Germany in T2K

[cro]

Ok, due to fact, that there were several questions about Germany in T2K, I opened this thread to discuss Germany.

At first, I will pick up the questions from sglancy12

Do you think the H&K G11 Rifle rifle would ever have made it as the FRG's standard service rifle if the Cold War would have continued past 1989? Or was it always just an interesting experiment?

As far as I know is the G11 against the Geneva Convention because of its V0. It causes very dangerous wounds and kills very easy by its trauma (or shock). Scratch wounds become leathal because of the trauma inflicted by the very high V0. In simple words: the weapon is to cruel because it kills too easily.

If the H&K G11 didn't become the Bundeswehr's battle rifle, what would have been the service rifle for the Twilight War? The HK G-3? Or would the the H&K G-36 simply have arrived in the line a couple years early?

I think it would still be the G3. Maybe some Special Forces could use the G36 (or HK33 or G41) But notice, that the KSK (Kommandospezialkräfte = Commandoes) are not in service in T2K. So the only SFs are the frogman (Kampfschwimmer) and the Long Range Recce Paratroopers (Fernspähtruppe)
One notice: Many soldiers regret the G3 because of its calibre 7,62mm. But it had a very big recoil, especially when using the burst!

And finally, do you think there are any conditions under which the officer corps of East and West Germany of the fictional 1990s would have conspired against the East Germany Communist Party to over throw the DGR government in a manner similar to the version 1 TW2K timeline?

I have only the T2K vers. 2.2 and hear this for the first time. It sounds like scince fiction. Don't forget that the officer corps of the NVA had a close link to the ruling party. I don't think so.


My answers so far.
I hope we can bring the Bundeswehr to life in this tiny thread.
I'll do my very best and feel free to ask.

[Mohoender]

Thanks for this I find it very interesting. I have one further question concerning v2.2.

In my own timeline, when the Soviets cross into Germany, I have a number of former East German Army troopers joining with the Soviets and forming either the Karl Marx Korps or the Karl Marx Division (I like the korps better as it includes a number of air force units). What do you think of it?

[Panther Al]

As far as the G11 being against the Geneva Convention, I rather doubt it. In my mind, the work on the G36 (Or any of the 5.56 AR's) would have to be restarted more or less once the G11 gets flushed down the loo. While eventually they would adopt the G36, until they did the G3 would return, with perhaps another production run to make sure that there is parts and such available since I am assuming that some of the pulled G3's would have been sold on the market. Of course, all this depends on the point of view that they got a limited production run of the G11, announced that it was the new official standard, and after a short time came to the conclusion that it wasn't such a great idea after all. If they never did adopt the G11, I see the G3 staying strong right up till the war: I figure that with the storm clouds on the horizon that they would ramp back on a totally new rifle and all that goes with it in order to prevent confusion in a war should it happen.

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by cro

I have only the T2K vers. 2.2 and hear this for the first time. It sounds like scince fiction. Don't forget that the officer corps of the NVA had a close link to the ruling party. I don't think so.

In the ver 1 timeline, the USSR demands that it's Warsaw Pact allies send troops east to fight the Red Chinese. At least two DDR divisions get cut off during a threatre-wide retreat and are completely wiped out by the Chinese. DDR officers can't help but notice that the Soviet units got out of the encirclement and that the DDR units were essentially left to die in place to ensure the breakout. At this point many DDR officers begin to think that the government should refuse another call for reinforcements. Nevertheless the East German communist party is too cowed to refuse their soviet masters. At this point East Germany officers begin to plan a coup. Many Soviet units have been withdrawn from East Germany to reinforces the war with China and many East German lower readiness units have been mobilized to take their place. The ratio of East German units to Soviet Units has never been more favorable. So they conspire with elements of the FRG government to gain support and recognition when they overthrow the communist party and liquidate the secret police. The success of the coup seems to hinge on the idea that the USSR won't be able to react fast enough to stop it. Furthermore, by having Bundeswehr units cross the border at the invitation of the East German military junta, the coup/reunification plotters think the Soviets will balk at a two front war.

