Falkland Islands sourcebook

[avantman42]

I've been interested in the Falkland Islands for a long time, and I've been thinking about writing a sourcebook for them for ages. I never quite got around to it though, largely because it'd probably never get used

However, for no very good reason, I finally decided to write it. The files are too large to attach. I've put the PDF and .odt files into a collection on Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/collections/36...nds-sourcebook

As I said, I'm not really expecting this to get any use, but I decided that it was an itch that I had to scratch. Feedback would be very welcome.

Edited to remove .mobi files

[Olefin]

First off let me say to you - very well done! I skimmed it quickly this morning but will read it more thoroughly later. I do like what I have seen so far.

As for no one using it - new sourcebooks are always welcome. And I dare say that someone on this board will use it one day, either for adventures there or for ones starting from there.

One suggestion - you probably want to put some kind of notice on there similar to what has been put on the Czech Army guide and the Mexican Army sourcebook as to copyright use so you dont get into any trouble with the people who still own the rights to Twilight 2000.

Not sure if there is standard boilerplate language that needs to be on there.

[kalos72]

I am not sure...I mujst be stupid but I cant open the attachements.

[avantman42]

The attached files are .mobi for a Kindle. They were the only ones small enough to attach to a forum post.

If you follow the scribd link you can get PDFs from there.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Olefin

One suggestion - you probably want to put some kind of notice on there similar to what has been put on the Czech Army guide and the Mexican Army sourcebook as to copyright use so you dont get into any trouble with the people who still own the rights to Twilight 2000.

Good idea, I'll add something. I'll also add a Creative Commons licence notice.

[avantman42]

Updates:

I've removed the .mobi files from the original post, since they just seemed to cause confusion. If anyone wants files for use on an e-reader, PM or e-mail me.

I've added a creative commons licence notice.

I've knocked up a website to host this and anything else that I write: https://rpg.phillipsuk.org/doku.php/t2k/start

Direct links to the sourcebook: 1st Edition version, 2nd Edition version.

Note that any updates will not be applied to the files on Scribd, just the versions on my website.

[boogiedowndonovan]

cool stuff, no RAF or RN?

a non T2k question, why does the FIDF have Steyr vs standard British arms? not happy with the performance of the L-85?

[simonmark6]

This is what I have gleaned from the internet and I have no verification of sources.

The FIDF apparently purchased the weapons in 1987-88. The consensus is that the SA-80 was not available for purchase at that time as all production was going to front line units in Northern Ireland and Europe. It is possible, therefore, that the Steyr was purchased for ammo compatibility and maybe because it was a bull-pup.

This is, of course, highly speculative but sounds feasible to me.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan

cool stuff, no RAF or RN?

I figured they would be called back to Europe at some point during the war. That's why it's a TA battalion left on the islands - I imagined them being sent there so that a regular unit could come back to Europe.

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan

a non T2k question, why does the FIDF have Steyr vs standard British arms? not happy with the performance of the L-85?

I've often wondered the same thing, but I've not found any answers. I don't know what they were using in 1982, either. If anyone knows, I'd be interested to find out.

[boogiedowndonovan]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

This is what I have gleaned from the internet and I have no verification of sources.

The FIDF apparently purchased the weapons in 1987-88. The consensus is that the SA-80 was not available for purchase at that time as all production was going to front line units in Northern Ireland and Europe. It is possible, therefore, that the Steyr was purchased for ammo compatibility and maybe because it was a bull-pup.

This is, of course, highly speculative but sounds feasible to me.

I agree with your assesment, thanks!

[Twilight2000v3MM]

Pretty cool! GOnna look at it this weekend.

Ofcourse, since Im Argentinian and interested in the "Argies" side well see what cool things ya came up with!!

Max

[weswood]

Good work. Got me interested in the Falklands, did the Google earth thing, that would be some nasty ground to fight on.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan

a non T2k question, why does the FIDF have Steyr vs standard British arms? not happy with the performance of the L-85?

