Long Term Rifle Decisions

[Webstral]

I’ve been thinking while driving (the only time I can actually devote to thinking about Twilight: 2000 these days) about the long-term decisions regarding service rifles in the US after 2002. In the past, I’ve invested a good deal of electronic ink in the reunification of the United States as part of a strategic plan by Colorado Springs. Rather than belabor the details for everyone here who has read the applicable material many times, I’ll summarize by saying that I’ve never bought into the deus ex machina of drought in 2001. I’ve fairly consistently advocated a vision in which the food situation largely stabilizes in the US by early 2001 (with plenty of latitude for local phenomena). From that point onward, Milgov makes use of a growing fleet of airships to reconnect the loyal cantonments across the continental distances.

Given the circumstances, what decision does Milgov make about its standard service rifle? There are some good reasons to direct resources towards the manufacture of M16s, and there are some very good reasons not to. Several alternatives exist, each with strengths and weaknesses. The AK-47 recommends itself, as does the SKS, the M1, the Springfield ’03, or even the Winchester Model 94—among others. The decision Milgov makes about its service rifle at the beginning of Operation Manifest Destiny will be one of the most important ones Milgov makes at this juncture in American history. The ideal rifle will be easy to manufacture, robust, easy to maintain, accurate, serviceable, provide a satisfactory rate of fire, provide adequate firepower, and be easy and inexpensive to train on. Ammunition should be easy and inexpensive to manufacture, too. Since every available design of rifle meets these standards to varying degrees, Milgov’s choice for a standard service rifle will reflect a compromise that will no doubt be agonizing for the Joint Chiefs.

Commentary?

Webstral

[Panther Al]

Honestly, as much as I loathe the 5.56, I have to say it would make far too much sense not to focus on anything other than the M16.

Number of reasons: One, its something that all the troops know: Kit, ammo, all that is out there, and don't have to reinvent the wheel. All the infrastructure (well, ok, what isn't glowing in the dark) is set up to support it. But thats not the big reason. Legitimacy. By focusing on the M16 they can argue that they are trying to pick up from before the war, a link to a better past when all was sunny and bright. That they are not trying to start a new thing based on new ideas: After all, they can say "Well, we went with the M16 because that was the last rifle authorised by the legitimate government, and as soon as we get another, then we can decide on something new in a proper, legal, methodical way. Now if only we can get proper legally constituted civilian governance back in a legal and proper way, not this gangland style method used by those other people."

[95th Rifleman]

From what I understand of the American pyschology, they have a very "America-first" attitude. An all-american weapon like the M-16 would appeal to the national psyche. Switching to a foreighn weapon like the AK-47 or SKS would be counter-productive I think.

The choice of rifle would be as much political as practical.

[Tegyrius]

All the infrastructure (well, ok, what isn't glowing in the dark) is set up to support it.

This. Much as I agree with the political reasons, it'll come down to logistics. No other rifle design would have the available tooling, blueprints/TDP, and base of recruitable/draftable civilian gunsmiths that the AR-15 platform has. Even with all available supplies being shipped to deployed troops aboard all available transport, you're still going to have significant quantities of 5.56x45mm in stockpiles that couldn't be moved for lack of fuel, personnel, or vehicles.

I also don't see a switch to a heavier or different caliber. A cartridge of 5.56x45mm simply takes a smaller physical quantity of resources to produce than a heavier round.

Now, moving past the standard service rifle, I can see a lot more variance in designated marksman and sniper weaponry. It may not entirely work from a strict prewar regulatory perspective, but I can see a general attitude (or even a change to regs) of "if you can qualify with it and keep it reliable and fed, you can use it" for troops in that role. From a gaming perspective, that opens the door for a lot of sniper or hunting rifles that aren't standard issue but players might like to use anyway.

- C.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Well there is always the Armalite AR-18, or the Stoner System. With lessons learned from the field, and some of the civilian adaptations of the those weapons.
The fact that they use mostly steel which is more plentiful then aluminum. The Are Mostly of a stamped construction making them easier to manufacture. I could see that the Stoner system if there are any of the old school left from the USMC and the Navy (SEALS) that were in Vietnam and remember the Liking of that weapon. With some light refinements and corrections they could both be viable weapons.

AR-18 Easy to maintain, mags, ammo, sights, and changing mags drill would be the same if you adopted the civilian AR-180 lower designs to it.

Stoner M22 and M23 Rifle and Carbine if you used the magwell from the Robinson Arms M-96 rifle, or heck yet, just fully develope the Robinson arms M96 to the full kit that the Stoner sytem was.
That way as with the AR-18 Mags, ammo, sights, and changing mag drills are the same.

I would likely see the Stoner/Robinson being the one. The parts commonality with the carbine/rifle/automatic rifle(Bren top mag fed version)/LMG/MMG. It would be easy to add a designated marksman model to this bunch.

Actually it might even carry the designation for the system as SR for the Stoner Robinson.

Carbine SR-1C
Rifle SR-1R
Auto Rifle SR-1A
Light Machine gun SR-1L
Medium Machine gun SR-1M
Marksman Rifle SR-1D

Either the AR-18 or the Stoner/Robinson could become the future United States AK :D

[Twilight2000v3MM]

I couldn't agree more. Even if we change the time to "Twilight: 2020" I dont see the M-16/M-4 family being replaced. There are multiple calibers on the market (6.8, 6.5, 6mm, .30 shadow (?), ect.) that have varying degrees of potential but I dont see 5.56 getting replaced. I do not see anything significant in the future to replace the platform. The FN SCAR and the Remington/Bushmaster weapons are not that much of an evolution to warrant replacing the M-16/M-4. Even the gas inpingment system of the M-16/M-4 still works. Sure its dirty but with proper care it works fine.

Thats just my 2 cents.

This. Much as I agree with the political reasons, it'll come down to logistics. No other rifle design would have the available tooling, blueprints/TDP, and base of recruitable/draftable civilian gunsmiths that the AR-15 platform has. Even with all available supplies being shipped to deployed troops aboard all available transport, you're still going to have significant quantities of 5.56x45mm in stockpiles that couldn't be moved for lack of fuel, personnel, or vehicles.

I also don't see a switch to a heavier or different caliber. A cartridge of 5.56x45mm simply takes a smaller physical quantity of resources to produce than a heavier round.

Now, moving past the standard service rifle, I can see a lot more variance in designated marksman and sniper weaponry. It may not entirely work from a strict prewar regulatory perspective, but I can see a general attitude (or even a change to regs) of "if you can qualify with it and keep it reliable and fed, you can use it" for troops in that role. From a gaming perspective, that opens the door for a lot of sniper or hunting rifles that aren't standard issue but players might like to use anyway.

- C.

[Raellus]

There are about a dozen companies cranking out various iterations of the AR-15 in the U.S. at the moment for the civilian market. I think that this well-established manufacturing base lends itself to continued production of the M-16 family as the standard service rifle for all U.S. gov./military forces after the TDM, and for the forseeable future.

The domestic companies that "manufacture" AKs and SKSs mostly use imported parts to basically kit build their rifles. These parts wouldn't be available in the Twilight timeline as the former PACT nations that currently sell those parts to American companies would not have done so if the Cold War had continued.

[Panther Al]

I couldn't agree more. Even if we change the time to "Twilight: 2020" I dont see the M-16/M-4 family being replaced. There are multiple calibers on the market (6.8, 6.5, 6mm, .30 shadow (?), ect.) that have varying degrees of potential but I dont see 5.56 getting replaced. I do not see anything significant in the future to replace the platform. The FN SCAR and the Remington/Bushmaster weapons are not that much of an evolution to warrant replacing the M-16/M-4. Even the gas inpingment system of the M-16/M-4 still works. Sure its dirty but with proper care it works fine.

Thats just my 2 cents.

Indeed, between this and the aforementioned post regarding the massive numbers of secondary suppliers of black rifles, there is little to no reason I can see that would allow MilGov to do anything else but to push the AR, to do anything else would require too much effort. I could see some of the resources diverted to make a small percentage of the AR's in 7.62, but other than that, not really seeing anything else but.

As to TW2020 - the game I have pretty much been running on a very off and on basis is based in that year. Did a very basic overview to reason out some the reasons for things, and to provide excuses for some of the choices, but not much more than that.

[Arrissen]

American-made M16/ M4 series depending on local logistical requirements etc. Civgov are a bunch of pussies though I reckon! Yeah you heard right people, I mean what self-respecting military man would want to work for them anyway? Especially post-WWIII when the nukes have rained down and martial law is in effect? Sure some fellas would be stuck wherever and caught up in unit and/ or regional politics blah blah blah. IMO, they should rebel first chance they get and tear Civgov a new one so as not to be shot for being traitors. And if they were using the same ammo as Milgov then all the better. Just sayin.

[Targan]

Awesome rant!

[HorseSoldier]

New production M16 or M4 would be problematic without a global economy. If chemical industry isn't up to matching 60s era propellant efficiency, the caliber might be a problem too.

[Raellus]

What about the M16EZ of T2K infamy? Whenever one can justify the inclusion of canonical items, I consider it a win.

[95th Rifleman]

I don't see America getting rid of the M16 platform for a very long time. The newer weapons like the ACR/SCAR may see use in special forces units such as the Rangers, but I can't see America changing it's regular weapon unless technology changes (such as caseless ammo becoming reliable and economical).

To change over production for an army the size and scale of the US military is just too expensive. When you consider the almost modular nature of the M16 platform it seems more feasible that they would just upgrade what they have. A good example is the HK416, a modern, more reliable weapon. M4's can be converted to the HK416 by replacing the upper reciever.

I can see the US military using M16/M4 platforms for maybe another 30 or even 40 years.

[Legbreaker]

...I mean what self-respecting military man would want to work for them anyway?

I'm with you there! Sure there'd be units raised by Civgov from the available manpower, but prexisting units? :confused:

As for the M16EZ, it's possible I suppose that worn out components previously melted down would instead be reworked once the facilities for recycling the materials were toast. Prior to late 98 though I'm just not convinced it would be happening, but as time dragged on...

[HorseSoldier]

M16EZ is stated to be mixes of used parts and pre-war production.

The M16 requires aircraft aluminum to manufacture. You could sub wood for the plastic furniture, but I don't know about a milled hunk of steel for the receiver. Even if it works it is heavy and inefficient. Something stamped a la the AK or AR-18 would be a better long term option.

