twilight2000-digest Sunday, August 29 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 066 The following topics are covered in this digest: failures/critical failures M16 Re: M16 Re: M16 Re: M16 Hehe Hiya Re: M16 Re: failures/critical failures Re: M16 Re: M16 Re: M16 Rail Guns Re: Rail Guns Re: Rail Guns Re: Rail Guns Re: M16 Re: Rail Guns Re: Rail Guns Re: Rail Guns Re: Rail Guns Re: Rail Guns Re: Rail Guns Re: Rail Guns Re: Rail Guns Online groups Online groups Re: M16 Re: Rail Guns Re: Rail Guns Re: Rail Guns Re: Rail Guns ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:31:00 EDT From: REBEL P ENGLISH Subject: failures/critical failures I was curious how everyone handled a failed roll? Do you just come up with something appropriate (which I do most of the time). I was thinking that if anyone had a fumble table (for lets say combat or mechanics), they could post it so everyone could take a look/discuss it. I would appreciate it, even though you may open yourself up to criticing it. I Ride a pale horse... But I'm not Spooky... ...Yet! ? Rebel P.E. Esq. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:31:00 EDT From: REBEL P ENGLISH Subject: M16 I was curios what every ones opinion of the M16 is as a 1) assault weapon, 2) Americas main combat weapon, 3) weapon in T2K, and 4) vs other assault weapons (ak47, akm, etc ). Most civilians have a low opinion of the weapon, do to the criticism during the early vietnam war. However, most Military personal that I talk to say it is a good weapon "IF" properly maintained. They go on to say that in a trade of it would be a matter of what circumstances they would trade the M16 for the AK47. For example the Vietnam war, the AK47 was the better weapon because of its durability and its lack of range (vs M16) was not an issue because the ranges were short to turkey shoot. However in Saudi, The 2 people who I talked to who were there said that the range advantage was a definite up sell . Your opinions please... ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 19:14:25 -0700 (PDT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Michael=20Cook?= Subject: Re: M16 - --- REBEL P ENGLISH wrote: > Most civilians have a low opinion of the weapon, do > to the criticism > during the early vietnam war. However, most Military > personal that I talk > to say it is a good weapon "IF" properly maintained. I believe the maintenance issue was compounded by the introduction of a new type of powder in the rounds used at that time that left a larger amount of residue or something and all around wasn't that great a powder. The guns fouled faster, and the soldiers weren't cleaning them as often as they should have been anyway, so you ended up with the guns fouling very often. I don't think it was the fault of the weapon though. I don't know, I could be completely wrong on this, it was something I read a long time again and maybe I have fouled some of the facts. Can anyone back me up or correct me on this one? Michael Cook __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:35:49 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: M16 At 09:31 PM 8/27/99 EDT, REBEL P ENGLISH wrote: >For example the Vietnam war, the AK47 was the better weapon because of >its durability and its lack of range (vs M16) was not an issue because >the ranges were short to turkey shoot. However in Saudi, The 2 people who >I talked to who were there said that the range advantage was a definite >up sell . > You should remember that the M16 used today is a newer version, with the problems found in Vietnam corrected for the most part. 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: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:57:36 -0600 From: rogue09@sprynet.com Subject: Re: M16 > > I believe the maintenance issue was compounded by the introduction of a > new type of powder in the rounds used at that time that left a larger > amount of residue or something and all around wasn't that great a > powder. The guns fouled faster, and the soldiers weren't cleaning them > as often as they should have been anyway, so you ended up with the guns > fouling very often. I don't think it was the fault of the weapon > though. I don't know, I could be completely wrong on this, it was > something I read a long time again and maybe I have fouled some of the > facts. Yes, the intial problems with the M-16 in Viet-Nam were that they switched to a different powder which caused a significant build up of powder-foulding the weapon. The other problem was that the troops were told the weapon didn't have to be cleaned, so the more you fired it (and faster you fired it) the more powder which built up... The problem was solved by chrome lining the barrels and adding a forward assist to chamber the bolt on a round, that was the problem with the weapon which was addressed. The change was made back to the original powder used and the weapon has been used wihtout much complaint since. > > > Can anyone back me up or correct me on this one? > > Michael Cook Hope This Helps T.R. - -- *************************************************************** "What about the truth? What about the public's right to know?!" "Oh, come on don't give me that... The public traded the right to know for the chance to watch a long time ago..." - --Len Kaminski (Writer) Ghost Rider: 2099 #6 *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 01:53:25 -0500 From: ^NikE^ Subject: Hehe Hiya HEY kewl I