"Forces in Team Yankee?" Topic

I was wondering why Soviet forces are, like in FoW, battalion-sized while NATO forces are company sized. While I understand the logic after that approach in FoW, to represent the less flexible Soviet tactics, I am not sure if that applies equally to the 1980s period.

As I am not particularly savvy on Soviet tactical doctrine, I would appreciate any input that helps me to make sense of that army list choice. Were the Soviets that unflexible, tactically speaking, in the 80s? Or is just a game mechanic to give the Soviet players the feeling of commanding a force that behaves differently than their Western opponents, beyond the weapons platforms they use?

By the way, can anyone recommend me an alternative to TY to represent smaller sized actions, i.e no bigger than one company per side or even just one platoon with some supports? Take in mind that I want to use my TY collections, therefore it should be a ruleset that is multiple-based miniatures friendly.

It's based on a novel, so it's simulating that rather than "reality" such as we might expect it.

Soviet forces during the Cold War outnumbered NATO's by a ratio of at least 3:1. The conventional wisdom is that their OOB is scaled up accordingly. With the western edge in technology, a smaller NATO formation was expected to be the match or even the better of a larger Soviet/Warsaw Pact formation. For example, a NATO company-sized force was supposed to be the equal of a Soviet battalion. It comes down to the familiar quantity-vs-quality issue again.

It's not just 'Team Yankee.' All the Cold War books I've read on the scenario of the Warpac forces invading West Germany had the same assumption.

The folks at BF do their research usually get things right as far as unit accuracy.

Due to the western advantage in technology, a smaller NATO formation is expected to be the match or even the better of a larger Soviet/Warsaw Pact formation. For example, a NATO company-sized force is supposed to be the equal of a Soviet battalion.

That's what I guessed. However, it was that big the technological gap as to justify such ratio? In other words, was a NATO company actually equivalent to a Soviet battalion, in fighting power? Or was it wishful thinking by the part of the Western planners?

I also realize that it is a what-if (based upon a novel, as Weasel points) so you can do whatever you wish as long as it is consistent within the "reality" as presented in the narrative. I am curious how much that "reality" in the novel is based upon the self-perception of the author and how much is based upon actionable intelligence on how the Soviets intended to fight in an hypothetical WWIII in the 80s, though. My impression, from the game as I haven't read the novel yet, is that they look too much as WWII-Soviets and I have difficulties to accept the idea that they didn't evolve their tactics since.

That is a question which luckily we never had to find out. Because the west could never hope to match the Warpac numbers, they had to hope that their superior technology was enough of an equalizer.

Of course, hope alone wasn't enough. That's why NATO doctrine provided for the first use of tactical nukes in the event that superior technology wasn't enough to stem the tide of overwhelming numbers.

These novels, though fictional, reflects then-current Soviet doctrine at the time. TY's author was an army tank officer and I'm sure he studied Soviet tactics/doctrine and wargamed the scenarios. The army simulated it in the California desert with Red force vs. Blue force I believe.

For a recomdation for rules about company size try Sabresquadron. Can download free sample from their site.

I wouldn't recommend equal sized games (i.e. company vs company) because the west would win most of the time and it doesn't reflect the actual realities of the time. Not only are the Soviet equipment inferior, their training are not up to a par with NATO's. TY allows the Soviets larger formations than NATO for a good reason.

Of course, you can throw reality out the window and make the T-72 tank as good as the M1 as well as make the Soviet "to hit" roll the same as NATO's (3+ instead of 4+) and have equal sized games so that the Soviets have a chance to win. Or simply replace NATO companies with platoons instead and dispense with the TY force organization chart.

Agreed that the WP battalion size is based on the perceived wisdom of the time.

But it's also based on who is generally the attacker. It's generally thought that an attacker would need at least a 3:1 superiority but even Soviet doctrine recommended 6 or 9:1.

As a real interesting 'what-happens-if' try it with NATO as the attacker against, say, a BTR-based defending unit. You might be surprised at the results.

Hello, basileus66!

Still, it's a game. Relatively realistic, but the game. No one is not particularly bother the presence in TY T-72, which just do something in Germany as part of the Soviet Army should never have been popping – this is export tanks and second-tier tanks for inner military districts. But they have been widely advertised and nice fit into the stereotype of the primitive hordes of Яussian tanks with bears, matryoshka and balalaika instead crews. It is the same with the number of units.
Well, the joke and that's enough. But seriously, the situation was so in theory:
In the event, if you act by Soviet textbooks, attackers should outnumbered defenders by 2-3 in the offensive area of battalion / company;
and on the breakthrough sector – outnumbered advancing should be 4-6 (and to be supported by artillery).
But seriously follow the Soviet doctrine, the war is, strictly speaking, it was to last about 15-30 minutes. GSVG conjunction with NVA GDR had to hold around this time. And then everything is decided by His Majesty Military Atom.

Thanks for the input.

