twilight2000-digest Saturday, May 29 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 042 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: T2K Warfare ADMIN: List Changes a commin' Re: Mine Clearing (long) Re: Mine Clearing (long) New Guns (was Re: Foreign Phrases) Vehicle Alteration T2K webring Re: Mine Clearing (long) Re: Vehicle Alteration Re: Vehicle Alteration T2K Warfare Re: T2K Warfare Re: T2K Warfare Re: T2K Warfare Re: Mine Clearing [ADMIN] Just at test Re: T2K Warfare (long) Re: T2K Warfare (long) Re: T2K Warfare Re: T2K Warfare (long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 00:55:34 -0700 From: Ron Hale Subject: Re: T2K Warfare Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: The question is : What changes would a Twilight War as listed in the T2K rules set have on modern warfare? In our campaign warfare has degenerated into small scale trench war a' la 1915. Local commanders are not capable of summoning the logistics or manpower required to straighten fronts, so they are unable to join with allied units in their cantons. The situation in my campaign is similar, If I'm understanding you. In my campaign no command has enough men or equipment to maintain a continuous physical attachment to any other friendly unit. Because of this each unit/command has a main base/compound, ("cantonment") in which they have what remains of there, supply/support. Mechanics, Machinists, Gunsmiths, Electricians, Doctors, Engineers, etc. Around these strongholds they have constructed massive fortifications, using whatever they can get there hands on. Outside these cantonments are the fields that grow food for the cantonments. Control of these fields varies with the size of the area vs the size of the unit. Control of the farmlands is aided by the establishment of fortified Farms and Ranches. Whenever possible these farms and ranches are equipped with Radios/Telegraphs/Telephones so they can, in theory, call for help. Help, in most cases would arrive in the form of 6-24 infantry on horseback. Combat has deteriorated to small skirmishes between patrols. Very, very, rarely medium to large battles for control of the most vital areas/finds occurs. The encounter tables and equipment list availability chart seem to indicate it is still fairly easy for troops to get a hold of ATGM's and as there are no more tanks being built so maneuver warfare seems out as well. Maneuver warfare still occurs, it just uses horses and the few remaining light vehicles, armored and unarmored. TTFN Ron Hale *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 10:31:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Miracle Subject: ADMIN: List Changes a commin' On Wednesday, May 26, we will be moving the lists and the ftp Archive at MPG-Net to new servers in the North Carolina office. Basically, we are going to turn off recept of new messages around 9AM EDT, allow any in progress messages to finish. Then we will tarball up everything and move it to a much faster, modern and manageable system in NC. When the data is there, we will turn it back on, but considering the size of the FTP archive, it may take most of the day to move. We will say good bye to a nearly 8 year old DecStation 5000 that is on its last legs, and saying help to a Pentium II 350 that has a lot more disk space!!! The posting and admin addresses wont change. Other than some downtime, there shouldn't be any noticable differences. Rob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:29:31 PDT From: "Chas York" Subject: Re: Mine Clearing (long) Dwight Looney wrote: >>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. >I believe the name is MICLIC. It stands for Mine Clearing Line >Charge. >TTFN >Ron Hale > The MICLIC (Mine Clearing Line Charge). is the rocket launched line charge the US Uses. Generally speaking, the charge consists of C-4 type explosives surrounding a cable, held in place by a thick nylon stocking. I recall the line itself is thick enough so two hands are needed to envelop it. Some more detail for T2K gamers who want to consider adding this, although I think the charges, which are incredibly heavy, would be difficult to find in T2K. When fired, the rocket draws out the line, which (ideally) uncoils to full length. The last length of cable is bare and remains attached to the launcher. If everything goes properly, this length of cable ensures the launcher is a safe distance from the explosion. In practice, the training rounds rarely extended to full length, occasionally remained partly undeployed or draped over the firing vehicle. Granted, these were training rounds and were recycled between firing, I never saw a fresh training round or any combat charge misfire. Still, it was practice to try to visually verify the launch before detonating- it would ruin your day to detonate when you have a line of c-4 running overhead. ( 'Course, it'd also be a bummer to get your head shot off trying to look out...) When the real charge fires, it'll "clear" a lane wide enough for one vehicle at a time- at the center, impact detonates mines, but near the