twilight2000-digest Thursday, June 29 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 147 The following topics are covered in this digest: RE: EPW's RE: EPW's RE: EPW's Re: EPW's Russian Equipment Re: EPW's Soviet Site Re: EPW's Re: EPW's Re: EPW's Re: Can I get a lift? RE: EPW's RE: EPW's RE: EPW's Re: EPW's Re: EPW's Character Sheets Harpoon RE: EPW's Re: Harpoon RE: EPW's RE: EPW's RE: Character Sheets RE: EPW's RE: EPW's RE: EPW's RE: EPW's RE: EPW's ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:43:00 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: EPW's > From: Brandon Cope > > >From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" > > > > > > > > I suppose it's possible to pick holes in anything though, > I've got to > >admit that I stopped breathing from when the LC ramp went down until they > >got off the beach. > > I didn't like the movie at all. Weak plot, virtually no characterization, > over-reliance on big budget effects. Not a movie I would recommend at all. > > Brandon > Huh? Not that I'm conceeding the movie had a weak plot. But, if you are wanting plot, watch a drama, not a war movie. It's almost like a fashion critic going to a Formula 1 race and commenting, 'The flame retardant suits matched colors with the car, but they completely lacked style; not an event I would be caught dead at." I think you've missed the point of the movie just as badly as my fictional fashion critic missed the point of racing. EVEN IF your three points were undeniably accurate, I would still say, "So what!" Perhaps you could recommend to us a better war movie? I'm not saying you're wrong, since everything both you and I put forth are just opinions. And as opinions, they are not subject to clear cut rights and wrongs. I just wanted anyone who hasn't seen the movie to understand that a great many people thought the movie was outstanding, so see it with an open mind and judge for yourself. Don't let Brandon's or my opinions partial you one way or the other. 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: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:38:08 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: EPW's > -----Original Message----- > From: matthew henley > > another good question, how long do you keep epw. Considering that in the > t:2000 the war is not going to end in the clasike sense > A question without a clear answer. I guess it just depends on the situation really. Soldier's typically try to do whatever it takes to stay alive, and win the war. If your faced with an ugly situation, typically you do what you have to. Not necessarily what you want to. In the T2K scenario behind the lines in Poland, there is still a front and active divisions fighting each other. A small group of people that takes prisoners has little choice but to take their weapons, interrogate them, and let them go if they can't hold them and don't want to commit an attrocity. Sure, some will recycle back into combat units, but if you can't hold them and you don't want to kill them, then you have to let them go because there is no other option. For a larger EPW camp, in Germany for instance, every once in a while they would probably do prisoner exchanges. And if the action on the front cooled off to a ceasefire, maybe after a while the rest would just be released to the other side so they wouldn't be a food burden anymore. 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: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:51:53 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: EPW's At 02:24 PM 6/26/00 -0500, Walter Rebsch wrote: > >I was commenting more on the treatment of EPW's as a subject in the film as >a whole, not on that particular scene near the end. > I think the message was that the captain (who was held up as an example) had to do what he felt was the right thing--even though it was dangerous (and ultimately came back to haunt him). 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, 27 Jun 2000 11:43:31 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: EPW's >POW - Prisoners of War (when our own soldiers are taken prisoners by the enemy) >EPW - Enemy Prisoners of War (when we take enemy soldiers as prisoners) > >Hope this clarifies things (and correct me if I'm wrong guys). > >/Mathias Köppen I wonder if EPW's can be called POWs as well? I know I'm quibbling over atoms here but I'm always interested in word usage. 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, 27 Jun 2000 11:55:12 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Russian Equipment >From the picture of their latest RPG-7V1, it looks like they are still using >the ol' white plastic fuse cap on the tip of their rockets. I guess >re-engineering it to auto-arm after launch would raise the cost of the >rockets too much. > >Also, the stats on the AGS-17 look really impressive. That's a really >dangerous pea-shooter! > >Walter I've actually always felt that Sov units are hard done by in the rules, the one thing the players have come to realise in my game (and are about to be reminded of again) is that Ivan loves his arty. They've got a cannon for all occasions! All us ol' guys remember the half damage 'villain guns' that the Pact were given in the version 1 rules, but the AK is a wonderful weapon in most respects and I'm glad it graduated to normal damage in version 2.