Weapons Timelines for the Twilight War

[Raellus]

I don't know why I keep coming back to this, but I like to think about the weapons and equipment that would likely be fielded in the Twilight War, especially in the later years, in contrast to what was fielded at that time IRL. A lot of this has been covered in other threads, but I couldn't resist a consolidated discussion of what was, what is, and what could have been.

UK: L85, L85A1/SA80, SLR, and/or Armalite AR-18?

IRL, the early production version of the SA80 (aka the L85) had a dreadful reputation and the improved L85A1 version only entered widespread service right around 2000. In the Twilight world, this may not have occured. Instead, the UK may have reissued the venerable 7.62mm SLR as a stopgap measure to replace the unreliable early-make L85s. Another possibility is that the UK began remanufacture of the Armalite AR-18 which had been liscence-built by Sterling in the UK during the late '70s in order to issue a stopgap weapon using the NATO 5.56mm round.

IMTW*, the UK armed forces use a mix of all three, with the SLR being the most common c. 2000. This would likely mean the Sterling SMG would be more common in the Twilight timeline than it was in the late '90s IRL.

On a related aside, I also like the idea of the reissue of Bren L4s LSWs to UK units (alongside a few L86s and FN Minimi SAWs).

USSR: AKM, AK-74, AK-103, "AKMR", and/or AN-94?

Obviously, the AK-74 is still the standard Russian Federation army assault rifle and would have been during the Twilight War. Deep reserve units would likely still be armed with older, 7.62mm S AKMs. I'm really on the fence regarding the idea of the rechambered (for 5.45mm b) AKMR from canon. It seems like way too much trouble compared to continued manufacture of 7.62mm S ammunition, especially since Kalashnikov began manufactured what amounts to a modernized AKM in the form of the 7.62mm S AK-103, which is apparently standard issue with Russian SF. Manufacture of the AK-103 began, IRL, in the mid-90s so it could appear in the Twilight World in limited numbers.

Then there's the innovative but delicate AN-94, which the Russians have issued in very small numbers IRL. It too could have made it into the Twilight War, albeit in very small numbers.

IMTW, first and second-line Soviet units use the AK-74 series, deep reserve units use mostly AKMs and a few new issue AK-103s, and Soviet special forces use a mix of all three with the odd AN-94 mixed in.

Reunited Germany: G-11, G-36, G-3, G-41, and/or AKM?

This is a tricky one. IRL, the G-11 never went into production but canon says it did in the Twilight timeline. Canon also states that caseless ammo production for it was impeded by the exchange and that it gradually fell out of use.

Then there's the G-36 which began to enter German Army service in the late '90s, IRL. It isn't mentioned at all in canon but it very well could have been introduced in time for the Twilight War. In all likelihood, though, not enough G-36s could have been manufactured before the general exchange to equip the newly reunited German Army.

So, whether it was the G-11 and/or the G-36 issued to the W. German Army in the Twilight timeline's mid-to-late '90s, something else would have needed to equip the balance of the German Army. The G-3 is the obvious choice since a good number were still in service, IRL, in the late '90s and early 2000s. But the 5.56mm G-41 would also be a natural option, given NATO's transition to that standard AR round.

Then there's the matter of the former East German Army units. I think it's most likely that they keep their AKMs and slowly transition to whatever the West German's standard AR would be. Of course, that transition would be interrupted by the exchange so AKMs would continue to remain in German Army service well past 2000.

IMTW, most the W. German army formations use the G-3 or G-41 while former E. German formations use the AKM with G-3s and G-41s in some former GDR units. I also allow for a few G-36s too.

Also, IMTW, the Uzi is still commonplace in German service.

USA: M-240 and/or M-60?

This is probably a non-issue. Both GPMGs would likely be in service in the Twilight War. The proportion of one to the other is probably moot. The M240 would probably be most common in first-line units with the M60 more common in reserve and NG units.

With the M-16 series remaining the standard AR of the US armed forces to this day, there's no question here.

I also like the idea of M-79 "Blooper" GLs being reissued to American units, especially in CONUS.


Other Weapons that could have become mainstays in the Twilight War:

The Brunswick RAW

I've seen this in various late-'80s, early '90s books on US infantry weapons but it never really caught on, IRL. IMHO, it would be an ideal weapon for urban warfare. In densely populated central Europe, its combination of low-recoil, no backblast, HESH warhead, and low cost relative to the standard issue LAWs (M136, M72, and SMAW) would make it a good option for soldiers in urban combat. I can see it rushed into production and widely issued to American troops with quite a few still around by 2000.

(Paul M., I couldn't find this one on your site. I'm sure it's there, though.)

There are a couple of other ones I wanted to mentioned but I can't remember which. I'll post an adendum when I do.

*IMTW= In My Twilight World

[Targan]

There is scope for nearly infinite variety of opinion on this topic but realistically can be broken down into two main ways of looking at the issue:
1: Entirely factual, where you simply find the real life information on when a given weapon system was fielded and apply that to the T2K timeline or
2: Assume that the differences between the IRL and T2K timelines resulted in various weapon systems being developed and/or fielded earlier, later or not at all compared to RL.

In nearly all cases IMTW I take the latter view, and more specifically that because the Cold War never really ended in the T2K timeline the development and fielding of many weapon systems was accelerated. I think an acceleration of three to five years is not unreasonable in most cases but there are many exceptions. For instance, the development of some weapon systems may have been directly or indirectly influenced by advances in materials technology and those advances may not have been influenced by whether or not the Cold War continued (such as some developments made in the civilian sector that were not initially military in nature). The time scale for the application of such developments in the area of weapons tech would therefore be similar in both the RL and T2K timelines (although the fielding of the resulting weapons systems could be accelerated or decelerated in T2K once they had been developed).

The above probably isn't very easy to read but I think you all will get an idea of what I'm trying to say.

Relating this to Raellus' opening post with the UK as an example I think that the L85, L85A1/SA80, SLR, and Armalite AR-18 could all be used by British forces during the Twilight War, but the L85A1 might have been seen in only limited numbers because if you apply my suggestion of an acceleration of three to five years to Raellus' statement that "the improved L85A1 version only entered widespread service right around 2000", it would only have entered widespread service in the T2K timeline somewhere between 1995 and 1997.

[Raellus]

Good analysis, Targan.

I tend to combine the two viewpoints, using RL as a frame of reference but assuming significant changes due to the historical divergence necessitated by the Twilight timeline.

To bolster your point, Targan, the accepted explanation for W. Germany's cancellation of the adoption of the G11 was the financial strain brought about by reunification, E. Germany largely being economic dead weight. However, since reunification didn't occur until '96 in the v1.0 Twilight 2000 timeline, West Germany would have had around 5 years or so to manufacture G11s before the complications of reunification by force.

[pmulcahy11b]

The Brunswick RAW


It's in US Rifle Grenades, but simply labeled "RAW 140mm."

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think the accepted reason for the non-adoption of the G11 was not that it was economic dead weight but that the West German security situation no longer required the weapon (i.e. the end of the Cold War meant that replacing the G3 didn't warrant as high a priority) and the money would/could then be used to help finance the unification of the two Germanys.

Given that the G11 was accepted as the next infantry rifle for West German forces, it is highly likely that the G36 was never even considered for study let alone developed. Everything would have been focused on production of the G11 for frontline troops and the G41 for support/rear-area troops. In those circumstances the G36 is unlikely to even exist in any of the T2k timelines.

Another possible contender in the Soviet Army would be the AEK-971 rifle, another contender for the AK-74 replacement http://world.guns.ru/assault/as34-e.htm

Other Soviet weapons you'd could possible find are
ASM-DT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-DT_Underwater_Assault_Rifle
AS 'Val' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS_Val
SR-3 'Vikhr' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-3_Vikhr
9A-91 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9A-91
VSK-94 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSK-94

And some other possibilities, this time from Sweden
FM 1957 and
GRAM 63
both can be seen here http://www.gotavapen.se/gota/ak/ak4_5/ak5_history.htm
and from the USA
TRW Low Maintenance Rifle http://world.guns.ru/assault/as78-e.htm

[Legbreaker]

I tend to agree with almost all the comments above, but the G-11 is definately one of those "what if" items.
In a 1.0 timeline, it's almost certain to have seen widespread issue and the G36, etc is likely to not have made it past prototyping.
2.0/2.2 on the other hand is going to be nearly the opposite - a hundred or so G-11s produced for testing and probably only in the hands of SF types, while the G36 was pumped out by the thousand due to it's more contemporary and "socially acceptable" mechanism and chambering.

An advance of three to five years seems a little excessive though. I'd be inclined to say more like one to three (at most) as it takes time for economies to switch over to wartime production and R&D, and then in 1997 we have what is effectively a brick wall for development.

To my mind, whatever technology exists around September to Novemeber 1997, is all there is. From there it's virtually all downhill.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I tend to think that 3 to 5 years is a conservative figure for advancing the research, typically the only things that would retard the R&D would be lack of finances and/or lack of national desire.
To illustrate my meaning, I watched a science show some years ago and they were discussing cybernetic implants for eyes that would allow partially blind people to see better and even allow those who were blind to gain some sight. The chief researcher said that under current conditions it would take about 10-15 years to reach that goal but with more funding it could be as little as half that time.

If the leadership of a country wants something badly enough, they'll make the funding available and again the G11 is a good example of that. Originally developed if I remember right, as a contender for the West German version of the 'Salvo' Project that the USA was conducting, the tech of the G11 soon surpassed the then current firearms technology and it's still considered advanced compared to today. The West German government pumped a lot of money into it and Heckler & Koch put some of their own money into the project from what I understand of it.

Personally I can't see the G36 being developed even in the 2.2 timeline because, in the real world, its precursor rifle began development in the early 1990s with the G36 available for service in 1997 whereas in the Twilight 2.2 world, in 1993 there is warfare in the Soviet republics and by 1994 Europe is showing increasing signs of instability. It's at this point that Germany begins building up it's forces and by 1995, to quote the 2.2 book, page 9 ...Germany declares its agreement on size and location of armed forces 'obsolete in relation to the current European situation." They are gearing up for a war that they enter in 1996.

Under those circumstances I could see Germany increasing the production of G41 rifles and/or the less expensive HK33 rifle (and it's HK53 carbine, HK13 & HK23 LMG variants) as well as perhaps issuing the East German AK variants.
But I can't imagine they would start up the research and development of a completely new weapon given that they are in the process of building up for a regional conflict. They couldn't possibly hope to supply enough of them to their forces even if they did get it to the production stage. I don't disagree that there would be relatively small numbers of the G11 available but I really can't see the G36 being produced at all.

[Fusilier]

The chief researcher said that under current conditions it would take about 10-15 years to reach that goal but with more funding it could be as little as half that time.

Heh. Of course he'd say that.

[Raellus]

It's in US Rifle Grenades, but simply labeled "RAW 140mm."

I knew you wouldn't have missed it!:o

[Raellus]

I think 3-5 years is reasonable. The Cold War was a huge incentive/motivator for government funding of the military as well as arms R&D. A lot of programs would have been pushed ahead had it not been for the unanticipated peaceful end of the Cold War.

SSC, I didn't mean that the G-11 was dead weight but that the East German economy was. The financial strain of having to incorporate what was, in effect, a ruined economy meant that less money was available to fund projects like the adoption of the G-11. Only after the German economy stabilized in the mid-90s (IRL) did Germany adopt a new AR (the G-36). The need for a new AR never went away. In fact, the German army had to find a replacement for both the G-3 and the AKM.

Your point about the v1.0 timeline is well taken, though. Due to the adoption of the G-11, it is unlikely that the G-36 would even have been developed, let alone adopted and produced in any numbers.

BTW, thanks for the other weapons links.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Heh. Of course he'd say that.

Well how else could he pay for his new Porsche and the golf club membership? :D

P.S. Meant to add the following, Raellus, I chose those links mostly for the Soviet weapons because some of them had the in service dates listed but for a fuller write-up and more pictures the site I got the TRW rifle from is far better http://world.guns.ru/main-e.htm

[pmulcahy11b]

Well how else could he pay for his new Porsche and the golf club membership? :D

P.S. Meant to add the following, Raellus, I chose those links mostly for the Soviet weapons because some of them had the in service dates listed but for a fuller write-up and more pictures the site I got the TRW rifle from is far better http://world.guns.ru/main-e.htm

As an aside, I'm very skeptical of anything called a "Low-Maintenance Rifle" -- they said the same thing about the M-16 when it arrived in Vietnam.

[Legbreaker]

While wartime R&D is likely to speed up, it has to be remembered that most countries entered the conflict(s) essentially unprepared. Given that by late 1997 all forward progress had effectively ceased due to the nukes, it's therefore hard to justify more than 12-18 months of development.
Regardless how much money is thrown at it, I just can't see 3-5 years compressed into such a short period of time.

Something else worth looking at is the situation with the US (and others) in Iraq. Even several years on, they're still having trouble supplying the troops with everything they need although I'm sure it's a bit different now than it was several years ago. And that's a comparatively minor engagement when you look at T2K and it's multiple, large scale operational theatres.

[pmulcahy11b]

Here's a possibility: Local progress. Except for the November Nuclear Strikes, the nukes and chemical warfare came in dribs and drabs. Some places that already have a decent technological base, but are otherwise intact (even if for only a while) might develop stuff that saw only local use or small-scale production and issue to overseas troops or nationwide. Offhand, I can only think of a few spots, mostly in the US, but:

Groom Lake (the so-called "Area 51"), Edwards AFB (probably would have been hit early, but it's a huge base), various places in Silicon Valley, and Crane Weapons Center. If you go by some Challenge magazine articles, the Lima, Ohio M-1 Abrams plant is relatively undamaged. Maybe throw in some deep-secret, underground development labs (could go for lots of countries), isolated gunsmiths, and prototypes that some government facility took to fruition, but couldn't make many of. Old experimental projects could also have been dusted off, maybe updated a bit, and put into production early in the war. Wartime expedients would also have happened; I once played a character in a late-war draft that was told to show up with his own weapons, ammunition, and equipment if possible (luckily, he was an outdoor enthusiast and a gun collector).

[Rainbow Six]

UK: L85, L85A1/SA80, SLR, and/or Armalite AR-18?

IRL, the early production version of the SA80 (aka the L85) had a dreadful reputation and the improved L85A1 version only entered widespread service right around 2000. In the Twilight world, this may not have occured. Instead, the UK may have reissued the venerable 7.62mm SLR as a stopgap measure to replace the unreliable early-make L85s. Another possibility is that the UK began remanufacture of the Armalite AR-18 which had been liscence-built by Sterling in the UK during the late '70s in order to issue a stopgap weapon using the NATO 5.56mm round.

IMTW*, the UK armed forces use a mix of all three, with the SLR being the most common c. 2000. This would likely mean the Sterling SMG would be more common in the Twilight timeline than it was in the late '90s IRL.

On a related aside, I also like the idea of the reissue of Bren L4s LSWs to UK units (alongside a few L86s and FN Minimi SAWs).



I can't recall where I read it, but I did see an article a few months ago that suggested that the UK still had a stockpile of SLR's which ran into the tens of thousands, so I think it's highly likely that the SLR would be the most commonly found weapon amongst British forces either though neccessity or choice. I also like the idea of reissuing Brens, and would probably add to that the possibility of very occasionally encountering militia and Home Service Force units in the UK armed with .303 Lee Enfields. There's also likely to be a number of MP5's in circulation as that was the standard issue long arm of most British police forces (at least on the mainland).

One minor thing - whilst I agree with most of what you've said here (including the reissue of the Bren gun), IRL Sterling Armaments went bust in the late 80's, so wouldn't be in any position to start remanufacturing the AR18.

(Of course, that doesn't mean that they have to go bust in a T2K World...:))

On a side note, finding ways for marauder groups in the UK to be armed is a source of constant headaches for me...there are only so many dodgy French weapons dealers or abandoned HSF caches...I do sometimes envy those whose work is set in the US where it seems (to me at least) that both lawful and unlawful groups have relatively easy access to large amounts of weapons.

Interesting views on the G11 / G36 debate also. I've always been a fan of the G36, but as I use a Version 1 timeline following the logic here I think I may have to dump it in favour of the G11.

[headquarters]

I can't recall where I read it, but I did see an article a few months ago that suggested that the UK still had a stockpile of SLR's which ran into the tens of thousands, so I think it's highly likely that the SLR would be the most commonly found weapon amongst British forces either though neccessity or choice. I also like the idea of reissuing Brens, and would probably add to that the possibility of very occasionally encountering militia and Home Service Force units in the UK armed with .303 Lee Enfields. There's also likely to be a number of MP5's in circulation as that was the standard issue long arm of most British police forces (at least on the mainland).

One minor thing - whilst I agree with most of what you've said here (including the reissue of the Bren gun), IRL Sterling Armaments went bust in the late 80's, so wouldn't be in any position to start remanufacturing the AR18.

(Of course, that doesn't mean that they have to go bust in a T2K World...:))

On a side note, finding ways for marauder groups in the UK to be armed is a source of constant headaches for me...there are only so many dodgy French weapons dealers or abandoned HSF caches...I do sometimes envy those whose work is set in the US where it seems (to me at least) that both lawful and unlawful groups have relatively easy access to large amounts of weapons.

Interesting views on the G11 / G36 debate also. I've always been a fan of the G36, but as I use a Version 1 timeline following the logic here I think I may have to dump it in favour of the G11.

The relative shortage of arms and ammo is an appealing trait to running a campaign in terh UK rather than the US -in teh US no one asks twice if marauders have M2HBs, magnum .44s and SMGs.

But I guess you need some armed elements to counter any organized forces .So I guess you have used the obvious choices :

1) marauders are former services personel with all their gear intact-like a unit gone rogue,be it police,army,TA,any other govt. agency you can see armed in a T2K type scenario-events have led them out on the dark paths of reaving and so on

2) typical type marauders with studded leather jackets etc that have plundered caches ,armories,museums,arms dealers,auction houses ,private houses etc

3) slaves for guns programs run by foreigners selling arms to fuel their business.Danes,Norwegians,French,Netherlands have easy access to the UK coasts by ship-and these countries shave alot of guns in the populace

4) the illegal manufacturer - tons of designs are easily made from scraps or with a minimum of machihng and tooling.There have been numerous posts on the topic on the forum .The StenGun is typical .But the British Standard SMG is also interesting .AS is the PPSH-43 for the more well equipped black market dealer.See thebigbookofwar for some examples.

5) battlefield overflow. Squaddies will take home or send home lots of stash if possible -so will the dishonest and greedy in REME and any other organizations that have a pipeline both to and from the battlefields.

6) what about surrendering enemy units ? Couldnt they throw away or lay down arms that end up in the hands of baddies?

7) a destabilizing program like the Jerries did in 1916 with Russian arms in a sub that were supposed to end up in the Irish hands ? Only now its captured US and German weapons on a their way in a Russian sub..Or a Yankee plot if GM is feeling nefarious..

anyways - I am sure you have all these angles covered -but if not these are my two cents

[Rainbow Six]

Cheers HQ. You've got some good ideas there.

The fifth one on your list reminds me of a story that a mate of mine who was in the First Gulf War (with the REME!) told me once. Apparently a shed load of Iraqi weapons and kit was smuggled back to Germany at the end of the War and shortly afterwards the German police noticed an increase in armed robberies at petrol stations...

On a serious note, my mate did say that when units moved back to the UK they had to leave any contraband in Germany as HM Customs checked returning Army units extremely thoroughly so normal practice was generally to sell the gear to someone staying on in Germany.

[Raellus]

I can't recall where I read it, but I did see an article a few months ago that suggested that the UK still had a stockpile of SLR's which ran into the tens of thousands, so I think it's highly likely that the SLR would be the most commonly found weapon amongst British forces either though neccessity or choice.

If you ever find that source, please post it here. I'd love more justification for bringing back the SLR hard.

One minor thing - whilst I agree with most of what you've said here (including the reissue of the Bren gun), IRL Sterling Armaments went bust in the late 80's, so wouldn't be in any position to start remanufacturing the AR18.

Yeah, that's a bit of a problem I conveniently overlooked. One possible way to justify it is to say that part of the company was bought out by another that would be in a position to legally begin manufacturing the AR18 in the UK. I don't know if such liscencing agreements are transferable but it might work.

Interesting views on the G11 / G36 debate also. I've always been a fan of the G36, but as I use a Version 1 timeline following the logic here I think I may have to dump it in favour of the G11.

The G36 is a sexy gun and, until recently, I included significant numbers IMTW. As a result of our discussion here, I think I will be dumping it too.

Here's a question. Would the G11's caseless ammo be easier, more difficult, or no different to manufacture after the exchange took out most industry?

[Raellus]

On a side note, finding ways for marauder groups in the UK to be armed is a source of constant headaches for me...there are only so many dodgy French weapons dealers or abandoned HSF caches...I do sometimes envy those whose work is set in the US where it seems (to me at least) that both lawful and unlawful groups have relatively easy access to large amounts of weapons.


Maybe in its darkest days the British government decides to raise and arm some sort of home guard or civil defense corps or something along those lines, perhaps with newly produced AR-18s or old mothballed Lee Enfields or Sterlings (or whatever). It would only take one crooked soldier to tip off a particularly motivated and well armed criminal gang to hijack a shipment of a few hundred or even thousand weapons. This could either arm some wannabe warlords budding private army or be sold of piecemeal on the local black market (or a combination of both).

There's also the odd "lost" Spetznaz cache* that some kid finds hidden in the countryside. It's probably only a few AKs, grenades, etc., but it would allow whoever decides to use them to outgun the local police and maybe pull off a raid on its armory, netting a few more MP-5s, shotguns, sidearms, etc.

And, of course, some British soldiers would undoubtedly go rogue as soon as things started to really go south.

Add these all up and you've got a couple thousand illicit military grade arms out there across the UK.

*The original owners could have been wiped out by an SAS or army team equipped with good but incomplete counterintelligence.

[Legbreaker]

If you ever find that source, please post it here. I'd love more justification for bringing back the SLR hard.?
Can't say much for the UK but I know that up until the early 90s, thousands of SMLE's were kept in storage by the Australian Army for potential issue to the population in the event of invasion. The SLR probably replaced the SMLE in this role as the Steyr come into service.
I also know that brand new SLRs were still being issued from storage up until 1991-2 (absolutely jam packed with grease to prevent rust - barrels completely blocked with the stuff). These weapons had been produced up to several decades earlier and not seen the light of day since.

Here's a question. Would the G11's caseless ammo be easier, more difficult, or no different to manufacture after the exchange took out most industry?
Gut feeling is more difficult. With no brass to reload, back yard reloaders couldn't manage without the hi tech moulds and special chemical mix to hold it all together. At least with conventional cased rounds, you have a little flexibility with type of propellant. With caseless, you get the formula wrong and you're likely to end up with little more than a crumbling mess.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

A few ideas here.
1. The IRA had stockpiles of weapons largely obtained from Communist and US sources (AKs, AMD rifles, RPG-7s, M60s, M1 carbines) and they most certainly did have AR-18 in rifle and carbine form. I believe the British troops in Northern Ireland referred to it as the Widow Maker. The police in Northern Ireland had Mini-14 rifles and also I think M1 carbines. Weapons captured or bought from the Irish para-militaries could provide all sorts of exotic weapons (compared to the normal UK gear).
Also, the Irish Army changed from the L1A1 to the AUG in 1988 I think, so that too could be available for UK campaigns.

2. Heckler & Koch were bought out by Royal Ordnance in 1991 so while the AR-18 may not be available for manufacture, perhaps the HK33 was. It was certainly used by various police agencies in the UK.

3. Most nations keep some sort of war-store typically of equipment that has passed from service when newer versions have been introduced. It is highly likely that that many L1A1 rifles and L4 Bren Guns were placed into the war-stores so they would be available for emergency expansion of the military if necessary.
They may even have kept SMLE rifles, Sten Guns and Vickers Guns because some nations keep hold of these stores for several decades - look at Yugoslavia, they still had large numbers of M10 tank destroyers and T-34 tanks into the 1980s-1990s when the civil war broke out.

[Rainbow Six]

If you ever find that source, please post it here. I'd love more justification for bringing back the SLR hard.?

I'll have a good hunt and see if I can track it down...wont be for a while though as I'm on holiday as off Thursday night so wont be around a PC for two and a half weeks

Yeah, that's a bit of a problem I conveniently overlooked. One possible way to justify it is to say that part of the company was bought out by another that would be in a position to legally begin manufacturing the AR18 in the UK. I don't know if such liscencing agreements are transferable but it might work.

Sounds reasonable enough...Royal Ordnance is probably a good bet for that...having a working weapons production facility in Dagenham could open up some very interesting adventure possibilities, even if it was only producing small amounts of weapons.

The G36 is a sexy gun and, until recently, I included significant numbers IMTW. As a result of our discussion here, I think I will be dumping it too.

Here's a question. Would the G11's caseless ammo be easier, more difficult, or no different to manufacture after the exchange took out most industry?

