twilight2000-digest Friday, February 25 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 099 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: AC configurations Re: PLA aircraft Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences Re: Whats the list for? Re: PLA aircraft Re: AC configurations Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences Re: Game settings Re: AC configurations Krasnovian's Re: AC configurations RE: Whats the list for? Re: AC configurations Re: AC configurations Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences Re: AC configurations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 22:14:41 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: AC configurations - -----Original Message----- From: JC To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Friday, 25 February 2000 18:05 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. The problem with active radar homing missiles is that they generally don't work too well close to shore. They tend to ignore the ship target lock onto the larger land masses. I've read the figures of within 7.5-9 km of land active homing antiship missiles are useless. This is the reason Norway went with IR homing for the Penguin series of missiles. Penguin is expected to be used close in. Sea Skua was designed to have a longer range (15 km) than the Russian SA-N-4 (originally 7km, later 12 km), the main Soviet naval low altitude SAM of the time. The problem will all missiles is you have the range being too high, the weight and size and hence the number a platform can carry goes down. The SARH guidance means the launching helicopter should be able to avoid the close in to land problem mentioned above for active radar homing missiles. The helo crew illuminate the target with the radar. >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. No its a helicopter, it can slow right down, hover, fly sideways, etc. The Lynx Seaspray radar is probably capable of illuminating targets in the frontal 180 degree arc. Later Lynx were given a 360 degree radar, the helo points at the target, and can turn tail and run in the other direction and still maintain radar lock. >>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 SARH is all weather capable and the missiles can fly through clouds without losing lock, and is generally a better all weather seeker than IR. IR is fire & forget however. The US tried active radar homing on the Sparrow II back in the 1950s/60s (?) but the technology wasn't mature enough. Also active homers are limited by small radar sizes and have limited ranges requiring SARH or intertial or midcourse update to get the missile close enough to the target. In the naval sense SARH is LOS or as far as the radar can see, this might only be 50 km against a sea skimming missile or small ship. An active homing missile such as Harpoon has a range of around 150 km and would be fired at a point where the radar seeker will switch on and look for targets, the so called 'over the horizon' capability. In a similar vein ISTR the average engagement range for tank battles along the East/West German border was 1500 metres. Most western tanks fire control was capable of first round hits at 3-4 km ranges, as demonstrated in Desert Saber. The Soviets weren't that worried about long range tank duels in Europe. Peter Grining 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 22:28:12 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: PLA aircraft - -----Original Message----- From: Josh Baumgartner To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com Date: Thursday, 24 February 2000 19:33 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. Pakistan recently ordered another 80ish F-7MG (developed MiG-21), as the FC-1 has stalled. The PLAAF isn't interested in spending resources on a best 1980s aircraft (FC-1). This is a similar situation with the Chinese army and navy, they have 1960/70s domestic tech. 1991 shocked the Chinese military, and the only way to catch up is to buy foreign weapons (Su-27 fighters, Sovremmenny destroyers, S-200 SAMs etc) >> >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 I've read availability rates of 50% for the other Chinese fighters and 75% for the newer types. >> >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. Supposedly the PLAAF Su-27SK are downgraded export versions (less capable radar, etc), and I'd say even China only has so much money to spend on weapons. >> >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. Yeah sorry, I meant the H-5 are pretty much out of service, the Q-5 remain the main Chinese attack aircraft. North Korean H-5 are rumoured to carry air launched antishipping missiles mounted conformally in the bomb bays, but as stated not much of a threat. 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 12:53:08 -0000 From: "Mark Oliver" Subject: Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences - ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Vieth To: Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 10:16 AM Subject: Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences <<< I've mentioned several times that I don't believe the Polish army would fight for the Soviets. >>> The scenario given in the v1 rules had Poland fighting because of its fear of a united Germany. It fought "with" the Soviets, against a common enemy, rather than "for" them. <<< The hatred of the Soviets was just too deep. >>> The point being that the Polish hatred and fear of a united Germany would be even stronger than their feelings for the Soviets. My country escaped WW2 relatively lightly to Poland and yet the scars and fears that were caused by the Germans are still very prominant social factor. For a country to have endured what the Polish endured would make them doubly determined to avoid it again. <<< if the Soviets invaded your country would you fight for them? >>> It would be the lesser of two evils. Poland has three choices. 