Obviously they don't.

The canon has lots and lots of improbabilities... like the Italians and Greeks joining the Warsaw Pact... like the Soviet invasion of Alaska. However, those of us who love playing with the TW2k timeline in order to shore up these weak spots.

In the ver 1 timeline, the Twilight War in Europe has always been predicated on a German reunification crisis that takes place while the USSR is deeply distracted by a military crisis. Any suggestions you might have more making that less like science fiction, the better.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by cro

As far as I know is the G11 against the Geneva Convention because of its V0. It causes very dangerous wounds and kills very easy by its trauma (or shock).

There's also the false rumour the .50 cal round is against the Geneva Convention when used against personnel. If there's a round that kills too quickly, you'd think this would have to be it.

To my knowledge, the only thing that actually stopped implementation of the G11 was money. The reunification left the government extremely short of funds - the G11 was simply a victim of this.

[pmulcahy11b]

There's also the issue of the G11's ammo -- it's a new, innovative, and totally different round in a world where there are millions, if not billions, of 5.56mm, 7.62mm NATO. 7.62mm Kalashnikov, 5.45mm Kalashnikov, and 7.62mm Nagant rounds that are cheap to buy and have established production facilities all over the globe. That's why it's so hard to get rid of the 5.56mm NATO round now.

[Legbreaker]

The retention of the 5.56 round also comes back to money. Too much has been spent establishing the current huge stockpiles, and too many companies and individuals stand to make even more truckloads by continuing to produce it.
The manufacturers could potentially switch to a new round such as the 4.7cls, but that would mean retooling, licence agreements and all the costs associated with it.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

From all the material released about the G11, it seems that more was to be found in the English language books than was published in Germany itself. Apparently HK itself was surprised about the level of interest for the G11 outside of Germany even years after it had been dropped (a Norwegian guy on another forum attended a defence show in Norway sometime in the early 2000s and asked the HK rep about the G11, he said the rep was openly surprised that someone was asking about the rifle and had said that it's not something that they advertise anymore).
From what I recall, the G11 was officially adopted to replace the G3 & Uzi in combat units while the G41 was officially adopted for non-combat units (and as an extra option should the G11 not be adopted).

Keep in mind that HK were so sure of the adoption of the G11, they developed a light machinegun and a pistol at their own expense as compliments to the rifle.
The biggest reason that it's not in Germany service has already been mentioned by Legbreaker but some expansion on that will I hope make things clearer. The G11 was adopted because it was seen as a necessary system for West Germany because it was seen as addressing the massive imbalance in troop numbers (i.e. West Germany was vastly outnumbered by the Warsaw Pact forces). Once the threat of the Cold War was gone, the G11 was no longer as necessary and the money put aside for its adoption was spent on bringing together East and West Germany.

It's extremely unlikely the G36 would even have been thought of let alone developed as the G41 was already available for mass production (it's been stated that it was expensive to make but that's hardly surprising when you consider the low number produced, if production had been ramped up then the cost per unit would have declined substantially). And as mentioned above, it was the 'fallback' design should the G11 not be adopted for service.
The G36 owes its existence to the era after the end of the Cold War, if the Cold War had continued and the G11 not been adopted, the G41 would most likely be the main rifle in West German service.

Also, it's worth noting that HK never abandoned the design, it may not be in the catalogue but it's still considered viable and the US military is even now studying alternate ammunition types such as caseless, and the G11 system (for tech ideas) for future use.

[HorseSoldier]

It causes very dangerous wounds and kills very easy by its trauma (or shock). Scratch wounds become leathal because of the trauma inflicted by the very high V0. In simple words: the weapon is to cruel because it kills too easily.

