twilight2000-digest Friday, July 7 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 154 The following topics are covered in this digest: T2K PbEMs Re: T2K PbEMs Re: T2K PbEMs Re: T2K PbEMs RE: Add On Armor RE: Add On Armor Re: Steyr AUG stats... Re: Add On Armor Re: T2K PbEMs Re: Add On Armor Re: Kalisz, almost there. Camoflage! Re: Camoflage! Re: Kalisz, almost there. Re: # of divisions in the world RE: # of divisions in the world RE: # of divisions in the world RE: # of divisions in the world RE: # of divisions in the world RE: # of divisions in the world Ah Ha! Re: Add On Armor Re: # of divisions in the world Canadian C& Assault Rifle stats RE: # of divisions in the world Re: # of divisions in the world Re: Camoflage! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:08:21 CDT From: "OVH \(Paul\)" Subject: T2K PbEMs Jim, is there anyway I can get in on a game? I have played by email before and would love to get back into a game. Thanks. Paul ________________________________________________________________________ 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, 06 Jul 2000 14:32:46 NZST From: "Matt Swain" Subject: Re: T2K PbEMs >http://www.pbem.com/ Been there - grand total of 1 T2K game, which is full, with a waiting list, and "on hold" :( >http://loonz.freeservers.com/t2k/links.htm I'll have a look, thanks! Matt P.S If anyone wants to start a game, I'm interested! ________________________________________________________________________ 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, 6 Jul 2000 12:52:22 +1000 From: "Adam Betteridge" Subject: Re: T2K PbEMs Matt I would also suggest joining a few games as a lurker, egroups seems to have a few games listed. 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: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:14:33 NZST From: "Matt Swain" Subject: Re: T2K PbEMs >I would also suggest joining a few games as a lurker, egroups seems to have >a >few games listed. Thanks, I'll do that. M ________________________________________________________________________ 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, 06 Jul 2000 00:39:28 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: Add On Armor At 06:34 PM 7/5/00 -0500, Walter Rebsch wrote: >It seems tremendously unlikely to me that EMP would be a primary contributor >of FC equipment failure in tanks. Either the tank is going to be close >enough to a nuke to have other, more pressing problems. Or the tank is >going to be far enough that the shielding of the tank and the electronic >systems EMP hardening would protect it's systems. The only thing I can >imagine being hurt on a tank by EMP is the radios. And even those can be >protected if you unplug the antenna. > There were some posts to the list on EMP a year or two ago, complete with URL's, and the impresion I got was that _anything_ with wires and battery was gonna be lucky surviving a nuclear war (that is, I got the impression that TW2K is too generous in letting stuff survive). 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: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 22:52:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Ray Wiberg Subject: RE: Add On Armor On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Scott David Orr wrote: > At 06:34 PM 7/5/00 -0500, Walter Rebsch wrote: > > >It seems tremendously unlikely to me that EMP would be a primary contributor > >of FC equipment failure in tanks. Either the tank is going to be close > >enough to a nuke to have other, more pressing problems. Or the tank is > >going to be far enough that the shielding of the tank and the electronic > >systems EMP hardening would protect it's systems. The only thing I can > >imagine being hurt on a tank by EMP is the radios. And even those can be > >protected if you unplug the antenna. > > > There were some posts to the list on EMP a year or two ago, complete with > URL's, and the impresion I got was that _anything_ with wires and battery > was gonna be lucky surviving a nuclear war (that is, I got the impression > that TW2K is too generous in letting stuff survive). > They are, but I didn't read about upper atmosphereic detenations...but if you were gonna use em, you'd be stupid not to. Way nastier than solar flares as far as telecommunication and powergrids are concerned. Just think of the economic chaos a few of those could cause....without any explosion on the ground at all :) 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: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:29:29 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Steyr AUG stats... > > They are for sale here: http://www.midwestordnance.com/steyr.htm > For sale? For SALE?? I understand that you may not know this but I am 14 (!) > and thus don't have a licence to have any firearms... (And in Finland you > need a special Firearms licence to carrying one... no free rights for that). > But anyways... Thanks guys LOL well you can't own assault rifles in Australia. God only knows why you want to own one?..... 