1) Sit out of it and risk that Russia alone would not be able to fight back the Germans 2) Fight with the Germans to push back the Russians 3) Fight with the Russians to destroy the united Germany. #1 and #2 are untenable. #3 at least destroys the greater of the two evils. Knowing what the Soviet Union was like it's worth noting that we allied ourselves with them in order to defeat a common enemy. What happens if that common enenmy is defeated would be a good question. Remember that WW2 nearly ended up with us fighting the Russians. Maybe it was a Polish intention that after disposing of the German threat they would then turn on the Russians and push them back as well. <<< 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. >>> Help NATO and you run the risk of ending up under the boot of the Germans once again. From Polish eyes how much did the Western nations really care about keeping Poland free in the aftermath of WW2. How much did we care about Hungary when it tried to overthrow their oppressors. It's quite concievable to imagine a Poland that not only feared Germany but didn't trust NATO to assist. The Polish in v1 T2K may well have feared and hated the Soviets but they feared and hated the Germans more. Regards, Mark *************************************************************************** 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 09:44:50 -0600 From: Steve Subject: Re: Whats the list for? GRAEBARDE wrote: > 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. > I agree... Hmmm... We may have a consensus. :) 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: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:38:50 -0700 From: "JC" Subject: Re: PLA aircraft > >Yeah sorry, I meant the H-5 are pretty much out of service, the Q-5 remain >the main Chinese attack aircraft. North Korean H-5 are rumoured to carry air >launched antishipping missiles mounted conformally in the bomb bays, but as >stated not much of a threat. > The H-5 also wins the booby prize for being the worlds last naval torpedo bomber. 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: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:41:14 -0700 From: "JC" Subject: Re: AC configurations >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 Also for planes odd numbers are for fighters/interceptors, evens for attack types, bombers, transports etc. Well except for maybe the Su-25, god only knows how that got a fighter designation. 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: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 07:50:28 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences If I'm not mistaken (and I have been known to make blunders in the past) all the T2K timelines have Germany being the aggressor. V1 [before the wall came down] had them attacking across the interior border while the GDR stayed in barracks; v2+ has the unified Germany crossing the Polish border (reenactment of September 39?) to "help" the etnic Germans refusing to go to the China front. In all instances the Soviet or Russia responded and came to the aid of Poland. They never invaded Poland in T2K. They had troops stationed there already up until the collapse of communism and implosion of the Soviet. In that respect the Polish forces would be fighting beside Soviet forces under the Warsaw Pact. For those who will take the time to read Polish history, Poland has no love for the Germans or the Russians. Poland has come and gone through out their history at the hands of her neighbors to the west, east and south (Austria-Hungary). They are a freedom loving people that have known little freedom. If the Poles were reluctant to fight some foreign force in T2K, it would probably be American and British if they though it would help them be free. A new timeline would have Poland in NATO, allied with the Germans. Infact there is a NATO corps in Poland, commanded by a Polish general that has a German, Polish, and (I beleive) Danish Divison under its command. I think Mitch Berg has the new time line down and is working a scenario where NATO comes to the aid of Poland in wake of Russian aggression. It would make an intersting campaign in the post 2000 era.. Long Live T2K!!! Keep the info comming. ===== 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: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:08:16 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Game settings I've campaigned along the Red River in Texas fighting Cuban and Russian led Mexican forces. It was pretty straight forward campaigning, much like the Persian Gulf campaigns, in that we had base camps in Oklahoma we worked out of and ran missions across the river. We used RDF source book to generate the mission type etc. We usually inserted a patrol to find the target, then developed the next mission to take out the target. Our group of 6-8 PCs were actually a squad in a "provisional" inafantry company. We had a major push at one time in "brigade" strength (we actually had artillery support) where we took out a larger base camp of the "aggressor". Our group was just one squad on the push and we never got the "big picture" except by rumors. It was interesting and different. Also a good training tool for new players.. no spec warriors, or colonels leading a squad, etc.. down and dirty, grunt work. ===== 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: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:38:08 