twilight2000-digest Tuesday, July 18 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 167 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: recoilless rifles Re: Fallout Re: recoilless rifles Re: Bullpups Re: Fw: recoilless rifles Re: Fw: recoilless rifles weapon stats Re: Missle Defense Re: Missle Defense Somewhat OT: Interesting Article Re: Fw: recoilless rifles Re: Fw: recoilless rifles Re: Fw: recoilless rifles Mercenary enemy organisations Re: Fw: recoilless rifles RE: Fw: recoilless rifles Re: Fw: recoilless rifles RE: SAS in Iraq Books US Recoilless Rifles (first draft) RE: US Recoilless Rifles (first draft) RE: recoilless rifles RE: US Recoilless Rifles (first draft) RE: US Recoilless Rifles (first draft) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 08:30:01 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: recoilless rifles >> The Armbrust and Panzerfaust 3 are recoiless weapons that discharge >> small plastic flakes instead of breach gasses, and all you need to be safe >> with them is eye and ear protection. > >Anyone know why they don't use a sand bag (or plastic flakes, or a plastic >tank of water, or anything that will produce somewhat non-lethal shrapnel) >in RR's? Then you wouldn't need so much propellant to produce the same >amount of chamber pressure ... I'm not sure, but I do know that the armbrust uses a complicated twin piston setup to trap the breach gas and expel a carefully calculated amount of plastic flake. As it's a one-shot it doesn't matter if it doesn't survive the event so it locks somewhat permenantlty! Maybe you could design a method that allows you to unlock the pistons after firing? Anyway, I think it's beyond the cantonment armourer . . . >And it seems like you could build an auto-loader somewhat easily if you made >the RR like a revolver (you know ... multiple chambers). Anybody done that? The useful RCLs use something close on a cannon shell and it's probably faster to use the breach mechanism they come with. A big revolver cylinder will add a lot to the weight of the weapon and might be more complicated than building six RCLs! : ) >Maybe a group of guys with a machine shop setup in a town over the winter >could build/test/debug such a thing if they had 2 RR's to use as parts ... >Walter Yep, gives you a good excuse to avoid sitting in the snowed under perimeter bunkers when the CO 'ask's' for volunteers! 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, 15 Jul 2000 08:41:15 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Fallout >Yes, extended debates like this can get annoying. However, the topic of >ABM defense is pertinent to T2K, since nuclear weapons are part of the >conflict. Remember that one person's idea of what's applicable to the >game may differ drastically from another's, and vice versa. So you might >not want to read this discussion of ABM defense. Okay, you're definitely >entitled to your opinion. Personally, I find it quite interesting (and it >has given me ideas for T2K and M2K games). On the other hand, I find >things like long, drawn-out discussions about radios (for example)very >boring and not useful. However, those of you who like such technical >details have no problem at all with it, and that's fine -- it's just not >my cup of tea, that's all. >T.P.M. Well, I think you're a bit off the track here, as I'm interested in the radio side of it for an example, I'll tell you why. If a PC asks me why he can't call High Command and get orders and I look at the rules book and tell him that the only radios available only reach 50 klicks it sounds just a bit stupid. Like, the whole army only uses a chain of 50km radios? So I research it a bit and find out more info and as a bit of help to other GMs I'll put it on the list, along with a request from the radio experts to clarify stuff. But I don't involve myself in a two week flag waving debate about my radio being more moral than your radio. 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, 14 Jul 2000 16:11:51 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: Re: recoilless rifles >From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" > > >And it seems like you could build an auto-loader somewhat easily if you >made > >the RR like a revolver (you know ... multiple chambers). Anybody done >that? > > The useful RCLs use something close on a cannon shell and it's >probably >faster to use the breach mechanism they come with. A big revolver cylinder >will add a lot to the weight of the weapon and might be more complicated >than building six RCLs! : ) But one rifle with a 6 shot cylinder is still lighter than 6 breechloading rifles. It would be more complicated, but every weapon has trade-offs. 