Flames of War: WE LOVE PHIL YATES edition

>>52862829
>>52862828

Armor is overrated.

if i need say 12 shots to kill a high armor target and i can buy 6 of that one shot unit for same poitns it costs to bring 1 of those high armor units.. i'll just spam the low cost unit because odds are i will get the kills before the lower number of models can wipe me out.

that's why the bmp spam is far superior to m1 abrams.

>>52862866
>armor is overrated.
>why? simple math.
>if it takes me 12 shots with 1 weapon to kill a high armor tank and i can bring 6 of them for every 1 the enemy has then it behooves me to take as many as i can so i can get enough rolls to win the attrition war.
>that's why the bmp spam is far superior to m1 abrams.

Yeah, the BMP's the only competitive option, but, again, how does this help people with T-72s?

>>52862914
>Yeah, the BMP's the only competitive option, but, again, how does this help people with T-72s?

they shouldn't bother with the t-72s .. that's who it helps them .. helps them avoid spending money on useless units if they want a competetive list.

>>52862935
The world's most iconic soviet tank shouldn't be unplayable, that's just dumb.

What are T-72's good for then? Infantry?

>>52863207
Nah, milans fuck you up worse than MBTs.

>>52863101
Don't listen to that guy. T-72s are far from useless.

They're also far from amazing, but they work.

The key, paradoxically enough in my opinion, is to embrace the spam.

You will outnumber NATO tank forces. And for every tank they kill, you are only dropping in effectiveness slightly, while NATO can not afford to lose tanks at all really.

Embrace the swarm tactics.

Overwhelming force is the key to playing Soviets or East Germans.

>>52863285
>Don't listen to that guy. T-72s are far from useless.
They're a real bad option and you basically never want them over more BMPs.

>>52863414
I disagree.

BMPs are good, and you'll likely want a solid core of them.

But T-72sare far from an auto-exclude option in my opinion.

>>52863561
The question is, what do you want T-72s for?

Yeah, they're not auto-bounce if they assault, but assaulting is an awful place for T-72s anyway, so why you would want to is a mystery, and you get infantry for that.

You can move and shoot with them, but generally you only need ATGMs for tanks, so you can still be closing on infantry anyway.

I just don't see a niche for the T-72, and it's an enormous points-sink.

So how does Naval Gunfire Support work with V4 reserves? Do you only deploy the naval observer if the NGS is part of your on-board points, or is it always placed and you can fire the guns even while they're part of your offboard points? I'd assume the former, but I'm not 100% there.

Also, the Market Garden Naval Gunfire Support lets you spot for them with any of the NGS observers (as it's possible for the Commando list to take two NGS choices), since the force can have two observers. The V4 rules for NGS say the NGS observer is in addition to the normal allocation of one, but don't bother addressing if you have multiple NGS sections because they just refer to the overlord rules for MG's NGS. Would you get one or both observers? Do you then get to spot for the battery that's in reserve with the one that has the observer on the field, since the NGS doesn't have any teams?

>>52863101

I'd think the T-55 or T-34 was more iconic. Even NATO intelligence had trouble telling the T-72 from the T-64/T-80.

T-55/T-34 was also much more widely used.

When people say BMP do they mean 1 or 2 ?

Can someone post those Salute images again.

Bit disappointed to be honest, I was hoping for the T-80. Then we could have a reasonable 1:1ish game without the ridiculous hordes.

File: Pac.jpg (203KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 2048x1365px

>>52865045

Well here's hoping we still get the automatic mortars, the tunguska, the t-80,. new fighters, maybe a new artillery piece.

Oh but that's right the t-80 and ERA weren't in service till 87 and 89.

CHEERS.

>>52865419
I loved t64 and btr in wargame ALB. Next project for me !

>>52865419

Cheers, and I mean that unironically in this context.

Now that they've shown off the T-64 I bet they'll be saving the T-80 for the next book a few years down the road.

>>52865530

>saving the T-80 for the next book a few years down the road

Honestly at this point I don't feel that game's lifespan will be that long.

>>52865811
I'm prepared to agree with that now. Unless Red Thunder brings something good to the table, playing as the Warsaw Pact is a joke and how Battlefront treats us is the punchline.

File: penetration-us-intel-1.png (336KB, 1433x608px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1433x608px

On a whim I wanted to see how hard it would be to do research for TY.

Less than 30 minutes and I have actual NATO field manuals on soviet tactics and organization. This leads me to conclude that Phil and his ilk probably aren't doing any in depth research for their game.

So I present to you:
FM100-2-1: The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics
https://a.uguu.se/ri4Aqg4Q6P3i.pdf

And

FM100-2-3: the Soviet Army: Troops, Equipment, and Organization
https://a.uguu.se/63LMjgfkrjLg.pdf

Links are good for the next 24 hours.

>>52865873

It really is what's keeping me away from team yankee. I like the soviets and want to play them. Playing NATO forces sounds boring to me personally and knowing the faction I want to play boils down to "Spam" in the eyes of game designers irks me.

>>52866033
I might just send these on to Battlefront.

>>52866033

They probably do the research and then disregard it or massage it.

They basically want a horde vs. elite dichotomy and nothing is going to get in the way of that.

>>52866033

>Modified T-64Bs with reactive armor were first observed in October 1984.

ERA WHEN PHIL?

>>52866458
The game is set in August of 1984.

Cheers.

File: 1481145814674.gif (2MB, 695x392px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 695x392px

>>52864512

In the words of GTA, 'the T-72 was the tank your dad thought he'd be running away from in WWIII'.

>>52862829
So has phil still got his anti-soviet bias?

Does anyone remember when he said the Soviets in Berlin were as well trained as the Americans in Tunisia?

>>52865419

I want the BM-27 Uragan, the 2S3 Akatsiya, the 2S9 Nona, and the BTR-D with VDV units.

I expect we will get none of those however.

>>52866942

I'd settle for the battalion AT platoons and maybe the regimental AT companies for motor rifle troops.

If the brits are going to gallivant about with a bajillion milans then fair is fair.

>>52866909

The whole last general was bitching about Phil's retarded bias.

File: NATO Air Support.gif (3MB, 384x288px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 384x288px

>>52867056

Much of this one seems to be the same T B H.

>>52867056
Kinda justifed since he appears to be actively trying to ruin his own game by gimping half the factions and turning the other half into Matt Wardian levels of bullshit

well after reading a bunch of team yankee nonsense in fow thread I'm quite sure V4 is a bust and will die soon.

>>52867328

As long as they can keep momentum and hype going for their new releases they can keep sales up, rules be damned. It's once the pace slows that the game will start to die. Both FoaN and ToD did good business 'till the hype train derailed and then just faded away. I figure that this will be the same, with the added provision that we'll see attrition amongst Warpac players as time goes on an NATO gets more toys. I know our local scene is slowly bleeding them.

File: 1396391822940.gif (591KB, 236x158px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 236x158px

>>52867638

Nah, V4 just needs more releases and a comprehensive FAQ/Errata and it will be perfectly serviceable until they convert EW and LW to the new point standard and begin the cycle again.

TY on the other hand may or may not be gutshot.

We need a Warsaw Pact fan project asap.

File: 1399918846338.gif (3MB, 468x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 468x360px

>>52867785
I don't see the point. It's a lot of work that's just going to be automatically rejected by most of the player base either for being unofficial, or for being 'Warpact Wank'.

