Weapons Timelines for the Twilight War

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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

[Legbreaker]

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

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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ago, the French still remember the time when the US and the USSR started getting more friendly in the 1960s (and the US rescinded their "We will use nukes against the USSR if they invade the West" policy) and everyone in Europe held their breath when the two Germany's united wondering if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

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

[Mohoender]

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

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

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

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

[Mohoender]

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

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

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

[Mohoender]

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

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

[Mohoender]

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

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

[TiggerCCW UK]

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

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

Mo - would you agree it was a handball

[Mohoender]

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

Mo - would you agree it was a handball

Yes I do. I even think it was intentional. I also think that our current national team is as pathetic in its failures than in its achievements. However, I don't appreciate football/soccer (outside of Pel and Platini, I don't know much player's name) and love rugby (I know players names as well as the various teams) so I don't care and might not be that neutral on this matter.

If you ask me if the match should be replayed, my answer is NO because so is the rule. However, it would have been to the honor of France if it had supported that idea. But I have constantly grown ashamed of France (not of the French) for the past six months (or 2 years. I don't want to remember) and France position is a perfect illustration of how much down this country has fallen.

May be it is time to rethink the rules of football and if they do may be I'll watch my first full game since I was 12.

[TiggerCCW UK]

I agree with all you said, amnd wasn't trying to cause offence, so I apologise if I did. Like you I'm more of a rugby fan. I was just interested in a french mans opinion on it.

[Mohoender]

I agree with all you said, amnd wasn't trying to cause offence, so I apologise if I did. Like you I'm more of a rugby fan. I was just interested in a french mans opinion on it.

No offense to apologise for.

To be honnest most French I know are sharing the same feelings (about the game and about France in general).

A little more than two weeks ago I sent an email to each one of our Deputies, asking them the same three questions (+ a copy to the President, one to the Prime Minister and one to the man presiding the Senate). That is 580 email. Out of these 580, I received one full answer (a bright one so) and 2 polite ones.

IMO France is slowly moving toward Totalitarian Democracy and if an offense is currently made it is to the Republic by our Politician body.

Sorry to everyone here for that political statement but it had to go out.

[simonmark6]

The UK Survivor's Handbook suggested that the first big conflict on Mainland Britain after HM Government started to expand again would be between Wales and HMG along the Anglo-Welsh border. If the french were eager to make mischief in the UK, they might want to arm the Welsh forces first.

Scotland and HMG would be unlikely to butt heads for years apart from small scale skirmishes probably involving commando style raids against Scottish coastal towns if HMG wanted anything up there.

I suppose HMG might want to establish a forward logistical base to service the North Sea oil rigs, but to seriously threaten Scotland, HMG will already have had to take out a lot of warlords and re-integrate ten times or more the trritory they already control into the fold. In addition they will have either come to an accomodation with the Welsh or fought some sort of military action.

I don't see military conflict between Scotland and HMG for many years, if ever, more likely they'll come to a political agreement of some sort.

That means that if I were the French, I'd either arm the Welsh first as they seem to be more militantly minded toward HMG, or just sit back and see what happens, it's not like the English are going to be a threat to France for a long, long time.

[pmulcahy11b]

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

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

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

[Mohoender]

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

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

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

[Ironside]

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

Given the circumstances in Westral's 'Storm in Germany', I think that it would be deemed more prudent for the UK to manufacture an already proven design, giving more commonality within NATO, than producing something untried during the increased East-West tension after the Danilov led coup.

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