Worldwide weapony post-T2K

[Targan]

I dunno about on the net but I've got heaps of stuff on my hard drive. I'll upload a bare-bones Traveller 2300 timeline as an attachment to this post but I don't think I'm allowed to upload the full T:2300 backstory, it probably exceeds 'fair use' under copyright.

Edit: Scratch that, every time I try to upload the file as a Word doc or as a .rar archive the upload fails. The size of the file doesn't exceed the limit and both file types are on the allowable list so the site must be having some kind of issue.

Anyone who wants Traveller 2300 backhistory info is welcome to PM me their email address and we'll work something out.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Targan

It strikes you? Well yeah, that's exactly what happens in canon. I take it you've never read the Traveller: 2300 timeline?

Nope, never played traveller or read the timeline for it. just T2K and the later 2013 version.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

I dunno about on the net but I've got heaps of stuff on my hard drive. I'll upload a bare-bones Traveller 2300 timeline as an attachment to this post but I don't think I'm allowed to upload the full T:2300 backstory, it probably exceeds 'fair use' under copyright.

Edit: Scratch that, every time I try to upload the file as a Word doc or as a .rar archive the upload fails. The size of the file doesn't exceed the limit and both file types are on the allowable list so the site must be having some kind of issue.

Anyone who wants Traveller 2300 backhistory info is welcome to PM me their email address and we'll work something out.

Email it to me. I can put it on my site for download, and even turn it into a PDF if people would prefer.

[Legbreaker]

I'd just like to stress that the books state neutral countries were hit in with nukes to deny their facilities and resources to the enemy. This tells me that while not wiped off the face of the planet as the belligerent countries effectively were, France, Switzerland, and all the other neutrals aren't going to be in much shape to supply their own needs, let alone export anything beyond despair and refugees.

They certainly weren't hit anywhere near as hard as those actually involved in the fighting, but to me that just means they'll have a leg up - perhaps a 10 year head start in reconstruction.

It's worth noting however that after WWII, the loosing countries came back fairly strong (after a couple of decades of reconstruction) while the winning countries economies went into decline. Simplified, this was because their outdated factories were flattened and when rebuilt, updated to the latest technology, while those who retained their old factories found that in the 70's and 80's they were up for some very significant upgrading costs. I believe this was one of the causes behind the unemployment problems of the time.

Of course in T2K, those countries which were flattened, aren't going to get the assistance the countries of the 40's and 50's did and therefore reconstruction and recovery is going to be orders of magnitude more difficult and slow.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by atiff

Where can a good timeline for this be found on the Net? I've looked before without much success...

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ts_id=390&it=1

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...ts_id=413&it=1

- C.

[Mohoender]

Unless you review the game entirely, Liege has not been nuked. Simply because there are no real targets there and simply because, if you nuke Liege (and other minor cities), you can't go with the idea that the Franco-Belgian Union escape most of the nuking.

About France, supplying NATO: why not? I effectively doubt that it sells weapons to countries such as Germany and Netherlands but a deal with UK is possible. Altough, I advocate that tensions between UK and France should be high, it is not the only viable option. As much as I think Liege has survived, I, however, think that Brussel was destroyed as NATO HQ makes it a major target. Then, what would be NATO in the game?

Talking of France weapon production capability, it is basically intact and, may be, even superior to what it was before the war. The major weapon production area of the country has escaped the nukes (french arm factories are largely located in small cities while the sites located in the largest cities are mostly administrative). You'll find all of the actual ones here (more existed 20 years ago but that gives a fair idea):
http://www.industrymakers.com/ambros...Chapitre=32847

Therefore, France will still be producing weapons for itself as I can tell you that the number of units available to France is much more important that what you find in the game. The French army should be 3 or 4 time what is indicated in the NATO sourcebook. The Foreign Legion alone should have grown from 8000-10000 to more than 30000. A special policy might even involve the refugees at France's borders: "Apply to the legion, we temporarily feed your relatives. Join it, we allow them into the country. Serve your time, and they'll be granted citizenship". The French army as given in the game is the peacetime army (450.000-550.000 at the time), it should have grown to wartime numbers (1-1.5 millions).

