Destruction of Weapons.

[Abbott Shaull]

Many of the Sub-Machine Gun designs that were used in WWII would be making their way back into production on the limited basis since they were machined stamped. Same with civilian weapons will be made more likely than not too.

Don't forget the shotguns can serve a double purpose for use in hunting too.

I am sure by 2000 the service life of many of weapons system would be toward the end of their usefulness. Many would want to have something of to replacement. Remember in WWII there were enough units that had squads and platoon armed almost exclusive with Sub-Machine Guns on the Eastern Front. Done for two reason, one they were easiest to make, and all of the urban fighting that was encounter.

[copeab]

Many of the Sub-Machine Gun designs that were used in WWII would be making their way back into production on the limited basis since they were machined stamped. Same with civilian weapons will be made more likely than not too.

Ammunition may also play a factor in the resurgence of SMGs. Pistol ammo requires much less gunpowder than a rifle round (frex, 9x19mm uses about 1/4 the powder of 5.56x45mm), which might be a factor in the T2K world (pistol bullets are heavier, but I would think lead is easier to acquire than smokeless powder).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Ammunition may also play a factor in the resurgence of SMGs. Pistol ammo requires much less gunpowder than a rifle round (frex, 9x19mm uses about 1/4 the powder of 5.56x45mm), which might be a factor in the T2K world (pistol bullets are heavier, but I would think lead is easier to acquire than smokeless powder).

Speaking of smokeless powder, here's some links to the various types that give some idea of what's required to make it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poudre_B

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordite

And wiki also has a page on smokeless powders that mentions some of the additives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder

So even given the level of damage to a nations infrastructure due to the war, I think it would still be possible to manufacture a smokeless powder just as long as you could get the components. Cases would be available in their thousands and some cottage industry may be set up to scour battle sites to recover the cases, determine their usefulness, clean them and perhaps even resize them. Making primers isn't a major industrial process and casting lead certainly isn't.
The only real obstacle is making the propellant but given that they were able to manufacture it in the 1880s, I think the only hurdle is actually finding the ingredients. Nitric acid is going to be incredibly important but to make nitric acid you're probably going to need to make sulphuric acid.
An entire chemical industry will have to be built up but again, considering these things were all achievable with technology from the mid-1800s, it should be achievalble by a group with sufficient resources.

[Webstral]

An entire chemical industry will have to be built up but again, considering these things were all achievable with technology from the mid-1800s, it should be achievalble by a group with sufficient resources.

This is such an important factor that I want to underline it, despite the fact that everyone on this board knows it already. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think the gentlemen of GDW also understood that once the food situation sorted itself out, the other pieces would begin to fall into place for national recovery. Admittedly, the road to recovery would be long and painful; and a recovered nation would not necessarily look like its predecessor. Nevertheless, recovery loomed so likely that GDW came out with Howling Wilderness to preserve the chaos that they felt bred good gaming.

Webstral

[Targan]

This is such an important factor that I want to underline it, despite the fact that everyone on this board knows it already. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think the gentlemen of GDW also understood that once the food situation sorted itself out, the other pieces would begin to fall into place for national recovery. Admittedly, the road to recovery would be long and painful; and a recovered nation would not necessarily look like its predecessor. Nevertheless, recovery loomed so likely that GDW came out with Howling Wilderness to preserve the chaos that they felt bred good gaming.

Pockets of recovery with reasonably high tech (for a post apocalyptic world) industries, dotted among vast areas of depopulation or chaos, lawlessnes and neo-barbarism.

[Webstral]

I do believe that even in a recovery environment, there's plenty of opportunity for enterprising players to do their thing.

Regarding recovery, players can take part in answering a couple of key questions. Among the top few questions is "To co-opt or not to co-opt" To a degree, warlords and "legitimate" governments are on the same side against marauders and other forces of chaos. How does one deal with the Sealord of Jacksonville How does one deal with the United Brotherhood of Fishermen Both groups have significant armed forces. Defeating them in the field (so to speak) might be the most desirable solution, but open combat might prove too costly for everyone involved. Player characters might have a role to play in determining the susceptibility of warlords to co-option and possible execution of said co-option.

I've been thinking about the above in reference to the Shogun in Nevada. Obviously, the Nevada survivors can't be left to his tender mercies. However, his motorized army does provide security for the majority of the survivors. If, for instance, in 2001 the 111th Brigade were to establish a logistical base at Kingman, then meet and defeat the Shogun's forces in battle, there's still the question of administering the territory. To a degree, the survivors could be counted upon to run their own affairs. Nevertheless, there is a steady stream of marauders attempting to encroach on the Shogun's territory. The Snake River is controlled by New America; they'd love to get their hands on the surviving population, agriculture, and industry of the I-80 corridor in northern Nevada. The 111th doesn't have the manpower to protect Nevada, even if the mobility issues can be solved. Is it better to knock out the Shogun and leave the locals to their own devices or leave the Shogun in place Co-option, though a bitter pill for everyone to swallow, might be the most practical answer to the problem of reestablishing MilGov control over the Silver State.

Ditto the Mexicans in the Imperial Valley. Destroying Second Mexican Army or driving it out of California would be a stupendous undertaking--well beyond the capabilities of 111th Brigade. Co-option might be the only way of bringing the agricultural potential of the Imperial Valley back under American control. More bitter pills.

On the other hand, co-option could go another way entirely. If conventional warfare isn't likely to yield good results in a given area, given the corrrelation of forces, perhaps the player characters could fall back on the Special Forces role that figures promimently into the US-based modules. Surely Texas offers a rich bounty of possibilities, regardless of what is happening in Colorado. The same might be said of Alaska, large swaths of the South, and so on.

Webstral

[Targan]

Regarding recovery, players can take part in answering a couple of key questions. Among the top few questions is "To co-opt or not to co-opt" To a degree, warlords and "legitimate" governments are on the same side against marauders and other forces of chaos. How does one deal with the Sealord of Jacksonville How does one deal with the United Brotherhood of Fishermen Both groups have significant armed forces. Defeating them in the field (so to speak) might be the most desirable solution, but open combat might prove too costly for everyone involved. Player characters might have a role to play in determining the susceptibility of warlords to co-option and possible execution of said co-option.

Just like back in the days of feudalism, various leaders/armed factions/groups will fall in and out of favour with the "authorities" and will at times be considered to have legitimacy while at other times will not.

[Legbreaker]

I am sure by 2000 the service life of many of weapons system would be toward the end of their usefulness.

I'm not convinced about that. In the hands of a decently trained soldier, a weapon should last thousands of rounds. Admittedly the war has been going on for a number of years, but I rather doubt there'd be many weapons, from pistols right up to the heavy artillery peices, that were involved in every action, let alone enough actions to wear them out.

Those recovered from the battlefield on the other hand may not be in as good a condition, some having possibly laid out in the elements for a substantial period of time.

I would therefore go on to say that a PC's issued weapon is likely to be in good condition (depending on training, etc), however addtional weaponry they've acquired, is more likely to be prone to problems.