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: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:33:02 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Add On Armor > The conclusion is okay, but I'd question the premise: even if EMP fried > most of the FC equipment, the number of tanks still in service is a tiny > fraction of the number original in service and built later. Most losses > (unless they caught fire) would have had salvageable equipment of some > sort, meaning that the number of FC sets should be much higher than the > number of operable tanks. Hence, even if only a few FC sets survived the > EMP, most tanks would still have them. (The same principle, BTW, would > apply to a lot of different spare parts, since even though the same parts > tend to _break_down_ on every vehicle of a given type, the parts that break > down probably aren't the same ones that tend to be lost when a vehicle is > put out of action by enemy fire.) Your assuming the military scavenged these.....Using the v2 timeline just your average joe could have wrecked more of them just screwing around over a wreck they found. Even worse they may have ripped bits out of them to power their new age toaster. 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: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:36:37 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: T2K PbEMs Jim, I'd like a bit more info if you could re the game. Could you email me about it.... best to use clewis@iinet.net.au 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: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 06:57:28 -0500 From: Rob Barnes Subject: Re: Add On Armor Probably true in most situations, but in the Twilight:2000 timeline, I'd add that the highest percentage of tank losses would have come during the all out retreat from Poland in late 1997, when the tactical nukes were being used heavily. Most of those battlefield losses would not have been recoverable under the conditions. Also, since the major effect of the war was the destruction of the world's transportation network, there could be warehouses full of M1 spares sitting in the US while units in Poland and Germany are doing without. Even units in the same general area could have very different supply situations (one unit has few functioning radio sets but lots of ammo, the other has plenty of radios but few vehicles, etc.) But Scott's statement would likely be true for any units that still had even a few of their original tanks. Units that picked up an odd assortment of captured or straggler MBTs might not have the spares on hand to maintain everything in the usual manner. For instance, during the last offensive in 2000, the US 2nd Marine Division picked up two T-80s and one Leopard III (Going home, p13). Besides, any PC groups from the 5th Division are going to have a hard time finding spares no matter what kind of tank they have, unless they just happen to have made it out with the trucks carrying the spare FC equipment, a breakdown of that equipment is fairly difficult to correct. I guess my point is that the standard assumptions that might be true in one area would not hold true in all others. In my game, the groups with MBTs tended to have the least mobility and were often subject to more frequent attacks than units with "lighter" equipment. No one wants to go head to head with an MBT in a normal tactical situation, but if that MBT is low on fuel and ammo or is having frequent maintenance problems, it loses some of its advantages. I would think a lot of tanks have become well-armored gun emplacements by late 2000 (at least in central Poland). Scott David Orr wrote: > At 02:11 PM 7/5/00 +1000, Peter wrote: > > > > > >If most tanks have reverted to manual FC surely light tanks would be > >surviveable? Use speed as a form of armour like the Leopard 1 & AMX-30. > > > The conclusion is okay, but I'd question the premise: even if EMP fried > most of the FC equipment, the number of tanks still in service is a tiny > fraction of the number original in service and built later. Most losses > (unless they caught fire) would have had salvageable equipment of some > sort, meaning that the number of FC sets should be much higher than the > number of operable tanks. Hence, even if only a few FC sets survived the > EMP, most tanks would still have them. (The same principle, BTW, would > apply to a lot of different spare parts, since even though the same parts > tend to _break_down_ on every vehicle of a given type, the parts that break > down probably aren't the same ones that tend to be lost when a vehicle is > put out of action by enemy fire.) > > 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. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:43:20 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Dragoo wrote, on Thursday, July 06, 2000 12:28 AM > Have any theories been presented as to how the Enhanced Reactionary Armor > (ERA) can tell whether the explosion or plasma jet is from the precursor tip > or the main warhead? Supposedly Kontakt-5 'heavy' explosive reactive armour, introduced in 1988 uses thicker plates that the precusor tip gas trouble penetrating. This shouldn't affect 'true' tandem warheads. An ex-East German T-72 was fitted with Kontakt-5 and an M1A1 fired a M829A1 round (same round as used in the 1991 Gulf War) at it. The heavy ERA also shears APFSDS rounds. The tank survived. Kontakt-5 doesn't cover 100% of the target face, only around 60-80% only. Also tanks equipped with ERA would require repairs to the ERA brackets and new ERA 'bricks' on a regular basis.... > Most early AT explosive warheads weren't really HEAT warheads. They were Cheers. I think I've learned more about HC & HEAT from the last couple of days than from 'professional' publications. 