twilight2000-digest Thursday, July 13 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 165 The following topics are covered in this digest: Missile Defence and T2K topics Re: Add On Armor Bullpups Re: ANZAC leg-pulling Re: Missle Defense Re: Bullpups Re: Bullpups Re: Bullpups trip to poland Re: Bullpups Re: Bullpups Chracter creation... Mercenary careers? Re: Bullpups Re: Chracter creation... Mercenary careers? RE: Chracter creation... Mercenary careers? Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense RE: trip to poland RE: Chracter creation... Mercenary careers? Re: Chracter creation... Mercenary careers? RE: Chracter creation... Mercenary careers? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:01:42 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Missile Defence and T2K topics Anybody sick of endless, non-T2K political arguments are reminded that Loonz runs an alternate list at: t2k@egroups.com it's beginning message is; "A managed discussion group of Twilight 2000 and Merc 2000. With general sidebar concerning tactics and equipment as it relates to playing or refereeing these games. This is not a geopolitical or poli-sci bullypulpit and this type extended discussion is unwelcome." So rather than just throw your hands up and unsubscribe as I know from offlist conversations that many of you are thinking of, give that list a go. 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, 12 Jul 2000 16:36:37 AKDT From: "Daniel G" Subject: Re: Add On Armor >From: "Walter Rebsch" >Reply-To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com >To: >Subject: Add On Armor >Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:16:33 -0500 > > > From: Stephen Dragoo > > > > >Another reason that it's good to put armored vehicles in a hull down > > >position. It increases the slope of the frontal armor (as well as > > >providing > > >cover for the lower hull). I haven't seen any rules for implementing a > > >game > > >advantage for such a position (other than for the cover), but there > > >probably > > >ought to be. > > > > Probably would need to be modifiers to locate the hull-down tank, > > as well as penalties to hit it with your weapons. > > > >Why would you think that the armor shouldn't be increased some in >effectiveness? That's what I was meaning. The cover is already talked >about in the rules, and the skill difficulty using RCN is completely up to >the referee anyway. I was thinking about a +10% to +30% modifier for the >armor value if hit from the front while in a hull down position would be >reasonable. > > > > > Actually, it's not so much that the extra plates make the jet less > > effective, it's that it makes the jet have to penetrate more > > steel and air before hitting the real armor. > > > >The little bit of steel and air is probably much less important than the >difference in focal point. Remember that it's the focus that makes a HE >round into a HEAT round. Old HEAT rounds detonated a cylinder of explosive >to create a jet. It started diverging as soon as it was formed. Modern >ones create a jet which is a converging cone so the energy per >cross-sectional area is higher. Thats the reason you need the standoff >nose. And the reason its so obvious on the TOW missles would be simply >because the charge they use has a long focal length. It's probably a >closely guarded secret where to make it focus on the armor your trying to >penetrate for best effect. Exactly on the surface would seem an intuitive >spot, but is high energy plasma intuitive? I'd guess it would be best >about >1/2 way through the armor of the heaviest vehicle it's designed to go >against, but that's just a guess. The other reason for the long probe on the later TOW missiles is the explosive charge on the tip of the probe. This charge is supposed to detonate ERA before the main warhead goes off, decreasing the effectiveness of the ERA. > > > > > I imagine the only weapons to gain any extra effectiveness would be the > > older, less capable types anyway (maybe even the old Dragon > > ATGM). > >If I had to bet on one, I'd bet the original TOW would be helped by a >standoff of a reasonable amount. Or any other HEAT round that used a >focusing charge without a standoff probe (as opposed to the older straight >jet). > >In the context of blowing up a light tank with an ATGM (where this >originally started), the armor is so incredibly weak compared to the >penetraing power of the missle that, what we are discussing really only >amounts to how far the molten metal splatters out the other side of the >vehicle as it blows up. So will be characters be at -200 hits or at -500 >hits when they are vaporized? > > > As far > > as any penalties from the additional armor, well, speed would be > > affected by > > aerodynamics and engine power. I can't see the aerodynamics on > > an MBT being > > made any worse than they already are, so that shouldn't be a > > factor. As for > > engine power, I think that most of this extra armor tends to be placed >on > > older tank models which are already somewhat slow (ie. the 30 mph > > M60 MBT), > > and therefore aren't as adversely affected by a slight drop in speed. > > Besides, if I remember right, upgrading the armor on the M1 to use the > > depleted uranium in conjunction with the Chobham only increased > > the weight > > by about 5 metric tons