[Arrissen]

Civgov/ civilian weapons? Just kidding. Well mostly, but I guess a few things to consider are that if surplus weapons such as the M14 and M1 have for the most part gone to National Guard and Militia units respectively, then there aren't that many options left. And besides going back to an old weapon system may not be sustainable over the long term anyway with regard to service life.

Can the Colt factory up 'Gun River' or whatever it's called be brought back into operation? Or some of the other gun factories along the river maybe? I can't remember what happened there.

IRL, rifles that are gas piston operated rather than direct impingment operated are on the rise in a big way, such as the HK416, FN SCAR and LWRC, with plenty of other companies doing the same. I too wonder if this would not be the way forward in the 21st Century, given time and regardless of the setbacks to the arms industry caused by the war. The logic still stands; gas piston driven rifles are alot more reliable.

I can't see American fighting men adopting an AK as their mainstay unless they absolutely had to, even though they are great weapons in many ways. As for mass-produced stamped weapons, yeah there are some good examples in history, that's true. That could be an option I suppose, but just not the best deal really is it? Kind of like being stuck with a red-headed step child. :mad:

[Legbreaker]

Kind of like being stuck with a red-headed step child. :mad:

Ooooo, I had one of them... :(
And now I don't! :D

[Targan]

Dammit Leg! Softdrink came out my nose!

Funny sh*t.

[copeab]

Whatever it the rifle will be after 2000 (ir 2013), resources will dictate it needs to be easy to manufacture (pressed steel over milled steel, probably wood instead of plastic) and using an existing cartridge (apart from the already-mentioned 5.56mm and 7.62x39mm cartidges, the .30-30 is another possibility).

[95th Rifleman]

Whatever it the rifle will be after 2000 (ir 2013), resources will dictate it needs to be easy to manufacture (pressed steel over milled steel, probably wood instead of plastic) and using an existing cartridge (apart from the already-mentioned 5.56mm and 7.62x39mm cartidges, the .30-30 is another possibility).

An M16 variant chambered for the 7.62 seems on the cards (HK417 anyone?). Reprots from the afghanistan and Iraq seem to be very critical of the 5.56 for it'slack of stopping power.

[Webstral]

There are some compelling reasons for sticking with the M16 family, and there are some compelling reasons to go with a different rifle from 2001 onward. I created this thread so that some of this would come up. For many years, I rather blithely assumed that Milgov would continue to manufacture the M16 out of sheer inertia. I’m no longer convinced that inertia suffices as an explanation, since by 2001 many of the pre-war rifles will be on their last legs in terms of serviceability.

The difficulties of manufacturing the M16 vis-Ã*-vis many of the other options deserve serious consideration. I honestly don’t know if Colorado Springs had the capacity to manufacture new M16s. As mentioned above, “Rifle Riverâ€� has PCs retrieving dies from the Colt facility along the Connecticut River. Can Milgov supply the other necessities in 2001? I honestly don’t know the answer, but I do know that the M16 is a much more demanding piece of hardware to manufacture than the AK-47. Politics might prevent the otherwise serviceable AK-47 from becoming the weapon of choice, but practicality might dictate that a rifle more easily manufactured take over from the M16 as the pre-war rifles wear out.

The M1 has a lot to recommend it. There are many of them out there to begin with. The rifle has a stellar reputation. The round packs a punch. Mass production is a success story already. Brass will have to be fabricated in large quantities, but sooner or later a lot of new brass is going to be needed for the pre-war stock of rifles anyway. It really comes down to the question of how many new M16s can be manufactured versus how many of a different rifle can be manufactured with comparable commitments of resources.


Webstral

[Legbreaker]

I can see serviceable M16's withdrawn from the suporting units and reissued to Infantry and other combat arms to replace those worn out.
The rear units would received something like the M3 Grease Gun or other stamped type SMG - anything that can be produced in an average backyard workshop really.

[95th Rifleman]

I don't see any kind of chance for the AK47 being chosen, you'd have to start from scratch. Design a copy that suits American manufacturimg and ammunition, it'd be allot of effort when there are much cheaper alternatives. Most countries that use the AK47 don't build them, they buy them.

I agree with the statement regarding replacing M16's in the rear and issuing them cheap SMGs.

The M1 argument has me thinking. Before the M16 the M14 was the standard American rifle which is essentilay a modernised M1. The M14 is still in service in some US units and is a reliable platform which is easier to mass produce. If the M16 does proe to be too hard to make post-twilight war then wouldn't the M14 be the logical replacement? It makes more sense than stepping back to the WW2 era M1.

[Sanjuro]

I'm with 95th on this one- even if there was no wish for the full auto capability of the M14, the more versatile magazine compared with the M1 would be a good reason to go with it- only the FN-FAL compares as a battle rifle, and that would be harder both politically, and manuacturing-wise.

[copeab]

The M1 has a lot to recommend it.


Unfortunately, it has some drawbacks. The round has a lot of kick for most people (and by 2000, you are getting into using old men, young boys and women as troops, so this matters a lot). This could be solved by chambering the M1 for a lower-powered cartridge.

Also, the eight round en bloc clip is inconvenient. You need to use either a stripper clip or a detatchable magazine (late in WWII, there was an experimental rifle based on the M1 which used BAR magazines).

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

I still say (in the context of the game) OT the AR-18 could likely be the alternate for the M-16. Its simple stamped construction. One could even use wood for the grip and hand guard. It uses the same ammo with the AR-180 lower mods it would still use the same mags.

Personally in my campaign the mil-gov is going to adopt the m96 Expeditionary Rifle system (adapted from the Stoner 63 system).

The Civ-gov is using the M16EZ and what ever else they can get their hands on.

[Legbreaker]

I imagine down towards Texas, the miliitary units there may be issuing captured Mexican and Russian weaponry to rear area units.

[Raellus]

I still say (in the context of the game) OT the AR-18 could likely be the alternate for the M-16. Its simple stamped construction. One could even use wood for the grip and hand guard. It uses the same ammo with the AR-180 lower mods it would still use the same mags.

Good call, sir. I think this option is a good compromise between continued construction of the relatively complex, finely finished M16/AR15 and switching to a simpler design using a different cartridge (i.e. the AK-47) or a battle rifle firing a heavier round.

Relatively simple construction, solid design, familiar/common ammunition. I think this is the right call.

[Legbreaker]

Production of a new rifle would have to be well down the list of priorities though. Feeding the people, re-establishing communications, rebuilding power generation and distribution and generally picking up the pieces would have to come first.
Whatever weapons existed would have to suffice for at least a decade, with worn out parts replaced on an as needed, individual basis.
Defence is important, but if a government can show stability and signs of recovery, it's likely more and more people would willingly join up giving it more and more legitimacy and an increased ability to withstand outside pressures.

Once that initial decade or so of reconstruction and recovery has passed, what weapon is selected long term will really revolve around what materials, skills and facilities are available. It seems to me impossible for a government to decide on a weapon before then.

[Webstral]

I agree that the M14 has some advantages over the M1, provided it is manufactured with only safe and semi-auto capability. Copeab, I’m hearing you about the recoil. I’m not convinced that there will be so many women and children receiving post-Exchange manufactured rifles that this idea should influence weapon or ammunition choices. Of the 130-140 million Americans left in 2001, a large percentage will be young men; older and younger Americans, along with people with special needs, will figure prominently among the dead. The manpower problems faced by the various militias are more likely to be ones of support rather than an actual scarcity of young men. Labor will be needed in the fields, etc.

The AR-18 is an interesting idea. I confess that I knew nothing about it until you brought it up, Corporal. I like the looks of it a lot. Commonality of ammunition with the existing American service rifle, combined with significantly easier manufacturing and greater tolerances certainly make this an attractive option. I like it so much that I may just have SAMAD open an assembly line (such as can exist in 2000) for it. Mesquite grips and stock would be appropriate.

A major drawback to using the design it explaining its presence. The history of the rifle is not promising. Some explanation would be required as to how a rifle with limited sales in the US starts being manufactured as a replacement for worn-out M16s. Costa Mesa is in a bad location in terms of post-Exchange survivability. If the nuke strikes on Los Angeles don’t knock out the Costa Mesa facility, occupation of the area by the Mexicans will put the assets off-limits to the Americans. Still, there’s no reason why some sort of story can’t be concocted. For SAMAD, the issue of contingency planning comes up early. It’s entirely possible that one of the researchers comes across the AR-18 and arranges for blueprints and manufacturing specs to be purchased. Perhaps the Pentagon’s Division of Contingency Planning catches wind of this and, as 1997 advances, ensures that all major posts have copies of the blueprints, manufacturing specs, and machining requirements of an acceptable replacement for the M16. Alternatively, someone else gets the design under the eye of the DCP, and thus SAMAD and Colorado Springs are in a position to exploit the pre-Exchange research.

Anyway, I’m feeling pretty positively about the AR-18 idea at this point. Thanks for contributing it, Kalkwarf.

As to making do with replacement parts on an individual basis, I can’t say that I agree with that position at all. Circumstances may dictate that replacement parts are fabricated locally as needed, but Milgov is going to put proper arming and equipping of loyal troops at the top of the list. Without proper arms, the food can’t be defended. Given the limitations on transportation in the 2000’s, one of the most effective things Colorado can do is export rifles. A proper assembly line in Colorado churning out spare parts offers a tremendous savings in labor to the cantonments the Joint Chiefs want to support. However, Leg, if you are proposing that most cantonments are going to have to make do with what they have for a while, then I agree. Very few locales in 2001 are going to be in a position to make decisions. Milgov, though, with its relatively stable sources of food, fuel, minerals, and labor in Colorado is going to be in a position to decide how best to support the scattered loyal cantonments while wooing the straying sheep back into the fold.


Webstral


Upon reviewing my posts, I realize that I have not defined my thesis very well. Legbreaker and I are not really arguing different positions. We’re looking at the picture from different perspectives.

When I started the thread, I was thinking very specifically of Milgov. I haven’t given Civgov much thought, in all honesty. I was thinking of the Colorado base of operations in particular, although the Milgov enclaves in Puget Sound and central California might also have the resources to start local rifle production in 2000. It’s hard to imagine that very many other locations are going to have the luxury of committing resources (manpower, machinery, raw materials, energy) to starting an assembly line for a standard service rifle on anything like a mass production scale. Local gunsmiths can produce new firearms on a very limited basis, but by 2000 these people are going to be very busy keeping the existing stock of weapons in repair. From this standpoint, Leg is correct about the inability of most cantonments to mass produce their own service rifles.