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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:13:23 +1000 From: "Adam Betteridge" Subject: Camoflage! Take a look at what happens when you use toilet paper for Camoflage http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images/0293.jpg *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 07:08:16 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: Camoflage! >Take a look at what happens when you use toilet paper for Camoflage > > >http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images/0293.jpg Was that for field camouflage, or was that just for the parade? ________________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 07:13:33 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: Kalisz, almost there. > > Have any theories been presented as to how the Enhanced Reactionary >Armor > > (ERA) can tell whether the explosion or plasma jet is from the precursor >tip > > or the main warhead? > >Supposedly Kontakt-5 'heavy' explosive reactive armour, introduced in 1988 >uses thicker plates that the precusor tip gas trouble penetrating. This >shouldn't affect 'true' tandem warheads. An ex-East German T-72 was fitted >with Kontakt-5 and an M1A1 fired a M829A1 round (same round as used in the >1991 Gulf War) at it. The heavy ERA also shears APFSDS rounds. The tank >survived. Kontakt-5 doesn't cover 100% of the target face, only around >60-80% only. Also tanks equipped with ERA would require repairs to the ERA >brackets and new ERA 'bricks' on a regular basis.... Hmm. Well, that could cause some designers to increase the size of the precursor warhead, but then the ERA designers will just increase the thickness of the "bricks." Or, they can switch production over to tandem warheads on all ATGM's and HEAT rounds. As for the APFSDS rounds, would the Soviet round I heard about in the late 1980's/early 1990's be more effective, I wonder. It was a newer round where the ratio between the length of the spike and its diameter was decreased, in effect making it thicker and shorter. The article I read about it in compared it almost to an old-style "cannonball", and the theory was that it would also be much more effective against Chobham armor as well, as it would have much less of a chance of being deflected or broken. > > Most early AT explosive warheads weren't really HEAT warheads. They >were > > >Cheers. I think I've learned more about HC & HEAT from the last couple of >days than from 'professional' publications. Sometimes it's a matter of finding the right professional publications... ________________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:51:14 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: # of divisions in the world >Can anyone venture a guess at how many divisions (you know, the unit of >organization thats bigger than a brigade hehe) there are in the world? I >was thinking about the WW3 simulation idea and was thinking that if the >simulation was division level... just how many units would there be on >the map? Sorry it took so long to get an answer on this. I finally got a copy of James Dunnigan's How to Make War out of the library. The edition only had info for 1993 at the latest, but this was the state of the world's armed forces: World Population: 5,477,000,000 Active Military Personnel (counting Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Army personnel): 25,980,000. Percent of World Population on Active Duty: 0.47435% Total Land Troops Available after Full Mobilization (all reserves called up, includes Army and Marines forces): 37,843,000. Percent of World Population: 0.69094% Equivelent Force in Divisions (includes whole divisions and smaller units that could be grouped together to form divisions): 1,318. Average Division Size: 19,711.68 active personne; 28,712.44 land forces. Total AFV's (MBT's, Light Tanks, APC's, IFV's, and other armored support or combat vehicles): 323,653. Manpower per AFV: 80.27 active. 116.925 land forces. Total Combat Aircraft (land operations only): 39,436. Annual Military Budget: $606,897,000,000. Budget per Active Duty Personnel: $23,360.16 Total tonnage of Navies: 7,329,000. Total Combat Ships: 3,743. - -- 43 carriers and other ships using fixed-wing aircraft; - -- 41 ballistic missile subs (SSB/SSBN's); - -- 147 nuclear attack subs (SSN's); - -- 327 conventional attack subs (SS's); - -- 124 "cruisers" (displacement 5,000+ tons per ship); - -- 400 "escorts" (displacement 1,000 to 3,000 tons per ship); - -- 2,256 "patrol boats" (displacement under 1,000 tons per ship); - -- 824 mine operations ships (minesweepers, minehunters, minelayers, etc.); Total naval fixed-wing aircraft (includes ASW and strike aircraft): 4,794. As far as the US vs. Russia percentages go... US had: - -- 4.7% of the world's population; - -- 5.8% of the world's active military personnel; - -- 3.2% of the world's mobilized land forces personnel; - -- 34.6% of the world's military budget; - -- 2.4% of the world's equivelent mobilized divisions; - -- 9.9% of the world's AFV's; - -- 17% of the world's combat aircraft; - -- 45% of the world's naval tonnage; - -- 46% of the world's naval fixed-wing aircraft; - -- 7.5% of the world's naval combat ships. The old USSR had: - -- 4.7% of the world's population; - -- 11% of the world's active military personnel; - -- 14.9% of the world's mobilized land forces personnel; - -- 16.8% of the world's military budget; - -- 11.8% of the world's equivelent mobilized divisions; - -- 21.9% of the world's AFV's; - -- 18.4% of the