Col Piron | 19 Oct 2020 4:54 a.m. PST |
|
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 19 Oct 2020 8:57 a.m. PST |
Looks like, similar to the T-34/85 in the Bagration book for FOW, the T-80 can be fielded in either standard tank battalions comprising of companies of up to 10 tanks each (at 8 pts per tank) or small elite shock companies consisting of platoons 2-3 tanks strong (at 10 pts each tank). |
D6 Junkie | 19 Oct 2020 12:03 p.m. PST |
Looking forward to this! Got mine on oreder |
ReallySameSeneffeAsBefore | 20 Oct 2020 10:31 a.m. PST |
I wonder what the 'elite shock companies' are- I've not heard of them. I presume this supplement is to extend TY into the post cold war period, as some vehicles are included which did not see service in the real cold war. For eg- as far as I can tell from CFE records- even by 1990 there wasn't actually a single BMP3 in service with the Soviet Army in E Germany, elsewhere in Eastern Europe or in the Western USSR. Likewise I think the Tunguska AA vehicle- although I haven't checked that so thoroughly. Certainly can't see any TOS-1s deployed there either. A few prototypes might have been trialled in Aghanistan, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't in series production and deployment until well into the 1990s. Also, it's shame that this seems to perpetuate the myth that the T80 was a substantially superior tank to either the T64 or T72. It wasn't, they were all close cousins and most importantly had completely separate upgrade programmes which meant that at various times, units with T64s and T72s actually had superior performance from their tanks than those equipped with T80s. Even as a theoretical baseline- a Soviet study concluded that the T80U was only about 10% more combat effective (judged on a selection of key characteristics) than its equivalent T72 model- the T72B. Yet the T80's production cost was 180% MORE than the T72. The production of the very expensive and fuel guzzling T80 has been described in one Soviet government report as a 'crime against the state'. The T80's widespread deployment owed a lot more to rivalries within the Soviet military industrial complex than to actual combat characteristics. Also, where do they get the idea that the T80's missile could be fired on the move? It's laser bean riding (on the days the laser worked), not laser designated fire-and-forget, so the laser beam needs to to held on target by the gunner until the hit is achieved. Basically its a line of sight weapon like a wire or radio guided missile and moving the launch vehicle risks breaking the LoS just as much as with them. I guess TY is a bit of a law unto itself though- and there's got to be a reason to buy some new merch………. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 20 Oct 2020 12:32 p.m. PST |
I agree. The T-80 is unrealistically buffed up for this game compared to IRL. My take is that BF wanted to give WarPac players a tank that can match up on a near 1-to-1 basis with the Abramses, Challengers and Leopard 2's taken for granted by NATO players. The points cost of the T-80 (8 or 10 points) are equivalent to those top line NATO MBT's. So BF adapted the T-80 to the game, throwing reality out the window. I'll probably still get some just because it's such a cool model, even though I already have 12 Zvezda T-72B obr 1989 tanks with Kontakt-5 that are comparable. |
ReallySameSeneffeAsBefore | 21 Oct 2020 3:17 a.m. PST |
I think you're right Fanatik- I can quite see BF's commercial imperative to keep sales going. But it's a slippery slope for a game with a historical context- even if not one representing actual historical combat. Ty initially had real counterpart weapons and vehicles at least. The late cold war Soviets deliberately chose to model their army around huge numbers of medium sized tanks with generally moderate capability, but with big guns and most importantly very high trafficability (a characteristic not represented in many wargames, but pretty important if you're invading somewhere for real). They were not really trying to match the capabilities of top line NATO tanks at individual vehicle level- just to offset those capabilities enough to let numbers tell. I agree too that the T80BV is a cool looking vehicle. Only 13% of T80s in Europe were actually fitted with reactive armour even in 1990, but given all of the above that might not matter too much. |
coopman | 21 Oct 2020 10:00 a.m. PST |
So TY has morphed into a what-if fantasy not quite historical game. Cool. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 21 Oct 2020 12:06 p.m. PST |
So TY has morphed into a what-if fantasy not quite historical game. Cool. No more and no less than FOW I guess. |
Rudysnelson | 21 Oct 2020 1:10 p.m. PST |
Soviet keys to victory did not rely on equipment but in numbers and tactics. When my MI unit handled OPFOR operations at Fort Riley, I read several field reports on Soviet weapons trial. It was not unusual for them to deploy a new weapon system that still had bugs. Months of field use and modifications would be applied to the weapon including AFVs. |
ReallySameSeneffeAsBefore | 21 Oct 2020 3:02 p.m. PST |
In some cases years of bugs and modifications- as with the T64. In fairness- so too with the Chieftain… |