Not speaking with any sort of knowledge, but like Legbreaker, gut feeling would be more difficult. My main reason for stating that is that the various versions of canon always suggested that whilst G11's themselves were not uncommon, the ammunition was rare as the round was entirely consumed.

[pmulcahy11b]

3. Most nations keep some sort of war-store typically of equipment that has passed from service when newer versions have been introduced. It is highly likely that that many L1A1 rifles and L4 Bren Guns were placed into the war-stores so they would be available for emergency expansion of the military if necessary.

Example: The large numbers of M-14s and M-21s that the US has pulled out of storage for use in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[TiggerCCW UK]

1. The IRA had stockpiles of weapons largely obtained from Communist and US sources (AKs, AMD rifles, RPG-7s, M60s, M1 carbines) and they most certainly did have AR-18 in rifle and carbine form. I believe the British troops in Northern Ireland referred to it as the Widow Maker. The police in Northern Ireland had Mini-14 rifles and also I think M1 carbines. Weapons captured or bought from the Irish para-militaries could provide all sorts of exotic weapons (compared to the normal UK gear).
Also, the Irish Army changed from the L1A1 to the AUG in 1988 I think, so that too could be available for UK campaigns.


Terrorist stock piles are a great potential source of weapons for Twilight. Over the years here no end of exotic weaponry has turned up which could be handy enough to throw a curveball to your players :) For example the Loughgall attack in May 1987 involved the use of three G3's, an FN FAL, two FNC's a ruger revolver (taken from a murdered police officer) and a SPAS 12 shotgun. Weapons that I've seen in phots range from AK's to Garands to G3's, FNC's, M16's, AR18's - pretty much anything you fancy. SMG's have included Stens, Thompsons, MP5's, Uzi's and Scorpions. Heavier weapons are also available, ranging from M60's through DShka's to RPG's, SAM-7's and even flamethrowers. Also, don't discount the home made weapons. The IRA in particular were very adept at improvising weapons ranging from zip gun type pistols up to huge 'barrack buster' mortars. I'll try and dig out some photos of weapon finds and scan them in here. In the mean time here are a couple of links about what the IRA decommisioned that might give you an idea of the scale of armaments they had plus a few other articles;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_arms_importation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4284048.stm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/inside/weapons.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#Weaponry_and_ope rations

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/paramilitary2.htm

http://amodestpublication.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/loyalist-paramilitary-improvised-machine-guns/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrack_buster

Hope that gives you some scope :)

[TiggerCCW UK]

Should also have added in the last post that the standard army weapons were in use over here - initially SLR's, Sterlings, Brens and GPMG's as well as a small number of Carl Gustaf recoilless rifles, mostly used in an EOD role, although I think some were used on patrol boats on Carlingford Lough, then SA-80/L85's and LSW/L86's. Standard police weapons were Ruger Service 6 revolvers, Walther PP and PPK for off duty carry, Sterlings and M1 carbines up until the early '80s when the M1's were replaced with Ruger Mini-14/AC556 - not entirely sure which model, iirc they could burst fire but not full auto. In the mid '90s the police swapped to MP-5's and HK 33's and in the early 00's the ruger was replaced with the Glock 17. Irish Army were equipped with FN FAL and Sterlings (again iirc) until they were replaced with the AUG. Army Ranger Wing used MP-5's and M16s and the Garda special branch used a variety of revolvers, shotguns and Uzi's (again iirc). I'll try and dig out some more info on that for you as well.

[headquarters]

Is something like a presicion high pressure molded high explosive..not what you would be able to make in a village shop..

I'll have a good hunt and see if I can track it down...wont be for a while though as I'm on holiday as off Thursday night so wont be around a PC for two and a half weeks



Sounds reasonable enough...Royal Ordnance is probably a good bet for that...having a working weapons production facility in Dagenham could open up some very interesting adventure possibilities, even if it was only producing small amounts of weapons.



Not speaking with any sort of knowledge, but like Legbreaker, gut feeling would be more difficult. My main reason for stating that is that the various versions of canon always suggested that whilst G11's themselves were not uncommon, the ammunition was rare as the round was entirely consumed.

[Legbreaker]

It would have to be a low explosive. High explosives have a burn rate so fast they shatter rather than push.

[headquarters]

Example: The large numbers of M-14s and M-21s that the US has pulled out of storage for use in Iraq and Afghanistan.


I would be surprised indeed ifthey didnt have stockpiles of everything from Korea and up until today .SMLE,Sten;Bren ( which the TA used until not that long ago ),SLRs,AR-18s .Any govt with respect fo rit self keeps a stockpile .One involved in as many places as the British..probably keeps a stockpile for Bloc and one for Nato scenarios .You never know when supply dries up and those pesky third world dictators that keep oil flowing freely need a refill somewhere.

Just 10 years ago I bought a Kar98 Mauserfrom OUR TA armouries in a big clearance they did .I recall they had something like 60 000 of these still ,from the 250 000 taken from the Germans when they were sent home in 45, rechambered for 30-06 and used until we got the Garands.

I am hoping for the Garand clearance to happen :)

I saw a documentary on British arms dealers once ,where 2 city type pin stripe guys were fa-fa ing about their experiences -one was retiring from a long life in the biz -the other up and coming .Together they inspected a load of Turkish Mausers ( or were they German on Turkish contract ) 12 000 pieces iirc , all in a customs clearing house or some such -in a major UK port . Maybe it was London .


Britain is no # 3 arms dealer in the world I have been told.I suppose that should lead to the conclusion that there are stockpiles .

Also - consider the amount of firearms constantly being shipped .What would be in any given major port at any given time irl ? A few containers of armaments here and there for sure-also in a major shipping country like Britain .

Given the underlying mercenary bone in the Scandinavian - how many strapping British lasses would you say a trawler load of northern flank battlefield pick up AKs,RPGs,PKs,frags and ammo would be worth ?

Not as the same number as if it ws the other way around -but still :D

Throw in a couple of the Monty Python cast to keep us smiling through the dark winters with no telly ,and you should be able to get your self a few 23 mm AA guns too.

But I find part of the allure of a UK campaign the LACK of arms ,and the impro needed.Melee weapons,museum pieces,civillian guns .Lends a few got suspense points to a campaign . Bursting away the problem isnt enough in a way .

[Legbreaker]

I am hoping for the Garand clearance to happen.
Here I want a L1A1 SLR. Might have been a possibility too until about a decade ago when the governement banned any civilian weapon that was semi or fully auto, had a mag greater than 5 rounds and could actually do more than scare a rat....

I suppose I'll have to settle for the two rebuilt SMLE's with match grade barrels and top notch (for the 1950's and 60's) optics I've just inherited from my grandfather (Kings marksman with regular 1000 yard possibles in his day).

:D

[pmulcahy11b]

You can over-generalize and say that the G-11s ammunition is solid smokeless powder -- but that's REALLY over-simplifying it. The G-11s ammunition uses a special blend of a new mix of propellant and cellulose, along with other binders and wrapped in a combustible layer of a plastic-like material (but actually a polymer). The block of propellant is also specially-shaped, to precise proportions. It's issued as a complete magazine, which is also kept in shrink-wrap until issued to the soldier. (G-11 ammunition wasn't designed for loading into magazines by hand -- HK feels the ammunition blocks will probably be damaged by an attempt to hand-load the magazine, and even very small damage will throw off the trajectory or stability of the round -- larger damage will probably jam the G-11.) The bottom of the block of propellant has a special-composition primer in a cup that is also combustible. Somehow, I can't buy it being made properly again until maybe 15-25 years after the Twilight War.

[Raellus]

Great info, Paul. Thanks.

With this in mind, I would imagine most German troops c. 2000 would be armed with 7.62mm G3s, 5.56mm G41s or G33s, or 7.62mm S AKMs.

[Targan]

It would have to be a low explosive. High explosives have a burn rate so fast they shatter rather than push.

Correct.

[Targan]

Here I want a L1A1 SLR.Me too. That would make my year.
I suppose I'll have to settle for the two rebuilt SMLE's with match grade barrels and top notch (for the 1950's and 60's) optics I've just inherited from my grandfather (Kings marksman with regular 1000 yard possibles in his day).Very cool. Respect to your grandfather.

[Legbreaker]

Not bad for an Air Force mechanical engineer during the war.

[headquarters]

Not bad for an Air Force mechanical engineer during the war.



Those sound like sweet rifles.

I have sniffed at the .308 Einfields that Marstar are selling -but money is holding me back..

[Rainbow Six]

Given the underlying mercenary bone in the Scandinavian - how many strapping British lasses would you say a trawler load of northern flank battlefield pick up AKs,RPGs,PKs,frags and ammo would be worth ?

Not as the same number as if it ws the other way around -but still :D

Throw in a couple of the Monty Python cast to keep us smiling through the dark winters with no telly ,and you should be able to get your self a few 23 mm AA guns too.

But I find part of the allure of a UK campaign the LACK of arms ,and the impro needed.Melee weapons,museum pieces,civillian guns .Lends a few got suspense points to a campaign . Bursting away the problem isnt enough in a way .

I agree that the lack of weapons can in itself be entertaining, especially when dealing with small groups of marauders in the areas that have descended into anarchy, where improvised weapons are going to the norm. The other thing I would say there is how much of a force multiplier even one or two weapons can be; a couple of brigands armed with Sterlings or SLR's could easily set themselves up as absolute rulers of a community who only have melee weapons.

Where I tend to have to think more out of the box is when it comes to arming large numbers of people (i.e. into the thousands) such as the Duke of Cornwall's forces, the independent Scottish and Welsh armies, etc, which is where the Government stockpile, freight container full of SLR's etc comes in handy. I ended up equipping most of the Bragad Chan Cymru (Army of Wales) with a mix of civilian weapons and military weapons taken from the Infantry Battle School at Brecon.

In a rough draft I wrote for the Scots I orginally had them armed and equipped by the French (down to French Army uniforms and Famas rifles). Would be interested on everyone's thoughts on this; on reflection I pretty much reckoned the French might not want to be seen to interfere in UK domestic affairs quite so overtly, so chose to downplay the French involvement in Scotland, making it more subtle and covert and reducing the number of French soldiers in Scotland from several hundred to several dozen. (This means that instead of getting brand new Famas rifles, the Scottish Army only get a few hundred Belgian manufactured FN FAL's which the Franco Belgian Union can deny all knowledge of).

I've never really considered large numbers of terrorist weapons making their way to the mainland - I always figured that the majority of those weapons would stay in Ireland, although there's no reason why the Irish couldn't do the same as the Scandinavians and trade weapons for various commodities...interesting...hadn't thought about that before...I really need to sit down and have a serious look at Ireland at some point in time...

[pmulcahy11b]

Not bad for an Air Force mechanical engineer during the war.

Hey, Kalashnikov was a tanker sergeant -- DATs don't even know one end of a rifle from the other!:D

[Legbreaker]

I suppose my grandfather did have his childhood behind him - used to head shoot sprinting rabbits from the hip or go hungry during the depression.

During his recruit training (much reduced from the usual 3 months down to a few weeks due to the war), he was used as an instructor after demonstrating his ability to fire a full 10 rounds accurately in less than 4 seconds - apparently sounded more like a machinegun than bolt action rifle!

I witnessed this extremely impressive feat for myself about 20 years ago (a decade or two after his prime!)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

...Where I tend to have to think more out of the box is when it comes to arming large numbers of people (i.e. into the thousands) such as the Duke of Cornwall's forces, the independent Scottish and Welsh armies, etc...

...on reflection I pretty much reckoned the French might not want to be seen to interfere in UK domestic affairs quite so overtly, so chose to downplay the French involvement in Scotland... (This means that instead of getting brand new Famas rifles, the Scottish Army only get a few hundred Belgian manufactured FN FAL's which the Franco Belgian Union can deny all knowledge of).

Don't forget that the French probably have truckloads of weapons collected from refugees (military and civilian) trying to cross the border into France. It would include all manner of civilian hunting and sporting firearms and any military firearms they don't want to keep. They'd also have lots of older French weapons in their own war-stores that they might be prepared to offload (e.g. MAT49 SMG, MAS 36 rifle, FM24/29 LMG) and possibly even WW2 weapons that they were using/storing up to the 1950s (like Thompson SMGs, Kar98 rifles, M1 Carbines, MP40 SMGs, Bren Guns, BARs and so on)

[Rainbow Six]

Don't forget that the French probably have truckloads of weapons collected from refugees (military and civilian) trying to cross the border into France. It would include all manner of civilian hunting and sporting firearms and any military firearms they don't want to keep. They'd also have lots of older French weapons in their own war-stores that they might be prepared to offload (e.g. MAT49 SMG, MAS 36 rifle, FM24/29 LMG) and possibly even WW2 weapons that they were using/storing up to the 1950s (like Thompson SMGs, Kar98 rifles, M1 Carbines, MP40 SMGs, Bren Guns, BARs and so on)

Very true. I think the downside to supplying ex French Army gear is that like the Famas rifles they'd be fairly easy to trace back to source and lead to an increase in tensions between HMG and the French. I've always assumed that the French have a stock of German and Dutch Army weapons and equipment that they captured during the occupation of the Rhineland and the Netherlands. If they supplied the Scots with Uzis, G3's etc HMG might have a fairly good idea where they've come from but proving it would be another matter.

Another area I've considered is that the French presence in Quebec means that all sorts of things (including weapons) could be being shipped back to France from North America. M16's for the Scots...?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Very true. I think the downside to supplying ex French Army gear is that like the Famas rifles they'd be fairly easy to trace back to source and lead to an increase in tensions between HMG and the French. I've always assumed that the French have a stock of German and Dutch Army weapons and equipment that they captured during the occupation of the Rhineland and the Netherlands. If they supplied the Scots with Uzis, G3's etc HMG might have a fairly good idea where they've come from but proving it would be another matter.

Another area I've considered is that the French presence in Quebec means that all sorts of things (including weapons) could be being shipped back to France from North America. M16's for the Scots...?

Absolutely true, I think I was pondering it all from the viewpoint that there was too little of HMG to be able to check it all out. Sure the weapons are French but how can they prove that the French gave them the weapons and the Scots didn't buy/barter them?
Now that you mention weapons through Canada, how about a bulk load of Ruger Mini-14 and AC556 rifles to supplement the M16s?

[Legbreaker]

Why would the French be shipping arms over to Scotland anyway? What's in it for them?

The UK is already in a world of hurt and arming the populace for whatever reason can only contribute to even more unrest. Sure Britain and France have been long time enemies up until the last centry or so, but if you feel France might be preparing to invade sometime in the next couple of decades, wouldn't arming the Scots be against the French best interests? It means more people are arme when they make their move.

And of course there's also the difficulty of shipping them there. Even for a country like France, who's stayed mainly out of the war, fuel and other goods are sure to be in short supply. They haven't had anyone but their few scattered colonies to trade with (besides a few small exceptions). Just feeding, clothing and keeping warm the tens or millions of people within their own borders is going to be a struggle for at least a few years after the war.

[Mohoender]

First to answer something else. Yes the French would have ample supply of supplies especially from Belgium: FN FAL, Scorpion, Spartan, Browning HP... It would indeed be a good idea for them to supply the Scots. Moreover, Liege is now part of France and they control the FN. By the way they, are also controlling a cadillac cage and a general dynamic plants. All are around Liege (at least they were in the 1980's-1990's) and they will be a great help for them.

Why would the French be shipping arms over to Scotland anyway? What's in it for them?



They would do that for a simple reason: to prevent the UK from ever fully recover. T2K France would definitely be better off with England more than with UK. France is controlling Waterloo and that is British Land. France is controlling Belgian lands and Anvers which are long time allies for UK. France is controlling southern Netherlands and the Dutch Queen is in England. France is also controlling a fair part of Germany.

Just to note:
UK opposed the French in 1830 during the Belgian Revolution. The King of Belgium is a Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha because of the British who refused to see a Bourbon on the throne of Belgium.

UK refused to support the French in 1870 because Bismarck could provide a letter from Napoleon III where the Emperor was hopping to receive the control of Belgium in return for his neutrality in the events that were conducting to the German unification.

UK fought essentialy on the Ypres during WW1, providing full support to Belgium.

UK was more involved in Belgium than anywhere else in 1940.

It is simply impossible to imagine that a recovering UK accepts for very long the situation depicted in T2K and France if it was to retain its position has every interest in weakening UK. Moreover, if UK ever recover I doubt that Belgium remain allied to France. The Belgian would seek independence again and support from HMG.

France on the other hand has every interest to retain the land it controls:
- heavy industries in the Meuse Valley
- Coal/Iron mines in Belgium and Saarland (closed nowadays but probably exploited again in T2K).
- Important agriculture in Belgium
- At least, a working port oppening on the North Sea (Ostende). I consider Anvers to be nuked but who knows. That means a plausible control of part of the oil rigs in the North Sea and the maintaining of much needed trade. Don't forget that most french harbors on the Atlantic had been nuked.
- Banking system and gold reserve for Luxemburg.
- An easily defended and traveled border on the Rhine River. With full control of the Rhone and Rhine Rivers France controls the only open highway linking the Mediterranean and the North Sea (Rhine-Rhone canal). By the way it also controls an easy access to the East and the Ploesti area. As far as I know the Rhine and the Danube are connected (Rhine-Main-Danube canal).
- Belgium is the country of Europe that has the most nuclear powerplant/capita outside of France.

That's only part, I think of the few reason for France to supply not only the Scots but also the Wales, the Cornwall and Eire. However, the idea of France planning an invasion of Great Britain is irrealistic and would conduct to a second one hundred years war.

[Legbreaker]

UK was more involved in Belgium than anywhere else in 1940.
I understand that was mainly because it was felt the French could hold further inland - they did have that wacking great Magniot line.
Of course I could be wrong....

Yes, I can see the French would be interested in keeping other nations off balance, however I would have thought that the situation shown in the Survivors Guide to the UK is far worse than the French could ever hope for. Also, Scotland is a very long way from where HM Government even pretends to control, so supporting the Scots against the Brits just doesn't feel right to me.

[pmulcahy11b]

I don't remember offhand, did the French take Alsace-Lorraine? That's been a bone of contention between France and Germany since the Industrial Revolution; it's full of coal.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Don't forget that Scotland and France have been allies dating back to 1295 and significantly for the French, the Scots supported Jeanne d'Arc (i.e. Joan of Arc) long considered a national heroine and Catholic saint. In the eyes of many French people, she was murdered by the English.
This alliance wasn't just diplomatic/military (specifically to support each other against the English) either as the Scots had a long commercial partnership with France particularly for French wines and most especially claret to the point that the Scots smuggled claret from France in defiance of English taxation up until some time in the 1700s.
Scots were even allowed French citizenship for some time that was only canceled as recently as the early 1900s (can't recall when but it was before WW1)

[Legbreaker]

But all that history is over a hundred years or more in the past. Does it really apply to 2000?
A lot can change in a few short years - take Germany and Britain for example. Enemies in 1945, allies a few short years later.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The British and the French have been allies for nearly 100 years now and there is still lingering dislike of the English by the French and the French by the English, it takes a European (or anyone from the Middle East) to really keep a feud alive!
Albanians still have blood feuds that date back hundreds of years, the Irish can remember who killed who 300 years ago, the French still remember the time when the US and the USSR started getting more friendly in the 1960s (and the US rescinded their "We will use nukes against the USSR if they invade the West" policy) and everyone in Europe held their breath when the two Germany's united wondering if the spectre of the old Germany would arise.

For us here in Australia it's a little bewildering, why the hell would you bother to keep such feuding going long after the people originally involved have been dead and buried? For me it makes little sense but for some in Europe it seems to be just the way things are done :confused:

[Mohoender]

I understand that was mainly because it was felt the French could hold further inland - they did have that wacking great Magniot line.
Of course I could be wrong....

Not entirely for sure. The French even agreed with the British upon the idea of defending Belgium (the most stupid strategic decision of the time IMO). However, the British did send Hurricanes and Battles to Belgium in an attempt to modernize the poorly equipped Belgian air force (CR-42 Falco were their best fighters). They provided quite some air cover. More importantly, they informed the Belgian (officers in the field) of their intention to evacuate at Dunkirk, brought many Belgian along with them (mostly officers again and that created a strong resentment among troopers). Then, these officers were evacuated before the French at Dunkirk and they were incorporated with ease among the British army while distrust for the French continued.


Yes, I can see the French would be interested in keeping other nations off balance, however I would have thought that the situation shown in the Survivors Guide to the UK is far worse than the French could ever hope for. Also, Scotland is a very long way from where HM Government even pretends to control, so supporting the Scots against the Brits just doesn't feel right to me.

I agree with you and (IMO) support for the scots would be only part of this. That's why I mentioned Wales and the Cornwall. Eire would be an entirely different matter as Eire has been collaborating actively with the British Army against IRA (however, it is stated somewhere that Eire remains involved in limited foreign trade. With whom if not Scotland, Wales and France). Nevertheless, the longer HMG remain engaged in England, the better for the French. For all the reasons I pointed out but also because it would prevent HMG from adequately supplying Flemish resistance movement. As long as turmoil remains, France is sure to retain support from the French-speaking Belgian (may be Brusselers as well) but you can be sure that it will be strongly opposed by the Flemish. There are as many differences between a Belgian and a French than between an American and a British.

[Mohoender]

I don't remember offhand, did the French take Alsace-Lorraine? That's been a bone of contention between France and Germany since the Industrial Revolution; it's full of coal.

Yes they did and that was the main reason for France starting WW1 (along England, Germany and Austria). between 1870-1914, two-three generations had been raised in hatred of the Germans by the French school teachers. Coal is in Lorraine and many people from that region have strong ties with French-speaking Belgium.

To note: people from Alsace were fighting in the German army during WW1, and several enlisted again in the Wermacht during WW2. Most (if not all) concentration camps located in France were built in that region.
On the other hand, the only French commando unit to land during D-day was also from that region (Commando Kieffer).

[Mohoender]

But all that history is over a hundred years or more in the past. Does it really apply to 2000?
A lot can change in a few short years - take Germany and Britain for example. Enemies in 1945, allies a few short years later.

Agree but deprive UK of the scots and you deprive it of its bravest soldiers.:D

[Mohoender]

The British and the French have been allies for nearly 100 years now and there is still lingering dislike of the English by the French and the French by the English, it takes a European (or anyone from the Middle East) to really keep a feud alive!


And the same type of feud is still going on between Johnny Rebs and Yankees or Between US and Mexico. Often, it's kind of Folklore for most people at least (I don't know for Mexico/US).

[TiggerCCW UK]

The British and the French have been allies for nearly 100 years now and there is still lingering dislike of the English by the French and the French by the English, it takes a European (or anyone from the Middle East) to really keep a feud alive!


And lets not even add last weeks football result to an Irish/French feud!!!!:D

Mo - would you agree it was a handball?

[Mohoender]

And lets not even add last weeks football result to an Irish/French feud!!!!:D

Mo - would you agree it was a handball?

Yes I do. I even think it was intentional. I also think that our current national team is as pathetic in its failures than in its achievements. However, I don't appreciate football/soccer (outside of Pelé and Platini, I don't know much player's name) and love rugby (I know players names as well as the various teams) so I don't care and might not be that neutral on this matter.

If you ask me if the match should be replayed, my answer is NO because so is the rule. However, it would have been to the honor of France if it had supported that idea. But I have constantly grown ashamed of France (not of the French) for the past six months (or 2 years. I don't want to remember) and France position is a perfect illustration of how much down this country has fallen.

May be it is time to rethink the rules of football and if they do may be I'll watch my first full game since I was 12.

[TiggerCCW UK]

I agree with all you said, amnd wasn't trying to cause offence, so I apologise if I did. Like you I'm more of a rugby fan. I was just interested in a french mans opinion on it.

[Mohoender]

I agree with all you said, amnd wasn't trying to cause offence, so I apologise if I did. Like you I'm more of a rugby fan. I was just interested in a french mans opinion on it.

No offense to apologise for.:)

To be honnest most French I know are sharing the same feelings (about the game and about France in general).

A little more than two weeks ago I sent an email to each one of our Deputies, asking them the same three questions (+ a copy to the President, one to the Prime Minister and one to the man presiding the Senate). That is 580 email. Out of these 580, I received one full answer (a bright one so) and 2 polite ones.

IMO France is slowly moving toward Totalitarian Democracy and if an offense is currently made it is to the Republic by our Politician body.

Sorry to everyone here for that political statement but it had to go out.:o

[simonmark6]

The UK Survivor's Handbook suggested that the first big conflict on Mainland Britain after HM Government started to expand again would be between Wales and HMG along the Anglo-Welsh border. If the french were eager to make mischief in the UK, they might want to arm the Welsh forces first.

Scotland and HMG would be unlikely to butt heads for years apart from small scale skirmishes probably involving commando style raids against Scottish coastal towns if HMG wanted anything up there.

I suppose HMG might want to establish a forward logistical base to service the North Sea oil rigs, but to seriously threaten Scotland, HMG will already have had to take out a lot of warlords and re-integrate ten times or more the trritory they already control into the fold. In addition they will have either come to an accomodation with the Welsh or fought some sort of military action.

