Weapons Timelines for the Twilight War

[pmulcahy11b]

Wow, it's weird how different the U.K.'s and U.S.A.'s style is. I remember when I was a boot new to the fleet and we tired swinging the other direction with our body so our weapon could face a contact. We got degraded fast! Next we thought we would be smart and try to find the lefties among us to cover the right flank, that really pissed off our seniors. Shooting and patrolling opposite handed was never as natural, but it did become easier.

That is how we were taught, back in the day. I'm willing to bet if they ever stopped doing that training, they're doing it again now. Right shoulder, left shoulder, laying on your back (gutter-prone), aimed fire from low-crawl prone, etc. The M16A2 and later are better for lefties -- a brass deflector is machined into the upper receiver.

[Webstral]

I've never been a believer in ambidexterity. If a unit is looking for ways to eat up its allocation of ammunition, then opposite-hand marksmanship is a fun passtime. Some people (not me) even get good at it. But if a unit is already groaning about the expense of ammunition, I say save the ambidexterity for nocturnal fantasies and reinforce the dominant hand and eye. I've trained with a few guys who insisted that riflemen on the right side of the wedge carry their weapons like lefties. The weapon might have been pointed in the right direction for a fast hip shot, but that's about as far as the advantage would have gone with me and most of the guys I've ever trained with. Rangers, 82nd Airborne, Delta... maybe it's different for them. For the rest of us, it would be far more pratical to take the extra half-second to turn the body enough to get an aimed right-handed shot off (if one were engage from the standing position) and invest scarce range time and ammunition in improving the dominant hand and eye.

Webstral

[perardua]

I also wonder if you can shoot the L85 from either shoulder or if you might injury your face like the AUG To me not being able to do that with the AUG makes it more a range toy then a combat weapon, but I can't confirm this, because I don't have the balls to test this out with my MSAR STG-556.

For me, the ultimate test of whether or not being able to shoot from both shoulders is an essential, rather than desirable, feature of a rifle is in the record of the forces that have chosen to go without. And, to be honest, I don't think it's a capability that has been missed in the mainstream British military. It's not something that is, in my experience, complained about by those outside the SF community.

I suspect that training and doctrine have contributed to overcoming the deficiency, and I still maintain that I would much rather carry the L85, warts and all, than any other rifle I have had an opportunity to play with so far. Well, maybe the AUG if I ever actually got to fire it! Stupid QRF duties dragging me away from the range...

[Rainbow Six]

I suspect that training and doctrine have contributed to overcoming the deficiency, and I still maintain that I would much rather carry the L85, warts and all, than any other rifle I have had an opportunity to play with so far.

Perardua, appreciate your insights on the SA80...

Am I right in thinking that the A2 version of the SA80 didn't start being issued until the year 2000, in which case in either V1 or V2 T2K British forces would have been armed with the A1 model, which seems to be looked on less favourably

Unless, of course, one goes with the theory that a continuing Cold War accelarates the development of the A2 model (particularly in the V1 setting...).

Cheers

[pmulcahy11b]

I don't understand. Perhaps someone could draw a picture Maybe we could hire someone to do a re-enactedment Catherine Bell, perhaps

Webstral

If Catherine Bell a lefty Might be better if she were ambidextrous...uh oh.. severe danger of thread drift...<wrenching my mind out of the gutter>

[pmulcahy11b]

I understand how you feel about the L85. I think I said earlier in the thread that in the circumstances, I would probably default to an M16, because, despite the fact that I'm not impressed by it, I know what it can and can't do, I have the muscle memory, and I know how to maintain it and what parts need extra attention. I also remember my battlesight zero, with glasses and with contact lenses (they're different for me).

[perardua]

Am I right in thinking that the A2 version of the SA80 didn't start being issued until the year 2000, in which case in either V1 or V2 T2K British forces would have been armed with the A1 model, which seems to be looked on less favourably

Unless, of course, one goes with the theory that a continuing Cold War accelarates the development of the A2 model (particularly in the V1 setting...).

I can't say exactly when the A2 came into service, but to my knowledge almost every unit (including reservists) that deployed to Iraq in 2003 had been upgraded to the A2 on both the rifle and LSW. The upgrade itself is extremely simple, essentially consisting mainly of swapping parts that come out of the rifle for normal daily cleaning anyway. I believe that in a v1 T2k timeline, it would not have been beyond the realms of possibility for the majority of L85s in service to be upgraded to the new standard relatively quickly, as long as the will to identify the problems and manufacture the necessary parts was there. I imagine that the older, more stoppage-prone plastic Radway Green magazines would have remained in service as a cheaper and lighter alternative to the sturdier metal Heckler & Koch ones we use today.

However, I can imagine that upgrades in the T2k universe would have come slowly, if at all, and that there would still be enough military personnel who had come into service on the SLR rather than the L85 that there may be a return to the L1A1. Of course, even by 1995-6 the majority of younger infantry soldiers will never have used the SLR, and if the decision is made to include it in a campaign, it will likely be found in the hands of the old timers with fond memories of it, rather than younger personnel who may prefer the familiarity, ease of handling and sighting system of the L85. I would also perhaps suggest that those who choose to reintroduce the SLR consider porting over the existing stocks of SUSAT and CWS from the L85 to be mounted on the L1A1. This is especially important due to the relative lack of NVGs in British service during the period, a capability which is for the most part provided by the CWS mounted on the rifle.

[dude_uk]

challenger

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.

