twilight2000-digest Thursday, February 24 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 097 The following topics are covered in this digest: RE: Soviet TOE Soviet Bloc Allegiences AC configurations Re: AC configurations OPFOR Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences (long) Re: AC configurations Re: RE: Soviet Bloc Allegiences (long) Re: AC configurations Re: AC configurations Re: AC configurations RE: AC configurations Re: AC configurations Knock it off Re: Soviet TOE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:25:31 -0600 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Soviet TOE Janne Kemppi wrote: > > The best publicly available places are FM100-2 series > US Army did in 1984 (and another set was being published > in 1990). They are the real deal. They do not, however, > have them in the internet. And they are outdated so they > probably will not be published in internetnet anymore > The best, huh? Then why do you say they are outdated? That implies that there are no up-to-date sources, otherwise the FM100-2 series wouldn't be best anymore. Maybe a bit contradictory? The real deal, huh? Care to elaborate on WHY you think they are the real deal and the best? In other words, I would be much more apt to appreciate your point of view if I knew why you think this. > > There is also a Krasnovian army BattleBook, that is > very much similar (I'd say copy) of real Russian TOEs. > It was available in Internet some years back (1996) and > I guess they still use it in US Army Military intelligence > for training. > Where did you see this? When did you attend USAICS that you know what they use for training? Why would you say it is a "copy" of "real Russian TOEs"? When I attended the US Army Intelligence Center and School (USAICS) in Ft. Huachuca, AZ we didn't use any 'Krasnovian army BattleBook'. In fact, I'm apparently so uninformed that I never heard of such a thing. When I was in Intelligence School from Late November of 1988 to sometime in late spring of 1989 (I can't remember anymore what month I left), the Soviet military organization was taught in a class titled "Threat". It lasted 2 weeks and was about 2/3 of the way through the school. As I recall, it was one of the most difficult sections of the school because of the sheer amount of info you had to learn. More people 'bolo-ed' on Threat than any other section. To 'bolo' was our slang word for 'flunk-out'. The school is arranged such that each subject was taught enclusively for a 1 week or 2 week period. Then you were tested. If you passed, you went on. If you failed, they retested you up to 2 more times. If you still failed, they 're-cycled' you into the next class going through the school. This could happen up to 2 times. Thus you got up to 9 attempts to pass any single given test. Sounds easy, huh? Well, it just so happens that the 96B course (Intelligence Analyst) that I was in had one of the highest failure rates of any school in the US Army (about 50%). And to even qualify to get in the school you had to have a 110 GT score on your ASVAB and qualify for a TS clearance. The only school I know of with a higher failure rate was also in USAICS, it was the Interrogator course. Most of the "bolo's" changed over to 96R. We called them the 'pop-up targets'. They are ground surveillence radar operators. They supposedly had a life expectancy of about 9 seconds after they turned on their radars, assuming they were to be stationed in West Germany and WWIII started. It would have sucked to be them. Anyway, sorry. I digress... What I was getting at is that the contents of the "Threat" class is classified. I would tend to call that the 'real deal', if you like those kind of black & white terms. But unfortunately I cannot comment on what I learned there, except to say that I liked the FM 100-63. > FM 100-60 series is composite enemy structure. If you > look at it you notice it allows building basicly various > enemies from three basic sets. FM100-60 is the soviet > army, FM 100-63 is third world army and FM 100-65 (or was > it 66?) is the terrorist, guerilla, drug dealer etc. TOE. > > The enemies are roughly following: > FM 100-63 with bad end is Cuba > FM 100-63 with good equipment is North Korea > FM 100-60 is Soviet Union. > FM 100-65(66?) is Somalia. > The following is a quote from the preface of the FM 100-63: [start quote] This manual is one of a series that describes a capabilities-based Opposing Force (OPFOR) for training US Army commanders, staffs, and units. The manuals in this series are-- FM 100-60. Armor- and Mechanized-Based Opposing Force: Organization Guide. FM 100-61. Armor- and Mechanized-Based Opposing Force: Operational Art. FM 100-62. Armor- and Mechanized-Based Opposing Force: Tactics. FM 100-63. Infantry-Based Opposing Force: Organization Guide. FM 100-64. Infantry-Based Opposing Force: Operations and Tactics. FM 100-65. Opposing Force Equipment Guide. FM 