PST From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: AC configurations >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's Harpoon 4? Sounds familiar. >Yes, that's true. In general, though, wouldn't you agree that it's good to >have more than one option? Oh, most definitely. I would consider the ultimate missile to be one combining at least 2 seeker technologies, if not 3, to ensure optimum all-aspect/all-weather capability as well as minimizing potential ECM effects. ______________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:02:28 CST From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: Krasnovian's Dear List, As it turns out, I found the 'Krasnovian Order of Battle' on the web site Janne gave a link to. I also found other references to it around the web. The Krasnovia is a fictional country used for war games by the US Army. The particular one Janne refered to was a version used in the Military Intelligence Officer Basic Course. There is another version that is used at NTC (National Training Center) for the OPFOR. Another one I found was used in the Army War College. Each one is customized for the purposes of teaching the students whatever is on the lesson plan. To call a particular one a real TOE chart for a 'known and existing army' is complete hog wash. It is simply a particular configuration of an OPFOR unit used in a particular training setting. Just another example of someone reading something and drawing a conclusion without fulling understanding what they are looking at. This is the prime reason why it is important to state the source or justification for an opinion so others can attempt to verify what you are talking about. Just because you are browsing the web and run across something that somebody wrote, doesn't make it fact. People believe what they read all too easy. Also, at the web site Janne gave, there is a document talking about EMP. A few weeks ago there was a thread about that. If anyone is interested it is about a 200k pdf file at: ftp://138.27.35.36/TMSB/tbedbi_a.pdf It's not all that detailed, but it gives some basic info about EMP that might be useful for game purposes. Walter ______________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:19:20 PST From: "Stephen Dragoo" 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. > > >The problem with active radar homing missiles is that they generally don't >work too well close to shore. They tend to ignore the ship target lock onto >the larger land masses. I've read the figures of within 7.5-9 km of land >active homing antiship missiles are useless. This is the reason Norway went >with IR homing for the Penguin series of missiles. Penguin is expected to >be >used close in. Hmmm. I can see how that could be a problem. The only solution is to either upgrade the signal processor to screen out land or better recognize ship targets... but I don't know if we have sophisticated enough technology yet for that. Another possibility might be to narrow down the seeker's field of view... but you'd still run into a point where land might intrude in again, and you'd need even more precision in the initial targeting data and/or midcourse update. >Sea Skua was designed to have a longer range (15 km) than the Russian >SA-N-4 >(originally 7km, later 12 km), the main Soviet naval low altitude SAM of >the >time. The problem will all missiles is you have the range being too high, >the weight and size and hence the number a platform can carry goes down. >The >SARH guidance means the launching helicopter should be able to avoid the >close in to land problem mentioned above for active radar homing missiles. >The helo crew illuminate the target with the radar. Plus the SARH guidance systems are sufficiently mature now to fit them into smaller packages. > >>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 > > >SARH is all weather capable and the missiles can fly through clouds without >losing lock, and is generally a better all weather seeker than IR. IR is >fire & forget however. The US tried active radar homing on the Sparrow II >back in the 1950s/60s (?) but the technology wasn't mature enough. Also >active homers are limited by small radar sizes and have limited ranges >requiring SARH or intertial or midcourse update to get the missile close >enough to the target. They also tried SARH on the AIM-9C Sidewinder, I believe, but the airframe at the time was just too small. The AIM-54 Phoenix was the first Western AAM ever in service to use an ARH seeker... and that was actually a combo SARH/ARH seeker (initial and midflight guidance used SARH tech like Sparrow, terminal guidance was onboard ARH). Since then, they've been able to scale it down to Sparrow size (which is all the AMRAAM really is: a slightly smaller Sparrow with a miniaturized seeker similar to the Phoenix). >From what I've dug up, only 6 AAM's (including some development models) use active radar homing: AA-9 Amos (1983, 38 cm diameter), AA-10/R-27AE Alamo (1990, 26 cm diameter), AA-12 Adder (1994, 20 cm diameter), R-37 (1996?, 38 cm diameter), AIM-54 Phoenix (1960's, 38 cm diameter), AIM-120 AMRAAM (1991, 17.8 cm diameter). The technology has matured over time. I will have to retract my earlier stand that ARH homing isn't as common for antiship missiles. However, I'd be correct if I said cutting-edge missiles tend not to use it. Most of the original large antiship missiles (like the AS-6/-2/-5 types) used it. That's understandable, though, since we're talking about a missile about the size of a small fighter jet. I'd HOPE you could fit an active radar transceiver into that airframe! The trend, though, has gone away from huge flying