Weapons Timelines for the Twilight War

[Legbreaker]

No, just doesn't make sense given that the G11 was to be the main service rifle for the Germans. The G41 just doesn't meet the design criteria the Germans issued which resulted in the G11.
If anything, it's the G11 which would have ramped up production rather than the G41. The G41 was really just a cheaper stopgap to issue to supporting troops and undoubtably would have been replaced in time by the G11 (say 10-15 years down the track when their was sufficient numbers/newer improved versions of the G11 issued to the combat troops).

Remember that in V1.0, almost nobody outside the negotiating room knew that the two Germany's would be reuniting, therefore it's inconcievable that production of any particular weapon, AFV, or other equipment beyond that sufficient to supply the needs of the West Germans would take place.

Also, given that German were the agressor in both versions of the game, and that they went it alone (at least in the beginning) while Poland's allies were occupied in China, it's quite reasonable to assume they expected to roll over the defenders and win the war in relatively short order. In other words, they simply wouldn't have had the time to ramp up production and retrain tens of thousands of troops on any other weapon than the one they already had in hand (G41/G11/G3 for the west, AK variants for the east).

ANY increase in production over and above that needed for the west would be a sure indicator to the eastern nations that something was up.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I don't see a problem with the G41 being produced in numbers similar to or in fact greater than, the G11.

Firstly, despite it being designed as a 5.56mm version of the G3, it's little more than a revamped HK33, itself nothing more than a 5.56mm version of the G3. H&K already had all the production facilities available for that particular rifle with ongoing HK33 production for various military, police and civilian customers worldwide. As I understand it there were very few significant changes made to differentiate it from the basic HK33 design (notable changes include the magazine well, ambidextrous safety/fire selector, a bolt hold-open device and a bolt forward-assist similar to that on the M16 series)

Second, in a Western army the fighting units are typically a third the overall size of the support units so simply on that figure alone you're going to be producing at least the same number of G41s to G11s and most probably two (maybe three) times more.

Third, the G41 was the insurance policy for H&K if the G11 was only to be taken up by the West German forces or not adopted at all, i.e. the export rifle would have been the G41 if the G11 wasn't going to be exported and it would also have been the next service rifle if the G11 wasn't adopted.

The end of the Cold War stopped the G41 being adopted and a lack of interest from export customers caused the G41 to be dropped from the catalogue. Specifically it was cited as being of such quality that it was far more expensive than similar assault rifles at the time. Without the Cold War requirement, H&K probably needed export customers to lower the overall production costs to make it cost effective for the Bundeswehr to acquire it. During the late 1980s it was priced for sale to US police departments at US$1700 per unit, you probably could have got two or three M16A2s for that price.

[B.T.]

Hi all!

From all that I've heard, the G11 was intended to become the service rifle of the first line combat troops. The G41 was the rifle for all the other troops, that previously were equipped with the older G3.

From all I've ever heard, the G11 wuold have been issued to a part of the "Panzergrenadier"- "Jäger"- and "Fallschirmjäger"-troops.
Engineers, MP, artillery and all supporting branches would have been issued the G41. I allways understood it the way, that even the motar-guys in the infantry branch were to be equipped with the G41!
I am not certain, how the amored troops (tanks and recce) would have been equipped. IRL they had 9mm weapons as PDW (Pistols and Uzis). The secondary MGs were off course MG3 in 7,62 NATO. From my point of view it it very likely that the majority of them would still use these. In mixed batallions (tanks and "Panzergrenadiere") I can see the G11, because of the supply chains, but still this is my guess.

As Raellus said, I am of the more or less same oponion: The G41 would have been produced in higher amounts.

Later in the war, the G11 is of no big use, because of the problems in producing the ammo.

Although this would not be the official policy or standard, I can see German units trying to get hands on weapons of foreign countries. This is especially true for the SAW (M249/Minimi). All German units used the MG3, which is for itself a very convincing and reliable MG. But it is heavy and cumbersome. German units, working side by side with US forces, would try to trade some of the SAWs in.
Reason: The RPKs are the only "light" MGs in German service. And these would only be in service with former Eastgerman units. Or in units, that had scrounged them from defeated enemies. In the tactical role, the SAW was intended for, there was no similar weapon in German inventories!