100-66. Opposing Force in Operations Other Than War. [end quote] Since you say that FM 100-60 'is' Soviet Union, I assume you mean they have no Infantry Based units? Or maybe just not enough to matter? Also, what the heck is a "terrorist, guerilla, drug dealer" TOE? You must be refering to LIC (Low Intensity Conflict) intelligence estimating tools. Funny, I never recall the idea of a TOE based estimation system ever being applied to a LIC conflict. Not that I'm either confirming or denying anything specific, just that my memory fails on that... In the T2K scenario, massed Armor has been wiped out for the most part. There are 'Tank Divisions' running around with 5 tanks. Sounds more like an Infantry Division to me (whatever they call themselves), so a referee modeling the unit after an infantry unit sounds reasonable to me. Or what does the 'Krasnovian army BattleBook' say? When all the tanks in a 'Tank Division' are destroyed, and all the replacements you get are just men and a few old APC's, what is the TOE supposed to look like? How is the commander supposed to try and organize things? If you were a commander of a Soviet (or Polish) unit and had to reoranize into a combat effective unit based on limited equipment, my guess is that they wouldn't keep an Armor unit organization, just minus the tanks. Kinda blows the whole point, do you think? > They are however, composite forces and with mixing the > TOEs from FM100-60 and FM100-63 you can get fairly mixed > set of units. The TOEs in FM100-63 are closer to soviet > army in early 1980's and those in FM100-60 are closer to > 1990 situation. > Funny, the FM 100-63 that is posted on the web has a publication date of 18 April 1996. But yeah, your right, it's gotta be only early 80's stuff. What, with the 'Krasnovian army BattleBook' around, it's a wonder why the US Army even bothers to publish stuff at all. So it's probably worthless to let people know that FM 100-61 is also available: http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/100-61/toc.htm It's title is "ARMOR- AND MECHANIZED-BASED OPPOSING FORCE OPERATIONAL ART". It talks about military tactics, doctine and other topics. Just useless stuff like that. I'm sure no one could use anything like that. Probably old and too 80's... Actually, all my silly sarcasm aside, I would actually be interested in seeing that BattleBook Janne refers to. Anybody know where a copy exists online? Walter *************************************************************************** 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, 23 Feb 2000 10:54:29 -0600 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: Soviet Bloc Allegiences Dear List, My recent blabber-mouth tirade on the Soviet TOE got me thinking about the T2K scenario some. Has anyone tried to apply the ethnic and racial splits that occured once the Soviet imposed order fell into the T2K setting? Since the former east bloc countries obviously harbored at least some resentment towards Russia and towards each other, has anyone applied that to the Polish environment? Maybe having a few pro-western Latvian units running around or something? Maybe some of those governments split into pro-west and pro-east factions, kinda like the mil-gov/civ-gov thing the US has going in T2K? Also, I was wondering if anyone has any home-made scenarios in Poland that they would share? Thanks! Walter *************************************************************************** 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, 23 Feb 2000 12:08:59 -0500 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: AC configurations Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 > At 10:25 PM 2/22/00 -0500, Dwight Looney wrote: > >Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 > > > >I kinda think your both off a little and maybe someone with more details can > >fill in the blanks. > > > >You can make any aircraft do any mission based on weapons and their > >supporting electronics being installed. > > You can't just "install" a surface search radar--it usually takes up a lot > of space. Someone is out of their sphere on this, none of this is accurate. An attack aircraft that uses it's own RADAR to target anything other than an air to air shot is rare, it is taught and practised (if it even has the capability is rare, what radar do you think has a ground attack mode?) but not a practical consideration. First the enemy would always deny the sensor through jamming and secondly it confirms the presence of you and your intent. This is fact. I don't think we need totally bum gouge put to the list. > >Im pretty sure the limiting factor of a F16 over F18 is under wing stowage > >(wieght). And tactical radius at max payload. > > > >AGM-84 Harpoon has a launch wt of 1400lbs > > > I think actually that a plane has to be specially fitted to carry the > Harpoon--though as you say, this is probably just a matter of electronics. Even