"T-72 vs M1A1 in Team Yankee" Topic
22 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board Back to the Flames of War Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War One World War Two on the Land Modern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleTony shows how he puts together and paints a Flash Gordon-inspired sci-fi pulp robot.
Featured Profile ArticleLooking at the Soviet and U.S. token and dice sets for Battlefront's Team Yankee.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
jfishm1981 | 27 Jul 2016 3:48 p.m. PST |
Hey all, Recently, I've been playing a little bit of Team Yankee with my dad, as he is getting ready to introduce the rules to some members of his gaming club. I'm not sure if I'm missing something in the rules, but does it seem to anyone else like M1A1 tanks aren't that much better than T-72s, and with the points cost roughly equating to 2 T-72s for every M1A1 make the game imbalanced? I'm not a huge FOW guy, but just a quick look at the charts show that the M1A1 and the T-72 have slight differences in front armor, but the better Russian gun makes things an even playing field (Front armor on M1A1 is two points higher, but Russian gun is two points higher than the American) The M1A1 can move faster than the T-72 and has a longer range, but in the games we've played, the ranges are so long and the board (4 feet wide) is short enough where it doesn't seem to matter much past the first turn. Both tanks have special rules that counteract certain fire penalties, like firing over 16in etc. While the M1A1 has a rate of fire of 2, since 2 T-72s cost the same as 1 M1A1, that appears to be a wash too. It seems like the fluff in the book (and reality) all say that the M1A1 was leaps and bounds ahead of the T-72, but in the game they are pretty much the same vehicle. So yeah, I'm such a newbie at the game that I feel like I must be missing something or doing something wrong. Thoughts and/or help? J |
Mako11 | 27 Jul 2016 3:59 p.m. PST |
Those are M1s in TY, not the M1A1 variant with the 120mm guns they should have had installed by the US Army on day one of production. They're armed with 105mm guns, which theoretically, and as proved out by post-war testing, had little chance of being defeated by the older popgun, at least until they started using depleted uranium ammo (available to the M1IP in 1985, from another rules set I have – Challenger 2000). Look at the relative ratios between pen power and armor. They are the same, only with different values, e.g. same point spread difference. The M1 does get double the rate of fire, so there is that. For an M1A1, give the Americans a gun penetrative value of 22, instead of the current 20. The frontal armor of the M1A1 should be increased as well, say to perhaps 20, or slightly more, since the later variant was uparmored (perhaps even 21 or 22, depending upon which stats you believe, and how tough you want to make it on the Russkies). |
Mako11 | 27 Jul 2016 4:02 p.m. PST |
As far as the points balancing goes, it's perfect, since T-72s cost half the price of the M1s, both can kill each other equally well, and the American tanks get a rate of fire twice that of the Soviet ones. Can't get more perfectly matched than that. I've been reading about, and considering this era as well, and a lot of reports seem to indicate it is/would have been very difficult for either tank to kill each other from their frontal arc, with the exception of a lucky hit. Military leaders were very worried about that, hence all the rapid development of various new models very late in the Cold War. So, if you want to make that tougher, just up their frontal armor ratings by a point or two, and/or drop their gun pen. ratings by a point or two, making successes more rare, or impossible. That way, they need to work to try to get flank shots, which should make the games last a little longer, and force each side to use maneuver warfare and better tactics, like back in the "good old days". |
jfishm1981 | 27 Jul 2016 5:42 p.m. PST |
Hey Mako, Thanks so much for such a detailed response…it was definitely helpful. I think you actually nailed what's confusing to me right on the head. It would appear that T-72s and M1s are balanced based on the numbers. They are pretty much the same tank, and the few functional differences in the rules add up to not much difference in gameplay. The assumption is that 5 M1s are a balanced fight for 10 T-72s, which based on my experience is not actually that balanced. It seemsthe M1s don't have the firepower to knock out the T72s before the T72s knock them out, and they don't have the armor to survive the counterattack. Even when it comes to morale, the Russians have a higher stat, which means the Americans will break first far more often. All that said, your points make sense and were helpful in thinking about this question (particularly from a historical standpoint, I didn't realize the M1 had the 105mm gun). I'd be curious to hear about some games played, and if anyone is seeing the same thing. Thanks again, Mako, J |
