Help support TMP

"Team Yankee: A first look at Stripes" Topic

46 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Flames of War Message Board

Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board

Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2007) Message Board

3,113 hits since 3 Oct 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tgunner03 Oct 2017 2:35 p.m. PST

Looks interesting, but no Bradley! Well, at least we get the M1IP.


Dennis030203 Oct 2017 5:42 p.m. PST

Thanks for posting this. I'm looking forward to the infantry combat team.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian03 Oct 2017 9:33 p.m. PST

Note that the overpass is needed for one of the Red Thunder scenarios.

VonTed04 Oct 2017 4:33 a.m. PST

I am a sucker for their terrain…. I want it all! :)

willthepiper04 Oct 2017 7:19 a.m. PST

But can you get an EM-50 UAV?

dsfrank Inactive Member04 Oct 2017 1:09 p.m. PST

so no Bradley but the SGT York that never saw service???

Buckaroo Inactive Member04 Oct 2017 2:46 p.m. PST

I imagine they are saving the Bradley, M1A1, Blackhawk for future releases.

Tgunner04 Oct 2017 4:09 p.m. PST

Yep, they are saving the cool toys for the "late" Cold War era.

Hey, if they are doing the York then maybe they will do the LAV 75! Twilight 2000 anyone????


Tgunner04 Oct 2017 4:14 p.m. PST

I think they are going to release an EM50 as a special objective during the coming release.

Wargamer Blue04 Oct 2017 4:31 p.m. PST

I love it how everyone is losing their Bleeped text over the Sgt York because it never saw service in a fantasy war.

nickinsomerset04 Oct 2017 11:59 p.m. PST

Yes WB the facebook sites are red hot with the Sgt York debate! Interesting that the system allows one to build fantasy orbats yet folks are upset anout this vehicle (Has anyone mentioned that the headlights on the CVR(T) were below the sponson plate until the late 80s/90s?!!

Tally Ho!

fingolfen Inactive Member05 Oct 2017 9:10 a.m. PST

Yeah, the York has been fairly controversial… I put together some thoughts on my blog given getting an unbiased appraisal of the M247 is difficult at best…


Col Piron05 Oct 2017 10:38 a.m. PST

I love it how everyone is losing their Bleeped text over the Sgt York because it never saw service in a fantasy war.

I'm losing my Bleeped text over stuff that was used in WW2 , they removing from lists ! frown

fingolfen Inactive Member05 Oct 2017 11:54 a.m. PST

Yeah – I'm in the same boat there with ya…

14th NJ Vol Supporting Member of TMP05 Oct 2017 4:12 p.m. PST

The Sgt York failed in its evaluation during testing at Fort BLISS Texas. As I remember cost a Major General his career. I lived in El Paso Texas when that went down. Was big news. So gaming with a system that never was & was a flop,no thanks.

Buckaroo Inactive Member06 Oct 2017 7:06 a.m. PST

So gaming with a system that never was & was a flop,no thanks.

I don't understand this stance? In hypothetical war you can't imagine them pushing a system through to deployment even with major issues? WW2 is full of examples like this. Projects that would have been canned in a heartbeat in peacetime pushed through. F4U Corsair, German heavy tanks?

Part time gamer06 Oct 2017 2:34 p.m. PST

Well 'most' of Germany's heavy tanks were more Hitlers 'super race ego' than intelligence.

As for the Corsair, my biggest 'negitive' thought:
It should Never have been a carrier based aircraft. The pilot was so far back, he was practically if not blind the last few seconds during his landing.
Not a situation you want when coming down on a limited landing strip, and even less on a 'bouncing' flight deck in the Pacific ocean.

Antioch Inactive Member06 Oct 2017 4:57 p.m. PST

Went over & read the Wikipedia page on the sgt york…. the end testing wasn't bad it was terrible & read like the script on a hoyywood B movie. I doubt they would have pushed this in the limited time they had.

Tgunner08 Oct 2017 7:22 a.m. PST

I think it will be a very different ball game when Stripes comes out. I'm very curious about the M1IP's stats. If we get a bump in armor then it will put us on a more even footing with the T64. The M60 should give us our "cheap" tanK to allow us to match numbers with the Soviets.

I'm not sure what we're getting with the Sgt. York DIVAD. Hopefully the game version will accomplish what the real version failed to do: give us a solid AAA platform. I'm wondering if we'll get Stinger, or at LEAST Redeye, SAM teams to go with them.

My jury is still out on the HUMVEE! I know the USMC liked it, but I would rather have the M3/M2 for the mech infantry. The flexibility with weapons is interesting, but the versions we had during the late Cold War were thin skinned. I would think that Soviet infantry and BMPs would chew them up, but on the other hand, fast and cheap TOWs could be VERY useful!