However, in Howling Wilderness Milgov is building new industry from the ground up. We know a new arsenal has been established as of early 2001. Milgov will want to support its remaining cantonments with supplies of arms, ammunition, and machinery for making more of both. I acknowledge that I am rather blithely assuming that Milgov also invests in airships to transport arms and ammunition from Colorado to other locations throughout the nation pursuant to Operation Manifest Destiny. With airship transport available but of sharply limited capacity in 2001 and 2002, Milgov is going to want to ship cargoes of very high utility. Rifles, medium machine guns, man-portable rocket launchers, and mortars fit the bill nicely. Other cargoes, like personnel with specialized knowledge and custom-built machinery for mostly-intact critical facilities also fit the bill, but that is a subject for another thread. Of these weapons, rifles will be required in the greatest quantity. Therefore, the Joint Chiefs will want to ensure that the weapon chosen for manufacture is something that can be produced at an acceptable cost, delivers acceptable performance, best exploits the existing skills of the soldiery available, and supports logistical concerns. My remarks about new brass notwithstanding, a rifle that fires the same ammunition as the M16 definitely has its advantages over a rifle that uses a different cartridge.

[Brother in Arms]

In my opinion the MILGOV would use the M16 series until they ran out then they would use the M14 until those ran out then they would use the M1 until those ran out (although .30-06 ammo would be harder to find in military storage then 5.56 or 7.62)...I don't think they would start up weapon production simply because its just too dificult espensive resource and time constraining. The Military even in the 1980's had 10000's of M16A1,M16a2 rifle and thousands more M14's in storage. Infact you can go to anniston depot today as a civillian join the CMP and buy an M1 .30-06 for $500 they still haven't ran out of those yet... So my feeling is they would use the m16 series rifle as long as possible. And supplement with older weapons as needed.

[Mohoender]

I don't think they would start up weapon production simply because its just too dificult espensive resource and time constraining.

Why do you think it so difficult? Tribal groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Africa are making their own copies of many rifles. Production will drop along with quality but why would it cease? Pre-nukes rifles will be reliable, post-nuke rifles will kill you from time to time.:D

[Legbreaker]

This is true, however they've been doing it for years while the rest of the world generally don't have the knowledge or the tools.
I think (and could well be wrong) that the barrel is likely the hardest part to fabricate, specifically the rifling. Smoothbores such as shotguns should be relatively simple affairs and likely to make a bit of a comeback in the decade after the war.

Long term though (over a decade) anything is possible and really depends on how much the region in question has recovered. My guess is that from about 2010-2015 whole new designs will see the light of day, completely different to what we are seeing now IRL. Generally they're likely to be a lot simpler and use materials more in common to mid 20th century designs. Aluminium for example requires a LOT of energy to work (electricity specifically) so it is unlikely to be seen in early 21st century designs.

[Mohoender]

This is true, however they've been doing it for years while the rest of the world generally don't have the knowledge or the tools.


Good point, I didn't think of that.:)

[95th Rifleman]

The first rifle was made in the 15th century, the first real military application was in the early 19th.

The first true machine gun was made in 1884 (Gatling was earlier but Hiram Maxim made the first truly automatic MG).

Post-nuke America will still have at least 19th century technology. They won't be blasted into the stone age. Sure weapons will become much cruder, less shiny but essentilay they will be weapons desighned to make the other guy stop breathing.

When you get down to it, the Human race has a singular talent for developing methods of killing each other. This will not change post-exchange and I doubt rifles and automatic weapons will disappear. They may become a bit rarer, allot cruder but it's not exactly dificult to develop since the concept is already proven and the science is known. All you have to do is adapt it to available technology.

Look at the Sten SMG for a classic example of what ypu can do with a scrapyard and some time.

[Legbreaker]

The average person in the late 20th century had little to no practical technical or mechanical knowledge, unlike the 19th and early 20th century. How many office workers, computer techs, sales girls or cafe workers know anything about fixing their own car, let alone building a useful weapon or even growing a field of corn?
There are still a few people with the ability of course, but as a percentage of the total population, it's significantly less than a hundred years before.

[Mohoender]

At the time of T2K, you could find at least one person with these kind of knowledges in about every village. That must come from outstanding French superiority, LOL. :D:p

[Targan]

At the time of T2K, you could find at least one person with these kind of knowledges in about every village. That must come from outstanding French superiority, LOL. :D:p

If by village you mean country town or rural community you'd be right, in France and here and no doubt the USA. But Leg is talking about the vast majority of the population who live cozy suburban lives in big cities. Most of them wouldn't know sh*t from clay when it comes to useful survival skills let alone how to maintain a firearm or service a vehicle.

Well maybe our American urban-dweller friends would have a good chance of knowing how to maintain firearms :D

[Legbreaker]

That's right. Here in Australia about 80% of the population live in cities and have rarely left the concrete jungle let alone been out into the bush and handled a firearm. My understanding is that in other countries, in particular the older and more urban Europe, this percentage is likely to be even higher.
Here in Australia you can go for hundreds of kilometres before reaching the next settlement of more than half a dozen people. In Europe I believe that's more like hundreds of metres and (in comparison) not a real rural area.

[Mohoender]

You are right of course but not entirely when it comes to Europe. Of course it is true for the vast majority of city dwellers but many people own small businesses and you'll be surprised of the various skills (and small corresponding businesses) you would find. At least this would be true for France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal... (I'm not so sure about other countries but I would expect this to be the case in many european cities). Then, the Twilight war would have occured 20 years ago and it means that plenty of elder people would still have interesting skills.

[copeab]

If by village you mean country town or rural community you'd be right, in France and here and no doubt the USA. But Leg is talking about the vast majority of the population who live cozy suburban lives in big cities. Most of them wouldn't know sh*t from clay when it comes to useful survival skills let alone how to maintain a firearm or service a vehicle.


And most of them are dead in 2000, from radiation, disease, starvation or violence related to one of those three.

[Legbreaker]

It's quite likely technical skills will be in short supply giving way to the more important hunting, scrounging and foraging type skill sets instead.
There's unlikely to be a lot of spare time for anyone to learn, let alone teach the engineering type skills that aren't needed on a day to day survival basis.

[Mohoender]

Leg, I don't know how it went in your place but I know how it went here and in Vermont. The economical crisis stroke us in 2008. Six month later, the number of people fixing their car all by themselves had gone from 1 occasionally to 10 regularly. People who had not been in the field for their entire life have started growing their own food when they had a garden. People threw things away, they stopped and store things again ( although it might not last)

Myself, not having one single skill in fixing household machinery, I learned how to fix the washing machine (about 12 hours: 10 to understand how it works, 1.55 hours to understand what didn't work, 5 minutes to fix it (No choice, I had no money to fix it at the moment).

And I know by my friends living in Vermont that many people they knew and had lost their job returned to the land they owned and farm it.

Barter will develop also and skills will be traded as goods.

You forget about necessity and if its obvious that skills will be in short supply for whatever reason (dicease, radiations...) they will survive. In many areas, among limited population, you'll find plenty of skills. Some, of course, will jump at each other throats but other will collaborate (It is the bases behind Twilight). However, I would rather live in Queens than in the wealthy neighborhood of Manhattan.

You don't need engineering type skills to survive on a daily bases.

[Legbreaker]

You don't need engineering type skills to survive on a daily bases.
That's exactly my point. There won't be a lot of call for the more technical skills such as fabrication of new weapons when the average person is struggling to get enough calories every day.
People may develop some mechanical skills (such as fixing their car), but the ability to operate highly technical machinery to make precision engineered items isn't going to be happening.

[95th Rifleman]

That's exactly my point. There won't be a lot of call for the more technical skills such as fabrication of new weapons when the average person is struggling to get enough calories every day.
People may develop some mechanical skills (such as fixing their car), but the ability to operate highly technical machinery to make precision engineered items isn't going to be happening.

The point I was trying to make is you DON'T need precision engineering to make reliable, automatic firearms. When you look at the old WW1 stuff they where big, basic and worked. Sure the modern toys are high-tech, precison stuff made to exacting tolerances but it's not a requirement.

I pointed to the Sten gun as an example, that thing is a damn scrapyard gun but it's reliable, effective and it works.

In the 20th/21st centuries everyone has a level of education (in the west at least) that far exceeds that of the 19th but people assume we have become more stupid? Even your avrage dumb-ass American, college drop-out has a higher standard of education than your average person back in the days when machine guns where being invented.

The principle are known, the technology is proven and all you have to do is get together enough people who know the basics, a bit of trial and error with all the crap left behind post-exchange and you CAN put together a semi-automatic weapon within a month. Once you've done that it's a matter of time before you can produce fully automatic, basic weapons.

[Legbreaker]

The Sten (and SMGs in general) don't require close tolerances and good engineering to be effective (they're only meant for close range spray and pray firepower). A machinegun or assault rifle on the other hand which needs to hit accurately and reliably at a decent range does.
It's the more advanced and useful weapons which will not be produced post nuke while smoothbore type (shotguns) and basic SMGs will become fairly common.

[Mohoender]

I think we agree. For my part, I do. :)

[Bullet Magnet]

If we're talking about a guy building rifles in his garage workshop, then yeah, he'd definitely need some skill in gunsmithing to make a weapon that won't blow up in his face the first time the trigger is pulled.

Now, if we're talking about getting a firearms factory up and running, I think you'd only need a handful who actually know how to build a gun, rather than everyone needing to know.
The assembly line eliminates the need to know the whole process of building things. At first, the ones who do know, would be needed to teach the workers their individual part of the process, then they'd be able to shift over to quality control, once the workers knew how to do their respective jobs.

But then, this is just my take on it.

[James Langham]

"Knowledge is of two types, that which we know and that which we know how to find." Francis Bacon. Once information on how to do something is available it is a lot easier than starting from scratch.

Consider the Warsaw Ghetto - my guess is that there were few gunsmiths there yet they were making their own weapons.

PPSh41 barrels were often made by taking a rifle barrel that was worn out and cutting it in half to make two SMG barrels. Maybe there is a 7.62mmN answer in the years after the war.

