twilight2000-digest Friday, February 25 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 098 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: PLA aircraft Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences Re: AC configurations Re: AC configurations Re: AC configurations Re: Knock it off Whats the list for? Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences Re: AC configurations Re: AC configurations Re: AC configurations Re: PLA aircraft Artillery/Aircraft Rockets Re: Whats the list for? Re: AC configurations Re: PLA aircraft Game settings Re: Whats the list for? Re: AC configurations Re: Game settings Re: Whats the list for? Re: Game settings Re: Artillery/Aircraft Rockets Re: AC configurations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:33:18 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: PLA aircraft > The FC-1 will probably never enter service with the PLAAF, it > may enter > service with the Pakistani AF. Yes, I just read an article stating that Pakistan was the main engine behind the program. The PRC of course is claiming they will order large numbers, but like most other PRC aircraft programs it will probably come to naught, although I would not be surprised to see a token number put in PLAAF service. > >500 J-5 (MiG-17 Copy) > >2800 J-6 (MiG-19 Copy) > > A lot of these are no longer flown, but probably remain in > reserve. Granted, the servicability, and operational readiness of all PLAAF aircraft is suspect, the older the aircraft, the more this is true. I have however read reports recently about J-6 operations. No telling how much flight time any of their pilots are getting, or if they are merely paper tigers. The word is that China does have a functioning pilot reserve, which are getting some level of refresher training, which means that most likely a good number of these stored and reserve aircraft could be utilized if the need existed. The aircraft are so old and obsolete, and their operational readiness so low, no Western force would find them much of a factor in combat, even in the great numbers China may be able to use them in. > >24 MiG-31 Foxhound (Russian-built) > > Much rumoured but never delivered. Reports are mixed. Most likely an agreement was reached on an order, yet financial problems have (probably indefinitely) delayed some or all of the deliveries. > >600 Q-5 (Attack development of MiG-19) > >350 H-5 (Il-28 Light Bombers) > > Again, most of these are out of service. The H-5's yes, but the Q-5 on the otherhand are routinely seen operating, so are most likely the backbone of Chinese strike forces. I wouldn't regard Il-28s as much of a threat anyway, even if they were fully operational. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.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: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 02:16:35 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences I've mentioned several times that I don't believe the Polish army would fight for the Soviets. If they did it would be very half assed. The hatred of the Soviets was just too deep. Like I say on my web page, if the Soviets invaded your country would you fight for them? Someone commented that the military still went along with the Soviets during Martial Law. This is a different circumstance. During that time the news was constantly announcing that the Soviet Army was massing on the border, ready to invade if Poland continued to be out of control. Of course if the Soviets invaded it wouldn't be a real invasion (since they controlled Poland anyway) but it'd be a great time to terrorize the populace. And there's not a damn thing anyone would do about it. And since anyone who disobeyed orders would be shot, well, if it won't do any good, then might as well follow orders. If WWIII suddenly broke out and NATO is driving east across poland and the soviets are driving west, everyone knows there is an actual choice now. Help NATO and you might just actually live to be free because someone would actually give a damn about keeping Poland out of Soviet control. Walter Rebsch wrote: > 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. *************************************************************************** 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 08:19:41 PST From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: AC configurations > >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. Check http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/index.html. It's run by the Federation of American Scientists, and includes people from the original Manhatten project. Here's their info on these antiship missiles: Harpoon: initial target point provided by command system (navigational position only, does NOT require that the firing platform have radar), midcourse guidance uses inertial navigation system, terminal guidance uses active radar homing/ARH (radar emitter mounted on the missile). SLAM: enhanced Harpoon, replaces ARH system with IR homing seeker. Skipper II: passive laser targeting (essentially a powered LGB). Tomahawk: initial target point as per Harpoon, midcourse and terminal guidance provided by inertial nav system with Terrain Comparison (TERCOM) and Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation -- no radar used. Penguin: similar to SLAM system. Exocet: similar to Harpoon. Kormoran: similar to Harpoon. AS.15: command guidance (radio-controlled by launch aircraft). Sea Skua: semi-active radar homing (SARH). 