Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Team Yankee is set in the war described in the novel the third world war by sir general John hackett, and that does include most of the world in the fighting.

But named after Harold Coyle's book?

Correct; Team Yankee is a tactical novel set in the strategic world described by Sir John Hackett. Hackett's novel takes place in 1985, but I'm not sure Team Yankee (the novel) specifies a date.

I get that they're trying to tie it to company-sized elements, and that Team Yankee makes sense in this concept, but I do wonder if the automatic association with the German front of WWIII is going to be annoying to folks who have studied the likely combatant forces.

At least here we have a completely fictional scenario from the get-go?

i love modern warfare...and now FOW is going to ruin that for me!!!!!

While the war is fictional, surely the vehicles in use and orders of battle will be those of the period and available at the time?

Big P wrote:
While the war is fictional, surely the vehicles in use and orders of battle will be those of the period and available at the time?

I would be surprised if they weren't. While some of the equipment may be based on *extremely* weak claims *cough*infrared*cough*, BF does try and keep the WW2 lists accurate as to stuff that fought. There's no reason to believe that they wouldn't follow through with this in CWGH.

As for the T-72 deployment, here's a post from Phil at Battlefront. Given who it's from, this can probably be taken as Battlefront's official view on the T-72 in Europe.

While you are correct about GSFG having T-80, T-64, and T-62, there were still plenty of T-72s facing NATO in NORTHAG, CENTAG, and the Franco-German SOUTHAG. The Poles, East Germans and Czechs all used them, as did the Soviet Central Group of Forces based in Czechoslovakia. The American forces in NATO were probably as likely to face T-72s as T-64s.

Cheers

Fair enough... I'd disagree a little, but thats only my take on it from research.

It differs from what my chum who was an Intel officer with the BAOR thinks, but all games have to bend reality a little to a degree. Of course it also depends on setting and narrative too, which gives such choices context.

Good luck to them, I know what a minefield Cold War research is from working on our version, and many official sources are very wrong. Im lucky to have contacts from various NATO and ex-WARPAC personnel to check my stuff and offer guidance.

Will be interesting to see how they handle the Soviet attack doctrine.m

Sad thing is, with the now strained relations are with Russia, it gets even harder to dig into cold war research.

I'd like to see BF at least try to make Soviets interesting, even if historically their doctrine was that 10 tank platoon setup, I bet there's a lot of realities about how things really ended up in a fight, or what they would face.

Even trying to break things up with Hero units that are more useful would be nice in the core rulebook.

Perhaps a setup where we dispense with the 10 tank platoons and just say that X percentage were already blown up by the time the tabletop game starts, and the smaller platoons left on the table were the ones who survived to reach engagement range. Those that did survive were the more experienced crews hiding among the cannon fodder.

Same goes for the overuse of stormtrooper.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Sad thing is, with the now strained relations are with Russia, it gets even harder to dig into cold war research.

I'd like to see BF at least try to make Soviets interesting, even if historically their doctrine was that 10 tank platoon setup, I bet there's a lot of realities about how things really ended up in a fight, or what they would face.

Even trying to break things up with Hero units that are more useful would be nice in the core rulebook.

Perhaps a setup where we dispense with the 10 tank platoons and just say that X percentage were already blown up by the time the tabletop game starts, and the smaller platoons left on the table were the ones who survived to reach engagement range. Those that did survive were the more experienced crews hiding among the cannon fodder.

Same goes for the overuse of stormtrooper.

Problem is that there were no "realities" about how things ended up in a fight where the Soviets were concerned. The only conflicts that the Soviets were directly involved in during the Cold War were the uprising in Hungary, the Prague Spring, and Afghanistan. None of them are a particularly good example for a CWGH-type of conflict - at least not where tanks are concerned.

The existence of Hero units in Desperate Measures and Berlin has shown us that Battlefront is willing to conceive of Soviet units that don't use Hen and Chicks. Guard Heavy Tank units have also been able to dispense with it (but not T-34 Guard units - probably for points cost and play balance reasons). So it might not make an appearence. Or it might only show up in the Class C formations (I think that was the designation).

Finally, Battlefront has always allowed you to take understrength Soviet tank companies. The starting point for a T-34 company has always been a five tank minimum. I don't see them changing that for CWGH.