Then, France will have taken over the weapon production capability of Belgium (largelly located in the Meuse valley, in the Ardennes and south of Brussel) with a nuclear research center depending of Liege university (Sart-Tilman), aircraft production capability (spareparts and more for the F16/Hercules), tank and vehicle production (Patton, M113/AIFV, Scorpion light tank and apc family, Land rover...), Heavy weapons and gun by Cockrill-Sambre (90mm gun, mortars), Light weapons (FN). Exports to the UK, Ireland, Portugal/Spain, the Middle East, Latin America and allied countries in Africa is perfectly plausible.

Concerning Germany, I have a tendency to have Switzerland being the main provider with Germany supplying what it can in raw materials.

Sweden could be the main weapon provider to the Scandinavian area

Soviet Union and US still produce a small number of weaponry/equipment as do Israel which as always been a master at recycling military equipments.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I'd just like to stress that the books state neutral countries were hit in with nukes to deny their facilities and resources to the enemy. This tells me that while not wiped off the face of the planet as the belligerent countries effectively were, France, Switzerland, and all the other neutrals aren't going to be in much shape to supply their own needs, let alone export anything beyond despair and refugees.

I always thought that this concerned essentially oil facilities. In the case of France you simply can't except by devastating the country. In the case of Switzerland, the country would have immediately switched to its wartime politics and much facilities would have survived being moved. For my part, i don't even think that one nuke hit Switzerland. Why would you do that? The country has no oil, no raw materials and you already disrupt so much the raw material production of its neighbors that the ammount of supply the Swiss can send is far from being capable of tipping the balance. Most oif what it produces will be used domestically and what it would send to (for exemple Germany) will be ammo and spareparts.

[Mohoender]

I did not include ships and engineer equipments

Tanks
- AMX 56 Leclerc (slowly entering service in the early 1990’s it is expensive and only fully replaced the AMX-30 in the most prestigious units such as the 2nd and 5th DB).
- AMX-30 Brenus (the main French tank)
- AMX-30B2 (progressively being improved to Brenus standards)
- AMX-13/90 (phased out in 1989, several could be returned to service, spare parts would not be a problem)
- Leopard 1 (spare parts can be produced along some for M60 Patton)

Recon vehicle
- Vextra-105 (may be entering service in the very late 1990’s)
- AMX-10RC
- VBC-90 (a fair number in the gendarmerie)
- ERC-90
- AML-90
- VBL (several thousands)
- EBR (a few might be put back into service, nevertheless unlikely)
- Scorpion 90 light tanks

IFV-APC
- AMX-10P
- AMX-13 VCI (a good question)
- VAB (the main French work horse)
- VBRG (several hundreds in the Gendarmerie)
- Vextra IFV (may be entering service in the very late 1990’s, , I find it more likely than the VBCI)
- AIFV (also spare parts for M113)
- Spartan APC
- Local vehicles such as the BDX
- PVP (not developped until the early 2000's but it could be developped nonetheless as it is based on vehicles existing in T2K).

Soft-skinned vehicles
- Land Rover
- Peugeot P4
- Auverland
- Hotchkiss Jeep
- Renault (TRM-2000/4000/10000)
- Volvo N10
- Berliet GB 8KT/Renault GBC180 and GBH280
- Acmat VLRA (possibly a number of armoured version)
- Simca-Marmon
- Several more types as the list is quite large even including possibly a fair number of WW2 GMC trucks

Artillery
- Pluton/Hadès
- MLRS
- AuF1
- Mk F3
- M109 (spare parts can be produced)
- Caesar system
- TR-F1
- Older 105-155mm howitzers
- Kanonenjagdpanzer (small number with Belgium)
- Crotale air defense system
- Roland air defense system
- Hawk air defense system
- Mistral air defense system
- AMX-13/30 AD with twin 30mm
- 20mm air defense gun (tarrasque and Rheinmetall both home produced)

Support Weapons
- Mortars (120, 81 and 60mm)
- MILAN
- HOT
- ERYX
- APILAS
- LRAC-89
- Grenade launchers and rifle grenades

Light weapons
- Browning HP
- Beretta M9
- French pistols (forgot which one)
- MAT-49 (likely to be back in production as it is easy to build)
- Beretta M12
- MAS-49/56 (rare and not in front line)
- FAMAS
- FN FAL
- FN FNC
- FR F1/F2
- Hecate
- FN Minimi
- FN MAG
- M2HB

