twilight2000-digest Friday, May 14 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 038 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline About Russian fighters vs US fighters Re: About Russian fighters vs US fighters Re: About Russian fighters vs US fighters Could someone send me the URL? Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: About Russian fighters vs US fighters Re: Alternative US Timeline SDI (was Re: Alternative US Timeline) Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline twilight asia Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Mine Clearing Re: Alternative US Timeline ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 00:39:27 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Peter wrote: > > During the late 1980s Russia had mostly MiG-29s in East Germany. Meanwhile > NATO had a wing of USAF F-15s, and mostly F-16s with close range AIM-9 > Sidewinders. The USAF would have flown in more F-15s, but Russia would have > flown in Mig-29s, Su-27s, etc. The short range of the MiG-29 was more than > enough for Europe. And Ivan's not dumb. He may do things thaty look dumb and even do dumb things but the Sovs had their own logic and part of that was anti-Western paranoia and anti-Chinese and when all is said and done paranoia in general. > As for poor Arabian pilots, we don't hear much about the success's. Syria v > Israel in 1981. One fight had two MiG-25s head to head with 2 F-15s. One > F-15 and one MiG-25 were shot down. And the Iraq's shot down an USN F-18 on > the 20th January 1991 (again a MiG-25). Israel claims for 1982 were 88:0, > Syria claims around 20 Israeli kills, and admits around 60 own aircraft > lost. The claim most heard is off course, the Israeli. Somewhere amongst all the bragging and party line dogma and ideology (and dare I say it racism?) there's got to be some sort of middle ground. While Syrian export MiG-21s probably wouldn't have much luck and their Sukhois were ground attack brids their MiG-23s porbably had to score some kills due to their powerful radar and adequate BVR missiles. No doubt some of the claimed SAM losses could have been due to a BVR AAM coming in hot from the other side... > Two things that will/have reduced the importance of pilot skill in the close > range knifefight. Advanced missiles like the AA-11, Python 4, AIM-9X, ASRAAM > and helmet mounted sights. The AIM-9L/M can be fired 30 degrees(^) off the > nose of an aircraft. The AA-11 45^, Python4 60^, AIM-9X 90^, and the ASRAAM > has inertial guidance enabling it to fired _behind_ the aircraft. Dutch, > USMC, USN, USAF, UK pilots have flown against German MiG-29s, and the > AA-11/HMS is said to have surprising effectiveness. It's a real culture shock in DACT when the opposition has better alpha limitations and better sustained turn rate at lower speeds doesn't have to point his nose at you but just turn his head around and shoot. Makes people humble. > The other important factor is a missile with an active seeker. The AIM-120 > has been very effective in service. Russia has a similar missile, the AA-12 > Adder. Its been around since 1993, but hasn't actually been integrated to > any service fighter (should be in service this year on Malaysian MiG-29s). > China and India are also in line for the AA-12. AIM-7M has a 35% hit rate in > 1991. The AIM-120 has a much higher rating, and is the first truely reliable > medium range missile. A few modifications and the MiG-29 would have been > AA-12 capable. US pilots are said to be worried about the AIM-120/AA-12 in > enemy hands. It means that a less skilled pilot has a much better chance. Obviously somebody somewhere is putting a lot of time and effort to make sure that fighter a/c can carry EW systems that can white noise an active radar guidnance package on a BVR missile... > Same goes for the T-72/80. The M1A1HA is better. The Soviet Union had > 15,000+ T-80s, along with lots more T-72s. Okay the M1 has a longer reach, > but most of the terrain in Germany (not sure about our T2K Poland setting) > typical tank v tank ranges are 1500 metres. The Iraqi's however.... 1500's the longer side try more like 500 meters in Germany and where every six miles there's some sort of water obstacle to cross and southern Germany's heavily forested. This terrain amkes divisional wedges hard and operations may be reduced to tactical formations bounding and getting into one position after another... 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: Thu, 13 May 1999 00:44:12 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Dwight Looney wrote: > > > Opinion; > So knowing what I know now I "think" if the Russians attacked before say > 82-84 they probably would have won. After that 85-88 no way. Beyond that > they would have had to go nuclear to save their butts. So many factors. If the Red Army deployed chem weapons to support their thrusts does the US repond in kind or up the ante and deploy Lance type weapons with tac nuke warheads? Does the Soviet try for spetz type operations to try and destroy crucial C&C centers or bases on the start, etc. 