twilight2000-digest Saturday, September 20 1997 Volume 1996 : Number 056 The following topics are covered in this digest: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack pbem Twilight 2000 V.2 combat rules Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack PBM Re: VS: Russian attack Re: pbem Twilight 2000 V.2 combat rules Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: Russian attack Re: VS: VS: Russian attack ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 14:43:47 +-300 From: Jyrki Paajanen Subject: VS: VS: Russian attack Sorry Jysky, I disagree. I still believe that the purpose of myself and my men is to buy time for the rest of the Finns to get to the woods. The essence of the Finnish doctrine in many ways is continued active resistance for an extended time. And I still have the belief that many Finns will keep on going until they are dead and will not lay down their weapons -- much like the Estonian "men of the forest" did in the 40s. I believe that the experiences of Jugoslavia in WWII are the closest to what would happen -- that?s why I like to use the word "partisans" instead of the Finnish "sissi" or "guerillas" (often also translated to "rangers"). Germans didn't have helicopters. It's very hard to hide when air is full of helos and all warm spots glow on thermal visions. Especially in winter when you leave clear tracks to snow. Jyrki Paajanen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:12:57 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack Well Mike, remember that at the point where the USSR takes on europe, they've been toying with China, not to mention that as soon as the USSR declares war on the US (and NATO) they invade Iran ................ So their resources are streched.............. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:15:20 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack In a message dated 97-09-13 05:02:43 EDT, you write: > The actual strenght of the Iraqis was highly > overestimated. I dunno about that.............the hundreds of bodies and thousands of EPWs I saw makes me believe the Strength numbers were pretty close.......... but hey, what do I know anyway? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:49:30 -0700 From: temp Subject: pbem Twilight 2000 V.2 combat rules Heh I was wandering if anybody could tell how they conduct combat using twilight 2000 V.2 combat rules in a pbem game? Ben ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:24:10 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack KAPPAABZ@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 97-09-13 05:02:43 EDT, you write: > > > The actual strenght of the Iraqis was highly > > overestimated. > > I dunno about that.............the hundreds of bodies and thousands of EPWs I > saw makes me believe the Strength numbers were pretty close.......... I didn't mean the manpower, I meant their fighting will and capabilities. Remember all the info before the operation that this is the 5th most powerful Army on earth, with well-trained and equipped, battle-hardened veterans who believe in their leader and will fight to the finish? That's what I was referring to. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:21:31 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack Azathoth wrote: > ago by Timo Hamalainen of the University of Helsinki, that the KGB had a > good amount of political sway in Finnish politics during the 80's. The Russians had a great deal of influence, absolutely. They affected a number of things, absolutely. But they never had control of the country. > My reasoning is that I just don't believe that a country of 5 million > (about Finlands' population in the 80's?), could successfully resist the > Red Army. The partisan groups that would come up in defiance, as I'm sure Exactly. But what you were maintaining that they could have taken Finland over internally, without resorting to using the Red Army. And that was what I was objecting to. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:27:20 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Jyrki Paajanen wrote: > Germans didn't have helicopters. It's very hard to hide when air is full of > helos and all warm spots glow on thermal visions. Especially in winter when > you leave clear tracks to snow. That's true, hiding in the forests will be a lot harder. Wonder if they'd use Vietnam-style "fry 'em up" tactics with napalm? Then again, the story I heard about Nicaragua is, that the sandinistas got helos, the contras got Redeyes, and the helo pilots didn't want to fly anymore... There are ways to bring down helos as well. A slow-moving, poorly armored target with many vulnerable spots... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 14:16:43 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Jyrki Paajanen wrote: > Germans didn't have helicopters. It's very hard to hide when air is full of > helos and all warm spots glow on thermal visions. Especially in winter when > you leave clear tracks to snow. You have heard about camo netting, right? The newer ones can absorb IR radiation as well as block out radar signals. In short under a thermal imager a "blackhole" effect. In addition trees/built up terrain also does a good job. A/c are generally grounded in bad weather- ie snow storms and choppers themselves are noisy and vulenrable to even light anti-aircraft fire MANPADS SAMs like the Stinger or the SA-16 or SA-18. Guerillas; however, will always be hampered by lack of mobility and a precarious ability (at best) to supply their own forces. In short guerillas are not much of a threat to conventional armies so long said armeis have the will and the ability to conduct a long term pacificateion campaign that could take months. If they're impatient- they'd put everybody to the sword like the Mongols did with the Persians.... 