twilight2000-digest Wednesday, March 8 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 128 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Laws of War RE: Help with Squad, Platoon, and Company personnel and loadouts... Re: Conversions Re: China v. Taiwan Re: Retribution was Laws of War Re: Help with Squad, Platoon, and Company personnel and loadouts... Re: Help with Squad, Platoon, and Company personnel and loadouts... Re: Retribution was Laws of War Re: Help with Squad, Platoon, and Company personnel and loadouts... Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: China v. Taiwan Re: Help with Squad, Platoon, and Company personnel and loadouts... Re: China v. Taiwan Re: Help with Squad, Platoon, and Company personnel and loadouts... AT4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 10:29:30 PST From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: Laws of War >From: "Carl Roger Nilsen" > >Cor typed: > >So, if the is no law written down, it only goes as far as a mutual > >interpretation will allow it. And then, it can only be implemented if >there > >is a force big enough to enforce it. Usually, it's only the losers that >get > >into trouble. That's why the US doesn't want there to be an independent, > >international court overseeing war crimes. We don't want our soldiers >being > >held accountable to anyone but us. > > >I'm sure Nazi Germany would have preferred nobody else to hold their war >criminals accountable either. In fact, it sounds like a natural preference >for just about everybody to shuffle their own muck without other countries' >noses poking in everywhere. > After WWII, a Japanese (or maybe German) submarine commander was sentenced to death for the tactics he used at sea. This was reduced to life after the US Navy told the tribunal it had used the same tactics. Basically, war crimes trials are just another way to get revenge on a loosing nation in war (usually a nation that started the war). By calling them war crimes trials we can make our selves feel good about it (since revenge is politically incorrect). 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 10:55:13 PST From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: RE: Help with Squad, Platoon, and Company personnel and loadouts... >Maybe someone knows where a TOE chart of common US units can be found on >the >web? I never studied the US Army's composition. Intel guys always think >red, never blue (red is enemy, blue is friendly) so I'm not of very much >use >here... > >Walter try: http://sun00781.dn.net/man/dod-101/army/unit/platoon.htm for platoon-level info for US forces (use the two appendices at the bottom). The site also has links for other sized units. 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:45:28 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Conversions Does anyone know of a method (or downloadable or viewable resource) converting v1 stats to v2? I'm not just talking character sheets (I think those would be fairly easy, just a little work. But, I'm talking about weapon and vehicle stats. I have some v1 books (Soviet Vehicle Guide, Krakow, Airlords, the such) that I haven't gotten v2 copies of yet. But, I've been playing v2. Maybe I should go back to v1, since I have most of what I'm looking for in that (except maybe the Heavy Weapons Guide.) Cor It has been awhile since I looked at conversion between the two versions, but if I recall correctly they were mostly fairly direct and simple. Take a look at the statistics and compare- I believe that there was a pretty logical pattern behind them. Later. Jesse. vanquer@email.msn.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, 09 Mar 2000 09:07:30 +1300 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan At 02:31 8/03/00 -0500, you wrote: >At 02:06 AM 3/8/00 EST, Damage169@cs.com wrote: >> >>Also, to comment on the relationship between Taiwan and the PRC, until Nixon >>became US president, the US had considered Taiwan to be the legitimate >>government of all of China, forced into exile on the last unoccupied >province >>of their country. Once Nixon went to the PRC, the way the US responded to >>Taiwan was that it was a permanently separated province of the nation of >>China, just as Panama had once been a province of Colombia but was now a >>separate nation. IIRC, even the UN considers Taiwan to be a generally >>independent nation, but not quite, as Taiwan has not been given voting >nation >>status. I may be wrong, but I do not believe so. >> >I suspect the only real reason they're not recognized as an independent >country is that they haven't asked to be. It would help of course if China >accepted it, but once you've been de facto indepdent for this long, usually >other countries will recognize you. Taiwan has been after a seat in the UN ever since they got kicked out as teh representative for China and the PRC took their place. In fact, I'm pretty the Nationlaist President who took the Nationalist army to Taiwan, Chiang