Aircrafts
- Dassault Rafale
- Dassault Mirage 2000
- F16 Fighting Falcon (spare parts can be produced)
- Dassault Mirage F1
- Dassault Mirage 3/5
- Crusader F8
- Dassault Mirage IV
- Sepecat Jaguar
- Dassault Super Etendard
- Breguet Atlantic
- Breguet Alizé
- E-3 Sentry
- Dassault Alpha Jet
- Fouga Magister
- Several basic training aircrafts
- Airbus A400M (In very late 1990’s if any)
- C-130 Hercules
- C-160 Transall
- Noratlas
- Airbus
- Caravelle
- Nord 262
- KC-135
- Several types of light transport aircraft including Embraer, Falcon, Broussard, Paris…

Helicopters
- Tigre
- Gazelle
- Alouette
- Puma/Super Puma and evolutions
- Agusta 109
- Lynx
- Dauphin

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I always thought that this concerned essentially oil facilities.

The following is from the 2.2 BYB.

major industrial and oil centers in neutral nations are targeted, to prevent their possible use by the other side.

The exact same words are in V1.0.
So, oil isn't the only target possibility, and in fact is likely to only represent a minority of targets hit in the neutral countries given the wealth of industry which could be deemed as potentially helpful to an enemy - weapons, ammunition, vehicles, spare parts, electronics, the list just goes on and on.

Now I know next to nothing about the distribution of industry across France, but I'm fairly certain it's not all located in one convenient to hit with a nuke location and therefore I can see relatively widespread destruction. Not perhaps on the scale seen in belligerent countries, but destruction all the same.

As for Switzerland, perhaps they did dodge a nuke, mainly I'd think because they have a loooooong history of neutrality unlike France. Switzerland surely has some nukeable targets, but given their history of sitting on the fence, I'd assume they were not hit. What's the point after all? It's not like the Swizz have ever helped (or harmed for that matter) anybody any time in the last few centuries!

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Now I know next to nothing about the distribution of industry across France, but I'm fairly certain it's not all located in one convenient to hit with a nuke location and therefore I can see relatively widespread destruction. Not perhaps on the scale seen in belligerent countries, but destruction all the same.

And, then, we are back to the old issue: is France party to the war or not. Unlike US, France has little in term of large industrial centers except if you count the large civilian centers to the north, Strasbourg, Toulouse and the Rhone Valley. Then, to really destroy it, you must use quite a lot of nukes as Industries are much more scattered.

Large French cities are administrative and trade centers, rarely industrial centers (a nuke on Paris will not destroy one single industry). Paris is ten times smaller than NYC (3 times smaller than Detroit) but the area containing the industries around Paris is ten times larger than the same NYC.

Ground weapon industries are scattered in the small and average cities of the Massif Central valleys. If you take Roanne where most current tanks are being produced, the city itself is 35.000h with an urban area of 100.000. Basically, it is Burlington (Vermont).

If you use the needed amount of nukes, France get into the war or to his knees (fine with me but if it's so, it can't manage to retain any sort of government, the Union Corse is an urban legend, it can't move to the Rhine and secure the borders, It never invaded Belgium, Germany or Netherlands).

The game has been quite good when locating most destruction to the Atlantic coast. If you hit a number of location to the Atlantic coast you deny to France the capability to trade with the outside. First, you destroy half of its oil production. Second, you destroy its main harbor facilities (Bordeaux, Nantes, Le Havre, Dunkerque and Saint Nazaire) with the exception of Marseille. If I'm not mistaken, Marseille is still working and that could be because an eventual nuke hit the "Etang de Berre" instead of the city (one more quarter of the oil production capability). If inland cities are hit, these should be Lille, Strasbourg and Toulouse. You can add Lyon but it is simply not fun.

If you take the case of Belgium, the problem is quite the same and targets should be Antwerp and Brussel. Ostende Might be on the list as well but I tend to spare it because it, then, allows France to support Quebec. Liege could indeed be a target but most arm indsutries and the FN might survive a hit on the city. It will depend on where the nuke hits. If it hits to the north, the FN is destroyed. If it hits to the center, little factories if any are destoyed. If it hits to the south, the Sart-Tilman is demaged. Liege itself is at the bottom of the Meuse Valley and surrended by a large plateau. If you hit the city, the plateau might not suffer much.

[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]

The Russians are many things, stupid is not one of them. An attack on France is almost guaranteed to bring them into the war on NATO's side.

Sure some neutral countries would of been hit but i don't think the soviets would of done much against France, not after they made such a show of staying out of the war.

