Help support TMP


"Team Yankee: 就am walkthrough with Tracy George" Topic


20 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 Vietnam War Message Board

Back to the Flames of War Message Board


Action Log

11 Feb 2018 8:21 a.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Changed title from "Team Yankee: 就am withthough with Tracy George" to "Team Yankee: 就am walkthrough with Tracy George"
  • Removed from Modern Discussion (1946 to 2006) board
  • Removed from Cold War (1946-1989) board
  • Crossposted to Vietnam War board


1,142 hits since 11 Feb 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tgunner11 Feb 2018 6:31 a.m. PST

Hi all,

Tracy George has a nice walk though the new 就am rulebook. It愀 about 30 minutes long, but you get to see every page of the text and get a good feel for what愀 in there.

YouTube link

Also, the 就am site is up and it has stat cards.

https://vietnam.team-yankee.com

picture

It looks like they have updated the stats for some vehicles like the Sheridan to match up with the Team Yankee stats.

picture

The US Armored Cavalry set looks very usable to TY players too! For $75 USD you get 11 vehicles, 10 of which are very useful for TY. Not bad!

picture

Tgunner11 Feb 2018 6:55 a.m. PST

There愀 something that I just noticed. The FP for the 就am main gun is 災utomatic whereas the TY愀 Sheridan is 1+. Is there really a difference here?

Ferd4523111 Feb 2018 8:00 a.m. PST

Don't play the game but was pleased to see the 11th being prominently displayed. I served with the Blackhorse in 70 but more as the REMF element. Might have to buy the box just for old times sake. H

Lion in the Stars11 Feb 2018 8:03 a.m. PST

There愀 something that I just noticed. The FP for the 就am main gun is 災utomatic whereas the TY愀 Sheridan is 1+. Is there really a difference here?

Are there any FP modifiers in the rules?

Tgunner11 Feb 2018 8:28 a.m. PST

Honestly I don't recall any. You get a +1 to armor at ranges greater than 16 and a similar penalty of +1 to hit at those ranges, but nothing for firepower.

I惴 a big fan of the Black Horse and I could use these boys for both Vietnam and for Team Yankee. I惴 hoping that the 牠arly Team Yankee lists will allow me to pull in the Sheridans. I惴 planning on getting this set too.

Tgunner11 Feb 2018 8:40 a.m. PST

Here愀 another interesting departure…

picture

link

The Team Yankee M113 in the scout section is just a plain vanilla M113 while the 11th ACR in Vietnam had a proper ACAV. Notice the 40mm grenade launcher! Where did that come from? Is it a Mk19 GL? Do you have to give up your Ma Deuce to get it? I remember reading this book and it mentioned the 40mm GL.

PDF link

It's on page 41.

Each of the cavalry troop's three platoons had nine armored
cavalry assault vehicles (ACAV's). The ACAV was an Ml13
armored personnel carrier modified for service in Vietnam and
particularly adapted to convoy escort. With the Ml13's usual
complement of one .50-caliber machine gun augmented by two M60
machine guns, all protected by armored gun shields, and with one
of its five-man crew armed with a 40-mm. grenade launcher, the
vehicle took on some of the characteristics of a light tank.

This sounds like a M79 Blooper rather than a Mk19. Given the choice I would MUCH rather have an ACAV than a vanilla M113 in my scout sections.

Why did USAREUR skip on the ACAV?

jdginaz11 Feb 2018 1:02 p.m. PST

The grenade launcher isn't the MK19. Some units in Vietnam got ahold of the launchers from wreaked Huey gunships and rigged them for use in place of the commanders .50 on the M113. They were very rare and not that reliable.

I can only remember seeing one or two pictures of the mount and at least one of them wasn't on a ACAV.

Ferd4523111 Feb 2018 1:15 p.m. PST

My memory is of the blooper. The 203 was just coming out but I never saw one at that time. Needless to say I never saw any kind of launcher; but I only spent time with parts of the 3rd Squadron.

Fatman Inactive Member11 Feb 2018 1:19 p.m. PST

The Mk 19 entered service in 1966 and was used on riverine vessels and vehicles including ACAV.

TGunner the G/launcher quoted was the blooper stowed inside the vehicle. I think it is covered more in the volume on armoured ops.

Fatman

scouts19508a11 Feb 2018 7:23 p.m. PST

The scout section should have a M47 Dragon ATGM mounted on the right side of the coupla. Well at least in 2nd ACR we had them.

