[Webstral]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by James Langham

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.

Originally Posted by 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).

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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