twilight2000-digest Sunday, March 12 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 134 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: M240+ Re: Terrain Comments Re: Terrain Comments Re: M240+ TOEs of selected US Army units RE: Terrain Comments Re: M240+ Re: TOEs of selected US Army units Re: Terrain Comments Re: Terrain Comments RE: China vs. Taiwan Re: Terrain Comments Re: TOEs of selected US Army units IR and Thermal cameras/scopes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:20:00 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: M240+ This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0084_01BF8AD6.64B0B540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The M240 is the US version of the FN MAG or L7 as it is called in = British service. Basically the same weapon that's used as the COAX and = Loader's MG on the M1. I think the L7 might be in the v2 books. There's a MAG in the v1 = Small Arms guide. Belgian, 7.62 mm NATO. Is that it? The Javelin listed in the Heavy Weapon's guide is the British man = portable SAM, kinda confusing with NATO having two weapons with the same = nickname. Tank Breaker was supposed to be fire and forget, there was = supposed to be a direct attack version for use against troops, bunkers, = other point targets etc, called Assault Breaker. Neither version was = put into production, can't remember why. Javelin is an imaging infrared = guided ATGM, it is also fire and forget, another nice thing is its = fitted with thermal imaging sight. Here's a website with some good info = on it. I'll have to check the passage in God's Children where they fired = the Javelin. I could have sworn that the shooter had to keep his sights = on the APC. I may have been wrong. The passage mostly described the = flight of the missile, and kinda (in a funny way) how everyone on both = sides of the firefight stopped to watch it. Cor - ------=_NextPart_000_0084_01BF8AD6.64B0B540 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The M240 is the US version of the FN MAG or = L7 as it=20 is called in British service. Basically the same weapon that's = used as=20 the COAX and Loader's MG on the M1.

I think the L7 might be in the v2 = books. There's=20 a MAG in the v1 Small Arms guide. Belgian, 7.62 mm = NATO. =20 Is that it?

The Javelin listed in the Heavy Weapon's = guide is the=20 British man portable SAM, kinda confusing with NATO having two = weapons with=20 the same nickname. Tank Breaker was supposed to be fire and = forget,=20 there was supposed to be a direct attack version for use against = troops,=20 bunkers, other point targets etc, called Assault Breaker. = Neither=20 version was put into production, can't remember why. Javelin = is an=20 imaging infrared guided ATGM, it is also fire and forget, another = nice thing=20 is its fitted with thermal imaging sight. Here's a website = with some=20 good info on it.

I'll have to check the passage in God's = Children where=20 they fired the Javelin. I could have sworn that the shooter = had to=20 keep his sights on the APC. I may have been wrong. The = passage=20 mostly described the flight of the missile, and kinda (in a funny = way) how=20 everyone on both sides of the firefight stopped to watch = it.