I'm sure that having the USMC in the game will please a lot of players. I personally would rather have a more complete US Army than have some heavy bits of a USMC force. They weren't really suppose to be in Germany anyway. IIRC, they were slated for Norway or even Denmark and NOT for the Central Front in Germany. They are just too light and all that, at least in my opinion. But at least we will get some good light infantry with choppers with the airborne showing up, at last.

I wonder if that means that they will release purpose USMC troops? Or if regular US Army troops can be used for Marine infantry. Honestly, at 15mm scale there isn't a lot of difference between the uniforms and the weapons are the same. I think the big difference will be in size of the dismounted element. USMC platoons will probably be huge 13 stand units! With SMAWs? That could be neat.

LAVs look interesting. I wonder if, in addition to be scouts, if they have the oomph to tackle BMP swarms? The Brits' light tanks seem to do well against BMP swarms. Could be interesting, especially if they are cheaper plastic kits.

Tgunner08 Oct 2017 1:12 p.m. PST

All Minis Great and Small has a video on this coming release. It looks like the infantry set does match up with the USMC with the SMAWs. Pretty nice.

YouTube link

Lion in the Stars09 Oct 2017 9:52 p.m. PST

IIRC, the early Bradleys were pretty squishy, too, so a BMP's 30mm would rip them up just as easily as a Humvee.

Sergeant York wasn't a bad idea (how many nations still use ye olde Bofors 40mm?), but I think the real flaw was using an aircraft radar on the ground. If your AA system can't see the incoming, it can't shoot them. Secondary flaw was mounting the thing on an M48 chassis, when it needed to keep up with Abrams. Krauts had the right idea with the Gepard, stick the AA turret on the Leo chassis!

RudyNelson10 Oct 2017 3:06 p.m. PST

I was in the Armored Cavalry in the 1970s and 1980s. So I will be curious with what ToE series that they use.
The pre-1980 era would use the H-series with 3 x M551 Sheridans, a 4.2" mortar track, a M113 for the infantry squad qith 11 men, two TOW tracks and two M113 for the scouts. All with crews of three including the command track of a M113.
This would be a very expensive platoon but unique in its capabilities. A special rules will have to be made to allow the platoon to swim any lakes or rivers and still fight. The Sheridans would do this once before their swim gear is in tatters.
The 1980+ ToE would have the M1a1 replace the Sheridan. Another upgrade was that the .50 caliber Heavy machine guns on each M113 was being replaced with a bush master. This would have made those tracks even more effective in the opinion of the evaluators.

M1911Colt Inactive Member13 Oct 2017 3:41 p.m. PST

When you read Stripes, did anyone else think this first?


Private Matter13 Oct 2017 6:11 p.m. PST

My thoughts exactly M1911Colt:

I'd love one in 28mm.

Wolfhag13 Oct 2017 10:57 p.m. PST

IIRC the Sgt York had Doppler radar from the F-16 and was designed to shoot down Soviet helicopters. That could cause a problem when the helicopter is headed in one direction while the spinning blades are moving in two directions at all times.

Using the Sgt York could be fun:
In February 1982 the prototype was demonstrated for a group of US and British officers at Fort Bliss, along with members of Congress and other VIPs. When the computer was activated, it immediately started aiming the guns at the review stands, causing several minor injuries as members of the group jumped for cover. Technicians worked on the problem, and the system was restarted. This time it started shooting towards the target, but fired into the ground 300 m in front of the tank. In spite of several attempts to get it working properly, the vehicle never successfully engaged the sample targets. A Ford manager claimed that the problems were due to the vehicle being washed for the demonstration and fouling the electronics.[18] In a report on the test, Easterbrook jokingly wondered if it ever rained in central Europe.[15]

As early production examples started rolling off the production line, the problems proved to be just as serious. One of the early models is reported to have locked onto a latrine fan, mistaking its return for a moving target of low-priority. Reporting on the incident in another article on the vehicle's woes, Easterbrook reported that "During a test one DIVAD locked on to a latrine fan. Michael Duffy, a reporter for the industry publication Defense Week, who broke this aspect of the story, received a conference call in which Ford officials asked him to describe the target as a 'building fan' or 'exhaust fan' instead."

For your entertainment: YouTube link


RudyNelson14 Oct 2017 9:23 a.m. PST

In the very late 1970s, I attended meetings in regards to the DRS tests which my division participated in. Though my main discussion/report group was 4.2" vs 81 mm, I also attended HHC groups as well. One of the discussions was on the Sgt York system. The battalions already had Redeye teams attached to them traveling in M113. So the discussion was would the Redeye teams be replaced with one or two York's.

willthepiper14 Oct 2017 5:22 p.m. PST

When you read Stripes, did anyone else think this first?