Originally Posted by avantman42

I've often wondered the same thing, but I've not found any answers. I don't know what they were using in 1982, either. If anyone knows, I'd be interested to find out.

I vaguely recalled that the FIDF were using the L1A1 SLR and did a websearch to confirm it. According to the following article, they were equipped with the SLR but also, it's claimed, with .303 SMLEs.
The article is compiled by someone living there apparently (it's implied by the copyright notice at the bottom of the page).
http://falklandia.com/

Edit: As for the AUG vs. L85, I've heard that the FIDF wasn't happy with the teething problems the L85 had but I've also read the claim that the L85s were all going to frontline British Army units and so they would have to wait in line for their batch and they decided not to wait. It seems it's all but forgotten and now we're left with various stories but no clear facts

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And something else I found, the FIDF also use the light support weapon of the Steyr AUG family with a SUSAT mounted in place of the normal 1.5 power scope/carry handle.
The following image has two soldiers carrying the LSW version although whether it's for a sharpshooter role or as light support, I couldn't find out.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan

a non T2k question, why does the FIDF have Steyr vs standard British arms? not happy with the performance of the L-85?

I think it was for a number of reasons. From the late 1980's the Steyr became the rifle of choice to replace the FN-FAL and its major derivatives such as the SLR in many Western armies as it was not only a high quality rifle but was a bit space age looking at the time. I think British forces such as the SAS used it in a limited way, and the British government gave the Falkland Island Regiment funding to buy their own gear but failed to make sure the Falklands would buy the same gear as the rest of the British Army. So the Falklands Regiment bought some snazzy new kit including quad bikes I believe.

[James Langham]

In 1982 the FIDF had SLRs, however as the Royal Marines were handing over and double strength many (if not all of these) were used by the RMs and some .303s in store were issued instead.

In the film An Ungentlemanly Act (advised by Mike Norman the RM commander and highly accurate), the two FIDF seen have SLRs. Hope that helps.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by RN7

I think it was for a number of reasons. From the late 1980's the Steyr became the rifle of choice to replace the FN-FAL and its major derivatives such as the SLR in many Western armies as it was not only a high quality rifle but was a bit space age looking at the time. I think British forces such as the SAS used it in a limited way, and the British government gave the Falkland Island Regiment funding to buy their own gear but failed to make sure the Falklands would buy the same gear as the rest of the British Army. So the Falklands Regiment bought some snazzy new kit including quad bikes I believe.

As I understood it, the Falkland Islands has it's own government and as such, makes it's own decisions about what they will get when it comes to their defence force. While the FIDF has strong links to the British Armed Forces, it is not part of them although they do have a Warrant Officer from the RMC on permanent attachment as a training officer. For what it's worth, it's been speculated on a few forums that the WO attached at the time advised against adopting the L85.

Edit: I wouldn't place too much emphasis on countries such as Australia and New Zealand adopting the AUG to replace the SLR when it comes to why the FIDF chose the AUG. Australia originally chose the M16A2 as the successor rifle but like all our main rifles from the past, the intention was to make it under licence here in Australia. When Colt refused to agree to the licence deal, Australia dropped the M16 and took the AUG. (It's been said that Colt losing out to FN to manufacture the M16 for the US forces caused some embarrassment and even bitterness at Colt and they didn't want other companies manufacturing "their" product - hence, no licensed production in Australia.)

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

As I understood it, the Falkland Islands has it's own government and as such, makes it's own decisions about what they will get when it comes to their defence force.

I don't think they've always had as much independence as they do now. The current constitution only came into effect in 2009 (the previous one was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1997). This is why the sourcebook says the islands are governed by the UK-appointed governer. Nowadays, they're largely self-governed.