if I don't have specific weapon guidance in the aircraft (or it breaks or is shot up) there are modes I can still utilize the weapon. It's not complicated but is lengthy. AC are engineered to either accept or not these systems. Through wieght distribution and such. So back to the point. An F-18 would do better than a F-16 for this mission because the F-18 was engineered for it. The F-16 in a pinch could do it. You'd have to buy your F-16 with the capability. I'm not certain there is a F-16 version for this. I know they have 2 points to accept the weapon and they could shoot 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: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:08:07 PST From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: AC configurations > > You can't just "install" a surface search radar--it usually takes up a >lot > > of space. > >Someone is out of their sphere on this, none of this is accurate. An >attack >aircraft that uses it's own RADAR to target anything other than an air to >air shot is rare, it is taught and practised (if it even has the capability >is rare, what radar do you think has a ground attack mode?) but not a >practical consideration. >First the enemy would always deny the sensor through jamming and secondly >it >confirms the presence of you and your intent. >This is fact. I don't think we need totally bum gouge put to the list. Agreed. Even the E-3 AWACS (which has one of the most advanced, if not the most advanced, ground search-capable radar systems) can be fooled by ground clutter, decoy vehicles, or even the crests of breaking waves on the ocean surface -- although most of these problems by now have been addresses through computerized signal processing, extensive operator training, and the addition of VCR capability (anyone remember Red Storm Rising by Clancy?). Despite its ability, however, the E-3 is nowhere near being a ground attack fighter. So even with advanced ground-attack fighters (such as the F-111, A-6, and other similar planes), they tend to use their ground search radar to avoid terrain features instead of trying to designate targets. Throw in that most ground-attack weapons use almost exclusively non-radar-based tracking systems (electro-optical, IR/Imaging IR, low-light TV, inertial/terrain mapping, passive laser targeting are the most common), and it's pretty clear that SARH guidance is best suited for air-to-air missiles, not air-to-ground. > > >Im pretty sure the limiting factor of a F16 over F18 is under wing >stowage > > >(wieght). And tactical radius at max payload. They're actually not too far off. F-16 is somewhere between 5 and 8 tons, and F-18 is 16,000 lbs (C/D) or 18,000 lbs (E/F), if I remember correctly. > > >AGM-84 Harpoon has a launch wt of 1400lbs Which would mean that an F-16 could probably carry 2 if necessary (4 if you don't want drop tanks). > > I think actually that a plane has to be specially fitted to carry the > > Harpoon--though as you say, this is probably just a matter of >electronics. > >Even if I don't have specific weapon guidance in the aircraft (or it breaks >or is shot up) there are modes I can still utilize the weapon. It's not >complicated but is lengthy. AC are engineered to either accept or not >these >systems. Through wieght distribution and such. I think the Harpoon is pretty much fire-and-forget, so the F-16 would probably be able to use it. The only thing stopping it is that it's not officially cleared in US Service (currently, Harpoon is only cleared for the A-6 Intruder, F-18 Hornet, S-3 Viking, P-3 Orion, and B-52H Stratofortress). That doesn't mean other planes can't fire it; it just means the US hasn't trained the other pilots in their use (kind of like how they don't train the F-14 pilots too much in ground-attack missions, even though they could do a fairly decent job with the 14,500 lb payload capacity they have). ______________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:19:24 -0600 From: smoore@digcom.com Subject: OPFOR I discovered this sight while doing some reasearch for work. I thought it might help some of you. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/index.html "This resource provides the basic characteristics of selected land warfarce weapon systems either in use or readily available to the OPFOR or to potential coalition partners. The systems discussed are those likely to be encountered by US forces in varying levels of conflict. The selection of systems is not intended to be all-inclusive, rather a representative sampling of weapons and equipment supporting various military capabilities. " 1_ Voice Mail Guru Digital Communications 217-442-3800, Ext. 305 Fax 217-442-0974 D- _- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 09:34:33 +1300 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences (long) >Has anyone tried to apply the ethnic and racial splits that occured once the >Soviet imposed order