twilight2000-digest Sunday, July 2 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 150 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: navy in twilight Re: A World War 2 interlude Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Public Apology Re: A World War 2 interlude Re: Kalisz, almost there. Light Tanks (Re: Kalisz, almost there.) Re: Public Apology [none] Re: Question on Links Re: Light Tanks (Re: Kalisz, almost there.) Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: navy in twilight Re: navy in twilight Re: navy in twilight The Red Baron Re: A World War 2 interlude Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: Kalisz, almost there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 09:12:31 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: navy in twilight - ----- Original Message ----- From: matthew henley To: Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 2:32 AM Subject: navy in twilight > the talk about the harpoon computer game started me think, Has any one used > the Navy as a source of pc's and adventurs in there twilight games. You > could still do small unit actions by haveing your players going on reconsinc > and "forging" missons.(The articals on ships and the us cost gard in chalnge > magazine gave me the idea.) I've used the Twilight:2000 background as a source of Harpoon 4 (the miniatures version) games. Not really small player applicable. A friend has run a game where the British SBS were dropped off near Kalingrad (sp) in the Baltic to blow up Soviet warships. It ended in tears as the Swedish navy sunk the RN Oberon on the way out. 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: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 09:19:28 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: A World War 2 interlude - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ballistix To: Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 10:22 PM Subject: Re: A World War 2 interlude > > The Australian army fought in WW2, then went onto occupation duties in > > Japan, then fought in Korea, Brunei, Malaya and then Vietnam. The NCOs > were > > very experienced by this time. The Australian army was said to be better > at > > small unit actions, the US at large operations. > > Korea, Brunei, Malaya aren't generally known conflicts taught in history > lessons > though, Hence I didn't include them. You could elaborate however Peter > seeing > as you have brought them up ;) > > Ballistix Nah, you pretty much covered what was taught in my High School history classes. I recently finished reading a library book on the RAR (Royal Australian Regiment, which is the infantry battalions) which covered the period from the end of WW2 to around 1990. Excellent book which covered the conflicts above. It explained to me why the Australian Army has such a good reputation. Ballistix ISTR you are a serving Army signaller? You wouldn't know the OOB for a current Australian infantry section & platoon off the top of your head, without giving away any state secrets? Peter G ex-RAN 1986-1997 *************************************************************************** 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, 2 Jul 2000 11:14:49 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. >It's certainly possible that the 5th could have received some light tanks, >or acquired them somehow, but you need a story to explain how that >happened--and it would be very improbably for the division to end up with >more light tanks than MBT's. >Scott Orr I breathed out a heavy sigh and prepared to answer another of these inane comments, when it occured to me that the only time you appear on this list is to pick holes in others stuff. Like, how about *you* come up with something for a change? You got on Loonz's case so much he unsubscribed because your incessant bitching drove him up the wall. Don't expect answers from me any more. 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, 1 Jul 2000 21:22:15 EDT From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. In a message dated 07/01/2000 4:34:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, grining@southcom.com.au writes: << Fairly sure some of the published works refer to the Stingray as being for export customers then hijacked by the US Army as replacements. >> Yes this is true. See page 31 of 1st Edition U.S. Army Vehicle Guide and page 41 of 2nd Edition American Combat Vehicle Handbook, which state "In 1997, conditions in the US were such that Stingray inventories and production were requisitioned and the vehicles assigned as replacement equipment to several units in the US and abroad." Also the color plate notes for the Cadillac Gage Stingray state "At that time all shipments of war material were frozen and in early 1997 the Stingrays were requisitioned." So, there is the rationale for Stingrays being sent to American units in Europe. M8 AGS could also be requistioned, as the Republic of China had placed an order for several hundred. I'm not sure what happened to that order once the M8 AGS was cancelled, but remember this is a game, not a current events timeline. Furthermore, see also page 17 of 1st Edition U.S. Army Vehicle Guide, which gives more support