Cor

- ------=_NextPart_000_0084_01BF8AD6.64B0B540-- __________________________________________________ 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, 9 Mar 2000 23:24:20 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Terrain Comments > Has anyone noticed that when the majority of games are run for T2K in > Poland, they're always set in 'generic forest land'? I've been looking > through some info on Poland and it looks fairly built up, I think that a lot > of the action would be of the MOUT/FIBUA type. > MOUT, for those in the dark, is the US acronym for Military Operations, > Urban Terrain. (I think!) and FIBUA is the Australian version or Fighting In > Built Up Areas. The Australian army uses the MOUT abbreviation also. As for weapons and ammo loads, there is no difference with the Australian army. The only things that you may find are some of the equipment that is around if you are holding the area. Things for road blocks and such. As for NVG's this is always the case whether you are using them in the open or in an urban environment. Remember that the principles of camouflage apply to those people using nvg's to spot. eg A well camed soldier who isn't moving is just as hard to spot through a set of nvg's as he would be during the day using normal vision. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 18:04:24 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Terrain Comments >As for NVG's this is always the case whether you are using them in the open >or in an urban environment. Remember that the principles of camouflage apply >to those people using nvg's to spot. eg A well camed soldier who isn't >moving >is just as hard to spot through a set of nvg's as he would be during the day >using normal vision. > >Ballistix This brings up a question that reoccurs time and time again, I'm glad that we have some real experience here to tap. Can you detect an individual through his body heat with vision apparatus? If so, which apparatus? Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:29:00 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: M240+ Also, does anyone know if the Javelin is in the 2nd Edition rules book or Heavy Weapon's guide? Those are both at my friend's, also. From the book I read, it sounds a little like the Tank Breaker, in that it pops up and hit's the target from above. But it wasn't Fire-and-Forget. Isn't the Tank Breaker Fire-and-Forget? The Javelin listed in the Heavy Weapon's guide is the British man portable SAM, kinda confusing with NATO having two weapons with the same nickname. Tank Breaker was supposed to be fire and forget, there was supposed to be a direct attack version for use against troops, bunkers, other point targets etc, called Assault Breaker. Neither version was put into production, can't remember why. Javelin is an imaging infrared guided ATGM, it is also fire and forget, another nice thing is its fitted with thermal imaging sight. Here's a website with some good info on it. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/javelin.htm In a lot of ways it seems Javelin is very similar to the projected specs and capabilities of Tank Breaker. I'm guessing that the various technologies weren't mature enough to successfully develope Tank Breaker back in the 70's/80's. Hope this stuff helps, JC The original idea behind the tank-breaker was not two versions. It was supposed to be the exact same missile and launcher, programmed to fire either overhead (dropping down on the top armor) or frontal striking. The programming could not generally be done in the field but any heavy ordnance depot was supposed to be able to reprogram them fairly quickly. The benefits were to either hit weaker armor on top, or allow for a faster flight (direct-fire). I don't know how accurate the following is, but I was told that the TB was a modified Hellfire system. 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: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 07:57:52 PST From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: TOEs of selected US Army units Here are some TOEs taken from Steel Panther III, for US forces in 1995. While they aren't necessarily realistic, they may be of help to some GMs: Infantry Company: 1 HQ section*, with 11 infantrymen 3 rifle platoons, each with 3 rifle squads, each with 11 infantrymen 1 Infanty AT section, with 3 Dragon teams (2 men each) 1 Infantry AT section, with 2 Dragon teams 1 Machine Gun section, with 3 M240 or M2 teams (3 men each) Infantry Battalion: 1 HQ section*, with 11 infantrymen 3 Infantry Companies 1 Mortary battery, with 6 60mm, 81mm or 120mm mortar teams (3 men 60/81mm, 4 men 120mm) Mechanized Infantry Company: 1 HQ section*, with 6 infantrymen 1 M2A2 Bradley (3 man crew) 3 Mech Inf Platoons, each with 18 infantrymen 4 M2A2 Bradleys or M113A3 1 Infantry AT Team, with 1 Dragon team 1 M981 FIST-V Forward Observer vehicle (2? man crew) Mechanized Infantry Battalion: 1 HQ section*, with 12 infantrymen 2 M2A2 Bradleys 4 Mech Inf companies (see above) 1 Antiarmor company, with 1 HQ section, with 2 M3A2-AT Bradleys (3 man crew) 3 Antiarmor platoons, each with 4 M3A2-AT Bradleys 1 SP Mortar battery, with 