I can see the possibility of an initial shortage, reducing as the tears go by as apprentices become fully trained.

[Webstral]

There won't be a lot of call for the more technical skills such as fabrication of new weapons when the average person is struggling to get enough calories every day.
People may develop some mechanical skills (such as fixing their car), but the ability to operate highly technical machinery to make precision engineered items isn't going to be happening.

At the risk of nitpicking, I disagree that there won't be a call for the technical skills of gunsmithing. Once someone shows up to take the food, the ability to produce arms and ammunition will be valued second only to the ability to produce food--and a close second, at that. As a practical matter, the ability to repair existing firearms will take precedent over the fabrication of new firearms because (generally) repairing existing firearms will yield more firearms per hundred hours of labor than fabricating new ones, provided the labor and machinery for repair and fabrication are comparable. Therefore, fabrication of new firearms by skilled gunsmiths will take a back seat to repair of existing firearms by skilled gunsmiths.

As on so many occasions, Leg, I think we’re speaking to different circumstances. You prefer a more uniform and more complete breakdown of civilization than I do. Your observations tend to be appropriate for smaller cantonments, which would predominate in the version of Twilight: 2000 you prefer. I tend to concur with most of your observations when they are applied to smaller cantonments even in my own concept of Twilight: 2000.

That much said, technical skills are going to survive and be in demand in locations where the food supply permits. By 2000, the food situation largely will have stabilized throughout most of the world. The pre-war foods will have been eaten or have gone bad. The survivors will be eating food they have grown locally. In some locations, like Colorado, the existence of a powerful pre-war agricultural base, combined with the local presence of fuels, minerals, armed might, and technical expertise, will allow a new homeostasis at a relatively high level. The ratio of farm workers to non-farm workers will be much more amenable to industrial growth than in many other parts of the country. In places like Manhattan and Phoenix, the situation will be more medieval: there will be those who grow the food and those who fight over the food. In Colorado, then, Milgov will have the “luxury” of deciding what kinds of arms and armaments should be manufactured based on needs and resources.

At the risk of pointing out what we all know already, the whole point of an assembly line is to save labor. Throughout the US (and the world), non-agricultural/food producing labor is going to be at a premium. Milgov’s interest in producing rifles for export to friendly cantonments is going to have several dimensions. Even where the local forces have enough rifles for every fighting man or woman who will take to the field, there are significant advantages to providing those forces with a new uniform service rifle firing a common ammunition and capable of delivering a high volume of fire out to the typical maximum range of infantry engagements (<300 meters)(1). This is not to say that hunting rifles don’t have their uses. However, Milgov will see the advantage of standardizing small arms in its cantonments to the greatest degree possible by creating assembly lines in Colorado Springs to manufacture a standard service rifle. As an added bonus, the more dissimilar rifles that can be replaced, the more the base of gunsmithing labor in the various cantonments can be economized by reducing the number of separate tasks the gunsmiths must execute to service the rifles of friendly forces. Therefore, the creation in Colorado of an assembly line for a service rifle that can be shipped—with spare parts, etc.—to the various friendly cantonments creates a situation in which labor is saved at the cantonment, local logistics are greatly facilitated and simplified, and the relative advantage of the local forces vis-à-vis marauders and the like is measurably enhanced.

Of course, for all of this to work Milgov needs to select a good candidate for a new service rifle and have the ability to deliver the rifles. I’ve thrown my support behind the AR-18 because it combines relative ease of manufacture with an ability to exploit the existing base of ammunition, magazines, and experience. As for delivery, I’m sure I’ve beaten to death my argument regarding airships. The beauty of using airships to deliver rifles is that the rifles are relatively low-mass items for their utility. It isn’t practical for Milgov to deliver grain or petroleum until the railroads and/or rivers can be opened up again. Rifles (and other small arms) enhance the ability of cantonments to defend their existing assets. With time and breathing space, the isolated cantonments will find solutions to their problems using local resources.


Webstral

(1) I readily acknowledge that the realities of infantry combat will change in the post-Exchange environment. However, certain realities will persist. The attacker will attempt to use covered approaches to get as close as possible to the defender. The defender will want to exploit cleared fields of fire to prevent the attacker from getting very close. Long-range rifle marksmanship is something that requires a fair amount of practice. Militia troops and even some regulars won’t get anything like the required practice in the post-Exchange environment. Therefore, a rifle with a high rate of fire and a high magazine capacity but shortish effective range is superior to a hunting rifle under many circumstances. Both attacker and defender will want to be able to deliver a high volume of accurate fire in close-to-medium combat ranges.

[Legbreaker]

It all comes back to the original purpose of this thread I suppose - "long range" decisions ie a decade or three rather than the immediate future.
I agree that marksmanship ability may reduce, however there is a method called "dry firing" which can substitute somewhat for a lack of ammo. It's so effective when carried out correctly that the Soviet Olympic team used it as part of their training regime. Any of the older soldiers, or even civilian target shooters will be able to apply their knowledge of this to keep and improve general marksmanship.

Of course there's nothing like the real thing, nothing that can replace the feel of a weapon actually firing and the sudden recoil against the shoulder. With ammunition likely in short supply (in most areas anyway), accuracy with each round is even more important than it once was. Perhaps for the defensive role, low rate of fire tripod mounted weapons may be the answer. The tripod would minimise the felt recoil and increase accuracy well over that of a hand held SMG or assault rifle. The smaller weapons would still see widespread use, but they'd be secondary to the fixed defensive weapons.

Patrols and offensive actions would of course be a different story with operations carried out only by skilled soldiers who may have been retrained to conserve ammo, and thus extend the service life of their weapons. It may even be that semi-auto weapons become the norm, thereby preventing ammo wastage, with a handful of automatic weapons (GPMGs and LMGs) held in reserve/used as fire support. Essentially a move back to the tactics of the mid 20th Century.

Hunting is more likely to occur with non-military rounds such as .22LR which are relatively useless against enemy soldiers. Bows, crossbows and black powder weapons would see increased use by civilian hunters, along with traps of varying design. Organised agriculture would however be the prime method of feeding the population, especially in areas with greater population densities. In those areas it would seem unlikely the military would allow any weapons in civilian hands - keeps them more controllable and allows the military more weapon options (although really screws with the supply chain to have a dozen+ pistol calibres, etc...).

[dragoon500ly]

Actually, all you need is a half-way decent machine shop, this is just a small listing of the weapons that can be made: Mortars, bazookas, rocket launchers, and grenades, and all of a lot better quality than the "Wojos" of Krakow fame!

The only real shortfall is propellent and filling for the weapons...but then a decent high school chem lab always had problems with creative students trying their hand at homemade mayhem. Toss a college prof into the mix, and we are talking home made mustard gas, naplam, and a rather nasty assortment of nerve gases.

And toss into the pot those who live near any towns with shipyard capacity! Those machine shops can turn out decent quality metal working...stainless steel cannon barrels?

And finally, toss in all of the wanna-be mercenaries and those who purchased books from Paladin Press....Improvisied Munitions Handbooks as well as a varied selection of mayhem how-to books!

[Webstral]

It all comes back to the original purpose of this thread I suppose - "long range" decisions ie a decade or three rather than the immediate future.

The decisions made by Milgov in early 2001 will affect the history of the US over the next 10 to 20 years, certainly. There are sharp limits to what Milgov can accomplish, even if one sets aside the drought. Therefore, decisions made in 2001 will have long-term effects because reversing them will be difficult. The right decision in 2001 will support rebuilding and reunification over the next 20 years without any major changes in ammunition, design, resource allocation, etc.

I agree that marksmanship ability may reduce, however there is a method called "dry firing" which can substitute somewhat for a lack of ammo. It's so effective when carried out correctly that the Soviet Olympic team used it as part of their training regime. Any of the older soldiers, or even civilian target shooters will be able to apply their knowledge of this to keep and improve general marksmanship.

I presume the whole panoply of ammunition-saving marksmanship training methods will be used. These methods and appropriate devices might be something else for Milgov to consolidate and distribute.

It may even be that semi-auto weapons become the norm, thereby preventing ammo wastage… Agreed.

(although really screws with the supply chain to have a dozen+ pistol calibres, etc...). Agreed. Therefore, Milgov is likely going to make some decisions about standardizing a shotgun, a handgun, and a bolt-action rifle for precision fires.


Webstral

[Legbreaker]

I can't see why Milgov (or Civgov either) will need to make any weapon choices in 2001, or even prior to about 2010 for that matter. With the reduced number of available troops (compared to pre-war and expressed as a percentage of overall population) the existing weapons should be sufficent for the immediate few years.
Yes they will wear out, but it's not like most units are in constant contact with an enemy. The Mexican/Soviet front has basically stabilised by 2000 and Milgov and Civgov seem to be trading harsh words more than gunfire. The only really active area is those where New America are showing themselves.
Other than that you've got the odd marauder group throwing their weight about, but they're more likely to run from an organised military force than stand and fight.

[Panther Al]

While I totally agree, that the presence of surplus weapons in all likelihood means that they don't have to, you are forgetting the political aspect: By getting industry running, and weapons manufacture is one industry that hits more than one target, they prove to those that look that they are the horse to bet on. While CivGov can't get stuff done, MilGov is getting things running: Plenty of food, manufacture, even (And I would push for this for no other reason than of public relations) some luxuries being made. The need for weapons isn't critical: Its the political/public relations angle that needs to be addressed.

[James Langham]

I can't see why Milgov (or Civgov either) will need to make any weapon choices in 2001, or even prior to about 2010 for that matter. With the reduced number of available troops (compared to pre-war and expressed as a percentage of overall population) the existing weapons should be sufficent for the immediate few years.
Yes they will wear out, but it's not like most units are in constant contact with an enemy. The Mexican/Soviet front has basically stabilised by 2000 and Milgov and Civgov seem to be trading harsh words more than gunfire. The only really active area is those where New America are showing themselves.
Other than that you've got the odd marauder group throwing their weight about, but they're more likely to run from an organised military force than stand and fight.

A key factor is likely to be making the troops LOOK like a military unit. Having an M16 family weapon will make you look official, having mixed weapons, an AK series or a hunting rifle will make you look like a marauder.

[Mohoender]

I rather think that the key factor would be maintenance problem. The more different equipments the bigger the headache for those charged with maintaining equipments in working order.