fell into the T2K setting? Since the former east bloc >countries obviously harbored at least some resentment towards Russia and >towards each other, has anyone applied that to the Polish environment? >Maybe having a few pro-western Latvian units running around or something? >Maybe some of those governments split into pro-west and pro-east factions, >kinda like the mil-gov/civ-gov thing the US has going in T2K? Kind of. I have my group hooked up with the 1st Polish Free Legion in Leszno, and they get involved with all sorts of missions involving Western sympathisers or Russian-haters. >Also, I was wondering if anyone has any home-made scenarios in Poland that >they would share? Often I run my games on the fly (or off the cuff) so I don't often write down a lot of what I do. However, I can give you a brief rundown of stuff the group has done. They started out with your basic escape from Kalisz, then bumbled around for two months, going from one firefight to the next and healing up in between as they tried to get away from the main Soviet units. However, they kept going west all the time, and so were pretty much keeping mixed up with the 4th Guards Tank Army. Anyway, they made it to the area around Rawicz at one point, and after one of the players was leafing thru the equipment guide and saw some of the cool high-load APC's (like BTR-70 (I think ?), it's basically a duece-and-a-half with armour), they decided to try to get one. So I let them set up an ambush on a road. I had been keeping track of where the Soviet units were moving to, and the PC's were right in between two parts of the 124th MRD which was having all sorts of interanl problems (see 'Escape from Kalisz' booklet in T2K first ed.). The ambush they set ended up capturing them the APC they wanted, as well as the Major who was left commanding the 124th MRD. He was running around trying to keep his division falling to bits. With him now gone, the division promply collapsed, and now lots of marauders infest that area. Anyway, the PC's skirted Rawicz and headed north after getting info out of the Major, and ended up running into the 1st Polish Free Legion. They hooked up with them and started to get missions to help them out. First was a mission to investigate the units left in Rawicz. They disguised themselves as the Major and his staff and drove in in a jeep and their new APC. They didn't know the unit had gone bad so were pretty surprised when the troops inside opened up on them as they drove down the main street. After a prolonged firefight with a group in an old fire station, they managed to get out of town, but not before losing the APC to a guy with and RPG, and their four German NPC's picked up earlier got toasted too (two in the exploding APC). After that disaster, they got a mission to escort a pile of explosives to a sympathiser unit in Glogow, where the explosives were to be used to blow up a series of bridges and prevent any Soviet movement towards Glogiow from the south-west. Needless to say, I wasn't going to make it easy, and at one of their drop-off points units section they were supplying got ambushed by Soviets who had beend trailing them. So it was up to the PC's to go and blow up the bridge. This they managed to do, and also managed to capture a new APC (a BRDM-2) for their troubles. Next mission was a recon mission, to go out and find out were the Soviet ring around Leszno actually was, and what those unit's plans were. It being mid autumn about then, the Leszno command wanted to know if the units were camping in for the winter, or if there was still some fighting in prospect for the remainder of the year. After a very failed recon mission in which a PC got captured and the group spent a whole session breaking her out of a village, during which thye lost their BRDM-2 to a critical failure driving check (ran it into a lamp-post and broke an axle) while trying to get away, they made some attempt to complete their mission in their jeep and a duece-and-a-half before heading back home. Last time up they had another rescue mission, this time to free some to the 1st PFL people from a village that had kidnapped them to hold for ransom. This bunch, led by an insane militiaman, wanted weapons and a guarantee of assistance against the marauder attacks from the Rawicz area (PC actions coming back to affect them again). This one was more straight-forward as the villagers had only sporting rifles, etc. They even managed to pull it off without anyone getting seriously wounded (for a change). Hope this gives you some help. Cheers Andrew Tiffany *************************************************************************** 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, 23 Feb 2000 16:46:50 -0500 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: AC configurations - ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Dragoo To: Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 1:08 PM