Weapons Timelines for the Twilight War

[Raellus]

I recently picked up a copy of The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Guns (Fowler, North, Stronge, & Sweeney) from the bargain bin @ my local Barnes & Noble.

The entry for the H&K G41 states that it was to be manufactured as a weapon for reservists while the G11 was produced simultaneously for the regular Bundeswehr. The end of the Cold War put an end to both weapons and eventually led to the later adoption of the G36. So, I reckon that in the Twilight timeline that the G41 would be fairly common, alongside the venerable G3 and former DDR AKs, in the German armed forces of 2000.

Also, the entry for the L85A1 savages the weapon. Apparently, nearly the entire production run was recalled and handed over to H&K for refurbishment. The end result (L85A2) was, by many accounts, still a disappointment, extremely unpopular with most of the British troops in the field in Afghanistan. I really wonder how this weapon would have been handled if the Cold War had continued. Based on this (and other similar reports), I'd like to think that the British military would have pursued alternatives, like bringing back the SLR and/or manufacturing the AR-18 to supplement/replace the L85A1/2.

I also learned from this volume that Bulgaria and Romania (as well as Poland, which I already knew about) produced AK-74 clones in 5.45mm. I had always assumed that the Warsaw Pact nations would have done so but had never seen specific, documented references to this happening. This seems to indicate that AKM variants would be slightly less common among front line and tier one WP reservists than I'd first thought.

[pmulcahy11b]

I would add that I don't think in any timeline -- T2K v1, V2, v2.2, 2013, or Merc 2000 -- would the G-11 have ever made it into production. Even now, it's essentially "too innovative;" it would require supply people to stock exotic ammo and weird parts, require a lot of new training regimens (both for the regular troops and those like drill sergeants that have to train the masses), and upset the supply systems of most Western and Westernized countries in the world, which currently revolve around tens of millions of rounds of 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO ammunition and the weapons that fire it. Economically, pretty much any country is going to look at the G-11 and say, "It's a great rifle, it may be the wave of the future, but we can't afford for the foreseeable future."

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think it's worth noting that the people who are making savage criticisms of the L85A2 rifle are pretty much the same people who criticized it from the start and that the troops using the L85A2 are not as critical of it as some would have us believe. I'm not saying the soldiers all think it's a wonderful rifle, just that a lot of the criticism of the A2 is being produced by people who hate the entire L85 concept and is essentially the same criticism we've heard before, just updated for the new version.

P.S. Just a little request, when people mention books, could they please include the ISBN? It makes finding the book far easier, I just tried to find the book mentioned above via Google and got plenty of hits, all for the wrong books.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I would add that I don't think in any timeline -- T2K v1, V2, v2.2, 2013, or Merc 2000 -- would the G-11 have ever made it into production. Even now, it's essentially "too innovative;" it would require supply people to stock exotic ammo and weird parts, require a lot of new training regimens (both for the regular troops and those like drill sergeants that have to train the masses), and upset the supply systems of most Western and Westernized countries in the world, which currently revolve around tens of millions of rounds of 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO ammunition and the weapons that fire it. Economically, pretty much any country is going to look at the G-11 and say, "It's a great rifle, it may be the wave of the future, but we can't afford for the foreseeable future."

I tend to disagree with this assessment, economics definitely plays a part in the adoption of new weapons but national interest plays a far bigger part. The West Germans were adopting the G11 & G41 and economics weren't as important as national defence during their consideration process. The realworld timeline for service entry definitely fits into a version 2 timeline, the only reason the G11 was not adopted for service was the end of the Cold War. It then become a weapon system that was no longer required to defeat the 'Red horde'.
I disagree with the too innovative idea as well, the technology has already been proven and now the US Army is showing interest in non-traditional forms of ammunition including caseless for future weapon systems.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-153517316.html
http://www.caselessammo.com/about.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightwe...s_Technologies
http://www.defensereview.com/aai-lig...splay-at-ausa/
The adoption of any new weapon requires a change in training, logistics etc. and it wouldn't be any different if the weapon was the G11 or the G36. There was a similar change when for example the British changed from the .303 SMLE, Bren Gun & Vickers Gun to the 7.62mm L1A1 & L7 and M16/M16A1. It applied when any nation changed from bolt-action rifles to self-loading rifles and so on.