So did my issue M4A1.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

As far as the G11 being against the Geneva Convention, I rather doubt it. In my mind, the work on the G36 (Or any of the 5.56 AR's) would have to be restarted more or less once the G11 gets flushed down the loo. While eventually they would adopt the G36, until they did the G3 would return, with perhaps another production run to make sure that there is parts and such available since I am assuming that some of the pulled G3's would have been sold on the market. Of course, all this depends on the point of view that they got a limited production run of the G11, announced that it was the new official standard, and after a short time came to the conclusion that it wasn't such a great idea after all. If they never did adopt the G11, I see the G3 staying strong right up till the war: I figure that with the storm clouds on the horizon that they would ramp back on a totally new rifle and all that goes with it in order to prevent confusion in a war should it happen.

I personally think the G11 wouldn't have panned out terribly well, and that basically Germany would have been in a remarkable goat rodeo when the balloon went up, with:

1) G11 + Teething Problems in service with some units
2) G3 with most everyone else
3) Inherited NVA forces with AK-74s
4) Inherited NVA reserves still running AKMs
5) Some HK 33s and G41s available, but not enough

So four different calibers in service, with the likelihood of a fifth being added to the mix, and when 5.56mm is added you have two different platforms that don't use compatible magazines.

I don't think the G36 would exist in the traditional T2K timeline --> G11 never gets scrapped when the wall comes down --> HK never goes t*ts up, financially --> Royal Ordnance doesn't buy HK, and doesn't have them do the L85A2 tune up* --> HK interest in the AR-18 bolt design in lieu of roller lock never develops.

(* -- Whole other painful topic, obviously)

Though if people wanted G36s running around for cool points, I suppose they're not beyond the realm of the possible as a primary service weapon with the Bundeswehr (or one of them).

[Panther Al]

Delving into the the various weapons and timelines, yes, I agree, swap G36 for G41. Still, agree on the whole, the G11, while an outstanding system, was a little too far ahead of its time.

[Legbreaker]

On the other hand, the G11 may have eliminated the need for 9mmP submachineguns in general service and eventually "companion" weapons in the same calibre would have been developed (pistols, carbine/smgs, light machineguns, etc).
If reunification had not occurred, the G11 was sure to have been taken into service in my opinion - the requirements for such a weapon had been laid down 20 years earlier and the G11 filled all of them admirably. At the time, the G3 was the standard service rifle, the G41, G36, etc all still to come.

Therefore, the Germans would only have had 4.7mm and 7.62N to worry about, at least initially. The G41 would have been placed on the back burner while the G11 was issued to the front line units. Once that was mostly complete, then the G3 would have been removed (the whole process taking a couple of years in all likelihood). There would have been little need to supply front line units with 7.62 (belted, certainly, but loose rounds would only be needed for speciality weapons such as sniper rifles), and certainly no need for 5.56 at all.

It is my understanding that IRL, the AK variants used by the East Germans were not taken into service but replaced as soon as they possibly could be by G3s. I believe a large percentage of East German military personnel were also rendered unemployed by the reunification.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

There's also the false rumour the .50 cal round is against the Geneva Convention when used against personnel. If there's a round that kills too quickly, you'd think this would have to be it.

To my knowledge, the only thing that actually stopped implementation of the G11 was money. The reunification left the government extremely short of funds - the G11 was simply a victim of this.

It is in no way a false rumor.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView

However, as in every international treaty it can be open to interpretation. This is covered by the addition protocol I of 1977, under part III, section I article 35, title 2.

Part III. Methods and Means of Warfare Combatant and Prisoners-Of-War

Section I. Methods and Means of Warfare

Art 35. Basic rules

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

About the G11, as much as I Ignore the final point about its development, I would not be surprised if German's authorities had taken article into consideration.

Art 36. New weapons

In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

It is in no way a false rumor.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

I just don't see how that is relevant.
By application of that clause, a paper cut would be illegal. A .50 cal weapon is most certainly well within the spirit of the agreement, just like 5.56m 7.62, 20mm HE, 105 APDS, or even a tac nuke.