>>52867639
In my area we started losing Warpac players after Iron Maiden dropped, and its only been downhill from there. I want to love TY but right now, there is no way to attract players to Warpac, and to be fair without them, there is no game. Unless this next release evens out the NATO powercreep in a substantial way, or in the very least provides some better lists that aren't hurr durr BMPs, TY in my area isn't long for this world.

>>52867872
I don't know i play team yankee with a group who seem to be forever making rules for models they want in the game.

File: BMP-1 czech68.jpg (85KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 720x540px

>>52868017
I suppose with >>52866033 there's a decent enough jumping off point to start from. Since we've got unit trees and composition from that all we'd really have to do is stat and cost some of the options that aren't covered yet, maybe restat a couple of things (T-55 cough cough).

I was working on a FoaN hack to cover the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia when TY launched and killed all desire to finish it.

File: Fraternal Assistance.jpg (379KB, 869x1767px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 869x1767px

>>52868116
This is as far as I got doing stats for that hack.

>>52866033
If i am not wrong a good number of NATO documents are desclasified, so it is posible to know a more oficial values of the M1 and Leopard 2 A0-3 armor.

I think it is the same with the russians but well they are propaganda and are in rusian

>>52868446
>I think it is the same with the russians but well they are propaganda and are in rusian

Hi Phil. You forgot to "cheers".

>>52868446

It's actually gotten harder to get documents from the Russians with the current breakdown in east west relations, at least with regards to formal requests for academic purposes.

The best bet is to go through stuff that's already been released. Unfortunately, it's in Russian - and that's probably one of the stumbling blocks that makes Phil shrug and go 'asiatic hordes'.

>>52868461
CHEERS

>>52868475

He'd just have to read some Ospreys to do a better job than he is doing now.

We need an official "cheers" image for edits and shit like that.

Can someone take a photo of all their BMP or T-72 writing CHEERS?

so ive always been an infantry man.

is volksarmee playable without going full eastern hordes mode?

File: T-55CHEERS.jpg (247KB, 1380x785px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1380x785px

>>52868515

10min in paint.

Is good comrade?

>>52868649

NVA is even spammier than the Soviets, and they're supposed to be professional.

God help us when the Poles come about.

Does anyone know if the Barbarossa digital lists are supposed to have 2 katyusha options or is that a misprint? If not you can field 2 batteries with pizza box sized bombardment with rerolls to hit and rerolled infantry saves for repeat bombardment at FP 4+. 2 sets of 8 BM-8s are 415 points with extra crew and an observer.

>>52868871
fuck. thats bad news. nva uniforms get me hard as diamonds. but i already play Japanese and italians so i hardly need another spam army

File: IMG_0404.png (865KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

865KB, 750x1334px

>>52868924
Forgot to attach the example image.

File: 1491575908678.jpg (159KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 960x720px

>play poles
>table creaks under the weight of my army
>only 50pts

File: Shooting Phase.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>52868931

That does indeed appear to give you double Katies.

If it's a misprint BF have never commented on corrected it.

Enjoy your rockets.
All of them.

File: T-62 ID.jpg (24KB, 400x208px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x208px

>>52865419

What are the odds that we get T-62s?

>>52869238
100% with rules that will make you want to shout out cheers

>>52869261

So a T-55 with +1 armour and better gun?

>>52868716
Saved, but sorry it seems i wasn't that much specific, i was asking for someone use their T-72/BMP miniatures in a "CHEERS" formation

>>52869307
If we are talking about the T-62M it would be the same armor as the T-55 with the same mobility as the T-72 with a gun that could fire ATGM, it was used in Afganistan.

Or the 1985 version T-62MV with ERA.

>>52869463

Well, it's probably not going to be the T-62MV, because apparently to Soviets don't have ERA.

And given how BF made a franken tank rather than go with an established model for the T-72, we probably won't get the specific T-62M either.

So what we'll get is a basic, missileless, generic T-62 that only poorly represents the tank in general.

Cheers.

>>52868515
>>52869397
Huh, that can actually be done with as little as 30 models...

File: It's not just phil.png (36KB, 497x208px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 497x208px

>>52869463
>Or the 1985 version T-62MV with ERA.

yeah but...

God, this is all just so grim. The Brits get stuff because it's cool, the soviets don't get stuff because it wasn't widespread among a specific kind of tank at the end of the cold war.

I feel like if BF wanted to make an NPC faction they should've at least been honest about it.

Is V4 dead ?

If a war was brewing you would think era fitting and production would increase.

Uncheers

>>52870485
No. We're like 2 months in. The africa stuff really doesn't seem to be selling that great here, but other places seem to be buying it up. We are picking up a few more players for LW. I still plan on playing even if I don't agree with every change.

Let's reconvene next March and we may have a better answer for that question. Seems like the reaction is entirely community dependent.

>>52870295

What did you expect from a company that decided to make T-72s the primary tank of Group of Soviet Forces Germany counter to history?

And then made a franken T-72 instead of a real model.

>>52870559

I wanted to get back into FoW with the North Africa stuff but it really wasn't inspiring. The lists and model choices were trimmed down to the bare bones of new plastic kits.

Taking the wrong lessons from GW.

>>52870583
>Taking the wrong lessons from GW.
Are there any RIGHT lessons to be taken from that hive of scum and villainy? (Aside from "don't do it like them")

>>52870607

People like high quality plastic models and high production values in their books.

>>52870485
There seems to be a bit of an Edition War going on.

Or at the very least some very vocal haters. Some of whom are bringing up legitimate issues with the game and some of whom are just looking for excuses to shit all over it.

It's hardly dead.

It's also roughly one month old.

The honest answer is that it needs to be given time to expand and grow.

It also needs a FAQ to answer some of the more retarded, but not technically wrong according to the rules, issues that people have pointed out.

>>52870563
It's T-72A, it's got BDD.

>>52870607
Plastic is the material of the future and you have to be able to produce high quality plastic model kits to survive in the current war games market.

>>52870633
This too.

File: image.jpg (15KB, 240x253px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 240x253px

>>52869463
>with ERA

File: 1155.jpg (244KB, 1180x870px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1180x870px

/NVA/

File: image.jpg (91KB, 577x624px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 577x624px

>>52868936
>play poles
>opponent asks for a 150pt game so he can play all his leopard 2s and fancy toys
>grab the yellow pages
>book out tennis court and hire a removal van to transport my minis

>>52869860
...

I know., But i want to belive he is talking about only the T-64...

Right?

>>52874293
Yeah, NATO players who want to play at higher points values are utterly clueless about what that actually means for a Soviet or East German player.

50 extra points is something like 2 more A-10s and another 4 Abrams.

It's **a lot** more than that for the Communists.

>>52870737

It's not a T-72A, at least model wise - it's missing the telltale 'Dolly Parton' composite armor at the front of the turret. Instead it has the T-72 Ural turret. And on the stat card it has the improved gun from the T-72B.

Franken Tank it is.

>>52878798
The T-72A had "lumps", but not huge ones; they just make the turret non-circular rather than bulging out like the B's do.

File: 5ed434fc4918c6a5a8820e6af169bf35.jpg (113KB, 720x519px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 720x519px

>>52878798
T-72 Urals and early T-72Ms had a much gentler slope on the front turret.

T-72A bulked out the slope to more of a vertical front.

>>52870607
They're getting better under their new CEO, fwiw. At the moment they're better listeners than BF.

But edition launches are always difficult when you have a broad set of rules, and this is probably the best way to do it if the new edition is different enough that old stats don't work (i.e. bare bones initial release, then flesh it out over time). Hmm, "bare bones" and "flesh it out" work well together, I wonder if that's coincidence.

