Weapons Timelines for the Twilight War

[Mohoender]

First to answer something else. Yes the French would have ample supply of supplies especially from Belgium: FN FAL, Scorpion, Spartan, Browning HP... It would indeed be a good idea for them to supply the Scots. Moreover, Liege is now part of France and they control the FN. By the way they, are also controlling a cadillac cage and a general dynamic plants. All are around Liege (at least they were in the 1980's-1990's) and they will be a great help for them.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Why would the French be shipping arms over to Scotland anyway? What's in it for them?

They would do that for a simple reason: to prevent the UK from ever fully recover. T2K France would definitely be better off with England more than with UK. France is controlling Waterloo and that is British Land. France is controlling Belgian lands and Anvers which are long time allies for UK. France is controlling southern Netherlands and the Dutch Queen is in England. France is also controlling a fair part of Germany.

Just to note:
UK opposed the French in 1830 during the Belgian Revolution. The King of Belgium is a Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha because of the British who refused to see a Bourbon on the throne of Belgium.

UK refused to support the French in 1870 because Bismarck could provide a letter from Napoleon III where the Emperor was hopping to receive the control of Belgium in return for his neutrality in the events that were conducting to the German unification.

UK fought essentialy on the Ypres during WW1, providing full support to Belgium.

UK was more involved in Belgium than anywhere else in 1940.

It is simply impossible to imagine that a recovering UK accepts for very long the situation depicted in T2K and France if it was to retain its position has every interest in weakening UK. Moreover, if UK ever recover I doubt that Belgium remain allied to France. The Belgian would seek independence again and support from HMG.

France on the other hand has every interest to retain the land it controls:
- heavy industries in the Meuse Valley
- Coal/Iron mines in Belgium and Saarland (closed nowadays but probably exploited again in T2K).
- Important agriculture in Belgium
- At least, a working port oppening on the North Sea (Ostende). I consider Anvers to be nuked but who knows. That means a plausible control of part of the oil rigs in the North Sea and the maintaining of much needed trade. Don't forget that most french harbors on the Atlantic had been nuked.
- Banking system and gold reserve for Luxemburg.
- An easily defended and traveled border on the Rhine River. With full control of the Rhone and Rhine Rivers France controls the only open highway linking the Mediterranean and the North Sea (Rhine-Rhone canal). By the way it also controls an easy access to the East and the Ploesti area. As far as I know the Rhine and the Danube are connected (Rhine-Main-Danube canal).
- Belgium is the country of Europe that has the most nuclear powerplant/capita outside of France.

That's only part, I think of the few reason for France to supply not only the Scots but also the Wales, the Cornwall and Eire. However, the idea of France planning an invasion of Great Britain is irrealistic and would conduct to a second one hundred years war.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

UK was more involved in Belgium than anywhere else in 1940.

I understand that was mainly because it was felt the French could hold further inland - they did have that wacking great Magniot line.
Of course I could be wrong....

Yes, I can see the French would be interested in keeping other nations off balance, however I would have thought that the situation shown in the Survivors Guide to the UK is far worse than the French could ever hope for. Also, Scotland is a very long way from where HM Government even pretends to control, so supporting the Scots against the Brits just doesn't feel right to me.

[pmulcahy11b]

I don't remember offhand, did the French take Alsace-Lorraine? That's been a bone of contention between France and Germany since the Industrial Revolution; it's full of coal.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Don't forget that Scotland and France have been allies dating back to 1295 and significantly for the French, the Scots supported Jeanne d'Arc (i.e. Joan of Arc) long considered a national heroine and Catholic saint. In the eyes of many French people, she was murdered by the English.
This alliance wasn't just diplomatic/military (specifically to support each other against the English) either as the Scots had a long commercial partnership with France particularly for French wines and most especially claret to the point that the Scots smuggled claret from France in defiance of English taxation up until some time in the 1700s.
Scots were even allowed French citizenship for some time that was only canceled as recently as the early 1900s (can't recall when but it was before WW1)

[Legbreaker]

But all that history is over a hundred years or more in the past. Does it really apply to 2000?
A lot can change in a few short years - take Germany and Britain for example. Enemies in 1945, allies a few short years later.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The British and the French have been allies for nearly 100 years now and there is still lingering dislike of the English by the French and the French by the English, it takes a European (or anyone from the Middle East) to really keep a feud alive!
Albanians still have blood feuds that date back hundreds of years, the Irish can remember who killed who 300 years ago, the French still remember the time when the US and the USSR started getting more friendly in the 1960s (and the US rescinded their "We will use nukes against the USSR if they invade the West" policy) and everyone in Europe held their breath when the two Germany's united wondering if the spectre of the old Germany would arise.

For us here in Australia it's a little bewildering, why the hell would you bother to keep such feuding going long after the people originally involved have been dead and buried? For me it makes little sense but for some in Europe it seems to be just the way things are done

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The British and the French have been allies for nearly 100 years now and there is still lingering dislike of the English by the French and the French by the English, it takes a European (or anyone from the Middle East) to really keep a feud alive!