world's combat aircraft; - -- 16% of the world's naval tonnage; - -- 10% of the world's naval fixed-wing aircraft; - -- 6.7% of the world's naval combat ships. What I think would be interesting would be to compare the numbers for the Allied and Axis powers during WWII to these numbers. Granted, WWII equipment is not as advanced or as effective as modern equipment. But, if the world's forces today had to fight the military forces of WWII, and nukes weren't used, I think they'd have trouble beating the WWII forces... ________________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:20:25 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: # of divisions in the world > From: Stephen Dragoo > > > What I think would be interesting would be to compare the numbers for the > Allied and Axis powers during WWII to these numbers. Granted, WWII > equipment is not as advanced or as effective as modern equipment. > But, if > the world's forces today had to fight the military forces of > WWII, and nukes > weren't used, I think they'd have trouble beating the WWII forces... > Thats a pretty good joke. Walter PS: You were kidding right? You can't honestly believe that ... do you? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:57:43 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: RE: # of divisions in the world >From: "Walter Rebsch" > > > From: Stephen Dragoo > > > > > > > What I think would be interesting would be to compare the numbers for >the > > Allied and Axis powers during WWII to these numbers. Granted, WWII > > equipment is not as advanced or as effective as modern equipment. > > But, if > > the world's forces today had to fight the military forces of > > WWII, and nukes > > weren't used, I think they'd have trouble beating the WWII forces... > > > >Thats a pretty good joke. > >Walter > >PS: You were kidding right? You can't honestly believe that ... do you? I hope he was. Even a T-55, the piece of crap that is is, could shred any WWII tank while being mostly impervious to any of their weapons (the long 88mm on the King Tiger might be a threat). A manpower advantage does not make up for an technological disadvantage, except for extreme cases (say, one M1A1 Abrams against a battalion of Tigers). 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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 11:04:16 PDT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: RE: # of divisions in the world > > From: Stephen Dragoo > > > > > > > What I think would be interesting would be to compare the numbers for >the > > Allied and Axis powers during WWII to these numbers. Granted, WWII > > equipment is not as advanced or as effective as modern equipment. > > But, if > > the world's forces today had to fight the military forces of > > WWII, and nukes > > weren't used, I think they'd have trouble beating the WWII forces... > > > >Thats a pretty good joke. > >Walter > >PS: You were kidding right? You can't honestly believe that ... do you? Depends on how many casualties the WWII-era armies would be willing to take. If they have enough soldiers and equipment, they could conceivably overwhelm the modern armies by sheer force of numbers. It's not like the modern armored units would be completely immune to WWII weapons and be able to get by without any casualties; sooner or later, a "golden bullet" will blow a track or engine off the modern MBT (good ol' "mobility kill"), and eventually there wouldn't be enough ammo to kill every WWII tank. ________________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 14:28:31 -0400 From: Rob Miracle Subject: RE: # of divisions in the world >> > What I think would be interesting would be to compare the numbers for the >> > Allied and Axis powers during WWII to these numbers. Granted, WWII >> > equipment is not as advanced or as effective as modern equipment. >> > But, if >> > the world's forces today had to fight the military forces of >> > WWII, and nukes >> > weren't used, I think they'd have trouble beating the WWII forces... >> > > >I hope he was. Even a T-55, the piece of crap that is is, could shred any >WWII tank while being mostly impervious to any of their weapons (the long >88mm on the King Tiger might be a threat). The ever so quiet list mom interjects: A single tactical fighter squadron, a single strategic bomb wing, the 82nd Airborne division and Seal Team 8 would win WWII probably with almost no loss of life from any of those units (ok, I'm exaggerating a bit). During WWII, the armies pretty much still fought in lines, whole divisions moving as one, trying to over power the enemy. Today, stealth, tactical strikes, and bomb you into submission are the rules of war. Our pilots, sailors, and soldiers are far better trained today than 60 years ago. Their weapons of war are far more advanced. Forget the Tigers, a wing of Apache's or A-10's would pretty much remove every piece of Axis armor in a hand full or sorties. B-52's fly so high, that no WWII aircraft could reach them and they are well above the Ack. The Iraq army was pretty close in capability, training and probably size (I can't verify that) to a given European Axis front during WWII. They wouldn't be able to launch a plane, the V1 and V2 sites would be toast in the first week of the air campaign, and the entire war machine would be brought to a crippling halt. Rob Your ever so quiet list mom. - -- Rob Miracle Director of Internet Development Be patient or be a patient. -- Anton Devious