France has a significant military, both conventional and nuclear with a strong naval capability. As long as they stayed neutral I don't honestly see the soviets gunning for them. Why risk bringing them into the war when they are happy to sit out and watch?

[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.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

The Russians are many things, stupid is not one of them. An attack on France is almost guaranteed to bring them into the war on NATO's side.

Sure some neutral countries would of been hit but i don't think the soviets would of done much against France, not after they made such a show of staying out of the war.

France has a significant military, both conventional and nuclear with a strong naval capability. As long as they stayed neutral I don't honestly see the soviets gunning for them. Why risk bringing them into the war when they are happy to sit out and watch?

Good points, I think the Soviets would have enough problems with all the American (and UK/Red Chinese) nukes they had to take a hit with. I think if they can avoid the French beating them up as well, they would leave France alone. I think over time, maybe the USSR would seek France as a trading partner, if the Soviets could get things going relatively well, France could receive raw materials from the USSR in exchange for finished products.

Chuck

[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

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

The Russians are many things, stupid is not one of them. An attack on France is almost guaranteed to bring them into the war on NATO's side.

Sure some neutral countries would of been hit but i don't think the soviets would of done much against France, not after they made such a show of staying out of the war.

France has a significant military, both conventional and nuclear with a strong naval capability. As long as they stayed neutral I don't honestly see the soviets gunning for them. Why risk bringing them into the war when they are happy to sit out and watch?

Agreed. Whilst nuking Venezuela or Mexico (for example) would incur little real consquences to either side, an important point to consider is that France is unique amongst neutral nations in that it has the ability to retaliate in kind for any nuclear strikes against it.

Personally, I rather like the option put forward on the etranger site

During this period French ports and oil facilities were struck. France asked, and was given permission, to transit German airspace. The hope was that France would enter the war on the side of NATO. CoFAS responded with the ‘pre-strategic’ ASMP strikes against selected Soviet targets. For every strike against France, one Soviet target was hit. The point had been made France would stay out of the war if left alone.

Full article is on the following link

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dh...ical/PGAA1.htm

[Fusilier]

"major industrial and oil centers in neutral nations are targeted, to prevent their possible use by the other side."

Which can arguably mean potentially sparing the medium and minor industrial and oil centers in neutral nations.

[Legbreaker]

It doesn't have to be the Soviets nuking France - there's plenty of other countries that may do it, out of spite for not upholding their treaty obligations if nothing else.
Or it could have been the Soviets. All they'd need to do is put the blame on somebody else and with the French invasion of Germany (to the Rhine) they'd have a perfect excuse to point the finger at either Germany, the US or even Britain.
It could be argued that Nato commanders/politicians honestly believed the French had climbed into bed with the Italians (another former Nato partner) and were opening an additional front behind Nato lines.

Anyway, the point is it's possible France was indeed nuked.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Anyway, the point is it's possible France was indeed nuked.

Obviously but the point is up to each gamemaster.

If you want to go by the game's point of view the answer is lightly!

If you change that point of view and add a new approach the answer is of course.

As a result, France would be mix of isolated and devasted lands with small local areas under control. As the nuke were falling on France, destroying much little than in the rest of Europe but eliminating Transport, national political leadership, communication and power production (The destruction of Paris and Lyon being the major blow), the country entered a period of progressive dissolution. Regions were the first to secede, declaring sovereignty over their lands one after another. The departements didn't play a real role but simply dissolved. Cities turned onto the countryside. Then, county's (cantons) turned against each other generating as many petty war as possible. Finally, Valleys turned onto valleys and villages turned on each other. Members of the gendarmerie and local forces brought support to those they new best and peasants digged out the weapons their fathers and grand fathers had burried.

The South of France has become even more violent when the Corsicans tried to take over. They were quickly opposed by the local mafias and the entire area from Marseille to Nice is now a war zone were gangs are conducting a bitter fight. Men are killed or executed on a daily bases (often with wife and kids). Then, people living further away from the coastline distrust those that call gangsters and anyone coming from the coast is shot on sight.

The low and high mountain turned onto themselves and are considered out of control. In fact, nothing is so far from the truth and they are probably the most stable areas as long as you are not a stranger (bear in mind that, in France, stranger often relate to people you cannot reach by foot walk). Mountaineer have established societies of their own which, if isolated, are among the most stable. Funny enough, the most remote areas of France have become the most advanced as they still had the capability to function onto themselves.