found the mailing list to the best RPG !!! I got all the books I know :) Anyway, two questions: #1 Are there any netbooks or pc books for tw2000? #2 Are there any online RPG groups that you can contact to play? Thanks a bunch people Nick *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 16:48:53 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: M16 - -----Original Message----- From: Michael Cook To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Saturday, 28 August 1999 12:14 Subject: Re: M16 > > >--- REBEL P ENGLISH wrote: > >> Most civilians have a low opinion of the weapon, do >> to the criticism >> during the early vietnam war. However, most Military >> personal that I talk >> to say it is a good weapon "IF" properly maintained. > > >I believe the maintenance issue was compounded by the introduction of a >new type of powder in the rounds used at that time that left a larger >amount of residue or something and all around wasn't that great a >powder. The guns fouled faster, and the soldiers weren't cleaning them >as often as they should have been anyway, so you ended up with the guns >fouling very often. I don't think it was the fault of the weapon >though. I don't know, I could be completely wrong on this, it was >something I read a long time again and maybe I have fouled some of the >facts. > >Can anyone back me up or correct me on this one? > >Michael Cook That's about right, I think it was the SS1109 round was brought in to replace it, still, I think the US is up to the M16A2 model now which has fixed all the old problems. At Khe Sahn a whole bunch of mariness were found dead on a hill top with jammed M16's and extraction rods in thier hands, which puts the concept of correct trials in it's proper perspective. The Warsaw Pact had phased out the AK-47 in favour of the AK-74, (as you all know, this being the T2K list.) The AK-74 fires a semi-jacketed round which has an enhanced expansion in the wound track at the expense of accuracy. Jim (Who'se speaking totally from memory as all his books are packed up.) *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 02:09:32 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: failures/critical failures REBEL P ENGLISH wrote: > I was curious how everyone handled a failed roll? Do you just come up > with something appropriate (which I do most of the time). > > I was thinking that if anyone had a fumble table (for lets say combat or > mechanics), they could post it so everyone could take a look/discuss it. > > I would appreciate it, even though you may open yourself up to criticing > it. > > I Ride a pale horse... > But I'm not Spooky... ...Yet! > ? > Rebel P.E. Esq. For firing a critical failure is usually a jam for me (1 on a d100 for 1st edition, roll another d10 in 2nd edition and use 1,2,3 depending on how likely a jam would be). Course in D&D it means you hit yourself but I'm not that mean (although in the case of say, a grenade, it may be warranted hehe ["You rolled a critical failure, I'll be generous and give you the whole five seconds to run"]). Everything else is case by case. - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://sanitarium.computers-radio.com]-) *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 11:00:01 EDT From: REBEL P ENGLISH Subject: Re: M16 On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:35:49 -0400 Scott David Orr writes: >You should remember that the M16 used today is a newer version, with >the >problems found in Vietnam corrected for the most part. > >Scott Orr You mean the improvement from the 16A1 to A2 made in the mid to late 60's or have they made additional improvements and not changed the model name? ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 11:00:01 EDT From: REBEL P ENGLISH Subject: Re: M16 >I believe the maintenance issue was compounded by the introduction of a >new type of powder in the rounds used at that time that left a larger >amount of residue or something and all around wasn't that great a >powder. The guns fouled faster, and the soldiers weren't cleaning them >as often as they should have been anyway, so you ended up with the guns >fouling very often. I don't think it was the fault of the weapon >though. I don't know, I could be completely wrong on this, it was >something I read a long time again and maybe I have fouled some of the facts. > >Can anyone back me up or correct me on this one? > >Michael Cook You may be correct? ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 10:06:20 -0600 From: rogue09@sprynet.com Subject: Re: M16 > > > You mean the improvement from the 16A1 to A2 made in the mid to late 60's > or have they made additional improvements and not changed the model name? The change from the M-16A1 to M-16A2 occurred in the 1980's, subsiquent changes have been minor ones which more to do with removing the carrying handle for a flat-top mounting platform for scopes (the M-16A3 I think). Only other major change was of course the burst limiter to fire three rounds instead of full auto. T.R. *************************************************************** "What about the truth? What about the public's right to know?!" "Oh, come on don't give me that... The public traded the right to know for the chance to watch a long time ago..." - --Len Kaminski (Writer) Ghost Rider: 2099 #6 *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 12:07:20 -0500 From: Steve Chymy Subject: Rail Guns In my campaign some players want to