Great info, Paul. Thanks.

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

Correct.

Me too. That would make my year.
Very cool. Respect to your grandfather.

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

envy
 

Those sound like sweet rifles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mo - would you agree it was a handball?

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

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

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

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

No offense to apologise for.:)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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