I don't see military conflict between Scotland and HMG for many years, if ever, more likely they'll come to a political agreement of some sort.

That means that if I were the French, I'd either arm the Welsh first as they seem to be more militantly minded toward HMG, or just sit back and see what happens, it's not like the English are going to be a threat to France for a long, long time.

[pmulcahy11b]

Yes they did and that was the main reason for France starting WW1 (along England, Germany and Austria). between 1870-1914, two-three generations had been raised in hatred of the Germans by the French school teachers. Coal is in Lorraine and many people from that region have strong ties with French-speaking Belgium.

To note: people from Alsace were fighting in the German army during WW1, and several enlisted again in the Wermacht during WW2. Most (if not all) concentration camps located in France were built in that region.
On the other hand, the only French commando unit to land during D-day was also from that region (Commando Kieffer).

What I actually meant was, did the French take Alsace-Lorraine in the Twilight War?

[Mohoender]

What I actually meant was, did the French take Alsace-Lorraine in the Twilight War?

Sorry didn't got it and for a simple reason. They can't take it as they already have what was Alsace-Lorraine a century ago. They hold it yes and with no doubt. However, you won't find the Dead Zone in Alsace and in Alsace the French border should remain on the Rhine with little if any no-man's land. Alsace and Lorraine have remained part of France since 1919 and comprise three departments: Lorraine, Bas-Rhin et Haut-Rhin. Until last year, it remained also the most important military region for France. I think that until 2008 about one-third of the French military was stationned there.

What they take in T2K is Saarland and you can expect it to be the sole regularly occupied region of Germany (again not part of the Dead Zone). Germans from this region are very likely to accept French rule.

[Ironside]

Thinking about weapon development timetables, I was wondering if the UK Challenger 2 would be built in the V.1 history. As far as I know the decision to replace Challenger 1 seems to have been the result of the CAT 87 Gunnery trophy where the Challenger 1 came a poor last. Both the German Leopard 2 and the US Abrams M1A1 were examined for possible manufacture under licence, but in the end the UK government decided to install a new turret on the Challenger 1 chassis.

Given the circumstances in Westral's 'Storm in Germany', I think that it would be deemed more prudent for the UK to manufacture an already proven design, giving more commonality within NATO, than producing something untried during the increased East-West tension after the Danilov led coup.

I am biased towards the Abrams as I like it personally, but I was wondering what were the opinions of you guys?

[Legbreaker]

Take a look at tank development in WWII and get back to me....

I'm certain they would have pushed on with alternate designs, including the Challenger II. They already had the hulls in plenty, it seems that only the weapon and electronics were an issue.

The Challenger also fits the British concept of combat in Eruope a lot better than any other tank. Heavily armed and armoured, it might not be the fastest on the battlefield, but it can take the punishment others can't.

[Raellus]

The Challenger also fits the British concept of combat in Eruope a lot better than any other tank. Heavily armed and armoured, it might not be the fastest on the battlefield, but it can take the punishment others can't.

Is it really all that better armored than the M1A1? The gun's more or less the same.

Anyway, I think political considerations (national pride & keeping manufacturing jobs in country, especially) would push the UK to opt for a locally designed and manufactured MBT as opposed to licence-building an American or German design.

The most recent precedent would be the L85. The first run was, by all accounts, pretty terrible. Instead of calling it quits and opting for the M-16 or G-36 or some other foreign designed and/or manufactured AR, they made some significant design and manufacturing changes and produced what is, by most accounts, a pretty decent AR. In the T2K timeline, there might not be enough time for this, but IRL, the UK chose to stick to its own guns rather than go abroad for them.

If the problems with the Challenger I were identified in '87 (and the '91 Gulf War?), there would be time to make quite a few IIs by mid-'97. The Challenger II has a place in my v1.0-based T2KU.

[Legbreaker]

Although much of the detail of modern AFVs is kept secret (and rightly so!), it is strongly believed that the Challenger is indeed more heavily armoured than an Abrams. If this is true or not I can't say, but the T2K designers thought it was in both versions.

Almost every country wants to produce their military hardware within their own borders, however cost and capability often prevent this. It's always better to be able to make your own weapons, ammo, etc than have to rely on somebody elsewhere in the world who may choose to cut supply, or have it cut by a third party.

[Targan]

Thinking about weapon development timetables, I was wondering if the UK Challenger 2 would be built in the V.1 history. [snip] I am biased towards the Abrams as I like it personally, but I was wondering what were the opinions of you guys?

As much as possible it has always been my practice to keep what is specifically written in canon and find reasons why what is in canon would be so. Canon (specifically the RDF Sourcebook) says the Brits had the Challenger II so in my T2K universe the Brits have the Challenger II.

[Ironside]

IIRC during WWII when the Allies invaded Sicily, the British left behind all their indigenous tanks with the exception of the Churchill. (Which does reinforce the point about heavy armour.) Also the majority of the tanks the British took to Normandy were American Shermans.

Given that we have our own 'not invented here' syndrome I do agree that it is far more probable that the V.1 canon Challenger 2 would be the tank of choice.

Thanks for all the input. :)

[pmulcahy11b]

Although much of the detail of modern AFVs is kept secret (and rightly so!), it is strongly believed that the Challenger is indeed more heavily armoured than an Abrams. If this is true or not I can't say, but the T2K designers thought it was in both versions.

Well, the US has lost several M-1s, but I have heard several stories of Challenger 2s in Iraq taking an incredible beating and coming out on the bright side. While the fact that the US military was in Iraq in far greater numbers than the rest of the "coalition of the willing" may account for the greater tank losses, I find the reports of the Challenger 2's armor believable.

[Legbreaker]

For me, sloped armour of any composition has to perform better than the basically upright slabs on the M1...

But that's just my opinion.

[Raellus]

For me, sloped armour of any composition has to perform better than the basically upright slabs on the M1...


Sounds like you're thinking of the Leopard II.

The Challenger II's armor has more of a slope than the Abrams' but it's not that great of a difference. Also- and this may be outdated info- AFAIK, the M1's "Chobham" armor was based on a British design also used in the Challenger I. Although the "recipe" of the composite armor on the M1 may have changed somewhat over the years, aren't the armors of both the M1 and the Challenger II more or less the same? More slope helps, but it's not like the II's armor is fundamentally different than the M1's. For all we know, it could be the exact same stuff.

As Paul pointed out, more M1s were engaged in Iraq at any given time than Challenger IIs and the M1s have been there a lot longer. So, yeah, there are going to be more M1 losses for those two reasons alone.

AFAIK, most of the M1 combat losses were due to engine fires and IEDs. Several M1s sustained multiple RPG hits without succumbing. Very few had their turret armor penetrated by AT shells or other ATWs. Most of the Challenger IIs were gone by the time really big IEDs started to make an appearance on the battlefield.

Using M1 losses in Iraq to crown the Challenger II a "better" tank is not fair. It may well be a better tank, but this is a misuse of statistics.

[Legbreaker]

Even if identical numbers were used for identical periods, there'd still be a few discrepancies. Unless tested under controlled conditions, there's really no way for anyone to know unless they have access to the vehicle specifications and test data.

Both tanks are also built for different battlefield philosophies. As far as I am aware (and this is really dumbing it down), the US are more offensively orientated, their tanks built more for speed while the British are conservative and build for defence. Both tanks are certainly better than almost everything they'll ever face, but head to head? Who can tell?

I still prefer the Challenger though.

[Rainbow Six]

Why would the French be shipping arms over to Scotland anyway? What's in it for them?

The UK is already in a world of hurt and arming the populace for whatever reason can only contribute to even more unrest. Sure Britain and France have been long time enemies up until the last centry or so, but if you feel France might be preparing to invade sometime in the next couple of decades, wouldn't arming the Scots be against the French best interests? It means more people are arme when they make their move.

And of course there's also the difficulty of shipping them there. Even for a country like France, who's stayed mainly out of the war, fuel and other goods are sure to be in short supply. They haven't had anyone but their few scattered colonies to trade with (besides a few small exceptions). Just feeding, clothing and keeping warm the tens or millions of people within their own borders is going to be a struggle for at least a few years after the war.

I've been on holiday for two weeks without any internet access, hence the reason I couldn't reply to this sooner (although Mo actually gave almost exactly the reply that I would have done anyway - in fact his reply was probably even better than mine would have been, so merci beaucoup mon ami ;))

In my T2K World the French Government want to keep the UK destabilised for as long as possible without being drawn into open conflict with the British (I do not anticipate the French ever attempting any sort of invasion of the British Isles).

The French feel that a weakened UK is in their long term best interests. So a key part of French strategy is to supply covert assistance to various factions in the UK, most notably the Scots.

In my T2k World I have the British Government still retaining a large organised presence in the North east of England based around Catterick Garrison in Yorkshire. I also have the remaining RAF bases in Scotland at Lossiemouth and Kinloss still loyal to HMG and allied with the Highland Coalition, an alliance of various Highland towns centred around Inverness and Fort William. Whilst the Highland Coalition is not openly hostile to the Perth based Republic of Scotland, relations between the two are fairly cool.

Therefore the leadership of the Republic of Scotland has readily accepted French offers of aid, although the French Government are careful to ensure that the aid they provide cannot be linked directly back to France.

I am currently working on a draft piece on the Republic of Scotland which will go into much more detail on French involvement and the personalities and politics involved - I'll post it as soon as I can.

With regards to the Welsh and again in my T2K World, the French have made contact with the Welsh Government, but the Welsh have chosen to adopt an isolationist approach, so chose not to accept any assistance from the French at this time.

Cheers

[pmulcahy11b]

Even if identical numbers were used for identical periods, there'd still be a few discrepancies. Unless tested under controlled conditions, there's really no way for anyone to know unless they have access to the vehicle specifications and test data.

Both tanks are also built for different battlefield philosophies. As far as I am aware (and this is really dumbing it down), the US are more offensively orientated, their tanks built more for speed while the British are conservative and build for defence. Both tanks are certainly better than almost everything they'll ever face, but head to head? Who can tell?

I still prefer the Challenger though.

Here's something I've noticed about the Challenger, and I've never been able to find an answer: Why does the turret deck slope downwards from the right to the left? I'm thinking it's maybe a weight-saving feature -- that maybe the turret didn't need to be as high on the left side, so they just made it slope to the left to save weight, and it would have an incidental effect of providing some additional protection against shots from that side of the turret due to the slope.

As for the Chobham armor, it was originally the same thing on the Challenger, Abrams, and Leopard 2. The US just called it Burlington armor instead of Chobham. Today, however, the armor has evolved, so there are now some differences between the three, and other countries have their own versions of composite armor. (Side note: original Soviet composite armor was an inferior version of Chobham. Their agents stole a sample and the plans for the early version of Chobham from a West German lab in the mid-1970s. They could not duplicate the technology properly at the time, so the first Soviet tanks with composite armor provided much inferior protection than a tank with an equal amount of Chobham.)

Clarification Note: The agents were East German, reportedly.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While I can't seem to find any really clear photos of the turret to illustrate what you mean, I am thinking that it may be due to the commander's station being set higher than the loader's station and needing the room for the electronics to power the ancillary sights.

[Webstral]

If the Challenger II--IF--is able to take a measurably greater degree of punishment than the M1A1/2, this would serve the Brits well during the slog across Poland. I've been dabbling with some notes for a summary of the Polish campaign in 1997, based principally on the input from threads here. My principal foci have been trying to explain the apparent snail's pace of operations, how the pace fits in with Soviet intentions for the use of Poland in the bigger picture, and how NATO uses its particular advantages to adapt to the nature of the Pact defense by trading time and money for lives.

Ye gods, the prospect of having to live through the Brits crowing about how their tank philosophy was the best-suited NATO design for the European battlefield! It's just as well the world came to an end.

Webstral

[Raellus]

I saw a photo dated 2000 of a Challenger I in Kosovo or Bosnia so there must still have been quite a few of them around in the Twilight War.

Web, are you comparing the NATO campaign across Poland to the rapid U.S.-led coalition victories against Iraq in '91 and '03?

IIRC, it tooks NATO about 7 months to fight its way across Poland and into Soviet territory. Although by no means Blitzkrieg, that's not too bad considering the stiff opposition. The fighting must have been brutal.

I'm looking forward to reading your campaign history.

[Webstral]

Web, are you comparing the NATO campaign across Poland to the rapid U.S.-led coalition victories against Iraq in '91 and '03?

I am thinking about Operation Desert Shield. Obviously, there are staggering differences between the circumstances of Desert Storm and the 1997 NATO offensive in Poland. Nevertheless, I think the comparatively slow pace of the NATO advance deserves some attention. Even vis-a-vis the Anglo-American operation in East Germany, the Poland operation made slow progress. There's more to the story than just logistical problems. The pattern ties into the number of divisions the Soviets husbanded in Belarus while the fighting was raging in Poland. I'm not certain if the GDW authors saw things this way, but I see a clear intent to launch a mobile counteroffensive after the Polish Army and some-second string Soviet formations had bled the NATO invaders white in a mines-and-earthworks defense reminiscent of the Chinese defenses in Manchuria. I think Soviet nuclear use in the West initially was intended as a sort of set-up punch to soften the NATO forces for the main armored blow that would come from the husbanded armored forces in Belarus. The Soviets quickly discovered, though, that the NATO troops adapted the massive defensive belts for their own countermobility purposes. As a result, the counteroffensive that was supposed to carry the Soviets back to the Oder in a trice bogged down. The NATO troops fell back partially because the supply situation once again was intolerable but principally because the use of nukes had caused the civilian leadership in the West to abandon their plan of knocking the USSR out of the war and settle instead for reunifying Germany (and laying waste to Poland). But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

I think you're close to the truth there Web. At least it's as good a theory as any other and appears to fit the evidence quite well.

Something else to keep in mind is that Nato were not prepared for the offensive, having being essentially dragged into the war by Germany. Many of the Nato divisions, particularly US units, weren't even deployed to Europe until well after the commencement of hostilities.

This early phase of the war was fought essentially on peacetime stocks and with units who'd basically grown complacent. Nobody really expected to enter into WWIII (even though they'd been training for it for decades), so when reality struck them in the face, it took time to react appropriately.

It is my opinion that while on paper the participant units were strong, the reality was a bit different. This is not to say they didn't perform well, just that they could have performed much better given a few more months warning, preperation and training.

And then there's the lack of France in the alliance, not to mention Italy basically switching sides. Units tasked in the prewar plans to offensive actions suddenly had to be retasked to holding the flanks or attacking regions previously assigned to the French, possibly without adequate numbers of maps, etc.

[Raellus]

I don't know if this will be helpful to you, Web. You've probably already thought of it but here goes.

The two Gulf Wars and the Western Allies' march from the Atlantic to the Elbe (lasting about a month less than a year) were all accomplished with nearly constant air superiority and, sometimes, even air supremacy. Allied air power could isolate the battlefield and decapitate enemy command and control, making the job on the ground a lot easier than it otherwise would be.

One possible explanation for the relative long duration of NATO's sweep across Poland is a lack of air superiority. Perhaps the Soviets were able to maintain close to air parity or, at times or on certain fronts, limited air superiority. At the very least, the Red Army and air force and their respective WTO counterparts might have been able to deny NATO air superiority over the front lines or in the Soviet's rear areas.

[Raellus]

To get us back on topic (I don't mind parallel discussions here, BTW), what kinds of weapons do you think could or could not be produced after the TDM?

For example, I'm assuming that ATGMs could not (given the complexity of the optical and guidance systems) be produced after the TDM, while RPGs and LAWs probably could be (in much smaller quantities, though). An M1A1 could not be manufactured from scratch (assembly of pre-made parts, maybe) but a Ranger armored truck, possibly.

What do you think could be produced after the big/high-tech factories are shut down by EMP (or are blown up)?

Also, are unguided rockets easier or more difficult (or equally) to produce than ammunition and propellant charges for conventional tube artillery? I'm guessing easier since the VC and various other insurgent groups seem to be able to make their own rockets in garage workshops and such.

[Webstral]

To get us back on topic (I don't mind parallel discussions here, BTW), what kinds of weapons do you think could or could not be produced after the TDM?

Also, are unguided rockets easier or more difficult (or equally) to produce than ammunition and propellant charges for conventional tube artillery? I'm guessing easier since the VC and various other insurgent groups seem to be able to make their own rockets in garage workshops and such.


I've been working on a list of primary weapons in use in SAMAD by early 2001. Included among them is a locally-produced variant of the RPG-7. Ammunition types include HEAT, HE-F, and HESH. I've read that the Russians either have or have been working on a beehive-type round for the RPG, but this might be a bit much for small-scale operations to manufacture in a cost-effective fashion.

The locally-produced RPG comes into use in SAMAD because it is a simple weapon with high portability that gives light infantry a fairly effective platoon-level fire support capability. Specs are obtained with the hordes of other materials before the TDM.

The SAMAD version is manufactured with mesquite for the grips and other wooden parts. There aren't a lot of HEAT rounds carried because there aren't a lot of armored vehicles being used. Platoons operating on anti-marauder sweeps north of the Gila River carry HE-F and HESH rounds for tackling the bad guys in their (typically) fortified base camps. The HESH round can double as an anti-armor round against any armored vehicle that doesn't have a spall liner, which covers pretty much any improvised AFV and a fair number of light AFV.

Rockets are fairly easy to manufacture, although the real cost savings comes in the form of the launcher. Tube artillery is expensive to manufacture and requires specialized facilities. One reason the Soviets made such wide use of the Katyusha systems in 1942 was that tremendous quantities of their tube artillery had fallen into German hands. They could not replace the guns overnight. Rocket launchers on trucks or trailers were much simpler to fabricate.

For this reason, SAMAD also manufactures a respectable quantity of primitive MRL. Accuracy is low, so saturation fires figure prominently in doctrine. Fort Huachuca creates a number of fire bases in the Huachuca Mountains and improves the roads along the spurs and saddles to facilitate rapid movement (and to forestall the enemy from planning and executing VC sapper-style attacks on the fire bases). From their vantage points atop the Huachucas, the massed rocket launchers can bring high volumes of HE down on the enemy without fear of counterbattery fire. It's too bad for the enemy that he has no fighter-bombers operating in 2000...

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

Perhaps the Soviets were able to maintain close to air parity or, at times or on certain fronts, limited air superiority. At the very least, the Red Army and air force and their respective WTO counterparts might have been able to deny NATO air superiority over the front lines or in the Soviet's rear areas.

This is an almost certainty and refered to in the T2K history. Before Nato were involved, the German Lufwaffe took a beating and were out flown and out fought by the Pact air forces. I can't recall details, but once the rest of Nato joined in I'd imagine it would have still been a close run thing, especially since German airpower had effectively been eliminated, thereby reducing the available Nato planes to just what the US and Britain brought with them (plus relatively minor contributions from the smaller nations).

[Abbott Shaull]

I would tend to agree that the reasons the offensive across Poland seemed to take a snail pace would be due to the fact that the Soviets and Pact Forces were in general in superior numbers. Then add in the forces that would of been counted on if the Soviet had attacked first instead of war due to a unification of Germany brought about the Soviet-China War.

Next thing one of the things missing in the first Persian Gulf War were the National Guard and Reserve units that were suppose to be round-out units that were supposedly be ready to deploy with min. training with their assigned Divisions. By all accounts they still would of needed up to 6 months after the cease fire before they would of been in condition to serve on the front lines in Iraq if the war had lasted that long. One of the reason why the US Army went from 18 Divisions down to 12 Divisions almost overnight afterwards.

Again it wasn't only the French, Italians, and Greeks who were missing in the action. Several of other allies refuse to commit troops and kept them in their original defensive posture at their starting points. Or if their units did go east they didn't send the units they were suppose to, they like the French and Italians felt betrayed by Unified Germany and felt their obligation was to defend the western portion of the new Germany.

Now back to the Challenger II if they were better defensively than the M1 it is a good thing. For they were in NorthAG and would have to stop plenty of Soviet Armor in their own right, on terrain that favor the attacker more than it did the defender. Both Army Groups faced overwhelming Soviet/Pact forces, but for opposing reason. The NorthAG faced the force who would raced towards Germany. SouthAG face units who were there to keep NATO from moving units North to help the NorthAG.

[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.

[pmulcahy11b]

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.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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/Lightweight_Small_Arms_Technologies
http://www.defensereview.com/aai-lightweight-small-arms-technologies-lsat-prototype-on-display-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.... :confused:

[Dog 6]

Hey, Kalashnikov was a tanker sergeant -- DATs don't even know one end of a rifle from the other!:D

OK crunchy :D

[perardua]

I always have to stick my head in when I see any thread about the L85A2 online, it's a bad habit of mine, but I feel I must defend its reputation!
I have been using the weapon system for four years now, including on tour in Afghanistan, and have heard no complaints from any other British troops about its reliability, nor had any problems with it myself. The improvements HK made to the rifle were considerable, and have proven very effective. The results of the reliability testing showed that in virtually all environments it performed well. Whilst you may take these results with a pinch of salt, operational experience has borne out the findings.

In my experience, the only cause of stoppages has been bent magazine lips, which is due to poor magazine care (especially since it is quite difficult to bend the metal HK magazines that replaced the plastic Radway Green ones); or using the blank firing only training magazines.

Almost all of the small arms instructors I know and have spoken about it with have also said that they believe the A2 to be one of the most reliable weapons of its type in the world, and given my less than satisfactory experience with, for example, the M4 and M16, I tend to believe them.
The major complaints with the weapon in service at the moment have nothing to do with its reliability, but more to do with the weight, and the sight rail. The sight mounting system for the SUSAT is not as sturdy as other such systems, and whilst the SUSAT itself is a very tough sight, it can lose its zero relatively easily. Even the introduction of the ACOG has not solved this, as it has meant introducing a Picatinny adaptor to be attached to the existing sight rail, creating an extra point of failure. A lot of people are calling for the sight rail to just be replaced with a Picatinny rail, as this has already been done with the handguards on weapons in frontline service.

However, the L85A1, though I've only used it twice, was utter shite. Both times I had a number of stoppages in relation to the relatively weak return spring. I only ever used it on a range, so I didn't get to experience any of the other reported faults that occur should you actually decide to move with the weapon.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

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

[waiting4something]

I always have to stick my head in when I see any thread about the L85A2 online, it's a bad habit of mine, but I feel I must defend its reputation!
I have been using the weapon system for four years now, including on tour in Afghanistan, and have heard no complaints from any other British troops about its reliability, nor had any problems with it myself. The improvements HK made to the rifle were considerable, and have proven very effective. The results of the reliability testing showed that in virtually all environments it performed well. Whilst you may take these results with a pinch of salt, operational experience has borne out the findings.

In my experience, the only cause of stoppages has been bent magazine lips, which is due to poor magazine care (especially since it is quite difficult to bend the metal HK magazines that replaced the plastic Radway Green ones); or using the blank firing only training magazines.

Almost all of the small arms instructors I know and have spoken about it with have also said that they believe the A2 to be one of the most reliable weapons of its type in the world, and given my less than satisfactory experience with, for example, the M4 and M16, I tend to believe them.
The major complaints with the weapon in service at the moment have nothing to do with its reliability, but more to do with the weight, and the sight rail. The sight mounting system for the SUSAT is not as sturdy as other such systems, and whilst the SUSAT itself is a very tough sight, it can lose its zero relatively easily. Even the introduction of the ACOG has not solved this, as it has meant introducing a Picatinny adaptor to be attached to the existing sight rail, creating an extra point of failure. A lot of people are calling for the sight rail to just be replaced with a Picatinny rail, as this has already been done with the handguards on weapons in frontline service.

However, the L85A1, though I've only used it twice, was utter shite. Both times I had a number of stoppages in relation to the relatively weak return spring. I only ever used it on a range, so I didn't get to experience any of the other reported faults that occur should you actually decide to move with the weapon.

Thanks for the info on this weapon.:cool: The only thing that turns me off about L85 system is it's a bullpup. Bullpups for me are slow to reload compared to weapons with magazines forward of the trigger. This might just be me since I'm a M16 lover. I also wonder if you can shoot the L85 from either shoulder or if you might injury your face like the AUG? To me not being able to do that with the AUG makes it more a range toy then a combat weapon, but I can't confirm this, because I don't have the balls to test this out with my MSAR STG-556.:o

[Legbreaker]

With a little practise bullpups are just as fast to reload.
With regard to the AUG, they can be quickly and easily converted for left or right handed firing simply by switching over the ejection port cover and replacing the bolt carrier with a left (or right) handed on.
I found the AUG to be a superior weapon in all ways to the M16 and even L1A1 SLR except that it was 5.56mm rather than my personal preference, the 7.62N. With the centre of balance at the pistol grip, it can be easily and accurately fired with one hand, leaving the other clear to open doors, carry other equipment, etc, etc, etc. Of course for truely accurate fire two hands is definately prefered but one is fine for FIBUA operations.

All in all it's a weapon that takes some getting used to, but once you do it's brilliant!

