Weapons Timelines for the Twilight War

[Raellus]

Great info, Paul. Thanks.

With this in mind, I would imagine most German troops c. 2000 would be armed with 7.62mm G3s, 5.56mm G41s or G33s, or 7.62mm S AKMs.

[Targan]

It would have to be a low explosive. High explosives have a burn rate so fast they shatter rather than push.

Correct.

[Targan]

Here I want a L1A1 SLR.

Me too. That would make my year.

I suppose I'll have to settle for the two rebuilt SMLE's with match grade barrels and top notch (for the 1950's and 60's) optics I've just inherited from my grandfather (Kings marksman with regular 1000 yard possibles in his day).

Very cool. Respect to your grandfather.

[Legbreaker]

Not bad for an Air Force mechanical engineer during the war.

[headquarters]

envy

Not bad for an Air Force mechanical engineer during the war.

Those sound like sweet rifles.

I have sniffed at the .308 Einfields that Marstar are selling -but money is holding me back..

[Rainbow Six]

Given the underlying mercenary bone in the Scandinavian - how many strapping British lasses would you say a trawler load of northern flank battlefield pick up AKs,RPGs,PKs,frags and ammo would be worth

Not as the same number as if it ws the other way around -but still

Throw in a couple of the Monty Python cast to keep us smiling through the dark winters with no telly ,and you should be able to get your self a few 23 mm AA guns too.

But I find part of the allure of a UK campaign the LACK of arms ,and the impro needed.Melee weapons,museum pieces,civillian guns .Lends a few got suspense points to a campaign . Bursting away the problem isnt enough in a way .

I agree that the lack of weapons can in itself be entertaining, especially when dealing with small groups of marauders in the areas that have descended into anarchy, where improvised weapons are going to the norm. The other thing I would say there is how much of a force multiplier even one or two weapons can be; a couple of brigands armed with Sterlings or SLR's could easily set themselves up as absolute rulers of a community who only have melee weapons.

Where I tend to have to think more out of the box is when it comes to arming large numbers of people (i.e. into the thousands) such as the Duke of Cornwall's forces, the independent Scottish and Welsh armies, etc, which is where the Government stockpile, freight container full of SLR's etc comes in handy. I ended up equipping most of the Bragad Chan Cymru (Army of Wales) with a mix of civilian weapons and military weapons taken from the Infantry Battle School at Brecon.

In a rough draft I wrote for the Scots I orginally had them armed and equipped by the French (down to French Army uniforms and Famas rifles). Would be interested on everyone's thoughts on this; on reflection I pretty much reckoned the French might not want to be seen to interfere in UK domestic affairs quite so overtly, so chose to downplay the French involvement in Scotland, making it more subtle and covert and reducing the number of French soldiers in Scotland from several hundred to several dozen. (This means that instead of getting brand new Famas rifles, the Scottish Army only get a few hundred Belgian manufactured FN FAL's which the Franco Belgian Union can deny all knowledge of).

I've never really considered large numbers of terrorist weapons making their way to the mainland - I always figured that the majority of those weapons would stay in Ireland, although there's no reason why the Irish couldn't do the same as the Scandinavians and trade weapons for various commodities...interesting...hadn't thought about that before...I really need to sit down and have a serious look at Ireland at some point in time...

[pmulcahy11b]

Not bad for an Air Force mechanical engineer during the war.

Hey, Kalashnikov was a tanker sergeant -- DATs don't even know one end of a rifle from the other!

[Legbreaker]

I suppose my grandfather did have his childhood behind him - used to head shoot sprinting rabbits from the hip or go hungry during the depression.

During his recruit training (much reduced from the usual 3 months down to a few weeks due to the war), he was used as an instructor after demonstrating his ability to fire a full 10 rounds accurately in less than 4 seconds - apparently sounded more like a machinegun than bolt action rifle!

I witnessed this extremely impressive feat for myself about 20 years ago (a decade or two after his prime!)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

...Where I tend to have to think more out of the box is when it comes to arming large numbers of people (i.e. into the thousands) such as the Duke of Cornwall's forces, the independent Scottish and Welsh armies, etc...

...on reflection I pretty much reckoned the French might not want to be seen to interfere in UK domestic affairs quite so overtly, so chose to downplay the French involvement in Scotland... (This means that instead of getting brand new Famas rifles, the Scottish Army only get a few hundred Belgian manufactured FN FAL's which the Franco Belgian Union can deny all knowledge of).

Don't forget that the French probably have truckloads of weapons collected from refugees (military and civilian) trying to cross the border into France. It would include all manner of civilian hunting and sporting firearms and any military firearms they don't want to keep. They'd also have lots of older French weapons in their own war-stores that they might be prepared to offload (e.g. MAT49 SMG, MAS 36 rifle, FM24/29 LMG) and possibly even WW2 weapons that they were using/storing up to the 1950s (like Thompson SMGs, Kar98 rifles, M1 Carbines, MP40 SMGs, Bren Guns, BARs and so on)

[Rainbow Six]

Don't forget that the French probably have truckloads of weapons collected from refugees (military and civilian) trying to cross the border into France. It would include all manner of civilian hunting and sporting firearms and any military firearms they don't want to keep. They'd also have lots of older French weapons in their own war-stores that they might be prepared to offload (e.g. MAT49 SMG, MAS 36 rifle, FM24/29 LMG) and possibly even WW2 weapons that they were using/storing up to the 1950s (like Thompson SMGs, Kar98 rifles, M1 Carbines, MP40 SMGs, Bren Guns, BARs and so on)

Very true. I think the downside to supplying ex French Army gear is that like the Famas rifles they'd be fairly easy to trace back to source and lead to an increase in tensions between HMG and the French. I've always assumed that the French have a stock of German and Dutch Army weapons and equipment that they captured during the occupation of the Rhineland and the Netherlands. If they supplied the Scots with Uzis, G3's etc HMG might have a fairly good idea where they've come from but proving it would be another matter.

Another area I've considered is that the French presence in Quebec means that all sorts of things (including weapons) could be being shipped back to France from North America. M16's for the Scots...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Very true. I think the downside to supplying ex French Army gear is that like the Famas rifles they'd be fairly easy to trace back to source and lead to an increase in tensions between HMG and the French. I've always assumed that the French have a stock of German and Dutch Army weapons and equipment that they captured during the occupation of the Rhineland and the Netherlands. If they supplied the Scots with Uzis, G3's etc HMG might have a fairly good idea where they've come from but proving it would be another matter.

Another area I've considered is that the French presence in Quebec means that all sorts of things (including weapons) could be being shipped back to France from North America. M16's for the Scots...

Absolutely true, I think I was pondering it all from the viewpoint that there was too little of HMG to be able to check it all out. Sure the weapons are French but how can they prove that the French gave them the weapons and the Scots didn't buy/barter them
Now that you mention weapons through Canada, how about a bulk load of Ruger Mini-14 and AC556 rifles to supplement the M16s

[Legbreaker]

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

The UK is already in a world of hurt and arming the populace for whatever reason can only contribute to even more unrest. Sure Britain and France have been long time enemies up until the last centry or so, but if you feel France might be preparing to invade sometime in the next couple of decades, wouldn't arming the Scots be against the French best interests It means more people are arme when they make their move.

And of course there's also the difficulty of shipping them there. Even for a country like France, who's stayed mainly out of the war, fuel and other goods are sure to be in short supply. They haven't had anyone but their few scattered colonies to trade with (besides a few small exceptions). Just feeding, clothing and keeping warm the tens or millions of people within their own borders is going to be a struggle for at least a few years after the 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.

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]

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.