![How To Paint Moonstone’s Nanny | Goblin King Games [7 Days Early Access]](https://images.beastsofwar.com/2024/12/3CU-Gobin-King-Games-Moonstone-Shades-Nanny-coverimage-225-127.jpg)
@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.