9 of the major US/NATO antiship missiles, and only 1 requires that the launch craft have its ground-search radar turned on. I'd like to know what other missiles you know of that use SARH homing, since the military doesn't seem to use them... ______________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:59:47 -0500 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: AC configurations 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 Bum Gouge has been around for as long as I've been at sea. I particularly like it because it means the identical and isn't profane, which isn't called for unless it concerns life and limb. Charlie out 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: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:00:57 -0500 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: AC configurations Subject: Re: AC configurations > At 11:07 PM 2/23/00 -0500, Dwight Looney wrote: > >> >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. Roger out 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: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:02:00 -0500 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Knock it off 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 Roger Out 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: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:37:29 -0500 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Whats the list for? Hi; I've heard a saying that if you see one mouse, then there's ten in the wood. Meaning if you catch one mistake odds are you missed 10. We talk about T2K on this list very little as compared to the digressions into Hardware, TOE and background. I would like to think someone can ask a question on the list and get a fairly accurate answer from a SME (subject matter expert) or someone through experience or training, with knowledge of the subject. At a minimum a link to a site with more info or a book of reference. If it get's to the point you can't trust the information you get here, then what is the point of the list? So just a heads up, I think we're at that point. It's been fun. 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: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:42:44 +1300 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences At 02:16 24/02/00 -0800, you wrote: >I've mentioned several times that I don't believe the Polish army would fight >for the Soviets. If they did it would be very half assed. The hatred of the >Soviets was just too deep. Like I say on my web page, if the Soviets invaded >your country would you fight for them? Someone commented that the military still >went along with the Soviets during Martial Law. This is a different >circumstance. During that time the news was constantly announcing that the >Soviet Army was massing on the border, ready to invade if Poland continued to be >out of control. Of course if the Soviets invaded it wouldn't be a real invasion >(since they controlled Poland anyway) but it'd be a great time to terrorize the >populace. And there's not a damn thing anyone would do about it. And since >anyone who disobeyed orders would be shot, well, if it won't do any good, then >might as well follow orders. If WWIII suddenly broke out and NATO is driving >east across poland and the soviets are driving west, everyone knows there is an >actual choice now. Help NATO and you might just actually live to be free because >someone would actually give a damn about keeping Poland out of Soviet control. In my game, (the narrative of which I posted just the other day) there are a few units still around Kalisz. The 10th Pol TD in Kalisz and the 8th BGB NW of Kalisz are currently having a few 'disagreements' with the 89th Sov Cav Div, which is north of Kalisz. These sorts of "other people's wars" make life interesting for the players, especially as they are involved with the 1st Pol Free Legion not so far away. 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: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:40:05 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: AC configurations At 08:19 AM 2/24/00 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. > >Check http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/index.html. > >It's run by the Federation of American Scientists, and includes people from >the original Manhatten project. > >Here's their info on these antiship missiles: > >Harpoon: initial target point provided by command system (navigational >position only, does NOT require that the firing platform have radar), >midcourse guidance uses inertial navigation system, terminal guidance uses >active radar homing/ARH (radar emitter mounted on the missile). > >SLAM: enhanced Harpoon, replaces ARH system with IR homing seeker. > >Skipper II: passive laser targeting (essentially a powered LGB). > >Tomahawk: initial target point as per Harpoon, midcourse and terminal >guidance provided