The G41 makes more sense than anything else. Just because of the high number, that must have been produced, and because of the use of the same ammo and mags (Just the way 95th Rifleman said som posts above!).

[Legbreaker]

I think what is being ignored here is the German requirements issued which resulted in the G11, which it met, and exceeded so well.
Forget for a moment what we all know about T2K history. Put yourself in the position of the decision makers in the early to mid 90's, and even more so in the position of those who knew the offensive against Poland was coming. The G11 with it's MUCH greater ammo carrying capability (both magazine and rounds per man), not to mention greater accuracy (due to a number of reasons, not least it's rapid burst speed), is the MUCH better weapon than the G41.
Germany could not rely on Nato to support it's move eastward - take Italy and France as examples of what may have happened (especially the latter since Italy had that Greek alliance thing going). Therefore given they had absolutely no guarantee anyone would support their aggressive act, they HAD to rely solely on their own inherent strength to win. Every possible advantage had to be taken without regard to the ammunition their apparent allies were using.
5.56mm vs 4.7cls simply doesn't come into it until Germany were on the ropes and had to call for Nato assistance in late 1996. To claim otherwise to to essentially say the Germans planed to fail right from the beginning.

Yes, the G41 was produced for the supporting units, BUT that was only because the G11 in comparison was MUCH more expensive. It also allowed ammunition factories to focus on producing 4.7cls for the more effective front line units who desperately needed resupply much more often than clerks, MPs, truck drivers, aircraft mechanics, medics and so forth. Any 5.56mm (along with other calibres such as 7.62 and 9mmP) could be sourced from aboard if decades old stores did not suffice.

Until the 90's, Germany had hardly any 5.56mm weapons, therefore they really didn't need any stockpiles (the US, Britain, etc on the other hand, all Nato members and not to be relied upon due to German aggression). Given that fact, isn't it sensible they'd focus squarely on producing the calibre their combat troops needed most, over and above that used by supporting units? Given that 4.7cls production HAD to be greater (prior to the destruction of the factories) doesn't it make MUCH more sense for the G11 to take precedence over the G41?

Note that the above all presumes a V1.0 timeline rather than 2.x. In 2.x, it's likely events would have mirrored reality quite closely with the G11 only available in extremely limited numbers, the G41 ditched almost entirely, and the G3 soldiering onward for a few more years as the standard infantry rifle.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by B.T.

Although this would not be the official policy or standard, I can see German units trying to get hands on weapons of foreign countries. This is especially true for the SAW (M249/Minimi). All German units used the MG3, which is for itself a very convincing and reliable MG. But it is heavy and cumbersome. German units, working side by side with US forces, would try to trade some of the SAWs in.
Reason: The RPKs are the only "light" MGs in German service. And these would only be in service with former Eastgerman units. Or in units, that had scrounged them from defeated enemies. In the tactical role, the SAW was intended for, there was no similar weapon in German inventories!

Thanks for the support, BT.

Here's a thought for you all based on the points raised by BT in the above excerpt:

Do you think the Twilight timeline would have sped up the development and production of the German army's current SAW, the H&K MG43? Or, as an alternative, do you think the Germans would have acquired FN Minimis? I've seen references to a long-barrelled LSW version of the G11 but I don't know if it was really ever seriously considered for large-scale production. I think it's innability to take belted ammo would be a serious weakness. Also, I don't know how easily one could change a barrel on the G11.

Bottom line, should the MG43 take part in the Twilight War? If not, what would the [West] German army have done for an LSW/SAW?

[Legbreaker]

The MG43 simply would not exist as it was not developed until the late 90's.
It's worth noting that a number of support weapons, including the RPK series, do not have changeable barrels. Therefore, it's possible the LMG11 http://guns.wikia.com/wiki/H%26K_LMG11 would have seen production. With it's 300 round internal magazine, and light support role (i.e. not intended for sustained fire), the lack of a belt feed is in my view (as an ex machinegunner) is a plus, not a negative.
Belts are a pain in the rear when moving about the battlefield. A 300 round belt of 7.62 is about 3 metres long, 5.56 about 2 metres give or take. Yes there are various "magazines" to hold belts, but these are still limited in size (the FN Minimi for example has one of the largest at 200 rounds).
Personally, I'd much rather change a mag every five minutes than haul a belt around.

