twilight2000-digest Tuesday, April 18 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 142 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Maps Re: Twilight 2000 Published Material Re: Twilight 2000 Published Material Re: Twilight 2000 Published Material Re: Twilight 2000 Published Material Merc2000 IRC campaign Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Re: Merc2000 IRC campaign Thinking Caps Re: Thinking Caps Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Re: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 00:04:00 EDT From: GDWGAMES@aol.com Subject: Re: Maps In a message dated 00-04-05 13:51:46 EDT, you write: << Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:34:24 -0600 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: poland Fugitivus wrote: > > does anyone know of any good books or sites that have good maps of poland > and the germany at the beginning of WW2? > There's always the ever popular West Point Atlases (ETO and PTO volumes), but that just covers the major campaigns. What kind of scale are you looking for? LKW *************************************************************************** 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, 12 Apr 2000 05:10:41 CDT From: "Edward Flea" Subject: Re: Twilight 2000 Published Material Hi Guys, The list printed was very good. Here are the stock #'s for them. GDW (oop) 500 Twilight 2000 Box Set (first edition all versions) 501 Free City of Krakow 502 Pirate of Vistula 503 The Ruins of Warsaw 504 U.S. Army Vehicle Guide 505 The Black Madonna 506 Going Home 507 Red Star/Lone Star 508 RDF Sourcebook 509 Armies of the Night 510 Alleghany Uprising 511 Airlords of the Ozarks 512 Gateway to the Spanish Main 513 King's Ransom 514 Soviet Vehicle Guide 515 Urban Guerilla 516 Small Arms Guide 517 The Last Submarine 518 Kidnapped 519 Howling Wilderness 520 Mediterranean Cruise 521 Boomer 522 Satellite Down 523 Return to Warsaw 524 Bears Den 525 Heavy Weapons Guide 526 NATO Vehicle Guide 527 White Eagle 528 Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom 551 Last Battle Boardgame 552 Twilight Encounters 2000 Twilight 2000 Rule Book (second edition all versions) 2001 Twilight 2000 Box Set (second edition all versions) 2002 Infantry Weapons of the World 2003 American Combat Vehicle Handbook 2004 Soviet Combat Vehicle Handbook 2005 Merc 2000 2006 Bangkok Cesspool of the Orient 2007 NATO Combat Vehicle Handbook 2008 Merc 2000: Gazetteer 2009 Nautical/Aviation Handbook 2010 Twilight Nightmares 2011 Heavy Weapons Handbook 2012 Special Operations 2013 (Was anything produced for this #?) 2014 Castle by the Sea 2015 Twilight 2000/Merc 2000 Ref Screen 2016 Operation Crouching Dragon 2017 East Europe Scourcebook 2018 Rendevous in Krakow 3W (oop) 401 City of Angels I was not aware of these Finnish products. Who were they produced by? >Koopen Haminaan (1990/ op) (Finnish) >Erikois Joukot (1990/op) (Finnish) >Pohjoismaat Lahdkirja (1990 /op) (Finnish) >Twilight Kohtaamisia (boxed) (Finnish) How many issues of Challenge magazine were there with Twilight articles in them? Who produced the miniatures series? How many issues of the newsletter Eternal Soldier were there? Are there any other products I have missed? Flea ______________________________________________________ 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, 12 Apr 2000 07:04:45 -0500 From: Rob Barnes Subject: Re: Twilight 2000 Published Material Edward Flea wrote: How many issues of Challenge magazine were there with Twilight articles in > them? I still have the whole run of Challenge magazine, and I'm pretty sure there is at least one Twilight/Merc article in every issue except the "All Traveller" issue. > > Who produced the miniatures series? Ulster Imports, Ltd. > > How many issues of the newsletter Eternal Soldier were there? Four, I think. I have those too...somewhere. > > Are there any other products I have missed? A few articles in other magazines (non-GDW), but otherwise, no. > > > Flea > ______________________________________________________ > 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. *************************************************************************** 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, 12 Apr 2000 07:58:12 EDT From: Corkman321@aol.com Subject: Re: Twilight 2000 Published Material In a message dated 4/12/00 3:18:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, capt_ed_flea@hotmail.com writes: > How many issues of Challenge magazine were there with Twilight articles in > them? > Who produced the miniatures series? > How many issues of the newsletter Eternal Soldier were there? > Are there any other products I have missed? The Challenge magazine articles started in Issue#25 and ended with the last issue of the magazine which was #77 or #78. I've only got one issue of the Eternal Soldier and not