for units having vehicles which were not part of the authorized TOE. "However, in many cases combat losses were replaced with vehicles and weapons not originally authorized for the unit, and in the late 1990's it became quite common for small parties separated from their parent unit to be absorbed into whatever unit was in their vicinity. Thus, by 2000 almost any type of vehicle or weapon could be found in a unit." My favorite, however, is the line from the color plate notes for the M728 CEV, "By 2000, virtually anything with armor and a gun was being used by armored units in the United States as a tank." orrin Walter Matthau RIP October 1, 1920-July 1, 2000 *************************************************************************** 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, 01 Jul 2000 22:20:46 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. At 09:09 AM 7/2/00 +1000, Peter wrote: > >Fairly sure some of the published works refer to the Stingray as being for >export customers then hijacked by the US Army as replacements. GDW sure >liked light tanks: > >LAV-75 >MPGS-90 >Stingray >M-8 > >I always liked the funky US Army Vehicle Guide 1st edition with all the >different light tanks and air defence vehicles. Not realistic, but good fun. > All of this is certainly true, but I don't see how it would result in a given division having more of these vehicles than it had of M1's--quite apart from the fact that the unit didn't start out with them, they wouldn't have been produced in anywhere near the numbers that M1's were. Incorporation of stragglers from other units would of course add a few odd vehicles (as another posted noted), but not nearly in the same numbers as the authorized vehicles. >Then there is the fun of having M1s with 105mm rounds alongside in units >with M1A1 with 120mm rounds.... > This hadn't occurred to me before but yes, you're absolutely right--the U.S. Army has retired the older marks of the M1 (or upgraded them) as newer ones have entered service. As best as I can recall, a given division should only be equipped with one type unless you catch it right in the middle of transition. Still, older models might have been assigend to National Guard units and used as combat replacements--but the newer models would probably be more prevalent. 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, 25 Jun 2000 23:11:30 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Public Apology > Huh? If you don't get it then it doesn't apply to you Jim :) 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, 25 Jun 2000 23:24:30 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: A World War 2 interlude > Ballistix ISTR you are a serving Army signaller? You wouldn't know the OOB > for a current Australian infantry section & platoon off the top of your > head, without giving away any state secrets? Now just a member in the Army reserve. Current theoretical make up of a section is as follows (10 men); Section Commander - Corporal 2 x Scouts Signaller (or muppet as you prefer) Section 2IC - Lance Corporal Gunner - LSW machine gun No. 2 Gunner No 1 Rifleman - LSW machine gun No 2 Rifleman - 40mm GL No 3 Rifleman Current Platoon PHQ Platoon Commander - Lt Platoon Sgt Muppet Batman (optional) 3 x Sections as above Attachments as dictated by BHQ / CHQ Hows that :) It is just theoretical, I've been in situations where a platoon has been whittled down to the size of a section with the Sgt as commander and a corporal as Plt Sgt. It was definitely a surprise to the enemy when they bumped into us :). A section with the firepower of a platoon. 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, 2 Jul 2000 14:25:21 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott David Orr To: Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 12:20 PM Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. > At 09:09 AM 7/2/00 +1000, Peter wrote: > >I always liked the funky US Army Vehicle Guide 1st edition with all the > >different light tanks and air defence vehicles. Not realistic, but good fun. > > > All of this is certainly true, but I don't see how it would result in a > given division having more of these vehicles than it had of M1's--quite > apart from the fact that the unit didn't start out with them, they wouldn't > have been produced in anywhere near the numbers that M1's were. The other thing is how survivable are the light tanks compared with the M1? Brassey's 'Tanks. Main Battle & Light Tanks', 1996, ISBN 1 85753 168 X, covers the following on US light tanks: M551 Sheridan, vulnerable to RPG-7 rounds. Stingray. Front armoured against heavy MG fire, sides armoured against 7.62mm AP. 106 used by Thailand Stingray II. All round protection from heavy MG fire. Add-on armour against 'infantry light AT weapons' over frontal arc available. Prototype 1995/96, none in service. XM8 Armoured Gun System with the modular armour. Prototype in 1994, none in service. Level 1 against heavy MG and small arms. Can be airdropped by C-130. Level 2 against medium calibre cannon rounds (?BMP-2 30mm). Can be carried by C-130 Level 3 against infantry HEAT projectiles. Must be carried by C-17, etc. Vehicle agility starts to suffer with this armour weight. Teledyne Vehicles