If I consider the exemple of ww2, official look didn't depended on the type of equipments. German garrison troops had been issued all kind of equipments from all occupied countries. However, less of these captures equipments were issued to front line units. So much for the official look of things.

[Legbreaker]

True, weapon commonality is a good thing, but what about all those M16's brought back from Europe? The military certainly aren't going to let the discharged soldiers simply walk off with nearly 50,000 perfectly good weapons are they? (Probably only about 30,000 M16s).
And yes, getting industry running again is a good thing, but there's got to be plenty of other items with a higher priority than weapons which may not even really be needed in the early 2000s. For example, plows which can be drawn by animals or even humans in preference to tractors which no longer have fuel.

[Raellus]

Yes, so manufacturing the AR18, slightly modified to accept STANAGs, would be a really good move. You've got ammo and magazine commonality with the large number of M16s floating around, and you're manufacturing new rifles- rifles easier to make and maintain than the M16- to keep up with M16 attrition, wear, damage, etc. If ammo usage is a concern, you could manufacture them in semi-auto only. The AR-18 is a win-win.

[Webstral]

I can't see why Milgov (or Civgov either) will need to make any weapon choices in 2001, or even prior to about 2010 for that matter. With the reduced number of available troops (compared to pre-war and expressed as a percentage of overall population) the existing weapons should be sufficent for the immediate few years.

I couldn’t disagree more. By no means is 2001 too early for such an important decision to be undertaken. Given the reduced means and the long lead time necessary for getting an AR-18 assembly line up-to-speed in the post-Exchange environment, 2001 is a great time to make decisions about what rifle to produce.

Yes they will wear out, but it's not like most units are in constant contact with an enemy.

Given your predilection for the almost disintegration of society—particularly the US—you’re surprisingly sanguine about the condition of weapons three years on from the nuclear exchange, Leg. Soldiers break equipment. Poorly-trained soldiers, which describes troops in many of the regular units as well as the majority of militia troops, break their equipment at an even greater rate. Neglect, the lack of proper lubricants, and so on will consume huge numbers of otherwise serviceable rifles during the years immediately following the nuclear attacks. Civilians will be even harder on their rifles than the military types. Yes, there will those who take good care of their equipment. Nonetheless, in the post-nuke world attrition of firearms will be high.

The Mexican/Soviet front has basically stabilised by 2000 and Milgov and Civgov seem to be trading harsh words more than gunfire. The only really active area is those where New America are showing themselves.
Other than that you've got the odd marauder group throwing their weight about, but they're more likely to run from an organised military force than stand and fight.

The fact that bandits don’t stand and fight when a larger military force appears doesn’t mean there isn’t an ongoing need to deal with them. Like guerillas, marauders will strike under conditions they feel are favorable to them. They may not take on a company-sized element from the 78th Infantry Division, but they will more willing to take on a local militia. The local militias will need weapons like the AR-18 that deliver a high volume of fire so that marauder attempts to use light infantry tactics can be countered by smaller numbers of militia troops.

By the same token, warlords not associated with New America are going to want to expand their territory. There’s never enough farmland; there’s never enough labor. While Milgov can’t directly affect the training of cantonments it wants to support, Milgov can make decisions to provide cantonments with vital equipment the cantonments cannot manufacture for themselves in a cost-effective fashion.

While I totally agree, that the presence of surplus weapons in all likelihood means that they don't have to, you are forgetting the political aspect: By getting industry running, and weapons manufacture is one industry that hits more than one target, they prove to those that look that they are the horse to bet on. While CivGov can't get stuff done, MilGov is getting things running: Plenty of food, manufacture, even (And I would push for this for no other reason than of public relations) some luxuries being made. The need for weapons isn't critical: Its the political/public relations angle that needs to be addressed.

I completely agree with the political aspect of the decision. Three years on from the nuclear strikes, morale is going to be a critical issue. GDW agrees. In Howling Wilderness, Milgov is considering reopening the US Mint in Denver to demonstrate how good things are in Colorado. We should ask whether Milgov is also going to start manufacturing BDUs or some other type of uniform in the name of making military forces look (and FEEL) more like a professional military force.

A key factor is likely to be making the troops LOOK like a military unit. Having an M16 family weapon will make you look official, having mixed weapons, an AK series or a hunting rifle will make you look like a marauder.
Thus, the M16EZ.

True, weapon commonality is a good thing, but what about all those M16's brought back from Europe? The military certainly aren't going to let the discharged soldiers simply walk off with nearly 50,000 perfectly good weapons are they? (Probably only about 30,000 M16s).

30,000 M16s is a decent start. 300,000 would be better. Three million would be better than that. We should bear in mind that in April 2001 the US still has some 120-140 million people. Putting a mere 1% of the population under arms means putting 1.2-1.4 people under arms. Eliminating marauders, liberating Americans controlled by warlords, destroying New America, driving the invaders off American soil—all of these will require troops with good service rifles. Since the ability of Milgov to move combat formations long distances is in question, the other alternative is to make sure that local forces have the right equipment to undertake local actions. Ensuring that troops intended to go into the lions’ dens, so to speak, have rifles at least as good as the enemy’s best rifles is a must. We can argue about whether the AR-18 is a better choice than the M1, but we’d be acknowledging that the kind of rifle used by US infantry from WW2 onward is the best choice.

And yes, getting industry running again is a good thing, but there's got to be plenty of other items with a higher priority than weapons which may not even really be needed in the early 2000s. For example, plows which can be drawn by animals or even humans in preference to tractors which no longer have fuel.

Rifles and plows are apples and oranges. Both require some labor to fabricate, but the shortage of labor experienced everywhere across the US is an argument in favor of Milgov’s investment in an assembly line for a post-Exchange service rifle. A relative handful of factory workers in Colorado can displace many times their number of workers in cantonments throughout the country. If fewer gunsmiths are needed to maintain the cantonment’s stocks of weapons, more labor can be invested in manufacturing to meet local needs. Serviceable plows can be fabricated locally. Displacing the manufacture of rifles to Colorado actually increases the labor available for making plows, or whatever other non-precision, low-tech tools and implements are required for local needs.

If we're talking about a guy building rifles in his garage workshop, then yeah, he'd definitely need some skill in gunsmithing to make a weapon that won't blow up in his face the first time the trigger is pulled.

Now, if we're talking about getting a firearms factory up and running, I think you'd only need a handful who actually know how to build a gun, rather than everyone needing to know.
The assembly line eliminates the need to know the whole process of building things. At first, the ones who do know, would be needed to teach the workers their individual part of the process, then they'd be able to shift over to quality control, once the workers knew how to do their respective jobs.

My point exactly. The Industrial Revolution supports the establishment of assembly lines for the manufacture of weapons—especially where labor and expertise are in short supply.


Webstral

[Brother in Arms]

Moe

Perhaps its because I have made several firearms which is why I conclude that it is difficult....and I think most people would be so busy surviving they wouldnt have time to start filing and hacksawing away on metal all day for months until they created a crude firearm. Also how many weapons can a factory with no tools, no power, no material and no skilled workers turn out?

But the greatest reason is..... Why does everyone think there would be a shortage of weapons??? Infact there would be way less people than ever before. And lots of materiel laying around with no one using it..at least here in the US anyway. I own over 100 firearms and I am by no means an ananomoly here in the US. Almost everyone I know owns mulitple firearms and that is just privately so lets look at armies...you have thousands of small arms and thousands of soldiers suddenly you have hundreds of soldiers..and thousands of small arms left over.... So I see no reason why to put new weapons into production. Unless you don't have enough firearms...that being said its almost always easier to fix a gun than to make a new one...

That being said you would see lots of zip guns, homemade shotguns,SMG,grenade and IED all where ever arms and munitions are hard to come by.....

myself I would try to set up a factoy to make ammuntion first...because that is what your going to run out of first and its much easier to make than firearms...

sorry I am being to real for a fantasy role playing game forum.

Brother in Arms

[HorseSoldier]

Something like the AR-18 or AK would be ideal for the production circumstances MilGov, CivGov, New America and other T2K era governments find themselves in, as well. Both designs are relatively limited in their requirements for skilled machinists and gunsmiths. Nor does either require materials only available in a modern import/export fueled economy.

[Panther Al]

I disagree with the AK for the same reasons as given earlier, Politics.

Last thing MilGov needs is to give the impression to the average person that they like Soviet (You know, those people that nuked grandma and grandpa, and killed uncle Jed and cousin Bill over there?) stuff. An American Design is super critical. It has to be seen as pure 100% US Designed and Made. Yes, it could be argued it is a waste of resources to start up Rifle Production as well as Uniform Production, perhaps even more important than rifle, but in this case public perception is more important. If people believe that things are on the ups, they will work harder, and be more upbeat. They will start taking more care of themselves and the things around them (After all, now that the factories are going, those damned chislers from the cities gonna charge an arm and leg for stuff, just you watch! And taxes! I ain't gonna pay no sales tax less I gotta.), they will start to look for ways to be on top when things really kick off, so they will be working harder, all very positive things: The mindset seeing more uniform soldiers and new rifles being handed out will all lead to this. Which makes getting people thinking that tomorrow will be better regardless is worth the waste of those resources.

[Legbreaker]

Perhaps its because I have made several firearms which is why I conclude that it is difficult....and I think most people would be so busy surviving they wouldnt have time to start filing and hacksawing away on metal all day for months until they created a crude firearm. Also how many weapons can a factory with no tools, no power, no material and no skilled workers turn out?

But the greatest reason is..... Why does everyone think there would be a shortage of weapons??? Infact there would be way less people than ever before. And lots of materiel laying around with no one using it..at least here in the US anyway. I own over 100 firearms and I am by no means an ananomoly here in the US. Almost everyone I know owns mulitple firearms and that is just privately so lets look at armies...you have thousands of small arms and thousands of soldiers suddenly you have hundreds of soldiers..and thousands of small arms left over.... So I see no reason why to put new weapons into production. Unless you don't have enough firearms...that being said its almost always easier to fix a gun than to make a new one...