Subject: Re: AC configurations > > > You can't just "install" a surface search radar--it usually takes up a > >lot > > > of space. > > > >Someone is out of their sphere on this, none of this is accurate. An > >attack > >aircraft that uses it's own RADAR to target anything other than an air to > >air shot is rare, it is taught and practised (if it even has the capability > >is rare, what radar do you think has a ground attack mode?) but not a > >practical consideration. > >First the enemy would always deny the sensor through jamming and secondly > >it > >confirms the presence of you and your intent. > >This is fact. I don't think we need totally bum gouge put to the list. > > Agreed. Even the E-3 AWACS (which has one of the most advanced, if not the > most advanced, ground search-capable radar systems) can be fooled by ground > clutter, decoy vehicles, or even the crests of breaking waves on the ocean > surface -- although most of these problems by now have been addresses > through computerized signal processing, extensive operator training, and the > addition of VCR capability (anyone remember Red Storm Rising by Clancy?). > > Despite its ability, however, the E-3 is nowhere near being a ground attack > fighter. So even with advanced ground-attack fighters (such as the F-111, > A-6, and other similar planes), they tend to use their ground search radar > to avoid terrain features instead of trying to designate targets. > > Throw in that most ground-attack weapons use almost exclusively > non-radar-based tracking systems (electro-optical, IR/Imaging IR, low-light > TV, inertial/terrain mapping, passive laser targeting are the most common), > and it's pretty clear that SARH guidance is best suited for air-to-air > missiles, not air-to-ground. Thanks I didn't have the background to make it sound that clear. Thanks. > > > >Im pretty sure the limiting factor of a F16 over F18 is under wing > >stowage > > > >(wieght). And tactical radius at max payload. > > They're actually not too far off. F-16 is somewhere between 5 and 8 tons, > and F-18 is 16,000 lbs (C/D) or 18,000 lbs (E/F), if I remember correctly. I'm looking at 15 for the 16 and 21 for the 18, but this is an oooooold reference. Your probably closer. > > > >AGM-84 Harpoon has a launch wt of 1400lbs > > Which would mean that an F-16 could probably carry 2 if necessary (4 if you > don't want drop tanks). I think the 16 could have 2 Harpoon, 2 tanks, 2 sparrow, 2 side winder. The 18 4 Harpoon, 1 tank, 2 sparrow, 2 sidewinder. Again the reference is lacking. > > > I think actually that a plane has to be specially fitted to carry the > > > Harpoon--though as you say, this is probably just a matter of > >electronics. > > > >Even if I don't have specific weapon guidance in the aircraft (or it breaks > >or is shot up) there are modes I can still utilize the weapon. It's not > >complicated but is lengthy. AC are engineered to either accept or not > >these > >systems. Through wieght distribution and such. > > I think the Harpoon is pretty much fire-and-forget, so the F-16 would > probably be able to use it. The only thing stopping it is that it's not > officially cleared in US Service (currently, Harpoon is only cleared for the > A-6 Intruder, F-18 Hornet, S-3 Viking, P-3 Orion, and B-52H Stratofortress). > That doesn't mean other planes can't fire it; it just means the US hasn't > trained the other pilots in their use (kind of like how they don't train the > F-14 pilots too much in ground-attack missions, even though they could do a > fairly decent job with the 14,500 lb payload capacity they have). The 18 can launch utilizing allot of features. Other platforms I know have utilized a more strip down version of the Harpoon. To say more is borderline so we'll let it go there. Thanks for clearing up some of the speak. 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: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:05:26 -0600 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: Re: RE: Soviet Bloc Allegiences (long) Sounds like a fun game you have going... Thanks for the narative! Walter *************************************************************************** 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, 23 Feb 2000 21:36:49 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: AC configurations At 12:08 PM 2/23/00 -0500, Dwight Looney wrote: >Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 > > >> At 10:25 PM 2/22/00 -0500, Dwight Looney wrote: >> >Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 >> > >> >I kinda think your both off a little and maybe someone with more details >can >> >fill in the blanks. >> > >> >You can make any aircraft do any mission based on weapons and their >> >supporting electronics being installed. >> >> You can't just "install" a surface search radar--it usually takes up a lot >> of space. > >Someone is out of their sphere on this.... If so, it's not