The Union Forever: A TL

More like the Mini-14GB of TUF, although the E2 variant does have a collapsing stock, and three-round burst is better than nothing (although that's in U.S. service, the Colombians did introduce full-automatic for their version).

And true, although I think I'd rather take a musket over the A1 variant (good thing the A2 is a marked improvement AIUI).
 
More like the Mini-14GB of TUF, although the E2 variant does have a collapsing stock, and three-round burst is better than nothing.

And true, although I think I'd rather take a musket over the A1 variant (good thing the A2 is a marked improvement AIUI).
Yep. Although it has caught the Unreliable myth like the M16 did.

It seems that American weapons have a short service span, if I may notice. The Americans went through the S&W M1899 and the Winchester Model 44 then only started with the Springfield M1956 when the Brits finally laid to rest the Taylor-Jalenson rifle and brought in the Batts-Enfield.
 
Yep. Although it has caught the Unreliable myth like the M16 did.

It seems that American weapons have a short service span, if I may notice. The Americans went through the S&W M1899 and the Winchester Model 44 then only started with the Springfield M1956 when the Brits finally laid to rest the Taylor-Jalenson rifle and brought in the Batts-Enfield.

Well the M1872 was in service for almost 30 years, and the M1899 for over 40, which isn't that short of a replacement cycle compared to OTL. Now the M1944 did get replaced in under a decade, but that was due to it not being terribly liked after experience in the Atacama War showed numerous glitches with the design, but that still compares favorably to the OTL M14, which had a standard-issue lifespan of five years :eek:.

I'd submit that the British didn't really need a replacement for the Taylor-Jalenson rifle as much due to operational requirements. The fact that the T-J has the same sort of Mad Minute capability as the OTL SMLE probably helped in that decision, if I had to conjecture.
 
Well the M1872 was in service for almost 30 years, and the M1899 for over 40, which isn't that short of a replacement cycle compared to OTL. Now the M1944 did get replaced in under a decade, but that was due to it not being terribly liked after experience in the Atacama War showed numerous glitches with the design, but that still compares favorably to the OTL M14, which had a standard-issue lifespan of five years :eek:.

I'd submit that the British didn't really need a replacement for the Taylor-Jalenson rifle as much due to operational requirements. The fact that the T-J has the same sort of Mad Minute capability as the OTL SMLE probably helped in that decision, if I had to conjecture.
Ah, I see. Still has nothing on the Batts-Enfield, which served for over 50 years until it got replaced with the SCLTSE SCR-25.

And the SMTJ also had its own TUF name for the Mad Minute, the "Jalenson Gallop", as mentioned above. At least we are giving less known weapons some love, although I used the FN FAL for the Batts.
 
I won't lie, I'm at something of a predicament in terms of what the next weapon profile will be. I'm tempted to use something from OTL (perhaps with a retro configuration for "differentiation"), but also wondering if I should do something not really adopted in OTL.

Also, good call on the Jalenson Gallop, meant to throw an "OTL" in front of "Mad Minute".

EDIT: So the British did adopt the SCLTSE SCR-25? News to me, it sure is a pretty interesting looking rifle.
 
Last edited:
I won't lie, I'm at something of a predicament in terms of what the next weapon profile will be. I'm tempted to use something from OTL (perhaps with a retro configuration for "differentiation"), but also wondering if I should do something not really adopted in OTL.

Also, good call on the Jalenson Gallop, meant to throw an "OTL" in front of "Mad Minute".
Well, I already took the FAL, the Minimi, the Spectre, the CIS 50MG, the FN Five Seven and the Gepard, so....

I'm thinking finding uncommon weapons would do good. The Fictional Rounds look good too, as the 9x22mm, the .511 and the .280 are in very common usage here.
 
Weapon Profile: Smith & Wesson Model 1973 "Sully" Automatic Rifle
Last rifle for the time being, I present;

wood furniture ar15.jpg


Name: Smith & Wesson Model 1973 "Sully" Automatic Rifle
Designer: Smith & Wesson Firearms
Type: Direct-impingement automatic rifle
Caliber: .243 Liberty
Feed System: 30, 60, 100-round detachable box/coffin/drum
Adopted: 1973
Notes: By 1970, the U.S. Army under the MacArthur Administration had decided to develop a light-weight service rifle that would replace machine pistols and select side-arms while also increasing squad firepower. Research into light-weight polymers and aluminum would help bring down weapon weight while also permitting high volume fire. Ultimately, a design by aviation engineer J. Guillaume Sullivan and armorer Rick de la Vega would result in a design licensed to Smith & Wesson being the U.S. Military's new service rifle, the M1973 Automatic Rifle, or the "Sully Gun" in common parlance.

As expected from the example set by its predecessors, the M1973 used an unusual action; direct gas impingement, a system developed originally by Prussian inventor Heinrich Freiburg, wherein gas from a fired shot would act directly on the bolt and cycle it (and later improved by Century Armaments Factory in the United States by changing the impingement point to a bolt carrier group as an ersatz "micro gas piston"). While this theoretically would make for more fouling in the receiver and lead to severe maintenance issues, Sullivan and de la Vega made it clear to the Army that cleaning requirements would be higher than that of the M1956 Vicario [1]. However, the benefits of direct impingement more than made up for such characteristics.