sure if there was many more or any after this issue that came out. It seems that you've covered all of the products for the game(T2K) however, there was a Desert Storm Fact book and another like book not directly associated with T2K but made by GDW for use with these rules. John O'Koren "A man's got to know his limitations." Inspector Harry Callahan/'Magnum Force' *************************************************************************** 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, 12 Apr 2000 17:08:22 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Twilight 2000 Published Material At 07:58 AM 4/12/00 EDT, Corkman321@aol.com wrote: >The Challenge magazine articles started in Issue#25 and ended >with the last issue of the magazine which was #77 or #78. I've >only got one issue of the Eternal Soldier and not sure if there was >many more or any after this issue that came out. It seems that you've >covered all of the products for the game(T2K) however, there was a Desert >Storm Fact book and another like book not directly associated with T2K >but made by GDW for use with these rules. > Owning one of them, I don't think I'd say they were "for use with these rules". What GDW did was take their knowledge of vehicles and OOB's (and some of the illustrations used in TW2K publications) and write up two informational books which were marketed to the mass public--they took advantage of public interest in the situation during Desert Shield and Desert Storm to market their knowledge. Pretty clever, I think 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: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:29:28 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Merc2000 IRC campaign I'm planning on starting a merc2000 campaign on IRC. It would probably be after 7pm PST on Tue,Wed, or Thurs (depends on roller hockey schedule here). If anyone is interesting and would be able to make it most of the time please email me about being a PC. Anyone else who shows up occasionally gets to play NPCs. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:43:31 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. Ah Hah! Last time I told you how infinitely cool the M551 Sheridan was, you all called me mad. Mad I tell you ! Bwahahahahaah! But it seems I'm not the only nut out there, many servicemen in the US seem a bit worried that their infantry dont have a support weapon similiar to the exceptional Stug assault guns of WW2. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this vehicle, the WW2 Germans never threw anything away. When their tanks were outgrown in the size race (the average tank size almost tripled during the war) they whipped off the turret and mounted a field gun in a low housing on the hull. This was very useful during the house to house fighting in places like Stalingrad and Berlin. So go to this site and have a look, it puts some very good arguments up for retaining the good ol' Sheridan. http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/lighttanks.htm 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: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:44:08 +0200 (MET DST) From: Bjorn Nilsson Subject: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > Ah Hah! > Last time I told you how infinitely cool the M551 Sheridan was, you all > called me mad. Mad I tell you ! Bwahahahahaah! Well calling it "infinitly cool" might be a stretch (we ARE talking about a vehicle that is 30 years old after all). But it gets the job done. (IMO) The fact that the US army (and probably the marine corps too) NEED a light airportable/airdropable light tank/armored gun system/infantry fire suport vehicle should be pretty obvious to anyone with a keen sense for strategy and operations. Personally i consider it important in all armies, but in your case it should be painfully obvious considering the area of operations the US military is asked to cover. Personally I'd belive that a nice litle Brigade size force of airbornes and rangers could _IF_ properly suported by organic armor assets knock out many 3rd rate countries before they had the slightest chance to form a coheasive resistance. Ohh well, that's just my 2c /Bjorn *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:05:06 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. > Ah Hah! > Last time I told you how infinitely cool the M551 Sheridan was, you >all >called me mad. Mad I tell you ! Bwahahahahaah! Never called you mad; insane, maybe, or a little teched, but never mad... > But it seems I'm not the only nut out there, many servicemen in the US >seem a bit worried that their infantry dont have a support weapon similiar >to the exceptional Stug assault guns of WW2. For those of you who are >unfamiliar with this vehicle, the WW2 Germans never threw anything away. >When their tanks were outgrown in the size race (the average tank size >almost tripled during the war) they whipped off the turret and mounted a >field gun in a low housing on the hull. This was very useful during the >house to house fighting in places like Stalingrad and Berlin. > > So go to this site and have a look, it puts some very good arguments >up >for retaining the good ol' Sheridan. > > http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/lighttanks.htm I never understood why they got rid of it. I know the Shillelagh might have had some problems when it was developed, but look at it closely. It's ony 3 cm shorter than the TOW I missile, it weighs 7.8 kg more, it has a bigger warhead than the TOW, and it has a slightly longer max range than TOW I (5200 m versus 4000 m). So, if they were having trouble with the shillelagh, why not adapt a TOW missile by switching the wire guidance for an upgraded IR/optical unit? Hey, I know, why not use a modified Sidewinder seeker? They could have used off-the-shelf components, easily fixed the problems, and maybe even come up with a fire-and-forget TOW missile in the process. I've noticed, too, that most of the countries that buy light tanks nowadays aren't merely 2nd or 3rd World countries strapped for cash; they're 2nd or 3rd World countries which are potential hot spots for future low-intensity conflicts AND have terrain that is, at best, difficult for MBT's to negotiate well. Sure, an LAV with a 90mm gun might look cool, but it's going to run even from a Sheriden, because the LAV isn't a tank. ______________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:02:34 EDT From: MOrab46019@aol.com Subject: Re: Merc2000 IRC campaign IRC I'm not sure what that is?If it's an E-mail game I can play.Because that's better for me than live play. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 14:46:37 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Thinking Caps Ok peoples I need some inspiration for a merc:2000 campaign. Basically it goes like this; PC's were part of an embassy party in Nigeria (yes the pc's are not combat wombats, I'm getting them to it). The embassy officials along with the pc's visited an oil refinery north east of the main capital. While there rebels attacked the camp and the refinery, destroying the refinery and killing the ambassador. The pc's managed to get hold of a sat phone and with it's limited power/range contacted the mercs that were enroute to strengthen the security around the refinery (too late it seems). They have been picked up by the mercs and that's where the session ended. Now where to go from here....ideas would be welcome. I have them going through the training to join the mercs (well that's the plan). The party consists of; Ex US Army Vet - Mechanic / Driver Journo Federal Agent - Embassy Security Ambassadors Assistant - Govt Agent (Canadian) Scientist - Worked for Refinery (owned by BP) I think that was all of them, there may be one or two others. Basically the US guy has very little in combat skills, the only combat orientated person is the Federal Agent. So ideas, questions, queries, or doubtful points??? Ballistix PS: Sorry I've been a tad quiet lately - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Dragoo" To: Sent: Tuesday, 18 April 2000 23:05 Subject: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. > > Ah Hah! > > Last time I told you how infinitely cool the M551 Sheridan was, you > >all > >called me mad. Mad I tell you ! Bwahahahahaah! > > Never called you mad; insane, maybe, or a little teched, but never mad... > > > But it seems I'm not the only nut out there, many servicemen in the US > >seem a bit worried that their infantry dont have a support weapon similiar > >to the exceptional Stug assault guns of WW2. For those of you who are > >unfamiliar with this vehicle, the WW2 Germans never threw anything away. > >When their tanks were outgrown in the size race (the average tank size > >almost tripled during the war) they whipped off the turret and mounted a > >field gun in a low housing on the hull. This was very useful during the > >house to house fighting in places like Stalingrad and Berlin. > > > > So go to this site and have a look, it puts some very good arguments > >up > >for retaining the good ol' Sheridan. > > > > http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/lighttanks.htm > > I never understood why they got rid of it. I know the Shillelagh might have > had some problems when it was developed, but look at it closely. It's ony 3 > cm shorter than the TOW I missile, it weighs 7.8 kg more, it has a bigger > warhead than the TOW, and it has a slightly longer max range than TOW I > (5200 m versus 4000 m). So, if they were having trouble with the > shillelagh, why not adapt a TOW missile by switching the wire guidance for > an upgraded IR/optical unit? Hey, I know, why not use a modified Sidewinder > seeker? They could have used off-the-shelf components, easily fixed the > problems, and maybe even come up with a fire-and-forget TOW missile in the > process. > > I've noticed, too, that most of the countries that buy light tanks nowadays > aren't merely 2nd or 3rd World countries strapped for cash; they're 2nd or > 3rd World countries which are potential hot spots for future low-intensity > conflicts AND have terrain that is, at best, difficult for MBT's to > negotiate well. Sure, an LAV with a 90mm gun might look cool, but it's > going to run even from a Sheriden, because the LAV isn't a tank. > ______________________________________________________ > 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. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:22:30 EDT From: MOrab46019@aol.com Subject: Re: Thinking Caps SO what are you asking should you send in the bad guys again or have them fight their way out or hide untill the others show up?Right there are three things you can do.If you don't want the team to be wiped out beofre the mercs show have the the Fed if he can come up with ideas or the ex vet he could think of think of things that other Vet's have said or talked about. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:36:35 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. >From: "Stephen Dragoo" >I never understood why they got rid of it. I know the Shillelagh might >have >had some problems when it was developed, but look at it closely. It's ony >3 >cm shorter than the TOW I missile, it weighs 7.8 kg more, it has a bigger >warhead than the TOW, and it has a slightly longer max range than TOW I >(5200 m versus 4000 m). So, if they were having trouble with the >shillelagh, why not adapt a TOW missile by switching the wire guidance for >an upgraded IR/optical unit? Hey, I know, why not use a modified >Sidewinder >seeker? They could have used off-the-shelf components, easily fixed the >problems, and maybe even come up with a fire-and-forget TOW missile in the >process. There were a fairly significant number of problems with the M551. If you stop thinking of it as a tank, it helps (BTW, it had less armor than the similar Scorpion and AMX-13). I like the idea about using the TOW instead (the M551's missile system was it's worst problem -- I heard that you couldn't really use the missile at under 1000m due to the difficulty of acquiring the target). Also, at 152mm, a conventional HE shell could be really impressive in the ground support role. > >I've noticed, too, that most of the countries that buy light tanks nowadays >aren't merely 2nd or 3rd World countries strapped for cash; they're 2nd or >3rd World countries which are potential hot spots for future low-intensity >conflicts AND have terrain that is, at best, difficult for MBT's to >negotiate well. Sure, an LAV with a 90mm gun might look cool, but it's >going to run even from a Sheriden, because the LAV isn't a tank. Neither is the Sheridan ;) But yes, a 60 ton MBT can't go a lot of places a 10-20 ton light tank can, and that extra armor and bigger gun doesn't do much good if you can't get it where it's needed. On the same website (or a link to another), someone mentions that in the future tanks and SP artillery are likely to merge together to form a new type of vehicle (the argument being that anti-tank weapons will outstrip anti-tank defenses). I know some people think that tanks may eventually mount mini-CIWS surrets to shoot down ATGMs, but I have serious doubts as to the effectiveness of such a defense on a ground vehicle. A generous and sadstic 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: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:31:42 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. >>From: "Stephen Dragoo" >>I never understood why they got rid of it. I know the Shillelagh might >>have >>had some problems when it was developed, but look at it closely. It's ony >>3 >>cm shorter than the TOW I missile, it weighs 7.8 kg more, it has a bigger >>warhead than the TOW, and it has a slightly longer max range than TOW I >>(5200 m versus 4000 m). So, if they were having trouble with the >>shillelagh, why not adapt a TOW missile by switching the wire guidance for >>an upgraded IR/optical unit? Hey, I know, why not use a modified >>Sidewinder >>seeker? They could have used off-the-shelf components, easily fixed the >>problems, and maybe even come up with a fire-and-forget TOW missile in the >>process. > >There were a fairly significant number of problems with the M551. If you >stop thinking of it as a tank, it helps (BTW, it had less armor than the >similar Scorpion and AMX-13). That's pretty light on the armor, then. How does it compare, though, to something like the Bradley or LAV? It's too bad they gave up on it too quick, though. They spent all that time and money upgrading the M60's -- even