Prague Spring wasn't even a conflict, there was no fighting as such. I'd find this a little more interesting if the Czechs, Hungarians and a few others were to turn their guns around once it kicked off. Given the Team America focus that seems unlikely.

That said, red white and blue tanks with freedom written across the front of them would be pretty funny... oh wait.

 George Spiggott wrote:
Prague Spring wasn't even a conflict, there was no fighting as such. I'd find this a little more interesting if the Czechs, Hungarians and a few others were to turn their guns around once it kicked off. Given the Team America focus that seems unlikely.

That said, red white and blue tanks with freedom written across the front of them would be pretty funny... oh wait.

Again, "Team Yankee" should not be read along the same vein as "Team America: Cold War Police". It's the name of a book, which draws it's name from the military unit in the book. The unit is "Team Y', and Y in the NATO phonetic alphabet is "Yankee". The setting of the book is borrowed from another CWGH book, this one by a British author. But whereas the latter book focuses on the strategic level of the war, Team Yankee focuses on one specific US armored company - the team that is named in the book's title.


Also, equating "Yankee" with "American" is a good way to annoy many Southerners...

(for the non-US people reading this, within the US the term is usually associated with people living in the north-eastern part of the US)

Eumerin wrote:

 George Spiggott wrote:
Prague Spring wasn't even a conflict, there was no fighting as such. I'd find this a little more interesting if the Czechs, Hungarians and a few others were to turn their guns around once it kicked off. Given the Team America focus that seems unlikely.

That said, red white and blue tanks with freedom written across the front of them would be pretty funny... oh wait.

Again, "Team Yankee" should not be read along the same vein as "Team America: Cold War Police". It's the name of a book, which draws it's name from the military unit in the book. The unit is "Team Y', and Y in the NATO phonetic alphabet is "Yankee". The setting of the book is borrowed from another CWGH book, this one by a British author. But whereas the latter book focuses on the strategic level of the war, Team Yankee focuses on one specific US armored company - the team that is named in the book's title.


Also, equating "Yankee" with "American" is a good way to annoy many Southerners...

(for the non-US people reading this, within the US the term is usually associated with people living in the north-eastern part of the US)

Except, of course, that "Team Yankee" does reads like "Team America: Cold War Police". Why do you think it's Team Y and not, for example, team Q ? Hint: that's not a coincidence, that's a deliberate choice from the author, and Battlefront deliberately choose to re-use that title.

Dunno...

Team Yankee immediately makes me think of a Cold War US combat team...

Guess my age is showing.

Maybe a bit off topic, but Red Army by Ralph Peters covers a WW3 scenario from the Soviet point of view. He is generic when it comes to identifying the vehicles (calling a BRDM a wheeled recon vehicle instead of a BRDM for example) but anyone with a bit of knowledge about the Soviet army will be able to associate the real vehicles with his descriptions.

Pretty good book, the characters who the reader sees the war through cover the small unit to Big Picture level. You can get used copies on Amazon dirt cheap. Has plenty of scenario material in it from small recon/counter recon fights to a BN air assault to secure a river crossing to big armor battles.

I always found it a good complement to Coyle's book.

Id say Red Army is one of the best counter factual books available. Made more so by its Soviet focus.

The problem with relying on books like Hacketts, is that when written, we had little idea of the correct make up of the opposing forces. Hence T72s and T62s appearing in Soviet units and little idea of doctrine.

Thanksfully the research done in the 80s by British, US, CIA and from ex-Soviet sources is widely available now, along with revised works on Soviet doctrine, which was not the same as those Middle Eastern nations who bought the equipment...

I was lucky enough to converse with several Cold War 'veterans'. Apart from British and US personnel, one was a Finnish officer who runs the OPFOR units in the army wargames. They fight in 'Soviet' style and he has seen BMPs ambush and take out NATO MBTs in their combat exercises. Of course, its make believe, but its interesting to hear from one schooled in such things. Another contact was a gent who was ex-Polish Warsaw Pact Airborne and who conducted the Polish GCHQ annual wargames. Though he contended that in a real war, the Polish Army was heading east first... Despite his utter dislike of the Soviets, he did give me a very good overview on how important airborne mass insertion was considered by the Soviets.

Seems to be alot more to the Soviet Army than a simple headlong rush at the enemy.

Peters was an active duty intel officer when he wrote that (I got to meet him at Huachuca when going through a school there) and I suspect he kept it 'equipment generic' as a result.