fringes, they're just overturned and shoved aside- a VERY BAD idea to drive too close to these sides... The trailer is intended to have a remote disengage, you can unlatch it and leave it to fire at a distance. Never did this in any of our firings- it didn't seem too reliable, and led to the problem that, when the line was full extended, the rocket may have enough power to drag the aluminum-framed trailer a good 50 meters or so. That's not that bad for minefield accuracy, but a pain in peacetime training scenerios where reuse is paramount. As for real live firings, witnesses 3- all in training scenerios. All three were trailer-mounted assemblies, 1 from a 5-ton dump, 2 from APC's. (I did see a "modified M60 AVLB " variant that held 2 at a time on its main body, the only non-trailer variant I saw) {another note- all full-charge firings were done overseas- saudi & korea, in my case-- I was told something about environmental restrictions in US ranges} When fired from my 5-ton, we had to remove all windows and mirrors before the operation- the shock wave is strong enough at "safe range" to shatter 'em. -(As a sidenote, In desert storm, we took off all glass & mirrors, covered the headlights with burlap, and removed all reflectors-- funny, since we left a dust cloud visible for miles) Passenger & driver had to hide out in a nearby trench (they never let us have any real fun...) The APC was a bit more fun- we "Locked down" and rode out the live fire within the beast. Ears rang for weeks, it seemed. NOTE- you can't drop the troop hatch to rapidly roll out if the trailer is still attached- the trailer hitch on the M113A3 is there. Couldn't very effectively do a rapid evac from the access hatch in full gear either. (I never cared that aspect of proofing anyway- any enemy seeing that charge going off knows EXACTLY where the troops are coming through, and every bit of fire they got will concentrate there. In later ops, friends told me they're using a Abrams with mine blade to proof the lanes instead...) I'm looking through my old stuff now- if I can, I'll try to make some T2K rules to use with this thing- along with a bit more accurate stats... _______________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:29:33 PDT From: "Chas York" Subject: Re: Mine Clearing (long) Dwight Looney wrote: >>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. >I believe the name is MICLIC. It stands for Mine Clearing Line >Charge. >TTFN >Ron Hale > The MICLIC (Mine Clearing Line Charge). is the rocket launched line charge the US Uses. Generally speaking, the charge consists of C-4 type explosives surrounding a cable, held in place by a thick nylon stocking. I recall the line itself is thick enough so two hands are needed to envelop it. Some more detail for T2K gamers who want to consider adding this, although I think the charges, which are incredibly heavy, would be difficult to find in T2K. When fired, the rocket draws out the line, which (ideally) uncoils to full length. The last length of cable is bare and remains attached to the launcher. If everything goes properly, this length of cable ensures the launcher is a safe distance from the explosion. In practice, the training rounds rarely extended to full length, occasionally remained partly undeployed or draped over the firing vehicle. Granted, these were training rounds and were recycled between firing, I never saw a fresh training round or any combat charge misfire. Still, it was practice to try to visually verify the launch before detonating- it would ruin your day to detonate when you have a line of c-4 running overhead. ( 'Course, it'd also be a bummer to get your head shot off trying to look out...) When the real charge fires, it'll "clear" a lane wide enough for one vehicle at a time- at the center, impact detonates mines, but near the fringes, they're just overturned and shoved aside- a VERY BAD idea to drive too close to these sides... The trailer is intended to have a remote disengage, you can unlatch it and leave it to fire at a distance. Never did this in any of our firings- it didn't seem too reliable, and led to the problem that, when the line was full extended, the rocket may have enough power to drag the aluminum-framed trailer a good 50 meters or so. That's not that bad for minefield accuracy, but a pain in peacetime training scenerios where reuse is paramount. As for real live firings, witnesses 3- all in training scenerios. All three were trailer-mounted assemblies, 1 from a 5-ton dump, 2 from APC's. (I did see a "modified M60 AVLB " variant that held 2 at a time on its main body, the only non-trailer variant I saw) {another note- all full-charge firings were done overseas- saudi & korea, in my case-- I was told something about environmental restrictions in US ranges} When fired from my 5-ton, we had to remove all windows and mirrors before the operation- the shock wave is strong enough at "safe range" to shatter 'em. -(As a sidenote, In desert storm, we took off all glass & mirrors, covered the headlights with burlap, and removed all reflectors-- funny, since we