Worldwide weapony post-T2K

[95th Rifleman]

The threads on American weapons post-exchange and the discussion on a german alternative to the G11 got me thinking. When you get right down to it, NATO is screwed. Most NATO nations rely on weapons that need modern industry, what would happen post-exchange for the west of the world?

I'll examine Britain first as it's the nation i know most about, I welcome comments and ideas for the other NATO nations and WP nations aswell.

In 2011 the L85 is an effecive, reliable and good weapon that will see service for the forseeable future. The only problem is it took H&K to fix the damn thing back in 2000. This is not going to be happening in the twilight war.

In 1996 the L85 was rather crap, it was one of those lovely designes that worked great in "ideal" conditions but proved to be sub-standard in the field. During the first gulf war the L85 was considered next to useless by many soldiers due to it's jamming issues. It can be assumed that a few of these faults had been ironed out by 1996 in the T2K timeline (as they had been in reality) but it was still an essentilay unreliable weapon. As the H&K upgrade in 2000 can be ruled out due to the events of the twilight war it can be safely assumed that post-nuclear exchange, this weapon would dissapear rather rapidly from service.

What does that leave the British with? Well the only alternative would be to fall back on the old FN-FAL variant known as the SLR L1A1 which was manufactured in Britain and it can be safely assumed that large numbers could be found in storage. But could Britain manufacture this weapon? the SLR was built in Liverpool, Birmingham and the London borough of Enfield. All 3 where targets of nuclear strikes, as was almost all of the UK's industrial capability.

So what the hell could Britain do, post-exchange, to re-arma nd rebuild her armed forces? I'm throwing this one out because, quite frankly, i have no bloody clue otherthan to continue to use stored weapons untill they ran out.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

What does that leave the British with? Well the only alternative would be to fall back on the old FN-FAL variant known as the SLR L1A1 which was manufactured in Britain and it can be safely assumed that large numbers could be found in storage. But could Britain manufacture this weapon? the SLR was built in Liverpool, Birmingham and the London borough of Enfield. All 3 where targets of nuclear strikes, as was almost all of the UK's industrial capability.

So what the hell could Britain do, post-exchange, to re-arma nd rebuild her armed forces? I'm throwing this one out because, quite frankly, i have no bloody clue otherthan to continue to use stored weapons untill they ran out.

I can't remember where we discussed this before, but this point has been brought up a couple of times. Some folks seem to think the L85's teething troubles would have been worked out in the continued Cold War of either T2k timeline, others favor a return to the tried-and-true SLR, thousands of which were held in reserve during the '90s.

I proposed the Brits restarting production of the AR-18. The UK was liscenced to produce them from '67-'79 (IRL) so a foundation for renewed/accelerated production would would already be in place come the mid- '90s WWIII.

By all accounts, the AR-18 is a relatively simple, reliable, and accurate 5.56mm assault rifle. It could be produced in large quantities and issued to those UK troops whose L85s were kaput, or for whom the pre-existing stocks of SLRs were not available.

[95th Rifleman]

I doubt the L85 could be fixed during wartime, it took a rather comprehensive upgrade program by H&K to create the A2 model and that was done ona peacetime budget.

I've never considered the AR-18, did a bit of delving and found details on the SAR-87 (the British variant). It seems the program was shut down in the 80's but I admit the idea of restarting it seems interesting. Apparently the SAR-87 could be converted to 9mm to be used as an SMG so it has the benefit of being able to have a dual purpose.

[Targan]

I agree that the L85 probably couldn't be fixed to the RL A2 standard during the Twilight War but in a number of previous discussions there has been a general consensus that the continuation of the Cold War in the 1990s (in the T2K) universe would have accelerated weapons and other military equipment development by up to five years. Accepting that hypothesis the L85's issues might well have been squared away in time for the Twilight War.

Having said that I very much support the idea of the AR-18 being put into production during the later part of the Twilight War in both the US and the UK. It makes sense. I also think that the UK (and Australia and New Zealand) would quite happily open up their stores of SLRs and issue them to support and late-war formations (this is both a considered opinion and an emotional response on my part as I hold a deep and abiding love for the SLR, its the only military weapon I feel completely confident about maintaining and firing).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

I doubt the L85 could be fixed during wartime, it took a rather comprehensive upgrade program by H&K to create the A2 model and that was done ona peacetime budget.

I agree. The theory put forth by others was that the problems would have been identified (and acknowledged) in the early '90s (in the T2K timeline), and, with the [continued] Cold War motivator of the Red Army in East Germany, a fix would be diligently and speedily applied from that point on until the TDM or thereabouts.

I'm not sure I buy that. As I understand it, the problems weren't really addressed (or faced up to) until Afghanistan c.2001. If that's truly the case, then why would it be identified and a fix implemented in the early '90s in the T2K timeline?

If my facts are crossed and it was Desert Storm in '91 that shined a spotlight on the L85's issues, then that's a different matter. Personally, I prefer a v1.0 timeline where the First Gulf War never happened. That begs the question whether the problems with the L85 would have been i.d.'ed/addressed before '97.

Either way, I like the idea of the UK manufacturing the AR-18 for at least some of its troops.

[simonmark6]

The Stirling Arms Factory is in Dagenham which is just south of London. Given the area's heavy industry I would imagine that it was very heavily damaged by London's nukes even if one wasn't used on the area itself.

Short term it is possibly necessary to examine what missions the UK Land Forces will be expected to perform. In my opinion, UKLF is going to be spending a lot of time reintegrating independent areas into what GDW called "England". I would think that the existing forces would be already armed in a way that could achieve the first step of this: taking territory.