I went through the OPFOR Academy at our NTC and went through a couple rotations as an OPFOR augmentee (and fought them a few times as a tanker and a cav scout, and OCed a time as well). Once you learned their tactics/doctrine/operational theories any thoughts of 'headlong rush' as a valid tactic kind of disappeared. No organization with a recon pull approach favors 'headlong rush' for example. Though I did see 'BlueForce' attempt it when attacking OPFOR (thank you Wes Clark). Didn't work too well.

Interesting CptJake... I may pick your brains over something...

People are speculating at how the respective armoured forces would match up, but how would the infantry match up?

I'm reading a book on the Falkland's war, and it claims that the Soviets re-assessed their evaluation of volunteer armies (British army) in light of how well they performed against a conscripted force (Argentine army). Given that the Warsaw Pact forces were mainly conscripts and that the bulk of NATO's forces (USA/France/UK/West Germany) were volunteers, it's an interesting match-up.

I've no doubt that the Soviets would have had some first class infantry units but I wonder how their conscripts would have matched up?

I think better than you realize. Soviet conscripts were far better trained than Argentine conscripts, or really conscripts in general.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think better than you realize. Soviet conscripts were far better trained than Argentine conscripts, or really conscripts in general.

For Soviet infantry, we do have an option to evaluate their skill. Afghanistan isn't an exact match-up, as it was a different kind of warfare, but it was in the right time period. Someone much more knowledgeable than myself in this area could probably use it to get a rough idea of how the Soviet infantry might have performed in combat against NATO (or any other conventional army).

While Chechnya was only a few years later, I wouldn't use it for illumination due to the large number of changes that had happened throughout Russian society in the meantime.

CIA and from ex-Soviet sources is widely available now, along with revised works on Soviet doctrine, which was not the same as those Middle Eastern nations who bought the equipment...

I should hope that they're not the same. I've got Pollack's book on the post-WW2 Arab armies, and wow, do they have problems...

Problem with Afghanistan is that a lot of the forces there were VDV or from units typically regarded as "elite" within the Soviet military.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Problem with Afghanistan is that a lot of the forces there were VDV or from units typically regarded as "elite" within the Soviet military.

You mean like this flick 9th Company (2005) - IMDb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKOkjbQAsZA

 col. krazy kenny wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Problem with Afghanistan is that a lot of the forces there were VDV or from units typically regarded as "elite" within the Soviet military.

You mean like this flick 9th Company (2005) - IMDb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKOkjbQAsZA

Paratroopers!

Great movie.

@Eumerin: In Britain the term is used along with 'yank' to mean anyone from the US. Perceptions and terms vary greatly.

@Big P: It comes as no surprise to me that a Pole would perceive Russia as the natural enemy. Again that's a take on this that would interest me if it were part of this.

 George Spiggott wrote:
@Eumerin: In Britain the term is used along with 'yank' to mean anyone from the US. Perceptions and terms vary greatly.

Kind of like how everyone living in the Isles is English?

I am not interested in this at all.
And the timing is a bit awkward with a new cold war threatening in the real world.

I've got German and US forces and can play early to late (late) war. But even regular FoW has gone a bit off for my taste in late late war. I like FoW because it is (arguably) historical wargaming, which my other games are not.

For fiction i rather use other games, where the sky is (not even..) the limit.
Next year we get HALO 15mm for instance, i rather field that opposite to WW2 FoW if i want fiction.

But I understand Battlefront is going this way off course.
They exists because they sell miniatures and models and the range of WW2 models is quite big, but it is limited, they cannot invent new ones and still call it WW2.

Eumerin wrote:
Kind of like how everyone living in the Isles is English?

Correct, for many years the two terms were interchangable in Britain and elsewhere. Nowadays less so.

Thought they were called Septics.

As in 'Septic Tank'... Cockney ryhming slang.

Big P wrote:
Thought they were called Septics.

As in 'Septic Tank'... Cockney ryhming slang.

I hope that's not what you call us.

This sort of thing, US vs. the communist hordes, used to be all the rage in the late 80s and early 90s. There was the Twilight (no not the one with vampires) series and another 'Red Dawn' style RPG I forget the name of. Twenty years later I find the whole thing to be beyond parody. It might surprise me but I doubt it ( given BF's form with Fate of a Nation) that I'll find any pleasure in this.