6 M106 (107mm) or M1064 (120mm) SP mortars (6? man crews) 1 Utility platoon, with 2 Utility sections, each with 5 M1026 or M1097 HMMWVs (2 man crews) Armored Cavalry Troop: 1 HQ section, with 1 M1A1 Abrams (4 man crew) 1 M3A2 Bradley scout 2 Scout platoons, each with 18 scouts 6 M3A2 Bradleys 2 Tank platoons, each with 4 M1A1 Abrams 1 SP mortar squad, with 2 M106 or M1064 SP mortars 1 M981 FIST-V * for simplicity, SP3 HQ sections are considered the same size as a rifle squad for that type of platoon >From a completely different source (US Army documentation): Rifle Squads: 1 Squad Leader 2 Fire teams, each with 1 Team leader 1 Grenadier 1 Automatic rifleman 1 Rifleman (I assume 11 man squads just add an extra rifleman per fire team) (Light?) Rifle Platoon: 1 HQ squad, with 1 Platoon leader 1 Platoon Sgt. 1 RATELO (RAdio TELephone Operator) 3 Rifle squads (see above) 1 Heavy Weapon squad, with 1 Weapon squad leader 2 Machine gunners (probably M240/M60) 2 Assistant machine gunners 2 Antiarmor gunners (probably Dragons) 2 Assistant antiarmor gunners Rifle Company (6 officers + 155 enlisted): 1 Company HQ, with 13 men (2 officers, 11 enlisted) [1 Company Commander] [1 Executive Officer] [1 1st Sgt.] [1 Fire Support Officer] [1 Communications Sgt.] [5 RATELOs] [1 Supply Sgt.] [1 NBC NCO] [1 Armorer] 3 Rifle Platoons (11 man squads) 1 Mortar Platoon, with 1 Mortar Plt HQ, with 9 men (1 officer, 8 enlisted) 3 Mortar squads, with 5 men 1 81mm mortar (The company is listed as having 1 M2 HMG, 6 7.62mm/5.56mm MGs, 9 Dragons, and 3 81mm mortars as key weapons; vehicles are 7 HMMWVs and one trailer, probably attached to the company HQ) Light Rifle Company (5 officers + 125 enlisted): 1 Company HQ, with 9 men (2 officers, 7 enlisted) 3 Rifle platoons (9 man squads) 1 Antiarmor section, with 13 men (6 Dragons) 1 Mortar section, with 6 men (2 60mm mortars) The light rifle company has no vehicles. The platoon HQs also have four extra men (maybe a fire team?) There are differences between the "offical" and SP3 versions of a rifle company, but it doesn't appear to be a gross distortion of reality (50% more Dragons, no mortars, no vehicles). 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: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 10:51:53 -0600 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Terrain Comments > > >As for NVG's this is always the case whether you are using them > in the open > >or in an urban environment. Remember that the principles of camouflage > apply > >to those people using nvg's to spot. eg A well camed soldier who isn't > >moving > >is just as hard to spot through a set of nvg's as he would be during the > day > >using normal vision. > > > >Ballistix > > This brings up a question that reoccurs time and time again, I'm glad > that we have some real experience here to tap. > > Can you detect an individual through his body heat with vision > apparatus? If so, which apparatus? > Jim > My last post on this thread listed most of what I could think of about NVG's that seemed relevant. You can detect people through body heat. This is what a thermal sight does. Standard US Army NVG's don't do this (ANVS-5's and 7's I think is what we used). They can see IR light, but the frequency band they see is what is known as 'near' infra-red. This frequency band is relatively insensitive to temperature changes. The good band to see temperature differentials has a much longer wavelength known as 'far' or 'long'. 'Near' IR is just above visible light, about 700nm to 1.5 um. I don't recall what the longer ones are, but I'd guess they are about 2 to 5 um. 'Thermal sights' use the longer wavelengths because the intensity of light from an object in this band is very sensistive to temperature. But the sensor is much more expensive to make. The advantage of 'near' IR is that it is cheap to build sensors sensitive to it (thus the NVG's use of the band). It can be thought of as light that you can't see normally. It is a little sensitive to temp variation, but not nearly as much as the 'far' IR band. Even visible light is sensitive to temp a little (if you heat up metal enough, you can see it giving off red light). It's just a matter of how sensitive. The difference between body temp and room temp isn't enough contrast at the near wavelengths to pick up easily. But at the far wavelengths you stick out like a sore thumb. Also, it's worth mentioning that IR has slightly different optical characteristics than visible light. Some things that are transparent to visible light are opaque to IR and vise-versa. Fog and smoke are more transparent to IR light than visible light, but how much so and how far you have to get from visible light to notice a difference in transparency I don't know. Thus an IR spotlight might work better in foggy conditions than a white light spotlight, but I'm not sure of this. I'm sure that once you get all the way to 'far' IR you can see right through smoke and fog. There are probably lots of manufacturers of IR cameras on the web with write-ups on how their stuff works and what it's good for. Look around, I'm sure you'll find something good so you don't have to rely of my poor memory of this stuff. If you expect to put on NVG's and see like the 'Predator' your going to be sadly disappointed. The only IR camera I've seen that looks like that is an industrial camera for finding overheating chips on a circuit board. They tune the camera for just a certain set of temperatures and apply false color with a computer algorithm to make things stand out. It works great for controlled environments in a test lab, but with all the varried conditions out there, it'll take a really smart CPU to constantly re-tune the camera in real-time if the military wanted to use it for all conditions. Maybe they have them available now? Anybody know? Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:22:13 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: M240+ > > The original idea behind the tank-breaker was not two versions. It was > supposed to be the exact same missile and launcher, programmed to fire > either overhead (dropping down on the top armor) or frontal striking. The > programming could not generally be done in the field but any heavy ordnance > depot was supposed to be able to reprogram them fairly quickly. > The benefits were to either hit weaker armor on top, or allow for a > faster flight (direct-fire). I don't know how accurate the following is, but > I was told that the TB was a modified Hellfire system. > > Later. > > Jesse. > vanquer@email.msn.com > I remember in v1 T2K, it said that the Tank Breaker could be fired either way. It implied (maybe stated directly) that it was user selectable, as though just a switch needed to be pushed (which, considering modern computing power, even in the 80s, would seem simple enough to implement.) As far as the Hellfire issue, they are laser guided, and I believe need a remote designator, either from the firing craft, or a forward observer. Basically, the guidance wasn't carried by the missile itself. That, and I believe Hellfires would be almost two heavy to be lugged around by a person. I know they can be lifted and moved, but not sure they can be "packed" on the back while in the field. Yes, I just looked up in one of Combat Helicopter book, and the Hellfire is 99 Lb.s (45 Kg) A bit heavy to be carried in the field, and any modifications to bring it's weight down would be so severe as to probably just make designing a new missile a much easier and cheaper option. Guess it takes at least two crew to load a missile on the 'copters. __________________________________________________ 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: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:26:16 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: TOEs of selected US Army units > Here are some TOEs taken from Steel Panther III, for US forces in 1995. > While they aren't necessarily realistic, they may be of help to some GMs: > SNIP! > > There are differences between the "offical" and SP3 versions of a rifle > company, but it doesn't appear to be a gross distortion of reality (50% more > Dragons, no mortars, no vehicles). > > > A generous and sadistic GM, > > Brandon Cope > ______________________________________________________ Thanks Brandon. I'll probably rework those into a text file and post them on my site. One thing I've understood, was that organizations above the Company level were fluid, in that they could be of varying size depending on the mission and forces available. Though, with a computer game, certain things need to be static, and not variables. And also there is a general "number" for the organizations, which is what I think they used for SP 3. Anyhow, that'll be a lot of help. Thanks. 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, 10 Mar 2000 01:11:55 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Terrain Comments Yes, it can be detected through thermal imaging. Not sure about other forces but currently only the Australian vehicles have the access to thermal detection. This could be untrue as I don't have access to what our special forces and commando units have in the way of equipment. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 03:11:52 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Terrain Comments At 03:54 AM 3/11/00 +1100, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > Has anyone noticed that when the majority of games are run for T2K in >Poland, they're always set in 'generic forest land'? I've been looking >through some info on Poland and it looks fairly built up, I think that a lot >of the action would be of the MOUT/FIBUA type. > MOUT, for those in the dark, is the US acronym for Military Operations, >Urban Terrain. (I think!) and FIBUA is the Australian version or Fighting In >Built Up Areas. > Just a side note: I don't think there's that much forest in Poland, but most of the land is farm, not city. From my small experience, the countryside in Eastern Europe tends to be little villages every few miles (you can literally walk from one to another lots of times), each with its surrounding farmlands. A village will have a number of houses, a church, a school, perhaps a business or two. Poland, actually, has the highest percentage of its work force in agriculture of any country nearby, which means there are going to be a LOT of little villages (in other countries, the amount of land devoted to agriculture is probably just as large, but you don't have as many people working it). 