or so, and definitely no more than 10 > > tons. Even at > > 10 tons, though, you're still only talking about a 7-8% drop in top >speed > > and range. Considering the speed of HEAT shells and ATGM's, that > > speed drop > > shouldn't be too significant, and even the range penalty isn't too >severe. > > > >There is no way that you could armor a light tank into working like an MBT >in any field expedient sense and still have it function properly. The >biggest problems would probably lay in the suspension. Remember that >dynamic loading is many times higher than static loading. It would not be >uncommon to see 10 times the weight of the vehicle applied to the >suspension >regularly during hard driving. Ever wonder why a lot of trailer hitchs >only >have a 500 lb tongue load limit? Even though it could probably hold 5000 >no >problem? Because when you hit a pot hole at 70 mph, that 500 lbs hits the >hitch with a 20 G shock, making it momentarily take 10k lbs of force. If >you put 'only' 10 extra tons on a suspension designed for 40 tons, sure top >speed (a function of mechanical rolling resistance and air drag) isn't >affected much. But take it off road and see if you don't start bending >axles, blowing shocks, and breaking brackets when you start to push it. >These things break occasionally on non-overloaded vehicles. Now if your >only going to drive is like a grandma on nice smooth pavment, it'll >probably >work great. If you treat it like a tank, it'll be broken very quickly. >But >then you have a really cool stationary pillbox (or death trap) ... :) > > > >Of course, I could be entirely missing the point of the additional >armor > > >that was actually refered to above. The bars could actually be > > meant to be > > >a non-symetric obstruction to try to mess up the focus of the HEAT jet. > > >But > > >unless you were privy to info from the designer it would be hard to >tell > > >what exactly they were trying to do. I've heard people have tried > > >imbedding > > >ultra-hard steel bars in soft aluminum in a pattern to attempt > > to break an > > >incomming SABOT round into pieces, so maybe someone has tried something > > >similiar to that to disrupt a HEAT plasma jet... > > > > It's probably the old idea of sandbagging your tank, as used in > > WWII and by > > the Israelis in recent time. I can't remember the site I saw it at, but > > they've discovered in the field that a layer of 3 or 4 sandbags > > significantly reduces the effectiveness of HEAT warheads (I'm > > thinking they > > said something like 50% effectiveness or less). > > > >Can you imagine some dude welding brackets and bars strong enough to carry >a >3 sandbag thick wall all over a tank. That would be funny. Hey buddy, >look >at that rolling pile of sandbags! If anything, I think I'd try wooden logs >before sandbags. You could make it lighter and it MIGHT not completely >come >apart after the first hit. Granted, it wouldn't protect quite as much, but >if you gotta add something it would seem and easier choice. > >And even then, one guy with a grenade launcher could remove half your >sandbags (or splinter a log) in about 5 seconds ... The sandbags do work to protect the vehicle. Also, if attached properly, they are fairly damage resistant. If the grenadier takes out one bag, he will have 2-3 more to deal with underneath. Another device that the russians used in WWII is sheets of light guage steel to predetonate HEAT warheads. This was designed against older style warheads and worked quite well. - -Daniel > >Walter >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com >with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > ________________________________________________________________________ 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, 13 Jul 2000 12:57:03 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Bullpups This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0079_01BFECC9.D723EA20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Had a conversation with a UK Terrorital Army Platoon CO last week. He = mentioned they teach left handers to fire as the righties and hence save = the problems of switching the ejection port blanking cover. Is this the same with the Steyr in the Australian and New Zealand = armies? Peter G - ------=_NextPart_000_0079_01BFECC9.D723EA20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Had a conversation with a UK Terrorital = Army=20 Platoon CO last week. He mentioned they teach left handers to fire as = the=20 righties and hence save the problems of switching the ejection port = blanking=20 cover. Is this the same with the Steyr in the = Australian=20 and New Zealand armies? Peter G - ------=_NextPart_000_0079_01BFECC9.D723EA20-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:31:13 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: ANZAC leg-pulling > > ABs don't have a chance > > Hah! yourself. Enjoy your World Cups while you've got them, the Kiwi hunt > for the return of the silverware is on..... > I tell you, we are getting brutal this year. Just look what Dempsey did to > South Africa and the Soccer World Cup, and what John Reid did to those two > Pakistani bowlers.... :-] > (actually, both of those are embarrasing....) We know the Kiwi's are in trouble when they are looking at other things than the AB's 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:30:11 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Missle Defense > The other main reason that smaller and/or poorer nations try to get Nukes > and/or missile technologhy is simply because of (inter)national prestige. > It's a good way to get to sit at the grown ups table in international > matters. I believe India is wanting a seat on the Security Council that is why they have been flexing nuclear muscle. 