Systems Expeditionary Tank. Prototype in 1985. This has gun pod instead of a turret. As some 'infantry light AT/HEAT weapons' can probably threaten the larger main battle tanks I guess light tanks can handle early model RPG-7s and M72 LAWs, etc. It also begs the question as to how survivable APCs such as the M113 and IFVs such as the M2 Bradley and Warrior are? The M113 is supposedly armoured against 7.62mm small arms fire. The original Bradley/Warrior armour requirement is still classified but was probably the BTR-60PBs 12.7mm MG. Later both were upgraded to handle the BMP-2 30mm (again the probable threat). Fair enough the players can pretty much end up with any weapons & vehicles, but looking at the published modules anti-armour weapons are rare. > Incorporation of stragglers from other units would of course add a few odd > vehicles (as another posted noted), but not nearly in the same numbers as > the authorized vehicles. If we assume the US Army hijacked some of the ROC M8 order and told United Defence to keep building as many as possible. Perhaps Cadillac Gage received an export order for the Stingray II and did the same. > >Then there is the fun of having M1s with 105mm rounds alongside in units > >with M1A1 with 120mm rounds.... > > > This hadn't occurred to me before but yes, you're absolutely right--the > U.S. Army has retired the older marks of the M1 (or upgraded them) as newer > ones have entered service. As best as I can recall, a given division > should only be equipped with one type unless you catch it right in the > middle of transition. Still, older models might have been assigend to > National Guard units and used as combat replacements--but the newer models > would probably be more prevalent. > > Scott Orr AFAIK the regular US Army is 100% 120mm M1A1 or M1A2, etc. The NG and reserve has some 120mm and earlier 105mm versions. The plan had been to rebuild most of the earlier 105mm versions to M1A2, bridge layer or engineer vehicle. Pre-1990 the plan was: Regular Army in Europe with 120mm Abrams. Regular units in the USA with European missions (reinforcements) also with 120mm. NG units with European mission also M1A1. CENTCOM (was called RDF) for Middle East missions had older 105mm versions. Units in Korea had the M60A3 with 105mm or IPM1 with 105mm. South Korean forces had 105mm tanks also. North Korea had mostly older tanks. With the fall of the wall and post Desert Storm CENTCOM got priority, then Korea came to the front with the various crisises. Looking at the US Army Vehicle Guide (1st ed) and American Combat Vehicle Handbook (2nd ed) pretty much all the pre-war compositions had a mix of 105mm & 120mm Abrams. A 105mm round would not have been much use against a Soviet late model T-72/80..... 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: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 14:51:51 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Light Tanks (Re: Kalisz, almost there.) - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 11:22 AM Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. >M8 AGS could > also be requistioned, as the Republic of China had placed an order for > several hundred. I'm not sure what happened to that order once the M8 AGS > was cancelled, but remember this is a game, not a current events timeline. ROC had ordered ~800, but this was cancelled with AGS ~1994ish. The M8 might still enter US Army service depending on where the current Medium Brigade goes. Although my bet is the Assault Gun will be on a wheeled chassis. The M8 probably would have been a good export tank. Yeah its a game, but its still fun to speculate at what would have happened in the older timeline. A quick look at the US gear: M1 Abrams, pretty much as real life, mostly 120mm versions in the early part of the war. I'm looking at the v1.0 timeline, but they are pretty much the same: The US Army enters combat in November 1996, the USA does not get hit with nukes after Thanksgiving Day (4th Thursday in November?). Thats at least of year of wartime production. Still not enough to replace the losses so I guess the M60 & M113 make a large scale comeback, alond with whatever light tanks are taken over. The only other issue is SP AA defence vehicle. In the real world the replacement was to have been the M247 Sgt. York DIVAD (Divisional Air Defence). This failed and was cacelled. The replacement was LOS light and heavy, NLOS, adding anti-helicopter rounds to the M1 program. A modified Bradley chassis with 8 MIM-146 ADATS missiles was selected as the LOS-H, Avenger (HMMWV with 8 Stinger) as light rear area weapon, another HMMWV with missiles as NLOS (non-line of sight), and the MPAT 120mm round produced. The ADATS was cancelled in 1992 due to the lower expected threat. Some Bradleys had the TOW system removed and these carried dismount Stinger teams (BSFV). This was further modified with the twin TOW launcher replaced by a quad Stinger mount. This has entered service as the BSFV-E (Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle Enhanced), and a new version the M6? Linebacker is in service. I use the ADATS, Avenger and NLOS in my Twilight:2000 games. 