UsmanK

I thought that the T72 was due to being based on a novel, which pit T72 against M1Abrams. That's why I didn't expect that Battlefront would use anything else for the starter sets. Now, as the game progresses, I hope they will include the T80s, that was the MBT of first line Soviet Armored Divisions. It would be nice if they made it with the possibility of equiping it with ERA armor… after all it was started to be used in 1985, which is when the action is set.

Hello, basileus66!

In general, there must be a T-64 – the basis of the tank park GSVG to 1985, but, you see, the T-64 – boring tank. Nowhere especially not at war, a secret, well, just do not do the star of tank. What a difference a T-72 or T-80!

Would have been nice if they allowed the Soviet's more flexibility in list construction. Soviet Forward detachments would have been very ad hoc formations built around whatever made it through the initial assault. Talking lists where you still take units in company size blocks, but ditch the minimum two of any one type.

Oh! I thought that most T64s had been replaced by T80s in the 1980s, at least in the shock tank divisions.

McWong:

That could be a good idea. I might try it and see how it works.

They've already announced that the next Soviet tank,they'll release is T-64 for GSFG.

I just finished reading the rules and they do provide for ERA armor in a special rule. So if it's not in the army lists now it presumably will be one day. Also regarding the platoon vs company thing you have to notice that the Soviet companies can go as small as one platoon. So you really aren't forced into using them as large blobs of low quality troops.

The great thing with TY is it's so flexible in unit choosing. Yes you have a minimum two company spend but a company could be two tanks or a single platoon of infantry in 4 BMP's.

Where it really gets mixed up over Flames of War, which most people get confused over at first, is being able to run multi formation armies. So you could have a tiny BMP force with a commander and a large tank force – at the same time.

Perfectly replicates a WW2 stle forward detachment and is ideal for people who only want to run platoon sized Soviets. No penalty to do so but the cost to run full sized units increases more than exponentially – because they are so tough.

Having played quite a few games, it's frightening to run into a ten strong tank company with your piddling 3 strong Leopard platoon (zug).

Because you know it will hurt you and you won't slow it down anytime soon.

Hmm maybe the soviets were on to something ?

IIRC, the Soviet Army in the Cold War had all of the problems of the WWII army. It really didn't have a NCO corps worth speaking of so officers carried the burden of command and leadership. Platoon level leadership was really weak, so it was the company commander who did most of the commanding. So while the emphasis of tactical command in the west was at the platoon level, the Soviets still counted on their units to maneuver at the company and battalion level.

So yes, the Soviets were very inflexible and maneuvered in larger groups than NATO forces.

To add on to Gmanoz,the smaller units the Soviets can field take the usual TO&E for the Soviets (10 per company) and give you a chance to attrit it some. Which is great for allowing you to field smaller forces. In theory you can field a Soviet tank company using the battalion format.

BN Command 1 tank
1-3 Companies 3 tanks each
10 tanks total.

You could also toss in a BMP company with 4 BMPs to give you a reinforced BMP "platoon".

I'll warn you though. 3-4 vehicle platoons are pretty fragile, especially for the Soviets. They really work better with bigger companies.

This video gives you some hints about what is to come for Team Yankee. The basic gist is that the game has been a big hit and that Battlefront is going to give it serious support in the coming years… as long as it continues to sell that is!

YouTube link

I looked at it. Not going to buy a game where the Russians have better guns and armor than Americans.

Charles

TY Soviets have not better armor: Armor 16, for a T72, and 18 for a M1 Abrams.

As for the gun, Soviets had a marginally better gun (AP22 vs AP20) but their range is 20cms shorter (80cm vs 100cms), has half the ROF than the M1Abrams gun (1 vs 2) and Abrams can move and shot without penalty. Finally, Soviet tanks are hit on 3+ while US are on 4+, to represent better training, optics and telemetry in the American tanks than in the Soviets.

So, no, in TY the Soviets have neither better guns nor armor than Americans.

Thanks for the tips, guys. I was thinking that, maybe, for smaller games what might be done is to give the Soviets platoon sized assets for on-board deployment and then allowing them to call forward reinforcements from off-board, while the Western allies would receive reinforcements more sparingly, to represent their less numerous reserves.

Thanks for the heads-up,Neli. I'll be looking for them.

"That's what I guessed. However, it was that big the technological gap as to justify such ratio? In other words, was a NATO company actually equivalent to a Soviet battalion, in fighting power? Or was it wishful thinking by the part of the Western planners?"

More a case of that's all we had and had to plan accordingly. Thus, at least in BAOR, the intent was use the ground to our advantage.

Tally Ho!

The folks at BF do their research usually get things right as far as unit accuracy.

There are some here may disagree with that statement ;-)

Meanwhile, we have both the T-64 and T-80, with and without ERA

That's about the rate of fire – does anyone know what the time norm of loading the gun in Abrams? At the T-64 – 8 seconds, I do remember; on the T-72 is about the same time.