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:39:14 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Bullpups This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01BFEBDC.A863ABA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nope, we have left handed weapons.....The other thing is it isn't the = ejection port cover that is the problem. It is the extractor claw on the bolt, = that=20 determines which side the round is ejected. So to have a left handed=20 weapon you have to change the bolt. The ejection port cover is easy enough that a grunt could swap it over. Ballistix - ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01BFEBDC.A863ABA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nope, we have left handed weapons.....The other = thing is it=20 isn't the ejection port cover that is the problem. It is the extractor = claw on=20 the bolt, that determines which side the round is ejected. So to = have a left=20 handed weapon you have to change the bolt. The ejection = port cover is=20 easy enough that a grunt could swap it over. Ballistix - ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01BFEBDC.A863ABA0-- *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jul 2000 05:45:47 GMT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: Bullpups >Had a conversation with a UK Terrorital Army Platoon CO last week. He >mentioned they teach left handers to fire as the righties and hence save >the problems of switching the ejection port blanking cover. > >Is this the same with the Steyr in the Australian and New Zealand armies? Sorry I can't answer as an Aussie, so I'll just have to do it as a poor bloody Yank ;) According to the sources I've seen on the Steyr AUG, essentially the ejection port cover determines which way the case will be ejected -- that is, whichever side of the port isn't covered. Of course, they don't say what happens if you leave the port cover completely off... ________________________________________________________________________ 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, 13 Jul 2000 01:10:30 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Bullpups Stephen Dragoo wrote: > >Had a conversation with a UK Terrorital Army Platoon CO last week. He > >mentioned they teach left handers to fire as the righties and hence save > >the problems of switching the ejection port blanking cover. > > > >Is this the same with the Steyr in the Australian and New Zealand armies? > > Sorry I can't answer as an Aussie, so I'll just have to do it as a poor > bloody Yank ;) > > According to the sources I've seen on the Steyr AUG, essentially the > ejection port cover determines which way the case will be ejected -- that > is, whichever side of the port isn't covered. Of course, they don't say > what happens if you leave the port cover completely off... > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > What would you do with left eye dominant people? *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jul 2000 01:32:32 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: trip to poland I just came back today after 3 weeks in Poland. At some point I'll write something to the list on it. I got some interesting pictures Ill have to scan too. *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jul 2000 09:28:00 GMT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: Re: Bullpups >Stephen Dragoo wrote: > > > Sorry I can't answer as an Aussie, so I'll just have to do it as a poor > > bloody Yank ;) > > > > According to the sources I've seen on the Steyr AUG, essentially the > > ejection port cover determines which way the case will be ejected -- >that > > is, whichever side of the port isn't covered. Of course, they don't say > > what happens if you leave the port cover completely off... >What would you do with left eye dominant people? Depends on if they're shooting left or right handed. Right-handed, port cover goes on the left and the case flies out to the right. Left-handed, port cover goes on the right and the case flies out to the left. ________________________________________________________________________ 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, 13 Jul 2000 12:48:47 +0100 From: "Roger Stenning" Subject: Re: Bullpups Peter - > Had a conversation with a UK Terrorital Army Platoon > CO last week. He mentioned they teach left handers > to fire as the righties and hence save the problems of > switching the ejection port blanking cover. Since UK Armed Forces use the L85A1 ('SA-80'), which is only manufactured for a right-side ejection, I find it difficult to think that this officer actually wasn't leading you on. No production models were made in left-hand configuration. Five to ten pre-production prototypes, AFAIK, yes, but not the production weapons. All lefties in the UK Armed Forces are trained as right-hand shooters, and for those of us with left eye dominance, even