"Team Yankee - The Bundeswehr is coming" Topic

And it looks like its hard plastic Leopard 2's, Marders and Ms Helos, and, possibly, resin Leo 1s, Lynxes etc…
link

Great video shots here:youtube.com/watch?v=TjuC8fNLXcY

Okay, I take back what I said about not communicating. These I am looking forward to.

Already arrived in full force at my house.

Must get them painted.

Hope they pick the right Marder(s), and not the post-Cold War variant (1A3).

Looking forward to the Bo-105s.

Nice…very nice. Thanks for sharing mate.

Generally nice models (especially the Leo and Bo-105), but someone must have read "The Marder was armed with a 7.5cm PaK 40" and thought it applied to the 1980s…

Mako, the Marder shown is the Marder 1A2 version, so great for the 1980s. It might also have the remote-controlled MG for the 1A1 in the box. Who knows?

I have a large, unpainted US force that now needs a home. I need Germans! :)

Does anyone know what the proportion of Challenger 1's to Chieftains was in the British Army in West Germany in 1985?

Thanks Jemima.

I certainly hope so.

Some spare Leo 1A3s/1A4s and JgPz Kanones are available now, if anyone is interested in them, in plastic. Brand new, factory assembled, and unpainted, for your gaming pleasure.

So these Germans will be facing T-72?

Mark or Nick can probably answer that

I have a boat Load of QRF's armor and infantry that I'm really happy with Plastic is ok but it just doesn't feel right when gaming.

Err…. Mako. What are you offering, you have BF's offering already?

VT,

I think he's got some Roskopf 1/100th models, like these:

In 85 there were 2 regiments equipped with C1,
I think that 17/21 L converted in 86 (Sure it was one of theirs we had a cabbie in at the Staff College Demo 86) and RHD/G 86/87, not 100% on the other 1 and 4 Divs

Tally HO!

Badgers,

Only one Challenger regiment was fully operational in 1985 – the Royal Hussars (Prince of Wales' Own 10th/11th), which completed full re-equipment in May 1985, having received its first Challengers in 1984.

An RTR regiment in the UK (I don't know which) was also fully operational. Some other regiments might also have started re-equipping (a squadron at a time was the usual form).

The British Army initially only bought enough Challengers for four regiments, though enough for a fifth regiment were ordered in 1985.

a boat Load of QRF's armor and infantry

It occasionally goes surface mail, so it was literally a boat load

Challenger 1's to Chieftains

Luckily, we do both. ;-)

Looks good.

My guess is that with the addition on the West German forces it is meant to face CENTAG T-72's; at first initially.

My gut is that you will get a release of British and NORTHAG Russians next bringing in the T-64 in the next wave.

NORTHAG and CENTAG were NATO formations, though yes, the southern portion of CENTAG (i.e. chiefly the West German II Corps and French reinforcement formations) would be facing T-72s coming out of the Warpac Central Front (i.e. Czechoslovakia), whereas the remainder of CENTAG and NORTHAG would be facing T-64s and T-80s from the Western Front (i.e. Germany).

My guess is that with the addition on the West German forces it is meant to face CENTAG T-72's; at first initially. My gut is that you will get a release of British and NORTHAG Russians next bringing in the T-64 in the next wave.

Doesn't that kind of blow the whole "they are doing things based on the book [which is why they have done T-72 not T-64]" concept?

Yep, Roskopfs, though the JgPz Kanones I have look a little different than the one above, e.g. a better shaped mantlet, etc..

Perhaps the one shown above is an early production model.

I have five surplus Kanones and five Leo 1A3/1A4/C1s on offer, asking $12 USD each, or a platoon of five for $50. USD

They're fully assembled, and ready for paint, immediately.

Mako,

That's interesting. Those are definitely better models than my 'yellow box' models, so they must have improved them. What a tragedy that RMM are unlikely ever to be re-released.

When QRF brought out their Kanonenjagdpanzer I turned my solitary RMM one into a Beobachtungspanzer for the 120mm mortar company:

Looks good!

Thanks for sharing your photo.

I find the differences to be quite interesting, especially the hatch layouts.

The ones I have are definitely the smaller Roskopf, 1/100th models, since sometimes people confuse them with the ROCO ones. I have some of the latter as well, and they are quite a bit larger.

Back in the day everyone wanted Roco due to bettter quality and the fact that Roskopf was undersized. Now I wish I had bought them back then. Ifound some Roskopf Iltis' that I'm very happy with, though the M113s are not very detailed and are much smaller than Battlefront.

Excellent news! More fodder for my Soviets and of course there is unfinished business from the Great Heroic War.

So the British forces cannot be far off?

