Long Term Rifle Decisions

[Legbreaker]

The Sten (and SMGs in general) don't require close tolerances and good engineering to be effective (they're only meant for close range spray and pray firepower). A machinegun or assault rifle on the other hand which needs to hit accurately and reliably at a decent range does.
It's the more advanced and useful weapons which will not be produced post nuke while smoothbore type (shotguns) and basic SMGs will become fairly common.

[Mohoender]

I think we agree. For my part, I do.

[Bullet Magnet]

If we're talking about a guy building rifles in his garage workshop, then yeah, he'd definitely need some skill in gunsmithing to make a weapon that won't blow up in his face the first time the trigger is pulled.

Now, if we're talking about getting a firearms factory up and running, I think you'd only need a handful who actually know how to build a gun, rather than everyone needing to know.
The assembly line eliminates the need to know the whole process of building things. At first, the ones who do know, would be needed to teach the workers their individual part of the process, then they'd be able to shift over to quality control, once the workers knew how to do their respective jobs.

But then, this is just my take on it.

[James Langham]

Random thoughts

"Knowledge is of two types, that which we know and that which we know how to find." Francis Bacon. Once information on how to do something is available it is a lot easier than starting from scratch.

Consider the Warsaw Ghetto - my guess is that there were few gunsmiths there yet they were making their own weapons.

PPSh41 barrels were often made by taking a rifle barrel that was worn out and cutting it in half to make two SMG barrels. Maybe there is a 7.62mmN answer in the years after the war.

I can see the possibility of an initial shortage, reducing as the tears go by as apprentices become fully trained.

[Webstral]

There won't be a lot of call for the more technical skills such as fabrication of new weapons when the average person is struggling to get enough calories every day.
People may develop some mechanical skills (such as fixing their car), but the ability to operate highly technical machinery to make precision engineered items isn't going to be happening.

At the risk of nitpicking, I disagree that there won't be a call for the technical skills of gunsmithing. Once someone shows up to take the food, the ability to produce arms and ammunition will be valued second only to the ability to produce food--and a close second, at that. As a practical matter, the ability to repair existing firearms will take precedent over the fabrication of new firearms because (generally) repairing existing firearms will yield more firearms per hundred hours of labor than fabricating new ones, provided the labor and machinery for repair and fabrication are comparable. Therefore, fabrication of new firearms by skilled gunsmiths will take a back seat to repair of existing firearms by skilled gunsmiths.

As on so many occasions, Leg, I think were speaking to different circumstances. You prefer a more uniform and more complete breakdown of civilization than I do. Your observations tend to be appropriate for smaller cantonments, which would predominate in the version of Twilight: 2000 you prefer. I tend to concur with most of your observations when they are applied to smaller cantonments even in my own concept of Twilight: 2000.

That much said, technical skills are going to survive and be in demand in locations where the food supply permits. By 2000, the food situation largely will have stabilized throughout most of the world. The pre-war foods will have been eaten or have gone bad. The survivors will be eating food they have grown locally. In some locations, like Colorado, the existence of a powerful pre-war agricultural base, combined with the local presence of fuels, minerals, armed might, and technical expertise, will allow a new homeostasis at a relatively high level. The ratio of farm workers to non-farm workers will be much more amenable to industrial growth than in many other parts of the country. In places like Manhattan and Phoenix, the situation will be more medieval: there will be those who grow the food and those who fight over the food. In Colorado, then, Milgov will have the oeluxury of deciding what kinds of arms and armaments should be manufactured based on needs and resources.

At the risk of pointing out what we all know already, the whole point of an assembly line is to save labor. Throughout the US (and the world), non-agricultural/food producing labor is going to be at a premium. Milgovs interest in producing rifles for export to friendly cantonments is going to have several dimensions. Even where the local forces have enough rifles for every fighting man or woman who will take to the field, there are significant advantages to providing those forces with a new uniform service rifle firing a common ammunition and capable of delivering a high volume of fire out to the typical maximum range of infantry engagements (<300 meters)(1). This is not to say that hunting rifles dont have their uses. However, Milgov will see the advantage of standardizing small arms in its cantonments to the greatest degree possible by creating assembly lines in Colorado Springs to manufacture a standard service rifle. As an added bonus, the more dissimilar rifles that can be replaced, the more the base of gunsmithing labor in the various cantonments can be economized by reducing the number of separate tasks the gunsmiths must execute to service the rifles of friendly forces. Therefore, the creation in Colorado of an assembly line for a service rifle that can be shipped"with spare parts, etc."to the various friendly cantonments creates a situation in which labor is saved at the cantonment, local logistics are greatly facilitated and simplified, and the relative advantage of the local forces vis--vis marauders and the like is measurably enhanced.