by inertial nav system with Terrain Comparison (TERCOM) >and Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation -- no radar used. > >Penguin: similar to SLAM system. > >Exocet: similar to Harpoon. > >Kormoran: similar to Harpoon. > >AS.15: command guidance (radio-controlled by launch aircraft). > >Sea Skua: semi-active radar homing (SARH). > >9 of the major US/NATO antiship missiles, and only 1 requires that the >launch craft have its ground-search radar turned on. I'd like to know what >other missiles you know of that use SARH homing, since the military doesn't >seem to use them... I never said they required the firing platform to have its radar turned on (having a surface search radar is usually required more for finding the target than for actually launching the weapon). I was responding to this specific statement: "Throw in that most ground-attack weapons use almost exclusively non-radar-based tracking systems...." This is in generaly a true statement, but for anti-ship missiles, it isn't true--most of them do in fact use radar in some way. And yes, I've got a much longer list than the one you present above. 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 14:20:07 PST From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: AC configurations >I never said they required the firing platform to have its radar turned on >(having a surface search radar is usually required more for finding the >target than for actually launching the weapon). I was responding to this >specific statement: > >"Throw in that most ground-attack weapons use almost exclusively >non-radar-based tracking systems...." > >This is in generaly a true statement, but for anti-ship missiles, it isn't >true--most of them do in fact use radar in some way. And yes, I've got a >much longer list than the one you present above. Then, please, send it in. I'm genuinely curious about what ones are on it, and am willing to admit I'm wrong if I am. I should have added in the AGM-65E/F to the above list, though, for the US Navy/Marine Corps. E uses laser (Marine Corps), F uses IR seeker. What we also need to determine is what qualifies as a true radar seeker. To me, a true radar seeker is one where the missile uses active radar or semiactive radar homing to zero in on a particular target (similar to the way a Phoenix, Sparrow, or AMRAAM missile homes in on its target): ARH would require an onboard seeker, SARH would require an outside radar platform (either the launch craft or a spotter craft, a la Soviet Ka-25 Hormone). On the other hand, a missile that uses a radar altimeter to maintain a certain height above the terrain would not qualify, even though it depends on the radar to get it to the target. The main reason is that ECM systems are designed to jam the specific frequencies used by ARH/SARH guidance systems, because those radar beams are directed against the target and have to be powerful enough to cover a long range. Radar altimeters, on the other hand, look down and slightly ahead at the ground instead of the target, and are fairly low-powered. I'd be surprised if there was any major ECM system out there that was designed to interfere specifically with them. The only other time radar can be used in missile guidance is for initial target position programming. Now, granted, the firing platform has to feed a position indicator in... but it doesn't have to come from active radar. It could be from passive radar detection, AWACS/EW positioning, satellite imagery, or even sonar or visual confirmation by a pilot in a Cessna with a GPS unit.\ I will admit that radar was more common in older systems. However, that was because it had much better range and hit probability than the early IR sensors, and because they hadn't come up with terrain-mapping systems (like those in the ALCM and Tomahawk) sophisticated enough to use against ships or other pinpoint targets. ECM has also improved over the years against radar, which has forced weapon designers to use alternative seekers. For antiship use, radar is easier to jam than IR, IR is easier to jam than laser, laser is easier to jam than sonar, and TERCOM/target matching is for the most part only foolable by not being where they expect you to be. ______________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:46:30 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: AC configurations At 02:20 PM 2/24/00 PST, Stephen Dragoo wrote: >>I never said they required the firing platform to have its radar turned on >>(having a surface search radar is usually required more for finding the >>target than for actually launching the weapon). I was responding to this >>specific statement: >> >>"Throw in that most ground-attack weapons use almost exclusively >>non-radar-based tracking systems...." >> >>This is in generaly a true statement, but for anti-ship missiles, it isn't >>true--most of them do in fact use radar in some way. And yes, I've got a >>much longer list than the one you present above. > >Then, please, send it in. I'm genuinely curious about what ones are on it, >and am willing to admit I'm wrong if I am. > >I should have added in the AGM-65E/F to the above list, though, for the US >Navy/Marine Corps. E uses laser (Marine