Kai-Shek (sp) was one of the men who helped formulate the idea of the modern UN after WWII. Of course with PRC on the security council, they can veto Taiwan's membership forever and a day (I believe membership is a security council vote?) >As an aside: Taiwan really has very little history as a province of China. > My understanding is that China only controlled it for a short period in >the early 20th century (maybe the late 19th also?), and that before that it >was independent, while after that it was controlled by Japan. Yes, you are right. They got it back of the Japanese after WWII. Last time I was in Taiwan there was a TV series on (a soap opera) about a native Taiwanese family living under the Japanese rule. Kind of interesting from a historical military standpoint, the Japanese uniforms looked very authentic. Also, the Japanese left a huge scar on Taiwan; they cut down around half of Taiwan's native trees. The countryside (and some of the national parks) still has not recovered from this in some places, and a lot of the land thus cleared is now farmland. 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, 8 Mar 2000 13:37:06 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Retribution was Laws of War > > > > > > > > > > Try saying that to the survivors of these men's crimes (there are still > > some,) or their families. See how you'd feel after someone wiped out your > > friends and family, even after 50+ years. I bet you'd still like to see > > them face justice while you still have life left. > > > > Cor > > Get real Corey! Of course I would want to bring them to justice, and I > would be careful about this point, as my father lost family due to the > communists in Russia, my grandma to the Germans. But at this point and time I > can not see me creating a posse and fling over to Russia or Germany in > vengeance over 50 years later. > > What if we got the wrong persons? This could cause another war and more > innocent live would be lost. Blind vengeance is how religious and racial wars > continue for hundreds of years. For example Serbia and Islamic people in the > area, they have been at war for hundreds of years and this tends to cycle > through the generations. At some point you have leave things to Karma, but if > the evidence is there then by all means hang the b@stards, hang them without > breaking their necks if you must. > > Steve > Dude, I wasn't talking blind vengeance. I'm talking real justice: you know, with a court, and judges, and lawyers, maybe a jury (I understand tribunals often don't have them.) And my point still stands. Most of the remaining survivors, and their subsequent families, would still like to see these men brought forward, or good evidence showing that they are already deceased. Most of them don't want blind vengeance, that would be too close to what happened to them. Try taking the perspective a little closer. You were a couple generations removed from your family's experiences. Are you married, have children? What if they were slaughtered wholesale. Think you'd still be blase about it? Leaving things to karma is stupid. Not everyone believes in that. That is the real reason we have the laws of men. That's something everyone can believe in by some sorts. Some belief structures may say otherwise, but at least the laws of men can be seen, felt, acknowledged. I have a slight belief in karma, but I still believe that things need to be taken care of during this existence. If you understand the entire belief structure that includes Karma, and not just the watered-down westernized, hippie version, then you know this already. We are to do everything to our fullest to live this life at it's best. If we shrug our shoulders and go "oh well"; then next time around we will be given fewer choices, since we were unable to deal with them this time. Look into the full Hindu belief of reincarnation (which is where Karma originally comes from.) It's a set of steps to enlightenment. If we don't learn our lessons, we go down a notch to have them drilled into us by way of "animal" instinct. Then we get another chance as people to try and carry-out those lessons. If we succeed, we go on up. 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:39:48 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Help with Squad, Platoon, and Company personnel and loadouts... > >Maybe someone knows where a TOE chart of common US units can be found on > >the > >web? I never studied the US Army's composition. Intel guys always think > >red, never blue (red is enemy, blue is friendly) so I'm not of very much > >use > >here... > > > >Walter > > try: > > http://sun00781.dn.net/man/dod-101/army/unit/platoon.htm > > for platoon-level info for US forces (use the two appendices at the bottom). > The site also has links for other sized units. > > A generous and sadistic GM, > > Brandon Cope > ______________________________________________________ Thanks, I'll check it out. 