me. >...none of this is accurate. An attack >aircraft that uses it's own RADAR to target anything other than an air to >air shot is rare, it is taught and practised (if it even has the capability >is rare, what radar do you think has a ground attack mode?) but not a >practical consideration. No, it's not rare for naval attack aircraft. >First the enemy would always deny the sensor through jamming... Absolutely. This is why it's always a good idea for each aircraft to have its own radar, in addition to the AWACS system (note the the aircraft's is also closer to the target, which is helpful for overcoming jaming). >...and secondly it confirms the presence of you and your intent. Okay, I tried to make this point before, but apparently it slipped by: in naval warfare, there is nowhere to hide, because there's no terrain--the range of detection is almost as long as the range of counter-detection, so in many cases there's not even a good reason for emissions control, for either planes or ships. Any task group that expects itself to come under attack is going to be lit up like a Christmas tree--it may have some radars turned off in order to rotate them with the ones turned on, to fool anti-radiation missiles, but it's probably going to be lit up. Because of this, there's not a lot of reason to try to hide a plane either--a little bit after you detect the emissions from the enemy's radar, he detects you (it's not like passive sonar, where the counter-detection range is twice the detection range, because with the biggest radars the limiting factor, at any combat range, is usually the horizon, not the strength of the emissions). Given this, and given the availabilty of overhead air search radars (even the Russians and British have helicopters for this mission), it's essentially impossible to get into weapons range without being spotted (just because the enemy can _see_ you, though don't mean he has the range to hit you...). Yes, flying "low and slow" can make detection difficult, but reasonably modern naval air search radars and SAM's can deal with this without much of a problem, and it's a much, much simpler problem to solve at sea than it is on land (the ground clutter isn't as cluttersome). Therefore, since there are many situations in which there's no way to hide an naval attack plane, radar is more usable on such a plane than it is in a ground attack aircraft--and in addition, it's much more useful for locating targets than it would be for ground targets. The only way to "hide" is to jam the enemy's sensors--and obviously, the more sensors you have, the better your chances of having at least one sensor work. Mind you, stealth technology, on both planes and ships, is currently changing this situation, making it increasingly possible for both planes and ships to hide in the true sense--but up until now the situation has been very different from that on land. [Snip.] 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: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 21:37:41 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: AC configurations At 10:08 AM 2/23/00 PST, Stephen Dragoo wrote: > >Throw in that most ground-attack weapons use almost exclusively >non-radar-based tracking systems (electro-optical, IR/Imaging IR, low-light >TV, inertial/terrain mapping, passive laser targeting are the most common), >and it's pretty clear that SARH guidance is best suited for air-to-air >missiles, not air-to-ground. > Most anti-ship missiles use some form of radar guidance. 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: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:07:45 -0500 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: AC configurations Subject: Re: AC configurations > At 12:08 PM 2/23/00 -0500, Dwight Looney wrote: > >Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 > > > > > >> At 10:25 PM 2/22/00 -0500, Dwight Looney wrote: > >> >Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 > >> > > >> >I kinda think your both off a little and maybe someone with more details > >can > >> >fill in the blanks. > >> > > >> >You can make any aircraft do any mission based on weapons and their > >> >supporting electronics being installed. > >> > >> You can't just "install" a surface search radar--it usually takes up a lot > >> of space. > > > >Someone is out of their sphere on this.... > > If so, it's not me. Well Scott you can retort but this is it for me. Your posting bum gouge and I don't see why the list has to not know. So list.... This is bum gouge. 