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: Thu, 13 May 1999 10:56:34 +0300 From: Pietu Subject: About Russian fighters vs US fighters Hi There have been intresting conversation about US fighters vs former PACT fighters. Although this subject has not clear connection to TW2000 Rolegame I like to add some lines too. I think, that even US have better electronics and other computer systems in their fighters, Russians have somehow innovation in their military aircraft development. Russian planes have something so new and odd things like rear looking radar (and If I remember right) it was in fighter plane! I dont know do US have samekind of systems in any of their planes. And how about all thous new aircrafts? MIG-35? SU-33? Off course it is uncertain do they ever see daylight in Army (and real) service. I have heard that SU-27s famous "Kobra" move is possible do with F-16 and F-15, if pilot is skilful. Does anybody have info about it? There have been also some talk that Kobra move is not so useful in air combat. How about it? Pietu *Never trust a smiling cat* *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 04:23:29 EDT From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: About Russian fighters vs US fighters In a message dated 99-05-13 03:51:45 EDT, you write: << I have heard that SU-27s famous "Kobra" move is possible do with F-16 and F-15, if pilot is skilful. Does anybody have info about it? There have been also some talk that Kobra move is not so useful in air combat. How about it? >> The scuttlebutt I have heard is that no U.S. aircraft is fully capable of the "Kobra" maneuver. Something about the tendency for our aircraft to stall out while performing it. Not that a highly skilled pilot couldn't do it, if he knew what to expect and could recover from the engine stall. And as for the usefullness of the maneuver in combat, I have been told that performing one to its most effective measure is very difficult to do in a combat situation. HOWEVER, the same pilots also stated that if one was done competantly in combat, it would most certainly result in a victory for the Soviet (ahem, excuse me...Russian) pilot. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 23:26:23 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: About Russian fighters vs US fighters - -----Original Message----- From: Pietu To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Thursday, 13 May 1999 18:11 Subject: About Russian fighters vs US fighters >Hi > >There have been intresting conversation about US fighters vs former PACT >fighters. Although this subject has not clear connection to TW2000 Rolegame >I like to add some lines too. Sorry the off topic stuff, but we have Russian and Ukraine pilots hiring out with aircraft to Ethiopa and other countries, so its very marginally on-topic ;-) Besides a lot of people still believe the Soviets would have been a walkover (We 'won' the Cold War after all!). I take the point about ground forces being pretty ordinary, however. >I have heard that SU-27s famous "Kobra" move is possible do with F-16 and >F-15, if pilot is skilful. Does anybody have info about it? There have been >also some talk that Kobra move is not so useful in air combat. >How about it? > > >Pietu Grimace997 replied: >The scuttlebutt I have heard is that no U.S. aircraft is fully capable of the >"Kobra" maneuver. Something about the tendency for our aircraft to stall out >while performing it. Not that a highly skilled pilot couldn't do it, if he >knew what to expect and could recover from the engine stall. And as for the >usefullness of the maneuver in combat, I have been told that performing one >to its most effective measure is very difficult to do in a combat situation. >HOWEVER, the same pilots also stated that if one was done competantly in >combat, it would most certainly result in a victory for the Soviet (ahem, >excuse me...Russian) pilot. US aircraft have 'hard limits' (the aircraft flight control computer will not let the aircraft be flown 'out of envelope'), so the 'Cobra' is not possible. The Su-27/MiG-29 has 'soft limits', the pilot can 'pull through' the restrictions and flown closer to the edge of limits (or out of limits, into a stall situation). The various moves shown at air shows are performed by display, not line pilots. The Cobra can only be attempted at very low speeds, putting the aircraft in a bad 'energy position'. The jury is still out on whether the Cobra would be effective in dogfights. One and one maybe, but a larger fight probably not. Why bother with flipping your nose over when you have a helmet mounted sight and a missile like the ASRAAM. The ASRAAM can be fired anywhere the pilot can see, including over the shoulder. The RAAF recently decided on buying the ASRAAM (due around 2001). BTW, something definitely on topic, I've recently received two lots of Twilight:2000 items from second hand dealers in the US (to Australia). Say 5 T2K modules around US$40-60. Surface mail is US$5 (and takes months) and Airmail US$27. The way to go is ask for a US$9 Global Priority Mail. Its a flat rate cardboard envelope (not everything will fit in this). The last goods I received took 9 days to reach me. I'm not in major population center and am very impressed. Its actually faster than air mail (14 days average) Regards 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: Thu, 13 May 1999 07:18:43 -0800 From: Anthony Kim Subject: Could someone send me the URL? Hi, Could someone send me the URL again for that online store with the camo specs and that field manual on CD-ROM thing? Email askim@csulb.edu (no point in repeating the previous message again here). Thanks. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 02:13:19 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Brandon Cope wrote: > > >From: Matthew E Henkel > > > >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. > > Yes, but it is usually better to overestimate an enemy's capabilities than > underestimate them. > > A generous and sadistic GM, > > Brandon Cope > > _______________________________________________________________ > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. The great soviet military juggernaut being a Reagan era myth is a clinton era myth. Read some honest books published, not just the ones that would say anything to slam Reagan. John II USAF 1984-1988 I was there *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 16:49:56 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline > > Opinion; > > So knowing what I know now I "think" if the Russians attacked before say > > 82-84 they probably would have won. After that 85-88 no way. Beyond that > > they would have had to go nuclear to save their butts. > > So many factors. If the Red Army deployed chem weapons to support > their thrusts does the US repond in kind or up the ante and deploy > Lance type weapons with tac nuke warheads? Does the Soviet try for spetz > type operations to try and destroy crucial C&C centers or bases on the > start, etc. > Maybe I should have specified "they would have to launch ICBM's to save their butt." I still think so. Understanding that our mission was to defend Western Europe, we would have been successful. With their mission being the seizure or rendering useless of Europe, they would have failed. With the shape I perceive them to be in afterwards, to me, it would be inconceivable that NATO or China would not finish the job. Like I said Opinion. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 16:56:16 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline > The great soviet military juggernaut being a Reagan era myth is a > clinton era myth. Read some honest books published, not just the ones > that would say anything to slam Reagan. > > John II > USAF 1984-1988 > I was there > Well put sir *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 13:30:36 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline >From: "John H. Schneider II" > The great soviet military juggernaut being a Reagan era myth is a >clinton era myth. Read some honest books published, not just the ones >that would say anything to slam Reagan. For example, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was never (seriously) intended to lead to an effective missile shield; it was supposed to scare the hell out of the Soviets by making them think virutally all of their long-range weapons were useless and force them to spend loads of money (which they didn't have) to overcome a defense that didn't exist. It _was_ a significant reason the USSR broke up. A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 08:58:22 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Brandon Cope wrote: > > >From: "John H. Schneider II" > > > The great soviet military juggernaut being a Reagan era myth is a > >clinton era myth. Read some honest books published, not just the ones > >that would say anything to slam Reagan. > > For example, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was never (seriously) > intended to lead to an effective missile shield; it was supposed to scare > the hell out of the Soviets by making them think virutally all of their > long-range weapons were useless and force them to spend loads of money > (which they didn't have) to overcome a defense that didn't exist. It _was_ a > significant reason the USSR broke up. > > A generous and sadistic GM, > > Brandon Cope > > _______________________________________________________________ > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. SDI was serious, it just wasn't accepted that way by the liberals who felt that the US would be better off under Soviet control. As for the rest, I agree. The USSR couldn't match us on a technological or economic level. In the long run, those two advantages will overcome most other advantages, if the leadership allows them to. I'm doing an alternate timeline where President Reagan was killed in 1981, and things look pretty bleak within a few years! John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 18:08:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: About Russian fighters vs US fighters > << > I have heard that SU-27s famous "Kobra" move is possible do with F-16 and > F-15, if pilot is skilful. Does anybody have info about it? There have been > also some talk that Kobra move is not so useful in air combat. > How about it? > >> > > The scuttlebutt I have heard is that no U.S. aircraft is fully capable of the > "Kobra" maneuver. Something about the tendency for our aircraft to stall out > while performing it. Not that a highly skilled pilot couldn't do it, if he > knew what to expect and could recover from the engine stall. And as for the > usefullness of the maneuver in combat, I have been told that performing one > to its most effective measure is very difficult to do in a combat situation. > HOWEVER, the same pilots also stated that if one was done competantly in > combat, it would most certainly result in a victory for the Soviet (ahem, > excuse me...Russian) pilot. i seem to recall a documentary on the military channel or the history channel discussing this move. the us pilot (a falcon driver) expressed his suprise at the move when he was first exposed to it - but i believe i recall the documentary to go on and state that it was possible to execute with the f16 (a plane with an incrediblethrust to weight ration) one of the only fighters capable of accelerating in a 90 degree verticle climb. i tend to think that if the falcons can do that, they stand a pretty good chance of making it through a cobra (kobra?) move. i do remember hearing that us pilots don't really see much practical use to the maneuver. us pilots tend to fire and forget way before such a maneuver would be practical - it is a gun combat evasion not a missile evasion maneuver. i'd be willing to bet however that the raptor (f22) could do it - better trust/weight and state of the art engines. i also agree with the comment that