twilight2000-digest Tuesday, May 11 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 036 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline (long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 14:46:04 EDT From: SharpInt@aol.com Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline I didn't mean take the whole concept of Red Dawn, I meant look at Red Dawn as a picture of how the Soviets occupy an area. By siezeing all private firearms, and executing civilians for any guerilla uprising. (which would make for a good adventure for the players) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 17:34:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline my best suggestion (being an el paso-ite) would be to check up on the mexican-american war. sure its an old war (1840s) but its in that exact location - parallels might add some flavour to your campaign. remember texans love thier guns and are fanatically patriotic - to the republic of texas as well as the united states - in that order. Matthew Eric Henkel Hospitalman (E-3) United States Navy On Sat, 8 May 1999, Chris Cranston wrote: > For a new campaign I'm due to GM which is based in the US, I'm thinking of > altering the standard timeline. The idea is to have the Russians not just > help the Mexicans enter the US, but have it as a joint invasion. Under the > existing timeline Russian troops are in cantonments at San Antonio, Texas. > The Mexicans occupy areas in both California and Texas. I'm toying with the > idea of all of Texas being under Soviet control and perhaps nearby states > like Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico e.t.c (which is a large chunk > of the US). I've a few questions though: > > 1. If these extra states were under Soviet control, where would the most > plausible location be for the front line ? > > 2. What states, areas or cities would be of strategic importance to the > soviets ? > > 3. How would both US and Soviet orders of battle be adjusted to reflect this > ? The Soviets would need a lot more than just 'Division Cuba' to achieve > this. > > Any comments would be welcome. > > Cheers! > Chris Cranston, > green@helloworld21.freeserve.co.uk > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 17:47:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline i disagree - red dawn was a fun movie, but if the russians drove up through the middle they would be forced to fight a two front war. plus they would have to deal with internal insurgency - americans do not take well at all to threats on the us herself. most of the other tactics are sound - keep in mind that cheynne mountian is in this region if you decide to go up the middle - there would be very heavy resistance to keep the base - us leaders may even nuke the sight to avoid her extremely important secrets from falling to the russians. and a direct assault on it would cost the russians very very dearly. keep also in mind that as of now the russian military is not in a good way. many would argue that neither is the us, but russia is much much worse off. her equipment has never been up to par with the us (all that hysteria about superior russian tank armour - which lead to depleted uranium tank shells - was caused by faulty in telligence) look at the use of russian equipment against us forces in europe and the middle east. russian equipmentbuilt more like a sledge hammer than a hydralic press - it is hearty enough to get the job done, but ussually needs replaced after words. Tom Clancy has discussed the sad state of russian equipment (calling the type 72 a deathtrap) in many of his speaches. plus the military personell have suffered badly since the russian economy has been hovering over near collapse. they are badly payed - hungry - badly supplied and suffer from poor moral. i think it'll take some work to make them into a sufficient threat. note on parachuting from commercial airliners. may be difficult to pull of in the us. the FAA has very strict regulations about when and where a flight may be at a given time and straying off on of the hiways is extremely forbidden. also international flights ussually land near the coast first before being allowed to fly over the interior. Matthew Eric Henkel Hospitalman (E-3) United States Navy On Sat, 8 May 1999 SharpInt@aol.com wrote: > The Soviets would try to cut the US in half by taking all passes in the Rocky > Mountains. The First wave would probably be Speznat (Special Forces). They > would most likely parachute in from charter flights so as not to arouse > suspicion. (The Soviets used that tactic in Afgahnistan). After the Speznat > troops secured the first passes the reinforcements would come up from Mexico. > They would mostly consist of Mountain troops. The United States > counter-offensive would be to use