And the same type of feud is still going on between Johnny Rebs and Yankees or Between US and Mexico. Often, it's kind of Folklore for most people at least (I don't know for Mexico/US).

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The British and the French have been allies for nearly 100 years now and there is still lingering dislike of the English by the French and the French by the English, it takes a European (or anyone from the Middle East) to really keep a feud alive!

And lets not even add last weeks football result to an Irish/French feud!!!!

Mo - would you agree it was a handball?

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

But all that history is over a hundred years or more in the past. Does it really apply to 2000?
A lot can change in a few short years - take Germany and Britain for example. Enemies in 1945, allies a few short years later.

Agree but deprive UK of the scots and you deprive it of its bravest soldiers.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I don't remember offhand, did the French take Alsace-Lorraine? That's been a bone of contention between France and Germany since the Industrial Revolution; it's full of coal.

Yes they did and that was the main reason for France starting WW1 (along England, Germany and Austria). between 1870-1914, two-three generations had been raised in hatred of the Germans by the French school teachers. Coal is in Lorraine and many people from that region have strong ties with French-speaking Belgium.

To note: people from Alsace were fighting in the German army during WW1, and several enlisted again in the Wermacht during WW2. Most (if not all) concentration camps located in France were built in that region.
On the other hand, the only French commando unit to land during D-day was also from that region (Commando Kieffer).

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Yes they did and that was the main reason for France starting WW1 (along England, Germany and Austria). between 1870-1914, two-three generations had been raised in hatred of the Germans by the French school teachers. Coal is in Lorraine and many people from that region have strong ties with French-speaking Belgium.

To note: people from Alsace were fighting in the German army during WW1, and several enlisted again in the Wermacht during WW2. Most (if not all) concentration camps located in France were built in that region.
On the other hand, the only French commando unit to land during D-day was also from that region (Commando Kieffer).

What I actually meant was, did the French take Alsace-Lorraine in the Twilight War?

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

What I actually meant was, did the French take Alsace-Lorraine in the Twilight War?

Sorry didn't got it and for a simple reason. They can't take it as they already have what was Alsace-Lorraine a century ago. They hold it yes and with no doubt. However, you won't find the Dead Zone in Alsace and in Alsace the French border should remain on the Rhine with little if any no-man's land. Alsace and Lorraine have remained part of France since 1919 and comprise three departments: Lorraine, Bas-Rhin et Haut-Rhin. Until last year, it remained also the most important military region for France. I think that until 2008 about one-third of the French military was stationned there.

What they take in T2K is Saarland and you can expect it to be the sole regularly occupied region of Germany (again not part of the Dead Zone). Germans from this region are very likely to accept French rule.

[Ironside]

Thinking about weapon development timetables, I was wondering if the UK Challenger 2 would be built in the V.1 history. As far as I know the decision to replace Challenger 1 seems to have been the result of the CAT 87 Gunnery trophy where the Challenger 1 came a poor last. Both the German Leopard 2 and the US Abrams M1A1 were examined for possible manufacture under licence, but in the end the UK government decided to install a new turret on the Challenger 1 chassis.

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.

I am biased towards the Abrams as I like it personally, but I was wondering what were the opinions of you guys?

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I understand that was mainly because it was felt the French could hold further inland - they did have that wacking great Magniot line.
Of course I could be wrong....

Not entirely for sure. The French even agreed with the British upon the idea of defending Belgium (the most stupid strategic decision of the time IMO). However, the British did send Hurricanes and Battles to Belgium in an attempt to modernize the poorly equipped Belgian air force (CR-42 Falco were their best fighters). They provided quite some air cover. More importantly, they informed the Belgian (officers in the field) of their intention to evacuate at Dunkirk, brought many Belgian along with them (mostly officers again and that created a strong resentment among troopers). Then, these officers were evacuated before the French at Dunkirk and they were incorporated with ease among the British army while distrust for the French continued.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Yes, I can see the French would be interested in keeping other nations off balance, however I would have thought that the situation shown in the Survivors Guide to the UK is far worse than the French could ever hope for. Also, Scotland is a very long way from where HM Government even pretends to control, so supporting the Scots against the Brits just doesn't feel right to me.

I agree with you and (IMO) support for the scots would be only part of this. That's why I mentioned Wales and the Cornwall. Eire would be an entirely different matter as Eire has been collaborating actively with the British Army against IRA (however, it is stated somewhere that Eire remains involved in limited foreign trade. With whom if not Scotland, Wales and France). Nevertheless, the longer HMG remain engaged in England, the better for the French. For all the reasons I pointed out but also because it would prevent HMG from adequately supplying Flemish resistance movement. As long as turmoil remains, France is sure to retain support from the French-speaking Belgian (may be Brusselers as well) but you can be sure that it will be strongly opposed by the Flemish. There are as many differences between a Belgian and a French than between an American and a British.