Germany in T2K

[StainlessSteelCynic]

On the other hand, the G11 may have eliminated the need for 9mmP submachineguns in general service and eventually "companion" weapons in the same calibre would have been developed (pistols, carbine/smgs, light machineguns, etc).
If reunification had not occurred, the G11 was sure to have been taken into service in my opinion - the requirements for such a weapon had been laid down 20 years earlier and the G11 filled all of them admirably. At the time, the G3 was the standard service rifle, the G41, G36, etc all still to come.

Therefore, the Germans would only have had 4.7mm and 7.62N to worry about, at least initially. The G41 would have been placed on the back burner while the G11 was issued to the front line units. Once that was mostly complete, then the G3 would have been removed (the whole process taking a couple of years in all likelihood). There would have been little need to supply front line units with 7.62 (belted, certainly, but loose rounds would only be needed for speciality weapons such as sniper rifles), and certainly no need for 5.56 at all...

If the G11 was taken into service, then the G41 would have been too.
The G41 was developed from the HK33 with such differences as making use of the NATO STANAG magazine instead of the HK mag, a bolt hold open device and an M16 style dust cover for the ejection port. As such, it's basically just an upgraded HK33.

It was developed alongside the G11 as a companion piece because the G11 was never intended to be issued in such numbers that every West German soldier would have one. It was strictly for the combat arms while the G41 was to be issued to the support services (as well as those navy and air force units that needed a rifle). You're right that it would not have been a frontline weapon but it was definitely going to be issued to the West German forces.

The G41 was still on offer to the Bundeswehr until 1989 when it was rejected in favour of a more modern design (probably also had something to do with the fact that it was generally heavier than other 5.56mm rifles). That rejection lead to the development of the G36 now in service.

[Legbreaker]

By back burner I mean that rolling out the G11 would have taken precedence over the G41. The G41 would have only had to wait a year or three though while the G11 logitistical trail and retraining was sorted out.
Introduction of two weapons systems on such a wide scale would be very difficult if done concurrently with each other.

Here in Australia, the F88 Steyr AUG took several years to transition to, and that was just one weapon and a much smaller military than Germany.

[Abbott Shaull]

By back burner I mean that rolling out the G11 would have taken precedence over the G41. The G41 would have only had to wait a year or three though while the G11 logitistical trail and retraining was sorted out.
Introduction of two weapons systems on such a wide scale would be very difficult if done concurrently with each other.

Here in Australia, the F88 Steyr AUG took several years to transition to, and that was just one weapon and a much smaller military than Germany.

Even in the US Military it has taken a long time to replace many M16s rifles with the M4 Carbines. Granted that not all M16s were suppose to be replaced, but it still was on going process in after 9-11 that got sped up a tad bit.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

By back burner I mean that rolling out the G11 would have taken precedence over the G41. The G41 would have only had to wait a year or three though while the G11 logitistical trail and retraining was sorted out.
Introduction of two weapons systems on such a wide scale would be very difficult if done concurrently with each other.

Here in Australia, the F88 Steyr AUG took several years to transition to, and that was just one weapon and a much smaller military than Germany.

Ahh I gottcha now, my mistake, I originally thought you meant that the G41 would not have been issued at all.

[Mohoender]

I just don't see how that is relevant.
By application of that clause, a paper cut would be illegal. A .50 cal weapon is most certainly well within the spirit of the agreement, just like 5.56m 7.62, 20mm HE, 105 APDS, or even a tac nuke.

My statement was incomplete but I had no time this early morning (my morning ) to correct it.

That makes it relevant as a preliminary step. However, as in every international treaty/agreement, the application depends on pre-war agreement or winner application.

As such the Ottawa treaty (International Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty) resulted in the fact that anti-personnal mines are considered by many as falling under that article (Countries such as USA, Russia, China, Israel, Egypt... didn't sign the treaty). The signing countries (among which you find Australia) ban themselves from using it and, in the eventuality of a war that they win, grant themselves the right to prosecute anyone for using them.

The best exemple was that of Nuremberg. As Nimitz pointed out that the US had carried an unrestricted submarine warfare of their own, Dnitz was not condemned on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare. And that despite the fact that it was recognized as a crime by the La Haye treaty of 1907.

As an historian, I do condemn US attitude. As a man I'm outraged by the level of hypocrisis that you find there. If I had live then, I would have adopted both the position of US and Nimitz. Everything is a matter of time and timing with the thing always going down to politics.

As a matter of fact, Leg you are right because no treaty has ban the use of .50 so far (I don't know if some countries have done it individually). That doesn't make it a false rumor as well as it gives you the legal ground to go to court. However, I'm sure that those who made (or some of those reading) the treaty might have had paper sheets in mind as well. (This was what I wanted to point out, sorry if the lack of time had made me miss the point).

[HorseSoldier]

As such the Ottawa treaty (International Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty) resulted in the fact that anti-personnal mines are considered by many as falling under that article (Countries such as USA, Russia, China, Israel, Egypt... didn't sign the treaty). The signing countries (among which you find Australia) ban themselves from using it and, in the eventuality of a war that they win, grant themselves the right to prosecute anyone for using them.