However, in a defensive position or mounted on a vehicle where the ammunition doesn't need to be hauled around, a belt fed weapon is hands down superior.

[B.T.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I think what is being ignored here is the German requirements issued which resulted in the G11, which it met, and exceeded so well.
Forget for a moment what we all know about T2K history. Put yourself in the position of the decision makers in the early to mid 90's, and even more so in the position of those who knew the offensive against Poland was coming. The G11 with it's MUCH greater ammo carrying capability (both magazine and rounds per man), not to mention greater accuracy (due to a number of reasons, not least it's rapid burst speed), is the MUCH better weapon than the G41.

I can clearly remember, that during the time of my service with the Bundeswehr, there were these discussions about the problem of ammo and mags not being interchangeble with the weapons of our allies. Issue of a 5.56 weapon with STANAG mags would solve this problem. This is one more argument for the G41.
If we forget about the T2K history, there is no sense in Germany invading Poland. IRL this had never happened. But the G11 and G41 were (IRL!!!) under developement/production.

T2K is escapist entertainment. If I want to play the game, I have to accept the background - more or less. And if this background says, Germany invaded Poland and the standard-issue-weapon was the G11, I take this part of the background, allthough this is - from my personal point of view - utter rubbish! The few (influential) deperado-politicians, hardcore-rightwing-weirdos and anti-eastern-Bloc lobbyists would certainly not be in a position to have such an important influence on the official politics of the FRG! More likely the majority of the decision-makers would have been in a line to issue a newer type of weapon (the G11 in this case), that in some foreseeable future may even be sold to the Western allies.

The G11 LMG, that you talk about, was under evaluation, but I haven't heard about any plans to really field it. But, Leg, you are right: It has some serious advantages and therefore it might have been fielded on a very thin base.

I do not see the newer HK MG43. IRL the G36 was intended to be used as a LMG. In that role it was to be outfitted with a bipod and a 100-rd-drum as mag. The situation in A'stan taught the German forces, that a real LMG was a better option.

In the T2K universe I dont think, the Belgians would have sold the SAW to Germany. Maybe on a very limited scale (for evaluation purposes), but not on a large scale - Belgium was soon occupied by France and therefore I don't see larger sales.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by B.T.

Although this would not be the official policy or standard, I can see German units trying to get hands on weapons of foreign countries. This is especially true for the SAW (M249/Minimi). All German units used the MG3, which is for itself a very convincing and reliable MG. But it is heavy and cumbersome. German units, working side by side with US forces, would try to trade some of the SAWs in.
Reason: The RPKs are the only "light" MGs in German service. And these would only be in service with former Eastgerman units. Or in units, that had scrounged them from defeated enemies. In the tactical role, the SAW was intended for, there was no similar weapon in German inventories!

I think if the Germans had issued the G11 for front line troops they would have also produced and issued the 4.7mm LSW that I have photos and diagrams of. IRL it didn't get past the prototype stage but it was an awesome weapon. A couple of hundred rounds in a cassette which was also the removable buttstock for the weapon. Crazy good accuracy and high ROF. I'll try to dig out the book I have which contains photos and try to scan them.

Edit: Just read Rae's last post -

Originally Posted by Raellus

Do you think the Twilight timeline would have sped up the development and production of the German army's current SAW, the H&K MG43? Or, as an alternative, do you think the Germans would have acquired FN Minimis? I've seen references to a long-barrelled LSW version of the G11 but I don't know if it was really ever seriously considered for large-scale production. I think it's innability to take belted ammo would be a serious weakness. Also, I don't know how easily one could change a barrel on the G11.

That's exactly the weapon I was talking about.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

No, just doesn't make sense given that the G11 was to be the main service rifle for the Germans. The G41 just doesn't meet the design criteria the Germans issued which resulted in the G11.
If anything, it's the G11 which would have ramped up production rather than the G41. The G41 was really just a cheaper stopgap to issue to supporting troops and undoubtably would have been replaced in time by the G11 (say 10-15 years down the track when their was sufficient numbers/newer improved versions of the G11 issued to the combat troops).

.