Sharing a room with an ex Cav chap, Chieftain/Challenger/Gunnery/Tactics instructor, 6 seconds for Chieftain/Chally,

Tally Ho!

and T-80

There you go. Buy several of these from Geoff and you can pretty much have a roughly even game vs. M1's playing at the company level.

IIRC, my best time, and I was slow, was about 2-3 seconds. That's assuming that I had the ready rack organized just so. The ideal was to get a round out the barrel within 5 seconds of the TC beginning his fire command. It's amazing how quickly a well drilled crew can toss out rounds.

8 seconds is dead slow to me.

There are some here may disagree with that statement ;-)

But not me! And I like T-72s, and suspect their T-64s will be great models too:

That'll be why the AAMG is facing the wrong way then. I won't go into the other problems. ;-)

Thanks Tgunner and nickinsomerset for answers! Still, it seems the introduction of the automatic loader on the T-64 / -72 / -80 was the wrong way.

Not forgetting the extra crewman helps prevent early crew fatigue and makes brews and eggs banjos!

Tally Ho!

Hello nickinsomerset!
Yes, the fourth person are sometimes not enough. But how put another man in the T-64 – I not even imagine (about the T-72 and T-80 did not know).

What's the story with the 11 point cost for the Leopard-2? How is it "worth" almost three T-72s, while the Abrams is worth two T-72s? What am I missing?

The Leo 2 has better stats than the M1 (not M1A1). Better gun (AT rating), greater terrain and cross-country dash speeds plus higher crew morale and skill ratings. The M1 only has the edge in side armor and remount rating.

As to whether all this justifies an increase of 37.5% in points cost over the M1, I really can't say. I'm thinking 10 points might have been more suitable.

Uff, dunno… those Leopards 2 are really tough. They have also better frontal armor than M1s. I think they are correctly priced.

That'll be why the AAMG is facing the wrong way then. I won't go into the other problems. ;-)

Well the AAMG is assembled by the purchaser so can be glued facing in any position – but then you knew that didn't you!

(although in this case it seems to be facing the same direction as the QRF model – Hello Pot this is Kettle over!!!)

Standard travelling configuration of the manually operated AAMG was to the rear. Because it is fixed to the cupola, it rotates with the cupola and faces opposite to the light, so if the AAMG is facing forwards the periscopes and light face rear some nice shots here, or get to Duxford:

link

Tally Ho!

…the same direction as the QRF model

Yeah… those were assembled by an Australian ;-)

Here it is correctly.

But he paints nicely so we forgive him :-)

In other words, was a NATO company actually equivalent to a Soviet battalion, in fighting power? Or was it wishful thinking by the part of the Western planners?

Arguably, they're not. Or at least there's an argument to be made that Battlefront doesn't think the US is (I haven't really looked at the lists for the other two NATO nations, though I own Leopard). A full-strength M1 platoon costs 32 points. Its Soviet counter-part, the T-72 company, costs 47. So by Battlefront's own valuations, a Soviet T-72 company is nearly 50% more effective than a US M1 platoon. Also consider that's the top of the line US tank rated against a mid-level Soviet tank. If the Soviets are up against M60s instead, then the US armor is in serious trouble. And if we swap the T-72s for T-80s, then things swing even more in the Soviets' favor.

Comparing infantry is more difficult, as the two sides aren't exactly mirrors of each other. The US has a stationary ATGM (the Dragon) that can take cover in terrain, but only has an APC for transport (the M113). The Soviets only have light infantry anti-tank weapons, but use the BMP with its much more mobile (in comparison with the Dragon) ATGM. So I'm going to leave that match-up to others.

In any event, the way that Battlefront controls the mis-match is via the points system. The fact that a full-strength T-72 battalion is considerably more dangerous than an M1 company doesn't really matter if you're playing a 100 point game, where you can't bring full-strength versions of either unit to the game table.

Eumerin is right. In TY it's not even 3:1. The Leopard 2 at 11 pts apiece is the most expensive NATO MBT. The M1 has a fixed cost of 8 pts each while the Chieftain is either 6 or 7 pts depending on whether you go for the vanilla or the Stillbrew variant.

A T-72 in a Soviet tank company does not even have a fixed cost. Because you can concentrate more tanks in a Soviet company, TY uses a sliding scale in which a T-72 starts off at 4 pts apiece in a small "company" of 3 tanks and maxes out at 4.7 pts in a company of 10. And that's not including the requisite command tank which costs 5 pts. If you give one a mine plow that's another point added.

So come to think of it, the Soviets don't outnumber NATO by all that much in TY.

From what I've read of the US Army Intelligence field manuals, the Red Army used the battalion as the smallest unit of maneuver, and usually had whole regiments driving around together.

While the US/NATO used platoons as the smallest unit of maneuver and occasionally had battalions driving around together.

A nice shot of a T-72 showing the cupola configuration with the AAMG pointing forwards:

Tally Ho!