bombs. Instead, low-flying, wave-skimming missiles with advanced seeker heads, advanced warheads (AP penetrators, HEAT warheads, or other such improvements), and smaller radar cross-sections have been found to be more effective. Plus, by getting away from radar guidance, you help avoid passive detection by a target under EMCON until it's too late. ______________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:33:52 -0500 From: "Erwos" Subject: RE: Whats the list for? I personally find that the list is perfectly fine as is. All military info is helpful for the T2k setting. If I don't find some stuff interesting or of use, I just delete it - -Erwos *************************************************************************** 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 12:34:54 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: AC configurations - ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Dragoo To: Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 08:38 Subject: Re: AC configurations > > Oh, most definitely. I would consider the ultimate missile to be one > combining at least 2 seeker technologies, if not 3, to ensure optimum > all-aspect/all-weather capability as well as minimizing potential ECM > effects. > With the advances in semi-conductor technology in the civilian market, it would be difficult to imagine the military not already working on one. I'd would think it would work kind of like a frequency-hopping radio. The onboard computer would continuously check the other targeting modes, and switch to whatever one is producing the strongest signal. Besides needing the actual equipment (the RADAR, I/R, whatever) I don't see it being to difficult to implement or taking much space. The can build a computer smarter than the ones in the aircraft of the '80's, and fit it in a book of matches. For larger missile classes, they shouldn't be too far off from target recognition capabilities. I could then just set my missile to seek "BB-61" (sorry for using one of our own ships) and fire and forget it. It would fly towards the target group, compare each potential target to the signature in it's memory, then lock onto the one that matches. Currently, I/R seekers basically lock onto a heat-source, but how difficult would it be to create on that looks at a heat image? Just some ideas... Cor __________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:44:33 PST From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: AC configurations > > Oh, most definitely. I would consider the ultimate missile to be one > > combining at least 2 seeker technologies, if not 3, to ensure optimum > > all-aspect/all-weather capability as well as minimizing potential ECM > > effects. > > > > >With the advances in semi-conductor technology in the civilian market, it >would be difficult to imagine the military not already working on one. I'd >would think it would work kind of like a frequency-hopping radio. The >onboard computer would continuously check the other targeting modes, and >switch to whatever one is producing the strongest signal. Besides needing >the actual equipment (the RADAR, I/R, whatever) I don't see it being to >difficult to implement or taking much space. The can build a computer >smarter than the ones in the aircraft of the '80's, and fit it in a book of >matches. > >For larger missile classes, they shouldn't be too far off from target >recognition capabilities. I could then just set my missile to seek "BB-61" >(sorry for using one of our own ships) and fire and forget it. It would >fly >towards the target group, compare each potential target to the signature in >it's memory, then lock onto the one that matches. Currently, I/R seekers >basically lock onto a heat-source, but how difficult would it be to create >on that looks at a heat image? > Doesn't the LANTIRN/FLIR pod combo already have that kind of IR technology? Actually, that might be an idea: combine frequency-hopping ARH with Imaging IR to lock on to the heat signature, and either have a separate optical seeker with low-light capability (a la the Cat's Eye camera system on the F-14: able to pick out a fighter up to 30 miles away and a Tu-22 or -16 up to 50 miles away, so at 30 miles it should be able to match the visual silhouette of a ship, right?) with a database of valid targets (could have additional space to be able to accept additional images before launch) -- or you could tie it into the IIR seeker's image. ______________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 17:22:01 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences At 12:53 PM 2/25/00 -0000, Mark Oliver wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Peter Vieth >To: >Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 10:16 AM >Subject: Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences > > ><<< I've mentioned several times that I don't believe the Polish army would >fight for the Soviets. >>> > >The scenario given in the v1 rules had Poland fighting because of its fear >of a united Germany. It fought "with" the Soviets, against a common enemy, >rather than "for" them. > As someone who studies Poland, this doesn't ring true with me: at the moment at least, the Poles are a lot more scared of the Russians than of the Germans. ><<< The hatred of the Soviets was just too deep. >>> > >The point being that the Polish hatred and fear of a united Germany would be >even stronger than their feelings for the Soviets. > >My country escaped WW2 relatively lightly to Poland and yet the scars and >fears that were caused by the Germans are still very prominant social >factor. For a country to have endured what the Polish endured would make >them