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, 14 Jul 2000 01:24:51 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Bullpups At 11:25 PM 7/12/00 +0800, Ballistix wrote: >If you must close one eye....it will start to train you to use the >other. Mind you closing one eye is bad in a combat situation >but it's better than getting sniper eye (for those that don't know >sniper eye is where the recoil of the weapon forces the scope >back and splits your eye open). > Yes, but the other eye is slightly near-sighted. :) 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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:23:40 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Fw: recoilless rifles At 05:32 PM 7/14/00 +1000, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > > In a associated note, we had a discussion a while back wondering if the >76.2mm soviet round for the BMP-1 and PT-76 would fit the Scorpion gun. I've >since found that the Soviet weapon is a Hi-Lo pressure gun with a venturi >plate fitted to the front of the shellcase and is totally incompatible. > What's a venturi plate? 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, 15 Jul 2000 09:26:21 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Fw: recoilless rifles >> In a associated note, we had a discussion a while back wondering if the >>76.2mm soviet round for the BMP-1 and PT-76 would fit the Scorpion gun. I've >>since found that the Soviet weapon is a Hi-Lo pressure gun with a venturi >>plate fitted to the front of the shellcase and is totally incompatible. >> >What's a venturi plate? >Scott Orr Essentially, it's a barrier between the breach and the barrel that bleeds gas at a lower pressure into the barrel in order for the weapon to have a lighter barrel. 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, 14 Jul 2000 18:38:11 AKDT From: "Daniel G" Subject: weapon stats Could someone who knows both v1 and v2 please explain how to convert v2 stats into v1. I play v1 and a lot of the info out there is for v2. thanks, Daniel ________________________________________________________________________ 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, 14 Jul 2000 15:06:16 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Bjorn Nilsson wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > > > > > > Hmmm...purposefully starving children to death to build your military > > is rational? > > > > If you're the ruleing elite of a totalitarian regime yes. > > Increased poverty and starvation ==> Less chance of people beeing > politicaly aware and hence less chance of you losing power. > > More military ==> less chance to lose power from both internal and > external miltary forces. > > Not nice mind you, but it is rational. (In its own twisted way.) > > /Bjorn Which is the point I was getting at. Another one: If wer're in a conventional war against them, and they've refrained from using their nuclear missiles while keeping them hidden (like iraqi Scuds in the Gulf War), then they will be more inclined to launch as your army advances on their capitol. A last desperate nuclear strike against teh USA would be exactly the thing that we would have to expect. Even though it might make more tactical sense to hit the invading army with the nuke, the value of striking the US mainland would have even more propaganda value to keep your own pwople fighting. 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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:13:21 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Missle Defense Bjorn Nilsson wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > > Bjorn Nilsson wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > > > > > > Also, the anology misses an important point. The Soviet/Russian > > > > missiles were designed and intended to threaten and intimidate everyone > > > > else. > > > > > > WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!?! > > > > > > Now my memory of post WW-II history may be playing tricks on my but IIRC > > > this is how things were done. > > > > > > Who built the first A-bomb, US or USSR??? > > > Answer: US > > > > > > Who built the first H-bomb??? > > > Also the US > > > > > > Which military alliance was formed first, NATO or Warsaw Pact? > > > Answer: NATO > > > > > > Similiar arguments could be made for who made the first intercontinental > > > bomber, first ICBM, first ballistic missile sub etc etc. > > > > > > Now, i'm not saying that the USA was always the aggresive party either, > > > but to say the opposite is simply not in occordance with the facts. > > > > > I never said the opposite. I said that the US position was to defend > > against agression, not promote it. > > Well, the USSR claimed the same on many occasions. You didn't belive them, > why the hell should they have belived you??? Historical fact. Remember, it didn't make any difference if we were the agressors or not, the