* Those *evil* VOG grenades are bouncers! Just like bouncing betty mines, the AGS-17 chugs out a stream of Daisy Cutters that are hard to hide from, it must be because the Russian army operates in snow and mud fairly often. 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: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:55:14 -0700 (PDT) From: graebarde Subject: Re: EPW's >I wonder if EPW's can be called POWs as well? I know I'm quibbling over atoms here but I'm always interested in word usage. > Jim> The aconyms EPW and PW are relatively *new* in the military I beleive. Twenty years ago they were all POW's or PW's IIRC. (the gray matter thickens with time, and the gears clog with rust) It's a matter of symantics really, they just use EPW to distinguish easier whos who on the dick board. daFORD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.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: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:02:16 +1000 From: "Adam Betteridge" Subject: Soviet Site Found another site http://www.sovietarmy.com/ Cheers Adam *************************************************************************** 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, 24 Jun 2000 06:05:08 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: EPW's Just to clarify, not all armies use these abreviations. I believe these are the American forces split them into EPW and POW. 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, 24 Jun 2000 06:17:36 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: EPW's > > another good question, how long do you keep epw. Considering that in the > > t:2000 the war is not going to end in the clasike sense A couple of questions you should think about... 1) Are they a POW at all? Without an actual formal chain of command, the PC's are seperated from all conventions and such. The decision is theirs basically.....I do believe we had a long thread on this, when the Geneva Convention was discussed. Anyone have the URL I posted?. I know it has the treatment of POW's on that web page. 2) If they are then you have to decide how you will treat them, as per the above. Will you follow the ocnvention or not?.... 3) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction. If you treat your enemy badly, expect the same to be given back to you. If you allow no surrender, then don't expect the enemy to give you a second chance. As for the time period, that's up to the person in command. Perhaps you keep them until you move out of a marauding gangs influence then release them, giving them enough food etc to survive to the nearest town etc. > In the T2K scenario behind the lines in Poland, there is still a front and > active divisions fighting each other. A small group of people that takes > prisoners has little choice but to take their weapons, interrogate them, and > let them go if they can't hold them and don't want to commit an attrocity. > Sure, some will recycle back into combat units, but if you can't hold them > and you don't want to kill them, then you have to let them go because there > is no other option. Then again some will also use that chance to get away and make a new life for themselves....not everyone has the choice to join a marauder band. > For a larger EPW camp, in Germany for instance, every once in a while they > would probably do prisoner exchanges. And if the action on the front cooled > off to a ceasefire, maybe after a while the rest would just be released to > the other side so they wouldn't be a food burden anymore. This is of course on the large scale. You are talking large force compositions of more than likely battalion size or greater to have such a setup. I'd go as far as saying that even a battalion size would be too small. 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: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:51:55 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: EPW's - ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Gulledge To: Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 7:19 AM Subject: Re: EPW's > No, more of a "big picture" question, what is NATO doing with WARPAC EPW's? > I think it is safe to say they are going into camps, but where would these > camps > be located? Back in the States and Canada ? > If so, what would the military authorities do with these EPW's when > the going got tough later in the war? > > Craig Before the nukes drop probably good treatment in POW camps. This would of course be well televised. I guess such camps would be located away from the frontlines especially whilst the fuel is available for mobile operations. No point in havingPOW camps where the enemy can over run and 'recycle' their troops. Before 1997 probably see NATO camps