Is it weird that my biggest problem with V4 is that it came before they could make a 1945 compilation?

>>52880570
>they could make a 1945 compilation?
Last I heard they still are. Don't worry it's V3. No, they haven't explained why the fuck they're doing that.

>>52880589
Wat

File: weee.jpg (154KB, 2138x3000px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 2138x3000px

>>52880589
I heard about that some many months ago too, but didn't expect they'd actually go through with it.

Oh well, if they do I'll be a happy camper.

>>52880589
>Don't worry it's V3.
I... wha... but...

File: tumblr_lsnud3M7q01r1d7j6o7_250.jpg (22KB, 250x161px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x161px

>>52880589
What.

I mean, I like V3 much more than V4, but still.

What.

File: T55 vs Patton.jpg (161KB, 1160x565px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1160x565px

Alright /fowtg/ lets play a game:
>Instead of a 1980s Hot War, TY is set in the 1960s
>What key vehicle is stuck as a metal and resin kit?
>Are the Soviets actually dominant in this perioid or are they still being Cheer'd?
>Which unit is Gepard-tier OP?
>What army are you looking forward to coming out next?

>>52881480
>>52880914
>>52880889
>>52880884
I'm not going to dig through their forum again but I clearly recall posts by staff members about the Berlin book being V3, well after the announcement of V4. It was supposed to come out this Christmas but you know Battlefront Time.

>>52882057
Further research indicates that it was announced in a WWPD podcast and in February this year they posted on the forum that "V3 Berlin Compilation" was "Still Happening. Cheers."

>>52870747

This.

I feel vaguely insulted when I see a kickstarter for some new metal figures. I'm not paying more money for 2-D looking figures that will need several layers of dullcote in order for the paint to not flake off.

>>52882011
Zsu-57 sniping Leopards 1, T-64 being Tigers II.

>What key vehicle is stuck as a metal and resin kit?

T-55

>Are the Soviets actually dominant in this perioid or are they still being Cheer'd?

Russian tanks are complety superior in the 60s but that doesn't mean they can't be Cheer'd.

>>52869624
Wait, is the Plastic T-72 somehow not a proper representation of a model?

>>52883737
It's somehow a mismatch of the Ural and A version It has BDD Armour, but the wrong systems installed.

Also it's armour is worse than the Chieftain despite the Chieftain being categorically worse.

>>52883671
If the T-55 was the primary tank, it wouldn't be in resin and metal still. APCs probably.

>>52883737
>Wait, is the Plastic T-72 somehow not a proper representation of a model?
Ahahaha.

The plastic T-72 is a T-72A, or at least, is clearly meant to be. It is, however, a finnish T-72, because the MG mount is on the left and not the rear. The hatch is also shit, and the smoke lawn chairs are wrong. The T-72 is a pretty rubbish kit, all considered.

>>52883828
>Also it's armour is worse than the Chieftain despite the Chieftain being categorically worse.
For some bizarre reason the book rates the armour (in actual thickness) as 100-150mm worse than basically every source I can find does. I have absolutely no idea why.

>>52883938

>For some bizarre reason the book rates the armour (in actual thickness) as 100-150mm worse than basically every source I can find does. I have absolutely no idea why.

What the actual fuck are they doing with team yankee?

>>52884710
Presenting PACT as a mook army so gongards can make their dreams come true about Cold War gone hot

>>52866514
Any argument about when the game is set in the 80s and when things were first fielded in reality are pointless.

The USSR did not invade Europe in the 80s. If the timeline in team Yankee is different enough to have the coldc war go hot then it's not much of a stretch of the imagination that the soviets brought forward the development of some 80s tech

>>52885672

I'd be fine with them not allowing ahistorical units IF THEY WERE FUCKING BALANCED ABOUT IT.

But hinting at the Sgt York which never went into production and the M1A1 which wasn't in Europe before the Soviets had deployed ERA to GSFG shows a ridiculous bias.

>>52870737
Not to mention that BDD armor is what the T-55AM and T-62M have... the T-72A has its "dolly parton" armor, which is referred in Russian/Soviet nomenclature as "the armor on the T-72A".

>>52882011

90mm armed M-48s would out shoot 100mm armed T-55s. T-62s wouldn't be in as "they weren't deployed in enough numbers at the time" while there would have been a crash program by NATO to rearm their M-48s with 105mm guns.

>>52883828
>>52883938
I was thinking of buying some plastic T-72s, but not if they're not a proper representation of the actual tank. Where else could I got for a proper T-72?

>>52886052

Zvezda has a T-72. They also do a B model but of course it has ERA and will be useless for TY (CHEERS). You can get the other versions in resin or metal. And given BFs pricing for TY they aren't even much more expensive.

>>52886110
Don't Zvezda also have the T-90?

>>52886148
>>52886110
As far as 15mm goes, Zvezda has a T-72B ; it's out of time frame, but if you are willing to overlook the different turret, you can get yourself decent T-72s for cheap. Khurasan Miniatures and Skytrex (for yuropeans) are quite nice as well.

File: 4-24.png (5MB, 2160x1216px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2160x1216px

I've been pretty lax on these updates. 2 airlanding platoons done, as well as the 6pdrs, 17pdrs, and company PIATs. Command teams and observer teams (top right) just need the camo, second layer of helmet/beret color, and Khaki for the webbing before they're done. I'll then have 5-6 days to finish the last group, my mortar and HMG crews. I should be able to do it, and hopefully will finish with days to spare so that I can go back and add unneeded but nice details (like hair colors besides black, some highlights, and ammo markings for the AT loaders).

Hopefully some of you will yell at me if I'm not done with the mortars and HMGs by the 27th.

>>52886052
Khurasan has a very nice looking and I think more accurate T-72, there's also skytrex who's T-72 looks pretty nice atleast.

>>52887287
Khurasan also make those 1946 Tanks. I've wanted to try them for a while, how good is their service?

>>52887313

Usually the only problem is finding a period where the store is open and what you want is in stock.

File: IMG_3678.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

Hi people, my first post on the blog in just under a month, this time on the 37mm gun armed version of the Amtank in my 14 LVT Early War List: http://theflamescorner.blogspot.co.nz/2017/04/flames-of-war-lvta1-37mm-platoon-usab06.html

>>52885672
>the soviets brought forward the development of some 80s tech
The thing is it's not like this stuff didn't exist. It existed, just not in huge quantities. Compare to the MCT, which wasn't produced for another year. That literally doesn't exist in finished form yet.

>>52888639
Pretty sweet.

PSC T-72 when? I need plastic, the only time I like resin/metals are when they are recast copies, because they cheaper than inports in my shitty country

>>52890278

Battlefront already do a T-72.

>>52890530
People are beginning to doubt that it's a historical model and accurate now.

>>52890530
I think he wants one that actually depicts a real model of T-72, instead of a vague mix of models. See upthread.

>>52883828
>It's somehow a mismatch of the Ural and A version It has BDD Armour, but the wrong systems installed.
What systems are wrong? Laminate armour, basic stabiliser, and laser rangefinder, sounds like T-72A.

>>52890585
Yeah, thanks to that i am not sure if i am even going to buy the soviets boxes for modelling purpose.

It is the first time battlefront did something like this?

I know about minor details, but this is a the same lvl as a Panther D with a Panther G turret.

>>52890584
>People are beginning to doubt that it's a historical model and accurate now.
It's a T-72A, it's just inaccurate (open hatch wrong, MG mount wrong, smoke dischargers wrong). They're wrong in calling it "BDD armour", that's the stuff that got added to T-55 and T-62 models, but it never had a name aside from "laminate armour".