though they were already planning on replacing it with the M1 -- but never really did it for the Sheridan. >I like the idea about using the TOW instead (the M551's missile system was >it's worst problem -- I heard that you couldn't really use the missile at >under 1000m due to the difficulty of acquiring the target). Also, at 152mm, >a conventional HE shell could be really impressive in the ground support >role. Yeah, that was the good part of the design. They even used it on the M60A2 engineering version, I believe. Something about the 152mm shell being better for demolishing stuff quickly ;) >> >>I've noticed, too, that most of the countries that buy light tanks >>nowadays >>aren't merely 2nd or 3rd World countries strapped for cash; they're 2nd or >>3rd World countries which are potential hot spots for future low-intensity >>conflicts AND have terrain that is, at best, difficult for MBT's to >>negotiate well. Sure, an LAV with a 90mm gun might look cool, but it's >>going to run even from a Sheriden, because the LAV isn't a tank. > >Neither is the Sheridan ;) But yes, a 60 ton MBT can't go a lot of places a >10-20 ton light tank can, and that extra armor and bigger gun doesn't do >much good if you can't get it where it's needed. >On the same website (or a link to another), someone mentions that in the >future tanks and SP artillery are likely to merge together to form a new >type of vehicle (the argument being that anti-tank weapons will outstrip >anti-tank defenses). I know some people think that tanks may eventually >mount mini-CIWS surrets to shoot down ATGMs, but I have serious doubts as >to >the effectiveness of such a defense on a ground vehicle. What, something like a mini-Phalanx? I doubt that will come around until we get infantry rifle-sized laser rifles. I don't know what the average usage rate is with the 20mm Phalanx units on ships, but with abou 1500 rounds total and a firing rate of 4500 rounds/minute, that not only gets used up pretty fast, but it takes up a lot of ammo space. Even if you reduced it down to use, say, M16 or 9mm ammo, that's still a big unit to put on the tank. And where do you put it: on the turret, beside the driver, on the rear with the engine exhausts? There's no good place to put it where it won't be in the way or be too tall to effectively hide the tank. Plus you have the whole sensor problem. Radar is great on the ocean, in the air, or for scanning for air targets by ground forces. But most anti-tank weapons have VERY low flight altitudes. I mean, a portable ATRL is going to be flying at what, 3 ft above the ground? Combined with the relatively short range (and therefore short detection/recognition times for the radar sensor), you get a system that will probably start turning the CIWS unit just as the rocket reaches the tank. You can't even use chaff/flare decoys effectively, because most anti-tank weapons are either unguided (and therefore unfoolable by decoys) or use command-style guidance -- and what fool is going to look through their aiming eyepiece and mistake a big chaff cloud or a flare for an MBT? They might as well try to make an amphibious missile cruiser as try to make a CIWS for an MBT... ______________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:02:01 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. If you > stop thinking of it as a tank, it helps I would tend to agree with this statement the most in this thread. But I'm no real authority on this subject. It's quite funny actually how much emphasis is placed on these things in the 82nd given their limited numbers and limited actual impact to the units capability. It's not like these are light tanks in a mech unit to be used as light tanks. They are in an airborne unit. The 82nd Airborne is in reality nothing more than a highly testosterone pumped version of a LIGHT infantry unit, that happens to be able to parachute into places. Once the parachute jump takes place, it's little more than 16,000 screaming idiots with rifles (I talk like this only because I was once one of those screaming idiots). The Sheridan's only real job is to support the infantry. With only 1 Battalion of them, there aren't enough to do much more than that. With the prolifieration of highly effective anti-tank rockets, they probably wouldn't last very long in an engagement at close range unless they are very well supported by their accompanying infantry. Because they depend on their accompanying infantry for close-in security, you can't have them running off spear heading attacks or otherwise acting like 'Tanks'. They could support attacks, moving at infantry speed. But if they leave their infantry behind, they're probably toast. So in their limited role, virtually any light armored car with a significant weapon would fill the bill. Maybe the Sheridans were more important before the 82nd got an entire battalion of Apaches which can fly about, applying force where-ever needed. Now the Sheridans seem more like a little foot note in the units capability. If you need more fire support call in some A-10's (or better yet an AC-130). 