Jim

LDC27114 Feb 2018 10:21 p.m. PST

@scouts19508a
Normal mechanized infantry platoon can mount their Dragon on one of the tracks. Scout section in TY simplified that by going with the ITV.

RudyNelson15 Feb 2018 5:38 p.m. PST

So what are the armor ratings on the M60A1?
I am confused on the armor ratings? I get the 1 top and 2 side but is 4 on front good or bad.
The M551 Sheridan had an aluminum skin backed by Styrofoam. We had to repairs on the skin often when we returned from the field. I had three in my Armored Cavalry platoon back in the 1970s.
We would take sheets and weld them over the tear after stuffing, replace, the Styrofoam block.

Part time gamer03 May 2018 12:02 a.m. PST

RudyNelson
The M551 Sheridan had an aluminum skin backed by Styrofoam.
We would take sheets and weld them over the tear after stuffing, replace, the Styrofoam block.
I know it had to be 'lite wt.' as it was required to be 'air portable'.
But Aluminum and Styrofoam?

If science is still looking for that "missing link", check the Dept. of Weapons Design.
Just a thought.

LDC27105 May 2018 12:05 p.m. PST

Sovs built BMDs out of aluminium and magnesium alloy, which caught fire very easily when hit…

Part time gamer05 May 2018 11:51 p.m. PST

LDC,
Often 'protection is sacrificed' to increase a units speed/mobility, permit it to be airmobile, or just to lower the cost.

IIRC Magnesium is an element which as you put it will burn "very easily". And at very high temp.
I was curious and so ck'd and found, it can burn at a temp. of up to 4,000 F.

Lion in the Stars06 May 2018 7:20 p.m. PST

@Rudy: Armor 4 on the front is pretty low. It's game-wise proof against .51cals, and 14.5mm can only glance on a save roll of 1 (Armor Save is armor value + d6 versus weapons AT value). Even a 37mm isn't likely to punch that armor (AT6, so penetrates on a 1, glances on a 2, bounces 3+). I think the M551 should be ARM2 or 3, because .51cals could punch them from the front. But M113s are armor 3 from the front…

For comparison, an M48 is Front-13, Side-8, Top-2; an ARVN M41 is 4-3-1; an ANZAC Centurion is 13-6-2; an NVA T34-85 is 6-5-1; NVA T54/55 is 13-9-2; and the NVA PT76 is 2-1-1.

LDC27108 May 2018 8:40 p.m. PST

M113 makes no sense when its armor is as strong as Marder and BMP-1, both had steel armor. Laminated armor (14.5 proof) wasn't in until after Bradley…

Part time gamer08 May 2018 11:54 p.m. PST

Lion in the Stars
Armor 4 on the front is pretty low. 113s are armor 3 from the front…

For comparison;
an M48 is Front-13, Side-8, Top-2; an ARVN M41 is 4-3-1; an ANZAC Centurion is 13-6-2;
an NVA T34-85 is 6-5-1; NVA T54/55 is 13-9-2; NVA PT76 is 2-1-1.

I'm not familiar w/ FOW, in the 'vid review' he does say if your familiar w FOW it will be easier to p.u. how 'Nam plays'. Have any of you tried 'Nam yet? If so what do you think, especially compared to any other rules for this War you have tried.

As I've not looked up the actual armor of the vehicles, still I thought the M41 would rated stronger than '4' (of course less than 1/2 of any MBT) but I would have thought greater than just 1pt. above a 113.
I know by this time the '41 was classed as a 'Lt. tank', but I found it surprising to be considered 'that' lite'.

Lion in the Stars10 May 2018 8:50 p.m. PST

Well, I've only played Flames of Nam, with a little bit of the old Ambush Valley rules. But Ambush Valley is a smaller game than Flames, maybe a single-based platoon per side instead of a team-based company+ per side.

The force cards in 'Nam make it easier to keep track of what you need to roll than Flames v3. I don't like some of the changes in 'Nam, like the complete removal of Huey Gunships or Aerial Rocket Artillery.

Part time gamer11 May 2018 12:04 a.m. PST

Lion in the Stars
I don't like some of the changes in 'Nam, like the complete removal of Huey Gunships or Aerial Rocket Artillery.
'Complete Removal' of the Gunships & Aerial Rkt Arty? By ARA, Your referring to the removal of the "2.75 in." rockets? Wheres the 'historical/justifiable' logic in that?
And HOW can you take Gunships out of a Vietnam period game, and stil consider it.. accurate?
Confused.. does not cover it IMHO.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.