[waiting4something]

With a little practise bullpups are just as fast to reload.
With regard to the AUG, they can be quickly and easily converted for left or right handed firing simply by switching over the ejection port cover and replacing the bolt carrier with a left (or right) handed on.
I found the AUG to be a superior weapon in all ways to the M16 and even L1A1 SLR except that it was 5.56mm rather than my personal preference, the 7.62N. With the centre of balance at the pistol grip, it can be easily and accurately fired with one hand, leaving the other clear to open doors, carry other equipment, etc, etc, etc. Of course for truely accurate fire two hands is definately prefered but one is fine for FIBUA operations.

All in all it's a weapon that takes some getting used to, but once you do it's brilliant!

I know you can do the left handed firing if you switch out the bolts, but that just seems to time consuming for me. In the U.S. we are trained to shoot around corners of buildings and such with exposing as little of our body as possible, or transition our weapon when patrolling which ever dierection we are covering. With the AUG you can't do that. That is my big probelm with it. The weight with bullpups is nice since it is evenly distributed.:cool:

The weird thing about the bullpups both AUG and L85 is the regular troops like and use them and the elite units don't.:confused: We had a class on the F88 from a Australian Air Force member and he talked about how great and simple it was. Then a few weeks later some of the guys I was with got to shoot(then clean of course:D) some of the SASR weapons. The F88 they had broke right away so only one dude shot it. But when we were cleaning the weapons a day later one of the SASR guys told us about how he thought the F88 was a POS.
I like the look of the AUG, which is why I got a MSAR. I thought I would like it over my FN FS2000, but the forward ejection on the FS2000 makes more sense to me. For me bullpups just are not as fast loading and unloading as non bullpups to me and the thought of only shooting from my right shoulder is unexceptable. It's cool to hear that people like different things though, or the world would be boring.:)

[Legbreaker]

There's quite a few weapons in the world that can only be fired from the right shoulder without ending up with hot brass in the face. The M60 for example is one of those weapons where if you're a left hander, you better make damn sure your sleeves are done up nice and tight!
I once saw a 25 year Warrant Officer who'd hauled the thing around as a private for a few years, then as an NCO in the SFMG platoon who missed that small detail on the range. A couple of bursts in he dropped it like it was a live snake, jumped to his feet and ripped of his shirt - a couple of dozen rather hot shells tumbled from within and he had some very nice scorch marks to his forearm.

As far as transitioning, a good Section/Squad Commander should be aware of the abilities and limitations of his men, placing them where they will naturally point towards their arc of responsibility. Everyone should of course be able to react in any direction at the drop of a hat, but if a person is naturally pointed there to begin with...

[pmulcahy11b]

There's quite a few weapons in the world that can only be fired from the right shoulder without ending up with hot brass in the face.

The M-16A1 is like that for lefties. I remember one time on the range with some ROTC cadets; one female cadet had, you might say, a big pocket for the hot brass to go down...hilarity ensued.

[perardua]

In training, it is taught that the L85 is to be fired from the right shoulder only, and whilst I have never tried to use it from the left shoulder, I imagine that there would be an issue with both hot brass (though the A2 throws it forward a lot better than the A1), and also with the fact that if you're not careful the cocking handle may be coming uncomfortably close to your face as it moves back and forth. In fact, if you look at an L85, you will see the cheek piece does not extend to the right hand side of the rifle, and that the cocking handle (which is fixed to and moves with the bolt as it cycles, comes back to where the cheek would be if firing from the left shoulder).
Also, in my experience, shooting from the right shoulder is the main, if not only shooting method taught to conventional units in the British military regardless of the weapon system, though this is probably due to the fact that as the rifle, common to all units, can only be fired from the right shoulder, it is the method that seems natural when firing other weapons. Indeed, even those few weapons were left handed firing is permitted on ranges (the pistol springs to mind), the majority of left handed shooters have become so used to firing right handed they will continue to do so.
As for the effect this has on FIBUA tactics, it does mean that shooting round corners to the left requires greater body exposure. As for patrolling, we still maintain the old adage of weapons moving with your eyes, but you can still cover your arcs without switching shoulders. You just have to move your body!
As for reloading times, I've used conventional layout weapons only a few times, mainly the M16 and M4, and find that I am slower to reload with those than I am with the L85, though I suspect that's a familiarity issue, and that practice plays a greater role in reloading speed. It might also be true that someone joining, for example, the US military, is more likely to become familiar with a conventionally laid out rifle before joining than in the UK, where for nearly every person joining the forces, their first experience with a weapon will be with the bullpup L85.
Finally, on the subject of one handed use, the L85 is extremely easy to use one handed, which comes in handy when, for example, opening doors, throwing grenades and using radioes. Of course, if you get stuck with a UGL and LLM like I did on my last tour, it becomes very front heavy very quickly! I was very jealous of all the riflemen on the Section, with their new grip-pods (vertical forward handgrips with a pop out bipod, spoken of favourably by nearly everyone).

Oh, and one final tale on the hot brass front: On an inter-Section defence range the LMG gunner sharing my trench managed to get a bursts worth of brass down the front of my shirt as I was crouching reloading the UGL (that being the day where I was carrying 96 rounds of 40mm due to the ammo nearing its expiry date). With great presence of mind (I like to think), I calmly safetied my weapon, placed it on the rim of the trench pointing down range, and then proceeded to go mental digging out four casings from my chest and stomach. At the end of the day the range supervisor asked if anyone had been injured. I said that I had, and he asked why I hadn't seen a medic at the time. My reply, naturally, was "Because I'm hard, Sergeant." He awarded our Section 10 extra points for that, and I got some new scars.

[waiting4something]

There's quite a few weapons in the world that can only be fired from the right shoulder without ending up with hot brass in the face. The M60 for example is one of those weapons where if you're a left hander, you better make damn sure your sleeves are done up nice and tight!
I once saw a 25 year Warrant Officer who'd hauled the thing around as a private for a few years, then as an NCO in the SFMG platoon who missed that small detail on the range. A couple of bursts in he dropped it like it was a live snake, jumped to his feet and ripped of his shirt - a couple of dozen rather hot shells tumbled from within and he had some very nice scorch marks to his forearm.

As far as transitioning, a good Section/Squad Commander should be aware of the abilities and limitations of his men, placing them where they will naturally point towards their arc of responsibility. Everyone should of course be able to react in any direction at the drop of a hat, but if a person is naturally pointed there to begin with...

With the AUG, I'm not talking about just hot brass though. I mean you get messed up from what I have read. Like loosing teeth and shit.:confused: Hot brass in the face is just a annoyance, but I draw the line at loosing teeth.

[waiting4something]

In training, it is taught that the L85 is to be fired from the right shoulder only, and whilst I have never tried to use it from the left shoulder, I imagine that there would be an issue with both hot brass (though the A2 throws it forward a lot better than the A1), and also with the fact that if you're not careful the cocking handle may be coming uncomfortably close to your face as it moves back and forth. In fact, if you look at an L85, you will see the cheek piece does not extend to the right hand side of the rifle, and that the cocking handle (which is fixed to and moves with the bolt as it cycles, comes back to where the cheek would be if firing from the left shoulder).
Also, in my experience, shooting from the right shoulder is the main, if not only shooting method taught to conventional units in the British military regardless of the weapon system, though this is probably due to the fact that as the rifle, common to all units, can only be fired from the right shoulder, it is the method that seems natural when firing other weapons. Indeed, even those few weapons were left handed firing is permitted on ranges (the pistol springs to mind), the majority of left handed shooters have become so used to firing right handed they will continue to do so.
As for the effect this has on FIBUA tactics, it does mean that shooting round corners to the left requires greater body exposure. As for patrolling, we still maintain the old adage of weapons moving with your eyes, but you can still cover your arcs without switching shoulders. You just have to move your body!
As for reloading times, I've used conventional layout weapons only a few times, mainly the M16 and M4, and find that I am slower to reload with those than I am with the L85, though I suspect that's a familiarity issue, and that practice plays a greater role in reloading speed. It might also be true that someone joining, for example, the US military, is more likely to become familiar with a conventionally laid out rifle before joining than in the UK, where for nearly every person joining the forces, their first experience with a weapon will be with the bullpup L85.
Finally, on the subject of one handed use, the L85 is extremely easy to use one handed, which comes in handy when, for example, opening doors, throwing grenades and using radioes. Of course, if you get stuck with a UGL and LLM like I did on my last tour, it becomes very front heavy very quickly! I was very jealous of all the riflemen on the Section, with their new grip-pods (vertical forward handgrips with a pop out bipod, spoken of favourably by nearly everyone).

Oh, and one final tale on the hot brass front: On an inter-Section defence range the LMG gunner sharing my trench managed to get a bursts worth of brass down the front of my shirt as I was crouching reloading the UGL (that being the day where I was carrying 96 rounds of 40mm due to the ammo nearing its expiry date). With great presence of mind (I like to think), I calmly safetied my weapon, placed it on the rim of the trench pointing down range, and then proceeded to go mental digging out four casings from my chest and stomach. At the end of the day the range supervisor asked if anyone had been injured. I said that I had, and he asked why I hadn't seen a medic at the time. My reply, naturally, was "Because I'm hard, Sergeant." He awarded our Section 10 extra points for that, and I got some new scars.

Wow, it's weird how different the U.K.'s and U.S.A.'s style is. I remember when I was a boot new to the fleet and we tired swinging the other direction with our body so our weapon could face a contact. We got degraded fast! Next we thought we would be smart and try to find the lefties among us to cover the right flank, that really pissed off our seniors.:D Shooting and patrolling opposite handed was never as natural, but it did become easier.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

With the AUG, I'm not talking about just hot brass though. I mean you get messed up from what I have read. Like loosing teeth and shit.:confused: Hot brass in the face is just a annoyance, but I draw the line at loosing teeth.

I can tell you from personal experience that the idea that you could lose teeth from firing an AUG on the opposite shoulder is pure and utter BS.
I'm a righthander and firing it from the left shoulder does cause some cases to zip past your face so close you can feel the heat and sometime you can be hit on the right cheek. It wasn't recommended practice but could be done

[waiting4something]

I can tell you from personal experience that the idea that you could lose teeth from firing an AUG on the opposite shoulder is pure and utter BS.
I'm a righthander and firing it from the left shoulder does cause some cases to zip past your face so close you can feel the heat and sometime you can be hit on the right cheek. It wasn't recommended practice but could be done

Good that is the answer to the question I was looking for.:cool:

[Legbreaker]

I'm with SSC with this. The only way you could possibly hurt yourself is if you weren't holding the weapon correctly in the first place, something that would get you injured with virtually any weapon out there.
The AUG is a good weapon. It might not suit SF types, but it's very suitable for general soldiering. The only drawback with the original models is that you couldn't mount a GL on it and so grenadiers reverted to carrying the M79 again. This has been rectified with the later models along with a few other minor modifcations.

I'm a strong fan of 7.62. I hate the M16 and most 5.56 weapons with a passion, but the F88 Steyr AUG is one of the few I've been happy to carry instead of the L1A1 SLR or M60 due to it's ease of carry, natural aiming characteristics, good balance and generally solid build. The one drawback it had was the rather short reach with a bayonet, something I rectified by fitting an SMLE bayonet to mine, doubling it's length and putting the fear of god into the recruits and trainees I was acting as enemy for (I wouldn't have been allowed to get away with in in my usual unit).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Good that is the answer to the question I was looking for.:cool:

The first few rounds were scary but after you got used to it it was just a distraction, that was still a problem for me because anything flying past that close to my eyes tends to distract me a lot. I must admit, I almost dropped the rifle when that first hot case hit my face though.
We only had the mag loaded with 10 rounds, so it was 5 rounds individual and the last 5 was in a burst all done so we would know what it was like should we ever need to fire from the opposite shoulder.
My general attitude to the experience - F**k that, I'll stick to my right shoulder

[Webstral]

I remember one time on the range with some ROTC cadets; one female cadet had, you might say, a big pocket for the hot brass to go down...hilarity ensued.

I don't understand. Perhaps someone could draw a picture? Maybe we could hire someone to do a re-enactedment? Catherine Bell, perhaps?

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

Wow, it's weird how different the U.K.'s and U.S.A.'s style is. I remember when I was a boot new to the fleet and we tired swinging the other direction with our body so our weapon could face a contact. We got degraded fast! Next we thought we would be smart and try to find the lefties among us to cover the right flank, that really pissed off our seniors.:D Shooting and patrolling opposite handed was never as natural, but it did become easier.

That is how we were taught, back in the day. I'm willing to bet if they ever stopped doing that training, they're doing it again now. Right shoulder, left shoulder, laying on your back (gutter-prone), aimed fire from low-crawl prone, etc. The M16A2 and later are better for lefties -- a brass deflector is machined into the upper receiver.

[Webstral]

I've never been a believer in ambidexterity. If a unit is looking for ways to eat up its allocation of ammunition, then opposite-hand marksmanship is a fun passtime. Some people (not me) even get good at it. But if a unit is already groaning about the expense of ammunition, I say save the ambidexterity for nocturnal fantasies and reinforce the dominant hand and eye. I've trained with a few guys who insisted that riflemen on the right side of the wedge carry their weapons like lefties. The weapon might have been pointed in the right direction for a fast hip shot, but that's about as far as the advantage would have gone with me and most of the guys I've ever trained with. Rangers, 82nd Airborne, Delta... maybe it's different for them. For the rest of us, it would be far more pratical to take the extra half-second to turn the body enough to get an aimed right-handed shot off (if one were engage from the standing position) and invest scarce range time and ammunition in improving the dominant hand and eye.

Webstral

[perardua]

I also wonder if you can shoot the L85 from either shoulder or if you might injury your face like the AUG? To me not being able to do that with the AUG makes it more a range toy then a combat weapon, but I can't confirm this, because I don't have the balls to test this out with my MSAR STG-556.:o

For me, the ultimate test of whether or not being able to shoot from both shoulders is an essential, rather than desirable, feature of a rifle is in the record of the forces that have chosen to go without. And, to be honest, I don't think it's a capability that has been missed in the mainstream British military. It's not something that is, in my experience, complained about by those outside the SF community.

I suspect that training and doctrine have contributed to overcoming the deficiency, and I still maintain that I would much rather carry the L85, warts and all, than any other rifle I have had an opportunity to play with so far. Well, maybe the AUG if I ever actually got to fire it! Stupid QRF duties dragging me away from the range...

[Rainbow Six]

I suspect that training and doctrine have contributed to overcoming the deficiency, and I still maintain that I would much rather carry the L85, warts and all, than any other rifle I have had an opportunity to play with so far.

Perardua, appreciate your insights on the SA80...

Am I right in thinking that the A2 version of the SA80 didn't start being issued until the year 2000, in which case in either V1 or V2 T2K British forces would have been armed with the A1 model, which seems to be looked on less favourably?

Unless, of course, one goes with the theory that a continuing Cold War accelarates the development of the A2 model (particularly in the V1 setting...).

Cheers

[pmulcahy11b]

I don't understand. Perhaps someone could draw a picture? Maybe we could hire someone to do a re-enactedment? Catherine Bell, perhaps?

Webstral

If Catherine Bell a lefty? Might be better if she were ambidextrous...uh oh.. severe danger of thread drift...<wrenching my mind out of the gutter>

[pmulcahy11b]

I understand how you feel about the L85. I think I said earlier in the thread that in the circumstances, I would probably default to an M16, because, despite the fact that I'm not impressed by it, I know what it can and can't do, I have the muscle memory, and I know how to maintain it and what parts need extra attention. I also remember my battlesight zero, with glasses and with contact lenses (they're different for me).

[perardua]

Am I right in thinking that the A2 version of the SA80 didn't start being issued until the year 2000, in which case in either V1 or V2 T2K British forces would have been armed with the A1 model, which seems to be looked on less favourably?

Unless, of course, one goes with the theory that a continuing Cold War accelarates the development of the A2 model (particularly in the V1 setting...).


I can't say exactly when the A2 came into service, but to my knowledge almost every unit (including reservists) that deployed to Iraq in 2003 had been upgraded to the A2 on both the rifle and LSW. The upgrade itself is extremely simple, essentially consisting mainly of swapping parts that come out of the rifle for normal daily cleaning anyway. I believe that in a v1 T2k timeline, it would not have been beyond the realms of possibility for the majority of L85s in service to be upgraded to the new standard relatively quickly, as long as the will to identify the problems and manufacture the necessary parts was there. I imagine that the older, more stoppage-prone plastic Radway Green magazines would have remained in service as a cheaper and lighter alternative to the sturdier metal Heckler & Koch ones we use today.

However, I can imagine that upgrades in the T2k universe would have come slowly, if at all, and that there would still be enough military personnel who had come into service on the SLR rather than the L85 that there may be a return to the L1A1. Of course, even by 1995-6 the majority of younger infantry soldiers will never have used the SLR, and if the decision is made to include it in a campaign, it will likely be found in the hands of the old timers with fond memories of it, rather than younger personnel who may prefer the familiarity, ease of handling and sighting system of the L85. I would also perhaps suggest that those who choose to reintroduce the SLR consider porting over the existing stocks of SUSAT and CWS from the L85 to be mounted on the L1A1. This is especially important due to the relative lack of NVGs in British service during the period, a capability which is for the most part provided by the CWS mounted on the rifle.

[dude_uk]

Given the circumstances in Westral's 'Storm in Germany', I think that it would be deemed more prudent for the UK to manufacture an already proven design, giving more commonality within NATO, than producing something untried during the increased East-West tension after the Danilov led coup.

If you include the Gulf war as timeline, The Challenger1 is given a battle proof run and is proven to work. The amount of kills it gets and its proven reliability in the field make up for it shortcomings at CAT 87. No doubt a Challenger 2 equipped team would be fielded for the next CAT before WW3 breaks out and The British army would be playing to win...

Your are looking at around 372 Challenger 1's and 386 Challenger 2 by 1996, Just enough to equip BOAR entirely. With about 850 chieftains in reserve.

This is all speculation however, how fast production of challenger 1 or 2 in a continuing and somewhat more strained cold war is anyone's guess.

The SA80 is however another matter, the Gulf war is the catalyst for its undoing with its problems laid bare before the world. Wikipedia states that a upgrade program is conducted in '91. Whether this converts it to an A2 of sorts standard, or is simply another temp solution can be entirely up to you.

[perardua]

[QUOTE=perardua;21456] I would also perhaps suggest that those who choose to reintroduce the SLR consider porting over the existing stocks of SUSAT and CWS from the L85 to be mounted on the L1A1. [QUOTE]

Having talked to some of the old and bold who were in during the heady days of the SLR, there was a night sight (IWS) and a magnifying day sight (SUIT) available, however, the SUIT was normally issued on a scale of 2 per Section, and the IWS was described as being as easy to obtain as rocking horse feces. Hence, the much more common CWS and SUSAT probably being a good idea.

As for the upgrade programme - a timeline featuring Gulf War 1 highlighting its failures and a continuing cold war gives an incentive for a more rapid upgrade than was actually the case. Which is nice. And if we're thinking that way, then perhaps we might see the introduction of a Section-level LMG and UGL earlier as well, or even better, the doctrinal return of the GPMG to the infantry Section.

Now I think about it, I have a vision of a timeline where Options For Change turned out to be quite beneficial!

[Raellus]

How could one play this out for a T2K'er who prefers the v1.0 timeline without a '91 Gulf War? (That would be me.)

I'm not anti-L85 or pro-SLR. I'm just wondering how the British Army would discover or cop to the defects in the L85 without a significant combat "test" like the first Gulf War.

I guess I like the idea of having to confront this issue in the midst of the Third World War.

[perardua]

I suppose some of the problems would have become evident in Northern Ireland, for example, the original problem with the magazine release catch became known (when troops patrolled with the weapon held against their body, it was not uncommon for the mag release to be knocked and the magazine to part company with the weapon at inconvenient times). IIRC this was fixed before the A2 upgrades by simply welding a guard around the catch. However, the sensitivity to dust wouldn't have been shown up so easily, but then, there's always the argument that it wouldn't be so important in a general European war as it was in the desert.

The question for the British armed forces, should they have to deal with the A1 during WW3, is whether it is better to A) keep struggling on with the damn thing as it is, B) change to a different weapon, with the corresponding need to buy a new weapon system, change the training regime, acquire all the necessary spare parts and ancilliaries, in the middle of a war, or C) try and upgrade the weapon.

Hmmmm. There has to be a particularly nasty scenario idea in there...

[TiggerCCW UK]

I suppose some of the problems would have become evident in Northern Ireland, for example, the original problem with the magazine release catch became known (when troops patrolled with the weapon held against their body, it was not uncommon for the mag release to be knocked and the magazine to part company with the weapon at inconvenient times).

There were multiple instances where this happened over here. Some units took to tieing their magazines to their webbin with paracord, others duct taped magazines into their weapon, reckoning that they were more likely to lose a mag than get into a firefight where they needed more than 30 rounds. It always struck me as ironic that the police were better armed here than the military - initially Ruger Mini-14's and Sterlings, but more recently MP5's and HK33's.

[perardua]

If anything the problem's gone the other way now! During one of our battle camps in PDT before deploying to Afghanistan we spent a week at Otterburn ranges doing various live firing exercises. Thanks to the knee deep snow (a perfect simulation of the Afghan desert in summer, of course) and generally low temperatures, there were numerous instances of peoples hands being so cold they were unable to unload/reload rifles without using both hands and bracing the weapon against something, due to the rather robust magazine release catch. Good times. That and all the streams had frozen over then covered with snow, so they first thing you knew about them being there (rather than just handy looking cover) is when you fell in.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think problems such as the L85 in the Twilight War would have been taken care of quickly and efficiently as troop experiences mounted -- as long as the industrial base and means to turn the rifles in for refurbishment and get them back to the troops quickly existed. That would go for pretty much any equipment. That pretty much brings us back to TDM, when the industrial base and transportation network of the world pretty much fell apart in the space of a few hours. I think that until then (at least on the NATO side), problem equipment would be modified or replaced pretty quickly -- there's plenty of precedent for that in World War 2.

On the Soviet/Warsaw Pact side -- well, the precedent there for most troops is "Shut up and be happy with what you have, and remember that we can always provide you with 'incentive' to work with what you've got." Units like Spetsnaz, Airborne, and Air Assault units may have had their input better listened to, but most of their troops would have to make do with whatever shortcomings their equipment has. Occasionally, something innovative might turn up (like in World War 2 with the T-34), but for the most part, their troops are going to fight the war with what they had to start out with, and after TDM, it'll just get worse.

[Targan]

How could one play this out for a T2K'er who prefers the v1.0 timeline without a '91 Gulf War? (That would be me.)

I don't have a v1 timeline handy in front of me right now but in the canon v1 timeline were British troops involved in any great numbers in a major conflict during the late 1980s/ early to mid 1990s? If so perhaps that is where British forces were able to do their 'significant combat "test"'.

[Rainbow Six]

I don't have a v1 timeline handy in front of me right now but in the canon v1 timeline were British troops involved in any great numbers in a major conflict during the late 1980s/ early to mid 1990s? If so perhaps that is where British forces were able to do their 'significant combat "test"'.

Like you I don't have a v1 timeline in front of me but I can't recall any such conflict being listed in either the initial box set or the Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom.

[perardua]

Having just dug out my T2K CD and checked the Survivor's Guide to the UK, the earliest mention of any military operations that could provide a testing ground for the L85 was the 1995 deployment of troops to Oman to fight guerillas there, along with the sale of equipment to the Sultan's military. That might at least provide a recognition of a need for an upgrade programme on the very doorstep of the war.

[HorseSoldier]

The version 1.0 timeline doesn't really provide any details about pre-1995 military operations, but does make references to various brushfire wars and such. Hypothetically the UK could have been involved in one. Or they might have seen the light without a war to suggest that something along the lines of the L85A2 was needed (though I suspect HK wouldn't get the nod, as I don't think the UK would let their domestic small arms industry flush completely down the toilet with the cold war still kicking).

Most likely, the L85 sucks and the SLRs get pulled in volume. If the problem is bad enough they might even place emergency orders for M16s from the US or Canada.

No L85A2 upgrade for HK probably means no G36 in the mix. If the G11 program fizzles, Germany may have gone for the HK33 and 53 for a NATO standard caliber -- either way, West German reservists are probably still carrying G3s, while the Osties will be going into action with their MPiK-74s for the active duty guys and probably AKMs for their reserves. (German logistics during the war must have been giving staff officers strokes even before the nukes.)

The US love affair with the M4 probably never really gets going, and the various marks of the M16 predominate for most people outside of SOF units. No post-Cold War demobilization and US support for the Baltic republics, however, does probably mean that last ditch US reservists and militia get issued M14s alongside the M16EZ kits.

The Czechoslovaks most likely field the LADA or some other sort of 5.45mm rifle to keep commonality with the mainstream Warsaw Pact (personally I'd like to see a 5.45mm version of the vz.58, but that doesn't look like the way they were going).