USSR would (and did) paint the US that way for propaganda purposes. > > Now I (beeing from a so called "neutral" country and all) can't really > find any PROOF that either was lyeing and to a large extent i acctually > think both sides actually WERE more intrested in defense than aggression. > However, that's not to say that i would have any difficulty chosing sides > if it came to actuall fighting. I have friends who are from the former > Soviet union and I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to live like that. > That's not what this discussion is about anyway, of course the US is a > better country than Russia in almost all respects, that doesn't mean it's > infallable. (Same goes for the other NATO countries in a lot of ways) > > > If you think that the Warsaw Pact was > > a DEFENSIVE alliance, then you have news coming. > > Well, alliances are never offensive or defensive in them selves, it all > depends on how they are used. Why would there be a wharehouse full of West German street signs in East Germany if they didn't plan on eventually invading and using those signs to replace the ones already there? That doesn't sound like something that a person in a defensive alliance would do. > > > > > The US missiles were built as a response to that threat. When one > > > > party is determined to kill and destroy the other and the other party > > > > simply wants to survive, > > > > > > 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! > > Well there are some instances of similiar (although not as bad) behaviour > in latin america. Besides I don't think there has ever been a situation > even remotly similiar to the one in hungary in any country that is nearly > as vital a national security concern to the US as Hungary was to the USSR. > An other vital point to remember is that Hungary was an active axis nation > in WWII and therefor in a sence an occupied nation in 56. Not that this > makes it totaly OK (morally) in my book, but I can understand why they > felt they had to do it. And besides, when you're acting from a position of > inferiority you can't be all that touchy-feely about the rules. > > > 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. > > Libya aint hungary (see above), what would've happened if it had been say > Mexico??? We'll never know i guess. Like MMexico really has been in teh last 5 years or so? The current border sutuation between the US and Mexico cannot continue. BTW, we're not planning on invading them. John II > > Ohh well, this will be my last post on the subject before it totally > drives everyone crazy, the T2K relevance was lost long ago. > > /Bjorn > > *************************************************************************** > 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: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:05:11 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: Somewhat OT: Interesting Article While reading the news, I ran across this article about the Russian weapons fair in "NIZHNY TAGIL, Russia" on July 13. While not exactly pertaining to T2K directly, it would be helpful knowledge to those running Merc campaigns set in the current world situation. http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/071600russia-weapons.html Also, bear in mind you have to register with the Ney York Times to get access to their site, so until you do that, the link probably won't work. It's free, quick and simple. Just go to www.nytimes.com. Personally, I think it's worth doing since they tend to have halfway decent reporting on occasion. But those of you who don't like registering with sites or think this message is inappropriate for the list, please disregard this message. 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, 14 Jul 2000 20:02:13 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Fw: recoilless rifles At 09:26 AM 7/15/00 +1000, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: >>> In a associated note, we had a discussion a while back wondering if >the >>>76.2mm soviet round for the BMP-1 and PT-76 would fit the Scorpion gun. >I've >>>since found that the Soviet weapon is a Hi-Lo pressure gun with a venturi >>>plate fitted to the front of the shellcase and is totally incompatible. >>> >>What's a venturi plate? >>Scott Orr > > Essentially, it's a barrier between the breach and the barrel that >bleeds gas at a lower pressure into the barrel in order for the weapon to >have a lighter barrel. I'm not sure I understand what that means, or how you'd fit it to the front of the shellcase. Could you clarify? Thanks, 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, 16 Jul 2000 11:50:24 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Fw: recoilless rifles >> Essentially, it's a barrier between the breach and the barrel that >>bleeds gas at