Really hoping they are bringing out Leo 1s as well, even if they be resin and metal – be great for Canucks, Aussies, Belgians, Uncle Tom Cobbly….

As for the Brits, they are next cab off the rank – If, and lets face it its a big if, these boxheads do get released in July, then I reckon there's a fighting chance the Brits will come out in December…

The only Germans forces present in the book was a small formation of reservists with M48A2G2's I think so as soon as Leopards of any mark are made it goes away from the storyline.

Team Yankee, I thought, was supposed to take place during Sir John Hackett's fictional World War 3 storyline and as such would add the full weight of the NATO alliance.

Badgers- re Challengers- according to the generally well researched work 'BAOR an Organisational history 1947-2004' by Rinaldi and Watson, the situation was as follows (largely corresponding with Jemima and Nick's answers):

Challenger regts c 1985-

1983 Royal Hussars (7 Armd Brigade)
1984-5 2RTR (moving from England to join 7 Armd brigade May 1985)

17/21 Lancers and Queens Royal Irish Hussars converting (presumably gradually) to Challenger during 1985-86 (4 Armd Brigade)

Team Yankee, I thought, was supposed to take place during Sir John Hackett's fictional World War 3 storyline and as such would add the full weight of the NATO alliance.

Correct.

The Team Yankee novel makes brief mention of the fighting going on in Northern Germany, iirc, although we don't get much in the way of details. But the game was never going to stay limited to just the stuff in the book. That just provided a handy starting point. Battlefront might start small in a new war, but they tend to expand the releases as time goes on. Vietnam started with Ia Drang, but now includes all sorts of other stuff. Great War started out British vs Germans, but now also includes the US and the French. And while AIW still hasn't gone beyond the Six Day War, it's been noted that the Israeli decal set includes decals of symbols that were only used on vehicles that didn't see combat in the Middle East until the Yom Kippur War.

So the expansions were coming. It's what BF always does.

The speed at which the West Germans and British are being released is a pleasant surprise, though.

Surely they should produce some opposition for the British first!

Tally Ho!

What the T-64 ???

Oh God I hope not – my Raleigh Chopper push bike at the time had bigger wheels – go straight to the T-80!

Plenty of T64/80 action on its way.

"Team Yankee, I thought, was supposed to take place during Sir John Hackett's fictional World War 3 storyline and as such would add the full weight of the NATO alliance"

So yes T-64 formed the bulk of MBTs in GSFG, T-80 just starting to equip 8GA and 1GTA in 1985. And contrary to some, you know who you are Bruce!, by the 80s the T-64 was a very good tank.

In the words of Steve Zaloga when quizzed on the subject "I never said the T-64 was crap just that it came with a boat load of issues" Which were present in the 70s, by the 80s it was an effective tank and there were plenty of sightings and reports of T-64 on exercises, training etc and not as some want to believe confined to barracks or hard standing, with entire battalions of tanks broken down all over the shop! Sure this subject was done to death some while ago.

Tally Ho!

Thanks Nick, Jemima and Seneffe!

Poles ,Czechs ,and NVA likely next up.

7/21 Lancers and Queens Royal Irish Hussars converting (presumably gradually) to Challenger during 1985-86 (4 Armd Brigade)

Had a couple Newcastles with a bunch of our NATO comrades from the QRIH who were training on Chally's at Bergen Hohne in the late 80's. We were there for a gunnery excercise with our partnership unit flying PAH – 105s out of Celle.

The T-64 quality issue was indeed done to death on here some time ago, but if I may just quickly provide the corollary to Nick's point. When running, it was indeed a perfectly good tank, with a slightly higher combat-technical value than the T-72, by the 1980s. (1.1 to 1.0, compared to the Abram's 1.56 – Soviet assessment in the mid 1980s)(Osprey NV223, p.45)

But the kicker was maintenance – it required a deal more technical support, from higher trained staff, to keep it running. The operational impact, in a conscript army, was that 'runners' were confined to a limited proportion of the overall GSFG 'operational' fleet.

Yes, just to provide an accessible reference for Seneffe's and Jock's timeline above, Chally 1 deployment was Royal Hussars from 12 April 1983 (Osprey NV23, p.10), 2RTR from late 1984, and the 17/21 Lancers and QRIH thereafter, converting throughout 1986.(Ibid,p.16-18)

But the kicker was maintenance – it required a deal more technical support, from higher trained staff, to keep it running. The operational impact, in a conscript army, was that 'runners' were confined to a limited proportion of the overall GSFG 'operational' fleet

Would be interested to see the evidence for this, or is it just your personal opinion? Certainly there was no evidence during the period in question, in fact the evidence was contrary.