If you include the Gulf war as timeline, The Challenger1 is given a battle proof run and is proven to work. The amount of kills it gets and its proven reliability in the field make up for it shortcomings at CAT 87. No doubt a Challenger 2 equipped team would be fielded for the next CAT before WW3 breaks out and The British army would be playing to win...

Your are looking at around 372 Challenger 1's and 386 Challenger 2 by 1996, Just enough to equip BOAR entirely. With about 850 chieftains in reserve.

This is all speculation however, how fast production of challenger 1 or 2 in a continuing and somewhat more strained cold war is anyone's guess.

The SA80 is however another matter, the Gulf war is the catalyst for its undoing with its problems laid bare before the world. Wikipedia states that a upgrade program is conducted in '91. Whether this converts it to an A2 of sorts standard, or is simply another temp solution can be entirely up to you.

[perardua]

[QUOTE=perardua;21456] I would also perhaps suggest that those who choose to reintroduce the SLR consider porting over the existing stocks of SUSAT and CWS from the L85 to be mounted on the L1A1. [QUOTE]

Having talked to some of the old and bold who were in during the heady days of the SLR, there was a night sight (IWS) and a magnifying day sight (SUIT) available, however, the SUIT was normally issued on a scale of 2 per Section, and the IWS was described as being as easy to obtain as rocking horse feces. Hence, the much more common CWS and SUSAT probably being a good idea.

As for the upgrade programme - a timeline featuring Gulf War 1 highlighting its failures and a continuing cold war gives an incentive for a more rapid upgrade than was actually the case. Which is nice. And if we're thinking that way, then perhaps we might see the introduction of a Section-level LMG and UGL earlier as well, or even better, the doctrinal return of the GPMG to the infantry Section.

Now I think about it, I have a vision of a timeline where Options For Change turned out to be quite beneficial!

[Raellus]

How could one play this out for a T2K'er who prefers the v1.0 timeline without a '91 Gulf War (That would be me.)

I'm not anti-L85 or pro-SLR. I'm just wondering how the British Army would discover or cop to the defects in the L85 without a significant combat "test" like the first Gulf War.

I guess I like the idea of having to confront this issue in the midst of the Third World War.

[perardua]

I suppose some of the problems would have become evident in Northern Ireland, for example, the original problem with the magazine release catch became known (when troops patrolled with the weapon held against their body, it was not uncommon for the mag release to be knocked and the magazine to part company with the weapon at inconvenient times). IIRC this was fixed before the A2 upgrades by simply welding a guard around the catch. However, the sensitivity to dust wouldn't have been shown up so easily, but then, there's always the argument that it wouldn't be so important in a general European war as it was in the desert.

The question for the British armed forces, should they have to deal with the A1 during WW3, is whether it is better to A) keep struggling on with the damn thing as it is, B) change to a different weapon, with the corresponding need to buy a new weapon system, change the training regime, acquire all the necessary spare parts and ancilliaries, in the middle of a war, or C) try and upgrade the weapon.

Hmmmm. There has to be a particularly nasty scenario idea in there...

[TiggerCCW UK]

I suppose some of the problems would have become evident in Northern Ireland, for example, the original problem with the magazine release catch became known (when troops patrolled with the weapon held against their body, it was not uncommon for the mag release to be knocked and the magazine to part company with the weapon at inconvenient times).

There were multiple instances where this happened over here. Some units took to tieing their magazines to their webbin with paracord, others duct taped magazines into their weapon, reckoning that they were more likely to lose a mag than get into a firefight where they needed more than 30 rounds. It always struck me as ironic that the police were better armed here than the military - initially Ruger Mini-14's and Sterlings, but more recently MP5's and HK33's.

[perardua]

If anything the problem's gone the other way now! During one of our battle camps in PDT before deploying to Afghanistan we spent a week at Otterburn ranges doing various live firing exercises. Thanks to the knee deep snow (a perfect simulation of the Afghan desert in summer, of course) and generally low temperatures, there were numerous instances of peoples hands being so cold they were unable to unload/reload rifles without using both hands and bracing the weapon against something, due to the rather robust magazine release catch. Good times. That and all the streams had frozen over then covered with snow, so they first thing you knew about them being there (rather than just handy looking cover) is when you fell in.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think problems such as the L85 in the Twilight War would have been taken care of quickly and efficiently as troop experiences mounted -- as long as the industrial base and means to turn the rifles in for refurbishment and get them back to the troops quickly existed. That would go for pretty much any equipment. That pretty much brings us back to TDM, when the industrial base and transportation network of the world pretty much fell apart in the space of a few hours. I think that until then (at least on the NATO side), problem equipment would be modified or replaced pretty quickly -- there's plenty of precedent for that in World War 2.

On the Soviet/Warsaw Pact side -- well, the precedent there for most troops is "Shut up and be happy with what you have, and remember that we can always provide you with 'incentive' to work with what you've got." Units like Spetsnaz, Airborne, and Air Assault units may have had their input better listened to, but most of their troops would have to make do with whatever shortcomings their equipment has. Occasionally, something innovative might turn up (like in World War 2 with the T-34), but for the most part, their troops are going to fight the war with what they had to start out with, and after TDM, it'll just get worse.

[Targan]

How could one play this out for a T2K'er who prefers the v1.0 timeline without a '91 Gulf War (That would be me.)

I don't have a v1 timeline handy in front of me right now but in the canon v1 timeline were British troops involved in any great numbers in a major conflict during the late 1980s/ early to mid 1990s If so perhaps that is where British forces were able to do their 'significant combat "test"'.