a lower pressure into the barrel in order for the weapon to >>have a lighter barrel. > >I'm not sure I understand what that means, or how you'd fit it to the front >of the shellcase. Could you clarify? >Scott Orr Okay, sure. Sorry about the dry technical stuff here guys. This is Excerpted from Ian V. Hoggs "Artillery, 1920 to 1963" The problem, it will be remembered, was to devise a weapon which was light in weight and which used as little propellant as possible. The High-Low Pressure gun had a very light barrel but a fairly substantial breech and chamber. The projectile was based on an existing 8 em mortar bomb, fm-stabilized and streamlined, converted internally to become a hollow-charge missile. The cartridge case used was the standard case long in service with the 105 mm leFH 18 field howitzer; thus the basic components were items which were in ready supply and of proved serviceability. In the mouth of the cartridge case@ was placed a heavy steel disc pierced with eight venturi holes, and the tail of the projectile was anchored to this plate by a shearable pin. Inside the case was a charge of 36O gm (12.7 ounces) of powder. When this round was loaded, the bomb lay in the smooth-bored barrel of the gun, while the heavy steel plate in the mouth of the cartridge was butted against a step in the front end of the chamber, so that it could not move forward. When the charge was fired, it exploded inside the case and developed therein a pressure of about 1 1 00 kg/cm' (6 tons- /in') and this high-pressure gas was leaked through the ven- turis in the plate and into the space behind the projectile. Due to its passage through the vents in the plate, the pressure build-up in the actual chamber of the gun was relatively slow, and when it reached about 550 kg/cm' (3 tonslin') the shear- able pin gave way and the projectile was projected up the bore and off to the target. Thus the high pressure of the explosion was confined within the heavy breech unit, whilst the pressure in the barrel which actually sent the bomb on its way was restricted to half the chamber value. The 8 cm P A W SH63 proved to be a great success; the first carriage designed for it was insufficiently robust and had to be strengthened; and in fact a large number were actually mounted on old 5 cm PAK 38 anti-tank gun carriages which were available. Some 200 guns were built between November 1944 and March 1945 and they proved to be most effective, the bomb being capable of piercing 140 mm (5. 5 inches) of plate. A 105 mm version, to be known as the 10 cm 10H64, was under development by Krupp as the war ended. Strangely, although the system was examined very thoroughly by ballistic experts of various countries in the post-war years, very little use has been made of the idea since then. It has been used in a Naval anti-submarine mortar in British service, in a shoulder-fired 40 mm grenade launcher by the Americans, and in a light tank gun by the Swiss. In more recent years it has re-appeared in a 73 mm gun mounted in the Soviet Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle BMP-1. *************************************************************************** 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, 15 Jul 2000 22:37:48 AKDT From: "Daniel G" Subject: Re: Fw: recoilless rifles So why not use a smaller charge and no venturi plate, giving you the same chamber pressure? - -Daniel >(snipped) > >I'm not sure I understand what that means, or how you'd fit it to the >front > >of the shellcase. Could you clarify? > >Scott Orr > > Okay, sure. > Sorry about the dry technical stuff here guys. This is Excerpted from >Ian V. Hoggs "Artillery, 1920 to 1963" >(snipped) ________________________________________________________________________ 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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:42:40 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Mercenary enemy organisations These FARC guys seem to fit the bill for an enemy organisation pretty well, this is an AP bulletin for today: BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) -- Thirteen police officers defending a small Andean mountain town from a rebel missile attack were executed after they surrendered, officials said. The military said Saturday that 20 guerrillas died in an army counterattack, but that report could not be independently confirmed. The police officers fought all night, but their ammunition ran out after daybreak Saturday in Roncesvalles, the besieged farming and ranching town 105 miles from Bogota in Tolima State. When the officers tried to surrender the guerrillas walked into the police barracks and shot them, national police chief Gen. Ernesto Gilibert told reporters. "They all had a point-blank shot to the head,'' the general said. "They died with