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: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:32:20 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: China vs. Taiwan At 09:09 AM 3/10/00 -0500, Garcia, Abel wrote: >Scott, >I would be interested in a short clarification of GNP/GDP/PPP (The only eco >I know is estimating pay-out of an engineering project.) As you know I plan >to convert "real" world data in game stats for _POCKET_EMPIRES_. Why would >Ad's "GDP" of $3k differ from yours of less than $1k? Any help would be >appreciated. Okay, first a couple of definitions. GNP is "gross national product", and is defined as the value of all the goods and services produced by citizens of a given country; it's usually measures yearly. GDP is "gross domestic product", and is defiend as the value of al the goods and services produced _inside_ a country, regardless of whether or not the people producing them are citizens. In most cases, these numbers are practically identical, but if you have a place like, for example, Mexico, it can make a difference, because money earned by Mexican immigrants in the U.S. (legal or illegal--it's a matter of measuremenet, not legality) would be included in Mexico's total if you're talking about GNP, or in the U.S.'s if you're talking about GDP. There's something to be said for either measure, since in the immigrant workers case the money is earned in one country, but a lot of it is sent home directly and spent in the other country--but nowadays we mostly talk about GDP, because people move around a lot and we're more interested in where things happen than who they happen to. Anyway, he basic problem is that the Chinese economy isn't measured in dollars but in Chinese currency, yuan. Why is this a problem? Well, if you think about it, you have enough of a problem just making sure that when you're talking about 1990 dollars and 2000 dollars, you're talking about the same thing--even without having to worry about how inflation has changed the value of a dollar (when people talk about "real dollars", then mean dollars adjusted to take account of inflation), people in 2000 buy different things than people in 1990 did, so it's hard to know whether people nowdays are buying "more" or "less" than they did 10 years ago--because to some extent it's apples and oranges. In fact, you run into problmems just going from one part of the country to another. If you're in New York City, a dollar is worth a lot less than it is anywhere else in the country, because the prices of everything are higher. But it can get even more complex: one person may live in a place that's a long way from interstates and railroads, so consumer goods there are expensive (high transportation costs), but there's a lot of unemployment, so services like haircuts and maids are cheap; while another person lives in a big city where consumer goods are cheap but unemployment is low, so services are expensive. So which place is the dollar worth more? Well, it depends on how much income each person spends on consumer goods, and how much on services--and it may be different for people at different income levels or with different buying habits. Okay, now we see our first problem: even if the whole world used dollars, a dollar one place isn't worth the same as a dollar another place. Everyone who's ever considered a job in another city (Americans especially will understand this, because we move around a lot) knows that you have to check on the local cost of living before you know how much that salar offer is really worth. Well, the differences between countries are even greater, because in poor countries, you have an abundance of labor (mostly unskilled) and a shortage of capital and highly skilled labor (it's not that poor countries have more labor than rich countries--it's just that since they have so little capital, their labor is a much higher percentage of their total ability to produce income). To help solve this problem, economists have a concept called "purchasing power parity" (PPP): you take the total amount of money earned in the country and divide it by the number of people (this gives you a "per capita" measure), and then you figure out what that money can buy. You compare the GDP per capita in PPP terms among countries by seeing which country can buy the most. This gives a really good idea of which country has the highest standard of living, but it's still very very tricky, because poor countries spend a lot more on food and housing than on consumer goods, and rich contries are just the opposite. Therefore, so some extent you're still comparing apples and oranges, but it's better than nothing (and this doesn't even get into issues like how you deal with people who work but don't get paid, like subsistence farmers and housewives; income that suddenly "appears" in the economy when forests are cut down--but which can't be sustained; and and the effects on standard of living from crime, environmental problems, and so