I'm not sure what system of government was in place when the AUG was adopted.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on countries such as Australia and New Zealand adopting the AUG to replace the SLR when it comes to why the FIDF chose the AUG. Australia originally chose the M16A2 as the successor rifle but like all our main rifles from the past, the intention was to make it under licence here in Australia. When Colt refused to agree to the licence deal, Australia dropped the M16 and took the AUG. (It's been said that Colt losing out to FN to manufacture the M16 for the US forces caused some embarrassment and even bitterness at Colt and they didn't want other companies manufacturing "their" product - hence, no licensed production in Australia.)

I believe during the Aussie trials the Steyr lost out to the M16A2 in accuracy, reliability and ease of use. However the Irish Army put the Steyr through two years of extensive technical testing. The Steyr was tested against the Colt M16A2, the Enfield L85A1, the Beretta AR70/90, the FN FNC, the HK G41, the IMI Galil, FAMAS and the SIG SG550, with each rifle firing thousands of rounds while their accuracy and reliability were gauged and the Steyr won.

Why the M16A2 lost out in the Aussie trials is a mystery but maybe had something to do with either unique Australian army requirement or government misinformation, although some believe the build quality of Aussie built Steyr's is lower than Austrian built rifles. But certainly Colt refused a license to built the M16A2 in Australia due to it having some financial trouble at the time, basicaly it would have made a lot more money if it built the rifle itself in the US.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

No mystery, the M16A2 was the rifle selected originally but Colt would not allow licensed production in Australia. The Aussie government negotiated with Colt, Colt refused so the government dropped Colt and went to Steyr.

As for the lower quality of the Aussie made version, yeah, it caused a small scandal here. The government tried to cut the cost of the AUG by using cheaper materials (specifically some of the plastics) and also, so we were told when we got them issued, by making the hammer out of plastic instead of metal.

Now as for the plastic hammer, whether that's true or not, there were reports of hammers cracking and even breaking under the stress of repeated firing. There was also a problem with the buttplate, being a certain type of soft rubber it had a tendency to get softer and very sticky if petrol, kerosene, insect repellent and so on got on it.

As far as I know, all these problems were fixed and the later production was of a much higher quality, certainly by the time we got ours delivered to the unit the only problem we encountered was with the buttplate and with the wear & tear on the aluminium receiver from constantly removing the barrel. Part of the drill to check if the weapon was clear was to remove the barrel and hold it up with the body for inspection, this was changed later on and the NCO inspecting would insert a finger into the chamber to check it was empty.
The drill may have changed since I was in - about 17 years ago now, scary how time flies - if they've made the receiver more robust.


Anyway, to wander back on topic... avantman42, your Falklands sourcebook is pretty damned good! And thanks to all for the updated info on the Falklands government, my google-fu was weak and all I could find was basic info without any solid dates. Something I did find though, was a picture thread on some forum showing the FIDF and also RMs training in the Falklands, part of the thread showed them deploying by helicopter but the helicopters were owned/operated by I think it was Bristow? But certainly a civilian operator and not military.
I should have bookmarked the thread


Edit: Found it! Although much of what is mentioned seems to be post-2000s
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...-the-Falklands

There's also this thread at ARRSE.com with some members of the FIDF chiming in, about the reasons for selecting the AUG over the L85.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/military-hist...nce-force.html

[pmulcahy11b]

Plastic hammer...???

Anyway, range NCOs have a simple way to check if the M16's chamber's empty. The have the soldier lock his bolt back and hold his rifle up and the range NCO drops a cleaning rod down it. If it's empty, the bolt will simply bounce back into the forward position. If there's a round in it, either the bolt will not bounce back, or it will bounce and in the process eject the round that shouldn't be there. (There actually is a small chance that the round will fire, but it's underemphasized when you get your range NCO training.)

At that point, the offending soldier will be subjected to something that TSA officials would think is going overboard...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Plastic hammer...???

Yep, true story, the F88 version of the AUG has a hammer made of plastic and as far as I know, all AUG designs have plastic hammers. It went bad for us because the Australian government tried using a cheaper plastic (read - weaker plastic) to make the hammer as part of a larger effort to cut overall costs.