Yes, and that's why I asked about the EM-50 UAV (Urban Assault Vehicle! :^)

lasalle01215 Oct 2017 9:42 p.m. PST

A Ford manager claimed that the problems were due to the vehicle being washed for the demonstration and fouling the electronics.[18] In a report on the test, Easterbrook jokingly wondered if it ever rained in central Europe.[15]

It became an article 15 offense to put a waterhose inside the M1 when cleaning the turret or drivers position. You were suppose to use a damp towel or sponge to clean the inside.

lasalle01215 Oct 2017 9:45 p.m. PST

I love it how everyone is losing their Bleeped text over the Sgt York because it never saw service in a fantasy war.

I love those that call it a fantasy war. While their never was a shooting war, the forces that would/could have fought did exist (they were not fantasy), the training and doctrine they used did exist (that was not fantasy). The men that served were not fantasy.

seneffe18 Oct 2017 4:08 a.m. PST

I agree with the points made by both lasalle012 and Nick in Somerset. Cold war hot as we now call it is very far from fantasy war.
In a couple of wargame show writes-up I've seen it categorised by the author separately from 'historical gaming' when describing the show (presumably therefore grouping cold war hot along with steampunk coal fired lasers and flying dreadnoughts, etc).
The people, armies, equipment were absolutely real- and many of the conflict scenarios of the cold war are certainly plausible enough to have made us all extremely uncomfortable at the time.

I must admit though- an army list which seems to allow a BAOR force to field the same number of Tracked Rapiers as FV432s may be starting to edge towards another definition of 'fantasy'……

As an aside- the Sgt York is still used as 'what not to do' example for major military equipment programme management training.

lasalle01218 Oct 2017 7:13 p.m. PST

It is really disappointing how many simple things they have gotten wrong with the rules and organization and equipment. It also disappointing when they respond to questions with how things were done "in real life" and then come up with things like the Sgt York.

badger22 Inactive Member19 Oct 2017 6:46 p.m. PST

Well as we get the DIVAD, are we going to get the MBT-70 as well? Only fair really

Tgunner20 Oct 2017 3:30 p.m. PST

Nope. The MBT-70 was scrubbed and the M1 was done instead. But it would be a pretty cool ¨Mid War¨ what if.

My guess about the Sgt York is two fold. The US needs a heavy gun AAA unit so here it is. I´m also guessing that Battlefront went for the ¨Oooooh! Shiney¨ aspect of building a kit that hasn´t been done in 15mm. I might be wrong there, but I don´t think that anyone has done the Sgt York in any scale. I wouldn´t mind getting a set so I can have some of the fun that only German players get with the Gepards these days.

badger22 Inactive Member20 Oct 2017 7:19 p.m. PST

I have see the DIVAD in 6mm, but I cant remember who did it.

And as I recall we really did need the damned thing. Just because the effort fell through did not cancel the requirement.

As for releasing the model, sure why not it could have been made, with more development. But before the Bradley? That is the part that bugs me.


Tgunner21 Oct 2017 8:21 a.m. PST

Yeah, me too. What's worse is that the Bradley made an appearance in Team Yankee with the cavalry unit in the beginning of the book. IIRC, the cavalry got the first wave of the Bradley IFV/CFVs.

I personally would have preferred that the USMC not have been a part of this release. They would have not been anywhere on the central front in Germany and they are taking up production space that could have been used for completing the USAREUR's order of battle. Sorry guys, Germany was an Army thing with the USMC playing a minor role in maybe Denmark or Norway. I'm guessing they are around as a crowd pleaser.

I think including the M3 and cavalry units would have been a far better choice. Right now the US Army is hurting for scout and light armor units and a full cavalry company/troop would have been a much better addition to the existing US order of battle. Also, the ACRs were important part of the 7th Army in Europe and their absence is a glaring omission.

I think this Marine tangent is an unnecessary distraction. The USMC is a very different organization with much different equipment and organization. It would have been better, in my opinion, for Battlefront to have saved these lists and equipment and put them in a "Semper Fi" release. That would have made the USMC a complete and more viable faction and it could have opened new theaters like Denmark and Norway for players.

Oh well, it's their game and it's their money. They release what they think will sell and not necessarily what current players might want.

Eumerin Inactive Member23 Nov 2017 11:34 p.m. PST

There are scout units. The US gets HUMVEE scouts and Armored Cav. The latter has two M113s, two ITVs, and three tanks (M60A3s or Abrams, afaik). No Bradleys, though, which has me rather irritated. I run US Army, and the Bradley and Chapparel were pretty much the only things I was looking forward to.