For everybody, the war between China and the USSR makes the world seem a more dangerous place, and programs to upgrade equipment might get pushed harder. The HK416 seems unlikely, but some of the smaller European nations currently using Diemaco/Colt Canada rifles as replacements for G3s could happen. With rush procurement programs, there'd likely be a lot of the old kit left over even before people start scraping the bottom of the barrel later in the war.

[Raellus]

No L85A2 upgrade for HK probably means no G36 in the mix. If the G11 program fizzles, Germany may have gone for the HK33 and 53 for a NATO standard caliber -- either way, West German reservists are probably still carrying G3s, while the Osties will be going into action with their MPiK-74s for the active duty guys and probably AKMs for their reserves. (German logistics during the war must have been giving staff officers strokes even before the nukes.)

The Czechoslovaks most likely field the LADA or some other sort of 5.45mm rifle to keep commonality with the mainstream Warsaw Pact (personally I'd like to see a 5.45mm version of the vz.58, but that doesn't look like the way they were going).


Thanks. I hadn't come across references to he MPiK-74 or the LADA before. Nice. With Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria switching to AK-74 clones, and with around five to seven years of full scale production of these weapons (prior to the TDM in late '97), 5.45mm ammo would be more common, and 7.62mm S less so, on the front lines in Europe.

Based on what I've read, I think Germany would more likely ramp up production of the 5.56mm G41 instead of the G33. There's not much of a difference, as far as I can tell.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

...If the G11 program fizzles, Germany may have gone for the HK33 and 53 for a NATO standard caliber -- either way, West German reservists are probably still carrying G3s...

The G41 would likely have been chosen before the HK33 as it was inline with the G11 for re-equipping rear echelon units that wouldn't need the G11. So you'd probably see front line troops with the G11 (and then whatever they got to replace it when ammo became scarce), rear area troops with the G41, Reservists with the G3 and Uzi then whatever police and ad hoc units they could make equipping with the leftovers including MP5s, the HK33 and HK53


Now that I read the rest of Raellus' post, from what I recall the G41 had a bolt hold-open device, dust cover on the ejection port and a magazine well for STANAG mags but otherwise was an updated HK33 design

[HorseSoldier]

Thanks. I hadn't come across references to he MPiK-74 or the LADA before. Nice. With Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria switching to AK-74 clones, and with around five to seven years of full scale production of these weapons (prior to the TDM in late '97), 5.45mm ammo would be more common, and 7.62mm S less so, on the front lines in Europe.

The East Germans did a pretty nice AK, if the 74s I got to do fam fire and training with are any indication. (The Bulgarian 5.45 ammo was less nice -- after several mags of one lot a bunch of us started feeling like exposed skin was burning -- I've probably got cancer care of Eastern European quality control or something . . .)

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j132/jboschma/IMG_20070412_0004.jpg

I've never seen a LADA outside of pictures, but the SGM at my last unit went through the SGM Academy with a bunch of senior NCOs from former Warsaw Pact nations and the word of mouth among them seemed to be the it set a new standard for AK type weapons. Judging from the pictures, it does seem to fix some of the ergonomics on the AK.

I agree that 5.45x39 would be the primary round used by most of the Warsaw Pact forces when the war in Europe kicks off. By the time the Cat C reserves get mobilized, vintage AKs might be as common. I don't think the AKMR idea GDW had would really pan out -- AKM to AK-74 conversion would require surgery to the receiver, a new barrel, new gas tube, new bolt, etc. By the time you've done all that, it can't be much cheaper than just building a new AK-74.

Based on what I've read, I think Germany would more likely ramp up production of the 5.56mm G41 instead of the G33. There's not much of a difference, as far as I can tell.

I was thinking the G41 was just the German military G# for the HK33, but Wikipedia has corrected my errors. I'd agree that the G41 would be the go to gun, though the idea of the Germans fielding a weapon using a STANAG 5.56mm magazine seems so exotic and weird it will take me a couple days to wrap my head around it :).

[waiting4something]

I can't see the Germans or West Germans depending on whatever version of the story you go by, having many G11's if any issued at all. Germany is the front lines along with Poland, so their factories and labs would have got mauled by Warsaw Pact forces right off the bat. With no German Air Force the sky's would have been wide open for Warsaw Pact bombers.
The G11 was teseted more then a lot of other experimental weapons, but it had begun back in the 1970's and still was only being looked at. When the wall came down, they said their was no need for such a weapon and the project was just thrown out like that. Not much later the Germans went ahead and bought new G36's though. I believe they where never that sold on the G11 or really all the serious about bringing it into production. It was just a showboat piece. I have never seen one outside of pictures or a museum and it was made in my lifetime and was supposed to be a standard rifle for a whole army. I guessing no one else has ever seen one either.
Lots of guns are put out there as being the gun that is gonna replace this and that but it never happens. If they are super exotic that seems to be a good give away it won't happen.

[waiting4something]

Another gun that I can't see being in the twilight war was the ever so popular HK CAW. Germany has never been big on shotguns period. So they are gonna jump from having no shotgun standard to this super shotgun that can fire special flechette rounds effectively out to like 150-200 meters.:confused: Shotgun magazines are bulky as hell, because the ammo it holds is also. This limits the amount of ammo you can haul around. So the thought of a soldier with maybe 6-7 10 round magazines rapidly blasting away with it seems not very likely outside law enforcement or elite units. This was another gun that was tested, but do to the ending of the cold war the (CAW) program just went away. If it was that great the U.S. military, who is a big user on shotguns would have gone ahead and grabbed this baby up. It was just another show boat piece just like the OICW. All hype with no intention of really taking off.
If I played the game, the only way I would let a PC or NPC have such weapons would be if they where a person directly involved with it like a civilian lab tech/engineer or a military dude that gets to play with/test futureless weapons.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The HK CAWS wasn't designed for the West Germans and they never intended adopting it. It was designed for the US Army under the Close Assault Weapon System program of the 1980s.
As for the G11, it most definitely was wanted by the West Germans. It was seen as a system needed to counter the Warsaw Pact's numerical superiority in manpower and was the result of studies conducted to find a system that offered a higher probability of first round hit than the then current generation of weapons. As mentioned previously, the G11 was to go to first line units while the G41 was to go to second line units.
There are two significant reasons for why it was stopped. The first being the reunification of the two Germanys (and subsequent end of the Cold War) and the fact that some of the people in other nations were survivors of World War 2 and were seen by the Germans as being potentially worried about Germany being whole again and then developing Wunderwaffe

[waiting4something]

The HK CAWS wasn't designed for the West Germans and they never intended adopting it. It was designed for the US Army under the Close Assault Weapon System program of the 1980s.
As for the G11, it most definitely was wanted by the West Germans. It was seen as a system needed to counter the Warsaw Pact's numerical superiority in manpower and was the result of studies conducted to find a system that offered a higher probability of first round hit than the then current generation of weapons. As mentioned previously, the G11 was to go to first line units while the G41 was to go to second line units.
There are two significant reasons for why it was stopped. The first being the reunification of the two Germanys (and subsequent end of the Cold War) and the fact that some of the people in other nations were survivors of World War 2 and were seen by the Germans as being potentially worried about Germany being whole again and then developing Wunderwaffe

Yes, the CAW was being looked at for the U.S.A., in the game it was used by the Germans too. That's why I mentioned the German factor.;) I'm still not convinced however the Germans where that serious about the G11. They had a long time to get that thing going and they buried it and went with a G36 later. The U.S.A. was dicking around with the G11 a little too, but never shined to it. We also where looking at a gun made by Colt that was similar to the M16 but fired duplex rounds. The thing is if they really wanted it bugs and all, the Germans would have atleast had a few in there miltary like the the Russians have the AN-94. Hey, whatever happen to the AN-94 anyway? It was supposed to replace the AK series, but from best I know very few ever filtered in.
I think your right the Germans on paper ideally planned for what you said, but however behind close doors they had other plans. This is just theory by me of course so take it with a grain a salt.;)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

It wasn't so much a case of the Germans burying the G11 and then going for the G36 later, the G36 was a direct result of the Germans not taking the G11 & G41 into service and being stuck with a 7.62mmN rifle when everyone else was going to 5.56mm.
The development of the rifle was delayed not so much because the rifle presented problems but the ammunition did. HK didn't develop the ammo, Dynamit Nobel did and the caseless design went through many iterations before they came up with a round that would not cook off, they settled on a watered down rocket propellant from what I recall.
This page from HKPro has more info
http://www.hkpro.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23:the-g11-caseless-military-rifle&catid=11:rare-prototypes&Itemid=5
While HKPro has a lot of information, they fail to mention that Mauser was also developing their own entry for the G11 rifle and caseless rounds. I think they pulled out early on because they couldn't sort out ammunition problems. Rheinmetall were also developing a non-traditional ammunition in the 9/4mm Kaltmann which saw the plastic case get ejected out of the barrel while the primer and base were consumed during the normal combustion process

Some sources claim 1000 rifles were produced but more conservative estimates place the number at just 100
It should be remembered that HK were financially screwed by the cancellation of the G11/G41 deal, leading the way for Royal Ordnance of the UK to buy the company. HK's survival depended on the G11, I can't imagine that they would put themselves into such a situation if the plans were to never adopt the G11 in the first place. Apparently in an effort to make some money HK tried selling the G41 but it was considered too expensive by most potential buyers. Getting the contract to update the L85A1 to the A2 model basically saved their arse from being broken up and sold off.

As for the AN94, the Russians did get some but budget problems caused a major cutback in purchasing. Instead of all the AK74s being replaced, the AN94 was taken into service only by certain elite units

[waiting4something]

Yes, I remember something about the G11 ammo being a major probelm, which is another reason I find it hard to believe that this weapon would have been fielded. It wouldn't be a good idea at the height of the cold war to try to produce a ammunition that only one or two company's made. It's not a great idea that both those company's are in Germany eithier, which could have red tanks pulling up in the parking lot in a short amount of time.
But, still why do all that research and development to just throw something away? Why not sell your product to law enforcement? HK just does dumb shit sometimes. They tend to snub the civil American market, which doesn't make sense eithier. I think they just have a history of bad marketing. HK may have thought they were going sell their gun, but that doesn't mean the military really thought they where gonna buy it.
As for the G41 if it was that much more then the G36, I could buy that. Again though why not sell it to the civilian market? Their are enough HK fans out there that will pay unreal prices for there stuff, but the company fails to see or really care.:confused:
Sometimes people have great hopes of selling their gear and shit falls though. The same thing happened with the Thompson submachine gun. Thompson thought he had a winner.But, it was deemed to expensive and really didn't get any major sales until WW2.

[pmulcahy11b]

Yes, I remember something about the G11 ammo being a major probelm, which is another reason I find it hard to believe that this weapon would have been fielded. It wouldn't be a good idea at the height of the cold war to try to produce a ammunition that only one or two company's made. It's not a great idea that both those company's are in Germany eithier, which could have red tanks pulling up in the parking lot in a short amount of time.
But, still why do all that research and development to just throw something away? Why not sell your product to law enforcement? HK just does dumb shit sometimes. They tend to snub the civil American market, which doesn't make sense eithier. I think they just have a history of bad marketing. HK may have thought they were going sell their gun, but that doesn't mean the military really thought they where gonna buy it.

Your first point is the same one I was trying to make towards the beginning of this thread, about why I don't think the G-11 would have been fielded even in the T2K timeline. The ammo's the problem, and there's just too much 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO ammunition already on hand to make adoption of a weapon with totally different ammunition worth it. It's the same strike that the US military had against the G-11 during the ACR competition. It's the primary obstacle against adoption of a cartridge like 6.8mm SPC or 6.5mm Grendel weapons for the US military now.

However, I think HK stuck with the development of the G-11 for as long as they did because...damnit, it is a good idea! It's a revolutionary weapon that promised to greatly reduce the weight of ammunition that a soldier would have to carry, as well as greatly reducing the amount of dirt that got into the mechanism of the weapon. It's a very compact rifle that has accuracy on par with most other designs of its time, and the 4.7mm Caseless round had damage potential almost on par with the 5.56mm NATO round while having better penetration. The damn thing even floats, from some descriptions I've heard! It was tested extensively by US and NATO special operations units (including, it is rumored, under combat conditions by US special ops units and the SAS), and they loved it. The shooters and armorers in the US ACR competition had a lot of praise for it. Getting past the adoption of radically-different ammunition and figuring out what to do with tens of millions of rounds of your old ammo is the problem!

[pmulcahy11b]

The same thing happened with the Thompson submachine gun. Thompson thought he had a winner.But, it was deemed to expensive and really didn't get any major sales until WW2.

Yes, even American gangsters didn't field the Thompson in anywhere the numbers that the movies would have you believe. Neither did the FBI or Treasury Service. The widespread use of the Thompson before World War 2 was largely a Hollywood invention.

[HorseSoldier]

The CAW seems like a really cool solution in search of a problem. Outside of RPGs and video games, the full auto shotgun just hasn't really caught on. It's not surgical and precise enough to appeal to many SOF types, it's not range effective enough to be a general service weapon, and really it's not much more effective (when you consider recoil) even at shotgun ranges than an assault rifle on auto.

[pmulcahy11b]

The CAW seems like a really cool solution in search of a problem. Outside of RPGs and video games, the full auto shotgun just hasn't really caught on. It's not surgical and precise enough to appeal to many SOF types, it's not range effective enough to be a general service weapon, and really it's not much more effective (when you consider recoil) even at shotgun ranges than an assault rifle on auto.

CAW-type weapons are very effective in one type of combat -- CQB. And that's assuming that you won't have to worry about possible civilian casualties or people you are trying to rescue that are in the same room. It's a weapon that has a very narrow range of applications, however -- it presents the problem that you will probably have to carry more than one type of longarm, and that CAW-type shotgun is a heavy weapon with heavy, low-capacity magazines and heavy ammunition. In addition, you have the weird ammo problem again -- most such weapons can't reliably feed conventional shotgun ammunition and require metal-cased shotgun rounds. (The Pancor Jackhammer is an example of a way around the ammo problem -- but it's also a rather bulky weapon with very bulky ammunition cassettes.)

[Raellus]

Yes, even American gangsters didn't field the Thompson in anywhere the numbers that the movies would have you believe. Neither did the FBI or Treasury Service. The widespread use of the Thompson before World War 2 was largely a Hollywood invention.

According to the book Public Enemies (on which the film of the same name is based), the Thompson was used in some numbers by many of the bank robbing gangs (Dillinger's, Floyds, Nelsons, Bonnie & Clyde, etc.) and the fledgling FBI. The book was well researched and written and I have no cause to doubt what the author described is not accurate.

I agree with Horse Soldier about the AKMR. You might as well manufacture a new, updgraded AKM than rechamber existing stocks of 7.62mm S AKs. In fact, the Russians have been doing so since the early '90s. It's called the AK-103.

Once again, everything that I've read suggests that W. Germany was ready to go ahead with the G11 program right up until the point where the Berlin Wall came down. The economic burden of absorbing the former E. Germany, coupled with the disappearance of the threat posed by the old USSR/Warsaw Pact, led to the cancellation of the relatively expensive G11. Since the reunified Germany still had a need for a new, standard assault rifle, HK developed the 5.56mm G36.

So, in the T2K v1.0 timeline, the G11 would have entered full production for front-line W. German units, while the G41 would have entered production for reservist units.

[headquarters]

I also read that the thawing of east west relations lead to budget cuts that buried the G-11 project .Technically it was pretty much ready to go .In a T2K world the same budget trouble might also end it though - if the cost of changing the old system with the new one seems to high in war time it would be shelved ?

According to the book Public Enemies (on which the film of the same name is based), the Thompson was used in some numbers by many of the bank robbing gangs (Dillinger's, Floyds, Nelsons, Bonnie & Clyde, etc.) and the fledgling FBI. The book was well researched and written and I have no cause to doubt what the author described is not accurate.

I agree with Horse Soldier about the AKMR. You might as well manufacture a new, updgraded AKM than rechamber existing stocks of 7.62mm S AKs. In fact, the Russians have been doing so since the early '90s. It's called the AK-103.

Once again, everything that I've read suggests that W. Germany was ready to go ahead with the G11 program right up until the point where the Berlin Wall came down. The economic burden of absorbing the former E. Germany, coupled with the disappearance of the threat posed by the old USSR/Warsaw Pact, led to the cancellation of the relatively expensive G11. Since the reunified Germany still had a need for a new, standard assault rifle, HK developed the 5.56mm G36.

So, in the T2K v1.0 timeline, the G11 would have entered full production for front-line W. German units, while the G41 would have entered production for reservist units.

[HorseSoldier]

I also read that the thawing of east west relations lead to budget cuts that buried the G-11 project .Technically it was pretty much ready to go .In a T2K world the same budget trouble might also end it though - if the cost of changing the old system with the new one seems to high in war time it would be shelved ?

Or if it was just entering service when the war kicked off, especially if any teething problems presented themselves as often happens when you hand troops new kit, it might have been set aside in favor of proven designs that work.

[Legbreaker]

With regard to 4.7mm cls production, should the G11 have been fielded as I believe it would have been in V1.0, production of ammunition would have been a high priority and numerous facilities set up to do it. By the late 80's/early 90's all the ammo problems had been solved - the specs could have been distributed to the production facilities and within a short time hundreds of thousands of prepackaged rounds churned out for military consumption.

[Raellus]

With regard to 4.7mm cls production, should the G11 have been fielded as I believe it would have been in V1.0, production of ammunition would have been a high priority and numerous facilities set up to do it. By the late 80's/early 90's all the ammo problems had been solved - the specs could have been distributed to the production facilities and within a short time hundreds of thousands of prepackaged rounds churned out for military consumption.

Yes, but after the TDM, production of the more complex and tricky to manufacture caseless ammo would have all but ceased entirely, and the G11 would rapidly be abandoned in favor of old stockpiles of G3s and more recently produced G41s.

IRL, during the planned production of the G11, the G41 was to be produced as well, to equip territorial and reserve formations, while the G3 was to be phased out of service entirely (although I'm sure a few thousand would be kept on hand for use as designated marksman's rifles or for use by special forces).

In the Twilight War timeline (v1.0, of course), the G11 would probably become an expensive club in early-to-mid '98.

Then there's the matter of former DDR troops. How many would retain their East German-made AKMs/AK-74 clones? How many would be equipped with G41s or G3s? But we've discussed/debated that elsewhere.

[Legbreaker]

I do agree that after 1997 production will be minimal at best (perhaps a tech or two from a bombed factory salvaged enough equipment to produce a case a week), but up until mid to late 1997, hundreds of thousands of rounds would be produced in muliple locations every week. Some small stocks of ammunition would still exist though even in 2000, however these are likely to be in rear areas and closely hoarded - you won't see very much released for use on the front lines!

I see the east german forces retaining the weapons they had prior to reunification in the V1.0 timeline. There just isn't the time or facilities available to completely re-arm them on much more than an individual basis. As the war drags on though a mix of weapons are likely to be picked up as in other units of other nationalities, however the vast majority of troops will still be armed with the same weapons they started out with (or replaced with something similar).

In addition to a lack of available weapons to issue to the DDR, there's the training problem to overcome - a G3, G41, etc is a different animal to an AK and muscle memory takes time to develop. Also, I believe the tactics of the east Germans was somewhat different to the west and the issued weapons were designed with this in mind.

Effectively you'd have to retrain the DDR troops in virtually everything, not just weapon handling - this takes time which wasn't available in V1.0.

V2.x on the other hand with it's much earlier reunification makes retaining an easier task to accomplish.

[Rainbow Six]

Yes, but after the TDM, production of the more complex and tricky to manufacture caseless ammo would have all but ceased entirely, and the G11 would rapidly be abandoned in favor of old stockpiles of G3s and more recently produced G41s.

That was always the way I interpreted the G11 as it was described in the original V1 boxed set - by the year 2000 the weapon itself may not actually be that rare (relatively speaking) but the ammunition is.

[Raellus]

I agree that most former DDR troops would retain their Soviet/Pact-made weapons. I wonder how the Germans would handle weapons logistics for mixed/merged units combining West and former East German troops.

As for G11 ammo, I'm sure that the Germans would have manufactured millions of rounds before the nuclear strikes/TDM effectively shut down their advanced munitions factories. However, modern armies go through ammo like it's toilet paper. I can't remember the exact figure but the U.S. army expended like 10,000 rounds of small arms ammo for every confirmed VC/NVA KIA. To some degree, modern western armies have improved this ratio (and you can make wisecracks about American marksmanship) but the fact remains that caseless ammo for the G11 would be used up at a frantic rate and, by 2000, there would be very little, if any, left. Nearly all German troops would be using G3s, G41s, and AKs.

[95th Rifleman]

There was a very good reason why they came up with a NATO standard in the first place.

Take us Brits for instance, a British soldier can pick up an M-16 magazine and use it with an L85 as both weapons use the same amo and are compatible with each other's magazines. The whole principle behind NATO standardisation was so that eveybody could supply everybody else.

In a situation like the twilight war, this standardisation would go a long way to keep units operational. A wild-card weapon like the G-11 would rapisly dissappear due to how damned complicated it is. Especialy when ad-hoc formations comprising different nationalities become more and more common.

[dragoon500ly]

Hey, Kalashnikov was a tanker sergeant -- DATs don't even know one end of a rifle from the other!:D

What's there to compare....I mean, if you had the choice of inflicting massive amounts of damage with a 120mm smoothbore, finishing off your near helpless prey with a Ma Deuce and a pair of M-240s or cranking out 5.56mm from some rinky-dink Mighty Mattel....why would you need a rifle?

:p

[dragoon500ly]

[QUOTE=Raellus;22333]According to the book Public Enemies (on which the film of the same name is based), the Thompson was used in some numbers by many of the bank robbing gangs (Dillinger's, Floyds, Nelsons, Bonnie & Clyde, etc.) and the fledgling FBI. The book was well researched and written and I have no cause to doubt what the author described is not accurate.[QUOTE]

What a lot of people forget is that many of the gangs actually used M1918 Browning Auto Rifles stolen from NG armories, or purchased. There is a photo of Bonny & Clyde for example that shows part of their arsenal on the hood of their car, including no less than four BARs. Dillinger is another one that used the BAR...

[95th Rifleman]

[QUOTE=Raellus;22333]According to the book Public Enemies (on which the film of the same name is based), the Thompson was used in some numbers by many of the bank robbing gangs (Dillinger's, Floyds, Nelsons, Bonnie & Clyde, etc.) and the fledgling FBI. The book was well researched and written and I have no cause to doubt what the author described is not accurate.[QUOTE]

What a lot of people forget is that many of the gangs actually used M1918 Browning Auto Rifles stolen from NG armories, or purchased. There is a photo of Bonny & Clyde for example that shows part of their arsenal on the hood of their car, including no less than four BARs. Dillinger is another one that used the BAR...

The Tommy gun looked good, it's undeniably one of the most impressive looking weapons of the era. Image goes a long way in crime, we see it today in inner-city gangs who try to promote the image that they are bigger, more bad-ass than the other guys. As a result the Tommy became the "poster boy" for proabition criminals. You point it at the other guy and hope intimidation does the job because no professional criminal wants to actualy kill someone as it adds time to any prison sentence and you run a greater risk that the cops will shoot to kil rather than risk their own lives taking you in.

The BAR was a superior weapon, this thing was a killer and criminals who didn't give a damn about consequences (such as bonnie and clyde) used such weapons because they enjoyed killing.

This is why the more public criminals had tommy guns and also why it's become associated with the era.

[Panther Al]

For what its worth, my mothers father did some work for Al C. in Chicago back in the day. When he died (Committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head with 3 different weapons, handcuffing himself to the steering wheel of a car, and driving real fast off of a dock in Miami, according to the local PD - No joke!) he owned 4 BAR's, and no Tommy guns. According to friends of the family that knew him I am told that by and large they felt the BAR was the way to go, the Tommy was nothing but show for people who wasn't man enough to handle a real rifle.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

For what its worth, my mothers father did some work for Al C. in Chicago back in the day. When he died (Committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head with 3 different weapons, handcuffing himself to the steering wheel of a car, and driving real fast off of a dock in Miami, according to the local PD - No joke!) he owned 4 BAR's, and no Tommy guns. According to friends of the family that knew him I am told that by and large they felt the BAR was the way to go, the Tommy was nothing but show for people who wasn't man enough to handle a real rifle.

OT
While I certainly am NOT trying to demean or condone his death (really that should be 'his murder'), I find a strangely ironic sense of the poetic in this only for one reason.
In your sig you have the line "Never use finesse when force works."

[Panther Al]

OT
While I certainly am NOT trying to demean or condone his death (really that should be 'his murder'), I find a strangely ironic sense of the poetic in this only for one reason.
In your sig you have the line "Never use finesse when force works."

OK, have to admit, that got a really good laugh out of me, thanks. :)

But yeah, Ironic isn't it? His old 45 is still in the family possession, my mother - to the shock of many considering her age - used it to qualify for her CC permit. But only after ensuring that it wouldn't have its ballistics run. The local cops know the history, and the sheriff, when he saw her, looked at her gun and said, "The Chicago PD would love to get their hands on that, wouldn't they?" To which, Mom goes, "I don't know what you are talking about..."