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, 13 Sep 1997 14:37:35 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack KAPPAABZ@aol.com wrote: > Well Mike, > remember that at the point where the USSR takes on europe, they've been > toying with China, not to mention that as soon as the USSR declares war on > the US (and NATO) they invade Iran ................ > So their resources are streched.............. Nobody actually declared war on anybody;-). I think we can generally dismiss the idea of the Red Army needing the help of their "fraternal socialist allies" because let's look at both armies. The Soviet military is larger and heavily mecahnized in nature with a large and capable tactical air force and lotsa lotsa air tranportation assets either under Aeroflot or VTA. The Chinese- not much although currently they have been trying to buy more and more hardware. Again while frontline Soviet divisions will have T-80BVs or T-72BVs, BMP-2Es, BTR80s, etc. (nobody in the Red Army marches on foot). China only has locally produced copies of the T-55, a very cheeseball tracked APC, and a straight copy of the BMP-1 they never had enough to equip legions and legions of troops. (There's a reason why the Chinese in this Post Cold war era is putting more emphasis on its Air Force and next in line Navy than the army) Again conventional war against the Chinese would no doubt include the use of chemical agents, tactical and theater nuclear assets from the beginning because A)the Chinese don't have the these weapons or lack the delivery capability and B)they're the Chinese the PLA's huge and foot infantry in nautre- Soviet divisions can breakthrough but their rear and supply lines would soon be exposed to partisan activity. Combined with a lower level ongoing pacification (in Volume 1.0 Twilight) in Afghanistan the Red Army would be hard pressed to invade Iran if they were to maintain the ability to punish us Yankee Imperialists... (and let's face it Soviet leadership has institutionalized paranoia and probably would fear that an ongoing Soviet war somewhere else would mean an american lead assault on their satellites in Eastern Europe) Now in a prolonged Cold War US would have to deal with North Korea who could cream their Commie jeans over the fact the Soviets and Chinese are locked in a life and death struggle and would be free to go South without trying to playing one side agaisnt the other (which they're very good at) or at least court side for military hardware (Soviet Union) and raw materials (China)- being a Communist neutral. Add a US campaign in Iran to kick Ayatollah ass and one in Latin America to pop Cuba and Nicaragua... 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, 14 Sep 1997 01:06:51 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack In a message dated 97-09-13 19:00:03 EDT, you write: > will and the ability to conduct a long term pacificateion campaign that > could > take months. Viet Cong, anyone? we lost................ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 01:05:42 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack In a message dated 97-09-13 18:09:20 EDT, you write: > The Russians had a great deal of influence, absolutely. They affected a number > of > things, absolutely. But they never had control of the country. > But ,Hell..................... "what if......................" what a great idea for an entire campaign ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 01:04:40 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack In a message dated 97-09-13 18:08:56 EDT, you write: > Remember all the info before the operation that this is the 5th most powerful > Army on earth, with well-trained and equipped, battle-hardened veterans who > believe in their leader and will fight to the finish? ok look at it from a commanding generals point of view. You've got a HUGE army with fairly modern equipment and recent combat experience. And you've got The most pwoerful army in the world coming at them head on. I'd overestemiated everything just so I can save lives and get out of there fast. Vietnam taught us to overestimate everything......................... I was personally told to expect 80% casualties. So out of my 10 man squad, 2 of us would have gone home. I was also told from day one, terrorists terrorists terrorists................. and I remember a few times on "routine guard duty" I almost pulled the trigger, and it would have been warranted.......................that was during desert Shield.................................... the over-estimation was a total (IMO) propaganda tool, to make our soldiers sailors, marines and airmen more cautious, and to make the american people back this war////////////////// Chris ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 22:54:06 +0000 From: andy.sim@ndirect.co.uk Subject: PBM Hi all, At this year's Euro-Gen Con I met some of my old mates who are scattered all over the UK. We decided to try a PBM to help us stay in touch and to keep some of us gaming. It was decided to try TW2K and I was vounteered to be GM. Anybody out there got any advise or suggestions? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:01:51 -0400 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack KAPPAABZ@aol.com wrote: > the over-estimation was a total (IMO) propaganda tool, to make our soldiers > sailors, marines and airmen more cautious, and to make the american people > back this war////////////////// Yeah, get them prepared for the worst. Now, does this somehow lead to the fact that the current magazine-published info on the state of the Russian army is 100% right? I don't think so... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 13:42:00 -0700 From: Azathoth Subject: Re: pbem Twilight 2000 V.2 combat rules >Heh I was wandering if anybody could tell how they conduct combat using >twilight 2000 V.2 combat rules in a pbem game? > > Ben, You can try to go to my site: http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html However, my web server has been down for awhile so you might have to try Monday... I think the Sys Adm will be awake then (?) ... =) _____________________________________________________________________ the blind and idiotic fool... Musides http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Soviet.html http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins." - -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities December 31, 1922 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 13:37:40 -0700 From: Azathoth Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack >Well Mike, >remember that at the point where the USSR takes on europe, they've been >toying with China, not to mention that as soon as the USSR declares war on >the US (and NATO) they invade Iran ................ >So their resources are streched.............. Not really, the Soviet Union had four operational Theaters of War, European, Middle Eastern, Far Eastern, Pacific (Not too sure about a Northern... depends on the time period so far as I know). So long as they don't mix thier resources betwixt thier different theaters (I strongly believe that they would not do this), and they are not stretched at all. Saul _____________________________________________________________________ the blind and idiotic fool... Musides http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Soviet.html http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins." - -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities December 31, 1922 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 13:46:50 -0700 From: Azathoth Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack >Exactly. But what you were maintaining that they could have taken Finland over >internally, without resorting to using the Red Army. And that was what I was >objecting to. Yes, mistake on my part. Although I do think a good deal of work could have been done internally, the Red Army would definatly need to occupy the country. _____________________________________________________________________ the blind and idiotic fool... Musides http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Soviet.html http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins." - -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities December 31, 1922 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 14:15:50 -0700 From: Azathoth Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack > Guerillas; however, will always be hampered by lack of mobility and >a precarious ability (at best) to supply their own forces. In short >guerillas >are not much of a threat to conventional armies so long said armeis have >the >will and the ability to conduct a long term pacificateion campaign that >could >take months. If they're impatient- they'd put everybody to the sword >like >the Mongols did with the Persians.... Theoretically I can agree with you, but history shows us very different. Partisans/guerillas have been enourmously succesfull in warfare this century. Albiet, they rarely actually win thier battles, but they are very effective. The Soviet Army however, knows better partisan activity than any other. Ever since the peasant uprisings led by Antonov, who in 1921 amassed a following of 20,000 - 50,000 followers/guerillas. This offered an enourmous threat to the Soviet Red Army, and they were able to take over several towns, cut the railway from Moscow to Siberia, and also the railway used for grain acquisitions in the Caucasus/Don region. The Red Army was eventually able to quell the rebellions, and they quickly learned from thier enemies tactics. Stalin used the partisan warfare strategy to largly influence the Red Armies future tactics, that helped them a great deal during WWII against the german occupational forces, and of course during Vietnam as well (Afghanstan is another matter...). I've gotten a little off the subject, but in any case, I think that guerillas in the past have proved very very valuable, and I'm confident that they will/would in the future as well. _____________________________________________________________________ the blind and idiotic fool... Musides http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Soviet.html http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins." - -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities December 31, 1922 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 16:20:42 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Azathoth wrote: > Theoretically I can agree with you, but history shows us very different. History? Saigon was was the culmiantion of massive armored and mechanized campaign- T-54s crashed through the gates not VC. OTOH when conventional