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:46:46 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Help with Squad, Platoon, and Company personnel and loadouts... This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01BF8904.BF034400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks, Walter. You actually gave some good insight on equipment = already. I had some idea of units taking only what they can carry (a = big thing in T2K.) By the way, the AT4 now used by the military is = covered in the v2 game. I'm not sure if it's the armburst or not. Is = it Swedish or Swiss? It's one of those, isn't it. My understanding, at = least by T2K's telling, is that it it's given another name because AT4 = is the style of designation that we give to Warsaw Pact equipment (and = the actual name of one.) I'm not sure if the military has actually done = this, though I'd imagine that we'd redesignate it using our methodology = (M-###) =20 Also, wouldn't it still be a LAW (Light, Anti-tank Weapon)? Just a = new type. The original was the M-72, right? And we've had a couple = since then? I'm think the M-80, but seems that there was at least = another. Anyhow, thanks again. I'll check the link that Brandon sent. Cor If someone could also give a load out for the squads/platoons. = IE, the Squad leader, asst Sqd Leader, the weapons loadout (1 SAW, = rifles, how many m203s, any LAWs?) And also the common attached = personnel for the platoon. I know there is an RTO, and I think the = platoon leader and Platoon NCO don't count as part of the squads. So = you have 3 squads of X personnel, plus the Lieutenant, NCO, and RTO. My = understanding is that the medic isn't actually part of the platoon, but = taken from the battalion's personnel. But the unwritten rule is to try = and assign the same medic to the same platoon. So he becomes an = unofficial member of the platoon. Also, often there is a weapons team = (usually ATGM) attached to the command group (the LT, RTO, Medic...)=20 I don't remember enough to be of much help except to say that LAW's = are not a TOE item. Maybe they are on a particular TOE chart, but in = practice it doesn't go by any manual. SAW's, Rifles, M203's, etc... are = all in a unit by a TOE chart. =20 LAW's, claymores, AT4's, grenades, flares, mines, etc... is just a = grab whatever you can carry deal. Typically a squad leader would tell a = guy to get a LAW or 2, and tell another guy to grab a claymore or 2. = But a lot of it is up to the individual soldier. You just grabbed all = the weapontry you could carry (your pick) and off you went, but you = ALWAYS had your TOE weapon and the basic load of ammo (minimum). At = least that's how it was in the 82nd. =20 80 to 90% of what an airborne infantry guy carried by weight was ammo, = guns, rockets, etc... If it ain't keeping you alive, you don't need to = be carrying it. A couple changes of socks, an extra pair of underwear, = your poncho and poncho liner, ALICE gear and everything else is was for = killing things. Tent? What the hell is a tent? Cots, sleeping bags? = You must be kidding! Luckily, since I was a staff weenie, I usually got = to carry a sleeping bag and a little more spare clothing, but thats as = far as luxury went. That way I didn't have to use the 'week and flip' = rule very often (wear your underwear for a week, then turn it inside out = and wear it another week). Now mind you, the infantry were issued = sleeping bags, they just weren't allowed to use them. The weight was = better spent carrying killing stuff, so you leave that silly crap at the = barracks. =20 LAW's were about half way phased out when I was in (1988-92). We used = them in Basic Training, but they were uncommon in the 82nd. AT4's were = much more common a weapon. Also, the AT4 I'm talking about is NOT the = AT-4 in Twilight:2000 v1 rules. I don't have anything v2 so I don't = know about it. An 'armburst' in the v1 rules seems like what an AT4 = would be. =20 Maybe someone knows where a TOE chart of common US units can be found = on the web? I never studied the US Army's composition. Intel guys = always think red, never blue (red is enemy, blue is friendly) so I'm not = of very much use here... =20 Walter - ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01BF8904.BF034400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks, Walter.  You actually gave some = good=20 insight on equipment already.  I had some idea of units taking = only what=20 they can carry (a big thing in T2K.)   By the way, the AT4 = now used=20 by the military is covered in the v2 game.  I'm not sure if it's = the=20 armburst or not.  Is it Swedish or Swiss?  It's one of = those, isn't=20 it.  My understanding, at least by T2K's telling, is that it it's = given=20 another name  because AT4 is the style of designation that we = give to=20 Warsaw Pact equipment (and the actual name of one.)  I'm not sure = if the=20 military has actually done this, though I'd imagine that we'd = redesignate it=20 using our methodology (M-###) 
 