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: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 22:26:36 -0700 (PDT) From: graebarde Subject: Re: Public Apology - --- Ballistix wrote: > Well to everyone on the list I do owe an apology. I have > read > my email about some of the History to do with wars that > Australia was involved in. I have to apologise for the > patriotic > remarks about Australia as I have in the past flamed a > few > people when they posted remarks to how they thought their > country was the best thing since sliced bread. > > Ballistix > > No apology necessary here.. >From a Yank daFORD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.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: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 00:41:46 CDT From: "OVH \(Paul\)" Subject: [none] Well you will have to let those of us who live in Perth a bell..ie me when you get over here. >the Canadian pilot who shot down Baron VonRichtofen(The Red Baron), There is no confirmation of this you know ;) Ballistix Most of the Red Barons plane is in the Toronto War Meuseum. The German Government has even said it was ROY BROWN, a Canadian Pilot who shot him down. ________________________________________________________________________ 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: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 22:53:19 -0700 (PDT) From: graebarde Subject: Re: Question on Links - --- Antenna wrote: > Hi Guys > > Where have Mitch Bergs anh Chris Callahans pages gonne... > Just checked Mitch's site and it's up Don't have Chris's URL to check right off hand daFORD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.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: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 02:05:34 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Light Tanks (Re: Kalisz, almost there.) At 02:51 PM 7/2/00 +1000, Peter wrote: >I use the ADATS, Avenger and NLOS in my Twilight:2000 games. > Cool beans, good info. 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, 02 Jul 2000 02:21:08 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. At 02:25 PM 7/2/00 +1000, Peter wrote: > > >The other thing is how survivable are the light tanks compared with the M1? > Yes, that's a big issue--it had occurred to me, though I hadn't brought it up yet. >Brassey's 'Tanks. Main Battle & Light Tanks', 1996, ISBN 1 85753 168 X, >covers the following on US light tanks: > >M551 Sheridan, vulnerable to RPG-7 rounds. > >Stingray. Front armoured against heavy MG fire, sides armoured against >7.62mm AP. 106 used by Thailand > >Stingray II. All round protection from heavy MG fire. Add-on armour against >'infantry light AT weapons' over frontal arc available. Prototype 1995/96, >none in service. That doesn't sound very substantial at all. I'm sure they're useful for infantry AT support, but in an environment where most of the heavies are supposed to have evaporated already, I can't see them having survived very well. > >XM8 Armoured Gun System with the modular armour. Prototype in 1994, none in >service. >Level 1 against heavy MG and small arms. Can be airdropped by C-130. >Level 2 against medium calibre cannon rounds (?BMP-2 30mm). Can be carried >by C-130 >Level 3 against infantry HEAT projectiles. Must be carried by C-17, etc. >Vehicle agility starts to suffer with this armour weight. > Right, I had forgotten this--can the armor be switched? In the field? >Teledyne Vehicles Systems Expeditionary Tank. Prototype in 1985. This has >gun pod instead of a turret. > Haven't even heard of this one. >As some 'infantry light AT/HEAT weapons' can probably threaten the larger >main battle tanks I guess light tanks can handle early model RPG-7s and M72 >LAWs, etc. It also begs the question as to how survivable APCs such as the >M113 and IFVs such as the M2 Bradley and Warrior are? The M113 is supposedly >armoured against 7.62mm small arms fire. The original Bradley/Warrior armour >requirement is still classified but was probably the BTR-60PBs 12.7mm MG. >Later both were upgraded to handle the BMP-2 30mm (again the probable >threat). > Those things are probably toast in a really hot environment--but vehicles before the M2 were never intended for direct combat (though M113's were used for things like convoy escort in Vietnam). I suppose M2's (and other IFV's) are intended to be used in combat, but they would likely take even heavier losses than tanks, and commanders eventually would likely pull them back and use their offensive capabilities only in critical situations. >Fair enough the players can pretty much end up with any weapons & vehicles, >but looking at the published modules anti-armour weapons are rare. By this point, though, so are their targets. :) For the _players_, I can easily justify any kind of vehicle (and I love to do so), but I don't want to describe an entire unit as having dozens of a rare type. > >If we assume the US Army hijacked some of the ROC M8 order and told United >Defence to keep building as many as possible. Perhaps Cadillac Gage received >an export order for the Stingray II and did the same. If it's gonna be new construction, though, I'd think they'd go with the M1--more expensive but probably more survivable too. >AFAIK the regular US Army is 