Of course, for all of this to work Milgov needs to select a good candidate for a new service rifle and have the ability to deliver the rifles. Ive thrown my support behind the AR-18 because it combines relative ease of manufacture with an ability to exploit the existing base of ammunition, magazines, and experience. As for delivery, Im sure Ive beaten to death my argument regarding airships. The beauty of using airships to deliver rifles is that the rifles are relatively low-mass items for their utility. It isnt practical for Milgov to deliver grain or petroleum until the railroads and/or rivers can be opened up again. Rifles (and other small arms) enhance the ability of cantonments to defend their existing assets. With time and breathing space, the isolated cantonments will find solutions to their problems using local resources.


Webstral

(1) I readily acknowledge that the realities of infantry combat will change in the post-Exchange environment. However, certain realities will persist. The attacker will attempt to use covered approaches to get as close as possible to the defender. The defender will want to exploit cleared fields of fire to prevent the attacker from getting very close. Long-range rifle marksmanship is something that requires a fair amount of practice. Militia troops and even some regulars wont get anything like the required practice in the post-Exchange environment. Therefore, a rifle with a high rate of fire and a high magazine capacity but shortish effective range is superior to a hunting rifle under many circumstances. Both attacker and defender will want to be able to deliver a high volume of accurate fire in close-to-medium combat ranges.

[Legbreaker]

It all comes back to the original purpose of this thread I suppose - "long range" decisions ie a decade or three rather than the immediate future.
I agree that marksmanship ability may reduce, however there is a method called "dry firing" which can substitute somewhat for a lack of ammo. It's so effective when carried out correctly that the Soviet Olympic team used it as part of their training regime. Any of the older soldiers, or even civilian target shooters will be able to apply their knowledge of this to keep and improve general marksmanship.

Of course there's nothing like the real thing, nothing that can replace the feel of a weapon actually firing and the sudden recoil against the shoulder. With ammunition likely in short supply (in most areas anyway), accuracy with each round is even more important than it once was. Perhaps for the defensive role, low rate of fire tripod mounted weapons may be the answer. The tripod would minimise the felt recoil and increase accuracy well over that of a hand held SMG or assault rifle. The smaller weapons would still see widespread use, but they'd be secondary to the fixed defensive weapons.

Patrols and offensive actions would of course be a different story with operations carried out only by skilled soldiers who may have been retrained to conserve ammo, and thus extend the service life of their weapons. It may even be that semi-auto weapons become the norm, thereby preventing ammo wastage, with a handful of automatic weapons (GPMGs and LMGs) held in reserve/used as fire support. Essentially a move back to the tactics of the mid 20th Century.

Hunting is more likely to occur with non-military rounds such as .22LR which are relatively useless against enemy soldiers. Bows, crossbows and black powder weapons would see increased use by civilian hunters, along with traps of varying design. Organised agriculture would however be the prime method of feeding the population, especially in areas with greater population densities. In those areas it would seem unlikely the military would allow any weapons in civilian hands - keeps them more controllable and allows the military more weapon options (although really screws with the supply chain to have a dozen+ pistol calibres, etc...).

[dragoon500ly]

Actually, all you need is a half-way decent machine shop, this is just a small listing of the weapons that can be made: Mortars, bazookas, rocket launchers, and grenades, and all of a lot better quality than the "Wojos" of Krakow fame!

The only real shortfall is propellent and filling for the weapons...but then a decent high school chem lab always had problems with creative students trying their hand at homemade mayhem. Toss a college prof into the mix, and we are talking home made mustard gas, naplam, and a rather nasty assortment of nerve gases.

And toss into the pot those who live near any towns with shipyard capacity! Those machine shops can turn out decent quality metal working...stainless steel cannon barrels

And finally, toss in all of the wanna-be mercenaries and those who purchased books from Paladin Press....Improvisied Munitions Handbooks as well as a varied selection of mayhem how-to books!

[Webstral]

It all comes back to the original purpose of this thread I suppose - "long range" decisions ie a decade or three rather than the immediate future.

The decisions made by Milgov in early 2001 will affect the history of the US over the next 10 to 20 years, certainly. There are sharp limits to what Milgov can accomplish, even if one sets aside the drought. Therefore, decisions made in 2001 will have long-term effects because reversing them will be difficult. The right decision in 2001 will support rebuilding and reunification over the next 20 years without any major changes in ammunition, design, resource allocation, etc.

I agree that marksmanship ability may reduce, however there is a method called "dry firing" which can substitute somewhat for a lack of ammo. It's so effective when carried out correctly that the Soviet Olympic team used it as part of their training regime. Any of the older soldiers, or even civilian target shooters will be able to apply their knowledge of this to keep and improve general marksmanship.

