Worldwide weapony post-T2K

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

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?

The Soviets play for the long term. If France escapes significant nuking, then France will become a dominant power on the Continent. While a dominant France is better than a dominant Germany, dominant France isn't much better. Everything Mo has been writing is perfect justification for knocking France down to size. It's just not in the best interests of the Soviets to leave France functional. Once the Anglo-Americans and the Soviets have had their surgical strategic exchange, de Gaulle's equation about tearing off an arm loses its logic. By the end of 1997, there aren't any targets left in the USSR that are the equivalent of Paris, Brest, etc. The Soviets have more to lose by leaving France relatively intact than they do by knocking France into the mud with everyone else.

None of the arguments being made here about France's arms industry, potential to support NATO, potential to be a post-War major power, etc. will have escaped the Soviets. Every argument made for France's capabilities is an argument in favor of destroying Paris, Brest, major air bases, and throwing in some EMP to knock out the French nuclear power plants. Without oil and without electricity, France's arms industry is going to look a lot like everybody's else's.

The francophiles among us should look on the situation as evidence of standing. France is an important Western power. Therefore, France gets pounded along with everybody else because the Soviets won't tolerate any Western power standing head-and-shoulders above the rest in the aftermath just for the sake of respecting neutrality. The French nuclear arsenal might ensure that the Soviets don't hit France as hard as they hit Canada; but the French aren't going to go overboard in retaliatory strikes, either, since the Soviet nuclear capability vastly overmatches France's nuclear capability.


Webstral

[Mohoender]

I entirely agree with Webstral and the only reason I don't go that way is because I don't feel like modifying the game in this direction.

However, Webstral, you still overlooked one thing. At the time, the french communist party is still strong and it takes order directly from Moscow. In a T2K setting, the French government had just switched to a coalition composed by communist and socialist.

In the 1980's relations between France and USSR had been strained by the relations France maintained with NATO. France walking away from NATO could very well warm up the relations with Moscow. Then, what you say about the soviets equally apply to NATO/US (and don't tell me that US doesn't play long term ). Therefore, the nuking of France might equally be the doing of US. US government attitude with Iraq tends to convince me of that. My take anyway.

[Legbreaker]

Web, you summed it up beautifully!

Originally Posted by Mohoender

In a T2K setting, the French government had just switched to a coalition composed by communist and socialist.

...until the next election....
Nothing lasts forever, particularly in politics. In time, the Communists and Socialists will loose power and France will become a threat. Although there are some friendly faces on staff at the time, the Soviets are unlikely to think twice about dropping some hurt on the French, just to keep things even.

And with the Com/Soc alliance in power, I can't see the USA, UK or Germany holding back either, especially Germany when the French annex Belgium, parts of Holland and step over the Rhine. The Germans may not have much left in the arsenal by then though.

It's a scenario ripe for nukes with all sides blaming the other for their use and nobody spending more than a few minutes discussing why they shouldn't do it.

[Mohoender]

I'm not discussing anyones point as I think that all could perfectly fit. However, here is what I think could have happen with France.

In 1981, François Mitterand became president and established a coalition with the French Communist Party (at the time the communist party had 44 seats in the parliament). In 1988, the left had won its second election but the communists had lost influence, gaining only 25 seats.

However, with the revival and reinforcement of communsit rule in the Soviet Union itself, the French communist party was revived again. Receiving a fair amount of funding from Moscow it could overcome the financial difficulties it faced in the late 1980's while the politburo was taken over by a new generation. As a result, by 1993, the French communist party had regained part of its previous popularity and was increasingly regarded as a valid option by the French working class. When the legislative election came, while the left was defeated, the communist had gain a lot of influence getting 70 seats while the socialists had won only 57.

During the presidential election of 1995, the PCF widely supported the socialist candidate, Lionel Jospin who won by a small margin over Jacques Chirac. Then, in the legislative election called by Jospin following his election as president, the left gained a majority of the seats again (the socialists having 207 seats, the ecologists 18 and the communists 96). As a result, the PCF represented a force to count with and it was given no less than 5 ministers (including finance and foreign relations) and 8 secretary of states to the PCF.

That same year, as the war had started between China and USSR, the PCF had expressed full support to the PCUS while the French government offcially declared neutrality in the ongoing war.

