twilight2000-digest Thursday, September 11 1997 Volume 1996 : Number 054 The following topics are covered in this digest: RE: Tw2000 v.1.1 RE: Tw2000 v.1.1 Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) Re: Too much Re: Too much Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) Re: merc:2000 on the internet Re: merc:2000 on the internet RE: merc:2000 on the internet Re: merc:2000 on the internet Re: merc:2000 on the internet Re: merc:2000 on the internet RE: merc:2000 on the internet Russian attack Re: Russian attack Re: Russian attack Re: Russian attack Re: Russian attack Re: Russian attack Re: Russian attack ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:24:20 -0500 From: David Reed Subject: RE: Tw2000 v.1.1 > I'd like to play and run still, If only I could find a group, > so why doesn't everyone who's been adding traffic to the list recently > pipe > up and say what city and state (and country) they're from? From or prisoner in? ;-) Houston, TX. ______________________________________________________________________ David Reed | All wickedness is weakness: that plea therefore | With God or Man will gain thee no remission. david@techrefuge.com | -John Milton, "Samson Agonistes" ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:44:28 -0500 From: David Reed Subject: RE: Tw2000 v.1.1 On Friday, September 05, 1997 09:19, KAPPAABZ@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 97-09-05 06:50:25 EDT, you write: > > > Why doesn't anyone play it anymore? > > Hmmmmmm....................................................... Notwithstanding the general decline of the hobby, er "profession", of roleplaying... [Reganomics snipped] I think this had some merit to it. Lots of kids today just do not identify with ground actions. Their idea of warfare is Desert "Bomb 'em back into the stone age" Storm. "You mean I might get shot? Bummer. I'll stay home and watch Beavis 'n Butthead."-type mentality. "Draft? Oh, well, Bill went to Canada; me, too." I miss the Cold War already, and my hero, my king, Ronald "Raygun" Regan. I think some games that've been off the shelf for a while would make a better come back: 007, SPI, Dark Conspiracy (why didn't Tantalus run with this during the height of the X-files?)... Thank Allah, CCGs are dying!!! > Lack of adequete adventures? Version 1 had throngs of modules produced > that > could be played out in many gaming sessions. Versions 2+ didn't. Their Hadn't thought about this one. But true. I never did by the 2+ modules. I still had all of the older ones that worked just fine. > 2.0+ also seemed a bit tooo holywoodish. Many of my PCs straight out of > the rules started out as Majors and above.........Version 1, captains were > hard enough to attain, and a major was a high freaking rank. Also it's too > easy to be Ranger, SEAL, Green Beret, etc......in Version 2.0+ after a while > of all that, you want to turn the movie off...................... > Don't get me wrong, I do like 2.0's combat system (for the most part). Yes... But I think still "too realistic" for many newbies today. Case in point: the success of Rifts, Vamp/Werewolf/Whatever, et al. > It ain't Vampire. ..................Many youths today like that kind of > Role Playing Game better........and most gamers (average age being 16 - -18) What about it, though? Is it really the Goth atmosphere? Or is it simply "more" escapist than T2k? I'm also not sure how long the hobby will last in the face of rapidly expanding and increasing in complexity multiplayer online games. Sometimes, when my players really start getting annoying, I'm tempted to either go to PBeM or give up and play Diablo instead. ;-( Less overhead, until we get campaign/adventure creators for online, real time roleplaying. It's coming... If only I can determine a feasible economic model for it, and pitch it to investors. ______________________________________________________________________ David Reed | All wickedness is weakness: that plea therefore | With God or Man will gain thee no remission. david@techrefuge.com | -John Milton, "Samson Agonistes" ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 10:34:52 -0400 From: mark h walker Subject: Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 >>I think this had some merit to it. Lots of kids today just do not identify with ground actions. Their idea of warfare is Desert "Bomb 'em back into the stone age" Storm. "You mean I might get shot? Bummer. I'll stay home and watch Beavis 'n Butthead."-type mentality. "Draft? Oh, well, Bill went to Canada; me, too." I miss the Cold War already, and my hero, my king, Ronald "Raygun" Regan.<< David, I know you meant no harm, however, we had approx 500 casualties in DS. The Air Force would like us to believe they won the war, and they certainly helped (as did the Navy). There was, however, plenty (if that's the word for it) of fighting. More Iraqi tanks were destroyed by tank cannon fire than by any other means. The best way to kill a tank is still with another tank --especially if your riding an Abrams. Not meant to criticize, just inform. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 14:15:47 -0500 From: David Reed Subject: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) On Saturday, September 06, 1997 09:35, mark h walker wrote: > I know you meant no harm, however, we had approx 500 casualties in DS. Yes, I knew one of the front line casualties personally. And a second who came down with 'leukemia' and died this year. Both Marines. I think, if you count secondary casualties (due to mishandling of chem-bio disposal et al), that the number was higher. I count my TOW gunner buddy who was diagnosed with 'leukemia' six months later (while at Git'mo), even though he'd never had any childhood symptoms, as a casualty of DS. You missed my entire point. Typical confusion of *truth* with popular perception, no offense taken. > The Air Force would like us to believe they won the war, and they > certainly helped (as did the Navy). There was, however, plenty (if > that's the word for it) of fighting. More Iraqi tanks were destroyed by > tank cannon fire than by any other means. The best way to kill a tank is > still with another tank --especially if your riding an Abrams. I realize and share your disgruntlement, however, you missed my point... I wasn't trying to exemplify the Truth of DS, but the popular impression of what occurred in DS amongst many of the "new" generation who don't understand that somebody still has to occupy the square footage. I will take issue with "another tank is the best way to kill a tank", though. It depends on a lot of extenuating circumstances: terrain, budget, mission, training, etc. A TOW gunner on a hummer with proper arty and/or air support CAN be much more effective, and cost efficient... but not always. > Not meant to criticize, just inform. No need to tell me, friend. I know. I'm sorry CNN (and probably the Pentacular) don't share our view, but their view is the most prevalent amongst the public, and influences our potential gaming crowd. And irregardless of personal loss, 500+ casualties isn't very many in the over all scheme of wars in history. ______________________________________________________________________ David Reed | All wickedness is weakness: that plea therefore | With God or Man will gain thee no remission. david@techrefuge.com | -John Milton, "Samson Agonistes" ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 15:54:49 -0500 From: "Darrell Swoap" Subject: Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) >> The best way to kill a tank is >> still with another tank --especially if your riding an Abrams. > >I will take issue with "another tank is the best way to kill a tank", >though. It depends on a lot of extenuating circumstances: terrain, >budget, mission, training, etc. A TOW gunner on a hummer with proper arty >and/or air support CAN be much more effective, and cost efficient... but >not always. > And on the expensive end of the spectrum... My unit, the 1st Bn. 3rd Aviation, while attached to the 1st Cavalry Div, was noted for having "the most direct fire tank kills in the division." Although I love tanks, and tankers, I tend to show favoritism towards AH-64s...as far as I am concerned, the best way to kill a tank is with a Hellfire from 5 miles out. :-) Darrell ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 16:37:21 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) Darrell Swoap wrote: > And on the expensive end of the spectrum... Aircraft generally are. An AH-64A Apache is going for a cool sixteen million greenbacks (and some change) and in the course of the chopper's lifetime- the warrant officer pilots and gunners and maintenance crew adds on considerably to the cost (the airframes are cheap- training effectively is expensive) > My unit, the 1st Bn. 3rd Aviation, while attached to the 1st Cavalry Div, 1/3 AVA still around? I thought with the musical chairs all of the First Team's battalions that weren't cav got reflagged as cav squadrons? > was noted for having "the most direct fire tank kills in the division." > Although I love tanks, and tankers, I tend to show favoritism towards > AH-64s...as far as I am concerned, the best way to kill a tank is with a > Hellfire from 5 miles out. :-) Problem is that an attack chopper has to go back to FARP to reload and top the tanks off and all a/c are very vulnerable to ground fire. Attack choppers fills that all important niche- air forces exist for deep strike and interdiction and to command the skies. Fighters will not always be availiable to ground forces. Attack choppers "belong" to a divisional commander and must used in conjunction with other forces- with their relative speed and the ability to pop up behind the terrain and hammer the enemy attack and scout choppers become a division's aerial screening and forward recon force and able to conudct pursuit and battlefield interdiction missions (flying at 150 knots plus means having to engage the enemy faster). Unfortunately many air forces operate attack choppers isntead of giving them to their country's respective armies- IDF and the RNLAF perfect examples of these and probably until recently Frontal aviation had control of the SU/Russia's attack helicopter regiments (although technically the Red Army consisted of all the armed forces except the navy) On the other hand choppers aren't substitute for tanks. They can't take ground and have only a limited amount of firepower to kill hardened targets (ie tanks). And since