for Warsaw Pact troops in the UK, Canada and the USA and deep in the Russian interior. Moving hundreds/thouands of POWs by air would be no problem. Once the nukes fall and fuel becomes scare more POW camps closer to frontlines or long forced marches for POWs to rear areas. Once food becomes scare probably have to either let the troops go of put them to work producing food. It may or may not be against any Rules of War, but with your own troops having trouble getting food.... Peter G *************************************************************************** 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, 27 Jun 2000 09:01:07 +0000 From: "The Kevinator." Subject: Re: Can I get a lift? At 10:04 AM 6/26/00 NZST, you wrote: >>BECAUSE (lesson #2): >> >>You never know when that little turd with the RPG is gonna pop around >>the corner you just passed to nail your most valuable vehicle in the >>ass. > >Gotta agree with that! Our group has had 3 (count 'em, 3) APC's/Scout Cars >and EVERY TIME we went out, we came back without it. The first (A BDRM-2) >got toasted by some hotshot with an RPG at extremely close range.... Ain't it ALWAYS that way? Ya rarely get the chance to slug it out with the big boys, which is the REAL reason why you take the darn things in the first place. >....the fuel going off toasted the guy, but we got out mostly undamaged. You should be proud, that's an accomplishment with a russian vehicle. >The second (BTR-70) got left behind during a hostage rescue when some idiot (OK, it was >me ;) critically failed the "get the hell out of Dodge" roll (i.e Diff. >Driving), piled it into a lamppost and broke an axle; Don't feel so bad, it sounds like your worst luck was mostly with vehicles, ours was with weapons, usually BIG weapons. >....meaning we had to leg it out of a HOT zone with only a 60mm mortar in support.... Well, when you need man-portable fire support, you usually can't beat a 60mm "Christian Converter". >The third (BTR-80, I think) got smoked by a platoon of Soviet Guards, complete with two >BTR-80's of their own.... Like I said, sounds like your worst luck was with vehicles. >By the time we saw what we were up against, it was too late........ > >Lots of fun tho'...... Well, realistically, _every_ T-2K game (hopefully) builds up to the "OH, SH&%#!!!" moment, one just hopes it's _theirs_, and not yours. Kevin H. *************************************************************************** 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, 27 Jun 2000 13:23:41 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: RE: EPW's >From: "Walter Rebsch" > > > From: Brandon Cope > > I didn't like the movie at all. Weak plot, virtually no >characterization, > > over-reliance on big budget effects. Not a movie I would recommend at >all. > >Huh? > >Not that I'm conceeding the movie had a weak plot. But, if you are wanting >plot, watch a drama, not a war movie. I liked Full Metal Jacket. Kelly's Heroes was a better WWII movie (though I hesitate to call it a drama). Midway was also better. Battle of the Bulge was pretty good. I thought Waterworld was less of a bust than Saving Ryan's Privates. >I think you've missed the point of the movie just as badly as my fictional >fashion critic missed the point of racing. EVEN IF your three points were >undeniably accurate, I would still say, "So what!" Perhaps you could >recommend to us a better war movie? See above. I'd also recommend most of the Duke's WWII movies ahead of it, too. It's obvious Spielberg didn't spend any of that megabudget on writers. >I'm not saying you're wrong, since everything both you and I put forth are >just opinions. And as opinions, they are not subject to clear cut rights >and wrongs. I just wanted anyone who hasn't seen the movie to understand >that a great many people thought the movie was outstanding, so see it with >an open mind and judge for yourself. Don't let Brandon's or my opinions >partial you one way or the other. Everybody in the group I saw it with immensely disliked it; we had planned to see Blade (a *much* better film) but one person whinned enough that we wasted several hours of hour lives (I really wish I had fallen asleep during the movie). Brandon ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail 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, 27 Jun 2000 16:31:37 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: EPW's > From: Brandon Cope > > > I liked Full Metal Jacket. Kelly's Heroes was a better WWII movie (though I > hesitate to call it a drama). Midway was also better. Battle of the Bulge > was pretty good. > > I thought Waterworld was less of a bust than Saving Ryan's Privates. > > > See above. I'd also recommend most of the Duke's WWII movies ahead of it, > too. It's obvious Spielberg didn't spend any of that megabudget on writers. > > > Everybody in the group I saw it with immensely disliked it; we had planned > to see Blade (a *much* better film) but one person whinned enough that we > wasted several hours of hour lives (I really wish I had fallen asleep