Wouldn't be the first time that a stopgap became standard issue, or the last.

[Legbreaker]

Found this AMAZING collection while searching around for a graphical comparison of the 7.62L and 14.5 mm rounds.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankammo.html

[Raellus]

We've discussed the UK's standard service rifle in the Twilight War and opinion is all over the board. Would it be the product-improved L85A2 (or would H&K have been too busy arming the newly unified German military to help fix the problematic SA80A1), the old but reliable SLR, a locally manufactured AR-18, or a combination of all three?

I'd like to add another weapon to the mix. I came across this while thumbing through a new book that my wife bought me for Christmas. It's a prototype weapon from the late '70s called the Stirling Light Auto Rifle. It's on pages 306-307 of DK's Gun, A Visual History. I can't find anything about it online. It looks like it's made of stamped parts. It's 5.56mm and has a folding stock. It looks a bit like the Armalite AR-18 but not quite.

[Sith]

Is this the rifle you are looking for?

[Raellus]

Yes, I believe that it is. Thanks. The pic I saw looks like a more advanced-stage prototype- it's a little cleaner and more finished looking. But yes, that's it.

[Sanjuro]

would H&K have been too busy arming the newly unified German military to help fix the problematic SA80A1

For much of the 90s H&K was owned by BAe; this might have skewed their work more towards serving UK contracts. How this ownership fits into a T2k world is anyone's guess!

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Yes, I believe that it is. Thanks. The pic I saw looks like a more advanced-stage prototype- it's a little cleaner and more finished looking. But yes, that's it.

Looks like the love child of an AR-18 and a cinder block. Man that is a pig ugly piece.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Raellus

... a prototype weapon from the late '70s called the Stirling Light Auto Rifle. It's on pages 306-307 of DK's Gun, A Visual History. I can't find anything about it online. It looks like it's made of stamped parts. It's 5.56mm and has a folding stock. It looks a bit like the Armalite AR-18 but not quite.

Although known earlier as the Sterling Light Auto Rifle, the more common name is SAR (for Sterling Assault Rifle). Sterling Armaments had a contract to manufacture the AR-18 but it didn't prove financial. They designed the SAR with input from their experience with the AR-18 and went on to design the SAR-87 with help from Singapore.

Sterling didn't achieve much success with the SAR or SAR-87 even though they offered it in a few configurations including the ability to change to 9x19mm. The rights were sold on to Chartered Industries of Singapore (CIS, later to become ST Kinetics after being bought out by ST Engineering) where it influenced the Singaporean SAR-80 rifle.
Sterling Armaments went bankrupt in 1988 and were bought up by BAe.

Other links
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315.../1700/1792.htm
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/...Rifle&offset=0 Has an image with the alternate configuration but image is tiny

[Raellus]

That's great info, SSC. Thanks.

I suppose one could tweak their T2KU a little to allow UK manufacture of an improved SAR, if the SA80A1 wasn't working out and they didn't think BAE/H&K could realistically fix all of them in a timely fashion (especially with Germany being preoccupied with reunification and plans to boot the Soviets out of Poland). BAE could resurrect the Sterling plans to provide a quicker fix. This is a stretch, but it would be interesting to play with how UK units would be armed in the late Twilght War (a mix of SA80A1s, L85A2s, SLRs, Sterling SMGs, SARs, and possibly AR-18s).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You're welcome
The only other interesting bit of info I can add is that apparently no more than 100 SAR-87 rifles were made before Sterling shut down and although BAe (who owned Royal Ordnance by that time) got all the company goods, rights, IP etc. etc., the design rights for the SAR had already been sold to the Singaporeans.

Originally Posted by Raellus

That's great info, SSC. Thanks.

I suppose one could tweak their T2KU a little to allow UK manufacture of an improved SAR, if the SA80A1 wasn't working out and they didn't think BAE/H&K could realistically fix all of them in a timely fashion (especially with Germany being preoccupied with reunification and plans to boot the Soviets out of Poland). BAE could resurrect the Sterling plans to provide a quicker fix. This is a stretch, but it would be interesting to play with how UK units would be armed in the late Twilght War (a mix of SA80A1s, L85A2s, SLRs, Sterling SMGs, SARs, and possibly AR-18s).