(SNIP)

As a matter of fact, Leg you are right because no treaty has ban the use of .50 so far (I don't know if some countries have done it individually). That doesn't make it a false rumor as well as it gives you the legal ground to go to court. However, I'm sure that those who made (or some of those reading) the treaty might have had paper sheets in mind as well. (This was what I wanted to point out, sorry if the lack of time had made me miss the point).

The US reserves the right to keep minefields between US troops and however many semi-starving North Korean troops are on the other side of that border, but the policy after the treaty went into effect is that we cannot even train to emplace anti-personnel mines unless stationed in South Korea.

As for the .50 cal being inhumane -- it's probably more humane than smaller weapons, given that a torso hit is going to be significantly more consistently lethal than a hit from a smaller caliber round (and even more so compared to artillery, grenades, etc.). You can't experience unnecessary suffering if you're dead.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah the proper emplacement of any type of mines would be for most troop on the job training.

As for the .50 cal being illegal I have to agree that being hit by one of those round would most like kill you. You can suffer too much after being dead, while with the 5.56mm NATO and 9mmP could take several direct hits to kill you.

[headquarters]

50 cal vs personel question

In the 1990s the interpretation we got ( this was deduced from official NATO legal positions by our Norwegian GHQ) was that the type of rounds used were the critical point.

.50 BMG ( FMJ rounds) were accepted, soft nose,multi purpose etc were not.

Those were applicable to material targets

When someone pointed out that lacing a soft armoured vehicle with .50 MP would mean subjecting crew and passengers to a pretty raw deal, the legal dept. guys kinda froze for a few seconds and the repeated the initial interpretation of the rules.

The ammo rules in the Genevea conventions are ignored by and large today.
The velocity of the 5.56 itself or the 5.45 means that the round could inflict damage on par with many outlawed rounds,such as soft nose lead rounds in other cals.

At least most armies use FMJ as a result of the rules ,meaning that there has come something tangible good out of the legislation.

So imho ( h= humble as always) the caliber is not essential, the round configuration is. I guess you can also argue that the efect of the round is also a factor - say a liquid core fmj round in a standard caliber that spins and yaws so that the wounds are greater and more terrible would be ilegal , but a 75 cal rifle with a solid fmj round could be legal.

[Mohoender]

In the 1990s the interpretation we got ( this was deduced from official NATO legal positions by our Norwegian GHQ) was that the type of rounds used were the critical point.

.50 BMG ( FMJ rounds) were accepted, soft nose,multi purpose etc were not.

Those were applicable to material targets

Make sense.

[Legbreaker]

That's my understanding of it also. It's not the weapon that's doing the killing or wounding (unless you're beating them over the head with it), it's the projectile.

[HorseSoldier]

The ammo rules in the Genevea conventions are ignored by and large today.
The velocity of the 5.56 itself or the 5.45 means that the round could inflict damage on par with many outlawed rounds,such as soft nose lead rounds in other cals.

Honestly, any spitzer-type bullet will tumble when it transitions to a denser medium like flesh. This means they will tend to inflict more severe wounds than the round-nosed projectiles they replaced (which are pretty stable and don't typically tumble, just bore straight through). It also means that every new cartridge adopted since 1900 +/- a few years depending on the nation in question has been a violation of the spirit of international law.

What makes them legal in international law is that they were fielded because of greater range and accuracy -- the extra wounding being just a convenient side effect and not the intent of the round. This is why open tipped match sniper ammunition is also legal -- it is OTM format because it's horribly accurate compared to conventional ("open base match" being a descriptive, if silly, term) and the fact that it blows all to hell in tissue and fragments is just happy bonus. A jacketed hollow point pistol round is no more accurate than its FMJ equivalent, so it's format is specifically for increased lethality and that's bad.

(Whole thing is kind of silly, and is kind of ignored as was noted up thread, but I suppose on a big picture level it has discouraged people from going really off the rails in designing duty ammunition.)

Even in the US Military it has taken a long time to replace many M16s rifles with the M4 Carbines. Granted that not all M16s were suppose to be replaced, but it still was on going process in after 9-11 that got sped up a tad bit.

M1903 to M1 Garand and Carbine was a quicker switch and might be a better analogy for the situation Germany would have been looking at when the TW kicked off. I doubt they would have been able to implement a comprehensively effective small arms plan before the war went nuclear, but I'm guessing on the staff side of things they had one put together by about 1 Jan 97 and probably had factories going triple shifts trying to get weapons to the troops.

[Dog 6]

my first question is how many leo 3's would the Bundeswehr have and at what rate of production a year.

[HorseSoldier]

Probably none. I don't see the Bundeswehr going anywhere past Leo2A4, maybe Leo2A5 on some sort of accelerated timeline, in a realistic take on reconciling T2K development.

[Canadian Army]

Probably none. I don't see the Bundeswehr going anywhere past Leo2A4, maybe Leo2A5 on some sort of accelerated timeline, in a realistic take on reconciling T2K development.

What about the Leopard 2-140 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#Leopard_2-140. I can see that going into production.

[Legbreaker]

I'm not convinced. The 120mm seems to be more than adequate to deal with most of the AFVs the Germans would face and I doubt introducing another type of ammo into the logistical train would help anyone.

Could be a few prototypes floating about in T2K though.