Good afternoon, all ~
I’ve recreated Kelly’s Heroes with a string of gaming groups in a variety of game systems; Valor & Victory, Axis & Allies 15mm, a scaled down Panzer Leader, etc. Even Flames of War had a dedicated supplement someone published for this. It’s always a blast, with the movie playing in the background or everyone quoting the movie, doing their best Donald Sutherland or Telly Savalas impression. The problem inevitably is at the end, you eventually have to put one Sherman up against three Tigers. And even in the movie (spoilers, for this 45-year old movie), they don’t actually win that tank battle.

And all respect to Oddball . . . and maybe this is just the “operational-scale” in me talking . . . but the best guy in this movie doesn’t get nearly enough credit. General Colt, played by Carol O’Connor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et1SkVldiHI

“Did you ever hear enthusiasm like that in all your lives, they even got the damned grave diggers in there!”

Sadly, I’m not able to find his best scenes in YouTube. I may have to record them myself and upload them. 😀

A great episode and a great segment on Iron Maiden. I learned a lot about the Chieftain (this is part of a generation that often gets “skipped” – along with the Leopard I, the M60A1-A3, the T-64A, etc), especially that armor upgrade.

So I either (1) agree with or (2) learned great new information I didn’t know before on 99% of what was presented here.

My only small issue came when I heard the Chieftain’s armor values. I think that upgrade is too high. Don’t get me wrong, the base 17 I can totally agree with. The T-72 has a 16 (without reactive armor panels), and carries the same laminate steel armor the Chieftain does. The Chieftain carries MORE armor than the T-72, so naturally should have a higher armor value.

My issue comes when the upgrade bumps it to 19, which puts it over the 18 listed for Chobham-equipped M1 Abrams and early-model Leopard 2 (which admittedly didn’t use Chobham in its initial configuration, despite popular belief, and I’m sure Team Yankee is trying to represent these early configurations).

What? Look, I know the Chieftain’s armor was upgraded, as mentioned in the video, and I know the details of that addition was still classified. But unless that upgrade was Chobham (which is also still classified in its exact composition and makeup), I don’t really see the Chieftain’s upgrade outstripping the Abrams in protection (to say nothing of later variants of the Leopard 2). And I don’t think it could be Chobham in that Chieftain upgrade, as I don’t think you can make Chobham in those curved, cast shapes. That’s the reason most more modern MBTs have that boxy, slab-faced look.

Admittedly, there is no way to really compare Chieftain upgrades to Chobham tanks because the Chobham armor is still so heavily classified. There are no sources anyone can quote (without breaking any national security laws, anyway) to draw an objective comparison between the upgraded Chieftains and really anything equipped with Chobham.

So it sounds like they made a subjective, artistic choice in this game. It’s a choice I frankly don’t agree with, but admittedly, it’s subjective and “artistic.” No worries, to each their own. 😀 I would only add that if bolting on this upgrade gave tanks a better protection than Chobham, I think they would have gone with that than investing tens of billions in a whole generation of NATO tanks equipped with Chobham. Circumstantial evidence perhaps, but I think it’s still pretty strong.

That said, it sounds like that Chieftain upgrade should get more than a +1 bump (say from a 17 to an 18), which is probably how BF wound up at the 19. I think the real problem is the game has “run out of room” in its armor scale. So if we look at something like this . . .

T-72: Defense 16
Chieftain: Defense 17
Chieftain+ : Defense 19
M1 Abrams: should be Defense 20
Leopard 2: Defense 20
M1A1/HA: Defense 22-23
M1A2/TUSK: Defense 24+

Meanwhile, before it sounds like I’m “British bashing” (absolutely not the case) – the Challengers 1 and 2 would have monster defense values exceeding the earlier Abrams. Those guys would START at 21 or 22, and climb from there. 😀 (Thicker armor than the Abrams, and while the Leopard 2 was also thick, didn’t have Chobham at least at first)

So I suppose my real issue isn’t so much that the Chieftain’s armor is too strong . . . it’s that the M1 and especially Leopard 2 are too low?

Then again, you run into an issue where this is only a d6 based game and if you give the M1 and Leopard 2 armor values of 20 and up, the T-72s will almost NEVER knock them out. This is less of a historical / technological issue and more of a game design obstacle. Leaving aside the fact that NATO shouldn’t be fighting T-72s in Soviet Category One armor divisions in the first place (that’s another whole post) . . . 😀 But even the correct tank (early T-80 variants) have basically the same gun, but better fire control and ammunition. So I really do understand that they can’t have T-72s needing to outnumber M1s or Leopard 2s by five or six or eight to one to achieve parity, which was actually the case. The game would start to break at that point.