Some area of civilized stability remain nonetheless in regions such as Britany or the Camargue. Then, the cities that housed a garrison (when not destroyed) or retained some kind of fortification often managed to gain control over the closed countryside. As an exemple, Epernay, with support from the 34th engineer regiment, managed to take control over part of the Marne Valley. In addition, St Tropez and St Malo are again cities of privateers and pirates as their militias had been rebuilt.

Nuke France, and here is a way it could have evolved.

[95th Rifleman]

An idea I've been toying with is a timeline that assumes the soviets left france alone. The year is late 2000 and the players are part of an ad-hoc unit that has either been pulled back into germany or found their own way there.

The twilight war is effectively over. America has a civil war to deal with, the european nations that got stuck in are hurt and focussing on their own affairs. In the aftermath of the twilight war the WP effectively fell apart with russia nursing her injuries, perhaps dealing with an internal revolt (playing around with some ideas on that).

France decides to expand, either they get a nationalist leader who pulls a napolean/hitler (this is te idea i'm most inclined to go with) or the democraic government decides it's time to take advantage.

The PCs, tired and war weary, find themselves facing this new French invasion of germany.

Working on the details and planning to run it as eithera stand alone scenario or a medium length campaigh for my gaming group.

[Mohoender]

Nice Ideas but I have one comment and two questions, hoping it can help

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

In the aftermath of the twilight war the WP effectively fell apart with russia nursing her injuries, perhaps dealing with an internal revolt (playing around with some ideas on that).

Here is the comment. Russia would be dealing with several revolts I think. Nationalism is not only the fact of the Chechens and as soon as Moscow cease to pay for peace, several might rise up. The Mongols might also be an interesting addition to this.

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

France decides to expand, either they get a nationalist leader who pulls a napolean/hitler (this is te idea i'm most inclined to go with) or the democraic government decides it's time to take advantage.

First questions why should the leader of France be Napoleonic (Hitler is out of the question)? It can be, however, a revival of the monarchy or extremist Republicans such as Robespierre (or even beter Marat). It can also be a type of communism. It is widely outlooked but communism is a reference to the Paris commune and the red flag was first raised in France (before 1789 it meant that you couldn't count on any mercy, by 1790 it was raised by the French National Guard and it was raised again in 1871 durng the Paris Commune).

Another question: Why would France expend toward Germany where it will have to enter a bitter fight (everything there has to be rebuilt, no industrial advantage, mining exploitation are all destroyed and already well exhausted)? IMO, the natural expension zone for France is Africa where it would be able to take over the ongoing genocide with nobody to complain about it. Raw materials might not be readily available but there is little extended destruction and raw materials are far from exhaustion.

Not a politically correct idea, I agree but couldn't it make sence?

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

First questions why should the leader of France be Napoleonic (Hitler is out of the question)? It can be, however, a revival of the monarchy or extremist Republicans such as Robespierre (or even beter Marat). It can also be a type of communism. It is widely outlooked but communism is a reference to the Paris commune and the red flag was first raised in France (before 1789 it meant that you couldn't count on any mercy, by 1790 it was raised by the French National Guard and it was raised again in 1871 durng the Paris Commune).

Another question: Why would France expend toward Germany where it will have to enter a bitter fight (everything there has to be rebuilt, no industrial advantage, mining exploitation are all destroyed and already well exhausted)? IMO, the natural expension zone for France is Africa where it would be able to take over the ongoing genocide with nobody to complain about it. Raw materials might not be readily available but there is little extended destruction and raw materials are far from exhaustion.

Not a politically correct idea, I agree but couldn't it make sence?

When I describe a possible French leader pulling a napolean/hitler I meant in the political sense. Post-2k there would be allot of social and political turmoil in all nations, including France. The world has just weathered WW3 and survived (sort of). One of the ldest tools in the political armoury is to focus the people on an outside threat.

Economicly Fance is relatively screwed at first, there are no countries in a position to import or export untill industries and economies can be rebuilt. Sure France could manufacture goods and charge steep prices for them, but who can actualy pay? We are talking mostly in terms of IOUs for the first five to ten years of rebuilding. Where are the cargo ships and transport planes to deliver these goods?