100% 120mm M1A1 or M1A2, etc. The NG and >reserve has some 120mm and earlier 105mm versions. The plan had been to >rebuild most of the earlier 105mm versions to M1A2, bridge layer or engineer >vehicle. > In that case you probably wouldn't see the 105mm versions at all. (And the 105mm shouldn't be as useful as it was in the game--the speed advantage over the 120mm was significant, but probably more the result of "rounding errors" than anything else.) If I were doing a TW2K campaign today, even using the original (or v.2) timeline, I think I'd also nix the "giraffe" M1A2 (v.1--M1A3 in v.2) and the Soviet/Russian equivalent (T-90)--I don't think anyone's gone very far in the direction of producing an MBT with a casemated turret. >Pre-1990 the plan was: >Regular Army in Europe with 120mm Abrams. Regular units in the USA with >European missions (reinforcements) also with 120mm. NG units with European >mission also M1A1. >CENTCOM (was called RDF) for Middle East missions had older 105mm versions. >Units in Korea had the M60A3 with 105mm or IPM1 with 105mm. South Korean >forces had 105mm tanks also. North Korea had mostly older tanks. > >With the fall of the wall and post Desert Storm CENTCOM got priority, then >Korea came to the front with the various crisises. > Even with priority, would they necessarily get 120mm's first? For what they'd be fighting in most cases, they didn't really need the heavier gun. >Looking at the US Army Vehicle Guide (1st ed) and American Combat Vehicle >Handbook (2nd ed) pretty much all the pre-war compositions had a mix of >105mm & 120mm Abrams. A 105mm round would not have been much use against a >Soviet late model T-72/80..... > Do you think these mixes were supposed to be the result of original composition or of casualty replacements? 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, 02 Jul 2000 02:56:24 -0500 From: Craig Gulledge Subject: Re: navy in twilight Peter wrote:> the talk about the harpoon computer game started me think, Has any one > used > > the Navy as a source of pc's and adventurs in there twilight games. You > > could still do small unit actions by haveing your players going on > reconsinc > > and "forging" missons.(The articals on ships and the us cost gard in > chalnge > > magazine gave me the idea.) Sort of, I've been giving serious thought to a "Brown Water Navy" campaign along the Mississippi River. I've also been toying with the notion of incorporating a Cyclone (IIRC) Class PC as perhaps a "campaign vehicle", being a sort of mobile base for the current group. With their Spec Ops sort of background, it would fit nicely. Not quite "Harpoon" sort of navy, but it is displacement hulls........ BTW, what is everyone consensus on naval vessels in the T:2K setting. The make some reference to some ships in the RDF Source book. The mention a DD or FFG in Going Home, the Virginia (right?) in Satellite Down, then of course the USS City of Corpus Christi in the Last Sub series. Is that it? are the rest at the bottom of the ocean? I know that the 2nd Fleet got hammered, but all of the US Navy? I personally don't buy it. I could see ships being scuttled or parted out when POL became scarce. Craig Gulledge *************************************************************************** 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, 2 Jul 2000 18:17:33 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: navy in twilight >Sort of, I've been giving serious thought to a "Brown Water Navy" campaign >along the Mississippi River. >Craig Gulledge I've been thinking along similiar lines, I found a little training vessel tied up to a pier and took a few photo's of it. I was wondering if any navy types could sketch me some probable deckplans for it. They don't have to be pretty, I can make some up on AutoCAD afterwards. Anyone interested, could you please answer to jimpeta@primus.com.au 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: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 01:25:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Ray Wiberg Subject: Re: navy in twilight > BTW, what is everyone consensus on naval vessels in the T:2K setting. > The make some reference to some ships in the RDF Source book. > The mention a DD or FFG in Going Home, the Virginia (right?) in > Satellite Down, then of course the USS City of Corpus Christi > in the Last Sub series. > Is that it? are the rest at the bottom of the ocean? > I know that the 2nd Fleet got hammered, but all of the US Navy? > I personally don't buy it. I could see ships being scuttled or > parted out when POL became scarce. > Don't forget any convoy or battle group of ships would also be subject to tactical nukes. I would imagine, that like alot of military bases, industrial centers, airports, and oil refinieries, many ships would no longer be around. Ray *************************************************************************** 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, 2 Jul 2000 18:44:44 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: The Red Baron >>the Canadian pilot who shot down Baron VonRichtofen(The Red Baron), > >There is no confirmation of this you know ;) >Ballistix > >Most of the Red Barons plane is in the Toronto War