Rangers and Mountain infantry to disrupt > Soviet operations. A good frontline would be the Soviets controling the Rocky > mountains and a fifteen mile stretch on both sides of the rockies would be > where the majority of the fighting is happening. > > *Watch the movie Red Dawn for a good insight into Soviet policy > > > > Sharpint@aol.com > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 16:26:32 -0600 From: rogue09@sprynet.com Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline - --------------D9A8C8F0FFACE07A007EA856 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Matthew E Henkel wrote: > i disagree - red dawn was a fun movie, but if the russians drove up > through the middle they would be forced to fight a two front war. plus > they would have to deal with internal insurgency - americans do not take > well at all to threats on the us herself. > > most of the other tactics are sound - keep in mind that cheynne mountian > is in this region if you decide to go up the middle - there would be very > heavy resistance to keep the base - us leaders may even nuke the sight to > avoid her extremely important secrets from falling to the russians. and a > direct assault on it would cost the russians very very dearly. The Springs area would not fall to any Soviet troops in the way purposed above, look at whats around Cheyene Mountain... Colorado Springs, which is home to Air Force and more importnatly FORT CARSON (15,000+ Soldiers) 3rd Brigade Combat Team (4th Infantry Division) which is comprised of 3rd Battalion-29th Field Artillery (155mm SP Paladins) 1st Battalion (Mech)-12 Infantry Regiment 4th Engineer Battalion 1st Battalion, 8 Infantry ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 43rd Area Support Group which is comprised of 4th Finance Battalion 10th Combat Support Hospital 52nd Engineers 759th MP Battalion ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (1st Squadron to 3rd Squadrons I think) 66th Military Intelligence Company ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10th Special Forces Group (1,100+ Soldiers) Headquarters and Headquarters Company Group Support Company 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group 3rd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13th Air Support Operations Squadron ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > note on parachuting from commercial airliners. may be difficult to pull > of in the us. the FAA has very strict regulations about when and where a > flight may be at a given time and straying off on of the hiways is > extremely forbidden. also international flights ussually land near the > coast first before being allowed to fly over the interior. Yeah those flight plans would really tick off the Soviet fliers, all that paperwork to fill out.... :) T.R. - --------------D9A8C8F0FFACE07A007EA856 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Matthew E Henkel wrote: i disagree - red dawn was a fun movie, but if the russians drove up through the middle they would be forced to fight a two front war. plus they would have to deal with internal insurgency - americans do not take well at all to threats on the us herself. most of the other tactics are sound - keep in mind that cheynne mountian is in this region if you decide to go up the middle - there would be very heavy resistance to keep the base - us leaders may even nuke the sight to avoid her extremely important secrets from falling to the russians. and a direct assault on it would cost the russians very very dearly. The Springs area would not fall to any Soviet troops in the way purposed above, look at whats around Cheyene Mountain... Colorado Springs, which is home to Air Force and more importnatly FORT CARSON (15,000+ Soldiers) 3rd Brigade Combat Team (4th Infantry Division) which is comprised of 3rd Battalion-29th Field Artillery (155mm SP Paladins) 1st Battalion (Mech)-12 Infantry Regiment 4th Engineer Battalion 1st Battalion, 8 Infantry 43rd Area Support Group which is comprised of 4th Finance Battalion 10th Combat Support Hospital 52nd Engineers 759th MP Battalion 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (1st Squadron to 3rd Squadrons I think) 66th Military Intelligence Company 10th Special Forces Group (1,100+ Soldiers) Headquarters and Headquarters Company Group Support Company 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group 3rd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group. 