[Draq]

Originally Posted by Raellus

We've discussed the UK's standard service rifle in the Twilight War and opinion is all over the board. Would it be the product-improved L85A2 (or would H&K have been too busy arming the newly unified German military to help fix the problematic SA80A1), the old but reliable SLR, a locally manufactured AR-18, or a combination of all three?

I think Enfield would've put some priority to fixing the l85, given the urgency of war, but definitely some mix of l85, SLR(fal), and ar-18. Same with most of the other major players. Germany: hk41, g3, and seldom few g11 and g36. Russia: ak47 & 74, sks, maybe a few svt40 and mosins. Us: m16/m4, m14, and I substitute a majority of the EZs with ar-18. And a proliferation of Robinson m96 for certain marine and special forces purposes.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Draq

I think Enfield would've put some priority to fixing the l85, given the urgency of war, but definitely some mix of l85, SLR(fal), and ar-18. Same with most of the other major players. Germany: hk41, g3, and seldom few g11 and g36. Russia: ak47 & 74, sks, maybe a few svt40 and mosins. Us: m16/m4, m14, and I substitute a majority of the EZs with ar-18. And a proliferation of Robinson m96 for certain marine and special forces purposes.

Great Britain:

I would see the British falling back to their L1A1s. They still had huge stockpiles of these rifles and ammo and magazines are no problem. I think the British would also re-issue Sterling SMGs for Home Guard and rear echelon troops. The British had thousands of Sterlings which had been replaced by the IW tucked away in their arsenals. I believe they would dust them off and re-issue them as quickly as possible. The Sterling really was a pretty good SMG with a cyclic rate of 550 rpm, a compact size (for tankers and truckers), a weight of about 2.5kg empty and a single shot capability. as long as engagements are limited to around 100 meters, it could "fill in the gaps" between the IW and the L1A1.

Germany:

Germany still had HUGE quantities of both G3s and AKs to draw on. In my variation of the V2.2 timeline, Germany gives most of its "Pact" equipment to the pro-West Polish government in order to combat the Russian-backed rebels who plunged Poland into a civil war (triggering the Twilight War). The Germans provided "elite units" with the G36 and everyone else got a mix of G33s, G41s, and G3s (based on existing stocks in inventory- I roll a 1D10.. on a 1 you get a G36, 2 is a G41A1, 3-4 is a G33/G41 and 5+ is a G3). As hard as it is to believe, it costs 50% MORE to produce a G41A1 than a G36 (mainly due to machining costs v. injection molding costs). This means Germany would produce G36s in preference to other models. Rear echelon troops would use surplus Uzis and either the Walther MPL/MPK or the H&K MP-5 series submachineguns (both VERY expensive to manufacture). On a side note here, the H&K UMP can be produced for about 60% of the cost of an MP-5. The UMP was designed in the 90's but not produced for many years. The Twilight War could trigger the manufacture of the UMP.

The US:

The US was caught in the middle of transitioning to the M4. The elite units (Air Assault, Airborne, and Ranger units) would have the M4. Other frontline units would have the M16A2 and newly formed units would have the M16A1 pulled from "mothballs." The M3 grease gun, MP-5, Colt 9mmP subgun, UZI, and Carl Gustaff M36 subguns were all available for issue to stateside or rear area troops. The Mini-14 could have been pressed into service in large numbers as it was allowed to be manufactured during the '94 Assault Weapons Ban (making semi-auto versions available in larger quantities... at least until Mexico rolls into Arizona). There would be only limited quantities of other weapons available until manufacturers get assembly lines (shuttered due to the ban) up and running.

Designated Marksman's Rifles:

The Marines were pulling M14's out of mothballs in the 90's to make Designated Marksman's rifles using Leupold MK4 Day Scopes (3.5-10 X 40mm) and Harris Bipods. the M39 Designated Marksman's Rifle could make an appearance in the late 90's. This would be supplemented by 5.56mmN DMRs like MK12 SPR. The MK12 went through several "mods" before being standardized. Early MK12's start as an M16A1 lower (early models keep the full auto selector while later models used match-grade semi-auto triggers) with a match grade flat-top upper chambered for M855, not M193 ammo. The MK12 is topped with either a Leupold MK3 or a NightForce NX 2.5-10 X 36mm scope. The Marines even mounted ACOGs (both the 3.5X and 4X models) on the carrying handles of M16A2s.
The Army followed suit in 2003 with the M14 EBR (using the same optic). The Army also "dusted off" M21 Sniper Rifles and issued them as DMRs to elite units. Many of these early issues still had the Redfield Leatherwood ARM 3-9 X 42mm Scopes from the Vietnam War era. Those optics still had issues with losing zero and blurring at magnifications above 6 or 7 power. The Army would replace them with Leupold MK4 3.5-10 X 40mm scopes (just like in real life). the Army also issued a version of the MK12 SPR. It is almost identical to the navy version.

The Warsaw Pact:

Most First-Line Pact units would have the more accurate and easier shooting AK-74 in inventory. Reserve units would also have AK-74s as well. Mobilization Only units would have 7.62mm X 39mm AKMs and some Pact countries (like Bulgaria & Romania) would still be using belt fed RPDs as SAWs. The final waves would most likely be armed with the SKS battle rifle and RPDs. In fact, several Eastern European countries issued the SKS to police units as well.
The SKS gets a bad rap compared to the AK. It is actually EASIER for poorly trained troops to use than an AK. Here's why.

- The SKS has a safety that can be manipulated by the firing hand WITHOUT taking it off the weapon. An SKS shooter will engage an enemy from safe MUCH FASTER than an AK shooter.

- The SKS has a last round bolt hold open and its open top design lets the shooter SEE he is out. The AK user must manipulate the bolt to ensure that he hasn't had a stoppage instead.

-The SKS reload is a bit faster for a novice shooter. The AK shooter must rock in a magazine and then reach under or over the rifle to rack the bolt to chamber a round ALL WITH THE WEAK HAND.
The SKS shooter holds the weapon to his shoulder in a firing position with his weak hand and grabs a stripper clip with his STRONG hand. He then seats the clip in the guide on the bolt face and pushes down on the bullets. He then sweeps his firing hand (with the empty stripper clip between his thumb and trigger finger) back and down (the bolt closes AUTOMATICLY as the clip is swept away) to the trigger (a very short trip) to resume firing. A typical shooter can reload an AK in about 4 seconds. That same shooter can reload an SKS in 3 seconds. The SKS is faster.


These are the most common versions of weapons that would be READILY available in large numbers for the troops.

[WallShadow]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

<SNIP>

The Warsaw Pact:

Most First-Line Pact units would have the more accurate and easier shooting AK-74 in inventory. Reserve units would also have AK-74s as well. Mobilization Only units would have 7.62mm X 39mm AKMs and some Pact countries (like Bulgaria & Romania) would still be using belt fed RPDs as SAWs. The final waves would most likely be armed with the SKS battle rifle and RPDs. In fact, several Eastern European countries issued the SKS to police units as well.
The SKS gets a bad rap compared to the AK. It is actually EASIER for poorly trained troops to use than an AK. Here's why.

- The SKS has a safety that can be manipulated by the firing hand WITHOUT taking it off the weapon. An SKS shooter will engage an enemy from safe MUCH FASTER than an AK shooter.

- The SKS has a last round bolt hold open and its open top design lets the shooter SEE he is out. The AK user must manipulate the bolt to ensure that he hasn't had a stoppage instead.

-The SKS reload is a bit faster for a novice shooter. The AK shooter must rock in a magazine and then reach under or over the rifle to rack the bolt to chamber a round ALL WITH THE WEAK HAND.
The SKS shooter holds the weapon to his shoulder in a firing position with his weak hand and grabs a stripper clip with his STRONG hand. He then seats the clip in the guide on the bolt face and pushes down on the bullets. He then sweeps his firing hand (with the empty stripper clip between his thumb and trigger finger) back and down (the bolt closes AUTOMATICLY as the clip is swept away) to the trigger (a very short trip) to resume firing. A typical shooter can reload an AK in about 4 seconds. That same shooter can reload an SKS in 3 seconds. The SKS is faster.


These are the most common versions of weapons that would be READILY available in large numbers for the troops.

So I take it the SKS that had been converted to the AK mag magazine adapter would suffer some or all of the flaws of the AK itself?