fighter talk is a bit out of the twilight genre - nautical and aviation (among others) state that if fighter combat rule are wanted harpoon is suggested. i also highly reccomend harpoon4 and sea of dragons - they offer excellent naval / aviation combat resolution that can add quite alot to a twilight campaign. although i do not tend to run stock twilight games - i prefer us-sino war (like clancy's snn) over taiwan with lots of naval combat, air combat and ground ops limited to more clandestine ops. matt *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 18:11:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline > The great soviet military juggernaut being a Reagan era myth is a > clinton era myth. Read some honest books published, not just the ones > that would say anything to slam Reagan. > > John II > USAF 1984-1988 > I was there i'm there right now Matthew Henkel United States Navy 1998- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 15:16:18 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: SDI (was Re: Alternative US Timeline) >From: "John H. Schneider II" > >Brandon Cope wrote: > > For example, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was never >(seriously) > > intended to lead to an effective missile shield; it was supposed to >scare > > the hell out of the Soviets by making them think virutally all of their > > long-range weapons were useless and force them to spend loads of money > > (which they didn't have) to overcome a defense that didn't exist. It >_was_ a > > significant reason the USSR broke up. > > > SDI was serious, it just wasn't accepted that way by the liberals who >felt that the US would be better off under Soviet control. Sure, they would have liked it to be functional, but that wasn't the primary goal (this info came to me from someone who is very conservative, politically, who considers SDI a success). > As for the rest, I agree. The USSR couldn't match us on a >technological or economic level. In the long run, those two advantages >will overcome most other advantages, if the leadership allows them to. The main (or at least a major) problem for the USSR was that it was spending some 20-25% it GNP on the military, which is about 4-5 times that of US during the same time. > > I'm doing an alternate timeline where President Reagan was killed in >1981, and things look pretty bleak within a few years! > This could be interesting ... A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 18:19:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline On Thu, 13 May 1999, Dwight Looney wrote: > > > The great soviet military juggernaut being a Reagan era myth is a > > clinton era myth. Read some honest books published, not just the ones > > that would say anything to slam Reagan. > > > > John II > > USAF 1984-1988 > > I was there > > > Well put sir excuse me but i am on very close terms with several people who have written books on the military situation between the us and russia - including us intelligence officers who have been following the subject for well over 30yrs. and the reagan-scare about russia came onto the scene in the late 1980's while regan was still in office. as reagan was followed by bush leading to clinton - i'd say that your "myth" could not be a clinton myth since it preceeded him by over 5 years. if you would like to believe that the russians are a severe military threat in any context except for the fac that they have icbm's that we are fairly sure would work. go right ahead. i tend to agree with my colleagues and mr. clancy (who has spoken thoroughly on just this topic), and several other military and dod hot shots who have spoken on the subject. matt henkel USN (active service) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 18:33:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline even if someone in reagan's clabinet thought it was possible and took it seriously, SDI would have been a foolish project to undertake. it like it's slightly more sane contemporary the B2 spitit are tactically questionable in thier value. what dimwits like ginrich thought was a to buy a whole bunch of these multi-billion dollar jokes and scare the russians. great so the entire defense budget goes to a single plane. how did the old joke go? airforce gets to fly it mon/tues/wed/ navy gets it thur/fri/sat and the marines get it every other sunday if its not getting fixed. look at the japanese. 1% of the GNP for defense and their military budget is 3rd largest in the world and rated as one of the best. and on top of all this the civilians can't stand it. SDF service is pretty much career or nothing, because in the pacifistic japanese modern culture - nobody wants to hire a war-monger. yet they get the job done without this multi-billion dollar jokes. taiwan does a better job with much much less. military spending is a tricky bit - a well trained military with EFFICIENT equipment is the ideal. the b2 is not efficient in the least. SDI would have been a money pit had it been serious - but it was an invaluable propaganda piece. i don't ascribe much intelligence to regan or clinton or bush or anybody after Teddy Roosevelt for that matter - but i don't think he was fool enough to take the idea seriously. Matthew Eric Henkel United States Navy On Fri, 14 May 1999, John H. Schneider II wrote: > Brandon Cope wrote: > > > > >From: "John H. Schneider II" > > > > > The great soviet military juggernaut being a Reagan era myth is a > > >clinton era myth. Read some honest books published, not just the ones > > >that would say anything to slam Reagan. > > > > For example, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was never (seriously) > > intended to lead to