By the end of 1995, a majority of the French intelligentsia (writer, phylosphers, movie directors, actors...) had also express support to the Soviets who are described as the main opposition to the "Peril Jaune" (Yellow Threat), a notion that had long been vivid in France. Then, the PCF and PCI issued what is now known as the "Call for Resistance". Immediately following this, communists from all over the world gathered into Moscow where they are organized into 4 International Brigades (50% of the volunteers are French and 20% Italian). The French government tried to oppose this but most volunteers fly to Moscow from Italy and Switzerland. By mid-1996, US is widely critisized among some French circles for its increasingly pro-chinese position.

When the war started between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the French President renouncing his prerogative, turned to the parliament who voted by 70% against the war (many French deputies of the right and far right joining with the left, stating that this war was, again, an expression of German Imperialism). Again, France declares neutrality, asks its NATO partners to return to their starting point and, finally, withdraws from NATO.

This marks the starting point of a long lasting discussion among NATO. While the other countries who had left the alliance are not seen as serious threat France poses a serious problem and it is widely described as a traitorous country. The problem increases when several NATO-align commercial ships seeking refuge in French harbors are impounded while their crews are taken into custody (In fact, after two months of negociation, ships and crews are allowed to leave but they are empty). London insists about the need of a strike on French military ports but this is opposed by Washington (especially as the French are collaborating in the Middle East). Nevertheless, new tensions arise as time goes by and more ships are impounded (This time, only crews are returned).

Therefore, when the nukes start to fall, Germany, Netherland and UK are convinced that the French might help the Soviets. They also argue that, whatever France position, France is a threat onto itself. Finally, they point out that NATO can't take the risk of having France following the path of Italy. At last, they convinced US and NATO to hit a number of targets located essentially on France Atlantic Coast. Nevertheless, these strikes are short live as France answers quickly, destroying a number of targets clearly vital to NATO.

This is just some rough ideas based on a few historical facts. When Italy left its alliance with Germany in WW1, it declared war to the Central Powers. When France capitulated in 1940, UK turned on it at Mers-el-Kebir, Dakar but also Madagascar. When US troops landed in North Africa French troops opened fire (unlike what had been expected by Free France). Resistance was short lived but often bitter. French troops also resisted the British in Syria. By 1940, several french ships (including the aircraft carrier Bearn) were interned in Matinique upon the insitance of US (a neutral nation at the time).

I'm not saying that the Soviet targetting of France is a wrong idea, I'm just saying that it is no better than the NATO option (That's war and France turned on its allies). In fact, France is more a threat to NATO than to WP (as seen in the game scenario itself).

[B.T.]

Very nice ...

Mo, is this international brigade (pro-communist volunteers that head for Moscow and join the soviet forces) your idea or is this brigade mentioned somewhere in canon?

I think this is a very cool idea and if such a unit exists in T2k, I'd like to let my gamers have an encounter with these. A really brilliant idea, IMHO.

[Mohoender]

No clue, I had just been rereeding some writings by Hemingway and I went through a book about the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939.

By the way, among French volunteers, you'll find a fair proportion of men from Spanish descent.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

However, Webstral, you still overlooked one thing. At the time, the french communist party is still strong and it takes order directly from Moscow. In a T2K setting, the French government had just switched to a coalition composed by communist and socialist.

As Leg points out, the results of the latest election are a temporary phenomenon. Asking the Soviets to base their geopolitical decisions with repercussions extending over a generation or more on the outcome of the latest election in a Western country is asking them to go to Vegas with the rent money.

Originally Posted by Mohoender

In the 1980's relations between France and USSR had been strained by the relations France maintained with NATO. France walking away from NATO could very well warm up the relations with Moscow. Then, what you say about the soviets equally apply to NATO/US (and don't tell me that US doesn't play long term ). Therefore, the nuking of France might equally be the doing of US. US government attitude with Iraq tends to convince me of that. My take anyway.

I agree that if the Soviets don't hit France, the US will. One could even imagine a situation in which the Soviets nuke Mexico and blame it on the US, while the US nukes France and blames the USSR. In any event, France is too powerful to allow a temporary neutrality to keep her on the sidelines while global civilization hangs in the balance.


Webstral

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Webstral

As Leg points out, the results of the latest election are a temporary phenomenon. Asking the Soviets to base their geopolitical decisions with repercussions extending over a generation or more on the outcome of the latest election in a Western country is asking them to go to Vegas with the rent money.

What they did in no less than 8 occasions on the outcome of WW2 and with great success : Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Czecoslovakia, Finland, Hungary, Poland,and Roumania. Sometimes, the red army was a great help, at other times it didn't have to intervene. Without the marshall plan they would have been successfull on the eight bet instead of the six they got.