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: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:02:22 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. > They might as well try to make an amphibious missile cruiser as > try to make > a CIWS for an MBT... I agree. A CIWS for a tank? As soon as some idiot puts one on a tank, do you think it will be a week or a month before a HARM type Antitank missle would come out? If you put a CIWS-like radar on a tank, you might as well just put a big 'shoot me' sign in neon on top of it also. Do you guys realize that the 96R's (ground survellience radar operators, otherwise known a 'pop-up targets') that we went to school with had an estimated life expectancy of about 9 seconds after they pressed the 'on' switch, assuming the Soviets were the enemy. And they got to dig a grave (I mean a fox hole) a hundred yards off from the antenna! Just go ask the Iraqi AAA gunners about putting radars on things and actually having the guts to turn them on ... 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: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:06:28 -0400 From: bad_karma@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Re: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. >>I know some people think that tanks may eventually >>mount mini-CIWS surrets to shoot down ATGMs, but I have >>serious doubts as to the effectiveness of such a defense >>on a ground vehicle. >What, something like a mini-Phalanx? I doubt that will >come around until we get infantry rifle-sized laser >rifles. (snip lots of good rational reasons that I won't try to defuse because they're probably right) One alternative appears in David Drake's fiction. Basically, mount a full ring of Claymore-like mines around the skirts and slave their detonators to a microwave radar/thermal sensor package. If the sensors pick up the motion and the heat bloom of an incoming missile, the mine closest to the missile detonates. The logical counter to such a system is to saturate it with fire (either actual or simulated - bottle rockets, anyone?) until one side has a gap in it, then pop that undefended flank with a TOW. But it's a start, at least in theory. - - C. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:25:08 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. >From: "Walter Rebsch" > > > They might as well try to make an amphibious missile cruiser as > > try to make > > a CIWS for an MBT... > >I agree. A CIWS for a tank? As soon as some idiot puts one on a tank, do >you think it will be a week or a month before a HARM type Antitank missle >would come out? If you put a CIWS-like radar on a tank, you might as well >just put a big 'shoot me' sign in neon on top of it also. Supposedly, such CIWS would use passive radar (millimetric), which I think is used on the lastest Hellfire missiles (or is being tested for use on them). (I'm realy sorry for getting this thread started, but on a list for another game system, some people think that CIWS mounted on tanks (in the next 15-30 years) are perfectly reasonable and practical. I don't, and I'm looking for arguements from others either way). A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope 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: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:38:45 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. > > (I'm realy sorry for getting this thread started, but on a list > for another > game system, some people think that CIWS mounted on tanks (in the > next 15-30 > years) are perfectly reasonable and practical. I don't, and I'm > looking for > arguements from others either way). Yeah, with all that other traffic on this mailing list recently, we are all swamped. :) Don't be sorry, the whole point of this list is talk about stuff ... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:55:02 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. >>I agree. A CIWS for a tank? As soon as some idiot puts one on a tank, do >>you think it will be a week or a month before a HARM type Antitank missle >>would come out? If you put a CIWS-like radar on a tank, you might as well >>just put a big 'shoot me' sign in neon on top of it also. > >Supposedly, such CIWS would use passive radar (millimetric), which I think >is used on the lastest Hellfire missiles (or is being tested for use on >them). passive? I'm not too sure about that. Passive radar is kind of like passive sonar: you're dependent on the target emitting "noise" (whether acoustical or EM in nature). The Army Technology site (which mentions the Longbow Apache) says that the main