28mm Fanatik  14 Feb 2018 10:52 p.m. PST 
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 T72B's with Kontakt5 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 3tank "company" costs less on a per tank basis than the command tank. For instance, the T72A command tank is 5 points, but a 3tank 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 T64, which costs 4.33 points per tank in a 3tank 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 3tank company of T72B's if the command tank (and each successive tank above 3 in a company) is 7 points? Based on the T72A (4 points) and T64 (4.33 points), I decided that starting at 17 points (or 5.67 points per tank in a 3tank company) is reasonably conservative. 
Chuckaroobob  15 Feb 2018 12:04 a.m. PST 

Old Wolfman  15 Feb 2018 8:02 a.m. PST 
Might get some use out of those Zvezda uparmored T72's after all. 
leobarron2000  15 Feb 2018 11:05 a.m. PST 
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 T72B the Super Dolly Parton version because of the extra 20mm of frontal armor – e.g. it went from 500/560mm (T72) against HEAT to (T72B) 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? 
28mm Fanatik  15 Feb 2018 1:28 p.m. PST 
how you came up with the 18 Front Armor The T64's armor is 370mm – 440mm vs. APFSDS and 500mm – 575mm vs. HEAT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T64 The T72B with Kontakt5 is 540mm – 760mm vs. APFSDS and 800mm – 1,220mm vs. HEAT: link That's a 46% – 73% improvement against APFSDS compared to the T64's and a 60% – 112% improvement vs. HEAT. Since the T64's armor in TY is 17 in front, a 1 point increase to the frontal armor of the T72B obr. 1989 isn't too much to ask. 
leobarron2000  15 Feb 2018 1:42 p.m. PST 
Understood. I did not include the Kontakt 5 Armor in my calculations. I only included the 20mm of extra RHA. 
Tgunner  17 Feb 2018 7:09 a.m. PST 
Need the M1A1 to take out these boogers. Nice work!! 
Mark Hoffman  20 Feb 2018 12:14 p.m. PST 
Hi. I've really enjoyed your unofficial Team Yankee vehicle cards. How about a card for the Soviet T80B or T80BV, they are both in the 1985 time frame. Thank would be great. Thanks 
28mm Fanatik  20 Feb 2018 1:32 p.m. PST 
Mark, The T80B is virtually identical to the BF T64 stat wise, so you can use the same card without adjustment/modification to represent the T80B. According to Wikipedia the armor comparison between the two are: T80B: 440 mm450mm vs APFSDS and 500mm575mm vs HEAT T64: 370mm440mm vs APFSDS and 500mm575mm 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 T80BV card with Kontakt1 ERA. The only difference is the ERA which provides side armor of 16 vs HEAT. 
Mark Hoffman  20 Feb 2018 7:58 p.m. PST 
Thanks for the info and the offer to do a T80BV card. 