[Raellus]

There was a very good reason why they came up with a NATO standard in the first place.

Take us Brits for instance, a British soldier can pick up an M-16 magazine and use it with an L85 as both weapons use the same amo and are compatible with each other's magazines. The whole principle behind NATO standardisation was so that eveybody could supply everybody else.

In a situation like the twilight war, this standardisation would go a long way to keep units operational. A wild-card weapon like the G-11 would rapisly dissappear due to how damned complicated it is. Especialy when ad-hoc formations comprising different nationalities become more and more common.

Agreed. This is why I believe the G41 would become the service rifle of choice for the German Army in the Twilight Timeline, at least after the TDM.

I can see it's production increasing dramatically as soon as reunification was in the offing in an attempt to eventually equip former DDR units (as well as standard production for territorial and reserve units). It makes more sense to transition former DDR to a conventional 5.56mm rifle as opposed to a complex, caseless future rifle. By the time the nuclear war had paralyzed industry, I imagine quite a few more G41s circulating than G11s. That said, I think more DDR troops probably kept their own AKs than were issued with G41s.

[95th Rifleman]

Agreed. This is why I believe the G41 would become the service rifle of choice for the German Army in the Twilight Timeline, at least after the TDM.

I can see it's production increasing dramatically as soon as reunification was in the offing in an attempt to eventually equip former DDR units (as well as standard production for territorial and reserve units). It makes more sense to transition former DDR to a conventional 5.56mm rifle as opposed to a complex, caseless future rifle. By the time the nuclear war had paralyzed industry, I imagine quite a few more G41s circulating than G11s. That said, I think more DDR troops probably kept their own AKs than were issued with G41s.

A good soldier never throws away a good rifle.

I can see allot of western soldiers picking up an AK to be honest. It's always useful to have a back up weapon that uses the other guy's ammo.

[Legbreaker]

I don't see the G41 being as widespread as you think there Rae. It was originally intended to equip only the rear area troops, therefore only limited numbers would have been produced. By the time the G11 ran short of ammo, production of ANY weapon beyond a back yard scale would be impossible, therefore it's much more probable that older weapons already in existance would be picked up and distributed.
Perhaps the existing G41's were redistributed to front line troops, but as it seems unlikely they'd have trained with them it makes more sence to leave them in the hands of those who have, and retrain the front line troops on G3's - at least the older troops and NCOs would already have trained on them, and many would be qualified instructors (a little rusty perhaps, but better than a cold start).

[Raellus]

I don't see the G41 being as widespread as you think there Rae. It was originally intended to equip only the rear area troops, therefore only limited numbers would have been produced. By the time the G11 ran short of ammo, production of ANY weapon beyond a back yard scale would be impossible, therefore it's much more probable that older weapons already in existance would be picked up and distributed.
Perhaps the existing G41's were redistributed to front line troops, but as it seems unlikely they'd have trained with them it makes more sence to leave them in the hands of those who have, and retrain the front line troops on G3's - at least the older troops and NCOs would already have trained on them, and many would be qualified instructors (a little rusty perhaps, but better than a cold start).

I think you missed my point (maybe not, though). I foresee an increased production rate for the G41 beginning in '96 some time with the intention of equipping the soon-to-be reintegrated DDR formations with a 5.56mm NATO compatible rifle. This production would continue through the TDM and would likely continue, albeit on a much smaller scale, afterwards as well. It would not completely replace AKs in DDR units, but that would have been the intent as Germany geared up for war (and after the war was well underway). The net result would be that more G41s would have been produced than G11s, and much more ammo for them as well, especially since the G41 can take STANAGs.

But, that's just my T2KU.

[Legbreaker]

No, just doesn't make sense given that the G11 was to be the main service rifle for the Germans. The G41 just doesn't meet the design criteria the Germans issued which resulted in the G11.
If anything, it's the G11 which would have ramped up production rather than the G41. The G41 was really just a cheaper stopgap to issue to supporting troops and undoubtably would have been replaced in time by the G11 (say 10-15 years down the track when their was sufficient numbers/newer improved versions of the G11 issued to the combat troops).

Remember that in V1.0, almost nobody outside the negotiating room knew that the two Germany's would be reuniting, therefore it's inconcievable that production of any particular weapon, AFV, or other equipment beyond that sufficient to supply the needs of the West Germans would take place.

Also, given that German were the agressor in both versions of the game, and that they went it alone (at least in the beginning) while Poland's allies were occupied in China, it's quite reasonable to assume they expected to roll over the defenders and win the war in relatively short order. In other words, they simply wouldn't have had the time to ramp up production and retrain tens of thousands of troops on any other weapon than the one they already had in hand (G41/G11/G3 for the west, AK variants for the east).

ANY increase in production over and above that needed for the west would be a sure indicator to the eastern nations that something was up.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I don't see a problem with the G41 being produced in numbers similar to or in fact greater than, the G11.

Firstly, despite it being designed as a 5.56mm version of the G3, it's little more than a revamped HK33, itself nothing more than a 5.56mm version of the G3. H&K already had all the production facilities available for that particular rifle with ongoing HK33 production for various military, police and civilian customers worldwide. As I understand it there were very few significant changes made to differentiate it from the basic HK33 design (notable changes include the magazine well, ambidextrous safety/fire selector, a bolt hold-open device and a bolt forward-assist similar to that on the M16 series)

Second, in a Western army the fighting units are typically a third the overall size of the support units so simply on that figure alone you're going to be producing at least the same number of G41s to G11s and most probably two (maybe three) times more.

Third, the G41 was the insurance policy for H&K if the G11 was only to be taken up by the West German forces or not adopted at all, i.e. the export rifle would have been the G41 if the G11 wasn't going to be exported and it would also have been the next service rifle if the G11 wasn't adopted.

The end of the Cold War stopped the G41 being adopted and a lack of interest from export customers caused the G41 to be dropped from the catalogue. Specifically it was cited as being of such quality that it was far more expensive than similar assault rifles at the time. Without the Cold War requirement, H&K probably needed export customers to lower the overall production costs to make it cost effective for the Bundeswehr to acquire it. During the late 1980s it was priced for sale to US police departments at US$1700 per unit, you probably could have got two or three M16A2s for that price.

[B.T.]

Hi all!

From all that I've heard, the G11 was intended to become the service rifle of the first line combat troops. The G41 was the rifle for all the other troops, that previously were equipped with the older G3.

From all I've ever heard, the G11 wuold have been issued to a part of the "Panzergrenadier"- "Jäger"- and "Fallschirmjäger"-troops.
Engineers, MP, artillery and all supporting branches would have been issued the G41. I allways understood it the way, that even the motar-guys in the infantry branch were to be equipped with the G41!
I am not certain, how the amored troops (tanks and recce) would have been equipped. IRL they had 9mm weapons as PDW (Pistols and Uzis). The secondary MGs were off course MG3 in 7,62 NATO. From my point of view it it very likely that the majority of them would still use these. In mixed batallions (tanks and "Panzergrenadiere") I can see the G11, because of the supply chains, but still this is my guess.

As Raellus said, I am of the more or less same oponion: The G41 would have been produced in higher amounts.

Later in the war, the G11 is of no big use, because of the problems in producing the ammo.

Although this would not be the official policy or standard, I can see German units trying to get hands on weapons of foreign countries. This is especially true for the SAW (M249/Minimi). All German units used the MG3, which is for itself a very convincing and reliable MG. But it is heavy and cumbersome. German units, working side by side with US forces, would try to trade some of the SAWs in.
Reason: The RPKs are the only "light" MGs in German service. And these would only be in service with former Eastgerman units. Or in units, that had scrounged them from defeated enemies. In the tactical role, the SAW was intended for, there was no similar weapon in German inventories!

The G41 makes more sense than anything else. Just because of the high number, that must have been produced, and because of the use of the same ammo and mags (Just the way 95th Rifleman said som posts above!).

[Legbreaker]

I think what is being ignored here is the German requirements issued which resulted in the G11, which it met, and exceeded so well.
Forget for a moment what we all know about T2K history. Put yourself in the position of the decision makers in the early to mid 90's, and even more so in the position of those who knew the offensive against Poland was coming. The G11 with it's MUCH greater ammo carrying capability (both magazine and rounds per man), not to mention greater accuracy (due to a number of reasons, not least it's rapid burst speed), is the MUCH better weapon than the G41.
Germany could not rely on Nato to support it's move eastward - take Italy and France as examples of what may have happened (especially the latter since Italy had that Greek alliance thing going). Therefore given they had absolutely no guarantee anyone would support their aggressive act, they HAD to rely solely on their own inherent strength to win. Every possible advantage had to be taken without regard to the ammunition their apparent allies were using.
5.56mm vs 4.7cls simply doesn't come into it until Germany were on the ropes and had to call for Nato assistance in late 1996. To claim otherwise to to essentially say the Germans planed to fail right from the beginning.

Yes, the G41 was produced for the supporting units, BUT that was only because the G11 in comparison was MUCH more expensive. It also allowed ammunition factories to focus on producing 4.7cls for the more effective front line units who desperately needed resupply much more often than clerks, MPs, truck drivers, aircraft mechanics, medics and so forth. Any 5.56mm (along with other calibres such as 7.62 and 9mmP) could be sourced from aboard if decades old stores did not suffice.

Until the 90's, Germany had hardly any 5.56mm weapons, therefore they really didn't need any stockpiles (the US, Britain, etc on the other hand, all Nato members and not to be relied upon due to German aggression). Given that fact, isn't it sensible they'd focus squarely on producing the calibre their combat troops needed most, over and above that used by supporting units? Given that 4.7cls production HAD to be greater (prior to the destruction of the factories) doesn't it make MUCH more sense for the G11 to take precedence over the G41?

Note that the above all presumes a V1.0 timeline rather than 2.x. In 2.x, it's likely events would have mirrored reality quite closely with the G11 only available in extremely limited numbers, the G41 ditched almost entirely, and the G3 soldiering onward for a few more years as the standard infantry rifle.

[Raellus]

Although this would not be the official policy or standard, I can see German units trying to get hands on weapons of foreign countries. This is especially true for the SAW (M249/Minimi). All German units used the MG3, which is for itself a very convincing and reliable MG. But it is heavy and cumbersome. German units, working side by side with US forces, would try to trade some of the SAWs in.
Reason: The RPKs are the only "light" MGs in German service. And these would only be in service with former Eastgerman units. Or in units, that had scrounged them from defeated enemies. In the tactical role, the SAW was intended for, there was no similar weapon in German inventories!

Thanks for the support, BT.

Here's a thought for you all based on the points raised by BT in the above excerpt:

Do you think the Twilight timeline would have sped up the development and production of the German army's current SAW, the H&K MG43? Or, as an alternative, do you think the Germans would have acquired FN Minimis? I've seen references to a long-barrelled LSW version of the G11 but I don't know if it was really ever seriously considered for large-scale production. I think it's innability to take belted ammo would be a serious weakness. Also, I don't know how easily one could change a barrel on the G11.

Bottom line, should the MG43 take part in the Twilight War? If not, what would the [West] German army have done for an LSW/SAW?

[Targan]

Although this would not be the official policy or standard, I can see German units trying to get hands on weapons of foreign countries. This is especially true for the SAW (M249/Minimi). All German units used the MG3, which is for itself a very convincing and reliable MG. But it is heavy and cumbersome. German units, working side by side with US forces, would try to trade some of the SAWs in.
Reason: The RPKs are the only "light" MGs in German service. And these would only be in service with former Eastgerman units. Or in units, that had scrounged them from defeated enemies. In the tactical role, the SAW was intended for, there was no similar weapon in German inventories!

I think if the Germans had issued the G11 for front line troops they would have also produced and issued the 4.7mm LSW that I have photos and diagrams of. IRL it didn't get past the prototype stage but it was an awesome weapon. A couple of hundred rounds in a cassette which was also the removable buttstock for the weapon. Crazy good accuracy and high ROF. I'll try to dig out the book I have which contains photos and try to scan them.

Edit: Just read Rae's last post -
Do you think the Twilight timeline would have sped up the development and production of the German army's current SAW, the H&K MG43? Or, as an alternative, do you think the Germans would have acquired FN Minimis? I've seen references to a long-barrelled LSW version of the G11 but I don't know if it was really ever seriously considered for large-scale production. I think it's innability to take belted ammo would be a serious weakness. Also, I don't know how easily one could change a barrel on the G11.
That's exactly the weapon I was talking about.

[Legbreaker]

The MG43 simply would not exist as it was not developed until the late 90's.
It's worth noting that a number of support weapons, including the RPK series, do not have changeable barrels. Therefore, it's possible the LMG11 http://guns.wikia.com/wiki/H%26K_LMG11 would have seen production. With it's 300 round internal magazine, and light support role (i.e. not intended for sustained fire), the lack of a belt feed is in my view (as an ex machinegunner) is a plus, not a negative.
Belts are a pain in the rear when moving about the battlefield. A 300 round belt of 7.62 is about 3 metres long, 5.56 about 2 metres give or take. Yes there are various "magazines" to hold belts, but these are still limited in size (the FN Minimi for example has one of the largest at 200 rounds).
Personally, I'd much rather change a mag every five minutes than haul a belt around.

However, in a defensive position or mounted on a vehicle where the ammunition doesn't need to be hauled around, a belt fed weapon is hands down superior.

[B.T.]

I think what is being ignored here is the German requirements issued which resulted in the G11, which it met, and exceeded so well.
Forget for a moment what we all know about T2K history. Put yourself in the position of the decision makers in the early to mid 90's, and even more so in the position of those who knew the offensive against Poland was coming. The G11 with it's MUCH greater ammo carrying capability (both magazine and rounds per man), not to mention greater accuracy (due to a number of reasons, not least it's rapid burst speed), is the MUCH better weapon than the G41.

I can clearly remember, that during the time of my service with the Bundeswehr, there were these discussions about the problem of ammo and mags not being interchangeble with the weapons of our allies. Issue of a 5.56 weapon with STANAG mags would solve this problem. This is one more argument for the G41.
If we forget about the T2K history, there is no sense in Germany invading Poland. IRL this had never happened. But the G11 and G41 were (IRL!!!) under developement/production.

T2K is escapist entertainment. If I want to play the game, I have to accept the background - more or less. And if this background says, Germany invaded Poland and the standard-issue-weapon was the G11, I take this part of the background, allthough this is - from my personal point of view - utter rubbish! The few (influential) deperado-politicians, hardcore-rightwing-weirdos and anti-eastern-Bloc lobbyists would certainly not be in a position to have such an important influence on the official politics of the FRG! More likely the majority of the decision-makers would have been in a line to issue a newer type of weapon (the G11 in this case), that in some foreseeable future may even be sold to the Western allies.

The G11 LMG, that you talk about, was under evaluation, but I haven't heard about any plans to really field it. But, Leg, you are right: It has some serious advantages and therefore it might have been fielded on a very thin base.

I do not see the newer HK MG43. IRL the G36 was intended to be used as a LMG. In that role it was to be outfitted with a bipod and a 100-rd-drum as mag. The situation in A'stan taught the German forces, that a real LMG was a better option.

In the T2K universe I dont think, the Belgians would have sold the SAW to Germany. Maybe on a very limited scale (for evaluation purposes), but not on a large scale - Belgium was soon occupied by France and therefore I don't see larger sales.

[95th Rifleman]

No, just doesn't make sense given that the G11 was to be the main service rifle for the Germans. The G41 just doesn't meet the design criteria the Germans issued which resulted in the G11.
If anything, it's the G11 which would have ramped up production rather than the G41. The G41 was really just a cheaper stopgap to issue to supporting troops and undoubtably would have been replaced in time by the G11 (say 10-15 years down the track when their was sufficient numbers/newer improved versions of the G11 issued to the combat troops).

.

Wouldn't be the first time that a stopgap became standard issue, or the last.

[Legbreaker]

Found this AMAZING collection while searching around for a graphical comparison of the 7.62L and 14.5 mm rounds.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankammo.html

[Raellus]

We've discussed the UK's standard service rifle in the Twilight War and opinion is all over the board. Would it be the product-improved L85A2 (or would H&K have been too busy arming the newly unified German military to help fix the problematic SA80A1), the old but reliable SLR, a locally manufactured AR-18, or a combination of all three?

I'd like to add another weapon to the mix. I came across this while thumbing through a new book that my wife bought me for Christmas. It's a prototype weapon from the late '70s called the Stirling Light Auto Rifle. It's on pages 306-307 of DK's Gun, A Visual History. I can't find anything about it online. It looks like it's made of stamped parts. It's 5.56mm and has a folding stock. It looks a bit like the Armalite AR-18 but not quite.

[Sith]

Is this the rifle you are looking for?

[Raellus]

Yes, I believe that it is. Thanks. The pic I saw looks like a more advanced-stage prototype- it's a little cleaner and more finished looking. But yes, that's it.

[Sanjuro]

would H&K have been too busy arming the newly unified German military to help fix the problematic SA80A1
For much of the 90s H&K was owned by BAe; this might have skewed their work more towards serving UK contracts. How this ownership fits into a T2k world is anyone's guess!

[ArmySGT.]

Yes, I believe that it is. Thanks. The pic I saw looks like a more advanced-stage prototype- it's a little cleaner and more finished looking. But yes, that's it.

Looks like the love child of an AR-18 and a cinder block. Man that is a pig ugly piece.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

... a prototype weapon from the late '70s called the Stirling Light Auto Rifle. It's on pages 306-307 of DK's Gun, A Visual History. I can't find anything about it online. It looks like it's made of stamped parts. It's 5.56mm and has a folding stock. It looks a bit like the Armalite AR-18 but not quite.

Although known earlier as the Sterling Light Auto Rifle, the more common name is SAR (for Sterling Assault Rifle). Sterling Armaments had a contract to manufacture the AR-18 but it didn't prove financial. They designed the SAR with input from their experience with the AR-18 and went on to design the SAR-87 with help from Singapore.

Sterling didn't achieve much success with the SAR or SAR-87 even though they offered it in a few configurations including the ability to change to 9x19mm. The rights were sold on to Chartered Industries of Singapore (CIS, later to become ST Kinetics after being bought out by ST Engineering) where it influenced the Singaporean SAR-80 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAR-80) rifle.
Sterling Armaments went bankrupt in 1988 and were bought up by BAe.

Other links
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1700/1792.htm
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/cgi-bin/res.pl?keyword=Sterling+Assault+Rifle&offset=0 Has an image with the alternate configuration but image is tiny

[Raellus]

That's great info, SSC. Thanks.

I suppose one could tweak their T2KU a little to allow UK manufacture of an improved SAR, if the SA80A1 wasn't working out and they didn't think BAE/H&K could realistically fix all of them in a timely fashion (especially with Germany being preoccupied with reunification and plans to boot the Soviets out of Poland). BAE could resurrect the Sterling plans to provide a quicker fix. This is a stretch, but it would be interesting to play with how UK units would be armed in the late Twilght War (a mix of SA80A1s, L85A2s, SLRs, Sterling SMGs, SARs, and possibly AR-18s).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You're welcome :)
The only other interesting bit of info I can add is that apparently no more than 100 SAR-87 rifles were made before Sterling shut down and although BAe (who owned Royal Ordnance by that time) got all the company goods, rights, IP etc. etc., the design rights for the SAR had already been sold to the Singaporeans.
That's great info, SSC. Thanks.

I suppose one could tweak their T2KU a little to allow UK manufacture of an improved SAR, if the SA80A1 wasn't working out and they didn't think BAE/H&K could realistically fix all of them in a timely fashion (especially with Germany being preoccupied with reunification and plans to boot the Soviets out of Poland). BAE could resurrect the Sterling plans to provide a quicker fix. This is a stretch, but it would be interesting to play with how UK units would be armed in the late Twilght War (a mix of SA80A1s, L85A2s, SLRs, Sterling SMGs, SARs, and possibly AR-18s).

[waiting4something]

The only people in the United Kingdom that would be using the AR-18 would be the IRA. It's just not soldier proof enough to give to soldiers. Sterling sold all it's AR-18 tooling off in 1983, 12 years before the Twilight War would start kicking off. It's just not feesible that they would try to rebuy into the AR-18. They would have easier access to stockpiles of M16/C7 rifles. The mass stockpiles of M16's availiable was one of the reasons the AR-18 never took off in third world countries like it was intended to do.

[ArmySGT.]

One of the AR-18 design failures is the front take down pin slot up front. It is not robust enough. People have been known to remove the rear take down pin and let the upper drop forward. This puts to much stress on the little bit of metal the from take down passes through just forward of the magazine well. One or both of those little ears has been known to break off, making for an unusable lower.

I think there is a company in the US that makes new AR-18 lowers with some design changes to be more robust and use more AR-15 parts.

[Raellus]

The above-mentioned reasons are why I think that the SAR is a more promising canidate to be the UK's stopgap assault rifle of the Twilight War.

[ArmySGT.]

AR-18 / AR-180 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLxz1vdmqlQ)

[James Langham]

The above-mentioned reasons are why I think that the SAR is a more promising canidate to be the UK's stopgap assault rifle of the Twilight War.

There is also the almost unknown Sterling 7.62. I've done a short write up in the British rifles thread.

[rnitze]

V1 world, OK G-11 might have been being started being fielded, and G36 never invented. But with G3, G41 (HK33) HK53, MP5 and 7,62mm HK 11 / HK 21 and 5,56mm HK 13 / HK 23 machine guns are way more than enough for an army at war... I say G11 scrapped fast ---plenty of other things to assemble. I just wanna know if Italians ever take H&K home base at Oberndorf am Neckar....

[Raellus]

So, a lot of discussion here has focused on the G3 v. G11 v. G41 v. G36 v. MPiK-74 for the reunified German Army in the v1.0 timeline. Well, apparently there's another competitor, one that I'd never heard of before. I ran across an article on the HK32 in Recoil magazine today. It appears that the West German gov't. was interested in producing a rifle that could be fed 7.62x39mm ammunition from standard Kalashnikov magazines. According to the article, the reasoning behind this was the potential for sudden reunification with the DDR, coupled with NATO ammunition shortages. This scenario sounds uncannily similar to the T2K v1.0 premise!

http://www.recoilweb.com/recoil-issue-25-94571.html

There's an image of a modern version of the HK32 center right on the magazine cover liked to above. There's not much, online, about the HK32, but apparently a few got past the prototype stage and ended up in, of all places, Mexico.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/04/15/mythical-hk32-seen-

http://www.hkpro.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86:hk32-series

So, I wouldn't be surprised that, in the run-up to the v1.0 reunification, the W. German government ordered substantial numbers of the HK32 to equip former E. German units once they were absorbed into the Bundeswehr. Perhaps, instead of the more complex, more expensive G11, production was split between HK33s or 41s for W. German units and the HG32 for E. German units. That way, both segments of the newly reunified German army would be equipped with very similar weapons that could draw on existing stockpiles of ammunition.

I haven't had much time to mull this over, but I'm really liking this idea.

[swaghauler]

This is one of those areas where I significantly disagree with the cannon as well (remember that I use v2.2 Cannon here). The German Army was very conservative and wouldn't adopt a rifle that did not "pass muster."
The G11 program was dropped after only 1000 rifles were procured because of "teething problems" with the rifles (they couldn't get through two magazines without jamming) and issues with the ammo (the "powder charge" would "flake off" with rough handling and there were numerous "failures to fire"). this would have kept the G11 out of the field for general issue. Assuming that H&K could have solved the ammo issues would still mean that there were only enough rifles in existence for GSG-9 type units. Ironically, it would be FN that would solve the G11 reliability issue with the P90. All it took was using cased ammunition that wasn't so easily damaged. There was really nothing wrong with H&K's design of the G11's vertically rotating breech block. It was all in the ammo.

The G-36 would begin issue in 1996 and 2000 were submitted for extended testing with approval for adoption by 1997. This would allow around another 4000 or 5000 rifles to come into existence before the interruption of production. This rifle could be in the hands of airborne troops or other special units. The rest of the German army would still be using G3's or pressing G41A1s into service (the G41 variant that was modified AFTER losing the German trials but never produced in large numbers).

Another rifle with issues is the AN-94. This rifle has a VERY POOR reliability record. The Soviets gave about 2000 to several Spetznaz and Marine units for testing. They continue to use it but it is an incredibly complex design that is still unreliable in use. Larry Vicker's Youtube video on the An-94 (where a jam took THREE MEN with a toolkit to clear it) is normal for that rifle. I doubt the Russians would have continued extended development during the war.
The AEK-971 shows a lot of promise but with limited production, no more than a few thousand would be able to reach the field before production was interrupted.
My last "nitpick" with Twilight2000 is the idea of the AKMr (rechamber). I do NOT ALLOW this rifle in my game because there is NO REASON for it to exist.
This is simply another case where the Devs weren't well educated with small arms development (and there's no shame in that). The cost of replacing the Bolt, Bolt carrier, Trunnion, sights, and the barrel is more than 80% of the cost of a new rifle. Additionally, when you're done, you STILL HAVE A RIFLE WITH USED PARTS ON IT! It is much more economical to sell TWO OLDER AKMs and use that money to build ONE NEW AK-74 than to convert 7.62mm rifles to 5.45mm.