13th Air Support Operations Squadron note on parachuting from commercial airliners. may be difficult to pull of in the us. the FAA has very strict regulations about when and where a flight may be at a given time and straying off on of the hiways is extremely forbidden. also international flights ussually land near the coast first before being allowed to fly over the interior. Yeah those flight plans would really tick off the Soviet fliers, all that paperwork to fill out.... :) T.R. - --------------D9A8C8F0FFACE07A007EA856-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 22:46:09 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Dwight Looney wrote: > > I agree with MM then on that point, theres no way to envision the US being > so blind as to allow the proposed events. While incompetence in the old Soviet Union would have gotten a ministry bureaucrat or officer sacked at best or a bullet to the back of the ehad in KGB headquarters at worst even the US doesn't like it intelligence agenicies and the resources they have developed over the years to totally screw the pooch. You can damn well bet if the Cubans were trying to launch an assault on Southern Florida- satellite footage would ahve gotten to the National Guard office desks ASAP along with orders to federalize the Alabama, Georgia and Florida National Guards along with the establishment of an ad hoc corps command. > On the point of how to deny them. You are (thanks to GDW) forgeting the > Naval factor. Subs and B-52's expend ordinance that isn't very easy to > replace. Actually mines are a lot cheaper than anti-ship missiles although they tend to be dropped by higher value assets. Mines can be laid not only by attack boats and B-52s but one can also include P-3C Orions in their Update forms and S-3B Vikings both of which have primary maritime patrol/control roles. Mining port/harbor facilities means the enemy will be forced to stay in unless he can start clearing these mines and a/c can drop mines a lot faster than mine hunters can clear them even with their high resolution hgih frequency active sonar arrays and robotic swimmer vehicles. > A better proposition would be to use the near limitless supply of > Naval 5" ammunition as much as possible. Ideally a surface warfare squadron would be able to launch cruise missile strikes on enemy ports and be able to destroy enemy shipping with their Harpoons. > 1 little Knox class Frigate (v1) would be enough to cause a pain in the butt > on Mexico's unprotected coasts. Now a days that would probably be a > Spruance class DD without VLS (2 x 5" Guns). Or Kidd class. remember a lot of naval assets would be deployed to the Eastern Med/Gulf, North Atlantic, and Western Pacific which leaves operations in the Carib/Mid-Atlantic very slim pickings usually NRF Perrys or Knox class figs if they're lucky but more often than not naval assets will come in the way of Coast Guard cutters which only have a single 3 inch gun and machineguns. Mad Mike - -- "War is the only sport that is genuinely amusing. And it is the only sport that has any intelligible use."- HL Mencken *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 23:05:57 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Matthew E Henkel wrote: > > i disagree - red dawn was a fun movie, but if the russians drove up > through the middle they would be forced to fight a two front war. plus > they would have to deal with internal insurgency - americans do not take > well at all to threats on the us herself. Red Dawn and Fortress Amnerica are two of my favoriter past times. A) Because the fomrer was directed by John Milnius- a man who ttends to be slightly right of Franco in a land of Trotskyites ;) and B)a MB boardgame that would have made a decent RPG. If the Ivans decided to get cocky and try to mount an invasion on the CONUS the population would probably give the Reds the big finger and a bullet for their troubles. > keep also in mind that as of now the russian military is > not in a good way. Currently- no. In a Twilight 2000 universe the Soviets decided now's a good time to launch a war as any and in the end a full out nuclear exchange. Ivan has always had good equipment but their doctrine is extremely rigid and harbors an environment that doesn't foster initiative among the company grade officers but remember they do not consider it a weakness because the Red army's soldiers are two year short timers that do not go through boot camp so all training must be simple since not all citizens of the soviet Union speak or read Russian. > her equipment has never been up to par with the us (all that > hysteria about superior russian tank armour - which lead to depleted > uranium tank shells - was caused by faulty in telligence) BZZT. Soviet equipment is different. They tend to build robust equipment but when it breaks it must go back to the factory since more often than not the solider operators lack the training to do line maintenance. The Soviets believe in making sure they have enough manpower and all training is focused on learning how to shoot and follow orders thus no matter how brillant the weapon it must be simple