left a dust cloud visible for miles) Passenger & driver had to hide out in a nearby trench (they never let us have any real fun...) The APC was a bit more fun- we "Locked down" and rode out the live fire within the beast. Ears rang for weeks, it seemed. NOTE- you can't drop the troop hatch to rapidly roll out if the trailer is still attached- the trailer hitch on the M113A3 is there. Couldn't very effectively do a rapid evac from the access hatch in full gear either. (I never cared that aspect of proofing anyway- any enemy seeing that charge going off knows EXACTLY where the troops are coming through, and every bit of fire they got will concentrate there. In later ops, friends told me they're using a Abrams with mine blade to proof the lanes instead...) I'm looking through my old stuff now- if I can, I'll try to make some T2K rules to use with this thing- along with a bit more accurate stats... _______________________________________________________________ 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, 21 May 1999 09:43:27 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: New Guns (was Re: Foreign Phrases) >From: M H > >also, to everyone - after much calculation and modification i have >been >able to compile a system for deriving small arms ratings >information for >slug-throwers from hold-out up through heavy mg. >the bonus is that unlike >the T2K system given in the foreword of >"infantry weapons of the world" is >that it doesn't leave range and >pen up to judgement (= best guess). i've >based it as much on the >t2k system as possible with much addition from >BTRC's very excellent >"Guns Guns Guns: 3G^3" system. it is based on >actual ballistics - >but simplified greatly. i've run 200 or so guns >through it and >they've all come out exceptionally well vs. the t2k stuff - >and much >more consistant. my biggest problem with IWotW was that the >weapons >stats they created could in several cases not be duplicated with >the >rules they provided - also there were several inconsitant entries in > >the book. [conversion rules deleted] If "Guns, Guns, Guns" isn't available, "Fire, Fusion and Steel" for Traveller: The New Era (not the version for Mark Miller's Traveller) has a firearms construction system that is fully compatable with Twilight 2000 (the vehicles construction rules, as well, can be used with T2K; unfortunately, you can build anything that can fly or drive, but no rules for anything that floats). Note that GGG is more detailed than FFS, but it doesn't have any vehicle construction rules. 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: Mon, 24 May 1999 14:44:05 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Vehicle Alteration My PC's are wintering in an abandoned "vehicle repair facility" at present, one of their vehicles, an LVTP has taken mortal damage and they wish to know if it is feasable to change the cupola from LVTP onto an LAV-AT as the crew of the LAV-AT feel that they're role has changed from tank hunter to main battle tank. Anyone know anything about the LAV-AT? Work in an Repair facility? Will this work? If it does, has anyone got any scenario idea's I could work in wih this? Cheers, Jim. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 22:34:53 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: T2K webring Just wanted let everyone with a t2k web site know I got the code for the webring to work. Loonz http://loonz.freeservers.com/t2k/wbrng.htm *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 05:46:55 -0400 From: "Chas York" Subject: Re: Mine Clearing (long) The MICLIC (Mine Clearing Line Charge). is the rocket launched line charge the US Uses. Generally speaking, the charge consists of C-4 type explosives surrounding a cable, held in place by a thick nylon stocking. I recall the line itself is thick enough so two hands are needed to envelop it. Some more detail for T2K gamers who want to consider adding this, although I think the charges, which are incredibly heavy, would be difficult to find in T2K. When fired, the rocket draws out the line, which (ideally) uncoils to full length. The last length of cable is bare and remains attached to the launcher. If everything goes properly, this length of cable ensures the launcher is a safe distance from the explosion. In practice, the training rounds rarely extended to full length, occasionally remained partly undeployed or draped over the firing vehicle. Granted, these were training rounds and were recycled between firing, I never saw a fresh training round or any combat charge misfire. Still, it was practice to try to visually verify the launch before detonating- it would ruin your day to detonate when you have a line of c-4 running overhead. When the real charge fires, it'll "clear" a lane wide enough for one vehicle at a time- at the center, impact detonates mines, but near the fringes, they're just overturned and shoved aside- a VERY BAD idea to drive too close to these sides... The trailer is intended to have a remote disengage, you can unlatch it and leave it to fire at a distance. Never did this in any of