And that is exactly my point too. Where's the NEED? You've got a country overflowing with weapons compared to surviving number of people, yet food and water in T2K is at an extreme premium. The priority MUST be on survival first and producing the next generation weapon second.
The total military strength of Milgov isn't anywhere near what it was prewar either. Most of those soliders will already be armed, and even if only half of the weapons brought back from Europe are available to reissue, that's still more than the requirement. As has been mentioned time and time again, supporting troops can be issued with non-standard weapons, just as the Germans did in WWII. The uniform will in most cases hold more weight than the weapon they carry - a firearm is a firearm to most people and having an M16 pointed at you will hold as much authority as having a mini-14 shoved in your face. A double barrel shotgun commands more respect than an Uzi to many people also when they're staring down the barrel...

[Targan]

Moe

Perhaps its because I have made several firearms which is why I conclude that it is difficult....and I think most people would be so busy surviving they wouldnt have time to start filing and hacksawing away on metal all day for months until they created a crude firearm. Also how many weapons can a factory with no tools, no power, no material and no skilled workers turn out?

But the greatest reason is..... Why does everyone think there would be a shortage of weapons??? Infact there would be way less people than ever before. And lots of materiel laying around with no one using it..at least here in the US anyway. I own over 100 firearms and I am by no means an ananomoly here in the US. Almost everyone I know owns mulitple firearms and that is just privately so lets look at armies...you have thousands of small arms and thousands of soldiers suddenly you have hundreds of soldiers..and thousands of small arms left over.... So I see no reason why to put new weapons into production. Unless you don't have enough firearms...that being said its almost always easier to fix a gun than to make a new one...

That being said you would see lots of zip guns, homemade shotguns,SMG,grenade and IED all where ever arms and munitions are hard to come by.....

myself I would try to set up a factoy to make ammuntion first...because that is what your going to run out of first and its much easier to make than firearms...

sorry I am being to real for a fantasy role playing game forum.

Listen to the working gunsmith, people! I think here we have the one member of this forum best qualified to comment on the topic of this thread.

Great to see you posting again Brother. You have been missed. So you're not up in Vermont anymore?

You're definitely not being 'too real for this forum' (and my feelings are a little hurt that you refer to it as a 'fantasy role playing game forum' ;) ). Though we are in the minority there are a number of members who agree with your point of view (myself included).

I think if MILGOV (and maybe CIVGOV) do start large scale production of rifles it will not be until after 2001, maybe not for several years after that, and in my opinion the most likely candidate would be something along the lines of the M16EZ (possibly modified to semi auto only). Don't get me wrong, I recognise and agree with the advantages of the AR18 but it seems to me that putting together a production line for that rifle from scratch would be more difficult than gathering together existing (known) supplies of M16 parts and spares and recovering all that manufacturing equipment described in the 'Rifle River' Challenge mini-module.

Perhaps some of the posters to this thread haven't read 'Rifle River'? It is an important mini module for a number of reasons, chief of which (for me) is that it's canon. It slots in nicely with the first of the 'Last Submarine' modules because it is in a similar geographic area and because if MILGOV was going to be throwing major resources into the area to recover the USS Corpus Christi it makes sense they would try to kill several birds with one stone (attempt to renew contact with the MP brigade in the area, attempt to renew contact with the remnants of the Coast Guard in the area, recover the casts and dies at the Hartford rifle factory, etc).

[Mohoender]

sorry I am being to real for a fantasy role playing game forum.


I think Targan already commented that one and I agree with what he said. For my part, I'm glad you answered my question.:)

[Raellus]

Here are a few questions for our resident gunsmith/s:

Wouldn't existing supplies of M-16s wear out after years of hard use?

After at least 3 years of combat operations, with no significant influx of replacement parts, wouldn't a lot of M16s be breaking down around mid-2000? I mean, barrel wear alone would diminish accuracy, correct? And the M16 is a notoriously complex, hard to maintain weapon, is it not?

I'm under the impression that the U.S. army acquires and issues new rifles at least every decade, if not more often. Why is this, if not because of wear issues? Why not crank out replacement parts/kits instead? At what point does it become more economical to just make a whole replacement weapon?

These are some serious questions that need answering.

Let me reassure the neysayers that I think that the M16 would be around in large numbers for a very long time. There's just so many out there, both in military use and in civilian hands. But, I think that there would be very sound reasons for MilGov (and CivGov) to begin looking at manufacturing a large-scale replacement weapon in the early '00s.

The AR-18 is a good choice because it is easier to make, easier to maintain, and has higher tolerances than the M16 family. It can also use the same, widely available ammo. It would be a much better weapon for the very young and very old conscripts or civilian militias.

I don't see this weapon completely replacing the M16 in U.S. service, but I do see it complimenting the M16 in a big way.

I'm eager to read your responses to these questions.

[waiting4something]

Why do people think the AR-18 is so great? Its not a really a soldier proof weapon. It breaks and bends real easily. The metal is weak and so is the plastic. Yeah they where made for 3rd world countries because they are cheap and easy to produce, but that doesn't mean its a great choice. People like nice shit if they can afford it or not. In hard times like the twilight world that would really matter big time. I agree the M16 would be the weapon of choice in the U.S.A. atleast. They have too many parts and rifles altogether for them to be passed over. That said, I always thought the idea of the M16ez was stupid. Who in their right mind is gonna be cool with using a rifle with worn out parts or poorly made parts that is just waiting to go tits up? There is far to many servicable M16s, or other rifles for people to use.

[Raellus]

Why do people think the AR-18 is so great? Its not a really a soldier proof weapon. It breaks and bends real easily. The metal is weak and so is the plastic. Yeah they where made for 3rd world countries because they are cheap and easy to produce, but that doesn't mean its a great choice. People like nice shit if they can afford it or not. In hard times like the twilight world that would really matter big time. I agree the M16 would be the weapon of choice in the U.S.A. atleast. They have too many parts and rifles altogether for them to be passed over. That said, I always thought the idea of the M16ez was stupid. Who in their right mind is gonna be cool with using a rifle with worn out parts or poorly made parts that is just waiting to go tits up? There is far to many servicable M16s, or other rifles for people to use.

I don't think that the AR-18 is "great", just that it's a logical choice for production post-TDM. Once again, it's easier to make than the M-16. This is going to be very important post-TDM.

I've seen pics of Stoner rifles (related to the AR-18) with wooden furniture so brittle plastic shouldn't be an issue. I think plastics would be exceedingly rare in the Twilight World.

And al lot of those M-16 out there in 2001 are going to have "worn out parts or poorly made parts... just waiting to go tits up." I think that's why we're having this discussion (correct me if I'm wrong Web).

[waiting4something]

I don't think the M16 wears out that fast or most rifles for that matter. I don't ever remember M16's being out of action when we went to the field. The M203 and M249 yes, but the M16 no. Most M16's will out live their users as with most rifles. I'm sure they can down thousands of rounds before they start having fatigue. The only factor that is gonna be a probelm would be having gun oil or ammo for them maybe.

[James Langham]

Why do people think the AR-18 is so great? Its not a really a soldier proof weapon. It breaks and bends real easily. The metal is weak and so is the plastic. Yeah they where made for 3rd world countries because they are cheap and easy to produce, but that doesn't mean its a great choice. People like nice shit if they can afford it or not. In hard times like the twilight world that would really matter big time. I agree the M16 would be the weapon of choice in the U.S.A. atleast. They have too many parts and rifles altogether for them to be passed over. That said, I always thought the idea of the M16ez was stupid. Who in their right mind is gonna be cool with using a rifle with worn out parts or poorly made parts that is just waiting to go tits up? There is far to many servicable M16s, or other rifles for people to use.

In the UK it isn't perfect but it is practical - see discussion as to it being used by the British Army.

The M16EZ was a cute idea for background, analyzed it isn't perfect in logic but it does give some wonderful flavour to the background.

[Legbreaker]

Every M16 I've ever laid hands on has been a piece of complete and utter rubbish. A FAR inferior weapon to either the L1A1 and F88 Steyr AUG's we were using, sometimes alongside.

How many rounds is each M16A2 barrel rated for? Is it really likely that rear area weapons would have seen anywhere near this usage, even on the range?

Going back to my grandfather again, in WWII he was stationed to a radar unit - they'd fly their Beaufort bomber around as a target for calibration of the long range radars. The majority of his time was spend away from combat zones, however he still managed to wear out 2 barrels on his SMLE - probably due to the fact that the rifles issued at the time were made cheaper, with thinner barrel walls and lower quality metal, and he was firing scavenged AP and Incendiary rounds...

However, that illustrates another point - wartime production, even in a non-nuked setting, means corners are cut to save scarce materials. ANY production late in the T2K war, and in the decades after it, it also going to have to make some tough choices when it comes to raw material quality.

[Webstral]

Every M16 I've ever laid hands on has been a piece of complete and utter rubbish. A FAR inferior weapon to either the L1A1 and F88 Steyr AUG's we were using, sometimes alongside.

Leg, is this another one of those moments when you declare that the US Navy is cruising around in rust buckets-cum-death traps? Your observation, though not without its merit, is beside the point. Now, if you were to include something useful, such as a personal opinion that the M1 is a better weapon, then your remarks about the M16 would have a context in which they would have serve useful purpose. Since, however, you have repeatedly denounced the idea that there is any need for the manufacture of a new service rifle for Milgov-backed forces for many years to come, and since that is the subject of this thread, your observations are just more of the badmouthing of American equipment we’ve been hearing from you for years. If you insist on offering negative opinion of US gear on the slightest pretext, I recommend that you start a separate thread for that purpose and quit trying to hijack mine for the purpose of venting your spleen.

How many rounds is each M16A2 barrel rated for? Is it really likely that rear area weapons would have seen anywhere near this usage, even on the range?

This is a reasonable question for which I have no ready answer.

However, that illustrates another point - wartime production, even in a non-nuked setting, means corners are cut to save scarce materials. ANY production late in the T2K war, and in the decades after it, it also going to have to make some tough choices when it comes to raw material quality.

This is the kind of contribution I have been hoping for. Your earlier observations about the energy requirements of aluminum manufacturing, among others, are also valuable contributions.

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

Leg, is this another one of those moments when you declare that the US Navy is cruising around in rust buckets-cum-death traps? Your observation, though not without its merit, is beside the point. Now, if you were to include something useful, such as a personal opinion that the M1 is a better weapon, then your remarks about the M16 would have a context in which they would have serve useful purpose.