[Raellus]

I really respect your opinion Paul but I think production of the G11 may have proceeded had reunification and the end of the Cold War not occured. I've seen several sources that explained the cancellation of the G11 program as having been prompted by an end to the need for a complex and relatively expensive new rifle (i.e. no more Red menace to the east) and to the financial burden that the former East Germany placed upon the German national budget after reunification. Had the need continued, W. Germany seemed to have been in a good enough place financially where the G11 could have been produced in numbers great enough to equip the Bundeswehr's active divisions. The G41 was intended to offset the cost of the G11 so that reserve units could get a new weapon too.

It lines up well with v1.0 canon as well.

The G11 lost out here in the U.S. due to politics. The desire for all U.S. weapon was very strong in the late '80s. At the time, IIRC (I was 14 or so) cost was cited, as was the desire to stick with the NATO standard 5.56mm ammo. The latter is somewhat ironic being as the debate still continues to this day about the best assault rifle cartridge. The 5.56mm round has loads of detractors.

Anyway, back to the T2K v1.0 timeline. Once the TDM effectively shut down the manufacture of the more complex caseless ammo, the G11 was gradually phased out of service in favor of the easier-to-feed G41 or surplus G3s. That's pretty much straight from the v1.0 Small Arms Guide.

[waiting4something]

I can never understand why a lot of people feel that the AR-18 would have been a possible alternative for the L85. True, it was made by Sterling for a brief time, but it had sold off the AR-18 tooling in 1983. I can't imagine the AR-18 is a better rifle or even on the same page as the L85.

I never handled a L85, but used to own a semi auto AR-180 and can tell you that, it is not something I would want to beat around with. The barrel is to thin and from what I have read also tends to flex when using the sling during firing. The plastic stocks are fragile and the receiver is very weak too. People joke about the M16 being a crappy weapon for melee combat, but the M16 is built like a tank compared to the AR-18. Also, it's true you could use M16 magazines with the AR-18, but they have to be modified. The magazines have to have a slot cut in the side for the magazine catch and if you want the bolt hold open to work the magazine follower has to be modified too.

I could see the L1A1 being brought back or the Bren gun in place of the L86. The only people I think that had used the AR-18 in the U.K. was the IRA. Heck, I think a old Enfield .303 might even be a better choice as far as ruggedness. The AR-18 is just to fragile to take to war, but I don't know anything about the L85 to make a real judgement on it.

[Legbreaker]

Something else to remember is that the West Germans had a rather large military which would translate into a rather large number of weapons and all the support that entails.

Yes, it was a large investment, but one that was well worthwhile in my opinion (and obviously their's prior to reunification). Who knows, the rest of Nato might have seen the wisdom of the 4.7mm caseless round and today it might have become the standard (except of course for the Americans, stuck fast on the idea of the 5.56).

It is interesting to note however that their reservists were to be armed with a conventional 5.56mm weapon. My initial impression is this was due to the vast stockpiles of 5.56 Nato had stored in the country, although as their standard weapon until then was the 7.62 G3....

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Also, the entry for the L85A1 savages the weapon. Apparently, nearly the entire production run was recalled and handed over to H&K for refurbishment. The end result (L85A2) was, by many accounts, still a disappointment, extremely unpopular with most of the British troops in the field in Afghanistan. I really wonder how this weapon would have been handled if the Cold War had continued. Based on this (and other similar reports), I'd like to think that the British military would have pursued alternatives, like bringing back the SLR and/or manufacturing the AR-18 to supplement/replace the L85A1/2.

I often think that the British should have told the US to shove it after World War 2 and went their own way with the EM-2. The Belgians and the Spanish both were willing to chamber weapons for the .280 round (one of the first FAL prototypes was chambered for the .280 round, as was one of the first CETME prototypes); only US political bullying stopped the .280 round from gaining more widespread acceptance. Our loss, IMHO.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I often think that the British should have told the US to shove it after World War 2 and went their own way with the EM-2. The Belgians and the Spanish both were willing to chamber weapons for the .280 round (one of the first FAL prototypes was chambered for the .280 round, as was one of the first CETME prototypes); only US political bullying stopped the .280 round from gaining more widespread acceptance. Our loss, IMHO.

Yeah, when I think about it, there are times I wonder if the Remington .223 (5.56mm Nato) is a bit underpowered when I talk to others about it. Myself, I would have gone with something like the .243 Winchester at the smallest although something in the .270 to .280 caliber range would have been fine too. Dunno what this would do to the .308 Winchester (7.62mm Nato) though.

Chuck