Tally Ho!

Do me a favour Nick – of course its not my personal opinion!

There's wiki of course: (I know you won't allow any criticism of the horrendous early models, but this criticism applies to its service life as a whole, as far as I can tell:)

While the T-64 was the superior tank, it was more expensive and physically complex, and was produced in smaller numbers. The T-72 is mechanically simpler and easier to service in the field,, while it is not as well protected, and its manufacturing process is correspondingly simpler… The T-64 was criticized for being too mechanically complex, which resulted in a high breakdown rate….The 5TDF opposed-piston engine, while powerful and compact, was very finicky and prone to malfunctions and fires. Russian expert Viktor Murakhovsky, then a battalion commander in Group of Soviet Forces in Germany reflected that in his unit the rate of the engines requiring a major overhaul was close to one per tank in a year. He also noted the difficulty of starting this engine, especially in the damp German winters, and that starting aids used by soldiers, like the high-pressure air and/or oil injection, often led to the engine fires.

Why Three Tanks? Armor Magazine July/August 1998, CW2 (Ret.) Stephen "Cookie" Sewel:

only the T-72 really stands out as the tank which met all their requirements
and needs. Soviet thinking on tanks was that, while they had to fully flesh out the three qualities of a tank — protection, mobility, and firepower — they also had to be simple, reliable, and capable of moving long distances under their own power. The T-64, which was a true quantum leap forward in tank design in 1962, proved to be too troublesome and difficult to maintain. While the tank never saw combat, its legacy — the awkward autoloader device — was cited by authorities such as Colonel General Sergei Mayev and Colonel General Aleskandr Galkin as being indirectly responsible for the massive destruction among T-80 tanks sent into Chechya.

The autoloaders in both tanks were quite similar, and extrapolation would show that the T-64 would have been as vulnerable to penetration of the fighting compartment as the T-80 was. The T-72 was a hybrid; for it combined the best of the past with the best of the new. Its autoloader was not as vulnerable or dangerous, and the tank was far more mechanically reliable and faithful.

And of course, it was the view expressed by the Russian/CIS post Soviet Commission into Tank Production in the early 90's, that decided, , free of party politics, to standardise on the T-72 and T-80, putting all their T-64s into reserve.

May I also recommend 'The Threat' by Andrew Cockburn for a thoroughgoing expose of both why the Soviets continued to persevere with a tank that was too complex to meet the Army's expressed operational needs, and why so much effort was invested in ensuring that contemporary Western Intelligence accepted the T-64 as possessing the 'Sales' attributes, not the operational reality.

Lots of lovely open source information, nothing that takes into account what was actually observed in East Germany at the time.

There is plenty of evidence that the T-64 was not the most reliable of tanks when first introduced, no one denies that, but by the 80s it was a solid workhorse equipping the main GSFG armies that were expected to spearhead any assault into the west. Note also the date of the Andrew Cockburn book and a quote from him on your much loved T-72

"A good case in point-is the T-72, which the threat inflators touted as a supertank. It has a number of known defects, but perhaps its main shortcoming is that its automatic loader tends to pick up the tank's gunner and load him into the breech, which then slams shut automatically, causing severe grief to the gunner. Not surprisingly, gunners in T-72s turn off the system, reducing the tank's rate of fire to about one round per minute, as compared with three or four rounds per minute in an American M-60"

Still carry on believing the la la world of TY with the whole hordes of T-72 advancing into West Germany business and next time I speak to some of the old GSFG watchers I shall ensure to tell them that what they saw was actually an optical illusion.

Tally Ho!

nothing that takes into account what was actually observed in East Germany at the time

I hope you're not suggesting that anything other that OS information should be use on this forum – No of course not – Anyhow, you and I both know that what was observed in East Germany at the time was carefully orchestrated for you and your mates! Just as much as what went on around the island of Rugen!

No-ones denying for a moment that you saw T-64s zooming around the East German exercise areas – its just that probably the majority of the fleet, left behind, were sitting in their kaserne with 2 year conscripts hitting the non starting engine with a sledge and hoping for the best!

Don't feel bad about it mate – we were just as taken in with regards to the Red Banner Fleet!

The Soviets may not have been good at designing a modern, state of the art MBT that could also be maintained by 2 year conscripts from the state collective farms – and actually that's quite a tall design spec – the T-72 came close – but they were very good at maskirova, ie pulling the wool over Western intelligence! No wonder you thought the carefully maintained sample of T-64s was a fair representation of the whole fleet! We thought Alfas were the bee's knees! (Whereas actually, tragically, they were poisonous pieces of noisy crap, that no-doubt took many young patriotic Russian lives far too early in later life.)

