Weapons Timelines for the Twilight War

[perardua]

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

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

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

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

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I often think that the British should have told the US to shove it after World War 2 and went their own way with the EM-2. The Belgians and the Spanish both were willing to chamber weapons for the .280 round (one of the first FAL prototypes was chambered for the .280 round, as was one of the first CETME prototypes); only US political bullying stopped the .280 round from gaining more widespread acceptance. Our loss, IMHO.

Yeah, when I think about it, there are times I wonder if the Remington .223 (5.56mm Nato) is a bit underpowered when I talk to others about it. Myself, I would have gone with something like the .243 Winchester at the smallest although something in the .270 to .280 caliber range would have been fine too. Dunno what this would do to the .308 Winchester (7.62mm Nato) though.

Chuck

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by perardua

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

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

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

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

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

[Legbreaker]

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

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

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

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

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

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

[Legbreaker]

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

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

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

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

[perardua]

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

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

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

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

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

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by perardua

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

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

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

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

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

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

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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

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

[Legbreaker]

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

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

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

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

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

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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

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

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

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

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

[Webstral]

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

Webstral

[perardua]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

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

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

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

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by perardua

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

Perardua, appreciate your insights on the SA80...

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

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

Cheers

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Webstral

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

Webstral

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

[pmulcahy11b]

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

[perardua]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

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

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

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

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

[dude_uk]

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

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

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

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

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

[perardua]

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

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

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

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

[Raellus]

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

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

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

[perardua]

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

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

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

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by perardua

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

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

[perardua]

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

[pmulcahy11b]

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

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

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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

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