to squeeze the trigger and go bang. In short Ivan knew that a lot of their equipment were grapes and grapes get crushed into wine. The Soviets do not compromise in trying to make their equipment simple to operate from short term conscripts with firepower being superior in their equation in building war machinery. DU long rod sabot rounds were fielded due to peentration superiority and with good reason- HEAT would have no longer been effective due to Combination K armor beginning with the T-64 and intelleigence report indicates second gen reactive armor the Former Sovs have fileded can deflect away sabot subpenetrators by one or two degrees compromisng peentration. > Tom Clancy has discussed the sad state of russian equipment > (calling the type 72 a deathtrap) in many of his speaches. The West may call the T-72 a deathtrap but considering the system it was built, the design guidelines, and the end users Soviet tanks tends to do alot of things right. They may not be as heavily armored and fire control due to electronics are not as sophisticated but they do what they're supposed to do and in terms of operator maintenance can be ignored. Mad Mike - -- "War is the only sport that is genuinely amusing. And it is the only sport that has any intelligible use."- HL Mencken *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 01:27:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline > > her equipment has never been up to par with the us (all that > > hysteria about superior russian tank armour - which lead to depleted > > uranium tank shells - was caused by faulty in telligence) > > BZZT. Soviet equipment is different. They tend to build robust > equipment but when it breaks it must go back to the factory since > more often than not the solider operators lack the training to do > line maintenance. The Soviets believe in making sure they have enough > manpower and all training is focused on learning how to shoot > and follow orders thus no matter how brillant the weapon it must > be simple to squeeze the trigger and go bang. however, us intel estimates dating to the 70s and early 80's WERE NOT accurate. the soviet army was grossly overestimated in several areas. most soviet equipment is very heartly, but when they break they ussually stay broken - that is not good field design. look at conflicts in the middle east - there are numerous accounts of western equipment vs. soviet equipment - and soviet equipment is often upstaged by western design. the mig 29 is a fine example. its cheap and very powerful, but woefully out-class by US heavy fighters (F-15). and the 15 is a much older design - dating back to 1969. for much of the 80's and early 90's the mig-29 was seen as a superior threat to us designs, but when the luftwaffe incorporated the DDR's air force (and its 29's) the west was given a great insight into the design. while intelligence does support that mig29 is a very good plane - it is not the equal of a 30 year old us design. (GDW came to the same conclusion in the Desert Shield Factbook). I agree that russian design philosophy has it's merits but i still would not chose russian equipment to defend my little country. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 01:51:29 EDT From: SharpInt@aol.com Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline In a message dated 5/11/99 12:32:41 AM Central Daylight Time, mehst31+@pitt.edu writes: << look at conflicts in the middle east - there are numerous accounts of western equipment vs. soviet equipment - and soviet equipment is often upstaged by western design. the mig 29 is a fine example. its cheap and very powerful, but woefully out-class by US heavy fighters (F-15). and the 15 is a much older design - dating back to 1969. >> The middle eastern conflicts, place an under-trained, low-paid, under-fed arab against our fighter pilots who are highly-trained, well-paid, and can get the food they need. I mean for crying out loud, the Iraqi's "elite" Republican Guard surrendered to CNN! *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 02:16:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Soviet design philosophy vs. US design philosophy First off, let me say that any weapon is an effective weapon. I think of this comparison like my '83 ford escort diesel and a porshe. My diesel is woefully outclass at nearly every turn by the venerable german automobile - however... my diesel is very easy to fix and extremely reliable, much more so than the porsche. as with anything that is highly fine tuned (american design philosophy) it is severely maintenance intensive (ever price a tune up on a 911 or a boxster?). the diesel is very simple and hearty (russian design philosophy) but is suffers in performance. when i said that russian equipment is not so great - i was not