Meuseum. The German >Government has even said it was ROY BROWN, a Canadian Pilot who shot him >down. Firstly, even if Roy Brown didn't shoot down the Red Baron, he was risking his life to save a squadron-mate and I doff my hat to him. Coming after Richtofen must have been an trouser-soiling experience, as the man had turned the tables on many poeple trying just this act. The Aussies were sure that they had got the Red Baron, but it's likely that we'll never really know for sure. It's strange that there is generally little doubt on the matter in most histories except Australian, take that what ever way you like. Take a look at this, it's a two year old look into the killing of Richtofen. http://raven.cc.ukans.edu/~kansite/ww_one/comment/richt.htm I found it interesting, but in reality the man who killed the Red Baron was Richtofen himself. He never really got over the head wound and subsequent crash some time earlier, he knew he shouldn't be flying and normally never would have flown so low over the trenches or allowed Brown to approach as close as he did. 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: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:08:22 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: A World War 2 interlude - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ballistix To: Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:24 AM Subject: Re: A World War 2 interlude > > Ballistix ISTR you are a serving Army signaller? You wouldn't know the OOB > > for a current Australian infantry section & platoon off the top of your > > head, without giving away any state secrets? > > Now just a member in the Army reserve. > > Current theoretical make up of a section is as follows (10 men); Thanks for this. Peter Grining *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 23:53:53 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott David Orr To: Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 4:21 PM Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. > >Brassey's 'Tanks. Main Battle & Light Tanks', 1996, ISBN 1 85753 168 X, > >covers the following on US light tanks: > > > >M551 Sheridan, vulnerable to RPG-7 rounds. > > > >Stingray. Front armoured against heavy MG fire, sides armoured against > >7.62mm AP. 106 used by Thailand > > > >Stingray II. All round protection from heavy MG fire. Add-on armour against > >'infantry light AT weapons' over frontal arc available. Prototype 1995/96, > >none in service. > > That doesn't sound very substantial at all. I'm sure they're useful for > infantry AT support, but in an environment where most of the heavies are > supposed to have evaporated already, I can't see them having survived very > well. To be fair the original customers for the Stingray, etc had to have vehicles light enough to use existing bridges and infrastructure. The opposition doesn't have huge amounts of modern AT weaponry. But in Europe? > >XM8 Armoured Gun System with the modular armour. Prototype in 1994, none in > >service. > >Level 1 against heavy MG and small arms. Can be airdropped by C-130. > >Level 2 against medium calibre cannon rounds (?BMP-2 30mm). Can be carried > >by C-130 > >Level 3 against infantry HEAT projectiles. Must be carried by C-17, etc. > >Vehicle agility starts to suffer with this armour weight. > > > Right, I had forgotten this--can the armor be switched? In the field? Supposedly its a matter of bolting the new armour sections on. I've found the actual protection standards: Level I: 14.5mm Heavy MG frontal arc (this is also the Bradley & Warrior requirement not 12.7mm), 7.62mm AP from sides Level II: 30mm frontal arc, 14.5mm elsewhere Level III: RPG front & sides. > >Teledyne Vehicles Systems Expeditionary Tank. Prototype in 1985. This has > >gun pod instead of a turret. > > > Haven't even heard of this one. It was a one off that didn't go anywhere. > >As some 'infantry light AT/HEAT weapons' can probably threaten the larger > >main battle tanks I guess light tanks can handle early model RPG-7s and M72 > >LAWs, etc. It also begs the question as to how survivable APCs such as the > >M113 and IFVs such as the M2 Bradley and Warrior are? The M113 is supposedly > >armoured against 7.62mm small arms fire. The original Bradley/Warrior armour > >requirement is still classified but was probably the BTR-60PBs 12.7mm MG. > >Later both were upgraded to handle the BMP-2 30mm (again the probable > >threat). > > > Those things are probably toast in a really hot environment--but vehicles > before the M2 were never intended for direct combat (though M113's were > used for things like convoy escort in Vietnam). I suppose M2's (and other > IFV's) are intended to be used in combat, but they would likely take even > heavier losses than tanks, and commanders eventually would likely pull them > back and use their offensive capabilities only in critical situations. To be fair the M113 was never designed to survive the high intensity battlefield. It first came out ~1959 and was designed to keep out small arms fire and artillery fragments and provide infantry with mobility. The actual fighting was to done by dismounting the infantry outside direct fire range and assualting enemy positions. This was the APC or 'battle