It does however refer to practises such as torture, use of weapons which inflict pain (as their main goal), etc.

This clause in no way prohibits the use of the .50 round, or the G11 and it's 4.7mm caseless round.

Development of the G11 and it's round also is not restricted by Article 36. If the weapon was designed, or intended to be designed for the infliction of pain as it's main function, then yes it would be illegal. The G11 is clearly not intended for the infliction of pain and suffering although as a secondary function this could occur.

[cro]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Thanks for this I find it very interesting. I have one further question concerning v2.2.

In my own timeline, when the Soviets cross into Germany, I have a number of former East German Army troopers joining with the Soviets and forming either the Karl Marx Korps or the Karl Marx Division (I like the korps better as it includes a number of air force units). What do you think of it?

Charming Idea. But Korps is a bloody big organisation (several 10.000 men). Even Division is extremly big. It would mean that nearly every former East German Army Trooper joined the Sovjets.
I suggest to build up a Karl Marx Korps but unsing "Korps" only as a title. Like the Freikorps (= Free Koprs) during the phase of revolution 1919/20 and so on. These Korps were regimental-size.


According to the G11. Well, everyting is said, isn't it?
But it was new to me, that there was a lot of interest outside Germany, even years later.
In my own timeline, we don't use the G11. Every German unit uses the G3. Maybe its because all of my former players were draftees in the late 90ies and they (and I) used the G3. Later on I (especially during my both rotos in AFG) used the G36 and it is a marvelous rifle.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

On the other hand, the G11 may have eliminated the need for 9mmP submachineguns in general service and eventually "companion" weapons in the same calibre would have been developed (pistols, carbine/smgs, light machineguns, etc).
If reunification had not occurred, the G11 was sure to have been taken into service in my opinion - the requirements for such a weapon had been laid down 20 years earlier and the G11 filled all of them admirably. At the time, the G3 was the standard service rifle, the G41, G36, etc all still to come.

Therefore, the Germans would only have had 4.7mm and 7.62N to worry about, at least initially. The G41 would have been placed on the back burner while the G11 was issued to the front line units. Once that was mostly complete, then the G3 would have been removed (the whole process taking a couple of years in all likelihood). There would have been little need to supply front line units with 7.62 (belted, certainly, but loose rounds would only be needed for speciality weapons such as sniper rifles), and certainly no need for 5.56 at all...

If the G11 was taken into service, then the G41 would have been too.
The G41 was developed from the HK33 with such differences as making use of the NATO STANAG magazine instead of the HK mag, a bolt hold open device and an M16 style dust cover for the ejection port. As such, it's basically just an upgraded HK33.

It was developed alongside the G11 as a companion piece because the G11 was never intended to be issued in such numbers that every West German soldier would have one. It was strictly for the combat arms while the G41 was to be issued to the support services (as well as those navy and air force units that needed a rifle). You're right that it would not have been a frontline weapon but it was definitely going to be issued to the West German forces.

The G41 was still on offer to the Bundeswehr until 1989 when it was rejected in favour of a more modern design (probably also had something to do with the fact that it was generally heavier than other 5.56mm rifles). That rejection lead to the development of the G36 now in service.

[Legbreaker]

By back burner I mean that rolling out the G11 would have taken precedence over the G41. The G41 would have only had to wait a year or three though while the G11 logitistical trail and retraining was sorted out.
Introduction of two weapons systems on such a wide scale would be very difficult if done concurrently with each other.

Here in Australia, the F88 Steyr AUG took several years to transition to, and that was just one weapon and a much smaller military than Germany.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

By back burner I mean that rolling out the G11 would have taken precedence over the G41. The G41 would have only had to wait a year or three though while the G11 logitistical trail and retraining was sorted out.
Introduction of two weapons systems on such a wide scale would be very difficult if done concurrently with each other.

Here in Australia, the F88 Steyr AUG took several years to transition to, and that was just one weapon and a much smaller military than Germany.