our firings- it didn't seem to reliable, and led to the problem that, when the line was full extended, the rocket may have enough power to drag the aluminum-framed trailer a good 50 meters or so. That's not that bad for minefield accuracy, but a pain in peacetime training scenerios where reuse is paramount. As for real live firings, witnesses 3- all in training scenerios. All three were trailer-mounted assemblies, 1 from a 5-ton dump, 2 from APC's. (I did see a "modified M60 AVLB " variant that held 2 at a time on its main body, the only non-trailer variant I saw) {another note- all full-charge firings were done overseas- saudi & korea, in my case-- I was told something about environmental restrictions in US ranges} When fired from my 5-ton, we had to remove all windows and mirrors before the operation- the shock wave is strong enough at "safe range" to shatter 'em. -(As a sidenote, going into saudi, we took off all glass & mirrors, covered the headlights with burlap, and removed all reflectors-- funny, since we left a dust cloud visible for miles) Passenger & driver had to hide out in a nearby trench (they never let us have any real fun...) The APC was a bit more fun- we "Locked down" and rode out the live fire within the beast. Ears rang for weeks, it seemed. NOTE- you can't drop the troop hatch to rapidly roll out if the trailer is still attached- the trailer hitch on the M113A3 is there. Couldn't very effectively do a rapid evac from the access hatch in full gear either. (I never cared that aspect of proofing anyway- any enemy seeing that chrge going off knows EXACTLY where the troops are coming through, and every bit of fire they got will concentrate there, in later ops, friends told me they're using a Abrams with mine blade to proof the lanes instead...) I'm looking through my old stuff now- if I can, I'll try to make some T2K rules to use with this thing- along with a bit more accurate stats... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 11:17:40 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: Vehicle Alteration >From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" > > My PC's are wintering in an abandoned "vehicle repair facility" at >present, one of their vehicles, an LVTP has taken mortal damage and they >wish to know if it is feasable to change the cupola from LVTP onto an >LAV-AT >as the crew of the LAV-AT feel that they're role has changed from tank >hunter to main battle tank. It probably wouldn't work. Such a change would require extensive modifications to both vehicle and cupola, more than could reasonably be done under T2K conditions (unless your party happens to be the "A-Team" or the mechanic is a cousin of McGuyver). You could probably strip the weapons from the cupola and make a crude pintle mount for them on the LAV-AT, though. (this depends on what weapon(s) the cupola has: the original LVTP-7's only had a .50 cal HMG, but there was a though to adding a 40mm grenade launcher to the cupola; was this ever done? 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: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:47:32 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Vehicle Alteration I think the cupola is the one featured in the "Roland Armour upgrade", being an MG and Mk 19 Combo. - -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Cope To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Wednesday, 26 May 1999 4:21 Subject: Re: Vehicle Alteration >>From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" >> >> My PC's are wintering in an abandoned "vehicle repair facility" at >>present, one of their vehicles, an LVTP has taken mortal damage and they >>wish to know if it is feasable to change the cupola from LVTP onto an >>LAV-AT >>as the crew of the LAV-AT feel that they're role has changed from tank >>hunter to main battle tank. > >It probably wouldn't work. Such a change would require extensive >modifications to both vehicle and cupola, more than could reasonably be done >under T2K conditions (unless your party happens to be the "A-Team" or the >mechanic is a cousin of McGuyver). > >You could probably strip the weapons from the cupola and make a crude pintle >mount for them on the LAV-AT, though. (this depends on what weapon(s) the >cupola has: the original LVTP-7's only had a .50 cal HMG, but there was a >though to adding a 40mm grenade launcher to the cupola; was this ever done? > >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. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:50:37 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: T2K Warfare This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01BEA787.1DD870A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I've really been enjoying the discussion on modern warfare = over the last few days, so I thought I'd ask your opinion. =20 The question is : What changes would a Twilight War as listed in = the T2K rules set have on modern warfare? =20 In our campaign warfare has degenerated into small-scale trench war = a' la 1915. Local commanders are not capable of summoning the logistics = or manpower required to straighten fronts, so they are unable to join = with allied units in their cantons. The encounter tables and equipment = list availability chart seem to indicate it is still fairly easy for = troops to get a hold of ATGM's and as there are no more tanks being = built so maneuvre warfare seems out as well. Interested in your response. Jim. - ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01BEA787.1DD870A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I've = really been=20 enjoying the discussion on modern warfare over the last few days, so I = thought=20 I'd ask your opinion. The=20 question is : What changes would a Twilight War as listed in the T2K = rules set=20 have on modern warfare? In our campaign = warfare has=20 degenerated into small-scale trench war a' la 1915. Local commanders are = not=20 capable of summoning the logistics or manpower required to straighten = fronts, so=20 they are unable to join with allied units in their cantons. The = encounter tables=20 and equipment list availability chart seem to indicate it is still = fairly easy=20 for troops to get a hold of ATGM's and as there are no more tanks being = built so=20 maneuvre warfare seems out as well. Interested in = your=20 response. Jim. - ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01BEA787.1DD870A0-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 22:32:20 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: T2K Warfare Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > Hi all, I've really been enjoying the discussion on modern > warfare over the last few days, so I thought I'd ask your > opinion. The question is : What changes would a Twilight War > as listed in the T2K rules set have on modern warfare? In our > campaign warfare has degenerated into small-scale trench war a' la > 1915. Local commanders are not capable of summoning the logistics or > manpower required to straighten fronts, so they are unable to join > with allied units in their cantons. The encounter tables and equipment > list availability chart seem to indicate it is still fairly easy for > troops to get a hold of ATGM's and as there are no more tanks being > built so maneuvre warfare seems out as well. Interested in your > response. Jim. The problem with that I think is that the armies have split up in t2k, so whereas millions of people could be put in trenches crossing the continent and forced to sit in them, now that seems very difficult. - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 01:39:04 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: T2K Warfare At 02:50 PM 5/26/99 +1000, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > Hi all, I've really been enjoying the discussion on modern warfare >over the last few days, so I thought I'd ask your opinion. The >question is : What changes would a Twilight War as listed in the T2K rules >set have on modern warfare? In our campaign warfare has degenerated >into small-scale trench war a' la 1915. Local commanders are not capable >of summoning the logistics or manpower required to straighten fronts, so >they are unable to join with allied units in their cantons. The encounter >tables and equipment list availability chart seem to indicate it is still >fairly easy for troops to get a hold of ATGM's and as there are no more >tanks being built so maneuvre warfare seems out as well. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the term, I can't see trench warfare of the type from WWI as being possible in the T2K world: the reason is that one important cause of trench warfare was having a very large number of men packed into a very small front; in places where the fronts were much larger, in the East, with the same doctrine and technology, the warfare was mobile; this can really be seen in the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-21, in which front lines practically ceased to exist at times. (And this mobile warfare happened mostly with infantry, plus a little cavalry and a smattering of armored vehicles, including trains.) I'm sure cantons will be fortified, but otherwise, unless you have enough troups to maintain a continuous frontline, there's no point to the fortifications, because the enemy can walk around your trenches and cut you off from behind. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 08:44:56 +0300 (EDT) From: Janne Kemppi Subject: Re: T2K Warfare > Hi all, I've really been enjoying the discussion on modern warfare over the last few days, so I thought I'd ask your opinion. > > The question is : What changes would a Twilight War as listed in the T2K rules set have on modern warfare? > > In our campaign warfare has degenerated into small-scale trench war a' la 1915. Local commanders are not capable of summoning the logistics or manpower required to straighten fronts, so they are unable to join with allied units in their cantons. The encounter tables and equipment list availability chart seem to indicate it is still fairly easy for troops to get a hold of ATGM's and as there are no more tanks being built so maneuvre warfare seems out as well. Hmm...Once upon a time I read a book concerning modern warfare where author made interesting thoughts on this subject. Among his observations were that lethality vs. dispersion of troops in every square meter of NATO-WP front in German borders up to depth of both germanies were same as in WW1. This was based on dispersal of divisions and firepower calculated according to the firepower index calculations that were made in 1970's. Thus he pointed out that it is entirely possible that both sides could cause each other grievous casualties but not break through. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 06:00:22 -0400 From: "Chas York" Subject: Re: Mine Clearing > There was a device which I believe called the Bangalore Torpedo, at least by > the British army. This comprised of a a length of pipe filled with > explosive. You could join lengths of these pipes together. As they were > rigid you could push them accross a minefield. When the pipe(s) exploded > the idea was that they cleared a path for the infantry to follow. You see > US infantry using one in "Saving Private Ryan". > > A very simple concept (get some drain pipe and fill it with explosives) that > I'm sure would still be in use in the T2K world. > The Bangalore Torpedo (the segments of pipe) is still in use today (at least it was used in Bragg in '91-94), though used to take out more wire obstacles & clear a path, there's no reason why mine clearance wouldn't work for very narrow minefields ( after the 9th or 10 segment, this thing becomes quite a pain to shove foreward. ) The path cleared is also too narrow to drive a vehicle through- but an effective foot path. The bangalore can also be (and often is) field - manufactured by taking the 6-8 foot pickets used for wire obstacles, filling the "V" groove with c-4 in two of them, sandwich them together & held together with wire. Great obstacle breacher. I'd say this is the light infantry / engineer breaching device- the only time I can see a use for vehicle-wide mine clearance would be if the infantry were taking a minefield out that was away from the current line of battle- perhaps a light op behind enemy lines (at a second line of defense) in preparation for the advance. One could place the charges late at night rather quietly, and have them ready to blow at a moment's notice. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 17:36:46 -0400 (EDT) From: "David E. Brooks Jr" Subject: [ADMIN] Just at test This is just a test from your friendly postmaster confirming that the mailing list works after the move. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 19:35:19 EDT From: Calibur1@aol.com Subject: Re: T2K Warfare (long) I would have to agree with Ron Hale. According to the T:2K background any organized military command unit would be set up that way. If any two cantonments happen to be too close to each other, conflict or alliances would develope as both sides contested over the limited resources. Distant cantonments may even grow jealous if they discover weaker ones with valuable assets (food, medicine, fuel, etc.) that they could plunder. There is also the classic, "We just need breathing space." Powerful and large cantonments may feel the demand to expand and will want to protect their borders by conquering the smaller ones around it. If you could envision medieval ideology with modern weapons you would have a good idea on how post T:2K warfare would occure. I, on the other hand, run a more 'wargame' type campaign; using the 'Last Battle' supplement extensively. I altered the history a little. The 5th Division survived the battle of Kalisz but had to fall back. Both sides suffered massive, but not crippling loses, and are regrouping. This has also allowed me to bring other armies (Czech, German, and English) into the conflict; as both sides desperately scramble for equipment and replacements. I find your 'WWI trench warfare' approach very interesting and not entirely unplausable, despite what others may say. After all, its your campaign, based on a war that never was. Anything could happen and stranger things have. However, I would like to know how you conduct large scale (company or better) battles. I currently discovered an old wargame by GDW called "Battlefield:Europe". It has a similar combat system as Last Battle, only on a larger scale. I haven't tried it yet, but maybe you, or somebody else, has a better way. - -Billy Bob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 19:45:41 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: T2K Warfare (long) At 07:35 PM 5/26/99 EDT, Calibur1@aol.com wrote: >I currently discovered an old wargame by GDW called >"Battlefield:Europe". It has a similar combat system as Last Battle, only on >a larger scale. I haven't tried it yet, but maybe you, or somebody else, has >a better way. You might want to check out _Sands_of_War_, which was the last game in the same _First_Battle_ series. It's an improved game, but unfortunately you can't use the old counters with the new rules, and even the maps are a little different in scale (one is 300m and the other 500m to the hex, I think, or something like that). Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 15:28:07 +1000 From: "Graeme Paine" Subject: Re: T2K Warfare >I can't see trench warfare >of the type from WWI as being possible in the T2K world: the reason is >that one important cause of trench warfare was having a very large number >of men packed into a very small front; in places where the fronts were much >larger, in the East, with the same doctrine and technology, the warfare was >mobile; this can really be seen in the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-21, in >which front lines practically ceased to exist at times. (And this mobile >warfare happened mostly with infantry, plus a little cavalry and a >smattering of armored vehicles, including trains.) >Scott Orr One of the main reasons the western front became a trench war was artillery and machineguns, as well as the number of troops in the area. Any frontal movement by troops resulted in heavy casulties to the attackers from the volume of machinegun fire and shrapnel. At the time charges were seen as the way to fight a war, these days no commander is going to order his forces into a frontal assult unless there is no other way. So while there may be some trenches, it isnt going to be the same as world war I. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 11:43:57 PDT From: "C Jones" Subject: Re: T2K Warfare (long) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_7042fe19_35a96b19$3bb26989 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_6f5a5010_35a96b19$3bb26989" - ------=_NextPart_001_6f5a5010_35a96b19$3bb26989 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; >From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" >Reply-To: twilight2000@mpgn.com >To: "T2K forum" >Subject: T2K Warfare >Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:50:37 +1000 > > Hi all, I've really been enjoying the discussion on modern warfare >over the last few days, so I thought I'd ask your opinion. > > The question is : What changes would a Twilight War as listed in >the T2K rules set have on modern warfare? > > In our campaign warfare has degenerated into small-scale trench war a' >la 1915. Local commanders are not capable of summoning the logistics or >manpower required to straighten fronts, so they are unable to join with >allied units in their cantons. The encounter tables and equipment list >availability chart seem to indicate it is still fairly easy for troops to >get a hold of ATGM's and as there are no more tanks being built so maneuvre >warfare seems out as well. > Interested in your response. Jim. I think the combat in Twilight would be similar to the United States position in Vietnam. I think that there are no longer any fronts and that there is not much happening other than armies trying to survive in a post-nuclear war environment. There would be outpost of different armies that have dug-in to try and survive the current conditons. Nobody wants to take the offensive because that would make them leave their newly planted farms (which they live off of). The only people that are making offensive moves are the deserters and mauders (they take their food so they have nothing to lose). The PC's are usually lost somewhere in hostile territory and trying to find someplace to get away from the war (to bad there are not that many places like that... if any at all). The PC's must fight all the hostile patrols of different armies and try and keep the mauderers off of them and just stay alive any way they can (whether that means joining up with a canton or.... becoming mauderers themselfs). This is the way I see the war. Tanks and Aromored vechices are still made just so few last long enough to make any difference (and though that do survive are so valuable nobody wants to risk using them other than for a last defence). Write back if you disagree I want to hear different opinions C JONES _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com - ------=_NextPart_001_6f5a5010_35a96b19$3bb26989 Content-type: text/html From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Reply-To: twilight2000@mpgn.com To: "T2K forum" Subject: T2K Warfare Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:50:37 +1000 Hi all, I've really been enjoying the discussion on modern warfare over the last few days, so I thought I'd ask your opinion. The question is : What changes would a Twilight War as listed in the T2K rules set have on modern warfare? In our campaign warfare has degenerated into small-scale trench war a' la 1915. Local commanders are not capable of summoning the logistics or manpower required to straighten fronts, so they are unable to join with allied units in their cantons. The encounter tables and equipment list availability chart seem to indicate it is still fairly easy for troops to get a hold of ATGM's and as there are no more tanks being built so maneuvre warfare seems out as well. Interested in your response. Jim. I think the combat in Twilight would be similar to the United States position