saying it was ineffective or without merit - but it is outclassed by us equipment. for example the M1 abrams has a better than 50% to hit probability at a range of 2000 m at a ground speed of 30kph. the t72 and similar t80 are hard pressed to but a shell over 1500m with any accuracy AT A DEAD STOP. that is very important on the battlefield. second - dpleted uraniam saboted rounds WERE developed in as aresult of intel beliefs that soviet tank armour was superior to us designs - this has been proven wrong in the post-cold war era. consider that despite the reliability of soviet mechanics - that they still have vastly inferior gun performance. as a metter of fact the t72/80 auto loader - ported from the bmp-1, has a nast tendancy of trying to load the gunners arm. and the cramped crew quarters of the tank reduces the crews surviavability after being hit. these are facts that i have seen in numerous sources (janes usni etc.). it is this type of "inferiority" that leds me to to agree with tom clancy (who i actually think is quite a schmuck), when he says that russia is a very good 3rd world army. Matthew Eric Henkel Hospitalman (E-3) United States Navy > > BZZT. Soviet equipment is different. They tend to build robust > > equipment but when it breaks it must go back to the factory since > > more often than not the solider operators lack the training to do > > line maintenance. The Soviets believe in making sure they have enough > > manpower and all training is focused on learning how to shoot > > and follow orders thus no matter how brillant the weapon it must > > be simple to squeeze the trigger and go bang. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 02:18:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline not true, no RG soldiers were ever captured by anyone in the gulf war. and i wasn't refering to the gulf war so much as iran/arab hostilities. On Tue, 11 May 1999 SharpInt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/11/99 12:32:41 AM Central Daylight Time, > mehst31+@pitt.edu writes: > > << > look at conflicts in the middle east - there are numerous accounts of > western equipment vs. soviet equipment - and soviet equipment is often > upstaged by western design. the mig 29 is a fine example. its cheap and > very powerful, but woefully out-class by US heavy fighters (F-15). and > the 15 is a much older design - dating back to 1969. > >> > > > The middle eastern conflicts, place an under-trained, low-paid, under-fed > arab against > our fighter pilots who are highly-trained, well-paid, and can get the food > they need. I mean for crying out loud, the Iraqi's "elite" Republican Guard > surrendered to CNN! > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 02:20:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline i also tend to think of the soviets as an under-trained, poorly-fed military as well. the great soviet military juggernaut - was a reagan era myth. read some books published in this decade and see what i mean. On Tue, 11 May 1999 SharpInt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/11/99 12:32:41 AM Central Daylight Time, > mehst31+@pitt.edu writes: > > << > look at conflicts in the middle east - there are numerous accounts of > western equipment vs. soviet equipment - and soviet equipment is often > upstaged by western design. the mig 29 is a fine example. its cheap and > very powerful, but woefully out-class by US heavy fighters (F-15). and > the 15 is a much older design - dating back to 1969. > >> > > > The middle eastern conflicts, place an under-trained, low-paid, under-fed > arab against > our fighter pilots who are highly-trained, well-paid, and can get the food > they need. I mean for crying out loud, the Iraqi's "elite" Republican Guard > surrendered to CNN! > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 02:23:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline incidently, isn't russia the place were people have to wait in line to get toilet paper and bread - is that what you call a well-fed military? On Tue, 11 May 1999 SharpInt@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/11/99 12:32:41 AM Central Daylight Time, > mehst31+@pitt.edu writes: > > << > look at conflicts in the middle east - there are numerous accounts of > western equipment vs. soviet equipment - and soviet equipment is often > upstaged by western design. the mig 29 is a fine example. its cheap and > very powerful, but woefully out-class by US heavy fighters (F-15). and > the 15 is a much older design - dating back to 1969. > >> > > > The middle eastern conflicts, place an under-trained, low-paid, under-fed > arab against > our fighter pilots who are highly-trained, well-paid, and can get the food > they need. I mean for crying out loud, the Iraqi's "elite" Republican Guard > surrendered to CNN! > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 23:36:21 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline SharpInt@aol.com wrote: > > The middle eastern conflicts, place an under-trained, low-paid, under-fed > arab against > our fighter pilots who are highly-trained, well-paid, and can get the food > they need. I mean for crying out loud, the Iraqi's "elite" Republican Guard > surrendered to CNN! Never underestimate the Arabs especially Arab nationalism. Nasser of Egypt survived an attempt by the British, French and Israelis to boot him out of office and the 1967 Six Day War where the IDF took the Sinai. Saddam Huessein is still power which is more than can be said about Thatcher, Major, or Goerge Bush. In Syria Hafez al Assad has Lebanon and managed to crush anybody remotely a threat to him razing Hama to prove his point. It is fundamentally dangerous for people especially the national leadership of Western states with Middle East interests to ignore or belittle their counterparts because chances are if a war does happen one siad is going into a fight that may not go exactly his way and he will wonder why. In the end though in a region of authoritarian to totalitarian regimes headed by strongmen dictators survive in this region by putting his power based above all else and checking the ambitions of generals and other party leaders. Not effective in terms of developing an army that can conduct itself brillantly at an operational level where they can maneuver and kill the opposition through shock but at least the president is not going to be out of his palace due to coup d'etat. Mad Mike - -- "War is the only sport that is genuinely amusing. And it is the only sport that has any intelligible use."- HL Mencken *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 23:53:34 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Matthew E Henkel wrote: > > however, us intel estimates dating to the 70s and early 80's WERE NOT > accurate. the soviet army was grossly overestimated in several areas. Most intel isn't. We always had a problem trying to figure out exactly the niche that each system would play, overall production figures, the economics involved, and their operational method of war. The end of the Cold War has shed a lot of new light on Soviet military equipment- a lot of which are very good and could give Western designs a run for their money. Unfortunately most of the Soviet weapons systems were used by folks who came second place when it came to shooting contest (read the Middle East) > most soviet equipment is very heartly, but when they break they ussually > stay broken - that is not good field design. That's not a drawback for their perspective. Remember once a Soviet citizen does his two years of military duty that's generally it and lower category readiness divisions are a joke in terms of mobilization and just large stockpiles of weaponry in case of a prolonged war. soviets have always believed if a conscript has a broken weapons system it goes back to teh factory because A)the soldiers training should be as simple as physically possible and B)it's a lot better for the people who designed and built the gun to go and fix it. Note not all Soviet style armies do this but again the Red Army doesn't have tank commanders who spend five years or more moving from loader to driver to gunner to TC. They don't have a professional NCO force whereas the uS and british miltiaries the sergeants are the lifeblood. > for much of the 80's and early 90's the mig-29 was seen as a superior > threat to us designs, but when the luftwaffe incorporated the DDR's air > force (and its 29's) the west was given a great insight into the design. > while intelligence does support that > mig29 is a very good plane - it is not the equal of a 30 year old us > design. (GDW came to the same conclusion in the Desert Shield Factbook). In many ways it is. The AA-11 Archer so far is probably the best short ranged missile with the possible exception of the Pyhton 4. The ASRAAM and AIM-9X won't see frontline service on western fighter aircraft until the enxt decade. Along with a good thrust to weight ratio, turn, and high angle of attack abilties the pulse doppler radar still isn't much worse. Where Soviet a/c suffer is lack of processing capability so a lot of target info/IDing that US pilots take for granted must come from input from ground control officers especially in the air defense role. > I agree that russian design philosophy has it's merits but i still would > not chose russian equipment to defend my little country. For the Soviets where manpower has always been cheaper and the prospect of many troops not being able to read and speak Russian (there was no "official" language of the USSR) it was their only choice. Mass has a quality all of its own and traditionally Russia overwhelmed their enemy through sheer weight of numbers. Again it only works for countries that place numerical force above all else. Mad Mike - -- "War is the only sport that is genuinely amusing. And it is the only sport that has any intelligible use."