No, it's a comment on what I know from personal experience. Note I also stated both the L1A1 and Steyr AUG are better weapons and therefore the statement IS in context.
There's no "badmouthing" here at all, just statements of fact based on personal experience. Others may well have other experiences and formed other opinions, and as far as I'm concerned, they're entitled to state them.

[HorseSoldier]

I don't think the M16 wears out that fast or most rifles for that matter. I don't ever remember M16's being out of action when we went to the field.

You run them hard enough, they'll break (as will AKs or anything else made by man). This won't be aided at all by shooting reloaded ammo manufactured to looser tolerances than factory spec ammunition. The reason that almost all the Garands offered for sale by CMP today are mixmasters from an assortment of manufacturers is not because that's how they built Garands back in the day, it's because after service in WW2 and then Korea rifles were pulled out of service and sent to be repaired and rearsenaled. Many of those weapons probably didn't need it, but that process should shed some light on how hard wartime service can be on a weapon.

Add in normal wartime attrition -- weapons lost, damaged, or destroyed on the battlefield or elsewhere and you've got a reasonable need for additional weapons (hence, for instance, the M16EZ). Add in the fact that neither MilGov, nor CivGov, nor anybody else has unfettered control and access to pre-war stockpiles of rifles any more than they have access to anything else and you've probably got a situation where there are a lot of M16s and M4s floating around in CONUS, but not much to speak of for warehoused weapons and spare parts at the command of MilGov ready to equip refilled ranks of military units. And a situation where MilGov and CivGov both need weapons -- whether that means finding enough parts or machinery to make new M16s, or a new design, or whatever.

I don't see any new production M16s coming off a production line anytime in the early 21st century. The design requires too much quality aluminum and other relative exotics to field. I see it being the mainstay of MilGov and CivGov (and common with New America and various warlords, etc.) but as far as production goes it is a legacy system and operating costs will rise as time goes on. Fabricating replacement pins and springs is feasible, but other components like bolts will be rather more problematic. Building or rebuilding rifles from used or new components that are available is a possible partial solution, if the faction in question has access to someplace where parts are stockpiled.

New production would require a design that was streamlined for cheap production -- "good enough" definitely being the enemy of "best" in this case. For MilGov and CivGov, without any existing tooling for such a design, I think they'd be looking at some new design or backwards engineering something like an AR-18 or AK, with ease of production being the most important criteria. (And I agree that a copy of an AK wouldn't work, for political/appearance reasons, but cosmetic differences could easily cover up something close to a direct copy internally -- i.e. the Galil or even more so the Sig 550 series.)

It's entirely possible, given how fragmented things are circa 2000, that you'd have a situation where different cantonments loyal to the same government would be pursuing different solutions to the same problem. You might have a cantonment on the east coast that was supplementing their M16s with FAMAS they traded with the French for, one in the middle of the country that had access to enough intact rifles or spare parts that they were able to get by with nothing but M16s, and a third on the west coast that was making a pressed/stamped select fire 5.56mm rifle similar to the StG-44/AK/AR-18 to supplement their 16s.

[Targan]

New production would require a design that was streamlined for cheap production -- "good enough" definitely being the enemy of "best" in this case. For MilGov and CivGov, without any existing tooling for such a design, I think they'd be looking at some new design or backwards engineering something like an AR-18 or AK, with ease of production being the most important criteria.

(Emphasis added by me)

Once again I point to the Challenge magazine mini module 'Rifle River'. Anyone contributing to this debate who hasn't read it really should. GDW had obviously given some thought to some of the issues we are debating here.

Anyone who does not have access to 'Rifle River' and would like to read it, feel free to PM me and we'll work something out.

[Webstral]

No, it's a comment on what I know from personal experience. Note I also stated both the L1A1 and Steyr AUG are better weapons and therefore the statement IS in context.
There's no "badmouthing" here at all, just statements of fact based on personal experience.

Swell. So you have personal experience. Great. Except the thread is not about Leg's personal experience with the M16 or anyone's personal experience with the M16. The thread is about discussing candidates for post-Exchange manufacture in the US--hopefully on a basis more sophisticated than personal bias. Since you have stated emphatically that you don't believe any rifle is a candidate, your feedback on the quality of the M16 has no useful context. By the way, Legbreaker's personal experience doesn't add up to facts--not that you've actually given any in your tidy summation of the quality of the rifle.

Others may well have other experiences and formed other opinions, and as far as I'm concerned, they're entitled to state them.

Are they? Well, that's generous of you. Thanks for granting the rest of us the right to express ourselves on the forum.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Time for me to get down from the parapet, looks like the shootin's about to start, and me without a flameproof vest...
:p

[Targan]

Hey guys, how about when we feel the urge to take issue with specific posters over specific posts we move it to PMs?

[Legbreaker]

@Web
Whoa! Calm down there, please. There's no attacking going on here. My statement about the M16 is not intended to insult anyone, it's a simple observation that every M16 I've had in hand has been crap. This may just be due to age and wear and tear in which case perhaps I've got some insight on what T2K soldiers may be dealing with? Or it may be personal bias against a weapon that had sights and barrels bent out of alignment, loose furniture that would rattle with each shot further throwing off the aim, magazines which would fail on a regular basis, and were generally just rubbish and probably should have seen the inside of a furnace a decade before. Take your pick...

And as for "letting" others post, I thought this was an open forum where we are supposed to encourage participation? I certainly don't agree with many things that are said, but I'm not about to stop anyone saying it. Who knows, with a decent, open and honest discussion, opinions and positions may be changed...on both sides.

Now, getting back to the topic of the thread, those M16s I mentioned are, at least in my opinion, what is the result of hard wear and tear (about 20 years worth IRL). They weren't all that accurate and they had their problems, but they could still kill almost as effectively as a rifle still hot from the factory. With a decent gunsmith, a tool box, and a supply of basic parts, they could have been refurbished at a fraction of the cost and difficulty an organisation in T2K would face in constructing a whole new weapon.

Now assuming those rifles are an example of T2K weaponry, and remembering that the vast bulk of weapons in T2K aren't anywhere near as old, can't we agree refurbishment should be the preferred T2K option over designing a new weapon, constructing the factory, sourcing and gathering the materials, supplying the energy requirements, feeding the workforce, etc, etc, etc? Leave producing a new rifle until the country can afford it, financially, industrially, and agriculturally. To do otherwise dooms the recovery from nuclear war and it's aftermath to a very bad end.

[Raellus]

Hey guys, how about when we feel the urge to take issue with specific posters over specific posts we move it to PMs?

+1

Guys, this is starting to get a bit ugly. Please keep it civil and/or move it to PMs. Thanks.

[95th Rifleman]

there has always been friction comparing British/Commonwealth kit with American.

America has to equip a massive army economicly. as a result they have an assault rifle that essentialy works but can be mass produced relatively easily and cheaply (sure the M16 is a bit complicated but well within the capabilities of America's industrial base). When you look at some of the other American kit, it's bloody awesome. A good example is the 50 cal MG, this thing is decades old but nobdy has yet built a weapon that can replace it.
Another example is America aircraft. Both Australia and New Zealand are quite happy to use American warplanes because they are the best in the market for the required role. I often wish the British governemnt would swallow it's collective pride and replace the Tornados and Typhoons with F/A 18 Hornets like the Canadians did.

Australia has a much smaller military and can afford to be picky, hence they went with the AUG for infantry and American for air force.

[dragoon500ly]

All the talk about the life span of the M-16 got me wondering...

To replace the entire weapon, costs the tax payer $586.00 as of the last congressional review.

The barrel, and this is very dependent on the type of barrel, is expected to last for roughly 100,000 rounds. This also depends on the type of ammo fired and environmental factors. In other words, it is very dependent on a wide range of factors....sooooooooo, roll a d100 I guess!

The weapon is supposed to be pulled from the units for depot level maintenance roughly every ten years. During this period, the weapon is broken down into component parts, and then carefully inspected and worn parts replaced as needed. The military purchases a fairly large amount of spare parts for these weapons so there is the ability to keep the Mighty Mattel up and running for some time.

According to a co-worker, several M-16s with serial numbers dating back to 1964 are still in service, according to records, turned over to various police departments.

I'm a little surprised by Legs comments about the condition of the weapons he saw, before M-16s are released for international sales, they go through a depot-level rebuild and then are released to the purchasing nation, unless they were transferred through a third party...but that would violate the end user's certificate...may have to send some bean counters down to investigate!!!

BEWARE THE WRAITH OF THE BEAN COUNTERS!!!!!

;)

[Legbreaker]

Our entire battalion's supply of M60's was also worn out - we had a useless armourer. They were pulled from service and returned two days later as almost different weapons - all the worn bits and peices had been replaced by the armourer of the training unit were were with at the time.
This was however before we received the M16s (which had come from another unit which had received the AUG). We struggled through with them for about 3 years before all our L1A1s and M16s were also replaced withthe AUG, holding only a handful of the better M16's for M203 mounts.
I believe even those M16s are now gone, with the GL now munted directly on an AUG.
The L1A1's we had were as old, if not older than the M16s and even with our crappy armourer, still functioned perfectly.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

there has always been friction comparing British/Commonwealth kit with American.

America has to equip a massive army economicly. as a result they have an assault rifle that essentialy works but can be mass produced relatively easily and cheaply (sure the M16 is a bit complicated but well within the capabilities of America's industrial base). When you look at some of the other American kit, it's bloody awesome. A good example is the 50 cal MG, this thing is decades old but nobdy has yet built a weapon that can replace it.
Another example is America aircraft. Both Australia and New Zealand are quite happy to use American warplanes because they are the best in the market for the required role. I often wish the British governemnt would swallow it's collective pride and replace the Tornados and Typhoons with F/A 18 Hornets like the Canadians did.

Australia has a much smaller military and can afford to be picky, hence they went with the AUG for infantry and American for air force.

Overall I agree with what you've said but for some points, it's a little more complex. For example, the Typhoon is probably better suited to European needs than the Hornet is simply because of initial design criteria for both aircraft. Australia has typically selected it's aircraft from all over Europe and North America.
We've had/have British, French, German, Italian, Swiss, Canadian, US, Australian and New Zealand aircraft in the inventory.
There have been just as many British designs as US over the years. We've selected what we thought was best for the defence of mainland Australia and that has not always been a US design. For example, the winners of the last Australian Army helicopter trials have all been European designs.