The Sgt. York has been argued over by players. Some say that with a war breaking out, everything and the kitchen sink would have been thrown into Europe. Battlefront's stance is that the problems in the Sgt. York would have been worked out if sufficient motivation (i.e. a shooting war breaking out in Europe) had existed. My own thought is that it would have taken longer than three weeks (iirc, the length of the war in the novel) to get the bugs worked out. The Russian players (by which I mean players from Russia, and not players who happen to prefer running Soviet lists) are particularly incensed because whenever they present claims of ERA armor being deployed in 1985, Battlefront rebuffs them with comments that could just as easily apply to the Sgt. York. And finally, I just don't really see it filling a needed hole. I've seen nothing to suggest that it won't be just another VADS with slightly different stats. And the Chapparel (which is also in Stripes) fills the needed long-range AA support hole.

Someone on the official forums mentioned that BF let slip at one point that someone at BF is related (their father, iirc) to one of the people who worked on the Sgt. York. Make of that what you will.

I'll buy a Chapparel box, but the included card will have all the information I need to run the unit with my existing US Army list. I don't foresee myself getting the book. I'm just too irritated at the choices that BF has made with this book, and not buying it is the only way I can make my displeasure count.

mysteron Supporting Member of TMP24 Nov 2017 7:19 a.m. PST

The omission of the Bradley is a biggy IMO. I have pictures of them being around during this time period even though they were restricted to IIRC one or two divisions only .

Eumerin Inactive Member24 Nov 2017 11:04 p.m. PST

Everyone agrees that the Bradley *should* be present in-theater. Even Battlefront hasn't said that it shouldn't. They just didn't include it, and they refuse to provide any reason for its absence. The general belief is that Battlefront is holding it for use in a book to be released at a later date.

Thing is, if Battlefront doesn't advance the timeline (i.e. start adding weapons systems that were introduced in 1986), I'm not sure what else is supposed to go in that future book along with the Bradley.

Lion in the Stars25 Nov 2017 9:44 p.m. PST

Thing is, if Battlefront doesn't advance the timeline (i.e. start adding weapons systems that were introduced in 1986), I'm not sure what else is supposed to go in that future book along with the Bradley.

M1A1s with the 120mm, Bradleys, F4s for CAS, SAW teams for the infantry…

28mm Fanatik26 Nov 2017 3:04 p.m. PST

BF can expand into Coyle's other books, like 'Sword Point' and 'Bright Star.'



Eumerin Inactive Member26 Nov 2017 5:17 p.m. PST

The M1A1 is 1986 (that's apparently when it started getting handed out to units). The war is set in 1985. So it's off-limits until the timeline advances. Same with the Apache and MLRS, iirc. SAWs have been included in the infantry squads since the original lists.

Tgunner31 Dec 2017 7:00 p.m. PST

I've heard BF say that Team Yankee was going to have three eras: Early, Mid, and Late. The current version of Team Yankee is Mid Cold War. The Apache and the M1A1 is to be late Cold War.

Eumerin Inactive Member31 Dec 2017 10:43 p.m. PST

The eras are confirmed. Vietnam and Arab-Israeli Wars will be Early era. I'm not sure that the Apache and M1A1 will be late only, though, since they entered service in 1986, literally one year after the current setting of the game.

Legion 401 Jan 2018 9:59 a.m. PST

M1IP's stats.
The Tank Bn in the Mech Bde I served in '86-'90 with a Mech Bn. That Tank Bn had 1 M1IP Co. and 3 M60A1 Cos., IIRC. The M1IP had the 105mm just like the M60A1s.
While their never was a shooting war, the forces that would/could have fought did exist (they were not fantasy), the training and doctrine they used did exist (that was not fantasy). The men that served were not fantasy.
I served on Active Duty,'79-'90 with 4 Inf Bns[1 Air Asslt, 3 Mech], 3 deployments to the Panama CZ, 2 tours in the ROK on the DMZ, 2 NTC Rotations, 2 Team Spirits, 1 REFORGER, etc., etc., … No … no fantasy there … no … none at all … old fart

Tgunner01 Jan 2018 2:02 p.m. PST

I've heard it hinted that the late era was '90's like Twilight 2000. That is prime M1A1 time.

LDC27104 Jan 2018 10:09 p.m. PST

I think the controversy over M247 was not because of its inclusion or stats, but the exclusion of (a) Bradley (from US players) and (b)T-80/T-55 with ATGM for REDFOR players.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.