http://www.iencentral.com/ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 13:50:52 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: # of divisions in the world Stephen, It's even worse than Brandon implies with the tank comparison. When viewed at any level higher than company level, the differences become tremendous. Land forces simply CANNOT fight effectively in a high intensity conflict without the proper use of combined arms. The gulf war proved it. The technological difference would prevent (almost completely) any attempt at effectively utilizing anything but infantry in the defense. Everything else is simply meat for the vultures. The old naval forces would die so quickly it isn't even funny. The old air forces would hardly register as having existed at all. Old artillery would be decimated by counter battery and air strikes. Old tanks shredded by virtually anyone. The old C3 infastructure would be obliterated very very fast. Even V2's could be shot down by patriot missles. Without artillery, armor, or command forces supporting them, what are they gonna do? The only hope of WWII forces would be to try to fight like the Viet Cong. Any stand up fight they attempted would be a wholesale slaughter ... 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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 14:57:51 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: Ah Ha! >Rob >Your ever so quiet list mom. > >-- >Rob Miracle >Director of Internet Development >Be patient or be a patient. -- Anton Devious >http://www.iencentral.com/ Ahhhh. Biggest tactical mistake of the day. Revealing the location of 'he who runs the list' ... You realize that now everyone who has a complaint/comment/suggestion about the list is going to be emailing YOU ... hehe *************************************************************************** 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, 06 Jul 2000 19:46:03 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Add On Armor At 11:33 AM 7/6/00 +0800, Ballistix wrote: > >Your assuming the military scavenged these.....Using the v2 timeline just >your >average joe could have wrecked more of them just screwing around over a >wreck they found. Even worse they may have ripped bits out of them to power >their new age toaster. > Historically, soldiers have done a pretty good job of scavenging, so I don't think this is a difficult assumption. 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: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 10:37:52 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: # of divisions in the world >Depends on how many casualties the WWII-era armies would be willing to take. > If they have enough soldiers and equipment, they could conceivably >overwhelm the modern armies by sheer force of numbers. It's not like the >modern armored units would be completely immune to WWII weapons and be able >to get by without any casualties; sooner or later, a "golden bullet" will >blow a track or engine off the modern MBT (good ol' "mobility kill"), and >eventually there wouldn't be enough ammo to kill every WWII tank. Don't get caught up in tank comparisons though, tanks aren't the be all and end all of western European warfare, getting infantry out of cities is a nasty job as our MOUT thread pointed out. Since an armed forces mix of the 21st century can send in one-man almost immune-to-WW2-era-AAA aircraft with a far higher chance of a hit success (a good thing too, no western society would sanction things like the fire raids of Dresden and Tokyo again hopefully) your WW2 army isn't;t going to have an infrastructure behind it anymore. On the ground, the infantry are less separated by a technology gulf except for NVGs and battlefield surveillance, towards the end of WW2 they were using assault rifles and one shot tank killers. Realistically, it depends on your battlefield, technology really prevails except against massively out of balance troop ratios on the deserts and plains. 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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 21:32:05 CDT From: "OVH \(Paul\)" Subject: Canadian C& Assault Rifle stats Has anyone modified the M16A2 stats to fit the Canadian C7 Assault Rifle? The C7 is quite different in a lot of ways. It has NO 3 shot burst, but instead has fully automtic and ALL are equipped with a 4X Elcan scope. The Canadian version of the M249 SAW is designated the C9 and also has the 4X scope on all of them. Would like to get my hands on any new stats if someone out there has them. Cheers all! Paul ________________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 22:02:03 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: # of divisions in the world > From: Jim & Peta Lawrie > > > On the ground, the infantry are less separated by a technology gulf > except for NVGs and battlefield surveillance, towards the end of WW2 they > were using assault rifles and one shot tank killers. Realistically, it > depends on your battlefield, technology really prevails except against > massively out of balance troop ratios on the deserts and plains. > Jim > I agree with your first sentence here about plain ol' infantry being somewhat similiar. But I don't understand what you were getting at in the second one. Do understand correct that you are saying: technology prevails EXCEPT in unbalanced quantities in open terrain? It would seem to me to be the opposite, that in