I presume the whole panoply of ammunition-saving marksmanship training methods will be used. These methods and appropriate devices might be something else for Milgov to consolidate and distribute.

It may even be that semi-auto weapons become the norm, thereby preventing ammo wastage

Agreed.

(although really screws with the supply chain to have a dozen+ pistol calibres, etc...).

Agreed. Therefore, Milgov is likely going to make some decisions about standardizing a shotgun, a handgun, and a bolt-action rifle for precision fires.


Webstral

[Legbreaker]

I can't see why Milgov (or Civgov either) will need to make any weapon choices in 2001, or even prior to about 2010 for that matter. With the reduced number of available troops (compared to pre-war and expressed as a percentage of overall population) the existing weapons should be sufficent for the immediate few years.
Yes they will wear out, but it's not like most units are in constant contact with an enemy. The Mexican/Soviet front has basically stabilised by 2000 and Milgov and Civgov seem to be trading harsh words more than gunfire. The only really active area is those where New America are showing themselves.
Other than that you've got the odd marauder group throwing their weight about, but they're more likely to run from an organised military force than stand and fight.

[Panther Al]

While I totally agree, that the presence of surplus weapons in all likelihood means that they don't have to, you are forgetting the political aspect: By getting industry running, and weapons manufacture is one industry that hits more than one target, they prove to those that look that they are the horse to bet on. While CivGov can't get stuff done, MilGov is getting things running: Plenty of food, manufacture, even (And I would push for this for no other reason than of public relations) some luxuries being made. The need for weapons isn't critical: Its the political/public relations angle that needs to be addressed.

[James Langham]

I can't see why Milgov (or Civgov either) will need to make any weapon choices in 2001, or even prior to about 2010 for that matter. With the reduced number of available troops (compared to pre-war and expressed as a percentage of overall population) the existing weapons should be sufficent for the immediate few years.
Yes they will wear out, but it's not like most units are in constant contact with an enemy. The Mexican/Soviet front has basically stabilised by 2000 and Milgov and Civgov seem to be trading harsh words more than gunfire. The only really active area is those where New America are showing themselves.
Other than that you've got the odd marauder group throwing their weight about, but they're more likely to run from an organised military force than stand and fight.

A key factor is likely to be making the troops LOOK like a military unit. Having an M16 family weapon will make you look official, having mixed weapons, an AK series or a hunting rifle will make you look like a marauder.

[Mohoender]

I rather think that the key factor would be maintenance problem. The more different equipments the bigger the headache for those charged with maintaining equipments in working order.

If I consider the exemple of ww2, official look didn't depended on the type of equipments. German garrison troops had been issued all kind of equipments from all occupied countries. However, less of these captures equipments were issued to front line units. So much for the official look of things.

[Legbreaker]

True, weapon commonality is a good thing, but what about all those M16's brought back from Europe The military certainly aren't going to let the discharged soldiers simply walk off with nearly 50,000 perfectly good weapons are they (Probably only about 30,000 M16s).
And yes, getting industry running again is a good thing, but there's got to be plenty of other items with a higher priority than weapons which may not even really be needed in the early 2000s. For example, plows which can be drawn by animals or even humans in preference to tractors which no longer have fuel.

[Raellus]

Yes, so manufacturing the AR18, slightly modified to accept STANAGs, would be a really good move. You've got ammo and magazine commonality with the large number of M16s floating around, and you're manufacturing new rifles- rifles easier to make and maintain than the M16- to keep up with M16 attrition, wear, damage, etc. If ammo usage is a concern, you could manufacture them in semi-auto only. The AR-18 is a win-win.

[Webstral]

I can't see why Milgov (or Civgov either) will need to make any weapon choices in 2001, or even prior to about 2010 for that matter. With the reduced number of available troops (compared to pre-war and expressed as a percentage of overall population) the existing weapons should be sufficent for the immediate few years.

I couldnt disagree more. By no means is 2001 too early for such an important decision to be undertaken. Given the reduced means and the long lead time necessary for getting an AR-18 assembly line up-to-speed in the post-Exchange environment, 2001 is a great time to make decisions about what rifle to produce.

Yes they will wear out, but it's not like most units are in constant contact with an enemy.

Given your predilection for the almost disintegration of society"particularly the US"youre surprisingly sanguine about the condition of weapons three years on from the nuclear exchange, Leg. Soldiers break equipment. Poorly-trained soldiers, which describes troops in many of the regular units as well as the majority of militia troops, break their equipment at an even greater rate. Neglect, the lack of proper lubricants, and so on will consume huge numbers of otherwise serviceable rifles during the years immediately following the nuclear attacks. Civilians will be even harder on their rifles than the military types. Yes, there will those who take good care of their equipment. Nonetheless, in the post-nuke world attrition of firearms will be high.