- HL Mencken *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 23:23:39 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline - -----Original Message----- From: Mad Mike To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Tuesday, 11 May 1999 16:53 Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline >SharpInt@aol.com wrote: >> >> The middle eastern conflicts, place an under-trained, low-paid, under-fed >> arab against >> our fighter pilots who are highly-trained, well-paid, and can get the food >> they need. I mean for crying out loud, the Iraqi's "elite" Republican Guard >> surrendered to CNN! > > > Never underestimate the Arabs especially Arab nationalism. Nasser >of Egypt survived an attempt by the British, French and Israelis to boot >him out of office and the 1967 Six Day War where the IDF took the Sinai. >Saddam Huessein is still power which is more than can be said about >Thatcher, Major, or Goerge Bush. In Syria Hafez al Assad has Lebanon >and managed to crush anybody remotely a threat to him razing Hama >to prove his point. It is fundamentally dangerous for people >especially the national leadership of Western states with Middle >East interests to ignore or belittle their counterparts because >chances are if a war does happen one siad is going into a fight that >may not go exactly his way and he will wonder why. > In the end though in a region of authoritarian to totalitarian >regimes headed by strongmen dictators survive in this region by >putting his power based above all else and checking the ambitions of >generals and other party leaders. Not effective in terms of developing >an army that can conduct itself brillantly at an operational level >where they can maneuver and kill the opposition through shock but >at least the president is not going to be out of his palace due >to coup d'etat. > > > > Mad Mike Possibly the best analysis of this situation I've ever heard. Why do the 'professional' politicians get it wrong all the time? Peter Grining *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 23:19:12 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline (long) - -----Original Message----- From: Matthew E Henkel To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Tuesday, 11 May 1999 16:39 Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline >Soviet design philosophy vs. US design philosophy >when i said that russian equipment is not so great - i was not saying it >was ineffective or without merit - but it is outclassed by us equipment. > >for example the M1 abrams has a better than 50% to hit probability at a >range of 2000 m at a ground speed of 30kph. the t72 and similar t80 are >hard pressed to but a shell over 1500m with any accuracy AT A DEAD STOP. >that is very important on the battlefield. Here's some figures for stationary M1/Leopard 2 firing a stationary target firing early 1980s ammo: 1000 metres 95% 1500 metres 85% 2000 metres 70% Yeah no Soviet/Russian tank had full solution fire control till the T-80UM and T-90 (haven't got the exact year these were in service, so call it early 1990s). Recent defence shows in the Middle East have featured a T-80 series tank firing on the move at targets on a range. > >second - dpleted uraniam saboted rounds WERE developed in as aresult of >intel beliefs that soviet tank armour was superior to us designs - this >has been proven wrong in the post-cold war era. Yeah, Los Alamos had to find something to do after nuclear weapons design started winding down. The first round the 105mm M774 entered service around 1982 (accounts vary), and still had marginal performance against the T-xx's then in service. BTW early tungsten rounds had efficency ratings of 90% comparied with 110% for DU. Recent tungsten rounds have 105% almost bridging the gap. DU rounds are actually a bad idea for tank rounds. Upon impact the round breaks up and DU dust contaminates the tank killed. Not a problem against a enemy. However if the ammo compartment on an M1 series is penetrated and detonates you have the same problem, a contaminated tank. Friendly fire during the Gulf war and peacetime fires in M1's have had these problems. As for US ammo/armour superiority simply not true up to 1991. The 105mm M900 and 120mm M829A1 were rushed into service and finally the US had a round that could easily penetrate a late model T-72/80, almost (more on this later). Armour (v KE only) M60A1 250mm Earlier 1960s T-64 410mm 1960s T-72 410mm 1974, Russian version T-80 410mm 