though we're right-handed, it's a bitch. Out of interest, do you know what regiment this officer served with (He sounds like a complete plank)? > Is this the same with the Steyr in the Australian and > New Zealand armies? As I understand the AUG, there's a tool in unit armouries that allows any AUG to be modified to left-handed configuration. This involves, as I understand it, removing the bolt, changing the position of the extractor claw, and replacing it, and swapping the ejection port cover to the other side of the rifle. I'm told it's a ten minute job. My info comes from a former member of the Irish Army (Rangers). HTH Best regards, Roger Stenning (formerly 24910712 Cpl Stenning, R, RMP(v), British Territorial Army) 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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:14:35 +0300 From: "Merondil Twiceborn" Subject: Chracter creation... Mercenary careers? Hey! I was just thinking about a character that was a mercenary before joining the force and going to war. Anyone got any advice or maybe the "skills package" ready for that kind of career? (Pardon my english but I really don't know what they are called in the original version, here in Finland we got our "own" translated 2.2 T2K) Thanks in advance, this list is superb! - -Eero Haapamäki *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:17:47 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Bullpups Did anyone receive my previous post on this topic? Basically it went along the lines of this.... Anyone can change the side of the ejection port cover on the Steyer. It just slides on and off, using a special clip set up. The problem is is exactly as mentioned below. The extractor claw needs to be set up for a left hander. Usually if you have the parts you can just change over the bolt, about a 5 second job. Otherwise you need to get the RAEME guys (armorers) to do the mods on it. Ballistix > As I understand the AUG, there's a tool in unit armouries that allows any > AUG > to be modified to left-handed configuration. This involves, as I understand > it, removing the bolt, changing the position of the extractor claw, and > replacing it, and swapping the ejection port cover to the other side of the > rifle. I'm told it's a ten minute job. My info comes from a former member of > the Irish Army (Rangers). *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jul 2000 17:20:36 +0100 From: "Roger Stenning" Subject: Re: Chracter creation... Mercenary careers? Merondil Twiceborn wrote... No offence, mate, but being born ONCE was enough for me ! Anyhow. > I was just thinking about a character that was a mercenary before joining > the force and going to war. Anyone got any advice or maybe the "skills > package" ready for that kind of career? (Pardon my english but I really > don't know what they are called in the original version, here in Finland we > got our "own" translated 2.2 T2K) Check out Merc:2000 - it should fit your requirements. > Thanks in advance, this list is superb! You're welcome! 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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:39:46 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Chracter creation... Mercenary careers? > From: Merondil Twiceborn > > I was just thinking about a character that was a mercenary before joining > the force and going to war. Anyone got any advice or maybe the "skills > package" ready for that kind of career? (Pardon my english but I really > don't know what they are called in the original version, here in > Finland we got our "own" translated 2.2 T2K) I've have only ever used v1 rules for T2K, so I don't know anything about skills packages. But I have a couple suggestions of a general nature: I would guess Mercs would be primarily experienced as infantry. Some may have a large groups of languages they know a little bit in due to extensive travels. They would probably have a reasonable knowledge of fixing things since they probably aren't used to much in the way or organized support. Most importantly, Mercs are probably rather good at what they do since they are in a profession with little room for being in second place. Either that or they don't last long ... Thinking about this just got me think about something else: In the v1 rules there isn't any method of progression in coolness. How does someone get better? Does v2 or v2.2 have rules for improving coolness, kinda like a skill? Or are their other people that have developed their own rules? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:22:41 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Adam Betteridge wrote: > > > That's a pretty damned biased logic. I'm sure the russians were just as > > afraid that the US would try to kill and destroy them. (Maybe even more so > > given the historical tendency of whatever nation is current "top dog" to > > sooner or later go after mother russia.) > > Biased logic? Please show me ONE instance of where the US treated > anothe country as the Soviet Union treated Hungary. Just ONE! > When the US was asked to leave Libya, we did! When the Soviet Union > was asked to leave Hungary, they invaded with tanks and crushed all > opposition. Please show me how that makes the US the agressor. > > John, ever hear of a little place called Cuba or the Bay of Pigs? I seem