on). PPP is thus the most accurate way of comparing standards of living, but it's not the easiest way, and so it's not really the most common (or it didn't used to be--it's getting used more often, which is good). Most of the time, incomes of countries are compared directly by converating their currencies to some standard currency that's fairly stable, usually the U.S. dollar (but somtimes yen or euros--and formerly deutsche marks--a century ago it was pounds sterling). This has a couple of problems, though. First of all, currencies fluctuate, some more than others; this is why we measure a country's GDP or GN growth in its own currency, not in U.S. dollar--if a country grew by 10% in a year but the value of its currency dropped 20% vs. the U.S. dollar in the same year, and we measured its economic performance in U.S. dollars, it would look like it had a 12% drop in GDP (a horrible depression--the kind you get when a hurricane wipes out large sections of a country) rather than 10% growth (among the strongest growth rates countries every achieve). The second problem is related to the purchasing power concept, but is a little tricky. As we all know, for every dollar you spend, you have to take in a dollar, either earning it or borrowing it. The same applies to an entire region of a country: therefore, if the Southeast in the U.S. suddenly found that its products weren't selling as well as before in the rest of the country, it would have to cut back on what it was buying from the rest of the country as well. At least, that's true in the long term--in reality the people doing the selling to other parts of the country are different from the ones buying from other parts of the country, and it takes awhile for what happens to one group to percolate through the regional economy and affect the other group. Thus, the regional economy may run into problems (spending more than it takes in, for example, and thereby running up a debt) before it adjusts to the new situation. When you have different currencies, though, this adjustment is easier: if the U.S. and China are trading, every time someone in China wants to buy something from the U.S., she has to take her yuan and use them to buy dollars; and she can't do that, usually, unless someone in the U.S. wants to buy something from China. When everything works out "right", and no one is borrowing money (or investing, which is sort of the same thing), then neither side runs a trade surplus or deficit (or more broadly, a current account surplus/deficit--the current account includes some things, like remittances from foreign workers, that the merchandise trade account includes--especialy it includes trade in services, not just goods, though you can take about the trade in goods and services account). This balance in trade tends to happen in the long term (though not always), with the exchange rate between the two countries adjusting to make this possible. Thus, if China's exports start to be unattractive to Americans, the value of the yuan tends to drop (the dollar buys more yuan, the yuan buys fewer dollars), and so China's exports are cheaper in the U.s. (even though they may not have changed much in price in China); by the same token, China's imports from the U.S. are now more expensive. The end result is that China exchanges more of its products for fewer U.S. products--that is, the "terms of trade" have changed--but trade is still in balance (not that a lot of countries--most, even--manipulate their currences, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that keeps rates stable makes it easier for people to plan for the future--but if currencies are left to "float" they respond to changes in trade). This is what economists are talking about when they call a currency "strong" or "weak": the Canadian dollar is not "weak" compared to the U.S. dollar because it only buys 60 or 70 U.S. cents; rather it's "weak" because that one Canadian dollar buys more in Canada than the 60 or 70 U.S. cents would buy in the U.S., and therefore an American going to Canada will find that prices (after taking into account the currency conversion) seem really low. The point here is that exchange rates are a way of keeping trade in balance, and because that's what they're for, they can change quite a bit even while the two domestic economies don't change that much, and if one of the countries involved is the country whose currrency is the "standard" by which everyone's total income is measured, then the apparent income of the other country will rise or drop even though, in reality, at least from a domestic standpoint, the income has changed very little. As you can see, measuring economies by converting their currency to the U.S. dollar at the prevailing exchange rates is problematic, and leaves you with a number whose meaning isn't very certain--but it's much easies than dealing with PPP's (to caclucate PPP's you have to go out and do all sorts of surveys about local prices and spending habits), and so it's used quite frequently. Now, how these things relate to China's military: as I said before, even though just looking at China's per capita GDP at present exchange rates (about $800/year) doesn't tell us much, in the case of military potential, using PPP per capital ($3800/year or so) doesn't tell us much either, because military equipment isn't the sort of day-to-day good from which PPP is calculated. Because things that are in great supply are cheap and things that are scarce are expensive, buying food or hiring maids is much cheaper in China than here (though remember, China is poor, so the average person there still can't afford much in the way of either food or maids), while high-tech goods and even consumer goods are much more expensive. This is _especially_ true, BTW, of the high-tech stuff, like military equipement: in China, a new military R&D program has to compete for the tiny percentage of the population that's trained as engineers, while in the U.S. the DoD could go out and contract for the same program with Boeing, which might be looking for some way to keep a few engineers occupied between "real" projects (for more on this, see below). But this isn't even the biggest problem for China, because it is quite possible to increase the number of engineers you have, especially if you're an authoritarian goverment and can virtually force people into certain careers (it also helps if there are schools overseas you can send them to). What's much harder is actually manufacturing military equipment once you've developed it: contrary to what many Americans think, most factory workers in the rich countries are _not_ unskilled or even semi-skilled. They have complex skills that simply can't be duplicated in poor countries like China. China has a tiny pool of these skilled high-tech workers, and if they're working on one thing, they can't be woring on anything else. And for that matter, they probably aren't nearly as efficient as U.S. workers. Hence, China can develop some pretty high-tech stuff, by educating a lot of engineers and using short-cuts like spying and reverse engineers, but they can't actually afford to build much of it. This is probably the main reason why, for example, China only has a handful of ICBM's--they have the technology, but it's horrendously expensive to build the things. Does that help at all? 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: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 22:33:57 EST From: "Peter Grining" Subject: Re: Terrain Comments >From: "Ballistix" >Reply-To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com >To: >Subject: Re: Terrain Comments >Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:11:55 +0800 > >Yes, it can be detected through thermal imaging. >Not sure about other forces but currently only the >Australian vehicles have the access to thermal >detection. > >This could be untrue as I don't have access to what >our special forces and commando units have in the >way of equipment. > >Ballistix One of the Army magazines had a feature on Infantry Battalion recon teams (I'll dig this out) and the TAS-6 tripod monuted TI is on issue to regular units. Also used by artillery spotters. Getting slightly OT but the RAAF F-111C use the PAve TAck pod which has TI, as do the P-3 Orion, and I think we have some AAS-38 pods for the F-18. The Navy used standard NOD a few years back but most of the FFGs have been fitted with TI sights above the bridge (very useful for detecting floating mines, etc). Peter G ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:10:17 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: TOEs of selected US Army units At 04:26 PM 3/11/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: > >Thanks Brandon. I'll probably rework those into a text file and post them >on my site. One thing I've understood, was that organizations above the >Company level were fluid, in that they could be of varying size depending on >the mission and forces available. Though, with a computer game, certain >things need to be static, and not variables. And also there is a general >"number" for the organizations, which is what I think they used for SP 3. > It's above battalion level where organizations get fluid (at least in modern NATO doctrine--earlier, for most countries, it was even higher, with the U.S. for instance not having much flexibility except above divisional level). However, NATO units are trained to operate ad hoc units even down to company level, I think, which makes even those level flexible (hence, the book was called "Team Yankee" rather than "Charlie Company" or whatnot, since it was a combined-arms teams). 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: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 10:15:15 -0600 From: "Walter" Subject: IR and Thermal cameras/scopes Dear List, For those interested in further info on NVG's and Thermal stuff, this place: http://www.x20.org/ has many military model NVG's and thermal imagers for sale, with stats (and prices if your really that interested) and some sample images. I hope this helps some. Note how NVG's and Thermal devices are considered 2 different kinds of things. Walter *************************************************************************** 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 #134 *************************************