armies- or the governments that support them collpase then in the anarchy a guerilla groupd can seize pwoer. But in order for guerillas, revolutionaries, freedom fighters, et' al. to grab office space there needs to be a power vacuum. > The Soviet Army however, knows better partisan activity than any > other. Ever since the peasant uprisings led by Antonov, who in 1921 amassed > a following of 20,000 - 50,000 followers/guerillas. But again they weren't successful, were they? The new Soviet state faced threats from aboard while couldn't reclaim the Baltic regions, Finland or Poland were sucessful in grabbing power (where power was to be grabbed) and holding onto it.... > Stalin used the partisan warfare strategy to largly > influence the Red Armies future tactics, that helped them a great deal > during WWII against the german occupational forces, and of course during > Vietnam as well (Afghanstan is another matter...). Nobody can deny the success of guerillas but it should be remembered they were a "minor front"- units that existed only to help the Red Army, its tanks and its infantrymen to march forward and regain lost land. Partisans can provide armies with valuable recon info and sabotage- unconventional warfare. Guerilla units because of their nature cannot win against against conventional armies - unless a)they force the enemy to withdraw out of disgust or upheaval at home or b)reorganized themselves along conventional lines with massed firepower and logistical support (theoretically) (only Tito and Mao comes to mind although in both cases the forces that were fighting decided to quit or were undercut) 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, 14 Sep 1997 22:58:29 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack In a message dated 97-09-14 15:19:23 EDT, you write: > Now, does this somehow lead to the fact that the current magazine-published > info > on the state of the Russian army is 100% right? i'm sure I don't know what magazine you're talkiing about....................... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Aug 56 07:01:37 -0000 From: Mark Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack >I think that >guerillas in the past have proved very very valuable, and I'm confident >that they will/would in the future as well. They are very useful when backed by a untouchable power, China, USSR or USA. Take away their backing and they are vunerable. Mind are like parachutes. They only function when they are open. - Sir James Dewar ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:17:29 -0700 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack > History? Saigon was was the culmiantion of massive armored and >mechanized campaign- T-54s crashed through the gates not VC. OTOH when >conventional armies- or the governments that support them collpase then >in the anarchy a guerilla groupd can seize pwoer. But in order for >guerillas, revolutionaries, freedom fighters, et' al. to grab office >space there needs to be a power vacuum. Once a guerilla force siezes power, takes up fortifications and bases, then it becomes a conventional force, that can be attacked with conventional tactics. I'm not talking about 'grab office space', I'm talking about effective military resistance to conventional armies. Guerilla forces cannot gain territory and/or capture land/or cities, insofar as the definition is concerned. There strength lies in repeling an occupational conventional force. How many times has this been done. The Jews were one of the first peoples to use guerilla tactics. They may not have been succesful everytime, but rest assured that had they taken a conventional stance instead, their loses would have been much greater and quite possibly we would be a relic of the past. Or to look at more recent times, Afghanastan. Was this not an excellent example of a partisan force who resisted (arguably) the most powerful army in the world? Small bands of guerillas, with little or no common strategy or tactics, somehow managed to oppose the mighty Soviet Army. Did they need a, '...culmiantion of massive armored and mechanized campaign...'. No, not at all. Just two things: heart, and a supplier for there weapons. > But again they weren't successful, were they? The new Soviet state >faced threats from aboard while couldn't reclaim the Baltic regions, >Finland or Poland were sucessful in grabbing power (where power was to >be >grabbed) and holding onto it.... No they were not. But they were much more succesfull than any conventional army fighting the Red Army of the time. At this time (1921) the soviet state was not engaged in conventional warfare with the Baltic states. > Nobody can deny the success of guerillas but it should be >remembered they were a "minor front"- units that existed only to help >the Red Army, its tanks and its infantrymen to march forward and regain >lost land. Partisans can provide armies with valuable recon info and >sabotage- unconventional warfare. Guerilla units because of their nature >cannot win against against conventional armies - unless a)they force >the enemy to withdraw out of disgust or upheaval at home >or b)reorganized themselves along conventional lines with massed >firepower and logistical support (theoretically) (only Tito and >Mao comes to mind although in both cases the forces that were fighting >decided to quit or were undercut) I agree. But on you're a), Afghanastan was the result of neither of these. Indeed Gorbachev withdrew, most probably only because he was a humanitarian, the