Also, wouldn't it still be a LAW (Light, = Anti-tank=20 Weapon)?  Just a new type.  The original was the M-72, = right? =20 And we've had a couple since then?  I'm think the M-80, but seems = that=20 there was at least another.
 
Anyhow, thanks again.  I'll check the = link that=20 Brandon sent.
 
Cor
 
 
If someone could also give a load out for = the=20 squads/platoons.  IE, the Squad leader, asst Sqd Leader, the = weapons=20 loadout (1 SAW, rifles, how many m203s, any LAWs?)  And also = the=20 common attached personnel for the platoon.  I know there is = an RTO,=20 and I think the platoon leader and Platoon NCO don't count as part = of the=20 squads.  So you have 3 squads of X personnel, plus the = Lieutenant,=20 NCO, and RTO.  My understanding is that the medic isn't = actually part=20 of the platoon, but taken from the battalion's personnel.  = But the=20 unwritten rule is to try and assign the same medic to the same=20 platoon.  So he becomes an unofficial member of the = platoon. =20 Also, often there is a weapons team (usually ATGM) attached to the = command=20 group (the LT, RTO, Medic...) 
=
I don't remember enough to be of much help = except to=20 say that LAW's are not a TOE item.  Maybe they are on a = particular TOE=20 chart, but in practice it doesn't go by any manual.  SAW's, = Rifles,=20 M203's, etc... are all in a unit by a TOE = chart.
 
LAW's, claymores, AT4's, grenades, flares, = mines,=20 etc... is just a grab whatever you can carry deal.  Typically a = squad=20 leader would tell a guy to get a LAW or 2, and tell another guy to = grab a=20 claymore or 2.  But a lot of it is up to the individual = soldier. =20 You just grabbed all the weapontry you could carry (your pick) and off = you=20 went, but you ALWAYS had your TOE weapon and the basic load of ammo=20 (minimum).  At least that's how it was in the=20 82nd.
 
80 to 90% of what an airborne infantry guy = carried by=20 weight was ammo, guns, rockets, etc...  If it ain't keeping you = alive,=20 you don't need to be carrying it.  A couple changes of socks, an = extra=20 pair of underwear, your poncho and poncho liner, ALICE gear and = everything=20 else is was for killing things.  Tent?  What the hell is a=20 tent?  Cots, sleeping bags?  You must be kidding!  = Luckily,=20 since I was a staff weenie, I usually got to carry a sleeping bag and = a little=20 more spare clothing, but thats as far as luxury went.  That way I = didn't=20 have to use the 'week and flip' rule very often (wear your underwear = for a=20 week, then turn it inside out and wear it another week).  Now = mind you,=20 the infantry were issued sleeping bags, they just weren't allowed to = use=20 them.  The weight was better spent carrying killing stuff, so you = leave=20 that silly crap at the barracks.
 
LAW's were about half way phased out when I = was in=20 (1988-92).  We used them in Basic Training, but they were = uncommon in the=20 82nd.  AT4's were much more common a weapon.  Also, the AT4 = I'm=20 talking about is NOT the AT-4 in Twilight:2000 v1 rules.  I don't = have=20 anything v2 so I don't know about it.  An 'armburst' in the v1 = rules=20 seems like what an AT4 would be.
 
Maybe someone knows where a TOE chart of = common US=20 units can be found on the web?  I never studied the US Army's=20 composition.  Intel guys always think red, never blue (red is = enemy, blue=20 is friendly) so I'm not of very much use = here...
 