an effective missile shield; it was supposed to scare > > the hell out of the Soviets by making them think virutally all of their > > long-range weapons were useless and force them to spend loads of money > > (which they didn't have) to overcome a defense that didn't exist. It _was_ a > > significant reason the USSR broke up. > > > > A generous and sadistic GM, > > > > Brandon Cope > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > *************************************************************************** > > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > > SDI was serious, it just wasn't accepted that way by the liberals who > felt that the US would be better off under Soviet control. > As for the rest, I agree. The USSR couldn't match us on a > technological or economic level. In the long run, those two advantages > will overcome most other advantages, if the leadership allows them to. > > I'm doing an alternate timeline where President Reagan was killed in > 1981, and things look pretty bleak within a few years! > > John II > *************************************************************************** > 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: Fri, 14 May 1999 18:36:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: twilight asia trying to steer the group back towards the game.... does anybody have any game info on the chinese and taiwanese (aside from the brief mentions in the game book and bangkok? matt *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 10:23:31 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Matthew E Henkel wrote: > > On Thu, 13 May 1999, Dwight Looney wrote: > > > > > > The great soviet military juggernaut being a Reagan era myth is a > > > clinton era myth. Read some honest books published, not just the ones > > > that would say anything to slam Reagan. > > > > > > John II > > > USAF 1984-1988 > > > I was there > > > > > Well put sir > > excuse me but i am on very close terms with several people who have > written books on the military situation between the us and russia - > including us intelligence officers who have been following the subject for > well over 30yrs. and the reagan-scare about russia came onto the scene in > the late 1980's while regan was still in office. as reagan was followed > by bush leading to clinton - i'd say that your "myth" could not be a > clinton myth since it preceeded him by over 5 years. > > if you would like to believe that the russians are a severe military > threat in any context except for the fac that they have icbm's that we are > fairly sure would work. go right ahead. i tend to agree with my > colleagues and mr. clancy (who has spoken thoroughly on just this topic), > and several other military and dod hot shots who have spoken on the > subject. > > matt henkel > USN (active service) > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. Interesting how you would say that. I have in my possession several newspapers, magazines, and books that tell of a possible US opponent. This military oponent, by the descriptions given, is so weak that they would never even dare consider attacking the US. In fact, they rate one of their aircraft (one of the most advanced aircraft of the time) as "unacceptable". Given the tremendous superiority of ALL US weapons as described, we should have been able to win within a few weeks. Who was this possible enemy? Japan, 1941. It wasn't a Reagan scare. It was simply the truth, which so very many people still try to deny. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 10:35:20 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Matthew E Henkel wrote: > > even if someone in reagan's clabinet thought it was possible and took it > seriously, SDI would have been a foolish project to undertake. it like > it's slightly more sane contemporary the B2 spitit are tactically > questionable in thier value. what dimwits like ginrich thought was a to > buy a whole bunch of these multi-billion dollar jokes and scare the > russians. great so the entire defense budget goes to a single plane. how > did the old joke go? airforce gets to fly it mon/tues/wed/ navy gets it > thur/fri/sat and the marines get it every other sunday if its not getting > fixed. Foolish? Why would defending ourselves be foolish? Only american liberals who wanted the USSR to win considered it to be foolish. Heck, even the USSR didn't consider it foolish! Gingrich isn't a dimwit. If you're going to try to present facts, then you should start there. Otherwise, everything you say is called into question. At least we know what side you're on. > > look at the japanese. 1% of the GNP for defense and their military budget > is 3rd largest in the world and rated as one of the best. and on top of > all this the civilians can't stand it. SDF service is pretty much career > or nothing, because in the pacifistic japanese modern culture - nobody > wants to hire a war-monger. yet they get the job done without this > multi-billion dollar jokes. B-2 isn't a joke. Sounds to me like the problem is yours. FYI, Japan doesn't need a large military. Why? Because when we wrote their constitution for them, we forbid them any military at all. WE are supposed to defend THEM. That's why they can get away with spending so little on a military. > > taiwan does a better job with much much less. Isn't the 7th fleet basically stationed off Taiwan? Perhaps you should add that into your equation. > > military spending is a tricky bit - a well trained military with EFFICIENT > equipment is the ideal. the b2 is not efficient in the least. SDI would > have been a money pit had it been serious - but it was an invaluable > propaganda piece. i don't