If we ignore the which was better question. My understanding is that the units in GSGF were on the whole equipped with T64. So good or bad if you want a claim to accuracy, then surely that is what should be on the table.

Is personnel choice of course.

Yes broadly right – At least for the first wave of standing forces, and certainly for NORTHAG, where in 1989 T-64A and B made up 65% of GSFG holdings. (15% T-80, and the rest older types, mainly T-62). Follow on formations based in Western Russia were mainly T-72s and older models, which would have been encountered when the GSFG divisions had been worn out – possibly within 24-48 hours? Who knows?

I understand T-64s made up a slightly smaller proportion of the GSFG garrison fleet down in CENTAG, where the bulk of US forces were based, and which is the setting for the TY novel.

One intriguing aspect of the T-64B is the 'sniper tank' concept, whereby the B versions were allegedly concentrated in a single company per regiment for use at stand off ranges with their Kobra gun-tube missiles and improved FC systems…

But yes, as you say, a personal choice. I will certainly be arguing for the T-64 to be given the 'Unreliable' attribute in my games!

But, as a Soviet player, I am really holding out for lots of improved T-55AMs, to cheaply swamp NATO. So long as the 100mm gun as a chance of penetrating M1 side armour at close range!

Just a quick update – Leo 1s will definitely be coming out!
(4CMBG here we come!)

So this popped up on the forums. The "Leopards" release sheet:

Early July LEOPARD Releases
FW906 Leopard 48 Page Hardback
TGRAB1 Kampfgruppe Müller
TYP292 NATO Green Spray
TYP192 Team Yankee German Paint Set (7 paints)

Late July LEOPARD Relaeses
TGBX02 Marder Zug (x5) (Plastic)
TGBX07 Gepard Flak Batterie (x2)
TGR702 Panzergrenadier Zug
TGR708 Fliegerfaust Gruppe
TAT003 Team Yankee Template West German Edition
TTK03 Team Yankee West German Token Set
BB204 European Farm

Early August LEOPARD Releases
TGBX12 PAH Anti-Tank Helicopter flight (x2) (Plastic)
TGBX03 Leopard 1 Panzer Zug (x3)
TGBX05 Luchs Späh Trupp (x4)
TGBX06 Fuchs Transport (x3)
TGBX04 Jaguar Jagdpanzer Zug (x3)
TGBX09 M113 Panzermörser Batterie (x3)

Late August LEOPARD Releases
TGBX01 Leopard 2 Panzer Zug (x5) (Plastic)
TGBX08 Roland Flak Batterie (x2)
TGBX11 LARS Raketenwerfer Batterie (x4)
TGBX10 M109G Artillerie Batterie (x3)
TGBX13 Tornado Strike Flight (x2)
BB207 Fast Food Restaurant

Love the idea of an Imbiss eatery – or will I spend the whole game hankering after wurst!

TY doesn't simulate strategic level issues of logistics. The game represents the point of contact, mechanical failures during an advance don't make the table.

Why do Soiwts get infantry company but NATO only platoons? Is it something in the rules?

More important will there be currywurst available in the eatery

No-ones denying for a moment that you saw T-64s zooming around the East German exercise areas – its just that probably the majority of the fleet, left behind, were sitting in their kaserne with 2 year conscripts hitting the non starting engine with a sledge and hoping for the best!"

But the fact is they were not. Your open source info is all based on 1960s/1970s information when the T-64 fleet was beset with major problems. By the time of TY/mid 80s problems that had worried the Soviet Govt in the previous decade had been addressed with officer training and maintenance procedures designed to cope with the complexity of the T-64. Even the requirement for specialist teams of civilian mechanics was gone.

So whilst you were lapping up out of date information me and my mates were seeing T-64 out on the training areas and not sat back in barracks.

" Yes broadly right – At least for the first wave of standing forces, and certainly for NORTHAG, where in 1989 T-64A and B made up 65% of GSFG holdings.

By 1989 T-64 had been withdrawn and replaced by T-80 in GSFG a process that began in 1987. A process that was observed in many areas with T-64s lined up at a railhead, replaced soon after by newly arrived T-80s.

"More important will there be currywurst available in the eatery" No it must be Gyros!!

Moral of the story is check the date of your information OS or other,

Tally Ho!

In the history of all things that work, there is a point when they do not work. How many people rate the M16 as an unreliable weapon? Yet when came into service there were terrible issues. Even in late 70s we still used to joke that the Chieftain was best tank in the world, as long as it broke down in the right place.

I will plan on having T64 for my Russians. That is what all the intreps used to report.

Curse your Gyros! A currywurst is needed. Anything to get away from Chicken Supreme!