Walter
= - ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01BF8904.BF034400-- __________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 16:01:17 -0600 From: Steve Subject: Re: Retribution was Laws of War Corey Wells wrote: > > Dude, I wasn't talking blind vengeance. I'm talking real justice: you > know, with a court, and judges, and lawyers, maybe a jury (I understand > tribunals often don't have them.) Thus if there was enough evidence to convict, then these people would have been convicted, I believe the thread was suggesting that these criminals got away because the perspective countries let them go free. I was suggesting that if you want to convict, then it must be done ASAP in the 50's and 60's, the chances of conviction generally decrease with the passage of time. > > > Try taking the perspective a little closer. You were a couple generations > removed from your family's experiences. Are you married, have children? > What if they were slaughtered wholesale. Think you'd still be blase about > it? > I am not blasé, but again, if the current evidence is not there, what are you going to do about it? Without evidence for a conviction you have blind justice. Thus the posies, the courts in these countries will not convict, so what are YOU going to do about it? (Nothing, I bet) I don't mean to be nasty here, but lets be honest. > > Leaving things to karma is stupid. Not everyone believes in that. If the courts fail to give one justice, and you have not witnessed the killings FIRST hand, to seek vengeance yourself, then to find Peace you may have to look to religion. Karma, etc. You can not hang or imprison people you only suspect are guilty!! What if you made a mistake, then their family wants revenge on you and thus the cycle continues, and more innocent people die, the blood shed has to stop somewhere. 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:20:20 EST From: CMarkChester@aol.com Subject: Re: Help with Squad, Platoon, and Company personnel and loadouts... Right as far as the AT-4 goes. It's actually a Swedish designed weapon (available in the Heavy Weapons Handbook. So called because some smart arse decided to have a play on words and not because it was an actual numbering system. The caliber of the weapon is 84mm, therefore AT-4 (Say it slowly and you'll work it out :-) The proper name for it, is I believe the M136) The Armbrust is as far as I believe is a German weapon (However Armbrust is actually the name of William Tell's Crossbow - a famous SWISS hero. Well there you go work that one out :-)) Actually all weapons may be seen in the Heavy Weapons Handbook and the Rules. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ----------------------------- "I can't go in there. I have a problem with confined spaces. Theres a medical name for it!" "Yes it's called cowardice" (Villa talking to Jenna - Blake's 7) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ----------------------------- *************************************************************************** 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, 8 Mar 2000 18:00:29 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan In a message dated 03/07/2000 11:10:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, baiya@geocities.com writes: << I think the idea is that China would try to get economically valuable targets. Assuming the targets aren't destroyed in the process. I think land wouldn't be an issue, China's got plenty now. Besides, with Russia's economic condition, China could buy the land if it controlled the economically strong region of Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan... Cor >> I'm banking on pride of the emerging world power. Throughout the 19th Century, China was colonized or occupied by various powers. Then at the beginning of the 20th Century, they lost land to the Japanese (Manchuria and Taiwan) at the end of the Sino-Japanese War. China has not been what it considers whole for over 100 years. That is a lot of pride for a civilization that has existed for over 2000 years. To go off on a tangent, Chinese society is a bit chauvanistic. The Chinese word for China means "Middle Country". Back in the day, the Chinese considered themselves to be the middle of the world and everyone else revolved around them. I'm sure attitudes have changed today, but some still lingers in the mother country. Besides, I don't think the Russians, despite their woeful economic state, would sell land they claim is theirs to what they consider to be an enemy. Would the U.S.A. sell any of it's territory? Orrin *************************************************************************** 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, 8 Mar 2000 18:01:13 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan In a message dated 03/07/2000 11:30:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: << As an aside: Taiwan really has very little history as a province of China. My understanding is that China only controlled it for a short period in the early 20th century (maybe the late 19th also?), and that before that it was independent, while after that it was controlled by Japan. >> A brief historical summary of Taiwan: Taiwan was part of Imperial China first settled by Fukien immigrants. Around 1590 it was colonized by Portugal, who gave it the name Ilsa Formosa, who were subsequently followed by the Dutch and Spanish. Formosa is an older name for Taiwan, by the way. Japan gained control of the island around 1900's when China ceded control of the island after the Sino-Japanese War. There was a revolt by the Chinese living there who briefly formed a "Republic of Taiwan" which was crushed by the Japanese. >From 1900 until 1945 it was a Japanese colony, several thousand Taiwanese males were drafted into the Imperial Japanese Army during WWII, serving as labor troops on the islands. After the defeat of the Japanese, the island was returned to the Nationalist Chinese government, who would flee there at the end of the Civil War in 1949. Orrin (who's had too many 14 hour flights to Taipei with nothing to do!) *************************************************************************** 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, 8 Mar 2000 18:01:47 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: Help with Squad, Platoon, and Company personnel and loadouts... In a message dated 03/08/2000 9:27:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, walter@houston.rr.com writes: << LAW's were about half way phased out when I was in (1988-92). We used them in Basic Training, but they were uncommon in the 82nd. AT4's were much more common a weapon. Also, the AT4 I'm talking about is NOT the AT-4 in Twilight:2000 v1 rules. I don't have anything v2 so I don't know about it. An 'armburst' in the v1 rules seems like what an AT4 would be. >> The AT-4 in V2 and V2.2 is the M136, which is based on the Swedish AT-4W. *************************************************************************** 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, 8 Mar 2000 18:01:40 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan In a message dated 03/08/2000 12:56:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, atiff@physics.otago.ac.nz writes: << Taiwan has been after a seat in the UN ever since they got kicked out as teh representative for China and the PRC took their place. In fact, I'm pretty the Nationlaist President who took the Nationalist army to Taiwan, Chiang Kai-Shek (sp) was one of the men who helped formulate the idea of the modern UN after WWII. Of course with PRC on the security council, they can veto Taiwan's membership forever and a day (I believe membership is a security council vote?)