explore the use of rail guns, at first I just brushed it off, but now I heard (I am trying to pinpoint the source) that in Australia a startup company has built functional / practical use rail guns (beta versions), has anyone any information on this? Thanks; Steve *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 14:39:41 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Rail Guns At 12:07 PM 8/28/99 -0500, Steve Chymy wrote: > In my campaign some players want to explore the use of rail guns, at >first I just >brushed it off, but now I heard (I am trying to pinpoint the source) >that in Australia a startup company has built functional / practical use >rail guns (beta versions), has anyone any information on this? > Even if they don't build full-scale artilley pieces, building armored trains (used in every war from WWI to WWII, including the 1919-21 Polish-Soviet War) is rather easy, and putting an artillery piece on one of the cars is just one step up from there....Armored trains usually included not only armor on the engine and cars (and the engine typically goes in the middle of the train, where it's better protected), but also things like machine-gun, cannon, and mortar mounts on flat cars. These trains were very useful in the areas of Eastern Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and Western Russia, where you had wide-open spaces and needed to be able to protect rail lines from raiders, make quick advances (it's the ultimate assault vehicle), and so on--to an extent the development of motorized warfare reduced this need, but even then, the road networks in that area of the world were awful. There's a guy on Usenet (or at least used to be) who did his Ph.D. dissertation on railraod-mounted artilley. I can't remember his name, but you might try asking your question on soc.hist.war.misc or sci.military.moderated. 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, 28 Aug 1999 14:43:00 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Rail Guns At 12:07 PM 8/28/99 -0500, Steve Chymy wrote: > In my campaign some players want to explore the use of rail guns, at >first I just >brushed it off, but now I heard (I am trying to pinpoint the source) >that in Australia a startup company has built functional / practical use >rail guns (beta versions), has anyone any information on this? > It just occurred to me that you probably meant electromagnetic linear accelerators. :) 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, 28 Aug 1999 12:50:23 -0600 From: rogue09@sprynet.com Subject: Re: Rail Guns Scott David Orr wrote: > At 12:07 PM 8/28/99 -0500, Steve Chymy wrote: > > In my campaign some players want to explore the use of rail guns, at > >first I just > >brushed it off, but now I heard (I am trying to pinpoint the source) > >that in Australia a startup company has built functional / practical use > >rail guns (beta versions), has anyone any information on this? If were talking about "rail guns" in the form of weapons capble of firing hyper-velocity rounds (et.al) at incredibly fast speeds then the last data I had seen suggested that no practical model had been fielded. This may have changed however... always does when firearms (et.al) are concerned. The movie "Eraser" did a lot to catch people's eyes on this subject but the reality is a bit different, seen pics of some of the protoypes... their not exactly manportable much less lightweight... Oh well T.R. *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 15:24:43 -0400 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: M16 > The change from the M-16A1 to M-16A2 occurred in the 1980's, subsiquent changes > have been minor ones which more to do with removing the carrying handle for a > flat-top mounting platform for scopes (the M-16A3 I think). Only other major > change was of course the burst limiter to fire three rounds instead of full > auto. > > > T.R. I think the M-16A2 came out about 1982 or 1983, possibly a year or two earlier. For those not in the know, the A2 has a round foregrip whereas the A1 has a triangular one plus the A2 has a tighter rifled barrell. Chuck DE KA3WRW - ---- "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 15:29:50 -0400 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Rail Guns > If were talking about "rail guns" in the form of weapons capble of firing > hyper-velocity rounds (et.al) at incredibly fast speeds then the last data I > had seen suggested that no practical model had been fielded. This may have > changed however... always does when firearms (et.al) are concerned. The movie > "Eraser" did a lot to catch people's eyes on this subject but the reality is a > bit different, seen pics of some of the protoypes... their not exactly > manportable much less lightweight... > > Oh well > > > T.R. Basically the railguns use an electric coil to force out the projectile. The coil is wound with copper wire much like a transformer and those suckers can get heavy. Also as you pointed out you need a better, more portable power source that can give out massive amounts of energy in short notice. The only thing I can think of is something like a car battery but those are heavy, you got to watch the acid doesn't leak, and even so, they can only release lots of electricity for only a short time so you "magazine" would be quite limited. The only possiblity for rail guns in my opinion is possibly tanks where they could carry an electrical generator to power the gun. I