Even in the US Military it has taken a long time to replace many M16s rifles with the M4 Carbines. Granted that not all M16s were suppose to be replaced, but it still was on going process in after 9-11 that got sped up a tad bit.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

By back burner I mean that rolling out the G11 would have taken precedence over the G41. The G41 would have only had to wait a year or three though while the G11 logitistical trail and retraining was sorted out.
Introduction of two weapons systems on such a wide scale would be very difficult if done concurrently with each other.

Here in Australia, the F88 Steyr AUG took several years to transition to, and that was just one weapon and a much smaller military than Germany.

Ahh I gottcha now, my mistake, I originally thought you meant that the G41 would not have been issued at all.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I just don't see how that is relevant.
By application of that clause, a paper cut would be illegal. A .50 cal weapon is most certainly well within the spirit of the agreement, just like 5.56m 7.62, 20mm HE, 105 APDS, or even a tac nuke.

My statement was incomplete but I had no time this early morning (my morning ) to correct it.

That makes it relevant as a preliminary step. However, as in every international treaty/agreement, the application depends on pre-war agreement or winner application.

As such the Ottawa treaty (International Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty) resulted in the fact that anti-personnal mines are considered by many as falling under that article (Countries such as USA, Russia, China, Israel, Egypt... didn't sign the treaty). The signing countries (among which you find Australia) ban themselves from using it and, in the eventuality of a war that they win, grant themselves the right to prosecute anyone for using them.

The best exemple was that of Nuremberg. As Nimitz pointed out that the US had carried an unrestricted submarine warfare of their own, Dönitz was not condemned on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare. And that despite the fact that it was recognized as a crime by the La Haye treaty of 1907.

As an historian, I do condemn US attitude. As a man I'm outraged by the level of hypocrisis that you find there. If I had live then, I would have adopted both the position of US and Nimitz. Everything is a matter of time and timing with the thing always going down to politics.

As a matter of fact, Leg you are right because no treaty has ban the use of .50 so far (I don't know if some countries have done it individually). That doesn't make it a false rumor as well as it gives you the legal ground to go to court. However, I'm sure that those who made (or some of those reading) the treaty might have had paper sheets in mind as well. (This was what I wanted to point out, sorry if the lack of time had made me miss the point).

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

As such the Ottawa treaty (International Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty) resulted in the fact that anti-personnal mines are considered by many as falling under that article (Countries such as USA, Russia, China, Israel, Egypt... didn't sign the treaty). The signing countries (among which you find Australia) ban themselves from using it and, in the eventuality of a war that they win, grant themselves the right to prosecute anyone for using them.

(SNIP)

As a matter of fact, Leg you are right because no treaty has ban the use of .50 so far (I don't know if some countries have done it individually). That doesn't make it a false rumor as well as it gives you the legal ground to go to court. However, I'm sure that those who made (or some of those reading) the treaty might have had paper sheets in mind as well. (This was what I wanted to point out, sorry if the lack of time had made me miss the point).

The US reserves the right to keep minefields between US troops and however many semi-starving North Korean troops are on the other side of that border, but the policy after the treaty went into effect is that we cannot even train to emplace anti-personnel mines unless stationed in South Korea.

As for the .50 cal being inhumane -- it's probably more humane than smaller weapons, given that a torso hit is going to be significantly more consistently lethal than a hit from a smaller caliber round (and even more so compared to artillery, grenades, etc.). You can't experience unnecessary suffering if you're dead.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah the proper emplacement of any type of mines would be for most troop on the job training.

As for the .50 cal being illegal I have to agree that being hit by one of those round would most like kill you. You can suffer too much after being dead, while with the 5.56mm NATO and 9mmP could take several direct hits to kill you.

[headquarters]

In the 1990s the interpretation we got ( this was deduced from official NATO legal positions by our Norwegian GHQ) was that the type of rounds used were the critical point.

.50 BMG ( FMJ rounds) were accepted, soft nose,multi purpose etc were not.