I agree that the situation isn't the same but leg's point about election is not convincing for France. With the war, elections in France might be suspended (as it was in 1940) or their rules might be deeply modified (as in 1958). Moreover, the parties were ruling for 7 years and with T2K they had just come to power (not my choice, blame the authors).

US has a constitution based on that of 1776, you had the Federalist and the Anti-federalist and one civil war. In the meantime, we have had the declaration of 1789, 5 constitutions and no less than 16 different regimes (Louis XVI absolute monarchy, Louis XVI Constitutional monarchy, First Republic, Convention, Terror, Directoire, Consulat, First Empire, Restoration, July Monarchy, Second Republic, Second Empire, Third Republic, Regime de Vichy, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic). Out of these eleven were dictatorial/authocratic (even they don't last as much as the democratic ones), 3 were bloody. In addition, we have faced five revolutions and one major uprising (1968). The army turned on the government during the Algiers events and I'm not even talking of the Paris commune in 1871. In 1979, Georges Marchais (Then head of the PCF) publicly declared support to the soviet intervention in Afghanistan. When he did that,the man was not in Paris but in Moscow (They could have gone for the bet, it would have depended on the political situation in France).

Still, I agree with you and Leg, I'm just saying that there is another option and as the game doesn't cover this, you have some freedom while filling in the blanks.

Four political options for France:
- A right dominated government with a strong nationalist component: France declares neutrality and USSR thinks of it as a target.
- A right dominated government (as in 1995) and France joins with NATO.
- A left dominated government with a weak PCF: USSR might turn on it and France might declare neutrality but it ultimately joins NATO (quite rapidly).
- A left dominated government with a stronger/revived PCF: France declares neutrality and is a threat to NATO. US/NATO bombs it.

While neutral. If France is hit by NATO, it might respond lightly. If it is hit by the Soviets, all our missiles would have been flying after the first hit.

[Brother in Arms]

Hey everyone I am an extreme late comer to this thread and as I know continually abesent from this forum....Frankie Fisticuffs and I moved to Tennesee so I have been extremely busy....

Here is my Take on Britian and the its service rifle....Simple put the L1A1 would be thrust back into service immediatly. First lets consider the lifespan of an FAL type rifle. It is almost infinite, it is one of the most rebuildable rifles I have ever worked on. First you can shoot if for over 15,000 before the barrel is shot out. Secondly you can continually replace locking shoulders for a very long time so headspace errosion is almost a non issue and thirdly its not very difficult to rebarrel given you are qaulified to do so. The milled reciever alone would last easily 400,000 rounds before its worn out. So I don't see the L85A1 ever gaining much traction. Particularly with its many many short comings the Twilight war would command a rifle like the L1A1 not the L85A1. I think it would have failed early on and the L1A1 would continue in service for the duration of the twilight war. Especially considering new weapon prouduction would be non-exsistant.

Also Lets look at the caliber issue, if you have the L85A1 you have 5.56
as well at 7.62 for GPMG two calibers on the battle field is a logistical problem after the end of the world. Myself I would be more inclined to the more powerfull round because the 7.62 round is a much better round for a rifleman Its a better round for small unit fighting were taking less shots but more effective ones would be appropriate. You might not have machineguns at your disposal but if you have a few guys with L1A1's shooting at the same things (like the selous scouts often did) they can chew things up just as bad. 5.56 just doesn't have the penetration capabily that 7.62 does. Also Radway Green made many millions of 7.62 in the 80's. I am still shooting 1980's headstamped stuff today and it shoots great!!!!

I think supply being what it is soldiers would field whatever rifle they had been issued until no more were issued then the L1A1 would be the only alternative and be back in service...also since they are so durable I doubt they would be replaced by the AR-18 no real not do try to make a new rifle if your old standby is still working perfectly. The other option would be captured eastern bloc weapons if no L1A1's could be had...because the L85 would fail and com bloc stuff is good for the end of the world and would be laying around...Just my two cents as a gunsmith.

[Legbreaker]

I believe you've summed the situation up quite well there Brother, and not just for the UK but for most nationalities.
As we know, most countries do not immediately dispose of the replaced weapon, but place them in storage in case they need to rapidly expand their military for some reason or other - exactly the case in T2K.
Sure there's bound to be a percentage of those weapons which have reached the end of their useful life, but it's a relatively small percentage and can be generally discounted as a contributing factor on large scale weapon choice.
Also, as stated, weapons can be repaired and parts replaced. Given a decent metal shop, most working parts of a rifle can be fabricated as needed (it's no production line, but if you only need half a dozen new breech blocks or a couple of gas pistons for example...).