File: tiger 1.jpg (9KB, 236x213px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 236x213px

>>52890584
I think we're hitting cheers levels beyond comprehension

>>52890790
Someone told me the turret shape is wrong. Is that right?

So this might seem like a stupid question but is there any reason to take Scimitars intead of Scorpions in Team Yankee for brits? Unless the scimitar has something i missed the 76mm seems better for attacking armored vehicles+digging infantry out with its HE shots.

File: ATurret.jpg (31KB, 357x179px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 357x179px

>>52890898
Looks right to me.

Here, this is a picture of a T-72A turret.

You can see at the front it "overhangs" a bit. That's the "dolly parton" bulge; from above, instead of being a circle like the T-72 Ural, it's a bit of a rounded square towards the front.

I'll follow up with pictures of the Ural and B, to show you what I mean.

File: BTurret.jpg (24KB, 415x247px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 415x247px

>>52891127
This is the T-72B with "super dolly parton". You can see the edges haven't just pushed out and overhang slightly but they're really "bulging" compared to the A, curved even compared to the turret lip.

File: UrTurret.jpg (72KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x600px

>>52891175
Lastly, this is the Ural turret. It's really easy to tell apart from either of the other two; for one, it looks all weedy with a pronounced slope instead of the near vertical (A) or convex (B) surface, especially to the left where coincidentally, there's one side of a coincidence rangefinder. Just look how far down the commander's hatch goes behind that, compared to the A or B where the turret's been heavily reinforced. Can't be a T-72 Ural; turret's immediately obvious.

>>52891127
>>52891175
>>52891207
Now, you will note that there's no MG mount on any of these; this is because the MG mount on Soviet T-72s is behind, not to the side of, the hatch (though the cupola rotates, so it's position relative to the turret facing can be anywhere). This is because they apparently modelled it on a Finnish T-72M, which while largely identical, had the MG moved.

>>52891247
>you will note that there's no MG mount on any of these
I should say "MG mount visible".

Equally, none are fitted with smoke dischargers, which are wrong on BF's model (they miss the launchers on the top row of each edge).

PSC T-55 pics gallore:

http://mailchi.mp/theplasticsoldiercompany/15mm-t55am2b-pre-order-deal-coming-to-end?e=72ad1bad00

>>52891284
Oh fuck yes. Why do I not have more money? I want 20 of each variant.

>>52891247

Thanks you very much for the info.

>This is because they apparently modelled it on a Finnish T-72M, which while largely identical, had the MG moved.

So with a fix in the MG mount, it is a good model for the East German T-72?

Any important difference between the old BF T-54/55 and the new T-55AM2?

I mean It is a complety new mold? The size, etc?

>>52891328
Yep; that's a Soviet T-72M, largely identical to the T-72A but with a weaker (apparently sand) filling for the "bulges". The Polish T-72M (equivalent to soviet M1) didn't arrive until 86.

>>52891400
They're essentially different tanks entirely?

T-54/55 is the first version, T-55AM2 is basically peak T-55 where it had applique composite armour, advanced FCS, potential for GLATGMs, and so on.

File: MODERN BATTLEFIELD RULES TIMOTHY L. WISNER.pdf (2MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1x1px

Some of you guys, especially the 6mm crowd may be interested in this ruleset for use in Cold War Gone Hot Gameplay. It's a percentile dice system that is best played at the batallion scale. I find that it makes the Soviets feel appropriately aggressive without turning them into a mindless horde.

Granted this was written in 1987, so the information may not be completely correct. However, given Battlefront's recent efforts, I find this to be a better attempt.

>>52891517
I was asking about the model itself, like if the T-55AM2 is just the old T-55 kit but with extra parts or a new sculp. If the size is the same, etc.

>>52891724
Ah. New kit, no idea how it scales because I balked at the original T-55s.

>>52891547
If PSC make in the future a 1/72 version of their new T-55 kit. It is pretty posible that Ironfist would think about a Cold war version of Battlegroup.

>>52891769
If they managed without fucking up stats and stuff, I would be so hype for that.

>>52891325
Yeah, a battalion of those will not be cheap. But man oh man I want my Romanians!

Well, I guess there goes 85 points fitting on a table...

T-55AM2 Panzer Bataillon HQ (p.12) - 1x T-55AM2 (1 pts)

T-55AM2 Panzer Kompanie (p.13) - 7x T-55AM2 (10 pts)

T-55AM2 Panzer Kompanie (p.13) - 7x T-55AM2 (10 pts)

T-72M Panzer Kompanie (p.15) - 9x T-72M (31 pts)

BMP-1 Mot-schutzen Kompanie (p.17) - 10x MPi KM with RPG-18, 9x RPG-7, 2x PKM LMG, 12x BMP-1 (19 pts)
- 1x AGS-17 grenade launcher, 1x BMP-1 (1 pts)
- 1x SA-14 Gremlin AA missile, 1x BMP-1 (1 pts)

BRDM-2 Aufklarungs Zug (p.19) - 2x BRDM-2 (1 pts)

SA-13 Gopher Flak Zug (p.23) - 4x SA-13 Gopher (4 pts)

2S1 Carnation Artillerie Batterie (p.24) - 3x 2S1 Carnation (6 pts)

BMP-1 Observation Post (p.25) - 1x BMP-1 OP (1 pts)


85 Points

File: 1331755802787.jpg (47KB, 724x552px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 724x552px

>>52891284
Nice. Might get 2 boxes to go in my T-72 Bataillon.

File: leaked.jpg (122KB, 600x846px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 600x846px

Guys, I've found a leaked image of the upcoming Warsaw Pact army book

>>52891284
Sweet baby Stalin! My poor wallet...

File: __joseph_stalin_and_winston_churchill_mc_axis_and_real_life_drawn_by_yuugen__sample-efaabee9e177f3b4c67eef582f895ef2.jpg (398KB, 850x1203px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 850x1203px

>>52893498
>Sweet baby Stalin!
Yes?

>>52893465

But 2nd ed Tyranids were good.

File: IMG_0235.jpg (72KB, 355x531px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 355x531px

>>52893559
No trust me, the Soviets are good because you can use artillery to pin the enemy infantry down and then sit in front of them for several turns, throwing dice until they die. The enemy will definitely not be able to do anything to stop this.

sincerely,

the battlefront forum

>>52894456
Ahaha what? Has that guy ever tried to use soviet artillery? The OP is mandatory and if you lose that you're never hitting anything again.

Oh god I'm just now reading about Command Cards. Are BF really trying to justify selling all the flavor for each book as an add-on?

>>52894813

This is amazing. Portees. Australian and NZ cav. The lack of which is why I didn't buy the new MW stuff.

Brilliant job fucking yourself out of sales due to greed and inability to communicate with customers BF!

>>52894813
It's pretty much not any different than their DLC strategy for Barbarossa, Nachtjager, and Berlin.

I just can't stop giggling that wargear and objectives cards that everyone recognized as a pain in the ass in 2nd ed 40k twenty years ago is now a "cool" new feature in FoW.

>>52895155
Which was also dumb as shit. Fuck DLC, fuck cards, fuck the whole "Here's the crappy base and now you need to buy these $7.5 expansions to get the interesting stuff" philosophy that's so fucking common these days.

>>52894813
>>52895313

At least TY's still avoiding this.

>>52895482
eh, to be honest Afghasty and Panzertruppen could have easily been put into the TY book and Leopard respectively. I guess those may have been made in reaction to the intial releases though...