It is a tough one. I’ve run across similar issues in many other game systems I have used, worked on, or designed. The technological variances are so high it’s tough to come up with a game that is both reasonably quasi-balanced (at least to the point of game functionality) . . . and also realistic / faithful to the conditions and factors in the field at the time.

Justin asks us to suggest some additional ideas for Soviet releases.

I desperately, fervently, and earnestly plead for some T-80s. 😀 😀 😀

Because (deep breath, braced for backlash) . . . the T-72s aren’t really the right tank here.

I know, I know. I’m going to catch a lot of crap for this. But at least for the “Category One” GSFG Tank Divisions (Group of Soviet Forces in Germany), the Soviets by and large went from the T-64 to the T-80.

The T-72 was used only in small specialist roles in these divisions (surely the divisions that would have spearheaded such an invasion of west Germany and thus the ones featured in a Team Yankee game), and of course as an export tank to Warsaw Pact nations and other allies around the world.

PLEASE DON’T GET ME WRONG, I sincerely applaud Battlefront (I was at the Team Yankee bootcamp and met more than one rep from the company) for sticking true to the Team Yankee novel, which YES, does feature oceans of T-72s coming at the gallant American heroes.

That novel, though, was a little out of date when it was published in 1987. I don’t know when Harold Coyle wrote the book, but by 1987 the T-80 was the primary bull in the Soviet yard. They also portray the Abrams with the L7 105mm rifle, years after that gun had been replaced in US armored divisions by the Rh-120.

Also, Harold Coyle freely admits in his forward that he set his book in the setting outlined in Sir John Hackett’s The Third World War: August 1985 (published 1978). Now I wouldn’t stand up and try to correct a former commander of NATO, 🙂 but I would point out that this book was published in 1978, long before the T-80 was introduced. At the time the T-72 was EXPECTED to replace the T-64 as the next Soviet-used MBT, when in fact it would later turn out to be the T-80. Even Sir John Hackett wanted to update his own work, when he rolled out Third World War: The Untold Story, an update published in 1982.

A careful look at the Soviet MBT evolutionary line shows that they “skipped generations,” with the new release of a tank in a given decade first being exported to allies and proxy states, and only the SECOND line of tank kept for use by the actual Soviet Army. The T-62 was rolled out to everyone, the T-64 was a keeper. The T-72 was rolled out to everyone, the T-80 (actually released as early as 1974) was the keeper.

I have run across people before who swear up and down the Soviet Army made heavy use of the T-72 themselves in East Germany. The only thing I can say to this is that maybe . . . I stress maybe have been the case in the mid 1970s, in some select divisions. this would explain why Sir John Hackett included them heavily in Third World war 1985 and thus why they are in the Team Yankee novel and thus why they are in the Team Yankee game. But by 1985 certainly (when Team Yankee takes place), the switch had been made to the T-80.

Okay, so before I sound like I’m suggesting we all toss our T-72s, that is NOT the case.

1) T-72s are absolutely the correct tank in terms of the Team Yankee novel.
2) T-72s can be used as East German, Polish, Czech or any other Warsaw Pact tanks, and there were LOT of them.
3) T-72s can be easily proxied as T-80s (they look very similar).
4) T-72s can be used as Soviets, just say it’s a Category Two “follow on” division or some such.
5) T-72s are incredibly useful in a huge range of other areas. In fact, I’m thinking of buying a new M1s and repainting a few of my T-72s (I have 18 of them) in desert colors to run 1991 Gulf War One scenarios.

It just struck me as funny when Justin suggested we get East Germans. I laughed aloud and said “Dude, technically speaking that’s one of the things we DO have.” 😀 😀 😀

Hell, Battlefront could even include a T-80 turret in their T-72 kits (much in the same way they include both the L7/M68 105mm gun and the Rh120/M256 120mm in their Abrams kits, seriously great move there). I’m pretty sure the hulls are almost identical. You’d just need one extra piece for reactive armor bricks on the glacis plate, I think. Presto, T-72 becomes a T-80.

That, and a new card for the T-80.

Just please, some T-80s. 😀