Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Team Yankee

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Janos
    replied
    Each ground squadron also had a "How battery" (M109s) for fire support.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin Kenneally
    replied
    Team Yankee OoB

    I read Team Yankee way back in the 1980s.

    So the make up for the 11th ACR during that time is as follows: (Only fighting elements)

    Regt HQ.
    2x M1 (105mm)
    2xCFV (M3 version of the Bradley)

    1st Squadron:
    A, B, C Troops: (all the same).

    12x CFV
    8 x M1 ( 105mm)
    3x M106 (4.2"Mtr in APC)
    1x M577 (Cmd & Control).

    D Company
    17x M1 (105mm)

    HHT
    2x CFV

    2nd Squadron:
    E, F, G Troops: Same as 1st Squadron.

    H Company: Same as D Co.
    HHT

    3rd Squadron: Same as 1st Squadron.
    I, K, L Troops

    M Company.
    HHT

    4th Squadron:
    N, O, P Troops.
    Air Cavalry with OH 58s x Cobras.
    Apaches were not in the book.
    HHT
    R & S Troops were Support & Maint for the aircraft.

    Been over 20 years, but might need to re-read that book again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naffenea
    replied
    His tanks were never destroyed by enemy fire. The first threw a track during the assault on hill whatever and his driver died during the artillery barrage. His crew was the one to destroy it before CM. The second he commanded for the rest of the war.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tankboy
    replied
    Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
    Why would anyone want to read a novel about war, if was not to capture the essence of it? Team Yankee was about force structure??

    Do you mean concept or perception?

    Far be it for me to destroy any childhood delusions about combat.

    rna
    For entertainment, as much as you may laugh at this, many people enjoy reading novels about war but don't necessarily want to be reminded of its actuality. IMO if you want to capture the essence of it, go fight in one, don't bother reading a book, because I highly doubt any book can truly capture the "essence" of a battlefield after the fight. Honestly makes my stomach turn a little just to try and image what it must smell like.


    Not to mention, how bloody do you really get inside a tank? I always figured unless the tank gets hit you are generally rather safe from the gore. Even if it is hit and the person survived (as the character would have to) wouldn't burns be more of a problem? Although I don't really know how terrible a traumatic amputation would be, so perhaps I should keep my mouth shut. It has been a while since I read the book but (SPOILER) the only event I recall that Bannon should have gotten bloody in was when his tank was destroyed.
    Last edited by Tankboy; 30 Nov 07, 20:38.

    Leave a comment:


  • R.N. Armstrong
    replied
    Originally posted by jthomas View Post
    Personally, I would take issue with this whole critique, aside from it being an "American army officer's vision of the future battlefield in Europe in the 1980's". That is precisely what it was and never really pretended to anything greater.

    the general concept of warfare of that time.

    .
    Why would anyone want to read a novel about war, if was not to capture the essence of it? Team Yankee was about force structure??

    Do you mean concept or perception?

    Far be it for me to destroy any childhood delusions about combat.

    rna

    Leave a comment:


  • jthomas
    replied
    Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
    IMO, "Team Yankee" illustrated the average American army officer's vision of the future battlefield in Europe in the 1980's. The book's battlefield lacks chaos; it's clear, the book hero is never confused. The book's battlefield is antiseptic; the hero rarely sees nor gets blood on him. The enemy is unthinking automatons making any American organization, plan, and tactic easy.
    Personally, I would take issue with this whole critique, aside from it being an "American army officer's vision of the future battlefield in Europe in the 1980's". That is precisely what it was and never really pretended to anything greater.

    The battlefield being antiseptic? The passage mentioned above about stepping on a severed limb, or the description of the tank driver who died from blood agent? In a sense there are parts that are rather bloodless in the telling, such as the description of the initial Soviet attack, where most of the killing was done at long ranges- but there you have it. I don't believe Coyle has ever been that much given to gorefests. Also, the focus of the narrative was intentionally through one person's eyes, so the enemy might very well appear to be automatons, if they are buttoned up inside their tanks, or at pretty long ranges, which was the general concept of warfare of that time.

    Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
    If you would like to read a more realistic contrast to this benign battlefield, read Ralph Peters' novel, Red Army. You will be much closer to 'men in battle'.
    With this I concur wholeheartedly. Peters does an excellent job of portraying the gritty details.

    Interestingly, the two novels are based on the same larger narrative in "The Third World War: The Untold Story", a novel by Sir John Hackett. Coyle from the US point of view, Peters from the Soviet- they both used the over-arching strategic construct of Hackett to frame their stories.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    It's the old "combined arms" concept, much like the German Panzer/PanzerGrenadier teams in WWII.

    In the 8th Infantry Division, my outfit during the Cold War in Europe,, armor never fought as a single unit. My brigade was "standard", with two Mech Infantry battalions and one armor. When we went tactical the tank battalion sent one company of tanks to each mech battalion, and each mech battalion swapped a company of mech infantry to the tankers, resulting in three potent hybrid mechanized battalions capable of taking on pretty much anything, or so the theory went.

    Frankly, I thought the 15:1 enemy advantage pretty much made the whole idea moot.
    Last edited by Mountain Man; 25 Oct 07, 19:25.

    Leave a comment:


  • Listy
    replied
    Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong View Post
    he book hero is never confused. The book's battlefield is antiseptic; the hero rarely sees nor gets blood on him.
    Apart from the whole cut off near Arnsdorf bit...

    I liked The Ten Thousand quiet a bit as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • mirrorshades
    replied
    It actually caught me a bit off guard when after the first action, the captain was walking towards the platoon that had been hit the hardest -- he stepped on a tree branch, which snapped. Then, he looked down and saw that it was not really a branch, but rather the severed arm of one of his men. Ook.

    I have heard that as a criticism of the book, but I still am enjoying it so far. It's an interesting look into (admittedly, "by-the-book") mission and operation planning, which I am finding very different than just playing wargames on the computer.

    Leave a comment:


  • R.N. Armstrong
    replied
    IMO, "Team Yankee" illustrated the average American army officer's vision of the future battlefield in Europe in the 1980's. The book's battlefield lacks chaos; it's clear, the book hero is never confused. The book's battlefield is antiseptic; the hero rarely sees nor gets blood on him. The enemy is unthinking automatons making any American organization, plan, and tactic easy.

    If you would like to read a more realistic contrast to this benign battlefield, read Ralph Peters' novel, Red Army. You will be much closer to 'men in battle'.

    rna

    Leave a comment:


  • LRB
    replied
    A buddy of mine actually got to participate in the actual maneuvers depicted in the book, and meet with the actual persons from the book.

    It's a book based on an actual training manual which is interesting.

    Myself, I have only read the fictionalized version.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tankboy
    replied
    It's an excellent book. I really enjoyed reading it.

    Leave a comment:


  • mirrorshades
    started a topic Team Yankee

    Team Yankee

    I'm a couple chapters into Team Yankee now, and I was finding it a bit difficult to get the make-up of Bannon's unit. ("Team" is not parlance I'm familiar with.)

    I found a reference in a US Army field manual, courtesy globalsecurity.org, that gives a man-by-man breakdown of a standard tank "company team":

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...1/711-ch1f.htm

    This really helped me to visualize who each person is in the unit, as well as the relative size of the unit.

    Full ToC for the FM is here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../army/fm/71-1/

    (Ok, so this is probably unnecessary... but I thought it was a cool resource, so I'd share it.)

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X