This topic contains 484 replies, has 35 voices, and was last updated by 
madman1960 5 years, 9 months ago.
-
Wow, @davebpg . That’s awesome! So US wins out over UK? Interesting “updated” take on Saratoga. I mean Cowpens. I mean Yorktown … 😀 😀 😀
But seriously …
Good afternoon ~ Expanding on the idea idea of pushing Barry Doyle’s Valor & Victory system further into 1982 Lebanon, I’ve put the first swing into the opposition, namely the PLO / ALA for a “modern war” asymmetric dynamic.
A few more leaders,maybe another couple support weapons and game function counters (casualties, civilians, POWs, etc), and then we should be on to a couple of gameplay maps!
@davebpg – I think I would agree with what you’re saying. Playing against the Americans in the Team Yankee Boot Camp, it seemed like the Abrams wasn’t quite as powerful as it should be. THAT SAID, we were all playing with M1 (L7 105mm) if I recall, not the M1A1 or A2 variants (Rh-120 120mm smoothbore, enhanced electronics) that would come out VERY soon afterward.
Conversely, the T-72 seemed to be a little OP in that game sometimes. It felt like a little “Kentucky Windage” for the sake of game balance.
THAT SAID … and IN DEFENSE OF TEAM YANKEE:
Again, we were playing with M1, not M1A1.
The Red Thunder release for Team Yankee really helps out with the introduction the T-64 and making the T-64 actually objectively BETTER than the T-72 if I remember the cards right.
I feel the T-72 should actually be a little worse, and definitely CHEAPER in points. I remember at that boot camp some people wringing their hands wondering if our x10 T-72s could take on players’ x5 M1s. In fact that curve really should be a lot steeper. Never mind the 2:1 ratio, it should be 3:1 or even higher, with the points matching accordingly.
Again, that makes for a tough sell in the practical wargaming world. Even if the POINTS are balanced, Soviet players get hammered by having to buy x3 or x5 many tanks as American or British or German players, with x3 to x5 as much money, work on the hobby front, or storage issues.
ALSO, we tend to fall into the idea of tanks vs. tanks. Tactical combat never really works that way. Tanks are just 5% of a system which is fighting another system. Again, sometimes this is tough to do because we can’t all play on 20-foot tables with 300 minis on the field (sadly). 🙂
For the Abrams, I feel there are two things to bear in mind.
On the one hand …
THE ABRAMS REALLY IS AS GOOD, or BETTER than … everyone says it is.
Look, I’m just going to say it, the M1A2 Abrams is objectively the best tank in the world in most applicable situations. This is not a case of “‘Mericuh iz da best,” the case I make is that the Abrams is the best tank ONLY because it takes British armor, a German gun, and is crammed with Pacific Rim electronics. On its own, the Abrams illustrates the American ability to do one thing unquestionably better than anyone else, spend money. Dollar for dollar, the Abrams probably loses the title very quickly.
On the other hand …
THE ABRAMS IS NOT AS GOOD AS EVERYONE SAYS IT IS … or at least as good as performance in Gulf 1991 or Iraq 2003 would indicate. The main opponents there were either Iraqi T-55s (I mean, come on) or T-72s (third rate rank, crewed by a third-rate army, after having been bombed for six weeks by one the most intense aerial campaigns in history, and while the T-72s had no SABOT-type ammunition.
Every tank in the world is designed around the strengths and weaknesses of the army in which it’s meant to serve. The American Army can spend money, and is fantastically supported by a very deep (and very costly) support and maintenance and logistical infrastructure. The Abrams is a “high maintenance drama queen” – a date that looks stunning in her super-sexy dress and will make you the most envied guy at the party … but if you don’t really take care of her (and I mean dutifully wait on her hand and foot all night long) she will dump you in a hot minute.
This is why I’m really interested to see how the Abrams does in the service of OTHER COUNTRIES, especially Egypt. How will Abrams-equipped brigades and divisions do in real combat in an army that isn’t so fabulously and richly-supported?
What I really hope NEVER happens outside of a computer, but would be interesting the think about in a strictly ACADEMIC sense, is if (God forbid) Egypt and Israeli really go to the mat again. 🙁 🙁 🙁 Non-“prom queen supported” Abrams up against Merkava IVs in big numbers.
Thermal imaging is pretty easily defeated, at least temporarily, by a lot of armies. Those “smoke launchers” we see on the left and right face of most tanks … that’s not just smoke, it’s usually some form of white phosphorus. This burns as 2300F, called “hot smoke,” and yes … is opaque to thermal imaging.
Of course, it doesn’t last, the tanks have only so much of it, it is a huge hazard to any nearby friendly infantry, and has a very good chance of lighting the surrounding terrain on fire. This is a bad thing if you’re trying to defend set positions (but then again, WHY are tanks trying to do THAT in the first place)?
So not an ideal solution … But it is out there and is in widespread use.
There are no “silver bullets” in warfare.
Anybody else desperate for some multipart plastic moderns in 28mm?
With the current similarity of military equipment on all sides in mind a kind of generic set of operators would be like a dream come true to me. The only attempt so far are the slightly outdated Wargames Factory/ Warlord Games Spec Ops for Project Z. Not too bad but surely one could do better these days..
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