think we are stuck with what we have for many more years to come. Chuck DE KA3WRW - ---- "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 14:19:02 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Rail Guns Chuck Mandus wrote: > > If were talking about "rail guns" in the form of weapons capble of firing > > hyper-velocity rounds (et.al) at incredibly fast speeds then the last data > I > > had seen suggested that no practical model had been fielded. This may > have > > changed however... always does when firearms (et.al) are concerned. The > movie > > "Eraser" did a lot to catch people's eyes on this subject but the reality > is a > > bit different, seen pics of some of the protoypes... their not exactly > > manportable much less lightweight... > > > > Oh well > > > > > > T.R. > > Basically the railguns use an electric coil to force out the projectile. Heh "one bad ass solenoid" - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://sanitarium.computers-radio.com]-) *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 18:26:26 -0500 From: Steve Chymy Subject: Re: Rail Guns Scott David Orr wrote: > > Even if they don't build full-scale artilley pieces, building armored > trains (used in every war from WWI to WWII, including the 1919-21 > Polish-Soviet War) is rather easy, and putting an artillery piece on one of > the cars is just one step up from there....Armored trains usually included > not only armor on the engine and cars (and the engine typically goes in the > middle of the train, where it's better protected), but also things like > machine-gun, cannon, and mortar mounts on flat cars. > > These trains were very useful in the areas of Eastern Poland, Ukraine, > Belarus, and Western Russia, where you had wide-open spaces and needed to > be able to protect rail lines from raiders, make quick advances (it's the > ultimate assault vehicle), and so on--to an extent the development of > motorized warfare reduced this need, but even then, the road networks in > that area of the world were awful. > > There's a guy on Usenet (or at least used to be) who did his Ph.D. > dissertation on railraod-mounted artilley. I can't remember his name, but > you might try asking your question on soc.hist.war.misc or > sci.military.moderated. > > Scott Orr > Brilliant Idea, I can not believe I have not considered using the railway system in a direct military combat role. I think you just gave me great ideas for our campaign. Yes, I originally was talking about gauss rifles or electromagnetic linear accelerators, however using the railway in direct combat would make for a fresh campaign. Does anyone here have an ideal of the state of the rail system in T2K? Is it still possible to launch an assault by rail? Could steam power make a return? I can not wait to unleash this on the party. :) Down the tracks you see the little engine that could--- ---kick your butt! ;) This would be sheer terror to my players as many of them have settled down a bit. Steve *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 09:46:44 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Rail Guns Does anyone here have an ideal of the state of the rail system in >T2K? Is it still possible to launch an assault by rail? Could steam power make >a return? > > >I can not wait to unleash this on the party. :) >Down the tracks you see the little engine that could--- ---kick your butt! ;) >This would be sheer terror to my players as many of them have settled down a >bit. >Steve > "The last train to Clarkesville" scenario gives you the stats (V1) for a polish steam train, various carriages and flatbeds, and a terrible map of the polish rail system. The gun carriages would be easy to extrapolate from the flatbeds as they give you a weight for armouring via sand bags etc. I think either Squadron Signal or Osprey books did a couple of Infobooks on german rail carriages from the beginning scratchbuilt versions PC's might come up with, to the mean independent armoured trains that David referred to, these look like a row of tanks, SPG's and armoured cars with their undercarriage replaced with railway bogey's. Can anyone remember which sourcebook this scenario was in? "The last train home" or something. Jim. *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 20:58:05 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Rail Guns At 09:46 AM 8/29/99 +1000, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > "The last train to Clarkesville" scenario gives you the stats (V1) for a >polish steam train, various carriages and flatbeds, and a terrible map of >the polish rail system. The gun carriages would be easy to extrapolate from >the flatbeds as they give you a weight for armouring via sand bags etc. I think the name of the scenario book is "Going Home", actually--it's for 1st Edition. 