![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: T-72 Tanks
March 17, 2016 by dignity
Hey guys, it's been a while now since our great battle of Lloydoslavia and the dust has finally settled amongst the ruins, but we're definitely not finished with Battlefront's amazing Team Yankee models.
This week we're unboxing the T-72 Tanks which were a huge crowd pleaser over the weekend with their manoeuvrability.
If you missed out on the Team Yankee Weekend you can find it HERE.
How would you play the T72s?
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
they were out gunned and out manouvered by the M1Abrams, the resin versions were nice models though.
Oh and those bogging checks…argh
The tube on the side of the turret is a snorkel, not a typo! The Soviets built river crossing capabilities in tour a lot of their armoured vehicles knowing that one of the time delaying tactics would have been to blow all the bridges.
I spent as long as possible with my very soft head out of the turret, even on Challenger2. Better to see the guy who is going to shoot you before he gets the chance than relying on the armour and being supprised. It’s also really easy to get disorientated and loose track of your support when closed down.
Looking forward to seeing some British kit for Team Yankee.
Great unboxing, guys. 😀 I was having Lloydoslavia flashbacks.
The unit cards are indeed a great addition.
The “Dush” MG is the DShK 12.7mm (.50 cal). Not sure … is the other MG on the sprue the more modern NSV 12.7mm model?
I still think the T-72s are a little overpriced in GAME TERMS (points). In points, they roughly shake out to 2-1 against the M1 Abrams. Given the RoF, mobility, and defense advantages of the Abrams . . . well, I’ve done the math (in other posts, I won’t belabor the point here). This honestly should be closer to 3-1, or at least 5-2. At the Boot camp we were losing tank duels over and over again, and these were the 105mm L7-armed Abrams, we didn’t dare break out the Rh120 / M256 armed 120mm Abrams. 🙁 It wasn’t until the Hinds came in that balance seemed to be restored.
7:25 – this defensive posture @johnlyons mentions is spot-on, and the reason I started to cringe a little when people were talking about the Team Yankee campaign taking place “in reverse,” with the West invading the East and not vice-versa. It was not a case of moralizing, as if the “good guys would never do such a thing.” It was just the politics, balance of power at the time, and how the NATO charter is written. This was a big reason why we came up with the “History of Lloydoslavia.” If the scenario the team wanted was frankly impossible given the factors of the 1980s . . . back up a few steps and CHANGE the 1980s. 😀
9:50 – The Israeli Defense Force took a study of their wars in 1956, 1967, and 1973, and found that by keeping TCs (tank commanders) “unbuttoned” (head out of the turret) makes the tank over twice as effective. Yes, @dignity is right, Israeli tank commander casualties were disproportionately high. But US Army, Marine, Israelis, everyone makes a point of fighting with the TCs unbuttoned whenever possible, it just gives the tank a quantum leap in effectiveness, reaction cycles, engagement ranges, threat detection and assessment, all across the board. Yes, there is totally a risk, but experience has shown that the risk is more than worth it. Buttoning up tank commanders is part of why old Soviet tanks like this had a hard time engaging western machines, and why they usually needed so many more to even have a chance.
The Soviets did try to redress this a little with the simple expedient of having the hatch covers open FORWARD rather than backward, so the TC could stand up in his turret and the hatch would act as a type of bullet shield.
Now if battlefront would just hurry up and make some Leopard IIs . . .
In my experience, Abrams forces actually struggle more than T-72 forces.
However, this is mostly a result of the high cost of each Abrams, which leaves those units vulnerable to morale issues when they take some serious fire.
I will admit, @marqod , that when putting say . . . 8 T-72s against 4 Abrams, and the Abrams player makes the mistake of dividing his force into two platoons of two . . . that the Abrams player will making morale checks almost immediately.
ESPECIALLY if you can concentrate all your Soviet force against an ELEMENT of the American force through use of tall terrain.
This is problematic, however, given the decided edge the M1 Abrams had in mobility, not only range but also easier bogging checks.
In any event, at the bootcamp American players quickly caught on to this and started putting their tanks all together into one platoon of four or five to ameliorate this drawback.
We’ll be back, Tovarisch. We’ll be back. 😉
@wittmann007 – You know that’s right, Senior Sergeant Leonid Kartsev. 😐 Old Russian Bears have long memories. 😐
That they do, Oriskanov. That they do. 😛
Armored Sentinels with Missile launchers…Yes…
As a tank commander, you have to be up and out of the hatch to see where the vehicle is headed. Going into a ditch or low piece of ground without seeing what is there is a recipe for throwing a track or eating the trretVision blocks and sights are not enough to keep you from running up on an obstacle. In the 1973 war, the Israelis took high tank commander casualties when they launched their cross canal phase and got into some city fighting. The Abrams now has a three position hatch that allows the TC to drop the hatch into open-protected position which makes the hatch flat but gives a two to three-inch gap where he can see out. He is better protected from artillery and small arms that way.
nice unboxing nice model.
Good video guys. Brings me right back to the boot camp. If only I could get some local people to give me a couple of games. (Every war-gamers dilemma I guess)