their weapons in their hands, but no ammunition.'' One of the 15 officers stationed in Roncesvalles survived the attack and was being treated for his wounds, he said. Gilibert said army reinforcements couldn't get to the town until too late because the guerrillas had blown up sections of the highway in each direction. Air force strafing was ruled out for fear of hitting civilians, he added. The fighting was part of an apparent offensive by the country's largest leftist insurgency, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. Roncesvalles is the fifth town in the same southwestern area attacked by the FARC since Tuesday. The group is stepping up violence despite the exchange of cease-fire proposals with the government earlier this month. Peace talks between the FARC and the government of President Andres Pastrana are proceeding slowly without a truce. FARC attacks earlier in the week on the Tolima and Huila State towns of Santa Marta, Colombia, Vegalarga and Alpujarra killed five civilians and left police posts, banks and dozens of homes in ruins. As they did again Saturday in Roncesvalles -- and have made their trademark in recent years -- the rebels barraged the towns with homemade missiles fashioned from gas canisters packed with explosives. Police stations are typically the target, but they are usually located in the center of the town. Nearby homes and businesses are often flattened as well by the wildly firing missiles. There were no immediate reports, however, of civilian casualties in Saturday's fighting. The governor of Cundinamarca State -- which borders Tolima and Huila and whose capital is Bogota -- put a nighttime highway curfew into effect at the military's request. *************************************************************************** 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, 16 Jul 2000 16:47:26 +1000 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Fw: recoilless rifles >So why not use a smaller charge and no venturi plate, giving you the same >chamber pressure? >-Daniel Because with the plate you still get the same amount of gas, just steadily and not in one big belt that'd tear the barrel to bits. With a smaller charge your shell wouldn't have the carrying power. It's all a weight saving exercise it seems, although your making the ammo harder to make. 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, 16 Jul 2000 21:14:58 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Fw: recoilless rifles > >So why not use a smaller charge and no venturi plate, giving you the same > >chamber pressure? > >-Daniel > > Because with the plate you still get the same amount of gas, just > steadily and not in one big belt that'd tear the barrel to bits. With a > smaller charge your shell wouldn't have the carrying power. It's all a > weight saving exercise it seems, although your making the ammo harder to > make. > Jim Another thing you could do is use a slower burning powder, if you can get or make any ... 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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:59:25 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Fw: recoilless rifles At 11:50 AM 7/16/00 +1000, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: >>> Essentially, it's a barrier between the breach and the barrel that >>>bleeds gas at a lower pressure into the barrel in order for the weapon to >>>have a lighter barrel. >> >>I'm not sure I understand what that means, or how you'd fit it to the front >>of the shellcase. Could you clarify? >>Scott Orr > > Okay, sure. > Sorry about the dry technical stuff here guys. This is Excerpted from >Ian V. Hoggs "Artillery, 1920 to 1963" > Okay, thanks. 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: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:35:09 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: SAS in Iraq Books > From: Andrew Tiffany > > >Ok. I found it on Amazon. > > > >The title is "Bravo Two Zero: The True Story of an Sas Patrol Behind the > >Lines in Iraq". > > That's the one by Andy McNab, if I am not mistaken. There is also another > one called "The One That Got Away", can't remeber the author. Well, I got that book (Bravo Two Zero) in from Amazon and read it over the weekend. It's pretty good. I'm just glad I was never a POW. These guys were to sneak in, cut a communications cable, then look for SCUDs and ambush them if possible, otherwise call for air support to get 'em. They were going to avoid all contact with the enemy, except to attack a SCUD if they found one alone and they thought they could take it out themselves. And they didn't have any vehicles with them. I could hardly believe how incredibly under-equiped those guys were. They couldn't come up with even a single silenced weapon to bring with them, even though they tried to get one. One 1 night sight among the whole group of 8. Then they got screwed over by the intel guys. They were supposed to be in an uninhabited area, but there were dwellings and AAA sites all around. Then they were screwed over by the commo people. They were given a frequency for their radio which wouldn't bounce off the ionosphere effectively at that lattitude, so it didn't work. Then the 4 small escape radios, which were supposedly supposed to "get them incontact with an AWACS in 15 seconds", were 200 miles out of range and useless. Then the weather guys told them the weather would be pleasant and cool, but ended up sleeting and snowing. 