choppers have to fall by the laws of physics they aren't gonna be able to shrug off damage like tanks and thus more vulnerable to enemy fire- lower caliber AA guns and light SAMs makes being a chopper crew a hazardous profession (but what else is new?). And while faster than tanks and IFVs- at only 150 knots or so before redlining the engines attack choppers are very slow compared to fighters which generally cruise around 400-500 knots (and more if the jet jocket decides to really crank the throttle and kick in the burners) and rotary winged a/c most operate in an environment where one's side has clear dominance of the skies... Mad Mike Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 21:13:17 -0400 From: mark h walker Subject: Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) David, Good points all. I enjoyed the post. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 21:17:42 -0400 From: mark h walker Subject: Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) Good point Darrell. We saw a vid in war college, with some incredible footage of AH-64s taking out T-72s before the Iraqis knew they were in trouble. Still I remember reading (I think it was in Certain Victory) about a Iraqi armored battalion that lost 3 tanks during the entire air war and the rest in three minutes against an Americam Armored unit. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 22:54:24 -0500 From: "Darrell Swoap" Subject: Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) > 1/3 AVA still around? I thought with the musical chairs all of >the First Team's battalions that weren't cav got reflagged as cav >squadrons? Actually, we were part of the 2nd Armored Division, but were attached to the 1st Cav. during the Gulf War. Three months after returning to Ft. Hood, 1/3 Avn was moved lock, stock, and barrel to Ft. Campbell where it became the 2/101st Avn, where I was for four years...but I digress. ... Long paragraph with great points snipped for brevity. ... All excellent points there. I have to agree that aircraft alone aren't worth a damn, and the only way to gain ground is by putting a ground unit on it. The only real point I have is that the desert was an outstanding target range for the Apache...where else can you hover unmolested and pick and choose your targets 5+ miles away without even being spotted? All that aside, helicopters had it extremely easy in the Gulf...a virtual lack of enemy aircraft/complete allied air supremacy, virtually non-existent/incompetent enemy air defenses, and miles and miles of nice flat terrain with very few blocking terrain features. It's my opinion that Army aviation would not have been *nearly* so effective had the Iraqis been able to put up any kind of air defense. We definitely saw an extreme end of the ass-kicking spectrum in Iraq. Darrell ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 01:49:42 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 In a message dated 97-09-06 13:33:29 EDT, you write: > > Well I am "young" at 17 and still rember the cold war, but it is just little > things like Regan coming on the TV when I was 6 shut up, punk! you kids today think you know everything! Where were you when I was sucking sand in Iraq? At home playing with your pet turtle....................................... And another thing, John, didn't all m,y years at GMing Twilight let you in on anything? :-) Chris ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 01:57:31 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 In a message dated 97-09-06 09:40:50 EDT, you write: > Dark Conspiracy (why didn't Tantalus run with > this during the height of the X-files?) Good question. Why hasn't Tantalus done alot of things? Well.........they "have something in the works, but can't say what it is" Yawn................................ > Or is it simply "more" escapist than T2k? True.................total fantasy. Plus today's youth is all screwed up anyway, right John? Chris ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 01:57:37 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Tw2000 v.1.1 In a message dated 97-09-06 09:46:11 EDT, you write: > > I thought this was fixed in v2.2 which made Tw2k an 'alternate reality' > where Yeltsin's revolution didn't succeed. > > BTW, according to the 2.2 timeline, we'd be digging ourselves out of the > rubble right about now... Couldn't tell you. Never really invested any time in reading 2.2's anything.......... Acording to the original timeline, I'd be Saudi Arabia, resting and refitting...... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 02:09:03 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) Darrell Swoap wrote: > All excellent points there. I have to agree that aircraft alone aren't worth > a damn, and the only way to gain ground is by putting a ground unit on it. > The only real point I have is that the desert was an outstanding target > range for the Apache...where else can you hover unmolested and pick and > choose your targets 5+ miles away without even being spotted? Iraqis waving white hankies to Delta model Kiowas and CNN newsies aside it's an old story if a state wnat a piece of territory so the country looks better on a map better send in the grunts... (and there's never enough goddamn infantry to begin with) > All that aside, helicopters had it extremely easy in the Gulf...a virtual > lack of enemy aircraft/complete allied air supremacy, virtually > non-existent/incompetent enemy air defenses, and miles and miles of nice > flat terrain with very few blocking terrain features. Egg-zactly. Although God knows what would have happened to all the air cav squadrons and attack aviation battalions if the Iraqis decided to fight a little bit harder- 23 and 14.5mm mounts are cheap and everybody knows that even BMPs carry shoulder fired SAMs. Those weapons systems are lethal against low flying and slow a/c. Then again considering that Coalition forces controlled the night and cut off supplies from the very onset... While the Gulf's terrain certainly did help American/Allied aircraft often chopper pilots had to rewrite the books on how to fly. Attack choppers like the terrain to their advantage- rolling hills and forests of Southern Germany (warrant officers that have been deployed to Korea point out that country's perfect Apache and Cobra country). Often in the Gulf rotary winged aircraft had to fly much higher than nap of earth (due to the burning oil) and attack targets a la dive bombers (at elast with dug in equipment- after more than six months the iraqis built plenty of defilade positions) > It's my opinion that > Army aviation would not have been *nearly* so effective had the Iraqis been > able to put up any kind of air defense. We definitely saw an extreme end of > the ass-kicking spectrum in Iraq. To paraphrase the thoughts of Moshe Daytan it's generally good when one can arrange a fight with Arabs. I'd like to point out Egypt made Israel look very bad during October of '73 but in any events it seems that overall competence of the Iraqi military left something to be desired and/or that the six weeks prior of letting everybody's air forces running amuck all over Iraq and Kuwait had something to do with it... Of course now America has dug herself a pretty deep hole. The public expects wars to be short and bloodless. America has been traditionally competent in waging war of slow attrition here weight of numbers and the firepower grinds the enemy's forces faster than they can repalce them... (of course during the 1970s we had to look at WW2 German "blitzkrieg" in how to fight an army- the Soviets- that was no doubt bigger and who had good equipment and who were supposedly ten feet tall). Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 06:56:56 -0400 From: mark h walker Subject: Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) What is everyone's opinion of the Republican Guard? Being an ex-squid, I had no personal opinion. At war college I wrote an ops paper on how Iraq could have won (they couldn't, unless the American citizens let him), so I did quite a bit of research. Of course I know about Madina Ridge and 73 Easting. But I also found that despite the serious ass-kicking we administered, the Rep Guard tried to manuver against VII Corp and frequently fought hard, although we still wiped them slick. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 23:10:21 +0000 From: andy.sim@ndirect.co.uk Subject: Re: Too much > > How are some ways all of you deal with the problem of groups that need > > nothing? > > Break something. ;-) That's what those wear values and enemy artillery > are for... Even an RPG or two is a nice little surprise which can bring a > mobile "force" back into pauper status. > > In my experience, there isn't a group that "needs" nothing. Even if they > have EVERYTHING (which should NOT happen if you're controlling your > rewards carefully), they probably still don't have: > > 1. Gasoline > 2. Aircraft > 3. English-speaking friends in a communist country > 4. Gold > 5. Enough ammo > 6. Self-propelled arty > 7. Battle dress (Powered Body Armor) > 8. An FGMP-15 (Fusion Gun, Man-Portable, Tech 15) > > Oops. Traveller snuck out again in #s 7 and 8, but you get the picture. > And according to Murphy's Law, you can never have enough #5... > > > I ment that in Tw2000 you can get too much ammo and weapons in start > > > and > > > in the game... That is what I ment on my text... You're quite right, according to the rules the PCs do start with way too much equipment. The first time we played TW2K the entire first session was spent on buying equipment! As a GM I'm very stingy and give them a chart to roll on for all their basic equipment (including weapons and fatigues). Once this is done I let them have $1,000 per point of initiative. They start light, but after having fought throughout WWIII there shouldn't be too much equipment left anyway. Once they start amassing supplies again just throw a grenade in the back of a truck, or have a supplier charge exorbitant prices for food or essential supplies. Andy. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 04:44:22 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Too much In a message dated 97-09-07 20:08:19 EDT, you write: > As a GM I'm very stingy and give them a chart to roll on for all > their basic equipment (including weapons and fatigues). I'd like to take a peek at that chart......... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 04:53:50 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) In a message dated 97-09-07 07:57:40 EDT, you write: > What is everyone's opinion of the Republican Guard? Being an ex-squid, I > had no personal opinion from personal experience? well................they did have a problem retaining their balance. They did "fall down" alot once we got ahold of them. The normal units were more than gracious about being captured, while the "republican guard" were assholes, so they had accidents...................... Chris, EX- 82nd Airbone Division, Military Police Officer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 11:21:04 -0400 From: Scott Lazzari Subject: Re: Discussion of history (was RE: Tw2000 v.1.1) The Rep. Guard has (had) a long and distinguished history. Remember the war between Iraq and Iran - these guys were battle hardened vets. Yes, they did put up a good fight, and even scored a few kills, but we wiped them clean due to superior training, morale, tactics, weapon systems, and most of all, soldiers. Given different circumstances, ie better Iraqi morale and motivation, things could have turned out a little different. Scott Lazzari ex - Cavalry Scout, 3Bde 1st AD At 06:56 AM 9/7/97 -0400, you wrote: >What is everyone's opinion of the Republican Guard? Being an ex-squid, I >had no personal opinion. At war college I wrote an ops paper on how Iraq >could have won (they couldn't, unless the American citizens let him), >so I did quite a bit of research. Of course I know about Madina Ridge >and 73 Easting. But I also found that despite the serious ass-kicking we >administered, the Rep Guard tried to manuver against VII Corp and >frequently fought hard, although we still wiped them slick. >Mark > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 12:23:26 PDT From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Re: merc:2000 on the internet If you are really checking out Internet Twilight:2000-sites, then look also http://www.techrefuge.com/hector/twiweb-cd.htm You can find some links also, if you just search a little. >you write: >>Merc:2000 rulez... Well, in my opinion at least. Bad thing you can't >>find anything for it from Internet. Because I am GM in Merc:2000 (I use >>Twilight:2000 v.2.2 rules) I would happily get every material what you >>can find, but noo.... > >http://world.std.com/~Ted7/convoy.htm >http://world.std.com/~Ted7/cabinda.htm > >mitch >"I would advise against consulting geese in matters of spelling." > -Charlotte's Web > >Ted7@world.std.com >http://world.std.com/~Ted7 > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 13:23:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: Re: merc:2000 on the internet Greetings: On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Teemu Niemi wrote: > If you are really checking out Internet Twilight:2000-sites, then look > also http://www.techrefuge.com/hector/twiweb-cd.htm Thanks for the plug. :) I haven't had a chance to do anything with my site in several months now (reality has a way of interfering with one's hobbies). A visitor to my site reported that some of the links are now out of date, but I have not had a chance to go through them yet. - -Chris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:31:49 -0500 From: David Reed Subject: RE: merc:2000 on the internet On Tuesday, September 09, 1997 15:23, Christopher Callahan wrote: [snip] > Thanks for the plug. :) I haven't had a chance to do anything with my > site It really is a great site for T2k, folks, or any militarily-focussed RPG for that matter. > in several months now (reality has a way of interfering with one's > hobbies). A visitor to my site reported that some of the links are now > out > of date, but I have not had a chance to go through them yet. Now, Chris, if you were a Microslave, you'd have all kinds of automated toolz at your disposal to check those, and even fix them automagically. But you insist on using that "other" platform... :-) You and I are in the same dinghy... Too little RealWorld(tm) time to do anything important! Whatcha been up to? BTW, are you still maintaining two separate, semi-parallel sites? ______________________________________________________________________ David Reed | All wickedness is weakness: that plea therefore | With God or Man will gain thee no remission. david@techrefuge.com | -John Milton, "Samson Agonistes" ______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 09:44:31 -0700 From: Hale Subject: Re: merc:2000 on the internet Teemu Niemi wrote: > http://www.techrefuge.com/hector/twiweb-cd.htm > http://world.std.com/~Ted7/convoy.htm > http://world.std.com/~Ted7/cabinda.htm Found the last 2 sites but couldn't get to the first one. Got the message "File not found". Anyone know whats up? TTFN Ron Hale ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:31:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: Re: merc:2000 on the internet Greetings All: > Teemu Niemi wrote: > > http://www.techrefuge.com/hector/twiweb-cd.htm > Found the last 2 sites but couldn't get to the first one. Got the > message "File not found". Anyone know whats up? > TTFN > Ron Hale The file extension is ".html", rather than ".htm". I'm not one of the 8.3 Windows types. :) Sorry I didn't notice the error in my prevous reply to his original post. That is just my