File: RUSTY NEW FACE.png (121KB, 354x349px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 354x349px

>>52895482
Just wait until they make the Warsaw Pact expansion cards for the main Soviet force

>>52882011
Oh and T-10 raping everybody even their own crews.

So WW3 happens, the Soviets start tearing through north europe to break out of the baltic sea. So far so good. How likely are Sweden and Finland to say "fuck it" and join in with NATO?

>>52896564
Sitting tight worked well for Sweden in WWII. They'd probably repeat.

>>52896883
At least until a potential Soviet Invasion. Then it would be equal parts "act as roadblock" and "enemy of an enemy is a friend (and we did give you quite a bit of information)". But until then. Yeah, neutral, at least officially

Anyone know what uniforms you'd need to use for Sweden or Danmark in the 1985?

File: sleepy moog.jpg (82KB, 682x502px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 682x502px

>>52896564
tanks are rolling through western europe, nato force in retreat
several new zealanders' heads explode

File: stalin and lenin.jpg (81KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 900x900px

>>52896564
Likely not at all.

In any feasible "the Soviets strike first scenario", Soviets would be looking to kick the Americans out of Europe and establish a solid sphere of influence. If NATO is in such a position where it's about to lose West Germany (which at most was a glorified buffer state), there's a high chance France will make a few calls to the Kremlin to see if they can organise anything before they start losing territory or the US begins nuking the next door neighbours (because radiation doesn't stop at borders). Sweden and Finland have nothing to gain from making themselves targets for Soviet invasion.

I think my biggest problem with Team Yankee is that it never explores the possibility of NATO powers getting second thoughts about their choice of friends - then again Team Yankee has little to no sense of danger in it since the Soviets seem to be depicted as animals in armoured vehicles.

>>52899390
>I think my biggest problem with Team Yankee is that it never explores the possibility of NATO powers getting second thoughts about their choice of friends - then again Team Yankee has little to no sense of danger in it since the Soviets seem to be depicted as animals in armoured vehicles.
I thought at launch it was kind of dumb the incident begins with "NATO rallies together against soviet aggression". It'd be more plausible if France or Turkey/Greece kicked up a fuss and the soviets thought "Ooh, nice, NATO's about to fall apart" and launches an invasion, from which the NATO side has to awkwardly rally back together against the threat of being divided and conquered. There's more of a story there.

File: daneses.png (3MB, 1438x1920px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1438x1920px

>>52898825
From a 1987 Osprey book. Should give you an idea for the Danes.

Also, there's this. http://camopedia.org/index.php?title=Denmark

For the Swedes: http://camopedia.org/index.php?title=Sweden

Probably a dumb V4 list:
Commando, from Nachtjager Digital
Formation:
>Command Rifle, PIAT - 40 pts
>7 team Commando, Panzerfaust upgrade, 2x Water Buffaloes, 2x Polsten MGs - 250 pts
>7 team Commando, Panzerfaust upgrade, 2x Water Buffaloes, 2x Polsten MGs - 250 pts
>3 HMGs, Water Buffalo, Polsten MG - 130 pts
>3 Mortars, Water Buffalo, Polsten MG - 120 pts

Support:
4 Comets - 580 pts
2 25pdrs, Sherman OP - 115 pts
1 AOP - 25 pts

Reasoning for the specific spacing is that, for a 1515 game, I can have up to 905 points on the field. The formation platoons plus the short 25pdrs JUST fit into that, leaving me with just my AOP and my Comets in reserve. On the attack, I have two smoking arty platoons, the AOP, and armored troop carriers to pull off a good advance on the enemy. Oh, and because of V4 rules, each Water Buffalo can run off and be an independent unit with 6 MG shots (hull MG, two side MGs, and the AT 5 Polsten MG on the front) to cause havoc against enemy infantry or halftracks.

>>52900052
Looking at it very similar to west germany in the same period (albeit a very different colour)?

File: 2017-04-26 16.52.23.jpg (836KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 2560x1536px

>Thoughts
>Tips
>Opinions
>Shitposts

File: tmp_22995-20170426_1649271214652938.jpg (1MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1536px

>>52904499

File: tmp_22995-20170426_164949678371127.jpg (1MB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1536px

>>52904499
>>52904554

>>52904583
>>52904554
>>52904499

What paints you using anon? Looks pretty thick.

Nice lookin big cat though.

>>52904499
>>52904554
>>52904583
I'd suggest some very minor dry brushing.

Just enough to pick up some of the edges.

>>52904499
Hope you enjoy breaking down a lot, you jerry bastard.

Looks good. Personally never been a huge fan of using metallic paints at this scale, it always looked a bit off to me. The camo stripes on the gun seem to have a bit of a hard edge, but the camo stripes on the body are nicely feathered on the edges and blend into each other. I assume that's due to the different surfaces, since the barrel stripes blend into the dunkelgelb pretty well. Might also need a bit of touchup around where the metal was drybrushed on the side, but not much. Overall pretty good.

>>52904639
I think most of that is the tank being resin and Metal, honestly. BF's R&M models have a habit of making even the thinnest paints look lumpy.

>>52896564

Both were unofficially assisting NATO in real history. There would likely be an internal struggle between those who saw through the false hope of neutrality and those who wanted to stick their head in the sand.

>>52904794
The Finns were playing both sides but had treaty obligations with the USSR which allowed them military access. I doubt Finland was willing to lose a third war to help the western powers.

>>52904954
If the Soviets beat the Western powers, and magically there was no nuclear apocalypse, then the BMP hordes would have rolled into Finland shortly afterwards.

>>52862829
So what is the official power ranking of the TY factions?

>>52905417
Brits
West Germans
East Germans
US=USSR

File: God save the queen.gif (912KB, 397x312px) Image search: [Google]

912KB, 397x312px

>>52905559
And all was right in the world.

>>52905559
>[laughs in Perfidious]

Just wait till the Polish are released, then you will know true power.

>>52905559
I'd actually say the US was below the USSR.

File: T-10M.jpg (16KB, 340x166px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 340x166px

>>52905773

Agreed. It's fairly trivial for the Soviets to bring more air support and/or BMPs than the Yankees can effectively deal with.

From what book can I get a LW German list with:

Infantry (max 2 platoons)
StuG III G (4)
Panthers (5)

I usually don't play LW Germans, but I have this lying around. But I'm not sure what I can do with it. What list would give me around 1500pts with this?

>>52907236

Just from basic V3 forces:

HQ: 2x Panzerfaust SMG teams, 1 Panzerschreck
2 platoons of Command MG and 6 MG teams
4 Panthers
3 StuG Gs

Total 1495

Also, all infantry in this list technically have trucks, but if you don't have the models it wouldn't be a big issue not to use them.

However. This wouldn't be a terribly strong list. I'd strongly advise you to add some mortars or Nebelwerfers to the list.

>>52905773
>>52906013

Yes the US are underpowered as far as AA goes but that's mostly a problem with Abrams heavy lists. Mechanized lists have less valuable targets and have a lot of guided weapons and 50 cals that can target Hinds. Still not as good as dedicated AA, but Soviets will still have a lot of trouble with US Mechanized unless they are tank heavy (in which case they will have trouble with every other NATO list).

What happened with the TY soviets infantry and the Potecknov Bears? I can't find It in their online store

>>52907834
Battlefront logistics strikes again. Maybe check some other online stores like the warstore and see if they have what you need.

>>52907810
That's what ITV spam is for.

>>52905749
You know they're just going to be soviets with better morale and worse skill or something right

>>52908247
I am thinking they'll have East German morale and Soviet skill for ultimate Spam that is if they ever are released.