during > the movie). > > Brandon > WOW! I guess that's one of the advantages of these kinds of mailing lists. It's the variety of people on them. You're the 1st person I've ever heard of that didn't like 'Saving Private Ryan'. Also, you're the first person I've ever heard of that DID like 'Waterworld'. Oh well, to each their own... Walter PS. If I NEVER see another Kevin Costner film, it will be too soon. The only film of his I've ever liked is 'No Way Out', everything else is just a Kevin Costner movie, about Kevin Costner, starring Kevin Costner, with Kevin Costner, ad nauseum ... *************************************************************************** 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, 28 Jun 2000 12:51:02 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: RE: EPW's >From: "Walter Rebsch" > >WOW! > >You're the 1st person I've ever heard of that didn't like 'Saving Private >Ryan'. Also, you're the first person I've ever heard of that DID like >'Waterworld'. I know a lot of people personally who didn't like the movie; unlike them, I have no qualms about appearing foolish by saying I didn't like the movie and why. BTW, I liked 'Waterworld' because, well, the genre is stocked with so many really bad films that I'll say good things about marginally acceptable ones (for example, 'Independance Day' was a good action movie but an awful science-fiction movie). > >PS. If I NEVER see another Kevin Costner film, it will be too soon. The >only film of his I've ever liked is 'No Way Out', everything else is just a >Kevin Costner movie, about Kevin Costner, starring Kevin Costner, with >Kevin >Costner, ad nauseum ... I liked 'Bull Durham' and 'Field of Dreams' (but then, I'm a bit of a baseball nut -- I even attempted to watch 'Major League 3' ...). Didn't care much for 'No Way Out' or 'Dances With Wolves'. Don't remember any other movies I saw with him in it. Brandon ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:01:54 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: EPW's >I liked 'Bull Durham' and 'Field of Dreams' (but then, I'm a bit of a >baseball nut -- I even attempted to watch 'Major League 3' ...). Didn't care >much for 'No Way Out' or 'Dances With Wolves'. Don't remember any other >movies I saw with him in it. > >Brandon Silverado! (I love that scene with Glenn Scott, a favourite actor of mine, "Hey mister! You're out!") Wow, am I offtopic! 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: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 15:28:47 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: EPW's >From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" > > >I liked 'Bull Durham' and 'Field of Dreams' (but then, I'm a bit of a > >baseball nut -- I even attempted to watch 'Major League 3' ...). Didn't >care > >much for 'No Way Out' or 'Dances With Wolves'. Don't remember any other > >movies I saw with him in it. > > > >Brandon > > Silverado! (I love that scene with Glenn Scott, a favourite actor of >mine, "Hey mister! You're out!") > Wow, am I offtopic! Not that we're interfering much with legitimate traffic on this list ;) I have seen Silverado, but forgot about it. Darn good movie (was part of the first wave in the renaissance of westerns, for better or worse[1], IIRC). Also, the plots of many westerns could be made to fit rather well with the setting of T2K, so this discussion isn't *too* far off topic ... [1] Abolutely the worst of the "new westerns" was 'Bad Girls' -- I couldn't get more than half an hour into it (at least I didn't pay anything to see it). Brandon ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail 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, 28 Jun 2000 19:10:13 -0500 From: "Sean Gustin" Subject: Character Sheets Hi all. I just picked up The first edition of Twilight 2000. Unfortunately it didn't include Character record sheets. In the sites I've found I either can't download or the sheets are in xls format which I can't seem to read. If someone know's what I could find one on the web I would appreciate it. Sean Gustin - ----- Original Message ----- From: Walter Rebsch To: Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 4:31 PM Subject: RE: EPW's > > From: Brandon Cope > > > > > > > I liked Full Metal Jacket. Kelly's Heroes was a better WWII movie (though > I > > hesitate to call it a drama). Midway was also better. Battle of the Bulge > > was pretty good. > > > > I thought Waterworld was less of a bust than Saving Ryan's Privates. > > > > > > > See above. I'd also recommend most of the Duke's WWII movies ahead of it, > > too. It's obvious Spielberg didn't spend any of that megabudget on > writers. > > > > > > > Everybody in the group I saw it with immensely disliked it; we had planned > > to see Blade (a *much* better film) but one person whinned enough that we > > wasted several hours of hour lives (I really wish I had fallen asleep > during > > the movie). > > > > Brandon > > > > WOW! > > I guess that's one of the advantages of these kinds of mailing lists. It's > the variety of people