ascribe much intelligence to regan or clinton > or bush or anybody after Teddy Roosevelt for that matter - but i don't > think he was fool enough to take the idea seriously. The B-2 isn't efficient? Where'd you get that from? Maybe you should find out what the B-2 is supposed to do before you try to tell us just how efficient it is at doing that particular job. SDI would've never been the money pit you envision. But then again, to some people, spending any money in defense of this country was a waste. Far easier to raise the white flag. > > Matthew Eric Henkel > United States Navy > John II USAF *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 19:17:21 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Mine Clearing What's that thing big rope you shoot across a mine field called? I don't remember if their was an infantry version or it was shot from a vehicle or device. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 19:44:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline > > Foolish? Why would defending ourselves be foolish? Only american > liberals who wanted the USSR to win considered it to be foolish. Heck, > even the USSR didn't consider it foolish! > Gingrich isn't a dimwit. If you're going to try to present facts, then > you should start there. Otherwise, everything you say is called into > question. > At least we know what side you're on. FUCK YOU? who the fuck are you to question my political allegience. i chose to serve in the united states navy with a better personal understanding of myself and my country than most other people twice my age. FUCK you mister USAF iwas there. i am there. > B-2 isn't a joke. Sounds to me like the problem is yours. > FYI, Japan doesn't need a large military. Why? Because when we wrote > their constitution for them, we forbid them any military at all. WE are > supposed to defend THEM. That's why they can get away with spending so > little on a military. wrong. the japanese are not forbidden a military " at all" as you say. as soon as the korean peninsula flared up in 1950, SCAP ammended its position. MacArthur activated the police reserve which was soon after turned into the jietai - with three branches, kokujietai (air self defense force) kaijojietai (maritime self defense force) and rikujojietai (ground self defense force. the sdf was trained by us advisors as the occupation ended and all of the us troops in japan were shipped over the strait. incidentally on of the key advisors in traineg the kutai (eliet paratroop corp) was westmoreland. while the us is bound by treaty to come to the aid of japan in the case of invasion - no one in japan civil, government or military seriously expects this to happen. they don't believe that we would risk getting involved in asia again after vietnam. carter's near pullout of korea added much to this belief. if you think that the SDF is just some pathetic ANRG/AFNRG type force you are sadly mistaken. they Jietai is a very well trained very well equiped force with a much better equipment update scheduale than even the us. the jsdf is consistantly rated as the premiere defense organization in the region. > > > > > taiwan does a better job with much much less. > > Isn't the 7th fleet basically stationed off Taiwan? Perhaps you should > add that into your equation. Hasn't the US continually betrayed the taiwanese? i seem to recall regan screwing them over by squashing thier deal to buy f20s or f16 in 1982. again a country that has very little faith that the us would actually come to thier aid if the chips went down. i know personally an RoCAF colonel who has told me of the little faith the taiwanese have in thier american protectors - a country that wouldn't even drop china's most favoured nation trade status after the PLA ran through beijing on a three day orgy of slaughter. there are NO US forces in the taiwanese region. the 7th fleet is stationed at Yokosuka japan. in 95 when the chinese started lobbing missiles at taiwan the fleet was dispatched and ordered in the the strait as a deterent - but they had to steam from tokyo bay - they are not stationed off of taiwan, "basically" or otherwise. > The B-2 isn't efficient? Where'd you get that from? Maybe you should > find out what the B-2 is supposed to do before you try to tell us just > how efficient it is at doing that particular job. > SDI would've never been the money pit you envision. But then again, to > some people, spending any money in defense of this country was a waste. > Far easier to raise the white flag. I know what the b2 is supposed to do, deliever a nuclear payload. on who? who the hell are we going to nuke now? only recently has the b2 been outfitted to handle smart weapons instead of tactical weapons. still the B52 is far more efficient and much better suited to the role - even though it to was designed to be a nuclear bomber not a tactical bomber. the b52 however is pushing fifty and is intended to stay in service untill 2060 - when it will be 108 years old. i don't think the multi-billion dollar b2 will ever be. you are a punk - and i thank god tht the people in charge of the budget are at least nominally more intelligent than you. i support defense spending - they pay my bills - but i'm not for buying abunch of foolish toys that have no place on the modern battlefield. 8 billion dollars worth of b52s is unquestionably more EFFICIENT (look up the word and contrast it it with EFFECTIVE) than one or two of those, given cool looking, outdated black turkeys. and again fuck you - matt> *************************************************************************** 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 #38 ************************************