doubly determined to avoid it again. > Well, see, here's the problem with that analysis: the Soviets helped. The Soviet Union, it should be remembered, allowed Germany to invade Poland under the Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact, and in fact participated in the invasion; shortly after the Soviet invasion, several thousand Polish leaders (officers, politicians, professionals, cadets) in the eastern part of the country were rounded up, executed, and dumped in an unmarked mass grave. The Soviet Union denied that the incident had ever occurred (or blamed it on the Nazis) until just a few years ago. When the Soviets "liberated" Poland, they reached the east bank of the Visutula opposite Warsaw (in the Warsaw suburb of Praga), at which point the Poles, in order to be the ones to liberate their own capital city, rose up against the German occupiers. The problem was that this uprising was primarily by the Polish Home Army, which was non-Communist, although I believe the Communist undeground helped. Not wanting the non-Communist Poles to be able to say they'd liberated themselves, the Soviets halted their offensive until the Germans had crushed the uprising (the Western Allies in the very last stages air-dropped a few supplies)--this process utterly destroyed the city of Warsaw (it's since been rebuilt--but it was probably in worse shape than Grozny is now), and involved some extreme nastiness in the later stages, like the Germans strapping women and children to the front of tanks in order to deter resistance fighters from shooting at them. There's a section of the national cemetary in Warsaw called the "Grey Ranks" where the casualties from the uprising are buried: it's all wooden crosses (birch, I think, with the bark still on it--hence the name), and it's just....well, really, really moving. The thing about the uprising is that it's been taught in Polish history books since WWII, ostensible to promote anti-Nazi feelings--but the sub-text of the story has always been that the Soviets betrayed the Poles. After the war, the Soviet Union kept the eastern third of the country (the part seized at the beginning), uprooting millions of Poles and sending them eastward, many to occupy the land from which Germans had been expelled in the west of the country (much of which was taken from Germany). 90% of the population ended up living in a different place after the war than it had before. Then of course you have the whole period of Communist rule, and most notably the imposition of martial law in 1981, which curtailed the Solidarity movement at that time--the whole justification for this was that if the government didn't do it, the Soviets would invade (it's recently come to light exactly what the Soviets planned to do, but right now I can't remember whether they were actually ready to invade or not). The upshot is that, by this time, the Poles regard the more recent enemy, the Russians, as the real enemy--the Germans are democratic, rich, and willing to welcome them into the European Union. The Russians can't understand why the Poles don't still take orders. Who would you trust? And I don't see that this would have been any different even in the v.1 timeline. 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, 25 Feb 2000 17:32:31 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Soviet Bloc Allegiences At 07:50 AM 2/25/00 -0800, GRAEBARDE wrote: > A new timeline would have Poland in NATO, allied with >the Germans. Infact there is a NATO corps in Poland, >commanded by a Polish general that has a German, Polish, >and (I beleive) Danish Divison under its command. I think >Mitch Berg has the new time line down and is working a >scenario where NATO comes to the aid of Poland in wake of >Russian aggression. It would make an intersting campaign >in the post 2000 era.. > Long Live T2K!!! Keep the info comming. > Yes, I think this might be a good bet: The Russia-Belarus union becomes something like a real unified state. Maybe Russia pressures Ukraine to join, and Ukraine is now part of the reform Russian Empire, or maybe Ukraine runs to NATO for protection. A possible triggering event could be NATO's move to incorporate Lithuania or maybe all three Baltic states. 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, 25 Feb 2000 17:37:21 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: AC configurations At 08:38 AM 2/25/00 PST, Stephen Dragoo wrote: >>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's Harpoon 4? Sounds familiar. > It's the most recent rules version of the Harpoon miniatures rules, by Larry Bond (this is what he did that brought him to Tom Clancy's attention), published by Clash of Arms Games (and only available by direct sales now, I think, though a few copies are still out there at game stores and distributors). The original Harpoon computer game was based on the original version of the miniatures rules, while computer Harpoon II used the name but had no link to the miniatures game. There's supposed to be a computer version of Harpoon 4 in the works. Anyway, it includes probably the best unclassified summary of naval warfare data available. >>Yes, that's true. In general, though, wouldn't you agree that it's good to >>have more than one option? > >Oh, most definitely. I would consider the ultimate missile to be one >combining at least 2 seeker technologies, if not 3, to ensure optimum >all-aspect/all-weather capability as well as minimizing potential ECM >effects. I was thinking of the aicraft, but yes, it'd be true of missiles, too. 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. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #99 ************************************