page of links. The first page of my Twilight section is at http://www.techrefuge.com/hector/NeNaQuery.html - -Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 23:21:06 PDT From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Re: merc:2000 on the internet Sorry, my mistake, I should have checked that address when I wrote it. But good to have it cleared... ;) Teemu >Christopher Callahan wrote: >> Teemu Niemi wrote: >> > http://www.techrefuge.com/hector/twiweb-cd.htm >> Found the last 2 sites but couldn't get to the first one. Got the >> message "File not found". Anyone know whats up? >> TTFN >> Ron Hale > >The file extension is ".html", rather than ".htm". I'm not one of the 8.3 >Windows types. :) Sorry I didn't notice the error in my prevous reply to >his original post. That is just my page of links. The first page of my >Twilight section is at http://www.techrefuge.com/hector/NeNaQuery.html ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 23:20:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Callahan Subject: RE: merc:2000 on the internet Greetings All: > Now, Chris, if you were a Microslave, you'd have all kinds of automated > toolz at your disposal to check those, and even fix them automagically. But that would be cheating. *I* am an artist. The craftsmanship is as important as the final product. :) > You and I are in the same dinghy... Too little RealWorld(tm) time to do > anything important! Whatcha been up to? Work, Hapkido 6 days a week; During the Summer the computer labs are closed on weekends, which is when I did most of my work. When Fall quarter starts at the end of the month I should be able to start working on my site again. > BTW, are you still maintaining two separate, semi-parallel sites? Are you referring to my old stuff back at GeoCities? Nah, I moved all that stuff over to your server long ago. Does anyone out there know what module #2013 is? Thanks to Marc Miller's shipment, I now have all the modules except that one. - -Chris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:14:05 +0300 From: Mikko Pesonen Subject: Russian attack This is little bit stupid question, but I want to have peoples opinion about this. IF Russia would attack Finland what would be the result and who would come to assist ?? TRUST NO ONE! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:14:44 +0200 From: Niklas Svensson Subject: Re: Russian attack I'm not sure about the result, but WE will be there to help you fight the russian bear :-) Hopefully in an early stage of any conflict, might not do to wait for the Baltic sea to freeze this time :-) Mikko Pesonen wrote: > This is little bit stupid question, but I want to have peoples opinion > > about this. IF Russia would attack Finland what would be the result > and > who would come to assist ?? > > TRUST NO ONE! /Niklas "a Swede called NixxoN" *************************************************************** * Cyber PObox nixxon@webname.com * 2nd Cyber PObox niklas.svensson@mbox323.swipnet.se * Cyber home http://home1.swipnet.se/~w-18340/ * WiS (webmaster) e-mail warlords@mail.org (gaming group) * ICQ number 235 699 *************************************************************** errare humanum est ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 02:01:31 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Russian attack Mikko Pesonen wrote: > > This is little bit stupid question, but I want to have peoples opinion > about this. IF Russia would attack Finland what would be the result and > who would come to assist ?? Replay of the 1939 Winter War although the Soviets would be more concerned about hammering the Kola and slamming NATO's northern flank... Should the Soviet launched a two pronged assault on both Norway and Finland (there are enough Red Army divisions and a lot of them have pretty competent officers) the US would send in at least one reinforced regiment of Marines and an air group with an emphasis on Super Cobras and Harriers, the 10th Mountain Division and the Brits would have to send in their entire 3rd Commando Brigade (with the Dutch Whiskey Company). While the Norwegian armor has some tanks for the most part this part of Europe tends to have too many goddamn trees (and the summers literally swamps) to really deploy armor in large formations although as the Russians like to say the best tank terrain is one devoid of enemy tanks and enemy anti-tank weapons. Hence in this region armor will have to play second banana as infantry support vehicles or used for crucial breakthroughs. The Allies having good infantry could try to harass and raid Soviet positions as well as using their air power to blunt Soviet armor and bring their own tanks on the line. The Reds will try to crush through- aided by a naval ifnantry brigade or two and airborne landings... With the Finns- any conflict with the Soviet Union whom Finland since the end of the "Continuation War" has tried to maintain "correct" relations (neutrality with buying lots of Soviet military hardware) would mean an immediate dry up of spare parts for planes and armored vehicles thus a serious loss of combat capability. And despite the unfavorable terrain for large mechanzied formations Red Army motorized rifles units go overboard on MTLB gun tractors/APCs (and thus damned things have low enough ground rpessure to go anywhere) plus outgunning and outnumbering Finland's ground forces. The "if" is what could the Finns do to piss off Moscow since they've always been careful not to offend Soviet interests in the area. The other wild card in this Scandanavian equation is Sweden- while Stockholm has always found Soviet incursions in Swedish waters and air space annoying unless directly attacked in force the Swedes haven't particiapted in a major land conflict since the Napoleonic Wars. Mad Mike - -- "May God bless your bayonets that they may penetrate deep into the entrails of your enemies. May the Almighty in His great righteousness direct your artillery fire upon the heads of the enemy staffs. Merciful God, grant that all our enemies may be stifled amid their own blood, from the wounds which we inflict upon them."- Geza Szatmur Budafal, Archbishop of Budapest, "The Good Soldier Schweik" by Jaroslav Hacek ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 09:10:59 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Russian attack Mikko Pesonen wrote: > This is little bit stupid question, but I want to have peoples opinion > about this. IF Russia would attack Finland what would be the result and > who would come to assist ?? They´d run over Finland, killing me in the process. As usual, no one would come to assist. That´s what neurality is all about. Then they´d have the country, but also a large number of very active partisans in their hands. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 07:17:54 PDT From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Re: Russian attack I checked some answer for this (Niklas Svensson's and Mad Mike's), there just a little too much optimism involved. If some how Russia would decide to attack Finland (this by the way is our nightmare, if Zhirinovsky comes to president), I doubt that is there anybody helping us. Finland just is not so important, that it should be protected by NATO, WEU or even Sweden or Norway. I am pretty sure that Sweden and Norway with NATO tries to keep them both away from Russian attack by doing some talking. Only if talks are negative, then specially Sweden could help some way Finland. Norway would start to move its troops to northern border to block possibly attack. Result in this war is bloody, it could last maybe even years, because Russians really don't have so good combat history, as you can remember some fightings in Afganistan or Chechnya. Russian military forces have low morale because they haven't got paid they salary and their combat vehicles are bit by bit going old (designing new and repairing old costs). But these are only my opinions. >Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:14:05 +0300 >From: Mikko Pesonen >To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM >Subject: Russian attack > >This is little bit stupid question, but I want to have peoples opinion >about this. IF Russia would attack Finland what would be the result and >who would come to assist ?? > > > TRUST NO ONE! > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:34:46 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Russian attack Niklas Svensson wrote: > I'm not sure about the result, but WE will be there to help you fight > the russian bear :-) Yes, with Sweden's excellent record on taking part in wars... I don't think so. I think you'd mobilize your forces but try to get the Russians to stop with Finland, not provoking them. Naturally a number of volunteers would join the Finnish Army, as they did half a century ago. But all of you... hmmm... and do we want soldiers who wear hair nets... hmmm... :-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:44:45 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Russian attack Mad Mike wrote: > Should the Soviet launched a two pronged assault on both Norway and > Finland (there are enough Red Army divisions and a lot of them have > pretty competent officers) the US would send in at least one reinforced > regiment of Marines and an air group with an emphasis on Super Cobras > and Harriers, the 10th Mountain Division and the Brits would have to > send > in their entire 3rd Commando Brigade (with the Dutch Whiskey Company). Attacking Norway would be a part of an all-out war. And that is pretty much the one hope of Finland: in that case the Russians might send second-tier troops to Finland. > With the Finns- any conflict with the Soviet Union whom Finland > since the end of the "Continuation War" has tried to maintain "correct" > relations (neutrality with buying lots of Soviet military hardware) > would mean an immediate dry up of spare parts for planes and armored > vehicles thus a serious loss of combat capability. And despite the With Finns preparing to do battle with Russians again for the past 50 years, we do have fair stockpiles of spare parts, and industry which can produce them. Planes are being upgraded to Hornets, for which I would assume we'd still get spares. Besides, considering the unequality of forces, I don't really expect our armored vehicles to exist much more than a day or two of fighting, anyhow... ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1996 #54 ************************************