Part of the scandal was the claim/rumour/allegation that after these little cost-cutting issues were fixed up, the first batch of the "improved" F88s was sold to New Zealand rather than being issued to Australian troops in an effort to recover some of the cost of the "improvements".

[RN7]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

As for the lower quality of the Aussie made version, yeah, it caused a small scandal here. The government tried to cut the cost of the AUG by using cheaper materials (specifically some of the plastics) and also, so we were told when we got them issued, by making the hammer out of plastic instead of metal.

Now as for the plastic hammer, whether that's true or not, there were reports of hammers cracking and even breaking under the stress of repeated firing. There was also a problem with the buttplate, being a certain type of soft rubber it had a tendency to get softer and very sticky if petrol, kerosene, insect repellent and so on got on it.

As far as I know, all these problems were fixed and the later production was of a much higher quality, certainly by the time we got ours delivered to the unit the only problem we encountered was with the buttplate and with the wear & tear on the aluminium receiver from constantly removing the barrel. Part of the drill to check if the weapon was clear was to remove the barrel and hold it up with the body for inspection, this was changed later on and the NCO inspecting would insert a finger into the chamber to check it was empty.
The drill may have changed since I was in - about 17 years ago now, scary how time flies - if they've made the receiver more robust.[/url]

From what I've read the Aussie Steyr variant had quite a few differences to the Austrian rifle. The Aussie has a bayonet lug fitted to the barrel, the Steyr Aug does not. The Aussie is also supposed to be different by cocking handle design, bolt assists, and sight rail and reciever modifications.

The safety catch on the Aussie also only has two positions, safe and fire. Shot control is done through trigger manipulation. Firing automatic or firing a single shot depended on how hard you pulled the trigger. Oddly the NZ version of the Steyr has a three position safety catch: semi-auto, safe, auto, even though I think it was built in Australia.

The safety catch on the Aussie also has reliability issues, with a tendency for the catch to lose its ability to lock in either of the positions risking compromising the safety of the weapon leading to improved maintenance schedules to check the condition of the safety catch on weapons.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Hello Avantman42

I like this. I'm looking forward to seeing any additional work. I'm interested in the entire independence story line. Personally I think it's pointless to even bother or that there is nothing to gain. However, I was immediately filled with questions about why do these guys want to declare independence. Have they given up on being British? Do they want to eject the entire world that went crazy? I would think the soldiers on the islands aren't a true burden but a help.

These are just my thoughts but that's what happens when you read an interesting story. Keep it up!

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by TrailerParkJawa

Hello Avantman42

I like this. I'm looking forward to seeing any additional work. I'm interested in the entire independence story line.

There may be minor updates, but I'm not expecting to expand on it a great deal. The idea is that it presents the situation at a particular time (when the PCs arrive). It was my intention to provide background information and a situation that allowed for some interesting possibilities. It's up to the GM how he uses them.

Originally Posted by TrailerParkJawa

Personally I think it's pointless to even bother or that there is nothing to gain. However, I was immediately filled with questions about why do these guys want to declare independence. Have they given up on being British? Do they want to eject the entire world that went crazy? I would think the soldiers on the islands aren't a true burden but a help.

The independence idea came from real life. Currently, the islands are largely self-governing, but Britain provides defence, largely because the islands can't afford to pay for their own defence. There is a real possibility that commercial oil mining will start soon, and at that point, the Islands' income will increase dramatically, to the point where they could pay for their own defence. Some Islanders are starting to suggest that when/if that happens, there will be no need for them to remain British, and that they should become independent.

In the T2K world situation that I present in the sourcebook, things are somewhat different. The islands aren't self-governing, and there is no prospect of income from oil. On the other hand, there have been some difficulties producing enough food for everyone on the islands. The population of the islands is 3,000 and the British military probably adds another 500. That means that around 15% of the food produced goes to the British military. There is no real threat of invasion, so it's easy for a hungry population to see them as simply a drain on scant resources. Note that the islands were largely self-sufficient before the war, so they don't really need the extra manpower to help out with food production.