taxi'. The IFV started with the BMP-1 when the idea was for an NBCD sealed vehicle to travel through contaminated areas (this was the 1960s when nuclear war fighting was planned for) and the infantry to fight mounted. The Warrior was designed to sustain an infantry section for 48 hours inside the vehicle.A chemical toilet was fitted! The Bradley with TOW has heavy AT firepower. Thats one fact that came out out of the Gulf War was if the Bradley was hit the crew would take casualties. Israel can not afford an IFV and is stuck with the M113 for the future. They have modified ~250 captured T-55 chassis as the Achzarit heavy APC also called Haevy Assault Carrier (HAC). These have been issued to units stationed on the Golan heights. The M113 would not survive if the Israel army had to assault into Syria. This page on a 1/35 Achzarit shows the problem, see the rear of the model on the top? Thats the engine. See the tunnel towards the bottom? Thats how the infantry dismount. http://www.webone.com.au/~myszka/IDF/Reviews/IDFrevachzarit.htm More pics including uparmoured M113: http://storm.webvis.net/album1.html Some words from an Achzarit driver: http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/mchernya/mike%27spage9.html > For the _players_, I can easily justify any kind of vehicle (and I love to > do so), but I don't want to describe an entire unit as having dozens of a > rare type. Agreed the players should have access to whatever whacky stuff is around. > If I were doing a TW2K campaign today, even using the original (or v.2) > timeline, I think I'd also nix the "giraffe" M1A2 (v.1--M1A3 in v.2) and > the Soviet/Russian equivalent (T-90)--I don't think anyone's gone very far > in the direction of producing an MBT with a casemated turret. Russia is making noises about the T-95 again, but this has been happening since the late 1980s. > >With the fall of the wall and post Desert Storm CENTCOM got priority, then > >Korea came to the front with the various crisises. > > > Even with priority, would they necessarily get 120mm's first? For what > they'd be fighting in most cases, they didn't really need the heavier gun. Apologies I meant to say equipment not just tanks. > >Looking at the US Army Vehicle Guide (1st ed) and American Combat Vehicle > >Handbook (2nd ed) pretty much all the pre-war compositions had a mix of > >105mm & 120mm Abrams. A 105mm round would not have been much use against a > >Soviet late model T-72/80..... > > > Do you think these mixes were supposed to be the result of original > composition or of casualty replacements? Both books say they are September 1994 holdings, so I guess they mean pre-war compositions. 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: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 08:03:49 -0700 (PDT) From: graebarde Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. There has been a discussion of late about the survival of "light" armored vehicles in the year 2000. A thought I have long had is there would be very few vehicles of any sort running by 2000. The mushrooms sprouted in late 97 and into 98. As I recall from time lines, there has not been much in the way of logistical support from CONUS for over a year. What does this mean in terms of vehicles? No repair parts for one. Yes cannibalization is the first thought, BUT historically it's ususally the same parts on all the vehicle that break. Also the electronic equipment will degrade, for which there is no ready quick fix. Also the use of alcohol in diesel engines is detrimental to their health. This was addressed in the past on this and other lists/forums. So IMO most of the wheeled vehicles would be inoperational due to major powertrain failures, ie injectors and pumps.. you can rob Peter to pay Paul only so long. I personally liked Jims list, and appreciate his time and effort that went into it. Accurracy? Well noone but the HOG of a game can decide what is what in Twilight 2000. Each has a different view of the world then because we have no actual history to rely on for "facts". Has anyone ever run a campaign where all vehicles are rare? Where the foot soldier is primary fighting power, and the quadraped is the primary motive power? The fight for horses would make more sense than trying to capture a vehicle that doesn't run, or wont for long on the fuels being used. And again, with degregaded firepowewr, I find it hard to swallow the "big push" scenario depicted. Survival is the name of the game in 2000. Maybe operations ot consolidate the containment areas, and rid the surrounds of marauders, or localized fights with neighboring forces over key terrain and resources, but a push to cut Poland in half, with ONE division, understrength as well, is a bit far fetched IMO. But this is a fantisy science fiction game, one I enjoy playing and tinkering with, so all input is appreciated. Remember no one is WRONG in their views about Twilight 2000, it's a game, and the HOG makes the world. Just some thoughts and observations Fred daFORD Fight Light __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.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. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #150 *************************************