![Make Your Own Star Wars: Legion Heroes! Rebel Agent & Officer Set Review [7 Days Early Access]](https://images.beastsofwar.com/2025/12/unboxing-atomic-mass-games-star-wars-legion-rebel-alliance-agent-_-officer-coverimage-225-127.jpg)
Unboxing: Team Yankee – Bannon’s Boys
May 31, 2016 by dignity
The boys are back in town, Bannon's Boys we should stipulate. That's right, Bannon's Boys from Team Yankee have entered the building from Battlefront.
This set comes with Lieutenant Colonel Reynolds' Battalion CP Objective Marker, which not only sets you up for objectives, but also provides you with a prime story for your tabletop.
We would particularly like to commend those who pack these Team Yankee boxes. We're thankful this is an unboxing show as we'd be useless at boxing them ourselves.
Are you ready to fly in the Cobras?
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
""PEW PEW PEW""
Supported by (Turn Off)
Another awesome show, guys. 😀
John, John, my good friend John … 😀 Were you calling me out at 10:15? Were you expecting a rant in the comments? Actually I think we’re in agreement on this one (as we almost always are. 🙂 ).
The Abrams is indeed an amazing tank, but has a-a-all the price tags that go with it. Production costs, training costs, maintenance costs, and as you point out, logistics costs. These logistics and fuel liabilities have always stood out to me as a former supply poag in the military. One analyst (who I usually find very annoying but in this case he was right) said that from a logistical, POL, and supply standpoint, “to go into battle with the Abrams is to go in with one foot in a bucket.”
That engine also runs very hot, which makes it a great target for thermal sights or weapons that use IR guidance.
During the 2003 War, Iraqi troops and Baathist insurgents very quickly picked up on the idea that the tank was basically invincible … but the fuel truck that would be coming right behind it would definitely blow up in a beautiful fireball when hit with an RPG …
The US Army also agrees with you. At least some reports seem to say that the M1A3 upgrade (under development since 2009) will probably replace the turbine with the diesel.
Every tank only works as a part of the overall army, and that army is just part of the society that produces it. The Abrams is a great tank for the US, a nation that can pour rivers of money into production, maintenance, and support. The Abrams is also in service with other nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. As far as I know, these Abrams haven’t seen combat yet, it will be interesting to see the Abrams’ “true colors” when they go into desert combat without the “princess treatment” they tend to enjoy in US service.
Aesthetics – I agree that the M1 isn’t my first choice, but maybe for different reasons. While “beautifully badass” . . . I dunno. I have a 20mm Abrams for Iraq games of Force-on-Force, but for Team Yankee I just wanted something a little different. I picked the Soviets for my Team Yankee boot camp force, and I’ve been holding out for the Bundeswehr Germans ever since.
That said, I’ve seen the Abrams kits first hand at the Boot Camp and they’re amazing. 😀
In conclusion … while the Abrams has always been one of the best tanks of the world, a big part of that is because it’s also one of the most expensive tanks in the world (in all the definitions of that word). Also (before my fellow Americans start burning me in effigy), it’s always made liberal use of vital components from other countries. In some important ways, it’s not really an “American” tank. The original M1 was armed with a British L7 105mm rifle. The later M1A1s and A2s are armed with German RH-120 smoothbores (built under license as the M256, but its a German gun). The Chobham armor was developed at Chobham, England.
Oh, and last thing … as a former US Marine, Cobras indeed friggin’ rule. The Army set them aside during the 1990s in favor of the Apache, but the Corps is still rockin’ the Cobra (heavily upgraded, of course).
I so agree with both of you about the Abrams. It’s mythical combat pros, tested and really good seem to foreshadow the cons which you talk about. I am also really intrigued as @oriskany said about the combat performance of the M1 without the American maintenance.
a great un-boxing guys, one thing I remember about the Abram’s engine is that it is a multi fuel system burning what ever the crew could get at the time. Or am I wrong again @oriskany @johnlyons ?
I’m not an expert on this @zorg , but I’m pretty sure you can burn more than one kind of fuel in that engine. Definitely not recommended, however, for long-term use. More of an emergency measure, I believe. It might allow you to escape from / fight your way clear of the insurgents, Russians, or other opponents … but an army of angry mechanics from Battalion Motor T might be coming after you next. 😀
“What did you do to our engine!?!”
Lol, better/easier that learning to speak Russian?
On multifuel: Short answer, yes. Long answer…
It was a great idea, one that was adopted by the US and the British forces in their tank arms during the cold war. The issues come up when having to actually run the engine on anything other than it was designed to run on. On Chieftain (since I know more about its service life) used a diesel engine that was designed to maximize cylinder compression and heat (since diesel engines only require heat and compression to run) The problem occurs when your in a pinch and you need to run the tank on something else. Let’s go with low-grade heating oil, paraffin or the like. You will get the engine to run on this fuel and you will manage to drive the tank away to “safety” However, after a few hours of running several things happen.
1: The new fuel will burn at a higher temperature than Diesel, creating heat expansion throughout the engine that will not contract correctly again once cooled.
2: The fuel filter system will be fouled up, with the introduction of a different fuel, any diesel still in the system will turn to a jelly-like consistency and clog the lines, valves, injectors etc..
3: To make the tank ready to go again will require a complete new engine pack and fuel system.
The main problem with the Chieftains engine in particular was it was over-engineered to be multi-fuel. Hense it ended up having a high rate of mechanical failure (also because Leyland couldn’t build an engine that pumped out enough power to drive the tank comfortably) in this case, the engine was easily 200hp down on what the tank needed.
Abrams, would most likely suffer the same problems if you introduced anything other than the fuel it was designed to run on. Resulting in, as @oriskany says, a very angry engineering crew.
… and so the Germans designed the Engine Module on both Leopards to be changed in around half an hour…
😉
thanks guys.
@zorg you are correct, the engine is designed to burn multi-fuels as similar design to the engines in the Black Hawk Helicopter. While its optimal performance is with the one fuel, but due to the realization of the battlefield they wanted to make it as versatile as possible.
To elaborate on @oriskany s point regarding the logistical burden operating an M1 series tank places on a military, During recent operations in and around the City of Hit in Iraq, the Iraqi Army could only put 1…that’s correct 1 Abrams into the fight, The initially had moved 3 forward to support the operation but 2 quickly broke down and were unable to be repaired. The Iraqi Army received 140 M1’s of an Export Configuration of which 28 have been “Destroyed” however most are likely salvageable.