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, 28 Aug 1999 21:05:41 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Rail Guns Subject: Re: Rail Guns > Does anyone here have an ideal of the state of the rail system in > >T2K? Is it still possible to launch an assault by rail? Could steam power > make > >a return? > "The last train to Clarkesville" scenario gives you the stats (V1) for a > polish steam train, various carriages and flatbeds, and a terrible map of > the polish rail system. The gun carriages would be easy to extrapolate from > the flatbeds as they give you a weight for armouring via sand bags etc. > I think either Squadron Signal or Osprey books did a couple of Infobooks > on german rail carriages from the beginning scratchbuilt versions PC's might > come up with, to the mean independent armoured trains that David referred > to, these look like a row of tanks, SPG's and armoured cars with their > undercarriage replaced with railway bogey's. > Can anyone remember which sourcebook this scenario was in? "The last > train home" or something. That would be the "Going Home" module. It has a very simplistic (best way to do it) system for running steam trains. There is a model provided. Yes the map is terrible but it shows many of the larger lines which is good enough, a little sense can help stretch the lines where need be. I liked the module, and it's really only travel. I can imagine the complications if it evolved into a "Rail Gun Campaign". Considering the technology level and it being I think easier field, it could be a scenario breaker or a maker. Have fun with it. Loonz *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 22:54:46 -0400 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Rail Guns > Brilliant Idea, I can not believe I have not considered using the railway > system in a direct military combat role. I think you just gave me great ideas > for our campaign. Yes, I originally was talking about gauss rifles or > electromagnetic linear > accelerators, however using the railway in direct combat would make for a fresh > campaign. Does anyone here have an ideal of the state of the rail system in > T2K? Is it still possible to launch an assault by rail? Could steam power make > a return? > > > I can not wait to unleash this on the party. :) > Down the tracks you see the little engine that could--- ---kick your butt! ;) > This would be sheer terror to my players as many of them have settled down a > bit. > Steve I remember one module that GDW did where the focus was on one of the last working locomotives in Poland which was a steam engine. I know Red China still uses and even makes steam engines and has a doctrine to use them for freight and troop movements during a nuclear war since all you need to run them is water and wood or coal. I think the USSR had a similar plan where if the locomotive needed fuel, "they'd send the troops out to chop wood." Another nation that still uses steam locomotives is India. I guess there would be problems at some of the hubs if they were bombed by nukes but I think most tracks would remain intact. One thing though is here in the U.S., we have been tearing up our rails and turning them into bike trails, not a prudent move, IMHO, because we may need them one day. We have many museums devoted to old trains and I could see them being brought out if need be. Chuck DE KA3WRW - --- "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 23:45:12 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Rail Guns One thing to add is that historical armored trains often included a number of troop cars--they were used to carry an infantry unit that could take part in the assault. 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, 28 Aug 1999 23:10:25 -0500 From: ^NikE^ Subject: Online groups Any online groups that play twilight 2000 2nd edition, I'd like to join one and do some serious gaming ??? Nick *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Aug 1999 23:12:13 -0500 From: ^NikE^ Subject: Online groups Any online groups that play twilight 2000 2nd edition, I'd like to join one and do some serious gaming ??? Anyone got some good sites for netbooks etc ??? Nick *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 02:22:32 -0700 From: "Randy Knight" Subject: Re: M16 > The Warsaw Pact had phased out the AK-47 in favour of the AK-74, (as you > all know, this being the T2K list.) The AK-74 fires a semi-jacketed round > which has an enhanced expansion in the wound track at the expense of > accuracy. > Jim (Who'se speaking totally from memory as all his books are packed No, the bullets are not semi jacketed, that would contravene the Hague convention regarding the laws of land warfare. Rather, the bullets are very long for their caliber causing them to break into multiple pieces as they travel through the body. Something they found to be very effective in Afghanistan. Randy *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 11:42:17 +0200 From: "Javier Sesma" Subject: Re: Rail Guns > I remember one module that GDW did where the focus was on one of the last > working locomotives in Poland which was a steam engine. I know Red China > still uses and even makes steam engines and has a doctrine to use them for > freight and troop movements during a nuclear war since all you need to run > them is water and wood or coal. I think the USSR had a similar plan where > if the locomotive needed fuel, "they'd send the troops out to chop wood." > Another nation that still uses steam locomotives is India. I guess there > would be problems at some of the hubs if they were bombed by nukes but I > think most tracks would remain intact. One thing though is here in the > U.S., we have been tearing up our rails and turning them into bike trails, > not a prudent move, IMHO, because we may need them one day. We have many > museums devoted to old trains and I could see them being brought out if need > be. > > Chuck Thatīs a good idea for a scenario or even a campaign, and you can take the ambient of the civil war with players moving on a steam train across the USA. You can put then on a train and send then to clear new routes, as escort, for preparing intermediate points of supply, etc, and you can use it for moving between campaign, as base for then or as a module. I think that assault trains are no good idea, they where made for transport, not for combat, and preparing a train for that is a high price for a poor result. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 09:34:00 PDT From: "C Jones" Subject: Re: Rail Guns > I think that assault trains are no good idea, they where made for >transport, not for combat, and preparing a train for that is a high price >for a >poor result. and how hard is it to hit a train with a rpg or something (it can't exactly dodge the missle) C JONES ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:31:37 -0500 From: Steve Chymy Subject: Re: Rail Guns C Jones wrote: > > I think that assault trains are no good idea, they where made for > >transport, not for combat, and preparing a train for that is a high price > >for a > >poor result. I would think you would have a difficult time killing a train, assuming that we were in open flat lands, and this type of train would be a moving armada with many troops and support personal living on board. Complete with localized radar, counter battery, etc. Note: in my campaign, we have progress quite far after the war, and many times my players are riding horse back because their vehicles have maintenance values of 8 or 9 and are about to break down. So I would say it would depend on timing. Plus major populated centers remaining (developing) would have to revert to steam due to the lack of petroleum wouldn't you think? > > and how hard is it to hit a train with a rpg or something (it can't exactly > dodge the missle) > > C JONES > First, if you properly armored a train with sandbags old tank armor etc., I do not think a RPG rocket would penetrate the armor, this is why: A train car can carry over 90 tones of weight, correct me if I am wrong, You could pile sandbags and weld armor into next week. As far as missiles are concerned, there are not many tomahawk (type) missiles floating around out there, and don't these type of missiles use satellites and sophisticated electronics to guide them, which may not be all that functional in Y2K. And for good measure you could have a antimissile Vulcan cannon onboard. Although that would be hard to explain, but if your campaign has Tomahawk missiles then this would not be far fetched. Steve *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 20:11:19 +0200 From: "Javier Sesma" Subject: Re: Rail Guns > > C Jones wrote: > > > > I think that assault trains are no good idea, they where made for > > >transport, not for combat, and preparing a train for that is a high price > > >for a > > >poor result. > > I would think you would have a difficult time killing a train, assuming that > we were in open flat lands, and this type of train would be a moving armada > with many troops and support personal living on board. Complete with localized > radar, counter battery, etc. Note: in my campaign, we have progress quite far > after the war, and many times my players are riding horse back because their > vehicles have maintenance values of 8 or 9 and are about to break down. So I > would say it would depend on timing. Plus major populated centers remaining > (developing) would have to revert to steam due to the lack of petroleum > wouldn't you think? A train is the prefect target for an ambush, you always know where it will go. In the other hand railways are built avoiding zones with bad terrain and looking for facilities of building. You can enjoy making a surprise attack and getting your train to the middle of a town, giving little time to their inhabitants to get a gun. But in a place prepared for defence, with patrol and surveillance point, as there are in many important places, you have no possibility. > > > > and how hard is it to hit a train with a rpg or something (it can't exactly > > dodge the missle) > > > > C JONES > > > > First, if you properly armored a train with sandbags old tank armor etc., I do > not think a RPG rocket would penetrate the armor, this is why: > A train car can carry over 90 tones of weight, correct me if I am wrong, > You could pile sandbags and weld armor into next week. As far as missiles are > concerned, there are not many tomahawk (type) missiles floating around out > there, and don't these type of missiles use satellites and sophisticated > electronics to guide them, which may not be all that functional in Y2K. And for > good measure you could have a antimissile Vulcan cannon onboard. > Although that would be hard to explain, but if your campaign has Tomahawk > missiles then this would not be far fetched. > > Steve Destroying the head of the train every think coming after if will get out of the railway, or in the worst case it will stop it. You can destroy a train with artillery or simply with a fallen tree on the way. *************************************************************************** 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 #66 ************************************ To subscribe to Twilight2000-Digest, send the command: subscribe twilight2000-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-twlight2000": subscribe twlight2000-digest local-twilight2000@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "twilight2000-digest" in the commands above with "twilight2000".