Extra Crispy | 27 Jul 2016 6:23 p.m. PST |
The T-72 is hit on a 3+ and the M1 on a 4+. So right off the bat it will take 1/6 fewer hits. |
Mako11 | 27 Jul 2016 6:26 p.m. PST |
You're welcome. From the little I've read, the early M1s weren't the super-tanks we all know and love, now. They were at risk to the heavy 125mm guns the Russians fielded, which is why they relatively quickly came out with the M1IP in 1985, and then the M1A1 with the 120mm gun, in 1986. Basically, the 105mm gun was pretty much obsolete when the M1 went into service, but in the USA, congress had a "must be built here" mentality, and were resistant for political reasons to the West German, Rheinmetall 120mm guns. Thankfully, more practical, logical minds won that argument, eventually. For the M1IP, I'd suggest bumping its frontal armor up a point, or two, and its gun pen. by a point, to represent the better, 105mm depleted uranium round available to it. Then, for the M1A1, again consider the same for the frontal armor (over and above the M1IP), and going to at least 22 for the pen. of the 120mm cannon. Of course, the Russians weren't static with their development either, so eventually they should get better weapon penetrations and armor as well, with some of their later T-72 and other upgrades. Might be fun to have each side roll a die, to see what models of tanks, and what gun ammo they get, secretly, prior to battle, to make scenarios a bit more interesting, as the technology war moves along during WWIII. |
Mako11 | 27 Jul 2016 6:31 p.m. PST |
Actually, more than that, EC, e.g. 25% fewer. |
McWong73 | 27 Jul 2016 6:38 p.m. PST |
Crew ratings go a long way to understanding the points cost differential. |
Extra Crispy | 27 Jul 2016 8:05 p.m. PST |
|
lkmjbc3 | 28 Jul 2016 6:47 a.m. PST |
Reality may have been more harsh. The US would have faced large numbers of T64As instead of bog standard T72s. Even in 1985 perhaps 1/2 of the US forces in Germany were still equipped with M60s… some still M60A1s. There were few Bradley's… The T64A had approximately the same frontal armor as the T72 vs KEP… but superior vs CEP. It was faster, had better optics, and a faster autoloader. The standard BM22 round… the standard round in 85 could kill an M1 at all combat ranges. In 85… reactive armor started appearing… Joe Collins |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 28 Jul 2016 7:35 a.m. PST |
If you think the M1 costs a lot of points, wait til you see the Leo 2. |
GmanOz | 28 Jul 2016 10:56 p.m. PST |
I'd suggest the M1 slick is already rated with DU ammo in the game. Compare it to the Leopard 1 with the same gun but crappy tungsten ammo with AT19 compared to the M1 with AT20 and you see what I mean. Otherwise agree with Mako. |
nickinsomerset | 29 Jul 2016 8:21 a.m. PST |
The US were more likely to face the T-80 of 8GA and 1GTA based in the South of GSFG. Possibly supported by elements of 20GA (T-64) exploiting boundaries between 1 BR, 1 BE and the Germans and the US. Tally Ho! |
LORDGHEE | 30 Jul 2016 8:56 a.m. PST |
Humm, So the Sovets fielded T-64 against the heavier British Tanks. |
Part time gamer | 31 Jul 2016 1:34 p.m. PST |
Mako11 ..the 105mm gun was pretty much obsolete when the M1 went into service, but.. congress had a "must be built here" mentality, and were resistant for political reasons to the West German, Rheinmetall 120mm guns. It NEVER ceases to amaze and remind me, the "best" way to prolong or risk war; let 'pride/arrogance' determine your course of action. And I like your idea of 'roll a die' to determine what variant of vehicle/ ammo is available to you (depending on when your 'war' has progressed too). OR like the 'allies' rule in WH, depending on the roll, you can have only X percent of the most advanced system for there side. Just a suggestion to add more variation. |
deleted222222222 | 06 Sep 2016 7:42 p.m. PST |
Even in 1985 perhaps 1/2 of the US forces in Germany were still equipped with M60s… some still M60A1s. wondering where this information came from….which battalions were equipped with M60A1s in 85?