Corps), F uses IR seeker. Well what I've got is the ASM list from Harpoon 4--I don't want to type in the whole thing, but I can certainly take a look later and see how many missiles use some form of radar targeting. > >What we also need to determine is what qualifies as a true radar seeker. To >me, a true radar seeker is one where the missile uses active radar or >semiactive radar homing to zero in on a particular target (similar to the >way a Phoenix, Sparrow, or AMRAAM missile homes in on its target): ARH >would require an onboard seeker, SARH would require an outside radar >platform (either the launch craft or a spotter craft, a la Soviet Ka-25 >Hormone). > >On the other hand, a missile that uses a radar altimeter to maintain a >certain height above the terrain would not qualify, even though it depends >on the radar to get it to the target. The main reason is that ECM systems >are designed to jam the specific frequencies used by ARH/SARH guidance >systems, because those radar beams are directed against the target and have >to be powerful enough to cover a long range. Radar altimeters, on the other >hand, look down and slightly ahead at the ground instead of the target, and >are fairly low-powered. I'd be surprised if there was any major ECM system >out there that was designed to interfere specifically with them. No, I wasn't thinking of radar altimeters. But yes, you're right that most of these don't involve the radar of the firing platform. >The only other time radar can be used in missile guidance is for initial >target position programming. Now, granted, the firing platform has to feed >a position indicator in... but it doesn't have to come from active radar. >It could be from passive radar detection, AWACS/EW positioning, satellite >imagery, or even sonar or visual confirmation by a pilot in a Cessna with a >GPS unit.\ > Yes, that's true. In general, though, wouldn't you agree that it's good to have more than one option? >I will admit that radar was more common in older systems. However, that was >because it had much better range and hit probability than the early IR >sensors, and because they hadn't come up with terrain-mapping systems (like >those in the ALCM and Tomahawk) sophisticated enough to use against ships or >other pinpoint targets. ECM has also improved over the years against radar, >which has forced weapon designers to use alternative seekers. For antiship >use, radar is easier to jam than IR, IR is easier to jam than laser, laser >is easier to jam than sonar, and TERCOM/target matching is for the most part >only foolable by not being where they expect you to be. Yes, I don't disagree with any of 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: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:59:45 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: PLA aircraft In a message dated 02/23/2000 3:26:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, grining@southcom.com.au writes: << What timeline are you using for this campaign. v1, v2 or your own? What year is it set in. I have some info on China's Air Force plans. >> Well, now that is another quandry that I have to ponder. From what I recall, V1 and V2 timeline both keep Korea divided, like it is today. V2.2 says that "the newly reunified Republic of Korea came to the assistance of the Chinese early in the war and was subject to limited nuclear attack by the Soviets." Not sure which one to go with yet, I'm still compiling info on the participants. what year is it set in? Why 2000 A.D. of course! *************************************************************************** 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 16:04:28 PST From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Artillery/Aircraft Rockets Does anyone know any sites with info on artillery and aircraft rockets (not missiles -- I'm looking for unguided stuff). A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope ______________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:35:03 -0800 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: Whats the list for? At 03:37 PM 2/24/2000 -0500, Loonz wrote: >We talk about T2K on this list very little as compared to the digressions >into Hardware, TOE and background. I would like to think someone can ask >a question on the list and get a fairly accurate answer from a SME >(subject matter expert) or someone through experience or training, with >knowledge of the subject. At a minimum a link to a site with more info or >a book of reference. If it get's to the point you can't trust the >information you get here, then what is the point of the list? > >So just a heads up, I think we're at that point. > >It's been fun. Hey, as a longtime subscriber, I'd be perfectly happy to see the list constrained to a much tighter focus regarding topics more strictly Twilight-related, though I admit I do enjoy the give and take aspect of the information that often manages to seep through between the sporadic brush-fire flame wars. It would indeed be a shame to see it all end. ~ Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** 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 22:08:56 -0700 From: "JC" Subject: Re: AC configurations > >9 of the major US/NATO antiship missiles, and only 1 requires that the >launch craft have its ground-search radar turned on. I'd like to know what >other missiles you know of that use SARH homing, since the military doesn't >seem to use them... Well according to the published data I've seen I'd say the most common form of guidance for anti-ship missiles is active radar homing, with IR and passive radar homing/home on jam coming in after that. The Sea Skua is an exception, but if I understand correctly it has a slightly more specific/different mission, it's used primarily by helo's hunting small patrol boats/fast attack craft. It's a fairly small missile and has a pretty short range as far as ASM's go. Not sure if this is true but I believe cost and the ability to be helo carried and fired probably influenced the design of the Sea Skua. I suppose short range isn't as much of a handicap when hunting patrol boats because they are bit easier to find, ie located in the littoral zone near coastlines not in the middle of the ocean and they don't generally carry an extensive anti-air armament. As far as I understand Semi-active homing means that 1) you have to have a radar LOS and target lock for your missile to hit 2) you need to maintain that lock either for the whole firing sequence or at least the terminal portion right before impact for newer missiles that use some sort of intertial or midcourse update. So this would leave the launching aircraft in the rather poor situation of having to remain pointed at and closing with its target. >>I will admit that radar was more common in older systems. However, that was because it had much better range and hit probability than the early IR sensors, and because they hadn't come up with terrain-mapping systems (like those in the ALCM and Tomahawk) sophisticated enough to use against ships or other pinpoint targets.<< >From what I've read the most common missiles that use SARH guidance are older Air-to-air missiles and some SAM's, (AIM-7 Sparrow, AA-6 Acrid, AA-7 Apex, AA-10 Alamo, Skyflash, USN Standard SAM, HAWK, SA-6, SA-11 etc) I think part of the reason IR and SARH were used earlier on might be a technology/size issue, too difficult to shoehorn in an active radar seeker in an air-to-air missile, SAM. I know it was a handicap for the earlier generation AAM's; but I guess with a SAM the restrictions aren't that big of a deal (by the time you've detectedd the target you've got LOS and you aren't going to be manuevering a SAM battery much in general so you can maintain LOS.) At least that's my take on the technology. Regards, JC *************************************************************************** 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 18:52:24 -0600 From: Rob Barnes Subject: Re: PLA aircraft If you can find a copy, the Merc:2000 Gazetteer had a lot of useful info on China which wouldn't be too hard to adapt to the situation in Twilight:2000. Does anyone know of a source for unit specific information about the Chinese Army? - -Rob OrrinLadd@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 02/23/2000 3:26:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, > grining@southcom.com.au writes: > > << > What timeline are you using for this campaign. v1, v2 or your own? What year > is it set in. I have some info on China's Air Force plans. >> > > Well, now that is another quandry that I have to ponder. From what I recall, > V1 and V2 timeline both keep Korea divided, like it is today. V2.2 says that > "the newly reunified Republic of Korea came to the assistance of the Chinese > early in the war and was subject to limited nuclear attack by the Soviets." > Not sure which one to go with yet, I'm still compiling info on the > participants. > > what year is it set in? Why 2000 A.D. of course! > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** 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 19:09:33 -0600 From: Rob Barnes Subject: Game settings I've got a question for the list: Aside from the obvious areas like Poland and the Persian Gulf, what geographic areas of the world have we each developed for Twilight:2000? For instance, I've run an Alaskan campaign for many years and have a lot of detail on that part of the world that never was covered in a GDW product. Maybe a good use for the list would be to share some of what we've come up with. - -Rob *************************************************************************** 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 23:27:41 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Whats the list for? I second Snake-eyes take.. I get info from the give and take (plus some amusement in the flames). Never stop learning! A mind unused is a waste. We all have opinions and the right to them. Just because we don't agree with others is further proof we're still human (IMO). If someone wants to "change the subject" just post a question or idea off the topic at hand. You'll probably get someone to answer or respond and we're off on a new path. Being a grunt by choice maritime and aviation topics give me insight to what goes on outside the trench. ===== FORD Rangers! Lead the Way!!! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.