When it comes to Australia's choice for infantry rifle, it's a bit of a mess. Originally, the contenders included the M16A2, the locally designed caseless ammunition C30R and its 5.56mm C60R cased ammunition variant (which incidentally went on to become the Bushmaster M17 rifle) alongside the AUG (I think there were a few others examined but I can't remember what they were).

The C30R lost out due to a catastrophic failure when ammunition detonated and the rifle was irretrievably damaged (along with the maker's reputation as many in Australia said that we had no ability to commercially produce police/military weapons - conveniently forgetting that the Owen Gun was the product of an individual and the Austen SMG was the product of a private company and not the government arms factory). It was, by what little info is left about it, a good rifle with good tactical advantages (a 60-rd magazine) and a significant technology leap especially considering it was made entirely by self-funded private enterprise.

The M16A2 was selected as the winner due in no small part to allow some greater commonality with our allies - specifically the USA but also Singapore at the time. The selection criteria also required the licence to build the rifle locally. Colt, having lost the manufacture of the M16A2 to FN-USA, refused to allow Australia to build the rifle locally and required that we purchase all of them from Colt.

The Australian government said no way and dropped the M16A2 and selected the AUG instead. The AUG has one serious issue which has seen an M16 variant used in its place, units tasked for amphibious roles (e.g. the Commando Regiments) typically use the M4 carbine. Apparently this is to do with the lower rate of rust buildup from salt water exposure but I've also heard concerns that the AUG body would fill up with water and not drain out properly (and would require complete disassembly to ensure all the internals were free of any salt water residue).


To (hopefully) put that into some sort of relevance for the thread, the Australian experience shows that it's not always such a simple choice in peacetime. In wartime or the recovery period just after wartime, the choice can be severely restricted and maybe a hell of a lot harder.

[95th Rifleman]

Overall I agree with what you've said but for some points, it's a little more complex. For example, the Typhoon is probably better suited to European needs than the Hornet is simply because of initial design criteria for both aircraft.

The Typhoon was as much a sheer, bloody disaster as the Tornado was a success. It's a warplane made by commitee and was obsolete before it even saw service. it was constantly delayed as interested nations kept wanting to add bits and pieces.We are stuck with it mostly because it's paid for and the governemnt has no money to replace it.

The Tornado was a great aircraft but it's showing it's age now. The F/A-18 would of been a great alternative to both untill the American JSF becomes available.

The RAF is a shambles right now, savaged by cuts and left wit outdated aircraft on one hand and useless aircraft on the other. It'll be like that well into the 2020's. We don't even have the ability to retake the Falklands should the Argentinians put together a force that can overwhelm the garrison there.

[HorseSoldier]

According to a co-worker, several M-16s with serial numbers dating back to 1964 are still in service, according to records, turned over to various police departments.

Several of the SPRs my last unit had were built on Harrington and Richardson M16A1 lowers, which makes them date to the Vietnam era. Of course, the upper was brand new and the guts of the lower were replaced (match trigger, etc.).

More recently my issue M203 for a while was Vietnam vintage, made by AAI as part of the initial 10500 purchased by the military. My specific weapon, S/N 5015, was made in 1970. Still worked fine.

[Mohoender]

The RAF is a shambles right now, savaged by cuts and left wit outdated aircraft on one hand and useless aircraft on the other.

I have no real idea about the Typhoon (I would like to know, however, why you said it is such a failure? Despite the fact it is quite expensive)
but what you say about the RAF is in IMVMO (VM standing for very modest:D) true for every airforce (including USAF). Most of the aircraft flying today have been developed some 30 years ago and the only exception is that of the F22 Raptor (187 planned: must be a joke). F35 Lightning will not enter service before 3-5 years (and it is damn expensive). The PAK-FA will not enter service before 4 years. The Chengdu J-20 is planned to enter service in 7 years.

The most interesting surprise came from China with the Chengdu J20. I recall an exchange we had some years ago where most of us advocated that China wouldn't be able to develop such an aircraft before 2020 (they had one flying last year). For my part I thought it would come earlier than 2020 but not that early.

[95th Rifleman]

I have no real idea about the Typhoon (I would like to know, however, why you said it is such a failure? Despite the fact it is quite expensive)


First it was made by commitee, the Tornado program was organised, streamlined and each nation had clear deadlines for submitting changes and inprovements. With the Typhoon the nations involved kept submitting new ideas and changes with no structure, forcing the design to be constantly re-evaluated. The result is an aircraft with no clear function, designed to do everything well while suffering from the same problems as most JOAT (jack of all trades) aircraft. The range is too low, the payload is too small and it's too damn expensive for what it is.

[Mohoender]

From what I read I don't see any substantial differences with the various contenders (altough I just went through a quick review on wiki). Announced payload is 7500kg vs 8050kg for the Super Hornet.

The main issue remains that of cost but what would have costed the closure of the corresponding factories? We have had the same issue in France with the Rafale. It is also outdated and has needed a crash-upgrade program for the aircrafts sent to Afghanistan (in order to allow them to drop laser-guided bombs, give me a break that's too funny especially as they have since been replaced by Mirage F1CR:(:p). Then, in the case of France we are not even party in the development of any generation 5 aircraft and we are not developping one of our own. At least, the RAF should receive F-35 Lightning II withing 5-7 years. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with an Australian report I founded some times ago and which stated that relying primarily on furtivity is a mistake (That same report also stated that the F22 or the PAK-FA were much better than the F35, we'll see).

Concerning Air Force strength, the French Air Force still flies 306 combat aircraft (+69 for the navy) but that number is expected to be reduced to 120 (+60 for the navy) quite soon (Khadaffi is definitely the unlucky guy of the year). As far as I know, all major air forces have followed the same path. As long as we have the ability to fight on foreign soils with the full support of technology, it's fine. If someone ever manage to deprive our defences of that full technological backup, it's going to become fun.

What you describe for the Typhoon as plagued (IMO) all post cold-war aircrafts and, provided military planners are right it their assumption of future conflicts, it shouldn't represent much of a problem. Of course, we all know that military planners are always wrong (as demonstrated by the invasion of Iraq in 2003). However, ultimate success doesn't depend much on military planners but on the ability to adapt quickly and to mass produce military goods faster than your ennemy (as demonstrated by that same invasion of Iraq or by US and USSR in ww2).

[95th Rifleman]

We have had the same issue in France with the Rafale. It is also outdated and has needed a crash-upgrade program for the aircrafts sent to Afghanistan (in order to allow them to drop laser-guided bombs, give me a break that's too funny especially as they have since been replaced by Mirage F1CR:(:p).

We had the same problem in the 1st Gulf War. Untill they crash-developed the TIALD pods we had to fly Buccaneers as laser designators for the Tornados carrying Paveway.

[Mohoender]

We had the same problem in the 1st Gulf War. Untill they crash-developed the TIALD pods we had to fly Buccaneers as laser designators for the Tornados carrying Paveway.

I knew about that one but I'm always amazed to the low level of reading among aircraft engineers. Moreover, we are supposed to be on the same side and, in 15 years, they could have tried to learn from British experience.

The worse into this is that our mirage 2000D are supposed to be equipped with that type of equipments. Then, why would you put the same equipment, first hand, on the aircraft which is planned to replace them?:D

There is something else I love since the end of the Cold war and that is range reported to our nuclear capable aircrafts.
Mirage IV: 2000 km (external tanks)
Rafale and Mirage 2000D : around 800km.

During the cold war we could deliver nukes as far as western USSR (Belarus and Ukraine). With our new aircraft our main targets have become Berlin, London, Madrid and Rome.

Finally, according to our current government, due to changes in the nature of threats, we will soon be closing most of our air bases to the East and North. Then, our nuclear bombers will be capable to reach highly strategic targets such as Tunis, Madrid and Rome (we might have some kind of issue with the Italian and Spanish), Malta, Baleares, Lille, Paris and Strasbourg... :D British and German can sleep well now but you might think about avoiding the Mediterranean and France for your vacations or risk sunburns.:cool::p

[dragoon500ly]

During the cold war we could deliver nukes as far as western USSR (Belarus and Ukraine). With our new aircraft our main targets have become Berlin, London, Madrid and Rome.[QUOTE]

Well, the Romans do have that past history of invasion and conquest of the Guals, better safe than sorry!


[QUOTE]Finally, according to our current government, due to changes in the nature of threats, we will soon be closing most of our air bases to the East and North. Then, our nuclear bombers will be capable to reach highly strategic targets such as Tunis, Madrid and Rome (we might have some kind of issue with the Italian and Spanish), Malta, Baleares, Lille, Paris and Strasbourg... :D British and German can sleep well now but you might think about avoiding the Mediterranean and France for your vacations or risk sunburns.:cool::p

So the drivers of Paris are now considered to be threats to national security. Yup! This calls for swift action!

:D

[StainlessSteelCynic]

@ 95th Rifleman
Ah I see what you're saying now and I have to agree.

In regards to what everyone else has been saying (especially the info from Mohoender), it's kind of scary to see how much money and effort has been put into new aircraft designs and yet it would appear that the models they are replacing were actually more capable.
It seems to be that that's the reason why the UK kept the Buccaneer for so long and why Australia kept the F-111 for so long - no modern design could replicate what they do.

[95th Rifleman]

@ 95th Rifleman
Ah I see what you're saying now and I have to agree.

In regards to what everyone else has been saying (especially the info from Mohoender), it's kind of scary to see how much money and effort has been put into new aircraft designs and yet it would appear that the models they are replacing were actually more capable.
It seems to be that that's the reason why the UK kept the Buccaneer for so long and why Australia kept the F-111 for so long - no modern design could replicate what they do.

It sometimes seems that governments replace planes for the sake of replacing them,to be seen to be advancing in technology when they are taking a backward step.

After they scrapped the Jaguar the ONLY aircraft we had that was designed for close air support was the Harrier. Now they have scrapped that we are flying CAS missions in Libya less than a freaking year after we scrap the Harrier fleet! We are putting Brimstone missles onto Tornados desighned for strategic bombing/photo-recce roles and calling it a CAS bird.

The Typhoon was supposed to be an interceptor but ended up being a multi-role aircraft that is essentilay an interceptor. It's like taking a peregrine falcon, training her to hunt pigeons and then expecting her to do tricks, talk like a parrot and help with fishing.