first since Lenin. But, the Afghanstan armies DID defeat the Soviet Army. The Soviets had two choices in the matter: Withdraw, or annihalate every single native in the country. This is the only sure way to defeat guerillas. On you're b) you're saying that they only way for partisans to win is to become conventional? Thus, in effect there is only one way (you're a ) that partisans can win? I agree, however as I said I do believe that partisans can overwhelm a convention force. Whether it be tacticaly, or logisticaly (not allowing any/few supplies through, or convertering the conventional forces to the guerilla cause). Conventional armies run out of soldiers/supplies in time too. Regards, Saul Basgen _____________________________________________________________________ the blind and idiotic fool... Musides http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Soviet.html http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins." - -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities December 31, 1922 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:28:26 -0700 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack >They are very useful when backed by a untouchable power, China, USSR or >USA. Take away their backing and they are vunerable. I agree the more powerfull the nation, eg. the more capable the industrial capactiy of the nation, the better supplied and equiped the partisan forces will be, and thus the better fighting force they are. I agree also, that without backing at all, guerilla forces cannot survive. In the past this was possible, but conventional warfare of today dictates that this is not. _____________________________________________________________________ the blind and idiotic fool... Musides http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Soviet.html http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins." - -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities December 31, 1922 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:14:20 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack Saul Basgen wrote: > Once a guerilla force siezes power, takes up fortifications and bases, > then it becomes a conventional force, that can be attacked with > conventional tactics. Then they no longer are a bunch of bearded outlaws, are they? Guerillas, terrorist, revolutionary movements, whatever can only seize power in that crucial vacuum where everything is shot to hell and those that are ion power are fleeing the country. > Guerilla forces cannot gain territory and/or capture land/or cities, > insofar as the definition is concerned. There strength lies in repeling an > occupational conventional force. But because guerillas ahve the inability to take and occupy land from their enemies- their ability to win a prolonged conflict with their enemy comes from A)patience and B)hoping that sooner or later their opposition will collapse politically. > Did they need > a, '...culmiantion of massive armored and mechanized campaign...'. No, not > at all. Just two things: heart, and a supplier for there weapons. The Soviets neither had the patience in dealing with the Afghanis. A Soviet presence would ahve meant Soviet troops and ptrols indefinitely- or the complete extremination of tribesmen outside their control and/or influence. Quite possible. Kill the livestock, spray down crops with herbicides, introduce epidemics via insect or rodent vectors, use of chemical weapons, and attacking guerilla camps in Pakistan either by air strikes (Frontal Aviation Su-24 Fencers) or Spets type troopers. After the Soviet withdrawal and the cutback of Soviet aid to Kabaul- there was the age old power vacuum coming from the lack of logistical support... Again guerillas can't do much in the long run and in this Century subordinated to conventional states who have a vested interest in seeing a state weakened by the contant effort to keep in check bands of idealistic marauders.... 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: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:46:21 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack In a message dated 97-09-13 20:11:07 EDT, you write: > Nobody actually declared war on anybody;-) Although the words "USSR declares war on NATO" there are enough references to infer that war had been declared on a massive scale. When the book(s) read "with China and the USSR virtually at war......." etc.,etc.,etc., Maybe Loren wants to jump in on this one? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:45:11 -0400 (EDT) From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: VS: Russian attack In a message dated 97-09-13 20:11:07 EDT, you write: > Nobody actually declared war on anybody;-) Although the words "USSR declares war on NATO" there are enough references to infer that war had been declared on a massive scale. When the book(s) read "with China and the USSR virtually at war......." etc.,etc.,etc., Maybe Loren wants to jump in on this one? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 02:33:18 -0700 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: VS: VS: Russian attack >Saul Basgen wrote: >> Once a guerilla force siezes power, takes up fortifications and bases, >> then it becomes a conventional force, that can be attacked with >> conventional tactics. > > Then they no longer are a bunch of bearded outlaws, are they? My point exactly. >Guerillas, terrorist, revolutionary movements, whatever can only >seize power in that crucial vacuum where everything is shot to hell >and those that are ion power are fleeing the country. Sure, this would be true of anyone who wishes to sieze power. Those who have power must pass it on to those who are/wish to sieze it. > But because guerillas ahve the inability to take and occupy land >from their enemies- their ability to win a prolonged conflict with their >enemy comes from A)patience and B)hoping that sooner or later their >opposition will collapse politically. I disagree. Why is it not possible for a guerilla force to militarily defeat thier enemy, whether it be a conventional force or otherwsie? > The Soviets neither had the patience in dealing with the Afghanis. Bullshit. From 1979 to 1989, the World's greatest military power (disputably) invades a relativly small country with a very small population and you say they did not have patience?? I suggest you take a look at: http://www.ipser.com/usmilitia/studies/afghanistan.htm INITIALLY the Soviets had not *expected* to stay for more than acouple months. This strategy however, was very quickly changed. Patience they did have, one of the things they did lack was dedicated manpower. 642,000 soldiers served in Afghanastan, a farily small number considering the size of the Soviet Army. To quote the URL above, this is how guerillas win: " The harsh and inhospitable land and the deadly treatment that the Soviets received from the people in towns and countryside gradually effected the Soviet soldiers' psyche, and the indoctrination they had been subject to during their training soon melted away as they increasingly faced the grim realities of the real war. They realized that they were not fighting this brutal war against the imperialists of America and China, but they were set to destroy a poor but proud nation which was only defending their faith, freedom and way of life." and again on the matter of the number of soldiers: "Logistically, they were hard-pressed to maintain a larger force and, even if they could have tripled the size of their force, they probably would still have been unable to win." And lastly: "Lessons learned Modern, mechanized forces are still in peril when committed to fight guerrillas in the middle of a civil war on rugged terrain. The Soviet-Afghanistan war demonstrated that: 1.A guerrilla war is not a war of technology versus peasantry. Rather, it is a contest of endurance and national will. The side with the greatest moral commitment (ideological, religious or patriotic) will hold the ground at the end of the conflict. Battlefield victory can be almost irrelevant, since victory is often determined by morale, obstinacy and survival. 2.Secure logistics and secure lines of communication are essential for the guerrilla and non-guerrilla force. Security missions, however, can tie up most of a conventional force. 3.Weapons systems, field gear, communications equipment and transport which are designed for conventional war will often work less effectively or fail completely on rugged terrain. 4.Tactics for conventional war will not work against guerrillas. Forces need to be reequipped, restructured and retrained for fighting guerrillas or for fighting as guerrillas. The most effective combatants are light infantry. 5.Tanks have a limited utility for the counter-guerrilla force, but can serve as an effective reserve on the right terrain. Infantry fighting vehicles and helicopters can play an important role in mobility and fire support. Mechanized forces usually fight effectively only when dismounted and when using their carriers for support or as a maneuver reserve. Ample engineer troops are essential for both side. 6.Field sanitation, immunization and preventive medicine are of paramount importance in less-than-optimal sanitary conditions. Immediate medical support to wounded combatants is often hard to provide. 7.Journalists and television cameramen are key players in guerrilla warfare. The successful struggle can be effectively aided when championed by a significant portion of the world's press. 8.Logistics determines the scope of activity and size of force either side can field. 9.Unity of command is very important, yet sometimes impossible to achieve. 10.Domination of the air is irrelevant unless airpower can be precisely targetted. Seizure of terrain can be advantageous, but is usually only of temporary value. Control of the cities can be a plus, but can also prove a detriment. Support of the population is essential for the winning side. " _____________________________________________________________________ the blind and idiotic fool... Musides http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Soviet.html http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html "It would be unpardonable opportunism if, on the eve of debut of the East, just as it is awakening, we undermined our prestige with its peoples, even if only by the slightest crudity or injustice towards our own non-Russian nationalities. The need to rally against the imperialists of the West, who are defending the capitalist world, is one thing.... It is another thing when we ourselves lapse, even if only in trifles, into imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nationalities, thus undermining all our principled sincerity, all our principled defence of the struggle against imperialism. But the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins." - -V.I. lenin on the question of Nationalities December 31, 1922 ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1996 #56 ************************************