Now I'm making some big assumptions in order for this scenario to work I admit. I'm assuming that a nationalistic, charismatic individual arises in France and uses fiery, nationalistic rehtoric to become popular and powerful. This also assumes a weak and ineffective administatration at the time. Going along similar lines to Germany in the 30's, this charismatic leader preaches unity through fear, he creates in the national subconsious a fear of France's neighbours. He tells the people that envious eyes in broken, war-mongering nations look at France, they hate France for not joining in their bloodbath and they see Fance as their next target.

The fact that Germany is no military threat doesn't even mean anything to the majority of French civilians, tis leader reminds them of the two previous world wars, started by German aggression. He spins the Twilight war as another Germanic power-grab, citing it was Germany's lust for domination that once more plunged the world into war. Sure it is anoutright lie, but the facts can be bent to fuel it, after all Germany DID start the war by advancing into east germany did it not?

With the fear of their neighbours to spur them, the French rally around this new leader and rebuild the French economy, forging links with the nations not affected by the war too much, rebuilding cargo ships and the like. The fear-tactics he has used to get into power rule the French leader (as it has done for every politician who uses such politics) and incidents along the border which he has used for political gain force hm to take an aggressive stance and before you know it, French troops are crossing the rhine.

Sure it's unlikely, but it is a possibility.

[Raellus]

I bet that France after the TDM has a lot of trouble with its minority populations. Worst case scenario would like a lot like the situation we see in the film Children of Men. Couple that scenario with nationalist insurgencies in Holland and Belgium, and a Germany eager to reclaim its lost territory (and rearmed with American AFVs and heavy weapons ceded to them aftere Omega), and France is going to have plenty of issues to deal with in late 2000 and beyond.

This extreme turmoil could lead to the election of a French ultra-nationalist leader.

[Legbreaker]

Of course we all know that TDM is a term that can only apply to the USA. Much of the rest of the world had already received their ration (and would continue to do so for some time).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Of course we all know that TDM is a term that can only apply to the USA. Much of the rest of the world had already received their ration (and would continue to do so for some time).

I use "TDM" as shorthand for the escalation/height of the nuclear exhanges. Please don't take offense.

[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.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Sure it's unlikely, but it is a possibility.

In fact it makes perfect sense. I only disagree with your economic point of view. You still think economic in terms of profit and that is a conception outdated under T2K. Most exchange will be made either in gold or through barter and France retains a need for raw materials.

Transport might be a problem of course but you can expect France to do two things. First, it will engaged in a ship contruction program similiar to that of the Liberty Ships in WW2 (although at a much reduced rate). Then, it will seize and repair whatever ships it can find. Several will already be in Belgium/French harbors. A little more might be seized in the Netherlands and African ports.

As a result, I would expect the French to be able to establish some secure sealanes within two years. These will not extend worldwide but should possibly be enough to maintain communication with the less damaged areas. At the time France still had a fair number of escort ships and much more could be built in little time (Estienne d'Orves-class for exemple).

[Legbreaker]

I'd imagine the French would only really need small escort vessels to protect their shipping post 2000. Patrol boats (armed with a couple of torpedos and a 20mm gun), corvettes and the like should be more than enough to beat off any pirates that may be lurking about in most places. The bigger prewar ships (frigates, cruisers, etc) should be sufficient for the longer range operations given the almost total lack of serious opposition anywhere on the planet.
Can't see total domination of the sea lanes happening though - it's more likely the French would work on the old convoy principle of half a dozen plus freighters escorted by two or three naval vessels (which may even include a submarine).

[Mohoender]

In fact, Corvettes should do the entire escort job (what we call Aviso) as all of our models have been conceived with long range operation in mind (due to our overseas territories). They would be supplemented by our Escorteurs (a type of ship no longer in French naval service).

Here is an more than excellent websites on French ships (sorry in French, I don't know how the english version works). If you need any help I'll be glad to help

http://www.netmarine.net/index.htm

I add a few link to relevant ships. Several were in storage but could be put back to sea at the time. Most were taken out of service in the early 1990's but that would certainly not be the case.

http://www.netmarine.net/bat/fregates/floreal/index.htm
http://www.netmarine.net/bat/avisos/...rves/index.htm
http://www.netmarine.net/bat/ee/duperre/index.htm
http://www.netmarine.net/bat/ae/cdtriviere/index.htm

Here is the link to decommissioned ships

http://www.netmarine.net/bat/listes/desindfr.htm