[Raellus]

I've read several recent articles citing reliability and fragility issues with the G36. Heck, if the Kurdish Peshmerga are complaining about free German assault rifles, you know that something's probably wrong.

Swag, it look like our thinking is more or less in line, despite the fact that we each embrace different timelines.

Here's how I see things playing out in v1.0.

The G11 is adopted in the late-'80s and enters initial, small-batch production in the early '90s. It is issued first to special forces and airborne troops who immediately report reliability problems & issues with the caseless ammunition. The gov't decides that revamping an already expensive project this will make the G11 too pricey for general issue- there's also continuing NATO opposition to the caseless ammo- and directs HK to develop a more conventional G3 replacement that fires standard 5.56mm NATO ammunition. The G36 is developed in the mid-'90s and initial production begins. This would be around 1996, v1.0 timeline.

However, at this point, the W. German gov't is already in the advanced planning stages for reunification-by-force, and instructs H&K to cancel G36 production and switch instead to full-scale G33 and G32 production. This will allow the unified army to issue similar weapons that can be fed by existing stockpiles of ammunition. This new initiative preempts development of the G36.

So, once the war kicks off, you'd see German units carrying a mixture of weaponry.

Special Forces and airborne troops would start the war using a mixture of G11, G36, and G3s. Later on, they'd probably be using more G33s and G32s due to better reliability and parts/ammo availability.

First line, W. German Panzergrenadier and light infantry would be issued fresh G33s and newer-make G3s.

First line, former-E. German units would be equipped mostly with fresh G32s 7.62x39mm and perhaps a 5.45mm version as well (G34 designation?).

Reserve W. German units would be equipped with a hodgepodge, mostly older G3s and a few newer G33s at first.

Reserve E. German units would keep their MPiKs (E. German AKM & AK-74 clones) and eventually start receiving G32s.

[RN7]

From my version (V1.0) of German forces for Twilight 2000.

Before the war the main service rifle of the West German Bundesheer was the Heckler & Koch G41 assault rifle, capable of full automatic fire or three round burst. The G41 was an upgraded version of the older Heckler & Koch HK-33 assault rifle and was intended as an interim design until the introduction of the new G11 assault rifle.

The Heckler & Koch G11 uses caseless ammunition and is capable of full automatic fire or three round bursts and can carry two spare magazines positioned parallel to the magazine in use. However difficulties in mass producing caseless ammunition due to other priorities before and during the war led to only limited production of the rifle, and the G11 was only issued to selected units such as the Fallschirmjager and Fernspah special forces.

Territorial forces continued to use the venerable Heckler & Koch G3 battle rifle that had been the main service rifle of the Bundesheer for decades. The G3 uses the 7.62mm NATO round as opposed to the lighter 5.56mm NATO round of the G41, and German troops preferred the stopping power of the G3.

When it was obvious that the G11 was becoming too complicated to produce Heckler & Koch developed the G36 assault rifle as an alternative replacement. The G36A1 rifle uses the same 5.56mm NATO round as the G41, but it is a more capable weapon with superior range. It went into production in 1996 and was issued to frontline German infantry until the nuclear detonations. All German rifles (G3, G36 and G41) can mount the HK-79 and M203 under barrel grenade launchers.

German Federal Border Guards used the G8A1 rifle, which was an automatic rifle variant of the Heckler & Koch HK21 light machine gun featuring a bipod, selective fire option and telescopic scope. Federal Border Guards and other police forces also used the Belgian FN FAL and Swiss SIG SG 550 battle rifles.

German officers, military police (Feldjager) and airborne forces were issued with sub-machine guns. The standard sub-machine gun of German forces was the Heckler & Koch MP5 (A2/A4/A5), with Territorial forces using the Israeli Uzi. German Special forces also used the Heckler & Koch MP5K and MP-5SD, or more rarely the Belgian FN P90. Naval forces and military police also used the Walther MPK and MPL.

The standard German sidearm was the Heckler & Koch P7 and USP pistol, with Territorial forces using the Walther P1/P38 pistol. German special forces used the Heckler & Koch P9 and Mark 23 pistol, and police forces using a variety of pistols and revolvers.

German forces also used the Heckler & Koch PSG1 and MSG90 sniper rifles, and the Remington Model 870 shotgun. German special forces used a range of sniper rifles including the AMP DSR-1, Remington M24 and British Accuracy International AWM-F sniper rifles. They also used Barrett M82 and Accuracy International AW-50 anti-material rifles. German police forces used the Heckler & Koch G8A1 with telescopic scopes and the Mauser 86SR, or more rarely the Blaser R93 and Walther WA 2000 sniper rifles.

German forces used DM51 concussion/fragmentation grenade and the DM24 incendiary/smoke grenade. Both grenades were made by German arms company Diehl, and incorporated a detachable fragmentation sleeve which allowed it to be used defensively or offensively without a sleeve. The DM24 grenade also differs from most other incendiary grenades as it is filled with red phosphorous rather than white phosphorous, making it considerably safer to use.

German Special forces also used the prototype INKAS integrated night-fighting system that was being developed for German forces before the start of the war. INKAS consists of a rifle-mounted infrared laser projector and image-intensifying goggles. The laser can be fitted to most German assault rifles and Heckler & Koch sub-machine guns directly in front of the fore-sight, and its beam is invisible except with IR-goggles or similar night-vision devices. INKAS allows for effective night combat efficiency, with the laser considerably enhancing-hit probability through its simple point-and-shoot system. Only special forces and selected Fallschirmjager units were equipped with INKAS.

East German forces used Warsaw Pact weapons. The standard assault rifle of the NVA was the Kalashnikov AK-74N that used 5.45mm Kalashnikov round, and was built under license by Sauer & Sohn in East Germany. Second line forces and security troops were issued with Kalashnikov AK-47 and AKM assault rifles that fired the larger but less accurate 7.62mm Kalashnikov round. The Kamphfgruppen der Arbeiterklasse militia used the AK-47 and the obsolete SKS semi-automatic carbine. The standard East German sidearm was the Makarov PM pistol. East German border troops, airborne forces and the Stasi were also issued with Soviet AKS-74U automatic carbines, Czech Omnipol VZ-61 Skorpion and Polish Lucznik PM-63 RAK sub-machine guns. East German sniper rifles included the Soviet SVD Dragunov and the East German made SSG-82 which was only used by the Stasi. East German used Soviet hand grenades such as the F1, RGD-33 and RGO fragmentation grenades.

After German Reunification West German units continued to use weapons chambered for NATO cartridges, while former East German forces used Soviet weapons for the same reason. As the war progressed German forces began to use whatever weapons were available, and in the later stages of the war even used Second World War era bolt action rifles such as the Soviet Mosin-Nagant M-1891 and former Wehrmacht Karabiner 98K's.

Civilian hunting rifles have also been increasingly used by militia forces. To add to the variety of firearms used by the Germans in the Twilight War many Austrian Army and US Army weapons also found their way into use. Austrian forces came under German control after 1997, and Austrian units use their own weapons including the Steyr AUG assault rifle and Steyr MPi 69 and TMP sub-machine guns. US firearms have also been distributed to German forces including Colt M16A2 assault rifles, Ingram MAC-10 sub-machine guns and other weapons. Five years of warfare against Warsaw Pact armies in Central Europe, the Italians in Austria, and the French and Belgian armies in the Rhineland has also led to the recovery of large stocks of captured firearms. In 2001 it is quite possible for individual German units to be using weapons from over half a dozen sources that are chambered to use NATO, Kalashnikov or other types of cartridges.

[swaghauler]

The German Polizei used several different 9mmP pistols during the Twilight War. The following pistols were generally issued:

Walther P1-Basically an "improved copy" of the Walther P38 with an open slide, slide mounted decocking safety, 8 shot capacity and heel magazine release.

Walther P5- an "improved" P1 with an enclosed slide, 8 shot magazine and frame mounted decocker only. Originally equipped with a heel mag release, later models featured an "American mag release" behind the decocking lever.

SIG P225/P6- An 8 shot, 7.8" long compact pistol with a frame mounted decocker and an "American magazine release." This was simply a "chopped" P220.

H&K P7 "Squeeze Cocker"/P7- H&K's revolutionary "squeeze cocking" grip that not only rendered the pistol safe when released but also acted as the "slide release" when reloading. 8 shot capacity with heel release on original models and an "ambidextrous" dual paddle release behind the trigger guard on later European and American pistols.

H&K USP 9/P8- H&K's polymer high capacity 15 shot 9mmP with frame mounted decocker and safety combined. The magazine release is an ambidextrous dual lever behind the trigger guard. Night Sights are standard.

SIG P228/P9- SIG's 13 shot double column 9mmP with frame mounted decocker and "American" style button magazine release. Night Sights are standard.

While I found some reference to GSG-9 and certain other "SWAT" teams using the .45; all of them referenced either the 8 shot P220 (with heel release AND "American" release) or the USP-45 Tactical 12 shot .45; I can find NO mention of German Polizei ever using the H&K Mark 23....

[.45cultist]

I can't recall where I read it, but I did see an article a few months ago that suggested that the UK still had a stockpile of SLR's which ran into the tens of thousands, so I think it's highly likely that the SLR would be the most commonly found weapon amongst British forces either though neccessity or choice. I also like the idea of reissuing Brens, and would probably add to that the possibility of very occasionally encountering militia and Home Service Force units in the UK armed with .303 Lee Enfields. There's also likely to be a number of MP5's in circulation as that was the standard issue long arm of most British police forces (at least on the mainland).

One minor thing - whilst I agree with most of what you've said here (including the reissue of the Bren gun), IRL Sterling Armaments went bust in the late 80's, so wouldn't be in any position to start remanufacturing the AR18.

(Of course, that doesn't mean that they have to go bust in a T2K World...:))

On a side note, finding ways for marauder groups in the UK to be armed is a source of constant headaches for me...there are only so many dodgy French weapons dealers or abandoned HSF caches...I do sometimes envy those whose work is set in the US where it seems (to me at least) that both lawful and unlawful groups have relatively easy access to large amounts of weapons.

Interesting views on the G11 / G36 debate also. I've always been a fan of the G36, but as I use a Version 1 timeline following the logic here I think I may have to dump it in favour of the G11.









You could always use a Chinese freighter and the Irish insurgents to supply weapons, one accidently, the other to keep its enemy busy.

[RN7]

While I found some reference to GSG-9 and certain other "SWAT" teams using the .45; all of them referenced either the 8 shot P220 (with heel release AND "American" release) or the USP-45 Tactical 12 shot .45; I can find NO mention of German Polizei ever using the H&K Mark 23....

German police and SWAT (Sondereinsatzkommando) units were never issued with the H&K Mark 23. But GSG9 which is part of the German Federal Border Guards were issued with some H&K Mark 23's in the 90's. There is not very much information about who used the H&K Mark 23 other than the usual sources which states that the US Special Forces and a few others used the pistol. However the German military especially the Kampfschwimmer which are the German equivalent to the US Navy Seals almost certainly tested and used the H&K Mark 23. German special forces units were all rebranded as the KSK in 1996 and the Germans now use the similar H&K USP P12, but they still may have a few Mark 23 knocking about.

[.45cultist]

For Britain, the Pattern Room inventory was to be moved to several more secure storage facilities but a couple of convoys never made it due to the bombs. It could even play out like the gold convoy in "Armies of the Night", which would add a cadre of modern police or military gear. An Armed Response van would be a good start for a small band. A cottage factory is making Stens for sale.

[swaghauler]

German police and SWAT (Sondereinsatzkommando) units were never issued with the H&K Mark 23. But GSG9 which is part of the German Federal Border Guards were issued with some H&K Mark 23's in the 90's. There is not very much information about who used the H&K Mark 23 other than the usual sources which states that the US Special Forces and a few others used the pistol. However the German military especially the Kampfschwimmer which are the German equivalent to the US Navy Seals almost certainly tested and used the H&K Mark 23. German special forces units were all rebranded as the KSK in 1996 and the Germans now use the similar H&K USP P12, but they still may have a few Mark 23 knocking about.

Thanks for the insight. This is definitely one of those "grey areas" where hard info is difficult to come by. While I have a great deal of knowledge about the pistols I posted on because I have each and every one of them; I but don't know as much about their history of use (especially in Europe).

[swaghauler]

For Britain, the Pattern Room inventory was to be moved to several more secure storage facilities but a couple of convoys never made it due to the bombs. It could even play out like the gold convoy in "Armies of the Night", which would add a cadre of modern police or military gear. An Armed Response van would be a good start for a small band. A cottage factory is making Stens for sale.

This is an interesting Idea.

[.45cultist]

This is an interesting Idea.

Know a guy who got to tour it. There is a lot there covering several centuries. A GM could use it to add anything. Also remember the fire stations discovered a few years back they had 200 year old boarding axes.Bolt guns are common than one thinks, as are AR15's with uppers converted to manual pull. A smuggler need only bring FN uppers or parts to convert these back. And British citizens on both sides of the law will want weaponry.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I made a post in the "Odd Treasure Troves" thread about zoos/wildlife parks being a possible source of firearms. Many zoos around the world have firearms trained personnel to take care of any dangerous animals that escape and so on.
These places can provide a small quantity of civilian shotguns and rifles but most people don't associate zoos/wildlife parks with a cache of firearms.

This is the article from The Firearms Blog that I linked to in the other thread, it has much more detail than I've mentioned here.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/06/01/zoo-weapons-response-teams/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheFirearmBlog+%28The+Firearm +Blog%29

[Targan]

I made a post in the "Odd Treasure Troves" thread about zoos/wildlife parks being a possible source of firearms. Many zoos around the world have firearms trained personnel to take care of any dangerous animals that escape and so on.
These places can provide a small quantity of civilian shotguns and rifles but most people don't associate zoos/wildlife parks with a cache of firearms.

True. It's a pity Harambe didn't have the chance to shoot back.

[LoneCollector1987]

Hello,

as a former member of the FKG 2 I would be much interested in what the future of the FKG 1 and 2 would have been.

Both units were equipped with 36 Pershing 1A missiles each and were deactivated in 1991.
The nuclear warheads were under the control of a US unit, in the case of the FKG 2 it was the US Army 85th Field Artillery Detachment.

But what about the Twilight timelines?

Would something like the SLEP (Service Life Extension Programm) for aircraftcarriers happened to those missiles?

Would they have been replaced by a more modern missile or would those units turned into artillery units with 155mm guns?

I once started to write a sourcebook myself, but WRITERSBLOCK (and I dont know how to beat it) but in my timeline the missiles were replaced by the fictional Pershing III missile (range and payload nearly identical) that was a downsized version of the Pershing 2.

[swaghauler]

Hello,

as a former member of the FKG 2 I would be much interested in what the future of the FKG 1 and 2 would have been.

Both units were equipped with 36 Pershing 1A missiles each and were deactivated in 1991.
The nuclear warheads were under the control of a US unit, in the case of the FKG 2 it was the US Army 85th Field Artillery Detachment.

But what about the Twilight timelines?

Would something like the SLEP (Service Life Extension Programm) for aircraftcarriers happened to those missiles?

Would they have been replaced by a more modern missile or would those units turned into artillery units with 155mm guns?

I once started to write a sourcebook myself, but WRITERSBLOCK (and I dont know how to beat it) but in my timeline the missiles were replaced by the fictional Pershing III missile (range and payload nearly identical) that was a downsized version of the Pershing 2.

I use the V2.2 Timeline and they were replaced in my timeline (like they were in reality) with generation 2 thermobaric devices. Why risk the dangers of fallout when you can have all the benefits of a tac nuke without the drawbacks? Many of the Tac Nukes were more than 20 years old (the warheads) and nearing the end of their service lives anyway. It really wouldn't take much to retrofit a Pershing with a thermobaric warhead.

[RN7]

in my timeline the missiles were replaced by the fictional Pershing III missile (range and payload nearly identical) that was a downsized version of the Pershing 2.

I think that missile was the Pershing 1B. The actual Pershing III was a proposed missile to replace the LGM-118 Peacekeeper (MX) ICBM. There is also now a proposal to develop a coastal based Pershing III that could be used to counter the Chinese DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile. It would be deployed supposedly in Japan and South Korea by the US Army.

[Draq]

We've discussed the UK's standard service rifle in the Twilight War and opinion is all over the board. Would it be the product-improved L85A2 (or would H&K have been too busy arming the newly unified German military to help fix the problematic SA80A1), the old but reliable SLR, a locally manufactured AR-18, or a combination of all three?
I think Enfield would've put some priority to fixing the l85, given the urgency of war, but definitely some mix of l85, SLR(fal), and ar-18. Same with most of the other major players. Germany: hk41, g3, and seldom few g11 and g36. Russia: ak47 & 74, sks, maybe a few svt40 and mosins. Us: m16/m4, m14, and I substitute a majority of the EZs with ar-18. And a proliferation of Robinson m96 for certain marine and special forces purposes.

[swaghauler]

I think Enfield would've put some priority to fixing the l85, given the urgency of war, but definitely some mix of l85, SLR(fal), and ar-18. Same with most of the other major players. Germany: hk41, g3, and seldom few g11 and g36. Russia: ak47 & 74, sks, maybe a few svt40 and mosins. Us: m16/m4, m14, and I substitute a majority of the EZs with ar-18. And a proliferation of Robinson m96 for certain marine and special forces purposes.

Great Britain:

I would see the British falling back to their L1A1s. They still had huge stockpiles of these rifles and ammo and magazines are no problem. I think the British would also re-issue Sterling SMGs for Home Guard and rear echelon troops. The British had thousands of Sterlings which had been replaced by the IW tucked away in their arsenals. I believe they would dust them off and re-issue them as quickly as possible. The Sterling really was a pretty good SMG with a cyclic rate of 550 rpm, a compact size (for tankers and truckers), a weight of about 2.5kg empty and a single shot capability. as long as engagements are limited to around 100 meters, it could "fill in the gaps" between the IW and the L1A1.

Germany:

Germany still had HUGE quantities of both G3s and AKs to draw on. In my variation of the V2.2 timeline, Germany gives most of its "Pact" equipment to the pro-West Polish government in order to combat the Russian-backed rebels who plunged Poland into a civil war (triggering the Twilight War). The Germans provided "elite units" with the G36 and everyone else got a mix of G33s, G41s, and G3s (based on existing stocks in inventory- I roll a 1D10.. on a 1 you get a G36, 2 is a G41A1, 3-4 is a G33/G41 and 5+ is a G3). As hard as it is to believe, it costs 50% MORE to produce a G41A1 than a G36 (mainly due to machining costs v. injection molding costs). This means Germany would produce G36s in preference to other models. Rear echelon troops would use surplus Uzis and either the Walther MPL/MPK or the H&K MP-5 series submachineguns (both VERY expensive to manufacture). On a side note here, the H&K UMP can be produced for about 60% of the cost of an MP-5. The UMP was designed in the 90's but not produced for many years. The Twilight War could trigger the manufacture of the UMP.

The US:

The US was caught in the middle of transitioning to the M4. The elite units (Air Assault, Airborne, and Ranger units) would have the M4. Other frontline units would have the M16A2 and newly formed units would have the M16A1 pulled from "mothballs." The M3 grease gun, MP-5, Colt 9mmP subgun, UZI, and Carl Gustaff M36 subguns were all available for issue to stateside or rear area troops. The Mini-14 could have been pressed into service in large numbers as it was allowed to be manufactured during the '94 Assault Weapons Ban (making semi-auto versions available in larger quantities... at least until Mexico rolls into Arizona). There would be only limited quantities of other weapons available until manufacturers get assembly lines (shuttered due to the ban) up and running.

Designated Marksman's Rifles:

The Marines were pulling M14's out of mothballs in the 90's to make Designated Marksman's rifles using Leupold MK4 Day Scopes (3.5-10 X 40mm) and Harris Bipods. the M39 Designated Marksman's Rifle could make an appearance in the late 90's. This would be supplemented by 5.56mmN DMRs like MK12 SPR. The MK12 went through several "mods" before being standardized. Early MK12's start as an M16A1 lower (early models keep the full auto selector while later models used match-grade semi-auto triggers) with a match grade flat-top upper chambered for M855, not M193 ammo. The MK12 is topped with either a Leupold MK3 or a NightForce NX 2.5-10 X 36mm scope. The Marines even mounted ACOGs (both the 3.5X and 4X models) on the carrying handles of M16A2s.
The Army followed suit in 2003 with the M14 EBR (using the same optic). The Army also "dusted off" M21 Sniper Rifles and issued them as DMRs to elite units. Many of these early issues still had the Redfield Leatherwood ARM 3-9 X 42mm Scopes from the Vietnam War era. Those optics still had issues with losing zero and blurring at magnifications above 6 or 7 power. The Army would replace them with Leupold MK4 3.5-10 X 40mm scopes (just like in real life). the Army also issued a version of the MK12 SPR. It is almost identical to the navy version.

The Warsaw Pact:

Most First-Line Pact units would have the more accurate and easier shooting AK-74 in inventory. Reserve units would also have AK-74s as well. Mobilization Only units would have 7.62mm X 39mm AKMs and some Pact countries (like Bulgaria & Romania) would still be using belt fed RPDs as SAWs. The final waves would most likely be armed with the SKS battle rifle and RPDs. In fact, several Eastern European countries issued the SKS to police units as well.
The SKS gets a bad rap compared to the AK. It is actually EASIER for poorly trained troops to use than an AK. Here's why.

- The SKS has a safety that can be manipulated by the firing hand WITHOUT taking it off the weapon. An SKS shooter will engage an enemy from safe MUCH FASTER than an AK shooter.

- The SKS has a last round bolt hold open and its open top design lets the shooter SEE he is out. The AK user must manipulate the bolt to ensure that he hasn't had a stoppage instead.

-The SKS reload is a bit faster for a novice shooter. The AK shooter must rock in a magazine and then reach under or over the rifle to rack the bolt to chamber a round ALL WITH THE WEAK HAND.
The SKS shooter holds the weapon to his shoulder in a firing position with his weak hand and grabs a stripper clip with his STRONG hand. He then seats the clip in the guide on the bolt face and pushes down on the bullets. He then sweeps his firing hand (with the empty stripper clip between his thumb and trigger finger) back and down (the bolt closes AUTOMATICLY as the clip is swept away) to the trigger (a very short trip) to resume firing. A typical shooter can reload an AK in about 4 seconds. That same shooter can reload an SKS in 3 seconds. The SKS is faster.


These are the most common versions of weapons that would be READILY available in large numbers for the troops.

[WallShadow]

<SNIP>

The Warsaw Pact:

Most First-Line Pact units would have the more accurate and easier shooting AK-74 in inventory. Reserve units would also have AK-74s as well. Mobilization Only units would have 7.62mm X 39mm AKMs and some Pact countries (like Bulgaria & Romania) would still be using belt fed RPDs as SAWs. The final waves would most likely be armed with the SKS battle rifle and RPDs. In fact, several Eastern European countries issued the SKS to police units as well.
The SKS gets a bad rap compared to the AK. It is actually EASIER for poorly trained troops to use than an AK. Here's why.

- The SKS has a safety that can be manipulated by the firing hand WITHOUT taking it off the weapon. An SKS shooter will engage an enemy from safe MUCH FASTER than an AK shooter.

- The SKS has a last round bolt hold open and its open top design lets the shooter SEE he is out. The AK user must manipulate the bolt to ensure that he hasn't had a stoppage instead.

-The SKS reload is a bit faster for a novice shooter. The AK shooter must rock in a magazine and then reach under or over the rifle to rack the bolt to chamber a round ALL WITH THE WEAK HAND.
The SKS shooter holds the weapon to his shoulder in a firing position with his weak hand and grabs a stripper clip with his STRONG hand. He then seats the clip in the guide on the bolt face and pushes down on the bullets. He then sweeps his firing hand (with the empty stripper clip between his thumb and trigger finger) back and down (the bolt closes AUTOMATICLY as the clip is swept away) to the trigger (a very short trip) to resume firing. A typical shooter can reload an AK in about 4 seconds. That same shooter can reload an SKS in 3 seconds. The SKS is faster.


These are the most common versions of weapons that would be READILY available in large numbers for the troops.

So I take it the SKS that had been converted to the AK mag magazine adapter would suffer some or all of the flaws of the AK itself?

[Draq]

So I take it the SKS that had been converted to the AK mag magazine adapter would suffer some or all of the flaws of the AK itself?

A bit. The sks does have a bit longer barrel. But I think the mag conversion was a bit more popular I'm America, than Europe.

[CDAT]

A bit. The sks does have a bit longer barrel. But I think the mag conversion was a bit more popular I'm America, than Europe.

Unless there are two different ways that this was done, all the ones I have ever seen they do not use AK magazines, similar but not the same. Due to how the SKS originally does not have detectable magazines it is more complex to give it the AK type magazines.