>> Yes that is right, Nationalist China was considered one of the big allies and formulators of the UN during WWII. Your spelling of Chiang Kai Shek is correct too. >As an aside: Taiwan really has very little history as a province of China. > My understanding is that China only controlled it for a short period in >the early 20th century (maybe the late 19th also?), and that before that it >was independent, while after that it was controlled by Japan. Yes, you are right. They got it back of the Japanese after WWII. Last time I was in Taiwan there was a TV series on (a soap opera) about a native Taiwanese family living under the Japanese rule. Kind of interesting from a historical military standpoint, the Japanese uniforms looked very authentic. Also, the Japanese left a huge scar on Taiwan; they cut down around half of Taiwan's native trees. The countryside (and some of the national parks) still has not recovered from this in some places, and a lot of the land thus cleared is now farmland. >> Incidentally, during the first Taiwanese election, the Nationalist candidate Lee Teng-Hui gave an interview where he commented that he missed the days of Japanese rule. Not the Japanese mind you, but the orderliness, cleanliness and such. *************************************************************************** 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, 8 Mar 2000 18:03:19 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: Help with Squad, Platoon, and Company personnel and loadouts... In a message dated 03/08/2000 1:45:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, baiya@geocities.com writes: << Also, wouldn't it still be a LAW (Light, Anti-tank Weapon)? Just a new type. The original was the M-72, right? And we've had a couple since then? I'm think the M-80, but seems that there was at least another. >> The M136 replaces the M-72. If you are referring to the Law-80, that's the British variant. At least according to T2k V2 anyways. By the way if you're looking for info on platoon/squad breakdowns, Checkout Merc:2000. It has platoons and squads for USA, Russia, UK, France and China. If you can't find Merc:2000, since all T2k stuff is out of print (thanks Tantatlus!) check out Tom Clancy's "Airborne: A guided tour of an Airborne Task Force" which also has what you're looking for. Orrin *************************************************************************** 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, 8 Mar 2000 17:29:57 -0600 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: AT4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BF8923.ECABB580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, Chester and Orrin seem to have the info on the US's AT-4. But to answer Corey's question about it just being a new kind of LAW, I guess that might be technically correct, but it is confusing. If someone said they shot a LAW rocket, I would assume they could only mean the M72. I would be assuming wrong I guess, but I just never heard of an AT4 called a LAW. It is much less confusing if everyone just calls an M72 a LAW, calls a US AT4 an AT4 Rocket Launcher (or an M136), and a Soviet AT4 an AT4 Guided Missle Launcher. As a side note for role-playing, the M72 is the LOUDEST weapon I have ever personnally shot. It's more like a recoilless rifle than a rocket when firing (even if it is technically a rocket). My right ear would ring for 5 minutes after I shot one, and that's with wearing ear plugs! It doesn't have much of a flame or smoke trail and would not be very easy to backtrack to the shooter. The AT4 Rocket on the other hand actually seems like a rocket. It's still pretty loud when shot, but it has a distinct white flame on the rocket exhaust. It looks kinda like a laser gun in a sci-fi movie (A short streak of white light that is moving REALLY fast). It moves so fast though it would be kinda hard to exactly pinpoint where it came from. The general area would be pretty easy, but exactly would be very hard. If you blinked you'd miss most of the flight time. The AT4 Rocket has a little bolt-action firing mechanism that you have to cock before you fire it. Whereas the LAW, of course, cocks itself when you open it. I assume that everyone has heard the story about the Marine in Saudi with the AT4? I'll tell it again for those who haven't. When I was in Saudi, one day we got a safety bulletin that NO ONE was allowed to take their weapons off of 'safe' unless they intended to actually shoot something right then. If you were caught just casually carrying your weapon around not on 'safe' it was your ass. This is because some Marine (it HAD to be a Jarhead!) was standing guard duty and was armed with (among other things) an AT4. He was bored (the definition of guard duty), and so, was tracking a camel with his AT4. Unknown to him, the safety was off and the firing mechanism was cocked. The camel was wandering around about 100 yards out past his post. A buddie of his walked up and asked him what he was doing. He mentioned that he was just passing the time by keeping the cross-hairs on the center of the camel. His buddie relayed how funny it would be to blow up a camel and 'just kidding around' reached down and hit the trigger. Well, needless to say, the camel recieved slightly more than a fatal wound. The Army had to buy the Bedouin a new camel (they are Expensive!) and we got a safety bulletin. I never heard what happened to those 2 marines. You can bet it wasn't pleasant... Ground camel meat anyone? Walter - ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BF8923.ECABB580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well,=20 Chester and Orrin seem to have the info on the US's AT-4.  But to = answer=20 Corey's question about it just being a new kind of LAW, I guess = that might=20 be technically correct, but it is confusing.  If someone said they = shot a=20 LAW rocket, I would assume they could only mean the M72.  I would = be=20 assuming wrong I guess, but I just never heard of an AT4 called a = LAW.  It=20 is much less confusing if everyone just calls an M72 a LAW, calls a US = AT4 an=20 AT4 Rocket Launcher (or an M136), and a Soviet AT4 an AT4 Guided Missle=20 Launcher.
 