1 guy died from exposure. 2 others were killed in firefights. 1 escaped by walking 180 miles without hardly any food or water. And 4 others were captured and tortured for weeks. Those SAS guys seemed like really tough well trained guys, but they seriously lacked in planning and support. Tactical planning by the team itself seemed pretty good, but the planning from their support people was shotty at best. But given their circumstances, the team did really well once the shit hit the fan. Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:50:04 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: US Recoilless Rifles (first draft) Here are four US recoilless rifles for use in T2K. While all have been out of US service for over 25 years, they were widely distributed and, with the disruption caused by the nuclar strikes, might have been taken out of reserve and issued to troops going to (or at) the front. Not all my data is complete; I couldn't find the shell weight for the M40 or M67. Range and damage numbers are calculated using the formulas in Fire, Fusion and Steel, and may not match up with similar weapons in T2K. GMs can adjust as they see fit. M18 57mm Recolless Rifle Service Dates: 1945-1963 US Weight: 18.2 kg gun, 15 kg tripod, 2.5 kg shell ROF: 1 RLD: 1 Short Range: 110 m HEAT: C:3, B:9, Pen 39C HE: C:5, B:17, Pen 2C WP: C:2, B:4, Pen nil M20 75mm Recoilless Rifle Service Dates: 1945-1954 US Weight: 52 kg gun, 15 kg tripod, 9.5 kg shell ROF: 1 RLD: 1 Short Range: 220 m HEAT: C:5, B:10, Pen 53C HE: C:8, B20 Pen 4C WP: C:2, B15, Pen nil M40 106mm Recoilless Rifle Service Dates: 1953-1972 US Weight: 113 kg gun, 13 kg spotting rifle, 88 kg mount ROF: 1 RLD: 2 Short Range: 320 m HEAT: C:11, B:15, Pen 78C HE: C:17, B:29, Pen 9C APERS: as flechette M67 90mm Recoilless Rifle Service Dates: 1961-1974 US Weight: 15.9 kg ROF: 1 RLD: 1 Short Range: 180 m HEAT: C:8, B:12, Pen 65C HE: C:12, B:24, Pen 7C APERS: as flechette A generous and sadistic GM, Brandon Cope ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:21:33 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: US Recoilless Rifles (first draft) > From: Brandon Cope > > Not all my data is complete; I couldn't find the shell weight for > the M40 or M67. > > >M67 90mm Recoilless Rifle >Service Dates: 1961-1974 US >Weight: 15.9 kg >ROF: 1 >RLD: 1 >Short Range: 180 m >HEAT: C:8, B:12, Pen 65C >HE: C:12, B:24, Pen 7C >APERS: as flechette A little additional info from: http://www.soft.net.uk/entrinet/us_smallarms.htm M-67, 90mm Recoilless Rifle Measuring 1,346-mm (53-inches) in length and weighing in at a hefty 16-kg (35-lbs), the M-67 was intended for use against AFV's and bunkers as a portable crew served weapon. It was a breech-loaded, single-shot weapon which was shaped like a long tube with the sight assembly and firing mechanism offset to the side in opposite directions about half way along the barrel. The breech was hinged on the right side, and had to be swung open to load the round. It was then swung closed and when the rifle was fired, the rear end of the shell case broke up and was blown out of the back of the breech block. Capable of maintaining a sustained fire rate of 1 round per minute, the weapon could be fired at an increased rate of 1 round every 6 seconds (10 rpm) by a well trained crew. However, due to excessive heating at this rate of fire, it was necessary to allow the weapon a 15-minute cooling period after each 5 rounds fired. The maximum range of the M-67 was 400-meters (437-yds) and was sighted to 800-meters (875-yds) although the shell could actually be fired out to 2,000-meters (2,187-yds). Requiring a crew of three (gunner, assistant gunner and ammo bearer) the M-67 fired a 9.5-lb M371E1 HEAT round and could be shoulder fired or ground mounted. It has a picture on the link if your interested ... Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:23:51 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: recoilless rifles This address: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/crewwpns.htm Includes several recoilless rifles that are in reserve stocks around the world. Yes folks, we even built a nuclear tipped recoilless rifle ... note that it's not even measured in kilotons yield, but just tons ... Test: Little Feller I Time: 17:00 17 July 1962 (GMT) Location: NTS, Area 18 Test Height and Type: Surface, 40 feet Yield: 18 Tons Last atmospheric test at NTS, used a stockpile W-54 Davy Crockett warhead. 