[.45cultist]

Unless there are two different ways that this was done, all the ones I have ever seen they do not use AK magazines, similar but not the same. Due to how the SKS originally does not have detectable magazines it is more complex to give it the AK type magazines.

There was a Chicom variant using actual ak47/akm mags, then there was the aftermarket sks mag with w tail to engage the forward hinge on a stock sks. The ak mag variant goes for a premium in real life.

[swaghauler]

So I take it the SKS that had been converted to the AK mag magazine adapter would suffer some or all of the flaws of the AK itself?

There are two ways to convert the SKS to detachable magazines.

The first is to use the "Duckbill" magazine pioneered in the 1990's by TAPCO and made by several companies today. The "Duckbill Magazine" gets its name from a projecting "flange" located at the nose of the magazine just below the feed lips side of the magazine. This projection is used to hold or "lock" the magazine into a special recess cut into the bottom of the SKS's receiver that holds the SKS's original integral 10 round magazine in place. Converting the SKS to use a "Duckbill Magazine" is extremely easy. You simply disassemble the SKS and take off the integral magazine and reassemble the SKS SANS THE INTEGRAL MAGAZINE. The cutout and the SKS's factory original magazine release (to dump the integral magazine's rounds), located in front of the trigger guard, hold the "Duckbill Magazine" in place. There are NO special parts needed but there are a few issues with using these magazines. The first is that the magazine release (originally intended to only dump the integral mag's ammo) is pretty small. It can be difficult to operate under stress. The second issue is that removing the integral magazine also removes the magazine follower (leaving a hole in the bottom of the receiver). This removes the bolt hold open feature of the SKS and the bolt will close on an empty chamber. The third is that a closed bolt will ride into the top of the magazine cutout below the barrel. This means that a "Duckbill Magazine" CANNOT be loaded into an SKS WHILE THE BOLT IS CLOSED. With no bolt hold open, the shooter MUST hold the bolt BACK (in the open position) while inserting the magazine. Magazines are inserted "duckbill" first and then rocked back until the tab on the back of the magazine is grabbed by the SKS's magazine release tab. This makes the loading of a "Duckbill Magazine" more complex (and much slower) than an AK reload. Ironically, "Duckbilled SKSs" were a VERY COMMON weapon among US Militias (the private ones that formed to oppose the '94 Assault Weapons Ban) because magazines were $20 and an SKS was around $100 to $150 for NEW Chinese production (Norinco). The normal "combat loading" of a "Duckbill SKS" is to use what is known as The Iraqi Marine Reload for AKs. It involves holding the rifle to your right shoulder by the bolt handle (held by your right hand) while reloading with your left hand. THIS IS A VERY UNSTABLE RELOAD (rifles have been dropped during this reload).

The second method of converting SKS rifles to use AK mags involves a replacement bolt and dropping the integral magazine as well. This method CAN require "fitting" by a gunsmith (AVE: Gunsmithing) to get the new bolt to properly "head-space" in the chamber but doesn't usually involve modifying the actual SKS (so you could convert it back to original specs). This method MAY replace the SKS mag dump release with a proper AK paddle or it may leave the SKS release "as is." The SKS can use stock AK magazines and the bolt hold-open is also removed. The reload is identical to an AK reload. This "conversion" was pioneered by the Chinese and they had several thousand conversions in the 90's. Today, you can buy a "drop-in" conversion kit for the SKS. The cost is around $200 US.

Neither of these conversions can match the speed of a stock SKS reload and there is a danger that magazines being held by the stock SKS "dump release" may disengage and fall out of the rifle under "rough handling" (like in combat). I would make a converted rifle save by rolling ABOVE it's Wear Number on 1D10 when handled roughly, or the magazine dumps from the rifle.

Conventional Conversions:

I guess I should mention that US shooters have two other options for the SKS. They can install an integral 5 round magazine designed just like the original one (and primarily used for hunting) for about $15 US, and an "extended" integral 20 round magazine that can be found for about $30 US. These can both be fed by the original rifle's stripper clips. the 5-round mag is VERY COMMON (for hunting) but the 20-round mag is fairly rare.

[Draq]

There are two ways to convert the SKS to detachable magazines.... Etc...

That about covers it. What alot of those militia an prepper types don't understand is that the SKS wasn't supposed to be used like an AK... Hence why it wasn't built like on. The SKS is a sort-of carbine/battle rifle. To be used like a battle rifle while using a lighter more manageable intermediate cartridge, more suited for acurrate medium range fire. Like a step up from an m1 carbine.

[.45cultist]

That about covers it. What alot of those militia an prepper types don't understand is that the SKS wasn't supposed to be used like an AK... Hence why it wasn't built like on. The SKS is a sort-of carbine/battle rifle. To be used like a battle rifle while using a lighter more manageable intermediate cartridge, more suited for acurrate medium range fire. Like a step up from an m1 carbine.

Yep, it was built before the doctrine of mass charges that the AK-47 was to be used in. Preppers would be better off using it for hunting and emergencies.

[swaghauler]

Yep, it was built before the doctrine of mass charges that the AK-47 was to be used in. Preppers would be better off using it for hunting and emergencies.

Most people don't realize that Simonov's Carbine (the SKS) was actually designed in 1943 and even saw limited service in the last months of WW2. This rifle had what most infantrymen considered essential features based on the Russian experience during the Great Patriotic War. The magazine bolt hold-open (copied from the Garand), fixed bolt handle, internal 10-round magazine (with Enfield traits), and semi-auto function (a modified Tokarev design) were DEMANDED by field veterans, as was the "intermediate cartridge" M1943 (7.62mm X 39mm) which was originally designed SPECIFICALLY for the SKS (and influenced by the StG-45). The AK series was designed after the SKS and borrowed several features from the SKS (which is why their gas pistons and ammo are interchangeable).

I like to change my ranges on the AK series to match their "real world" accuracy in the hands of average shooters. The differences in range can be mostly attributed to each rifle's caliber (due to bullet drop) and overall sight radius. Sight radius has a large impact on long range shooting while not really affecting short range marksmanship that much. This gives the rifles slightly different performance parameters, which adds "character" to each weapon type.

*SKS (original model with 20" barrel)= Base Range: 50m
*SKS "Airborne Model" (with 16" barrel)= Base range: 45m
RPD SAW (20.5" barrel)= Base Range: 50m
AK-47/AKM (16" barrel)= Base Range: 45m
RPK SAW (20" barrel)= Base Range: 50m
"Draco" style AKM SMG (12" barrel)= Base Range: 30m
AK-74 (16" barrel)= Base Range: 50m
RPK-74 SAW (20" barrel)= Base Range: 55m
AKS-74U (original Afghan War version with a 7.5" barrel)= Base Range: 30m
AKS-74U (1990's redesigned version with a 12" barrel)= Base Range: 35m

*The SKS rifles (especially the Yugoslavian designed "Airborne models") are very likely to have adapters and gas cutoff valves to fire rifle grenades as part of their basic designs. The Balkan countries (Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Romania) continued to field rifle grenades until the 21st Century.

These are the ranges I use to differentiate between models and generations of models in my game.

[swaghauler]

Tim over at the Military Arms Channel has a new upload about "new in the box" (factory refurbished) Yugo SKS rifles. Check out his video to see his Vintage Yugo SKS with the rifle grenade launcher on it. It is the "old style" launcher with the gas cutoff for using blanks or "launching cartridges" (NOT the same in power) to propel the grenade. It has the multi-ring set up much like the older WW2 US grenade launchers. You screw the grenade onto the launcher and the further on you screw it, the longer the range the rifle will launch it. Most launchers have 3 or 4 settings (identified by the number of "rings" or ridges on the launcher) but some have as many as 6 settings for launch range. Ian at Forgotten Weapons also has a good upload on the M1 Garand's WW2 Launcher.

[pmulcahy11b]

Another rifle with issues is the AN-94. This rifle has a VERY POOR reliability record. The Soviets gave about 2000 to several Spetznaz and Marine units for testing...

All the reports, articles, and shows I've seen and read seem to point to Spetsnaz preferring updated versions of the AKM (such as the AK-100 series) to anything else they get issued.

[swaghauler]

All the reports, articles, and shows I've seen and read seem to point to Spetsnaz preferring updated versions of the AKM (such as the AK-100 series) to anything else they get issued.

This is ABSOLUTELY true. Larry Vickers tests Russian Alpha Team member's rifles on his Youtube channel. I was surprised to see that the Russian military will buy foreign products (most notably US ones), but they had us optics mounts on their rifles, though admittedly, they were copies of a Polish designed mount that were made in Texas.

[.45cultist]

I made a post in the "Odd Treasure Troves" thread about zoos/wildlife parks being a possible source of firearms. Many zoos around the world have firearms trained personnel to take care of any dangerous animals that escape and so on.
These places can provide a small quantity of civilian shotguns and rifles but most people don't associate zoos/wildlife parks with a cache of firearms.

This is the article from The Firearms Blog that I linked to in the other thread, it has much more detail than I've mentioned here.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/06/01/zoo-weapons-response-teams/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheFirearmBlog+%28The+Firearm +Blog%29

The Kansas City zoo has a .600 H&H double rifle and qualifies employees on the weapon, but would probably leave animals' demise to police shotguns.

[mpipes]

I thought I would share my notes on German and UK assault rifles. I use a modified version of the V2.2 timeline.

G-11
Twilight 2000 Notes: Production of the G-11 began very rapidly in late 1990, and just as quickly slowed and stopped in early 1991. The ammo problems were pronounced and though HK continued to work the ammo issue, the gun was withdrawn from general issue. By 1992, Heckler & Koch was concentrating on the G-41 and the then-upcoming G-36. Despite some 5,000 examples of the G-11 being produced by 2000, most of them had been withdrawn as pre-war stocks of ammunition were largely expended and new stocks were almost impossible to make using the production methods available by 2000. However, one source for ammo was able to keep a trickle of ammo going, basically testing batches, but not enough to support extensive combat use. About 1,000 of the G-11 were produced for various trials and testing and another 4,000 of the G-11K2. Most of those were issued to German special operation forces and some airborne units. Almost all were recalled in 1993, but a handful were found in limited use during the war. The ammo was improved somewhat since 1991, but the weapon was still not considered reliable and few used it as a primary weapon.

Merc 2000 Notes: This is a popular weapon for special ops forces operating in harsh climates, as by 2000 the ammo problem had been solved. If you encounter a force armed with the G-11, they are probably clandestine forces of a large national government or of someone who has a lot of money to spend on exotic weapons and ammunition.

G-36
Twilight 2000 Notes: When it became obvious that the G-11 was too expensive and complicated to produce, and that ammunition availability and reliability would become a major stumbling block, the G-41 was brought into full production instead and the plans for the G-36 accelerated greatly. General issue of the G-36 began in the fall of 1995, with just over 250,000 issued before the November 1997 nuclear exchanges, and several hundred more were salvaged from the destroyed H&K factories. Though examples of the G-36K were built at the same time as the standard G-36, many more were made by German special operations armorers using plans furnished by Heckler & Koch. Several hundred G-36s were produced to the G-36E standard and about 3,500 G-36Cs were produced.

Merc 2000 Notes: As German peacekeepers became a more common sight in the world, their G-36 rifles also became a more common sight.

G-41
Twilight 2000 Notes: The Heckler & Koch G-41 was rushed into production in 1990 for issue to the newly unified German Army when the G-11 became too expensive to produce along with ammo problems, and the G-36 was not yet developed. It was realized that the G-41 would serve as a stopgap measure to modernize and standardize the German military’s assault rifles to meet modern standards (including STANAG magazines and optical sight mounts) until a new rifle (the G-36) was fully developed. With the outbreak of the Twilight War, the G-41 saw continued production and service and proved to be an effective and reliable weapon, with most German troops initially going to war carrying G-41s. With the advent of the G-36 design, the days of the G-41 seemed to be short-lived. Only the use of nuclear weapons forestalled its replacement by the newer design. The G-41K, though not uncommon, is also not that common either. It was popular in the hands of rear-area troops as well as special ops types. The G-41 was also issued to territorial and militia troops and were found exclusively in several Jaeger units raised in 1997. These also were the main NATO assault rifle in Free Polish Legion units formed in 1997.

Merc 2000 Notes: The only large-scale customers of the G-41 seem to be the military forces of El Salvador and Belize. This was not enough to keep the productions lines for the G-41 open, though spare parts are still being manufactured. As with the G-41, the only large-scale customers of the G-41K seem to be El Salvador and Belize. Their smaller-statured troops seemed to prefer this shorter version.

HK-33
Twilight 2000 Notes: With the outbreak of war, production of the HK-33A2 and GR-3Es were ramped up and many rifles were issued to the former East German military units still using AK types instead of the G-41, though the AK weapons were never completely replaced. The HK-33A2SG and HK-33A2SG1 were also procured in significant numbers along with GR-3 series weapons. Quantities of license-built HK-33A2s and GR-3 series weapons were also procured from Thailand and Malaysia, and even Mexico, by the Germans until replaced by the G-41 and G-36. By mid-1997, the HK-33s had been mostly replaced by G-36s or G-41s in front line combat units. This weapon also often formed the core of military-type rifles issued to most Western European militia units. In addition, it was difficult to find a community in the US or Central America where at least one person did not have either an HK-33 or HK-93. Older HK-93s were seemingly easy to convert to fully automatic fire. The HK-53 MICV was, in the Twilight 2000 timeline, the standard-issue firing port weapon for the Marder. As with the US M-231, many HK-53s were yanked out of wrecked Marders and put into ground service, often modified to accept a sliding wire stock. In addition, the HK-53 was issued to many other units, from cooks to special operations troops. Many HK-53s were also converted to HK-33A2, HK-33KA1, and HK-33KA2 standards.

Merc 2000 Notes: The HK-33 and its variants could turn up in the strangest places, such as the bodyguard element for the Zairian president, and the guards for diamond mines in South Africa. It is even rumored that a tribe of Rhade in the highlands of Vietnam are primarily armed with the HK-33, though how the HK-33s got there is unknown. Germany, Thailand, and Malaysia still produce the HK-33 series along with a US producer. The GR-2A3, GR-3EA2, and GR-3KA2 are also fairly popular with mercenaries. The HK-32 series was also put in production, and the Macau Police and Egyptian special forces are known to have purchased these weapons from Malaysia. The Secret Service is also known to have purchased GR-3EA2s.

MPiK/MPiKS/MPiKM/MPiKMS
Twilight 2000 Notes: Widely dispersed, these weapons are fairly common in Africa. The MPiKM and MPiKMS had been almost entirely replaced by MPiK-74N and MPiKS-74N as primary issue to most DDR troops before unification. However, these were still the primary rifle found with many security and support troops in the eastern half of Germany when the Twilight war began. It became a favorite of civilian militia.

Thousands of parts kits were exported to the US and assembled for civilian sales until mid-1996 when remaining stocks went to new production of full automatic, military weapons.

Merc 2000 Notes: The MPiKM, MPiKMS, and MPiKMS-72 can be found virtually everywhere, since the Germans sold them all on the international market. Although production ceased in 1990 with reunification, the Germans quietly restarted production and export in 1998, mostly to Africa, Central and Southeast Asia. Very popular with mercenary units and in front line service in many Third World militaries, especially in Africa.

MPiAK-74N/MPAiKS-74N/MPiAK-74NK
Twilight 2000 Notes: Most German troops went to war with the G-41 and G-36 rifles, but the MPiAK-74N series was never completely replaced in the former East German reserve and territorial units. Even before the Twilight war began, large numbers of MPiAK-74Ns and MPiAKS-74Ns were converted to 5.56mm-NATO and had mostly replaced 5.45mm variants. A very few MPiAK-74NKs were likewise converted. This involved replacing the bolt, barrel, and rear sight and making some adjustments to the gas system. Afterwards, as G-36s and more G-41s became available, these rifles primarily went to militia units.

After the November 1997 nuclear strikes, efforts to orderly and completely replace the MPiAK-74N series essentially ceased. The MPiAKS-74NK remained assigned to many former East German tank and APC crews, as well as drivers, though quantities of HK-53s or GR-2s (usually with 40-round magazines) replaced and supplemented these MPiAKS-74NKs over time. The MPiAK-74N series weapons were issued to militia units as well. The MPiKS-74Ns also found its way into use by various NATO special ops and even French special ops in Kuwait. Many of the converted MPiAK-74N/N rifles ended up issued to British combat troops in Europe and the Middle East as they abandoned use of the L-85A1.

Merc 2000 Notes: The MPiAK-74Ns and MPAiKS-74Ns were for the most part withdrawn from German service. However, large quantities of MPiAK-74Ns, MPAiKS-74Ns, and MPiAKS-74NKs were sold on the international arms market, including to Turkey and several African nations. Quite common in Africa and Asia, where well over 500,000 were sold by the East German and reunified German governments.

StG-940
Twilight 2000 Notes: These guns were put back in production in 1994 and were issued as a family of common weapons to company sized units. Primarily issued to German Seabattalion and Royal Dutch marines, and new German Jaeger companies of light territorial infantry regiments formed after 1997. These were sometimes issued en masse to new militia companies in 1997 – 1999.

Merc 2000 Notes: These were placed in production in 1993 and saw wide spread sales to those few countries in Africa that could afford to replace their 7.62mm AKs with newer variants in 5.56mm. A 120 round drum becomes available for the LMG-944 in 1995.

G-3
Twilight 2000 Notes: By 2000, many withdrawn G-3 had been reissued to army units as well as militia. Many G-3 were also upgraded to G-3SG/1s with new match grade barrels and issued as a DMR to German army, Seebataillon, and reserve troops as well as militia. Many mountain troops held on to their G-3s and somehow, no one quite knows how, obtained enough Hensoldt 4×24 optical scopes and claw mounts to mount on all their G-3s. These mountain troops equipped with scoped G-3s extracted a terrible toll on Russian and other Pact troop.

In the Americas, semiauto G-3 variants were very popular in the US, and G-3s were the primary issue weapon to Mexican units. They were sometimes found being used by British troops.

Merc 2000 Notes: Extremely popular with those wanting a rifle with more punch than the 5.56mm NATO.

Enfield L-85
Twilight 2000 Notes: In the Twilight 2000 timeline, the L-85 series is considered a very expensive failure. Although problems had been noted for years, the Ministry of Defense before 1996 simply refused to acknowledge the problems. But as war loomed, NATO revoked approval to use the rifle for ammunition certification; a major embarrassment. This forced the MOD to finally admit the gun was not reliable and at least try and address the many shortcomings. The impetus came too late.

Most of the A1 variant have been ditched by 2000 by British troops in favor of both allied and enemy weapons as well as L1A1s that are more reliable and don’t fall apart. As the Germans faced defeat in November 1996, the British were still scrambling to procure acceptable replacement rifles, having settled on ordering off-the-shelf Sabre A3 rifles and Diemaco C7 and C-8 series rifles procured as replacement. With a profound shortage of weapons, the only real choice was to pull a great many L1A1s out of storage for issue, but substantial numbers of AK-74Ns (MPiAK-74Ns and MPAiKS-74Ns) were obtained from the Germans by the BOAR and issued. As the war began, British troops carried a variety of weapons, which gave unit armorers fits as they were forced to deal with profoundly different weapons.

Although the upgraded L-85A2 started becoming available in early 1997 on an emergency basis, only a relatively few were completed and issued. Except for limited numbers in the hands of British paratroopers and the Royal Marines, the L-85A2 is mostly unknown in the Twilight 2000 world. Very small numbers of the L-85 Carbine were produced, mostly in the 290mm barrel version, but they have most of the same problems as the L-85A1 and are disfavored. The L-98A2 does not exist in the Twilight 2000 timeline. Most L-98A1’s have been converted into L-85A1’s or to semiautomatic fire, and issued to home-defense troops. Many discarded L-85A1s are in use by home-defense troops. Bottom line; there are more AK-74Ns converted to 5.56mmN in service with the British Army than L-85s, with large numbers of Sabre A3 rifles and Diemaco C7 and C-8 series rifles procured as replacement. There are also a great many L1A1s in use.

One of the senior officials seen as most responsible for the debacle, Lord Michael Kent, was discovered murdered in his house in London in October 1997 with evidence suggesting a Royal Marine committed the crime. Among other things, an L-85 magazine was found next to the body. However, the murder investigation effectively permanently ended when TDM occurred.

Merc 2000 Notes: British special operations prefer the M-16 series and its variants to the L-85A1; other than that, most British troops are still using the L-85A1 or A2. It is almost unknown anywhere else in the world, except with the Gurkhas and Jamaican armed forces. There are about equal numbers of both versions of the L-85 Carbine; numbers of both versions are small. The short-barreled versions have the same problems as the L-85A1, while longer-barreled versions are based on the L-85A2. The upgrade to A2 standard progresses relatively slowly.

L-1A1
Twilight 2000 Notes: Like many such weapons, L-1A1s were again issued in Britain when supplies of other weapons became scarce. Towards the end of the war, it was also turned into a substitute sniper weapon, after being modified with Picatinny Rails and bipods.

Merc 2000 Notes: Due to the widespread issue in the world, mercenary organizations liked the L-1A1. In addition, they often turned up in the hands of rebel forces in various countries.


On a personal note, I own a L-1A1 built from a surplus UK parts kit. The stock is marked with two "X" kill marks. I've been told troopers in 3 PARA often marked their kills that way. Anyone here know if that is true?

[pmulcahy11b]

I think I've said this before, but we are living through a real-life T2K scenario. I foresee the "bump in the road" to be about 2025-2030. If we make it through then, we have a bright future as a species. If we don't, well, we won't be the first species to go extinct; we'll just take the ecosystem with us. The ecosystem will regenerate and continue, and possibly generate a new intelligent species.

It's impractical, unfortunately, to advance the timeline this far.

[Raellus]

mpipes, you've inspired me to create my own narrative timeline of weapons adoptions for Germany and the UK for the v1.0 timeline.

[Raellus]

Apparently, during the 1950s and '60s, the Germans acquired a DMR version of the FN FAL known as the FN FAL G1 Sniper. Not many were produced, but it would be an interesting find. It's got wooden furniture and a telescopic sight.

[.45cultist]

Apparently, during the 1950s and '60s, the Germans acquired a DMR version of the FN FAL known as the FN FAL G1 Sniper. Not many were produced, but it would be an interesting find. It's got wooden furniture and a telescopic sight.

That and a T48 U.S. FAL.

[Raellus]

That and a T48 U.S. FAL.

Interesting. It doesn't look like any went into service, though. The blurb I read on the FN FAL G1 Sniper suggested that a few did.

[.45cultist]

Interesting. It doesn't look like any went into service, though. The blurb I read on the FN FAL G1 Sniper suggested that a few did.

It would make an interesting retro build in Real Life, and In Game.

[Louied]

First of all, the L1A1 aka SLR should always be referred to as "THAT Rifle" (ask any Old & Bold Squaddie).......:cool:

Mpipes can you PM me, I have been dying to do a build of THAT Rifle.

[Raellus]

Although 4e rectified this oversight, I'm not sure why the Panzerfaust 3 didn't make it into the v1-2.2 weapons manuals (especially the latter, as it entered service in 1987, well before publication). This is definitely a weapon system that would have been fielded in time for the start of the Twilight War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust_3

-

[swaghauler]

We now KNOW that the Ikander short-range ballistic missile has 6 decoys embedded in its tail section.

https://youtu.be/xn5d46xaG58

Swag

[swaghauler]

We need to stat both the Russian 76mm and the NATO/Western 76mm (OTO Melara) cannon. In addition to EVERY small naval surface combatant using them, they do appear on a couple of AFVs.

[Vespers War]

Using FF&S:

OTO Melara 76mm - weapon weight 7.5 tonnes - remotely operated
HE - Rng 450, Dam C: 10, B: 22, Pen 4C
DART - Rng 450, Dam 17, Pen 32/27/23/15

TSNII Burevestnik AK-176 76mm - weapon weight 16.8 tonnes original, 9 tonnes newest version - crew 2 to 4
HE - Rng 430, Dam C: 9, B: 21, Pen 4C
KE - Rng 430, Dam 17, Pen 26/23/19/13

Both have fire rates of 120 rpm, although the AK-176 has to cool for half an hour after firing 75 rounds at that rate.

[swaghauler]

Using FF&S:

OTO Melara 76mm - weapon weight 7.5 tonnes - remotely operated
HE - Rng 450, Dam C: 10, B: 22, Pen 4C
DART - Rng 450, Dam 17, Pen 32/27/23/15

TSNII Burevestnik AK-176 76mm - weapon weight 16.8 tonnes original, 9 tonnes newest version - crew 2 to 4
HE - Rng 430, Dam C: 9, B: 21, Pen 4C
KE - Rng 430, Dam 17, Pen 26/23/19/13

Both have fire rates of 120 rpm, although the AK-176 has to cool for half an hour after firing 75 rounds at that rate.

Thanks.

[swaghauler]

Here's a funny video by Garand Thumb on shotgun lethality.

https://youtu.be/DnAi2R3Iv8Y

Swag