on them. > > You're the 1st person I've ever heard of that didn't like 'Saving Private > Ryan'. Also, you're the first person I've ever heard of that DID like > 'Waterworld'. > > Oh well, to each their own... > > Walter > > PS. If I NEVER see another Kevin Costner film, it will be too soon. The > only film of his I've ever liked is 'No Way Out', everything else is just a > Kevin Costner movie, about Kevin Costner, starring Kevin Costner, with Kevin > Costner, ad nauseum ... > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 02:09:56 EDT From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Harpoon hello, this movie stuff is too much for me, so I thought I'd throw in a question for you all. I was wondering if any of you out there had the Harpoon computer game. I am talking about the 1989(?) 1.1 version featuring battles in the North Atlantic. Does anyone know how many Battlesets were made? thanks 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: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:21:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Timothy P Moerke (Tim Moerke) Subject: RE: EPW's I thought "The Untouchables" was rather good myself. 'Course, it helped that De Niro and Connery were in it too. There, that's all I'm going to say about movies. :) But I do have a T2K-related question also. In an RPG book I own (Deluxe Revised Recon), it has an illustration of a revolver with a silencer attached to it. Now correct me if I am wrong, but I thought those type of guns could not be silenced. Can it be done, or is it just a mistake on Siembieda and co.'s part? T.M. *************************************************************************** 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, 29 Jun 2000 06:46:06 -0700 (PDT) From: graebarde Subject: Re: Harpoon > Harpoon computer game 1989(?) 1.1 version > featuring battles in the North Atlantic. Does anyone know how many Battlesets were made? > I have it somewhere in the maze. Haven't played it in a long time. There were at least three I think, maybe four. The first was the North Atlantic convoys (know this for sure), but IIRC they were put together the Persian Gulf area, Med, and were thinking about the West Pac. It's been 10 years since I talked to the guys, so the gray matters is foggy. daFORD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.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, 29 Jun 2000 06:55:33 -0700 (PDT) From: graebarde Subject: RE: EPW's illustration of a revolver with a silencer attached to it. Now correct me if I am wrong, but I thought those type of guns could not be silenced. Can it be done, or is it just a mistake on Siembieda and co.'s part? > silencer is a misnomer to begin with, suppressor is a more apt term. A revolver is difficult to suppress because of gas (and moise) escaping the front of the cylinder at the barrel. Success would depend on the cleareances between the barrel and cylinder, but generally the revolver isn't suppressed, except in the movies AFAIK. daFORD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.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, 29 Jun 2000 16:29:51 +0200 (MET DST) From: Bjorn Nilsson Subject: RE: EPW's On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Brandon Cope wrote: > >From: "Walter Rebsch" > > > >WOW! > > > >You're the 1st person I've ever heard of that didn't like 'Saving Private > >Ryan'. Also, you're the first person I've ever heard of that DID like > >'Waterworld'. > > I know a lot of people personally who didn't like the movie; unlike them, I > have no qualms about appearing foolish by saying I didn't like the movie and > why. Yeah i must also say I was quite disapointed with it. The first 40 minutes are very well done both essentially pointless from a story point of view and the rest of the film is just a typical US "we are the greatest" melodrama ment to further hype D-day as the deciding batle in defeating Germany (which it certanly wasn't) and to generaly show off the americans as the great heroes of the war. Now i don't want to be overly harsh, america did very admirable service as the worlds armory and also fought a very tough and complex war to defeat Japan more or less on her own but when it comes to defeating the axis in Europe everything except the Red Steamroller is basicly a sideshow IMHO. /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: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:33:24 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Character Sheets > From: Sean Gustin > > Hi all. I just picked up The first edition of Twilight 2000. Unfortunately > it didn't include Character record sheets. In the sites I've > found I either > can't download or the sheets are in xls format which I can't seem to read. > If someone know's what I could find one on the web I would appreciate it. > Sean Gustin The character generator program I wrote will print them for you, if your on a Windows PC. I'm at work right now, so I can't email it to you right now, but someone here on this list has it posted for download on their website. So whomever that is, please let Sean know where he can download it from. If you encounter problems with the program, or have suggestions or bugs to report, email me privately. Thanks! Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:39:58 +0200 (MET DST) From: Bjorn Nilsson Subject: RE: EPW's On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Walter Rebsch wrote: > The character that you are refering to in particular has a whole bunch of > issues, and is the kind of person you need to weed out in basic training. > He was completely worthless in combat. That's the kind of worthless moron > that will get you killed if he's anything except a REMF (Rear Echelon Mother > F%#^@!). Well you can just let the enemy weed them out instead... Th e infamous "They learn or they burn" doctrine used both by the US i vietnam and by the Russian army of both WWs. Lets just say it works better if you have a high threachhold for casualties. :-) Besides, IIRC that guy IS a REMF. (He's some kind of interpreter or something. Doesn't he remark in the begining that he hasn't fired his weapon since basic.) Or do i have the wrong guy? /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: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:17:37 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: EPW's > > >illustration of a revolver with a silencer attached to it. > >Now correct me if I am wrong, but I thought those type of > >guns could not be silenced. Can it be done, or is it just > >a mistake on Siembieda and co.'s part? > > > silencer is a misnomer to begin with, suppressor is a more > apt term. A revolver is difficult to suppress because of > gas (and moise) escaping the front of the cylinder at the > barrel. Success would depend on the cleareances between > the barrel and cylinder, but generally the revolver isn't > suppressed, except in the movies AFAIK. > > daFORD > Like daFORD said, revolvers generally aren't suppressed. And yes, one of the difficulties with effectively suppressing revolvers is the cylinder/barrel gap. However, in my opinion, that difficulty isn't the main reason revolvers aren't supressed more often. The real reason is (I'd say) that revolovers simply aren't used much by people who would be interested in suppressing them. As an added plus, with easily removable barrels, it is more convienent to use an automatic pistol, since you can interchange between standard barrels and one with a threaded exposed end to accept the supressor. Also, because of the relatively low exhaust gas velocity of pistol cartridges, most pistols can be effectively suppressed with only a single stage of baffels and without a large expansion chamber with rear vents. This would lead me to suspect that the small volume of high velocity gas excaping from the cylinder/barrel gap could be could be decelerated effectively with a cloth or towel held tightly around the gap area. But I'm just guessing from what I've read about supressors. And in the US, its illegal to own a supressor without a special expensive license, so I can't just go out and test the theory with my .357. Of course, the best silencer is probably just pressing the barrel up against your target, then pulling the trigger. But that's probably impossible most of the time... 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: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:17:38 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: EPW's > -----Original Message----- > From:Bjorn Nilsson > > On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Walter Rebsch wrote: > > > The character that you are refering to in particular has a > whole bunch of > > issues, and is the kind of person you need to weed out in basic > training. > > He was completely worthless in combat. That's the kind of > worthless moron > > that will get you killed if he's anything except a REMF (Rear > Echelon Mother > > F%#^@!). > > Well you can just let the enemy weed them out instead... > Th e infamous "They learn or they burn" doctrine used both by the US i > vietnam and by the Russian army of both WWs. Lets just say it works better > if you have a high threachhold for casualties. :-) > > Besides, IIRC that guy IS a REMF. (He's some kind of interpreter or > something. Doesn't he remark in the begining that he hasn't fired his > weapon since basic.) Or do i have the wrong guy? > > /Bjorn > Yes, you are correct. He is a REMF, that got switched to a front line unit as a casulty replacement. I guess they did what they had to do, given the situation. And his pathetic-ness only got 1 of his buddies killed before he finally remembered that he had a rifle in his hands. Also, I wouldn't want to be the unlucky sucker sharing a foxhole with this idiot until "learn or burn" starts working... 