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: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 23:27:33 -0500 From: "Garcia, Abel" Subject: RE: AC configurations - -----Original Message----- From: Loonz >>>Someone is out of their sphere on this.... >>If so, it's not me. >Well Scott you can retort but this is it for me. Your posting bum gouge and >I don't see why the list has to not know. So list.... This is bum gouge. #;^D Loonz ur meaning is crystal, but I have never heard manure called "bg" before? Is this a technical Navy term 4 manure dropped on deck from flying bull?;) Abel *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:11:46 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: AC configurations At 11:07 PM 2/23/00 -0500, Dwight Looney wrote: >Subject: Re: AC configurations > > >> At 12:08 PM 2/23/00 -0500, Dwight Looney wrote: >> >Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 >> > >> > >> >> At 10:25 PM 2/22/00 -0500, Dwight Looney wrote: >> >> >Subject: Re: Mitsubishi F-2 >> >> > >> >> >I kinda think your both off a little and maybe someone with more >details >> >can >> >> >fill in the blanks. >> >> > >> >> >You can make any aircraft do any mission based on weapons and their >> >> >supporting electronics being installed. >> >> >> >> You can't just "install" a surface search radar--it usually takes up a >lot >> >> of space. >> > >> >Someone is out of their sphere on this.... >> >> If so, it's not me. > > >Well Scott you can retort but this is it for me. Your posting bum gouge and >I don't see why the list has to not know. So list.... This is bum gouge. > Loonz, your arguments would be impressive--and you would demonstrate real knowledge of the subject--if you had made some specific comments about naval warfare and noted the differences and similarities with land warfare. As it is, as far as I can tell, you seem to know quite a bit about ground attack, and you're insisting that it's not different from naval attack. You may well know something about naval attack, but you aren't showing it to me, so there's no reason for me to believe you. 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: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:58:58 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Knock it off In a message dated 02/23/2000 9:10:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: << Loonz, your arguments would be impressive--and you would demonstrate real knowledge of the subject--if you had made some specific comments about naval warfare and noted the differences and similarities with land warfare. As it is, as far as I can tell, you seem to know quite a bit about ground attack, and you're insisting that it's not different from naval attack. You may well know something about naval attack, but you aren't showing it to me, so there's no reason for me to believe you. Scott Orr >> knock it off you two. This is getting personal and has degenerated from MY original inquiry about PLA aircraft. I dont think the members of this list need to, or want to see you two guys engage in a pissing match. It is a waste of bandwidth, take it to email fellas *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:19:51 +0200 (EET) From: Janne Kemppi Subject: Re: Soviet TOE > Janne Kemppi wrote: > > > > The best publicly available places are FM100-2 series > > US Army did in 1984 (and another set was being published > > in 1990). They are the real deal. They do not, however, > > have them in the internet. And they are outdated so they > > probably will not be published in internetnet anymore > > > > The best, huh? Then why do you say they are outdated? That implies that > there are no up-to-date sources, otherwise the FM100-2 series wouldn't be > best anymore. Maybe a bit contradictory? Quuite contrary. They are after all, Soviet TOEs they are describing. They are a bit outdated (because they are from 1984 and 1990) and Russians have made all kinds of changes, such as formed motor-rifle brigades, to work in addition to divisional structures. These TOEs do not handle such formations. > The real deal, huh? Care to elaborate on WHY you think they are the real > deal and the best? In other words, I would be much more apt to appreciate > your point of view if I knew why you think this. Because they are rather official documents about known and existing army. They are outdated but if you wish to play TW:2000, the 1990 TOE is about as good of the real Soviet Army as you can get. > > There is also a Krasnovian army BattleBook, that is > > very much similar (I'd say copy) of real Russian TOEs. > > It was available in Internet some years back (1996) and > > I guess they still use it in US Army Military intelligence > > for training. > > > > Where did you see this? When did you attend USAICS that you know what they > use for training? Why would you say it is a "copy" of "real Russian TOEs"? I got mine from the Ft. Huachuca internet site. I treat it as a copy because such a thing was stated in a Finnish military study made in 1997 about Russian army (motor rifle brigades to be more exact). (I removed most of your army memory bullshit as irrelevant) > What I was getting at is that the contents of the "Threat" class is > classified. I would tend to call that the 'real deal', if you like those > kind of black & white terms. But