Those were applicable to material targets

When someone pointed out that lacing a soft armoured vehicle with .50 MP would mean subjecting crew and passengers to a pretty raw deal, the legal dept. guys kinda froze for a few seconds and the repeated the initial interpretation of the rules.

The ammo rules in the Genevea conventions are ignored by and large today.
The velocity of the 5.56 itself or the 5.45 means that the round could inflict damage on par with many outlawed rounds,such as soft nose lead rounds in other cals.

At least most armies use FMJ as a result of the rules ,meaning that there has come something tangible good out of the legislation.

So imho ( h= humble as always) the caliber is not essential, the round configuration is. I guess you can also argue that the efect of the round is also a factor - say a liquid core fmj round in a standard caliber that spins and yaws so that the wounds are greater and more terrible would be ilegal , but a 75 cal rifle with a solid fmj round could be legal.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by headquarters

In the 1990s the interpretation we got ( this was deduced from official NATO legal positions by our Norwegian GHQ) was that the type of rounds used were the critical point.

.50 BMG ( FMJ rounds) were accepted, soft nose,multi purpose etc were not.

Those were applicable to material targets

Make sense.

[Legbreaker]

That's my understanding of it also. It's not the weapon that's doing the killing or wounding (unless you're beating them over the head with it), it's the projectile.

[HorseSoldier]

The ammo rules in the Genevea conventions are ignored by and large today.
The velocity of the 5.56 itself or the 5.45 means that the round could inflict damage on par with many outlawed rounds,such as soft nose lead rounds in other cals.

Honestly, any spitzer-type bullet will tumble when it transitions to a denser medium like flesh. This means they will tend to inflict more severe wounds than the round-nosed projectiles they replaced (which are pretty stable and don't typically tumble, just bore straight through). It also means that every new cartridge adopted since 1900 +/- a few years depending on the nation in question has been a violation of the spirit of international law.

What makes them legal in international law is that they were fielded because of greater range and accuracy -- the extra wounding being just a convenient side effect and not the intent of the round. This is why open tipped match sniper ammunition is also legal -- it is OTM format because it's horribly accurate compared to conventional ("open base match" being a descriptive, if silly, term) and the fact that it blows all to hell in tissue and fragments is just happy bonus. A jacketed hollow point pistol round is no more accurate than its FMJ equivalent, so it's format is specifically for increased lethality and that's bad.

(Whole thing is kind of silly, and is kind of ignored as was noted up thread, but I suppose on a big picture level it has discouraged people from going really off the rails in designing duty ammunition.)

Even in the US Military it has taken a long time to replace many M16s rifles with the M4 Carbines. Granted that not all M16s were suppose to be replaced, but it still was on going process in after 9-11 that got sped up a tad bit.

M1903 to M1 Garand and Carbine was a quicker switch and might be a better analogy for the situation Germany would have been looking at when the TW kicked off. I doubt they would have been able to implement a comprehensively effective small arms plan before the war went nuclear, but I'm guessing on the staff side of things they had one put together by about 1 Jan 97 and probably had factories going triple shifts trying to get weapons to the troops.

[Dog 6]

my first question is how many leo 3's would the Bundeswehr have and at what rate of production a year.

[HorseSoldier]

Probably none. I don't see the Bundeswehr going anywhere past Leo2A4, maybe Leo2A5 on some sort of accelerated timeline, in a realistic take on reconciling T2K development.

[Canadian Army]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

Probably none. I don't see the Bundeswehr going anywhere past Leo2A4, maybe Leo2A5 on some sort of accelerated timeline, in a realistic take on reconciling T2K development.

What about the Leopard 2-140? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#Leopard_2-140. I can see that going into production.

[Legbreaker]

I'm not convinced. The 120mm seems to be more than adequate to deal with most of the AFVs the Germans would face and I doubt introducing another type of ammo into the logistical train would help anyone.

Could be a few prototypes floating about in T2K though.