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: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 21:44:20 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: AC configurations Stephen Dragoo wrote: > > What we also need to determine is what qualifies as a true radar seeker. To > me, a true radar seeker is one where the missile uses active radar or > semiactive radar homing to zero in on a particular target (similar to the > way a Phoenix, Sparrow, or AMRAAM missile homes in on its target): ARH > would require an onboard seeker, SARH would require an outside radar > platform (either the launch craft or a spotter craft, a la Soviet Ka-25 > Hormone). > Who comes up with these silly names for Soviet equipment? *************************************************************************** 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, 25 Feb 2000 02:31:13 -0600 From: "Fugitivus" Subject: Re: Game settings i have run a modern merc game in africa, our current pbem is set in canada. aaron > Aside from the obvious areas like Poland and the Persian Gulf, what > geographic areas of the world have we each developed for Twilight:2000? > For instance, *************************************************************************** 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, 25 Feb 2000 02:41:15 -0600 From: "Fugitivus" Subject: Re: Whats the list for? the list generlly is very useful. i play my games more action than realistic, yet at times the very technical posts are still interesting and at times useful to my games. personlly i love to see new equipment, guns trucks radios planes doesn't matter. the more there is the more there is to the game. i enjoy reading nearly all the posts. aaron > I second Snake-eyes take.. I get info from the give and > take. Never stop > learning! A mind unused is a waste. We all have opinions > and the right to them. Just because we don't agree with > others is further proof we're still human *************************************************************************** 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, 25 Feb 2000 00:03:53 -0800 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: Game settings At 07:09 PM 2/24/2000 -0600, Rob Barnes wrote: >Aside from the obvious areas like Poland and the Persian Gulf, what >geographic areas of the world have we each developed for Twilight:2000? >For instance, I've run an Alaskan campaign for many years and have a lot >of detail on that part of the world that never was covered in a GDW >product. Maybe a good use for the list would be to share some of what >we've come up with. Well, I think that would certainly be one ideal use for the list. I once ran a little "Red Dawn-esque" partisan/guerilla scenario set in the hills outside Anchorage a long time back. Unfortunately, I have also long since parted company with all that fine source material, so I'd definitely welcome the opportunity to have a peek at what you've done with the place. FWIW - I also really dug the Bangkok Sourcebook. Thailand kicks ass. ~ Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** 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, 25 Feb 2000 21:33:41 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Artillery/Aircraft Rockets - -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Cope To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Friday, 25 February 2000 11:06 Subject: Artillery/Aircraft Rockets >Does anyone know any sites with info on artillery and aircraft rockets (not >missiles -- I'm looking for unguided stuff). > >A generous and sadistic GM, > >Brandon Cope Russian Artillery (under 'Fire Support') http://hometown.aol.com/threatmstr/ptwserg.html Some General World systems: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/index.html Peter Grining *************************************************************************** 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, 25 Feb 2000 21:43:19 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: AC configurations - -----Original Message----- From: Peter Vieth To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Friday, 25 February 2000 18:34 Subject: Re: AC configurations >Stephen Dragoo wrote: > >> >> What we also need to determine is what qualifies as a true radar seeker. To >> me, a true radar seeker is one where the missile uses active radar or >> semiactive radar homing to zero in on a particular target (similar to the >> way a Phoenix, Sparrow, or AMRAAM missile homes in on its target): ARH >> would require an onboard seeker, SARH would require an outside radar >> platform (either the launch craft or a spotter craft, a la Soviet Ka-25 >> Hormone). >> > >Who comes up with these silly names for Soviet equipment? ISTR some NATO standards committee? 'H' names for helicopters, 'F' for Fighters, 'B' for Bombers, etc. Ka-27 Helix A MiG-29 Fulcrum C Tu-22M-2 Backfire B The A, B, C etc after the name is the model, especially useful during the Cold War when the west wasn't aware of the Russian names. Peter Grining *************************************************************************** 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 #98 ************************************