unfortunately I cannot comment on what I > learned there, except to say that I liked the FM 100-63. That is your prerogative. > > > FM 100-60 series is composite enemy structure. If you > > look at it you notice it allows building basicly various > > enemies from three basic sets. FM100-60 is the soviet > > army, FM 100-63 is third world army and FM 100-65 (or was > > it 66?) is the terrorist, guerilla, drug dealer etc. TOE. > > > > The enemies are roughly following: > > FM 100-63 with bad end is Cuba > > FM 100-63 with good equipment is North Korea > > FM 100-60 is Soviet Union. > > FM 100-65(66?) is Somalia. > > > > The following is a quote from the preface of the FM 100-63: > > [start quote] > This manual is one of a series that describes a capabilities-based Opposing > Force (OPFOR) for training US Army commanders, staffs, and units. The > manuals in this series are-- > > FM 100-60. Armor- and Mechanized-Based Opposing Force: Organization Guide. > > FM 100-61. Armor- and Mechanized-Based Opposing Force: Operational Art. > > FM 100-62. Armor- and Mechanized-Based Opposing Force: Tactics. > > FM 100-63. Infantry-Based Opposing Force: Organization Guide. > > FM 100-64. Infantry-Based Opposing Force: Operations and Tactics. > > FM 100-65. Opposing Force Equipment Guide. > > FM 100-66. Opposing Force in Operations Other Than War. > > [end quote] > > Since you say that FM 100-60 'is' Soviet Union, I assume you mean they have > no Infantry Based units? Or maybe just not enough to matter? Also, what > the heck is a "terrorist, guerilla, drug dealer" TOE? You must be refering > to LIC (Low Intensity Conflict) intelligence estimating tools. Funny, I > never recall the idea of a TOE based estimation system ever being applied to > a LIC conflict. Not that I'm either confirming or denying anything > specific, just that my memory fails on that... The fact here is that after USSR fell. US army found itself without enemy so to say. Therefor big bad Threat became new WCOPFOR (and also Capabilities based OPFOR). Threat still remained (In various forms against specific enemies) but they were replaced in most of the unit training with three new 'OPFOR's. You got Marcala, a Third world shithole. It was FM 100-63 based army with plenty of militia (yeah I got the TOE in my pocket thanks to Ft Leavenworth). Somehow the whole setting reminds me of Cuba but that is just me. Second was Orangeland. This was really fanatical army with mostly old FM 100-63 stuff but with some really new toys as well. These guys are similar to North Koreans. Third was Northland that was those pesky Krasnovians guys. They get their toys from the FM 100-60 and are really bad guys. Gee whiz! But what about all these really cool terrorists amd drug dealers and demonstrators and refugees and you name it? Well, these guys get their own special tratment in FM 100-66 (and I am hoping to see it soon). How real these TOEs then are? They are really make believe. FM 100-63 describes not so good army. FM 100-60 describes really well equipped army. They are generics but FM 100-60 has very uncanny resemblance to certain material I've read Russians to field (or at least hope to field). You cannot really make those brigades they field unless you fiddle around and the tactics and operational art has really nothing on corps-brigade structures they are fielding right now but it is fair approximation. As far as North Koreans are concerned, you can get their TOEs from the DIA homepage. Are they FM 100-63, nope, but you can get fairly similar idea from it. > In the T2K scenario, massed Armor has been wiped out for the most part. (I agree to this idea.) > > > They are however, composite forces and with mixing the > > TOEs from FM100-60 and FM100-63 you can get fairly mixed > > set of units. The TOEs in FM100-63 are closer to soviet > > army in early 1980's and those in FM100-60 are closer to > > 1990 situation. > > > > Funny, the FM 100-63 that is posted on the web has a publication date of 18 > April 1996. But yeah, your right, it's gotta be only early 80's stuff. > What, with the 'Krasnovian army BattleBook' around, it's a wonder why the US > Army even bothers to publish stuff at all. Tactical Commander's Development Course Feb 96 Opposing forces Battle Book http://138.27.35.36/Tmsb/htmlfi~1/shopfor.pdf You can get the rest of the stuff from http://138.27.35.36/Tmsb/htmlfi~1/tmsb_F.htm But thinking carefully, I believe that it is idiotic for me to actually argue against you. Therefor I will here publicly and willingly admit my utter failure and lack of any information whatsoever in this matter and bow out to you. I worship your absolutely superlative knowledge in this field and thus will readily agree to everything you say. You are absolutely right. *************************************************************************** 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 #97 ************************************