1000 DOD personnel took part in Exercise Ivy Flats which included an observer program and troop maneuvers. Five participants in the Ivy Flats maneuver task force launched the weapon from a recoilless rifle mounted on an armored personnel carrier. Robert F. Kennedy and General Maxwell D. Taylor were on hand to observe the detonation. A picture of this goofy thing is at: http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Tests/Storax.html Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:53:58 -0500 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: US Recoilless Rifles (first draft) > From: Brandon Cope > > > Not all my data is complete; I couldn't find the shell weight for > the M40 or > M67. > > > M40 106mm Recoilless Rifle > Service Dates: 1953-1972 US > Weight: 113 kg gun, 13 kg spotting rifle, 88 kg mount > ROF: 1 > RLD: 2 > Short Range: 320 m > HEAT: C:11, B:15, Pen 78C > HE: C:17, B:29, Pen 9C > APERS: as flechette > Here is some more info on the M40 from here: http://members.aol.com/sturmpnzr/SPAT.html This is a pretty nice write up on the development of early anti-tank weapons. The standard M40 is the M40A1 and it has, since its debut, been in the military arsenals of countries, rich and poor, around the world. The M40A1 is 340cm long from breech to barrel tip and weighs 209.5kg in firing order. Three types of ammunition are provided and they are: HEAT, HESH, and a anti-personnel round, the HEAT round able to penetrate up to 150mm of armor at a 60 degree angle of impact. The maximum range for the M40A1 is 7,700 meters but the effective range is around 2,750 meters with a muzzle velocity of between 500 to 503 meters per second. To aim, the gunner uses a spotting rifle. This semi-automatic rifle is attached above the gun barrel and fires a .50cal. explosive bullet. The gunner uses the spotting rifle to aim the M40 and if the bullet strikes the target, the gunner knows the M40 is lined up and he can then fire the recoilless rifle with assurance the shell will strike the intended target. The M40A1 has a barrel life of approximately 2,500 firings. I guess your source was kinda stingy on the range, huh? Personnaly I'd call effective range the limit of meduim range. After meduim range, your chances of hitting are so low that its no longer effective. Also, the HE round seems to really have been a HESH round for bunker busting. Plus the .50 cal shoots an 'explosive bullet'? I guess that's different than a standard .50 BMG, so without the proper spotting bullets you'd be hosed right? Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:28:37 PDT From: "Brandon Cope" Subject: RE: US Recoilless Rifles (first draft) >From: "Walter Rebsch" > > > From: Brandon Cope > > > > Not all my data is complete; I couldn't find the shell weight for > > the M40 or > > M67. > > > > M40 106mm Recoilless Rifle > > Service Dates: 1953-1972 US > > Weight: 113 kg gun, 13 kg spotting rifle, 88 kg mount > > ROF: 1 > > RLD: 2 > > Short Range: 320 m > > HEAT: C:11, B:15, Pen 78C > > HE: C:17, B:29, Pen 9C > > APERS: as flechette > > > >I guess your source was kinda stingy on the range, huh? Personnaly I'd >call >effective range the limit of meduim range. After meduim range, your >chances >of hitting are so low that its no longer effective. Also, the HE round >seems to really have been a HESH round for bunker busting. My "source" for ranges was the weapon design system in Fire, Fusion and Steel (1st Edition). Unfortunately, FF&S doesn't included HESH warheads (being primarily for Traveller:New Era), so I used HE. >Plus the .50 cal shoots an 'explosive bullet'? I guess that's different >than a standard .50 BMG, so without the proper spotting bullets you'd be >hosed right? The M8 spotting rifle used a special round ballistically matched to the 106mm HEAT round. It was not interchangable with the .50-cal round used in the .50 cal M2 HMGs. The bullet had a small amount of phosphorous (?) embedded in the base to allow it to act as a tracer. Also, when it hit, the bullet "exploded" in a flash. The M8 used a 10 round clip, the M8C a 20 round clip. The same spotting rifle was also used on the British 120mm L6 WOMBAT (Weapon Of Magnesium Battalion Anti-Tank, IIRC). Not sure how I'd handle it in game terms; maybe treat it as a +1 Rangefinder? Brandon Cope ________________________________________________________________________ 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. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #167 *************************************