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Brother in Arms

Hey everyone I am an extreme late comer to this thread and as I know continually abesent from this forum....Frankie Fisticuffs and I moved to Tennesee so I have been extremely busy....

Here is my Take on Britian and the its service rifle....Simple put the L1A1 would be thrust back into service immediatly. First lets consider the lifespan of an FAL type rifle. It is almost infinite, it is one of the most rebuildable rifles I have ever worked on. First you can shoot if for over 15,000 before the barrel is shot out. Secondly you can continually replace locking shoulders for a very long time so headspace errosion is almost a non issue and thirdly its not very difficult to rebarrel given you are qaulified to do so. The milled reciever alone would last easily 400,000 rounds before its worn out. So I don't see the L85A1 ever gaining much traction. Particularly with its many many short comings the Twilight war would command a rifle like the L1A1 not the L85A1. I think it would have failed early on and the L1A1 would continue in service for the duration of the twilight war. Especially considering new weapon prouduction would be non-exsistant.

Also Lets look at the caliber issue, if you have the L85A1 you have 5.56
as well at 7.62 for GPMG two calibers on the battle field is a logistical problem after the end of the world. Myself I would be more inclined to the more powerfull round because the 7.62 round is a much better round for a rifleman Its a better round for small unit fighting were taking less shots but more effective ones would be appropriate. You might not have machineguns at your disposal but if you have a few guys with L1A1's shooting at the same things (like the selous scouts often did) they can chew things up just as bad. 5.56 just doesn't have the penetration capabily that 7.62 does. Also Radway Green made many millions of 7.62 in the 80's. I am still shooting 1980's headstamped stuff today and it shoots great!!!!

I think supply being what it is soldiers would field whatever rifle they had been issued until no more were issued then the L1A1 would be the only alternative and be back in service...also since they are so durable I doubt they would be replaced by the AR-18 no real not do try to make a new rifle if your old standby is still working perfectly. The other option would be captured eastern bloc weapons if no L1A1's could be had...because the L85 would fail and com bloc stuff is good for the end of the world and would be laying around...Just my two cents as a gunsmith.

I'm reminded of why the British army didn't adopt automatic weapons till the 80's anyway. The British military has always been in the midset that the British soldier should be a well trained marksman. In the opening months of WW1 the germans thought the British had entire companies of machine guns because an Infantry battalion could fire so many accurate rounds from their bolt action lee enfield at a scary rate of fire.

Given a chance the powers that be would love to drop the 5.56, as many in the establishment where not happy with it and felt the round was forced on them by NATO.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

In the opening months of WW1 the germans thought the British had entire companies of machine guns because an Infantry battalion could fire so many accurate rounds from their bolt action lee enfield at a scary rate of fire.

So true that at the beginning of WW1, during a surprised engagement at Mons (Belgium). The sustained rate of fire maintained by British soldiers (15 rounds per minutes) led the German to believe that they were, in fact, facing dozens of machineguns.

[Arrissen]

In GDW's Traveler 2300 timeline France IS the major superpower on the planet, like it or not. 300 years post-T2K, after "The Death of Earth", up out of the ashes a warlord shall rise and her name is France. Why would this be the case if they were nuked as hard as everyone else? It's not like they're more industrious or anything than anyone else. They just simply weren't damaged as much as the other NATO countries. Working out why is the hard part, no doubt.

As for the L1A1, why is there any doubt that the Brits wouldn't have to break out their war stocks of SLR's? It is the only battle rifle that they have afterall and they are facing the biggest battle they have ever fought. And that's saying something for one of the most warlike nations on Earth. I mean with their history and all. The L85A1, at the time of the Twilight war really was a sad mistake. Sure it's a bullpup, compact and handy but British senior NCOs desparately trying to keep their men alive by this point would be screaming - begging, borrowing or stealing what they needed to stay in the fight and that would be the trusty rifle they knew they could always rely on. Someone once said that the most dangerous weapon in the world is a determined individual. And these blokes would be extremely determined, bred true over hundreds of years to persevere and get the job done, come hell or high water, for King and country!

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

In the opening months of WW1 the germans thought the British had entire companies of machine guns because an Infantry battalion could fire so many accurate rounds from their bolt action lee enfield at a scary rate of fire.

