"Unofficial T-72B Tank Company for TY" Topic

With all the new unofficial NATO cards I posted including the M1A1: TMP link my Sovs feel a bit neglected, so I decided to give them a better tank too to play with. Since I have quite a few of the nice Zvezda T-72B's with Kontakt-5 ERA (about 10), I thought "why not?" It came out in 1989, right before the collapse of the Iron Curtain but not too out of place in the setting of Team Yankee.

The points cost scheme for a Soviet tank company is a bit less straightforward than the NATO tank platoons. Rather than giving a tank a points cost and simply multiplying it by the number of vehicles, TY gives a Soviet command tank a points cost but the starting cost of a Soviet tank company is given a discount. A 3-tank "company" costs less on a per tank basis than the command tank. For instance, the T-72A command tank is 5 points, but a 3-tank company costs only 12 points, or 4 points per tank. But each successive tank added to the company costs the same as the command tank incrementally. The same goes for the T-64, which costs 4.33 points per tank in a 3-tank company but each successive tank added costs 6 points (the cost of the command tank).

So the question is, what should the starting point cost be for the minimum 3-tank company of T-72B's if the command tank (and each successive tank above 3 in a company) is 7 points? Based on the T-72A (4 points) and T-64 (4.33 points), I decided that starting at 17 points (or 5.67 points per tank in a 3-tank company) is reasonably conservative.

You are my hero!

Might get some use out of those Zvezda uparmored T-72's after all.

Love your cards. Printed out the Bradley and Apache ones. I was wondering how you came up with the 18 Front Armor for the B variant? I know the American soldiers called the T-72B the Super Dolly Parton version because of the extra 20mm of frontal armor – e.g. it went from 500/560mm (T-72) against HEAT to (T-72B) 520/950mm against HEAT. However, I would argue 17 Front Armor is probably more accurate than 18. 18 is roughly a 12% increase vs. 17 which is only a 6% increase. 520mm is around a 4% increase in armor protection. Hence, why I think 17 is better than 18. Thoughts?

how you came up with the 18 Front Armor

The T-64's armor is 370mm – 440mm vs. APFSDS and 500mm – 575mm vs. HEAT: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64

The T-72B with Kontakt-5 is 540mm – 760mm vs. APFSDS and 800mm – 1,220mm vs. HEAT: link

That's a 46% – 73% improvement against APFSDS compared to the T-64's and a 60% – 112% improvement vs. HEAT.

Since the T-64's armor in TY is 17 in front, a 1 point increase to the frontal armor of the T-72B obr. 1989 isn't too much to ask.

Understood. I did not include the Kontakt 5 Armor in my calculations. I only included the 20mm of extra RHA.

Need the M1A1 to take out these boogers. Nice work!!

Hi. I've really enjoyed your unofficial Team Yankee vehicle cards. How about a card for the Soviet T-80B or T-80BV, they are both in the 1985 time frame. Thank would be great.
Thanks

Mark,

The T-80B is virtually identical to the BF T-64 stat -wise, so you can use the same card without adjustment/modification to represent the T-80B.

According to Wikipedia the armor comparison between the two are:

T-80B: 440 mm-450mm vs APFSDS and 500mm-575mm vs HEAT
T-64: 370mm-440mm vs APFSDS and 500mm-575mm vs HEAT

I'm assuming high end values, which are so identical between the two that in game terms there's no difference.

I can do a T-80BV card with Kontakt-1 ERA. The only difference is the ERA which provides side armor of 16 vs HEAT.

Thanks for the info and the offer to do a T-80BV card.

Thank you for re-posting the M1A1, T-72B and Apache helicopter cards. I greatly appreciate it.
If you get the time, would you please re-post the M-3 Bradley cards???

Also, could you re-post the Mi-8/17 cards?? Please??

Thanks for the repost!