open terrain the high tech forces would be at an even greater advantage. In the open is where the additional range of modern weapons, better mobility, better C3, and air superiority of modern armies would seem the most decisive. The jungles, mountains, and cities are the places that infantry in the defense could be effective even against a technologically superior opponent. Of course, I would think that one of the main reasons the cities were so defendable in WWII in Europe was that so many structures were built of stone. Every house could provide useful cover. I don't recall hearing that in the pacific theater the villages and towns provided the much tactical significance. Maybe they did and I just don't know. Do any of the WWII history buffs out there know? Anyway, it seems to me that bad terrain would seem to help level the technological playing field, not open terrain. It might be a reasonable T2K scenario to have a WWII tank division's vehicles pulled out of mothballs by the Soviets and sent into the meat grinder in western Poland. Or maybe a bunch of US WWII vehicles un-mothballed and sent into Poland. Or maybe a more typical US thing to do would be to 'donate' them to West German forces, so they get stuck using them. Can you imagine the looks on the commanders faces when they see that all the 'new' tanks they are getting are Patton tanks ... Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 13:18:19 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: # of divisions in the world >I agree with your first sentence here about plain ol' infantry being >somewhat similiar. But I don't understand what you were getting at in the >second one. Do understand correct that you are saying: technology prevails >EXCEPT in unbalanced quantities in open terrain? Umm, a bit obtuse isn't it? This is what happens when you dash off a post before you dash out the door! How about: "technology really prevails, except against massively out of balance troop ratios, on the deserts and plains." Scans a bit better! >Of course, I would think that one of the main reasons the cities were so >defendable in WWII in Europe was that so many structures were built of >stone. Every house could provide useful cover. I don't recall hearing that >in the pacific theater the villages and towns provided the much tactical >significance. Maybe they did and I just don't know. Do any of the WWII >history buffs out there know? Anyway, it seems to me that bad terrain would >seem to help level the technological playing field, not open terrain. Mainila was a bad situation from what I recall but it mainly seemed to be a case of sutting supply and approach routes. >It might be a reasonable T2K scenario to have a WWII tank division's >vehicles pulled out of mothballs by the Soviets and sent into the meat >grinder in western Poland. Or maybe a bunch of US WWII vehicles >un-mothballed and sent into Poland. Or maybe a more typical US thing to do >would be to 'donate' them to West German forces, so they get stuck using >them. Can you imagine the looks on the commanders faces when they see that >all the 'new' tanks they are getting are Patton tanks ... >Walter Ivan *never* throws anything away. There's warehouses with T-34's in them in Russia to this day, as well as SU-100 assault guns etc.. Our cantonment at Tarnobrzeg was probed by some infantry, so our PCs all stood to in the well-built bunkers we'd constructed in the autumn (fall, you wierd US guys!) at night time. Out of the blizzard comes these strange, fast little shapes which we assume are some kind of APC. Some nasty moments later we were having 85mm shells slamming into our bunkers, we counted eight dead T-34/85's after the action. Important notes - WW2 tanks must stop to shoot, their vision is even more restricted than their modern counterparts and the commo is very primitive. Ivan often used little signal flags used by the tank commander (who also loaded the gun in early T-34's) and even the most advanced needed a seperate crewman to run the radios, although he generally used the forward hull MG as well. WW2 guns are slower to shoot with rangefinders as well, I think all the tank guns fire too fast in T2K anyway. 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, 8 Jul 2000 04:48:09 +0100 From: "Roger Stenning" Subject: Re: Camoflage! > >Take a look at what happens when you use toilet paper for Camoflage > > > > > >http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images/0293.jpg > > Was that for field camouflage, or was that just for the parade? Or did someone not like their breakfast?! "Woah, t'weren't bleedin' camo, t'were bleedin' confetti!" to quote an old Fieldcraft Instructor of mine...! Best regards, Roger Stenning Webmaster, the Impossible Scenarios Group www.the-isg.co.uk ICQ: 74721632 UK Amateur Radio call sign: G1LIW ________________________________________________________ LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this message may not be those of the ISG. The information in this email and in any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message, delete any copies held on your systems and notify the sender immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this email for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of its content to any other person. *************************************************************************** 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 #154 *************************************