It wasn't just the British and not just WWI either.
In 1940 at the age of about 18, my grandfather (who passed away 18 months ago) was able to fire a full 10 rounds from an SMLE in 3 seconds....into a penny....at 50 yards....from the hip....
And that was during his basic training for the RAAF - he was tapped by the training staff to conduct rifle training while he completed basic. I saw him repeat the feat in the early 90's with my own eyes.

He went on over the next few decades (before his eyesight failed him) to win almost every contest he entered, usually with Possibles (perfect score) and almost always at 1,100 yards plus.

Seems unbelievable I know, but the trophies don't lie.

[Mohoender]

Leg you're Australian. At the time, it counted as British (In the way training was conducted I mean). Replace British by Commonwealth (or subject of the British Crown) and you'll have it right.

[Legbreaker]

British!? BRITISH!!!!????
Australian, through and through! Especially in WWII and even WWI to a significant extent!

[Arrissen]

He he he, yeah we are not British that's for sure. Same training more or less but certainly not British. Wild colonials more like it. My grandfather was in WWII also. He was in the 2/11th Infantry and fought in all the big battles in Africa and then got sent up to fight in New Guinea as well. He was away for the whole war. Tough as nails he was and would have smacked ya in the chops if ya called him British!

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

In 1940 at the age of about 18, my grandfather (who passed away 18 months ago) was able to fire a full 10 rounds from an SMLE in 3 seconds....into a penny....at 50 yards....from the hip....
And that was during his basic training for the RAAF - he was tapped by the training staff to conduct rifle training while he completed basic. I saw him repeat the feat in the early 90's with my own eyes.

That's awesome. What a guy.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

British!? BRITISH!!!!????
Australian, through and through! Especially in WWII and even WWI to a significant extent!

Originally Posted by Arrissen

He he he, yeah we are not British that's for sure. Same training more or less but certainly not British. Wild colonials more like it. My grandfather was in WWII also. He was in the 2/11th Infantry and fought in all the big battles in Africa and then got sent up to fight in New Guinea as well. He was away for the whole war. Tough as nails he was and would have smacked ya in the chops if ya called him British!

Yeah, agreed. My paternal grandad was a 30 year old motorcycle policeman when he joined up in WWII. He enlisted as a private soldier but by the time he entered battle he'd been commissioned and promoted to captain. He commanded a Bren carrier company in the North Africa campaigns (he hated Bren carriers, said he would have preferred jeeps with pintle mounted MGs). His war ended when he had half his moustache and big chunk of top lip shot away. The way he told it he saw himself as a New Zealander first, an ANZAC second and maybe fighting for the British Empire third. By the 1940s Aussies and Kiwis had very strong national identities.

[Panther Al]

I've always wondered:

If your average Kiwi is worth 2, maybe 3 west islanders, and your average west islander is worth two brits, why did the Brits insist on being in charge back in the day?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

If your average Kiwi is worth 2, maybe 3 west islanders, and your average west islander is worth two brits, why did the Brits insist on being in charge back in the day?

...and if your average Brit is worth 5 Americans.....

I'd have to say the Anzacs should be in charge of the world!

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

...and if your average Brit is worth 5 Americans.....

I'd have to say the Anzacs should be in charge of the world!

Don't forget the Irish!

[Panther Al]

How can we not forget the Irish, they did save civilisation after all!

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

How can we not forget the Irish, they did save civilisation after all!

...from sobriety!!!

[Mohoender]

LOL they didn't even read what I put in parenthesis. LOL I meant in term of level of training LOL

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

I've always wondered:

If your average Kiwi is worth 2, maybe 3 west islanders, and your average west islander is worth two brits, why did the Brits insist on being in charge back in the day?

Because you need someone to point your average Kiwi and Aussie in the direction of the enemy, otherwise they are liable to spend all day fighting amongst themselves.

[Legbreaker]

We only fight amongst ourselves until we see the real enemy....
Keeps us sharp.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

We only fight amongst ourselves until we see the real enemy....
Keeps us sharp.

Or see a pub -- we like drinking as much as the Irish

Maybe more...

[atiff]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

If your average Kiwi is worth 2, maybe 3 west islanders....

In defense of all concerned, I must say that the 'average' Kiwi in WWII should only be rated so highly because of the enhancement to the average made by the men in the Maori battalion.

Scary thought for the day - men of the Maori battalion vs. Ghurkas.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Or see a pub -- we like drinking as much as the Irish

Maybe more...

As a non drinking Irish bar manager I find that hard to argue with. Whiskey - Gods way of stopping the Irish from taking over the world

Although obviously only if the whiskey is spelt the correct way.....