>>52908278
At least in the volksarmee map they show poland and czechs units

>>52908328

Yeah, I saw that. BF themselves printed a map showing what Soviet forces are actually engaged at the front, but we still only got generic 'Red Banner' battalions for them.
NPC faction indeed.

>>52907271
Thanks, it is just for fun.

>>52907236
You have a core for most panzer or panzergrenadier lists. Desperate Measures should have some decent list choices for you. You can just decide to what units you'd like to add on. Maybe the new 10.5 cm artillery box and/or a couple of TANKS Puma blisters. Maybe some type of AA or a Stuka.

All in all you can run a meh list right now, but like $50 - $100 will get you a fully optimized list.

>>52909799

The thing is, I'm heavily invested in EW and MW (1940-1942) So all my stuff is painted grey, but I would like to try LW. I have a LW British force that I am collecting, but not yet painting. In the meantime I thought to quickly add to my Germans to make them at least playable in LW.

>>52909368
It's hardly NPC if all the other nations have generic options as well.

We don't see elite US forces that may have combat experience in Vietnam, or elite British forces that fought in the Falklands.

Does anyone know how white the paper for field or artillery maps was in WWII? Got a few maps on my models and I want to get the color right.

File: IMG_2729.jpg (53KB, 400x266px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 400x266px

>>52912946
I'd imagine it varied, especially from nation to nation, but photos I've found seem to suggest that in their original condition field maps were fairly white.

This pic is a field map of Hannover from 1945 and it seems only slightly off white.

>>52912642
>Falklands
To bad my shitty country would never join any side for team yankee

>>52910035
Panzergrenadiers are ok for EW-Lw. Panzer IVs are mostly MW-LW. Panthers are almost LW only. Sure, you can squeeze them into some MW lists, but that's usually silly and/or require good player skill to pull off.

So you should first decide if you want to run an infantry company with lots of tank support or a tank company with infantry support.

For the latter, Wiking SS Panzer Kampfgruppe from Grey Wolf should be really fun.

Well, BF sure move fucking fast. Someone said the "the T-55 list's fine because it's too expensive", and I posted a "if it ever was expensive we'd be seeing a lot more of them, good thing that's not going to happen". Deleted in like an hour.

File: IMG_2712.jpg (844KB, 2480x3508px) Image search: [Google]

844KB, 2480x3508px

>>52916217
Vaguely worded references to their competition is probably frowned on pretty heavily.

They know they dropped the ball there. And they know PSC picked it up and ran with it for all they're worth.

>>52916437
Yeah, but you can't ignore that "This thing is balanced because it's too expensive" is a dumb fucking argument you can only make by ignoring reality.

>>52916437
I'm ok with that, right now. If PSC would actually manage to release cool new kits every time BF fucks up, I'd be a very happy, very poor person.

>>52916640
I'd be happy if their next Cold War kit is the Leopard 1 or the M60.

>>52916873
>a non-resin, non shit, non deformed leopard 1

don't get my hopes up like that

>>52916873
Battlefront are almost certainly making an M60, they'd be better off making M48/47s, which were in use in a lot of places but BF only do in resin (and kind of old ones, at that).

>>52917026
There were supposedly some hints at a Leopard 1 being a possibility.

The semi-official position being "let's see how the T-55 sells first".

>>52917555
I worry a little this'll give misleading results; T-55s are spam tanks, so they're going to sell a fuckload of them. Conversely, Leos are smaller platoons you need less of for a full company, and they're not literally every NATO army like the T-55s are for the soviets. I dunno; PSC are good people and I would hate them to get burned.

>>52917844
i want leo 1a but i'm not buying battlefronts ones nor am i buying their tornados

>>52917844

>PSC are good people and I would hate them to get burned.

Along these lines, I really hate the throngs of fans on Facebook screeching at them about why the 1/72 releases take longer and demanding all sorts of obscure units in plastic. Where do they get off?

Honestly i believe PSC need to make some new infantry boxes, why they didn't make a new one? they don't sell well, or they are hard to make?

Something like kind of late-ish German infantry without ponchos, for mid war and early 1944.

>>52919520
>Honestly i believe PSC need to make some new infantry boxes, why they didn't make a new one? they don't sell well, or they are hard to make?
I can honestly see them selling really badly because they're such fantastic value; you sell one box and you have a company. The only faction that works for is the soviets... Who have ancient terrible sculpts, so, uh.

They'd probably make a fucking mint selling WW3 soviet infantry though. From me alone.

>>52919520

They're expensive to make and like >>52919599 said everyone only buys one. Same reason they don't do stuff like flakpanzers I suppose.

It was a shame too since they used to have "panzergrenadiers" in the coming soon/pipeline section of their website, which sounded like a euphemism for SS.

>>52919681
>They're expensive to make and like >>52919599 (You) said everyone only buys one.
I do wish they'd sell individual sprues. They might be better off selling, say, boxes for a platoon for £7.50-£8. It's higher overall cost but you can also buy what you actually want, if you want a platoon for some other 15mm game or you want a new platoon to do up as panzergrens to match bases with whatever, etc.

Question, especially if there's any people who're ex-service hovering here: How come so many US tanks have joke names and "nose art" and stuff on them, compared to tanks from other countries?

File: murrica bat rep.jpg (57KB, 720x594px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x594px

>>52896564
>>52899390

given what i know about France in the cold war, it would be Romanian Levels of Awesome if the French in TY could play as NATO reluctant or as rear-striking and confident-cautious Warsaw Pact.

think about it....

File: Leopard_1A5A1_2.jpg (241KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1600x1067px

>>52917844
>not a widely used tank
this will. unless they make Marqod happy and make a Dutch expansion.

which is why i am thinking of going full retard and making a whole new Leo1 list out of plastic. support those bros! afterall, 39 pts is a full 13 Leo1's, 21 pts gets you the 1+3+3 version, so 99 pts is 33 Leo1's......or 7 boxes....

worse, if THEY go full retard and add the back-bin and turret for Geppard out of the same kit....so, drop a box of Leo1's and add 2 boxes to field +8/+12 Geppards

>>52920368
>so, drop a box of Leo1's and add 2 boxes to field +8/+12 Geppards
Oh, man, yeah, that's a point. A Leo kit that did Leos and gepards would be insanely good.

>>52920368
>Plastic Leo 1
>Gepards option

They would at least sell a lot of kits to me. Magical realm achieved and TY meta rekt. Mission accomplished.

File: the universe agrees.jpg (46KB, 552x552px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 552x552px

>>52920445
>>52920483

>>52920483
>TY meta rekt
It's the thing the forums repeatedly don't get: You can't base the gameplay of TY on the fact resin (or six boxes of plastic) is expensive. I remember at launch everyone saying "Oh, the BMP list is super expensive, nobody would make it", and now everyone complains about how long games take with BMP spam. Now everyone's noticing that you can take 90 T-55s in 100 points, and that this probably has a struggle to fit on a table depending on terrain density, but they're going "But it's resin so that won't happen!".

It's depressing but I think TY probably needs a 2nd edition already.

>>52921020
That and they made a bunch of changes to V4 prime that where really really good, and now TY suffers for being the test ground. I think they should consider a joint ruleset, a 4.5 that covers both with some minor changes between them. Fix Platoon Morale, while it is frustrating to lose an entire platoon for taking a few casualties, it's also frustrating that platoons never break now. Tighten a few things up, make Command Distance less stupid.