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: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:45:15 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: EPW's > From: Bjorn Nilsson > > Yeah i must also say I was quite disapointed with it. The first 40 minutes > are very well done both essentially pointless from a story point of view > and the rest of the film is just a typical US "we are the greatest" > melodrama ment to further hype D-day as the deciding batle in defeating > Germany (which it certanly wasn't) and to generaly show off the americans > as the great heroes of the war. Now i don't want to be overly harsh, > america did very admirable service as the worlds armory and also fought a > very tough and complex war to defeat Japan more or less on her own but > when it comes to defeating the axis in Europe everything except the Red > Steamroller is basicly a sideshow IMHO. > > /Bjorn > Well, since we aren't talking about too much else (sorry Orrin), maybe we can discuss WWII a bit? I'd certainly be interested in hearing some non-American points of view on WWII. I fully agree that the US is somewhat 'full of itself', especially in Hollywood films. Like the recent submarine movie showing that the US captured the german code machine, when it was really the British. Typical pandering to the US public. I think it's also interesting that even though I've taken history courses in both High School and College, the Red Army's accomplishments in WWII are never mentioned. All I remember is that (supposedly) the US 'let' the Russians take Berlin. There was hardly a single mention of how the Russians went from the brink of disaster, all the way to Berlin. They only say that the Russian winter and American arms support saved Russia. But maybe I have a poor memory on the subject. Although I'm pretty sure that D-Day caused the recall of a LOT of troops from the eastern front, which would ease things up significantly for the Russians. From what I heard, the atlantic wall was used as a R&R assignment between trips to the eastern front. Anyway, I'm curious what schools teach people in other countries... 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: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:08:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Ray Wiberg Subject: RE: EPW's > Well, since we aren't talking about too much else (sorry Orrin), maybe we > can discuss WWII a bit? I'd certainly be interested in hearing some > non-American points of view on WWII. > I think it's also interesting that even though I've taken history courses in > both High School and College, the Red Army's accomplishments in WWII are > never mentioned. All I remember is that (supposedly) the US 'let' the > Russians take Berlin. There was hardly a single mention of how the Russians > went from the brink of disaster, all the way to Berlin. They only say that > the Russian winter and American arms support saved Russia. But maybe I have > a poor memory on the subject. Soviet Russia was punished mightily in WWII. Hitler made grievous tactical errors due to his success early on in the war, and often ignored the advice of his Wehrmacht generals. I'd say that fighting a 3 front battle (more or less), with dwindling supply, and a lack of man power (due to heavy toll exacted in Russia), combined with the fall of Mussolini and heavy partisan/resistance, led to Germany's downfall. Stalin, who wanted a bargaining chip at the allied table), was hell bent to take Berlin first. He pushed his army forward ignoring the cost in lives in an effort to take it before the British or Americans could arrive. Strangely some of the best fighting the Germans did was the defensive battles versus the Sov Army trying to hold them *when they knew they would lose*. It was an effort to allow civilians a chance to withdraw out of Prussia and Brandenberg (Saxony too I suppose). I know two people who were children in Germany during the war, both lived in the east, and both were refugees. The Soviets were every bit as monstrous as the Germans were in Russia....maybe more so, but they had a cold iron grudge. > Although I'm pretty sure that D-Day caused the recall of a LOT of troops > from the eastern front, which would ease things up significantly for the > Russians. From what I heard, the atlantic wall was used as a R&R assignment > between trips to the eastern front. At the time of D-Day, German soldiers were so depleted, Hitler was sending Youth Corps into the battle in the West. I assure you, the Russians did not have an easy time taking Berlin, it was a bloodbath. > Anyway, I'm curious what schools teach people in other countries... I'm an American in Canada, so I probably can't help ya here. One more thing. The Marshall(sp) Plan....ever wonder why the US pumped so much money into former enemies? IMO the Versailles Treaty was a gross misjustice. In effect the Allies left Germany (and Austria), in a horrible position, and in doing so, bear, *at least*, some of the burden for the rise of the National Socialist movement. They had created an atmosphere where such a voice would not only be heard, but heeded. Ray *************************************************************************** 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 #147 *************************************