The Mexican/Soviet front has basically stabilised by 2000 and Milgov and Civgov seem to be trading harsh words more than gunfire. The only really active area is those where New America are showing themselves.
Other than that you've got the odd marauder group throwing their weight about, but they're more likely to run from an organised military force than stand and fight.

The fact that bandits dont stand and fight when a larger military force appears doesnt mean there isnt an ongoing need to deal with them. Like guerillas, marauders will strike under conditions they feel are favorable to them. They may not take on a company-sized element from the 78th Infantry Division, but they will more willing to take on a local militia. The local militias will need weapons like the AR-18 that deliver a high volume of fire so that marauder attempts to use light infantry tactics can be countered by smaller numbers of militia troops.

By the same token, warlords not associated with New America are going to want to expand their territory. Theres never enough farmland; theres never enough labor. While Milgov cant directly affect the training of cantonments it wants to support, Milgov can make decisions to provide cantonments with vital equipment the cantonments cannot manufacture for themselves in a cost-effective fashion.

While I totally agree, that the presence of surplus weapons in all likelihood means that they don't have to, you are forgetting the political aspect: By getting industry running, and weapons manufacture is one industry that hits more than one target, they prove to those that look that they are the horse to bet on. While CivGov can't get stuff done, MilGov is getting things running: Plenty of food, manufacture, even (And I would push for this for no other reason than of public relations) some luxuries being made. The need for weapons isn't critical: Its the political/public relations angle that needs to be addressed.

I completely agree with the political aspect of the decision. Three years on from the nuclear strikes, morale is going to be a critical issue. GDW agrees. In Howling Wilderness, Milgov is considering reopening the US Mint in Denver to demonstrate how good things are in Colorado. We should ask whether Milgov is also going to start manufacturing BDUs or some other type of uniform in the name of making military forces look (and FEEL) more like a professional military force.

A key factor is likely to be making the troops LOOK like a military unit. Having an M16 family weapon will make you look official, having mixed weapons, an AK series or a hunting rifle will make you look like a marauder.

Thus, the M16EZ.

True, weapon commonality is a good thing, but what about all those M16's brought back from Europe The military certainly aren't going to let the discharged soldiers simply walk off with nearly 50,000 perfectly good weapons are they (Probably only about 30,000 M16s).

30,000 M16s is a decent start. 300,000 would be better. Three million would be better than that. We should bear in mind that in April 2001 the US still has some 120-140 million people. Putting a mere 1% of the population under arms means putting 1.2-1.4 people under arms. Eliminating marauders, liberating Americans controlled by warlords, destroying New America, driving the invaders off American soil"all of these will require troops with good service rifles. Since the ability of Milgov to move combat formations long distances is in question, the other alternative is to make sure that local forces have the right equipment to undertake local actions. Ensuring that troops intended to go into the lions dens, so to speak, have rifles at least as good as the enemys best rifles is a must. We can argue about whether the AR-18 is a better choice than the M1, but wed be acknowledging that the kind of rifle used by US infantry from WW2 onward is the best choice.

And yes, getting industry running again is a good thing, but there's got to be plenty of other items with a higher priority than weapons which may not even really be needed in the early 2000s. For example, plows which can be drawn by animals or even humans in preference to tractors which no longer have fuel.

Rifles and plows are apples and oranges. Both require some labor to fabricate, but the shortage of labor experienced everywhere across the US is an argument in favor of Milgovs investment in an assembly line for a post-Exchange service rifle. A relative handful of factory workers in Colorado can displace many times their number of workers in cantonments throughout the country. If fewer gunsmiths are needed to maintain the cantonments stocks of weapons, more labor can be invested in manufacturing to meet local needs. Serviceable plows can be fabricated locally. Displacing the manufacture of rifles to Colorado actually increases the labor available for making plows, or whatever other non-precision, low-tech tools and implements are required for local needs.

If we're talking about a guy building rifles in his garage workshop, then yeah, he'd definitely need some skill in gunsmithing to make a weapon that won't blow up in his face the first time the trigger is pulled.

Now, if we're talking about getting a firearms factory up and running, I think you'd only need a handful who actually know how to build a gun, rather than everyone needing to know.
The assembly line eliminates the need to know the whole process of building things. At first, the ones who do know, would be needed to teach the workers their individual part of the process, then they'd be able to shift over to quality control, once the workers knew how to do their respective jobs.

My point exactly. The Industrial Revolution supports the establishment of assembly lines for the manufacture of weapons"especially where labor and expertise are in short supply.


Webstral