File: Soviets-AsaiticHordes-Potato.jpg (367KB, 1022x453px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1022x453px

hey guys,
i was gonna post something different, but i think i created a thing instead....

call me out if i'm wrong....

>>52920368
>gepard option

my theoretical dick is so hard

File: IMG_2730.jpg (86KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x375px

>>52921384
That final image is in rather poor taste.

Perhaps some dumb Battle Droids instead?

>>52921020
I agree that certain cheese/spam lists will always exist in spite of apparent cost, but for people who play several different games and don't have infinite money, a plastic kit with a 2 for 1 option would lead to me running a lot more Gepards and Leopard in my list. I am kind of boycotting Battlefront resin for Team Yankee due to how shitty both boxes of my Leopard 1s were and bad quality of my second box of Gepards compared to the first.

>>52921970
would you prefer a spam can instead?

i guess we forgot about fearless potato...and the origin of that phrase.

>>52912642
>We don't see elite US forces that may have combat experience in Vietnam, or elite British forces that fought in the Falklands.

What are you talking about? By the '80s all the Vietnam vets would have been senior NCOs or battalion level officers. Experience in Vietnam also would not have prepared them for the armored warfare of WWIII (just as fighting the Germans in WWII didn't prepare them for Korea).

The British forces that saw action in the Falklands had less combat experience than Afgantsy, who BF have already established don't deserve much of a ratings bump for that experience (CHEERS!).

Meanwhile BF is trying to pretend whole Soviet divisions equipped with the latest gear and stationed on the inter-German border don't exist.

So far the only Soviet forces in the game are either second echelon or from Southern Group of Forces. Group of Soviet Forces Germany doesn't exist.

>>52924706
Also the Falklands War isn't much for teaching you how to deal with rampaging hordes of Soviet Tanks. The Argentine largely got whipped on the ground.

>>52866131
The fact that T-72Ms are shitty and terrible makes me sad.

>>52924737
Yep, and I don't think the experience would have done much for them anyway. The BAOR was regarded as the best trained NATO force for decades.

Having been shot at by the Argies isn't going to compare to being on the receiving end of a Soviet divisional artillery preparatory bombardment on your company position and then having a Soviet regiment roll in.

File: Tochka 4.jpg (79KB, 760x507px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 760x507px

>>52916640
>T-72As that would really be T-72As... And cheap
>BMPs so that you can run the only efficient type of east bloc list without paying out of the ass for resin
>non-potato Leo 1s

>>52920035
France was pretty ingrained in the NATO mentality, it isn't the 50s and 60s anymore where the Communist Party had something like 45% of the votes each time. They would not obey to US orders, wouldn't share ammo, but would fight the Pact.

Pic related, dick rn

>>52924885
the BF BMP is PLASTIC, good sir

File: 4-26.png (5MB, 2160x1216px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2160x1216px

>>52886862
Two days later, and falling behind on the command group is apparent. They still need khaki, but that's the last bit before they're done. The 3" mortar, 4.2" mortar, and HMG crewmen are all ready to go after a bit of cleaning, and then will enter the final stretch of my painting line.

>>52924953
Eh, my bad, you're right. Still resin priced though... especially compared with the PST T-55s or Skytrex's BMP-1, which is cheaper in resin than a Battlefront plastic one (Skytrex = 6.50£ = $8.35, Battlefront = 45/5 = $9)

>>52925150
You can build both the BMP-1 and BMP-2 with the Battlefront kit. You don't even need magnets, they fit snugly enough together. It's worth the money. Only problem is you need at the minimum 2 boxes + all the infantry to even play WarPac.

The sad state of Soviets in Team Yankee kind of makes me want to try and do a full unofficial restat of them

We can call it "Team Tankie" and it'll be glorious.

Would anyone be interested?

>>52925874
Start work by joining up on the Discord I guess.

>>52925970
Ah, didn't notice the link, thanks mate.

File: 20170427_090741-picsay.jpg (875KB, 2826x1727px) Image search: [Google]

875KB, 2826x1727px

I finished half of my blowpipe teams with poisoned dart, it is enough for the asiatic horde. It couldn't penetrate any of ze German steel, historically.

Cheers.

>>52924706
>So far the only Soviet forces in the game are either second echelon or from Southern Group of Forces. Group of Soviet Forces Germany doesn't exist

Now this is a new lever of cheers

File: image.jpg (45KB, 400x398px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x398px

>>52924706
>The British forces that saw action in the Falklands had less combat experience than Afgantsy
You only get the experience points if you finish your quest

Cheers

>>52928198
Aaawwh fuck you that's the first Cheers Post I've actually laughed at.

>>52928198

Good joke. +1 for Maggie thinking.

File: RAF Laughing.gif (1MB, 328x239px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 328x239px

>>52928198

File: British Soldier Laughing.gif (1MB, 435x331px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 435x331px

>>52928198
Spiffing good joke there chap.

>>52928405
Oh god that is why that british soldier animation looked so familiar.

I am the only one that is going to laugh for entire weak when the only tank that will fire ATGM from the gun barrel is going to be the Sheridan?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QReV0Y-yy0M

>>52928563
T-64s have it, they have the command system for it modelled on the plastic kit.

>>52928589

Missiles weren't supplied in sufficient numbers to frontline units.

Cheers.

File: 18176127_10212671416278274_2125005836_o.jpg (296KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 2048x1152px

>>52868515

>>52928618

Good job anon!

>>52928618
HOLY SHIT YOU DID IT ANON, thank you

Well the T-72M isn't great. Keeping all the good stuff to themselves was a big flaw in soviet planning.

File: MFW commies do anything.jpg (11KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 275x183px

>>52928198

>>52925150
Pretty sure BMPs are still £30 for a box, so it's £6 a tank. That's the same price as metals so I'm not going to cheer for them, but it's not more.

>>52928706
Oops, was meant to be a reply to >>52924772

>>52928563

That video is great. Those mustaches. LT running around with his pistol out.

>>52928589
If it gets AT 24 or 2+ FP it might actually make a difference with the shootout analysis. As-is, soviets just get taken apart in shooting with NATO MBTs, but if they either autopen or (basically) autopass firepower, that might mitigate the fact they hit on 5s against strong front armour.

>>52928765
>That video is great. Those mustaches. LT running around with his pistol out.

ikr? maximum 80's the best thing about the video are the comments

>>52928706
If i am not wrong the T-72M that should be in the game is the T-72M1, that is supposed to have mostly the same armor as the T-72A but with somekind shittier composites in the turret.

Most of those differences shouldn't be modeled in the game if we go by the old WW2 FoW standards. For example the difference between the L/43 and the L/48 or the Panzer IV G and H frontal armor.

But well they wanted to models East Germans as a more spammier version of Russians even though they have much less tanks.

File: Game-Designer-Played TEMPLATE.jpg (75KB, 1022x453px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1022x453px

gimme your best shot.

>>52929029
The east germans didn't have the T-72M1; they had the T-72M (soviet) and T-72M (polish). The latter is indeed on par with the T-72A, with greatly strengthed armour via RHA additions, but they also only started delivery in late 1985, so they should have few to none of them.

>>52929386
Well actually i am not really sure about the name since most russian designations seem to be mess.

What do you mean with the T-72M(soviet) and T-72M(polish) on the. But well some sources says that indeed had T-72M1.

I am pretty confused actually because for some reasons in the net most of the East Germans T-72 designation seems to be only T-72M even for the basics T-72 (1973) they upgraded in the 86.

In which years they recieved the each T-72 variants?

