Help support TMP

"Team Yankee: A first look at Stripes" Topic

35 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 2006) Message Board

1,986 hits since 2 Oct 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tgunner Supporting Member of TMP03 Oct 2017 1:35 p.m. PST

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


Dennis030203 Oct 2017 4:42 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 8:33 p.m. PST

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

VonTed04 Oct 2017 3:33 a.m. PST

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

willthepiper04 Oct 2017 6:19 a.m. PST

But can you get an EM-50 UAV?

dsfrank04 Oct 2017 12:09 p.m. PST

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

Buckaroo04 Oct 2017 1:46 p.m. PST

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

Tgunner Supporting Member of TMP04 Oct 2017 3:09 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????


Tgunner Supporting Member of TMP04 Oct 2017 3:14 p.m. PST

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

Wargamer Blue04 Oct 2017 3:31 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 10:59 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!

fingolfen05 Oct 2017 8:10 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 9:38 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

fingolfen05 Oct 2017 10:54 a.m. PST

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

14th NJ Vol Supporting Member of TMP05 Oct 2017 3:12 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.

Buckaroo06 Oct 2017 6:06 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 1:34 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.

Antioch06 Oct 2017 3:57 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.

Tgunner Supporting Member of TMP08 Oct 2017 6:22 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.

Tgunner Supporting Member of TMP08 Oct 2017 12:12 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 8:52 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 2:06 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.

M1911Colt13 Oct 2017 2:41 p.m. PST

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


Personal logo Private Matter Supporting Member of TMP13 Oct 2017 5:11 p.m. PST

My thoughts exactly M1911Colt:

I'd love one in 28mm.

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP13 Oct 2017 9:57 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 8:23 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 4:22 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 8:42 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 8:45 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 3:08 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 6:13 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.

badger2219 Oct 2017 5:46 p.m. PST

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

Tgunner Supporting Member of TMP20 Oct 2017 2:30 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.

badger2220 Oct 2017 6:19 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.


Tgunner Supporting Member of TMP21 Oct 2017 7:21 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.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.