benefits of the millimeter radar is a narrow beamwidth (like a focused flashlight versus a generic light bulb) -- makes it extremely hard to use ECM against, probably because it also cuts down on the ability to detect it (imagine the trouble your RWR unit might have catching the signal if the beam width was, say, only 1 ft...) -- and ability to work in poor visibility conditions (conditions which interfere more with IR and laser seeker heads). The way it describes the use of Longbow Apache with Longbow Hellfire, though, the seeker in the Hellfire must be active. Of course, I can't remember the last time I ever saw a tank equipped with a RWR unit... ______________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:57:42 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. > > They might as well try to make an amphibious missile cruiser as > > try to make > > a CIWS for an MBT... > >I agree. A CIWS for a tank? As soon as some idiot puts one on a tank, do >you think it will be a week or a month before a HARM type Antitank missle >would come out? If you put a CIWS-like radar on a tank, you might as well >just put a big 'shoot me' sign in neon on top of it also. He he... I can see the crews painting "Please shoot me HERE" all over the antenna dome... >Do you guys realize that the 96R's (ground survellience radar operators, >otherwise known a 'pop-up targets') that we went to school with had an >estimated life expectancy of about 9 seconds after they pressed the 'on' >switch, assuming the Soviets were the enemy. And they got to dig a grave >(I >mean a fox hole) a hundred yards off from the antenna! Just go ask the >Iraqi AAA gunners about putting radars on things and actually having the >guts to turn them on ... 9 seconds? That little? Damn, that's incredibly efficient, even by Western standards, to triangulate the radar position, call up the artillery unit, and have a shell impacting on the spot. Did they ever consider maybe a wire-connected remote control unit with, say, 500 YARDS of cable so that those guys could live a little longer? ______________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:13:04 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Jim raves about the Sheridan again. > 9 seconds? That little? Damn, that's incredibly efficient, even > by Western > standards, to triangulate the radar position, call up the artillery unit, > and have a shell impacting on the spot. > > Did they ever consider maybe a wire-connected remote control unit > with, say, > 500 YARDS of cable so that those guys could live a little longer? I believe it was a Soviet MRL unit that was the really dangerous ones to the GSR guys. I can't remember exactly anymore. But they had a targeting system specifically built to kill our GSR's, but I think they had to point the guns/rockets manually which is why it took so long to get the rounds off. And I don't think they had to call-up the arty unit. It was the arty unit being on standby ready to shoot with the reciever right beside the guns. The OH-58D's we had (the little scout helicopter with an observation ball above the rotor and the back seats full of computers), had a system to hook into artillery fire control. I think it was 3 seconds from the helicopter pilot's trigger pull, to the guns actually going off. The guy in the helicopter would put the target in the cross-hair on a night-vision/telescopic sight that was in the 'ball' and press the trigger. Then with the aid of the GPS, a laser range finder, and a compass, the computer figured out the exact coordinate of the target. That was sent via direct digital radio to the fire control computer in the artillery system doing the shooting. The computer actually aimed the artillery piece physically and shot a set of rounds. I think it was both the SP 155's and the MLRS that could be linked like that, but I don't remember anymore. Maybe someone else here knows. Radar is supposedly much easier to pin-point than a radio. I'm not sure all the technical reasons why, but it probably has to do with the frequency band being more line-of-sight with a radar and the actual power in the signal. I never was told what the performance stats were on our EH-60 Quick Fix helicopters (you know the old "need to know" thing). But they would spend a lot of time up hunting for enemy units that left their radios on just a second too long. I tend to remember them saying that finding enemy radar sets was trivially easy in comparison to radios. I know for certain that I wouldn't want to be an emitter of any kind of signal on a modern battlefield. And in 30 years I bet even infantry will walk around in stealth suits just to stay alive with all the smart weapons out there hunting them. We'll probably see powered stealth body armor too. 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 #142 *************************************