As a=20 side note for role-playing, the M72 is the LOUDEST weapon I have ever=20 personnally shot.  It's more like a recoilless rifle than a rocket = when=20 firing (even if it is technically a rocket).  My right ear would = ring for 5=20 minutes after I shot one, and that's with wearing ear plugs!  It = doesn't=20 have much of a flame or smoke trail and would not be very easy to = backtrack to=20 the shooter.
 
The=20 AT4 Rocket on the other hand actually seems like a rocket.  It's = still=20 pretty loud when shot, but it has a distinct white flame on the rocket=20 exhaust.  It looks kinda like a laser gun in a sci-fi movie (A = short streak=20 of white light that is moving REALLY fast).  It moves so fast = though it=20 would be kinda hard to exactly pinpoint where it came from.  The = general=20 area would be pretty easy, but exactly would be very hard.  If you = blinked=20 you'd miss most of the flight time.
 
The=20 AT4 Rocket has a little bolt-action firing mechanism that you have to = cock=20 before you fire it.  Whereas the LAW, of course, cocks itself when = you open=20 it.
 
I=20 assume that everyone has heard the story about the Marine in Saudi with = the=20 AT4?
 
I'll=20 tell it again for those who haven't.
 
When I=20 was in Saudi, one day we got a safety bulletin that NO ONE was allowed = to take=20 their weapons off of 'safe' unless they intended to actually shoot = something=20 right then.  If you were caught just casually carrying your weapon = around=20 not on 'safe' it was your ass.  This is because some Marine (it HAD = to be a=20 Jarhead!) was standing guard duty and was armed with (among other = things) an=20 AT4.  He was bored (the definition of guard duty), and so, was = tracking a=20 camel with his AT4.  Unknown to him, the safety was off and the = firing=20 mechanism was cocked.  The camel was wandering around about 100 = yards out=20 past his post.  A buddie of his walked up and asked him what he was = doing.  He mentioned that he was just passing the time by keeping = the=20 cross-hairs on the center of the camel.  His buddie relayed how = funny it=20 would be to blow up a camel and 'just kidding around' reached down and = hit the=20 trigger.
 
Well,=20 needless to say, the camel recieved slightly more than a fatal = wound.  The=20 Army had to buy the Bedouin a new camel (they are Expensive!) and we got = a=20 safety bulletin.  I never heard what happened to those 2 = marines.  You=20 can bet it wasn't pleasant...
 
Ground camel meat = anyone?
 
Walter
- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BF8923.ECABB580-- *************************************************************************** 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 #128 *************************************