>>52929689
The soviet T-72M1 was more or less identical to the Polish T-72M, which might be why people are confused. The vehicles were ordered from Poland, though, so it's extremely unlikely they were M1s.

>>52929852
But i have read that Polish and Czechs produced both T-72M (Objekt 172M-E2,-E3,-E4; 1980 r.) and T-72M1 (Objekt 172M-E5,-E6; 1981 r.).

So are West Germans into spamming Milans with some tank support, or tanks with a small amount of Milans? How do they play, what does one look for in a WG list?

V4 proposal, as aircraft are currently so durable they can freely fly into AA fire:

Any aircraft unit that takes 5 or more hits from AA fire must call off their attack. Hits with an unmodified firepower of 6+ are ignored for this purpose when shooting against Flying Tanks.

There, now pilots aren't crazy invincible sky knights that dive fearlessly into a wall of flak because it can't hurt them, and will instead actually have to avoid serious concentrations of AA guns or be forced to abort their attack (just like in real life).

File: e373186abf9ecd8f7d376e8ee9c83f2ced9e8648352f4464f7d10824cab4eb54.jpg (8KB, 204x255px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 204x255px

>>52928198
> Falklands
> Total embarrassment of a war that revealed clinical failings in the British army's capacity to respond to threats, the limitations of the Tory ruined Navy and the threat of collapsing supplies
> Used to distract people from the disastrous policies of Maggie the Milk Snatcher, whom had actually provided the Argentinians with weapons before the war began
> tiny skirmish compared to anything that happened in Afghanistan

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

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

>>52931438
t. argie

File: 8e6b417aea9a2c1d506a70553a2ef020.jpg (65KB, 530x600px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 530x600px

>>52931438
Get out Corbyn

>>52930842
West Germans can pretty much do anything you want them too. They have access to the strongest tank in the game and the best AAA. If you take a look at Panzertruppen they become very flexible. A Leopard 1 centric list is certainly viable as the gun can readily deal with anything short of a T-72. Jaguar 2's and M113 Zugs are readily available to bulk up the AT of your force. You could also spam Milans with M113 Zugs and throw in a few tanks to back them up.


Right now the force I am looking at is.

M113 Company HQ- 1
2 x M113 Company Full- 14
1 x M113 Company Short- 4
4 x Gepards - 10
4 Fliegerfausts - 4


Panzeraufklarungs Company HQ- 1
2 x Leo 1 Auf. Zug - 18
2 x Fuchs Auf. Zug - 8
4 x Luchs Spah - 4

SUPPORT
Full LARS Battery w/ mine - 7
M113 OP - 1
Full Tornado strike flight- 8

80 points

I think I have finally found a use for the Fuchs platoons. They are a cheaper roadblock force that you can deploy in front of your Milan heavy M113 Zugs. Unlike the short Panzergrenadier platoons, you get 3 Panzerfausts MG teams and 3 APCs with MGs. If the opportunity arises you can deploy them off a Luchs recon move where they can cause trouble in the enemy's back field, digging in and tossing a couple of milans at their support vehicles.

File: VolksSPAMee.png (7MB, 3333x1480px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 3333x1480px

>>52929069
I'll play.

File: image.jpg (63KB, 518x506px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 518x506px

>>52931438
>do an embarrassingly bad job with supply lines thousands of miles long
>win anyway
God save the Queen

>>52931901
Welcome to the magical world of Argentinian military incompetence

>>52931658
Jajajajaja....

File: 1493209694888.gif (991KB, 292x219px) Image search: [Google]

991KB, 292x219px

>>52931901
Didn't the Falklands Island have 14 royal marines on the island keeping the first wave at bay before a proper force could be assembled.

File: Somethings Fishy.jpg (148KB, 1022x363px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1022x363px

>>52929069

>>52931479
But it wasn't me

>>52932076
I snorted.

>>52931944
>"military"

What do you spect from a de facto government put by the Americans, with used and shitty equipement bought from them.

With a conscript army of one of the most shitty people that think they are the centre of the world.

t. argie

>>52932076
Hahaha... I was not expecting the last pic.

File: image.jpg (26KB, 480x259px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x259px

>>52932076
Lel

>>52931479
I'm British.

I consider the Falklands war entirely justified because the local population wished to remain part of Britain and it was clearly a move by the Argentinian government to distract its population from its colossal failures.

However Falklands hero worship is physically noxious.

>>52932293
Shhh - don't mention that our loyal allies, the Americans, had no interest in helping us at all and ended up doing more to help the Agries

>>52933038
Yep, the falklands war itself was justified. The actual war was a clusterfuck that should've been embarrassing to the government for the amount of cuts that'd been made.

>>52933114
People really don't seem to realise the Conservatives aren't on the army's side - I mean personally the state of the British army at this point is utterly atrocious and a complete disgrace to the country as a whole. The fact we even came close to losing to Argentina is a sign something was deeply wrong.

>>52933197
I don't think anyone other than UKIP is really on the military's side here 2bh.

>>52933293
If UKIP were in charge of the Falklands war Black Buck would have fallen apart as the navigators tried to find "bongo bongo land"

>>52933765
Nah, they were going to British territory. Now, if they had tried going after anything in Argentina proper they'd have somehow ended up in Alaska.

>>52934004
>Malvinas
>British territory
Pick one.

File: 18118988_1993680327522096_3974943166035632388_n.jpg (50KB, 500x566px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x566px

>>52934513
They did...it remained British territory.

>>52934513
Well, since there's no place called the Malvinas by any notable or relevant polity, that's a pretty easy choice.

File: Sod off argies.jpg (185KB, 1000x676px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1000x676px

>>52934513
Nice meme lad

>>52933197
The British army is fine, its following the same policy its had for quite a while now of reducing to a small, relatively elite force to be used on overseas expeditions and as a solid foundation upon which a larger force can rapidly be built.

Its the navy thats in a relatively poor state, although a decline is to be expected given the way both the world and warfare has changed.

Using the Falklands conflict as a case study of army failings is nonsense considering that the only dicey parts were on the side of the naval/air war, British forces dominated every single land battle fought.

Its also unfair to treat argentina like it was some third world army when it was in fact a decently equipped force let down by a system of conscription and command incompetence.

>>52905749
>>52908247

The guy at Cancon said that Poles were almost certainly not going to be a part of TY.

>How would they really be different to what exists at the moment?

>>52909368
So, realistic then?

>>52935372
Nice for you to join us Phil.

>>52935359
Doesn't this directly contradict what they said about doing everything on the map?

>>52935445
What, you think the 'Guards' divisions were actually elite? Even the A divisions were only conscripts without real NCOs.

>>52935471
I wasn't aware that they said that, but like I said. The guy didn't seem to think that BF gave a fuck about doing the Poles. Which isn't that surprising, considering the equipment they would have had. Which is the problem they have with a lot of the WARPACT, really. Homogeneity.

>>52935496
But with far more better equipment

>>52935605
More like a higher priority for the modern stuff.
Also
>far better
It's not like the A divs were getting T-55s.

>>52934929
>Its also unfair to treat argentina like it was some third world army
Can we please not use "third world" and "developing country" interchangeably when discussing the Cold War? Argentina was a neutral country aligned with neither the USA or the USSR and was therefore third world by definition.

>>52935848
>implying the argies aren't pinko revolutionary anarcho-trot entryist backstabbers for attacking Are Great Britan

You can't ever escape the Cheer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW-EanyHJF8

>>52936597

Wonky translation. Still, awesome song.

File: MILAN.jpg (110KB, 560x612px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 560x612px

>>52936597
*blocks your path*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdzWI3J-780