|
Old Wolfman | 07 Sep 2016 7:26 a.m. PST |
The T-72s would have likely come across the Czech border,from what I've heard,toward Nuremberg and surrounding areas. |
Tgunner | 07 Sep 2016 11:33 a.m. PST |
A few asides to add: 1. The TY M1 sets do allow you to build the M1A1. The gun is there along with the other parts. I'm holding off on my stuff until that first American up-date shows up because I want to build my company. Well, that is my excuse. I suppose I could build them as A1s but play them as M1s. 2. The ironic thing is that the M1s main gun was actually the British L7 105 that was adopted by the Army during the 70's. So even the "American" gun wasn't even American anyway. However I would point out that the Centurion, Leopard 1, and the Merkava I were all armed with the L7 as well. It was a standard issue, off the shelf weapon that was available at the time that could use standard NATO munitions. So it wasn't a terrible idea. It just wasn't up to stuff vs say the T64/T80. It was hoped that the depleted uranium round could do the job and it would have against the T72 which for some time in the 70's was the new bad guy on the block according to the intel I remember. 3. As for what units were equipped with what tank, I don't know of any on-line sources. However the Micromark OOBs that you find on the Wargame Vault have breakdowns like that. I know that the ANG units that would have gone over seas, like Alabama's 31st Armored Brigade would have fielded the M60A1. Regular Army would have had the M1s and M60s, but as the 80's went on more and more of the Dinosaurs went to the scrap pile (or Egypt!). |
deleted222222222 | 07 Sep 2016 7:17 p.m. PST |
I was wondering what the source for the information was because there were no US tank battalions in Germany in 85 equipped with M60A1s. All Battalions were either M60A3 or M1. Any troops that would have come over would have fallen in on POMCUS sites. The POMCUS sites had M60A3. |
Tgunner | 10 Sep 2016 4:33 a.m. PST |
What's your source for that? I wouldn't mind seeing it. According to Micromark it was 1985 before all US tank battlions were equipped with M60A3. The 31st wouldn't up-grade to the A3 until the late 80's, so they weren't trained on the A3 until around then (I was with a unit that converted to the M1A1 in 1990, we didn't know a lot about the things beyond a few dabs at them in Basic). I would assume that there would be quite a number of M60A1 in storage that the Guard would have used, unless USAREUR converted all of its tanks to the A3 standard. I would think that would hose up REFORGER units trained on the A1. Interesting stuff! |
deleted222222222 | 12 Sep 2016 8:14 p.m. PST |
In 1982 there were 2 Battalions that had the M60A1 Rise Passive tank, all others in Germany were equipped with the M60A3. The 2 Bns with the M60A1 were 3/64AR & 2/64AR. They were the first Bns to be upgraded to the M1, the rest of 3ID followed. Do not understand what you mean by 31st wouldn't upgrade to the A3…what is 31st? I am basing my understanding on what was in the POMCUS sites from conversations that I had with two men that I worked with for close to 10 years. 1 was the 7th Corps COS in the early 80s, and the other was the man that wrote US doctrine in use at that time. There is little published on the POMCUS sites mainly due to classification. However if you want to get a sense of how up to date the equipment was there you can look for those that participated in REFORGER exercises and/or look for times when POMCUS equipment was issued for actual use. Guard units did not participate in REFORGER until 84. There were no real plans for Guard units to be deployed to Germany in case of war. |
tbeard1999 | 16 Sep 2016 6:12 p.m. PST |
Well, it depends on which T-72. According to our research for A Fistful of TOWs, the US 105mm gun firing the M739 penetrator (1978) would have reliably penetrated the T-72 and T-72A out to about 2000m. It would have struggled some at longer ranges. It would have been less effective against late 1980s models of T-72B, but reliable out to 2000m. The DU M774 penetrator (1983) would have reliably penetrated all models of T-72 before the T-72BM (1990) out to 2000m. It would have struggled a little against T-72B at ranges greater than 2000m. The DU M900 penetrator (1990) -- which I'm not certain was actually fielded --would have reliably penetrated all T-72 models at 2000m and longer range. It would have struggled against the T-90 outside 1000m. |
|