1976 T-72A 500mm 1978, Russian version T-80B 500mm 1981 M1 350-400mm 1982 ImpM1 450-500mm Also Leopard 2A1 and M1A1, probably Challenger 1 also T-72B 520mm 1985 M1A1HA 600mm 1988 M1A2 750-800mm 1990s Leclerc, Leopard 2A5, Challenger 2 (all 3 lower range) T-90 520mm 1993 Notice how the T-72 (Russian version, not export) had better armour than the T-80. Also the M1 was actually worse off than the T-xx/Leo 2. Why is this? Because the US Army looked at the results of the 1973 Arab-Israeli fighting and optomised the armour package against HEAT (The M1 supposedly has 4" steel, then 16" Chobham, then another 4" steel). The Germans put in more steel (better against KE) and less Chobham (HEAT). No reliable info on the T-80 was available until the mid-1980s. The US finally got hard info on armour thickness's, the M1A1HA was the result of this. Both the US and the UK have late T-72/80 models obtained by whatever means. Also I think you can see why the M1 was traded in by most units in 1991 for M1A1's, better protection. ****Twilight:2000/GDW note: The M1 is creditted with 350mm v KE and 750mm v HEAT. So GDW put in to lots of its wargames/T2K that Chobham armour halves the penetration of weapons. Fair enough, we don't have a lot of the HEAT values for other vehicles and the designers had to come up with something.********* Now for the the gun penetrations: US 105mm @2000 metres M392 1962 255mm@1000 metres (version UK L36) M728 1974 241mm (version UK L52) M774 1982 390mm (All DU from here onwards) M833 1986 440mm M900 1991 520mm (Last 105mm round produced in the US) ****T2K note: so much for the M1/105mm in general, along with the M8 AGS in T2K********** US 120mm @2000 metres M829 1985 590mm M829A1 1991 670mm (the 'Silver Bullet' of the Gulf War) M829A2 1995 760mm The US had the M829A1/M1A1 vs mostly 410mm (some 500mm) Iraqi T-72s. Draw your own conclusions... BTW there are US export rounds (Egypt at least) that are M829A1 levels, and UK/German/French rounds are at least around here. The M829A3 (sometime before 2005) and any 140mm cannon are said to have 900-1000mm@2000 metres. Russian 125mm 3BM-15 1970s 300mm (Iraq definitely had this round in 1991) 3BM-32 1980s 500mm, DU round 3BM-42 1987 460mm, Export round (Iraq may have had some of this type) 3BM-42M 1996 630mm The 3BM-42M is the longest round that will fit in the T-xx autoloaders, so the design is effectively dead. No new Russian gun/tank design is expected in service till 2005, at the earliest. The UK, France, Israel and others produce tank rounds better than the 3BM-32/42. The French design used in Indian-made T-72s has destroyed the gun barrel on firing. It probably isn't fair to compare Russia and US after 1989. A new Russian tank was due in the early to mid 1990s but was delayed for obvious reasons. In 1985 the T-80U introduced Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). This used heavier metal plates and was effective against KE rounds also. A US M829A1 (670mm) was tested against a 'late model T-72' (520mm) fitted with Kontakt-5 a couple of years ago. The T-72 was not penetrated. Kontakt-5 degrades KE rounds by 35-50%. This has lead to the UK/Germay/USA working on counter-Kontakt-5 rounds in the last couple of years. Kontakt-5 doesn't cover 100% of a tanks surface, so around 25-50% of KE rounds will be not be degraded. As the ERA panels detonate they leave more surface unprotected. So sort of Russian Roulette, but better than being killed first time every time. ****T2K note: In our 1997 T2K timeline NATO got a nasty surprise in the intial tank duels with Russian tanks. Some sort of advanced Russian tank should have been in service in small numbers.*********** The figures I've quoted above have been collected from sources like Janes, Steve Zaloga work and http://www.tankers.net . They may not be perfect >consider that despite the reliability of soviet mechanics - that they >still have vastly inferior gun performance. as a metter of fact the >t72/80 auto loader - ported from the bmp-1, has a nast tendancy of trying >to load the gunners arm. and the cramped crew quarters of the tank >reduces the crews surviavability after being hit. these are facts that i >have seen in numerous sources (janes usni etc.). The autoloaders on the T-72 and T-80 are different designs. The gunners arm thing was resolved years ago. >it is this type of "inferiority" that leds me to to agree with tom clancy >(who i actually think is quite a schmuck), when he says that russia is a >very good 3rd world army. > > >Matthew Eric Henkel >Hospitalman (E-3) >United States Navy Tom Clancy's early work was excellent. Most recent techno-thrillers I've read have been very ordinary (from any author). Peter Grining *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #36 ************************************