their rifles (which are normally FP6).

That gives the m249 team the same rate of fire and firepwer as the 50cal or a 30mm autocannon.