Most of the independent areas of the UK have little more than small arms of various types and maybe a few mortars and AT weapons. The UKLF can muster a decent (for the time) number of tanks and artillery pieces. Most towns, in my opinion, are likely to just surrender rather than face destruction by heavy fire that they can't really oppose.

Some areas will be more difficult, Cornwall for example where the organisation of the enemy forces and the terrain makes armoured warfare less than optimal would be a problem and the UKLF would need to martial their forces carefully in order not to lose too much irreplacable materiel.

This leads to the second part of reintegrating the country:holding territory. This is much more difficult than using overwhelming firepower to take territory and needs boots on the ground. Most of the time however the occupation troops would be facing lightly armed guerrilla style forces and whilst modern firearms would be nice, they aren't totally necessary.

Given this scenario I'd imagine a two (maybe more) tier system with a core of trained veterans being given any modern weapons that could be maintained, SA80s and any stockpiles of SLRs. These troops would be the spear point and rapid reaction firebrigades backed up with the force's remaining tanks and artillery. The second tier would be a more paramilitary style occupying force which could be armed with civilian weapons and anything that could be manufactured in workshops, probably a version of the STEN gun (probably with all the problems that were originally associated with it). For support these light units might have small mortars or the odd workshop made bazooka style weapon.

By marshalling stocks in this way, surviving stocks of military style weapons would maybe last long enough for a manufacturing base to be re-established in a more unified England.

Eventually, once industry becomes more than just a couple of guys in a shed, I think that the AR-18 might be a viable weapon for the UKLF next generation rebuild but I don't see them being made in significant quantities until after the pacification of the country. Whether that includes the newly formed nations of Scotland and Wales is the topic for another thread.

[95th Rifleman]

If we assume the V1.0 timeline then there is really no chance for the L85 upgrade. The first (A1) upgrade program came as a direct result of the 1st Gulf War. If that conflict had not been fought then there would be no reason to upgrade the L85 (it's problems where never really highlighted till they where taken into proper wartime conditions), the same would go for the Challenger MBT.

If we assue the (imho flawed) V2.0 timeline then the L85A1 would of been introduced but it's very unlikely that the A2 upgrade would be carried out in wartime conditions. the A2 program involved sending around two hundred thousand L85s to the factory for what was essentialy an internal rebuild.

The SLR was arguably the best firearm ever issued to the British army, I don't think i've ever heard a bad thing about it. however when you consider the vast amount of 5.56 ammo in the Uk and in NATO militaries it seems doubtful that any post-exchange choice of longterm weapon would be in any other calibre.

However the problem with the SAR-87 (British AR-18) is that the company which produced it went out of business in the 80's. By the year 2000, post-exchange, would all the required plans and such even exist? The Americans have their hands full so it's not very likely they would even consider helping the UK. It can be safely assumed that America (both mil' and civ' governments) would be adopting an "america-first" isolationist policy as they rebuild.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

The threads on American weapons post-exchange and the discussion on a german alternative to the G11 got me thinking. When you get right down to it, NATO is screwed. Most NATO nations rely on weapons that need modern industry, what would happen post-exchange for the west of the world?

I'll examine Britain first as it's the nation i know most about, I welcome comments and ideas for the other NATO nations and WP nations aswell.

In 2011 the L85 is an effecive, reliable and good weapon that will see service for the forseeable future. The only problem is it took H&K to fix the damn thing back in 2000. This is not going to be happening in the twilight war.

In 1996 the L85 was rather crap, it was one of those lovely designes that worked great in "ideal" conditions but proved to be sub-standard in the field. During the first gulf war the L85 was considered next to useless by many soldiers due to it's jamming issues. It can be assumed that a few of these faults had been ironed out by 1996 in the T2K timeline (as they had been in reality) but it was still an essentilay unreliable weapon. As the H&K upgrade in 2000 can be ruled out due to the events of the twilight war it can be safely assumed that post-nuclear exchange, this weapon would dissapear rather rapidly from service.

What does that leave the British with? Well the only alternative would be to fall back on the old FN-FAL variant known as the SLR L1A1 which was manufactured in Britain and it can be safely assumed that large numbers could be found in storage. But could Britain manufacture this weapon? the SLR was built in Liverpool, Birmingham and the London borough of Enfield. All 3 where targets of nuclear strikes, as was almost all of the UK's industrial capability.

So what the hell could Britain do, post-exchange, to re-arma nd rebuild her armed forces? I'm throwing this one out because, quite frankly, i have no bloody clue otherthan to continue to use stored weapons untill they ran out.

I can see them possibly going back to the old Lee-Enfield although you'd have to convert them to 7.62mm NATO or make more British .303

Chuck

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966

I can see them possibly going back to the old Lee-Enfield although you'd have to convert them to 7.62mm NATO or make more British .303

Chuck

In second line and civil defense units, definitey.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man 1966

I can see them possibly going back to the old Lee-Enfield although you'd have to convert them to 7.62mm NATO or make more British .303

Chuck

The conversion has been carried out in the mid-1950's

[TrailerParkJawa]

When I was thinking of source material for the northern California region I had wondered how the various MilGov cantoments would rearm. I don't believe there are any small arms factories in this region. Even if there was its not easy to get materials for high quality arms.

So something I thought of would be that the powers that be in the California would start producing new weapons entirely instead of trying to build weapons from the world that was.

What would they build? Well I thought it would have to be something simple like the M3 submachine gun. It would might look different but have similar performance. Something that can be built from stamped parts and by labor that isn't highly skilled. I even thought of a name "M3 Grizzly".

[Legbreaker]

I'm fairly sure you'd see a lot of simple weapons reappearing such as the M3 and the Sten gun. I think the Sten was even built in backyard workshops in WWII, with a few examples actually made from basic plans and scrap metal behind the lines in France.