in Vietnam. I think that there are no longer any fronts and that there is not much happening other than armies trying to survive in a post-nuclear war environment. There would be outpost of different armies that have dug-in to try and survive the current conditons. Nobody wants to take the offensive because that would make them leave their newly planted farms (which they live off of). The only people that are making offensive moves are the deserters and mauders (they take their food so they have nothing to lose). The PC's are usually lost somewhere in hostile territory and trying to find someplace to get away from the war (to bad there are not that many places like that... if any at all). The PC's must fight all the hostile patrols of different armies and try and keep the mauderers off of them and just stay alive any way they can (whether that means joining up with a canton or! ..! ... becoming mauderers themselfs). This is the way I see the war. Tanks and Aromored vechices are still made just so few last long enough to make any difference (and though that do survive are so valuable nobody wants to risk using them other than for a last defence). Write back if you disagree I want to hear different opinions C JONES Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit www.msn.com - ------=_NextPart_001_6f5a5010_35a96b19$3bb26989-- - ------=_NextPart_000_7042fe19_35a96b19$3bb26989 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhQAZlAPcAAP////7+/v39/fz8/Pv7+/r6+vn5+fj4+Pf39/b29vX19fT09PPz8/Ly8vHx 8fDw8O/v7+7u7u3t7ezs7Ovr6+rq6unp6ejo6Ofn5+bm5uXl5ePj4+Li4uHh4eDg4N/f397e3t3d 3dzc3Nvb29ra2tnZ2djY2NfX19bW1tXV1dTU1NPT09LS0tHR0dDQ0M/Pz87Ozs3NzczMzMvLy8rK ysnJycjIyMfHx8bGxsXFxcTExMPDw8LCwsHBwcDAwL+/v76+vr29vby8vLu7u7q6urm5ubi4uLe3 t7a2trW1tbS0tLOzs7KysrGxsbCwsK+vr66urq2traysrKurq6qqqqmpqaioqKenp6ampqWlpaSk pKOjo6KioqGhoaCgoJ+fn56enp2dnZycnJubm5qampmZmZiYmJeXl5aWlpWVlZSUlJOTk5KSkpGR kZCQkI+Pj46Ojo2NjYyMjIuLi4qKiomJiYiIiIeHh4aGhoWFhYSEhIODg4KCgoGBgYCAgH9/f35+ fgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAQAZ lAEAI/wBvXPlC sKDBgwgTKlxY8M2XK0duvDjxoaLFixgzntj44sWNHz+OPLky8Mybk3dS3nlz5ckPihAQIABAs6bN mzhz6tzJs6fPn0CDCh1KtKjRo0iTKl3KtKnTp1CjSp1KtarVq1izat3KtavXr2DDih1LtqzZs2hz nvD4YyRBk29S/pl75wzDu3ffnIH4YyLFjIADC764cW3HGxgSx5yZtrHjx5AjS55MubLly5gza97M ubPnz6BDmxVc2PDHkCNLmlQ5909dvAb18vU7uLZtwaJz697Nu7fv38CDCx9OvLjx48jT3rZd+jBI kQO/wGVN1+TeI303Lt9+O7n37+DDi/8fT768+fPo06tHzr194OYeP8L+csR9+/X48+vfz7+///8A BijggETZZyBpJ8yn4Bc/2EfggxBGKOGEFFZo4YUY9nfghhhttOCHsN1gUYYklmjiiSimqOKKLJqI 1xN/cYggiDTCNhEGEMTU4o489ujjj0AGKeSQT9Wo0BExbuehkUwm5NILH2AgE5FUVmnllVhmqeWW wzVpJJIVLenlmE9GOSWXaKap5ppstunmmziNSaZbq90xl0NywlamlIzB6eefgAYq6KCElpdnk3p9 8URENzT60RHQvYWSna3hyeSeZxaq6aacdurpp6BidSiTsmFH22CFHXbaE25JN2lrf1j/ehCmfYZq 66245qrrrmy+EFJJKtk1KkOlZpfkgRSlGl9I0EUH0g0n4Jgpr9RWa+212GYLoEUcsYUaSdLVSalr wpJ6nbEyuqftuuy26+678Oqm5AfKettsuHHJVZ1CxZ6a7nbxBizwwAQXbDBU/wIG32n3SpcQmAkv d/DEFFds8cXrRmygmDQ2+C/GIIcs8sgkr6mxfRwPa5DHuJXs8sswxyxzhQbBeDJzCaoM4rQz9+zz z0AHLVyNNqebss56RgQTz0I37fTTUEftFdIFQfxezlQrSKvUXHft9ddg/5S1gh9FNzZDW4et9tps ty3z2bAl+lBBZ0w3bqw6p+323nz3/+33u3Dj1a92YXbbKLOt2g2rrC/2ZWatf0cu+eSUF3pD4MSe 6y93yh4uEp12q3RHS47zWfnpqKeuOpYeHVES5rFpTjiyhq8K+kknLep4jpCv7vvvwAdPIVsj1dna a1kPfuy/nT8KqV+K9S789NRXb315HHnuumr5jou8nMrffPUJMpV//fnop68+cB12/lxq+FJHbo3h i9/y+vjnr//+lN1WL8OJE9fxyrWQ+tkPMPxLoAIXyECtbIxehrEXq94iwH01RHbLO2BFGsjBDnrw g0HRWPPeF526TcpSppqdBi8Cwha68IUMXGGysgfACS6kPivcIAx3yMMeUi+HCOoIiP9wqDEfGvGI SJQcEGvzAjmxzEBJjKIUp9i1Jc4IaU+sDRW3yMUuxsyKV4PdF0SUES+a8YxoPFjRwMgtrInxIGmM oxzniC2FrFGDR3vjF6TFNDr68Y+A9NOC7sg8N+qRID+AVpR0FMhGOvKRWfKS1VBmyEOSDkrSgqQm N8nJFulskqiqpB4v+QHedfKUqEzlhDBHRMKIUo9lWowqZ0nLWubnkFVrIi5rtjtG2vKXwAzmcXZZ ENS4inGBi2UfhcnMZjqTM8RMCFzyVamxxdKXz8ymNrcJmWh+IVGsgtTnSjipcSHzUrtbJjfXyc52 iiqaxZIIR9aivcSVs5o0uqb03Mn/z376MyneHBy9NJKqepKze/hEWzr3+c+GOvShcYInBpVUO9TY E6F34iWUTAnRjnoUor56wi4NyDkImsZ54DqmSlhiqsd99KUwdWfrrgAXAsKNpBuqaFsCeIZFKVJK MQ2qUJ9JPFdR6nvJm2jERggpVl2hUZiU5VCnStVZrsWY36SmBXWG06XW7iMViZ46q0rWstIxe1g1 ofz+YNMxdfVmzeGd+cxK17r60aQSBJda9TU/tyrVijNhqF0HS9gpttFwJOTeWtu6oLdqsLCQjSwX Fea+bymWr0idj2MPKNnOetaItflfYuPHV7Zq9q9L/KxqVwtCzkUQgCWsYF/5hVog/7L2trhN4MZe m9i6yda0B9ms/XJL3OKij0NMjRRpvScs4YrPuNCNLvASJlrLqlR0d5DObFRoW+l697uTg2tBYUtB 3NUMWhl8LHjXy9624bFbyxonQ0Cp3vba975SW+LCnIeXLD4XvwAOMNDYiNfDLKiVRRSwghfsMgIP FIK6BJF/OcTgClv4Yg4+rJcmrK4Le/jDAstwGw/F4e6A+MQo1paIC6ezEgcmxTCO8a5WDMGxuXhE Ms6xjjtF4zxi8X47DrKQ/dTjV46NjDgespKXnKYiE1NETI6ylK9EEELq18iwE+yUt8zlEyHEygf0 sRgXo+Uum/nMELpLer3qzUVKFf/NcI4zgeYDZqNhGXPy5KOc98xn/oCozrv1pktEpOc+G/rQhjIS oCnqTb4srcyIjrSkeyMn+m4nwrskHUVMN+lOe/o3w1o0Qb2pqNKN9dOoTvVlqGbp9pFab6qOtawr A7dWixl2pMzkrHfNa8eIcZK3ht2esNnrYhv7K7hE0loaDetjO/vZVvHmEQRtakhD+9rYJoo3P1I8 Sw7b2tkOt7h1Iu0JriZWjKXat8fN7naLLZokKcmr6HK2XJ/a3fgOtzfrZhATYtQ16q52vgee74Da pSWsuqhWAX6oXBOb4BDHtsEVhR2QIO6g8jtnPkv38Ih7/NgG54tEOhJf5YYuoSBosje4P85yT4fc VH5pjkEl9W+NKxST9265zjv98r5MpH00vDjNMw4bh69850jnc883B3R6PsqpQ+erzUsd1aMn/epo Xjp3FYbXmV/XnAdROdbHznOJbnfN43M6SKB+XddkVOxkj/uhAwIAOw== - ------=_NextPart_000_7042fe19_35a96b19$3bb26989-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #42 ************************************