to > recall US involvement there after a revolution that went against them. How > about El Salvador? And for that matter Grenada where the US invaded a soveriegn > dependency of there ally the UK without being asked. The Cold War was a two way > street. Both sides did a lot of shitty things. Maybe you missed it, but the Bay of Pigs didn't exactly end with US tanks rolling down the streets of Havana, did it? Maybe you missed just who we were fighting in El Salvador. Please show mw the US tanks in their capitol city. Grenada, the place where communist Cuba was building an airfield? You mean that Grenada? Was Grenada really a UK ally, allowing Cuba to build an airfield there? There's NO comparison between the US and the USSR. John II > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:32:58 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 01:44 PM 7/12/00 -0500, Walter Rebsch wrote: > > >I guess we all have our opinions. Personally, I thought the B2 was money > >well spent ... > > > Why? What useful thing does it do? Its original mission was penetrating > Soviet airspace to destroy ICBM's before they could be launched. However, > a) this is destabilizing (see earlier discussion), b) it probably wouldn't > have worked anyway (you have to have near 100% success to make this > worthwile, and that success has to be nearly instantaneous, or you spur the > enemy into the "use it or lose it" mode), and b) it's _hideously_ expensive. Destabilizing? That was never proven, that's just your OPINION. Probably wouldn't have worked anyway? Where did you get that from? Hideously expensive? Again, your opinion. BTW, the cost went up dramatically when they stopped construction at 21 rather than building the number originally planned. > > >Not only that, compare the development cycle time of a new jet fighter to > >the training time of a new pilot. Pretty lopsided, huh? So our ability to > >respond to new emerging threats is dimished greatly.... > > And that long development time applies equally to emerging threats, right? > There are no planes under development that would threaten our our > superiority--even if a technologically superior one came along, it couldn't > be produced in anywhere near the numbers needed to threaten us. On the > other hand, there is very real and present need for more pilots. And you know who is building what in the world, right? > > >...but we got lots of > >bodies to throw into the meat grinder. Now atrophy the military industrial > >complex significantly and compare the development times again ... now we're > >really in trouble if we want to stay ahead ... or if the intel guys slip up > >and only give us 6 months warning on a new fighter threat ... > > > How does buying cheaper jets in place of more expensive ones "atrophy the > military industrial complex"? What other country exactly has a > military-industrial complex in full swing on a scale that would remotely > threaten the U.S.? How do we know who we may be fighting in 25 years. Maybe I should remind you that in 1917, Japan was our ally. Was it the same case in 1942? We're not talking about money so much as technology. Are you saying that we should keep building the same jets until they're totally obsolete? > > >Myth or no myth, the maintenence of the military industrial complex alone is > >worth it. Without continuous use, that R&D capacity will atrophy. > > If that's the problem, fund the R&D but not the production. And let the production lines die. Wait, we can start up non-existant production lines in a day and have completed planes out in the field in a week, right? > > >> > The bottom line is that if you want new technology, it's cheaper to > >> invest in > >> > the new technology itself rather than relying on spin-offs--it is ALWAYS > >> > cheaper that way. Spin-offs can _defray_ the cost of new > >> weapons systems, > >> > but since you could always get _more_ technology by spending just on > >> > technology, the spin-offs can't justify the weapon system by > >> > themselves--the weapon system _has_ to do something useful. > > > >Yeah, maybe so. But IMO its still worth it. Simply the price you gotta > >pay. > > > At what price? What's the cost at which it's no longer worth it? Are > infinite costs worthwhile? I have yet to ever see infinite costs. What cost do we place on our lives? What cost do we place on our freedom? I don't want to be forced to surrender to every dictator that threatens us. John II > > 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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:34:38 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 06:40 PM 7/11/00 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > > > Biased logic? Please show me ONE instance of where the US treated > >anothe country as the Soviet Union treated Hungary. Just ONE! > > When the US was asked to leave Libya, we did! When the Soviet Union > >was asked to leave Hungary, they invaded with tanks and crushed all > >opposition. Please show me how that makes the US the agressor. > > > Read a history of the Caribbean in the early 20th century. (Would the U.S. > do that _now_? No, but you should at least be aware of the history.) > > Scott Orr > Early 20th century. Please show me where US policy since 1945 mirrors pre-1940. The one who is not aware of history is you. John II *************************************************************************** > 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, 13 Jul 2000 14:14:36 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: trip to poland > From: Peter Vieth > > I just came back today after 3 weeks in Poland. At some point I'll write > something to the list on it. I got some interesting pictures Ill > have to scan > too. Cool. Speaking of pictures ... I promised to scan my Saudi pics and post them on the web. Well, as the eternal procrastinator, it's taken me a bit longer than I expected. I've got them all scanned. But I've only got descriptions of half of them so far. Then I gotta do thumbnails, write the html menu with the thumbnails, then figure out where I can put up 6 MB of poorly shot grainy pics of Saudi on the web, then wait for the line complaints about my crappy photography skills ... Of course it was on a pathetic old 110 Vivatar camera that accumulated so much sand it froze halfway through a roll ruining all my photos of Iraq ... One of these years I'll have a chance to finally finish ... really ... :) 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, 13 Jul 2000 19:43:32 GMT From: "Stephen Dragoo" Subject: RE: Chracter creation... Mercenary careers? >I've have only ever used v1 rules for T2K, so I don't know anything about >skills packages. > >But I have a couple suggestions of a general nature: > >I would guess Mercs would be primarily experienced as infantry. More likely to have had experience in a Special Operations branch of some type (SAS/Green Berets/Rangers/Spetznaz, depending on nationality), simply because mercs seemed to be employed more in guerilla/special ops type operations than your typical stand-up infantry fight, let alone being part of armored/tank units. >Some may have a large groups of languages they know a little bit in due to >extensive travels. > >They would probably have a reasonable knowledge of fixing things since they >probably aren't used to much in the way or organized support. Not to mention their own well-cared-for personal weapons, with lots of extra ammo. >Most importantly, Mercs are probably rather good at what they do since they >are in a profession with little room for being in second place. Either >that >or they don't last long ... Not exactly the kind of profession you expect to collect your pension in.... ________________________________________________________________________ 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, 13 Jul 2000 23:20:03 +0300 From: "Merondil Twiceborn" Subject: Re: Chracter creation... Mercenary careers? Thanx a LOT guys, you have been a great help. Walter... I meant the basic training you get when you are in the army for the first season... And coolness in like not going into panic while in battle and stuff?? - -Eero Haapamäki *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jul 2000 15:35:34 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Chracter creation... Mercenary careers? > From: Stephen Dragoo > > >I would guess Mercs would be primarily experienced as infantry. > > More likely to have had experience in a Special Operations branch of some > type (SAS/Green Berets/Rangers/Spetznaz, depending on > nationality), simply > because mercs seemed to be employed more in guerilla/special ops type > operations than your typical stand-up infantry fight, let alone > being part > of armored/tank units. I wouldn't necessarily say MORE likely. But I guess I phrased by original reponse poorly. I meant they would have infantry operations type skills. Not tank driving and aritillery firing stuff. Let me preface this by saying: these are just my opinons and I'm no military psychologist or anything. But about the Special Operations soldier going into mercenary type work, I wouldn't say that would be very typical. Granted, I didn't know all THAT many Green Berets, but they didn't strike me as the sort to be Mercs all that much. I've known a lot more Marines, Ranger, and Airborne guys that would seem like they might get into Merc work. SF guys tended to be more reserved and cool headed than the others. Airborne guys tended to be more blindly agressive than most, I guess because we suffered from a little envy of the SF guys (7th and 5th group were just a mile down Ardennes street from us) and we had to make up for it by constantly proving how tough we were. This was fun the first 2 years, but got old ... This might sound a little nit-picky, and if so, I appologize, but to clear up a myth about beret's in the US Army: Everyone in an SF unit wears a green beret (even the supply weenies), but only the guys that go through the Q course wear the shoulder tab. Likewise in a Ranger unit. They all wear black berets, but only guys that passed ranger school wear the shoulder tab. There is no airborne shoulder tab that means anything. What looks like a shoulder tab in the 82nd is really part of the unit insignia. Airborne guys have a pair of wings on their left chest to designate they passed jump school. SF qualified guys (people that completed the school) that are not in SF units still wear their tab, but NOT a green beret. Same for Rangers and Airborne with the berets. Berets are a unit thing, not a skill/school/qualification thing. Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #165 *************************************