The Sully Gun was America's primary service weapon in the Asia-Pacific War, and gave quite an excellent showing in the field. Not only was it less than eight pounds loaded and more accurate than the Vicario Rifle even at its expected range limit of 500 yards, it could lay down ferocious firepower (firing around 750rpm from a variety of magazines[2]). While Japanese troops had a deserved reputation for bloody-mindedness and a predilection for bayonet charges, the Sully Gun was discovered to inflict grievous wounds despite being considered low-powered compared to either the PQ-45 or PQ-66[3] due to its barrel twist causing high rates of bullet deformation upon hitting soft tissue, giving the rifle considerable stopping power.

As it stands, the M1973 still remains the primary U.S. Military service arm in its E3 format[4], a testament to its inherent versatility and proven combat effectiveness.

[1] Unlike OTL, there was no stick powder-ball powder issuing f**k-up that led to chronic jamming and malfunctions. Chalk it up to butterflies, S&W not promoting the gun as self-cleaning like Colt did IOTL, more thorough/less hectic ammo development, and (most satisfyingly IMO) no Robert Strange McNamara running the show.
[2] Box, coffin, and drum mags respectively. Of course the last option isn't terribly field-rugged by time the Asia-Pacific War goes down, but the other two certainly did the trick.
[3] Closer to an Italian BM59 in the paratrooper format.
[4] Think an M-4 lower receiver mated to an M16A1 upper receiver, only with modern accessory rails and optics. Better yet, like a pencil-weight barrel version of the Diemaco C7A2.
 
Last edited:
That would be their Corporatist buddies, Japan.

As you can see, I did use something more OTL this go around (chalk it up to my continuity OCD and the currently-defunct pic on Page 219 for this choice), although with some differences in detail. I figure any firearms I do going forward will be unique enough :p.
 
New Zealand Political History: 1980-2000
New Zealand Political History: 2000-2010

The New Zealand Political Spectrum, 2010


The Liberal Party

As of 2010 the Liberals are pro-free trade, pro-open immigration, pro-innovation, socially liberal, and support a moderate welfare state, and are considered to be a center left party.

The National Party

As of 2010 the Nationals are pro-free trade, for secure immigration, pro-business, socially moderate, anti-welfare state, and are considered center right.

Ecoists

As of 2010, the Ecoists in New Zealand are divided on free trade. Some support it because they see it as the best means of using resources efficiently, while some oppose it because of the environmental impact of transporting goods around the world. They are also divided on immigration, for similar reasons they are divided on trade. They are anti-infrastructure expansion, preferring to encourage people to relocate to major cities in order to contain human impact on the environment. They support a strong welfare-state, so long as it is environmentally neutral. They are very socially liberal. They are considered a far-left party.

Maori

The Maori Party supports a strong welfare-state, but are also socially conservative. They support fair-trade, rather than free trade. They also prefer secure immigration, rather than open immigration. They are also moderate supporters of infrastructure expansion, but want a sufficient buffer zone around tribal lands that are not to be developed so the tribes that want to live a traditional lifestyle can do so. This variety of positions had led to the party being difficult to place on the spectrum.
 
New Zealand Political History: 1980-2000
New Zealand Political History: 2000-2010

The New Zealand Political Spectrum, 2010


The Liberal Party

As of 2010 the Liberals are pro-free trade, pro-open immigration, pro-innovation, socially liberal, and support a moderate welfare state, and are considered to be a center left party.

The National Party

As of 2010 the Nationals are pro-free trade, for secure immigration, pro-business, socially moderate, anti-welfare state, and are considered center right.

Ecoists

As of 2010, the Ecoists in New Zealand are divided on free trade. Some support it because they see it as the best means of using resources efficiently, while some oppose it because of the environmental impact of transporting goods around the world. They are also divided on immigration, for similar reasons they are divided on trade. They are anti-infrastructure expansion, preferring to encourage people to relocate to major cities in order to contain human impact on the environment. They support a strong welfare-state, so long as it is environmentally neutral. They are very socially liberal. They are considered a far-left party.

Maori

The Maori Party supports a strong welfare-state, but are also socially conservative. They support fair-trade, rather than free trade. They also prefer secure immigration, rather than open immigration. They are also moderate supporters of infrastructure expansion, but want a sufficient buffer zone around tribal lands that are not to be developed so the tribes that want to live a traditional lifestyle can do so. This variety of positions had led to the party being difficult to place on the spectrum.
Cool breakdown. Thanks!
 
Due very tense situation in East Asia Rowland probably decide run for a third term. He is on similar situation as RTL was 104 years earlier. It is very possible that situation explode so Rowland might feel that him should lead America on coming war.

If then Rowland runs and wins the election, on near future might be some discussion over term limitation.
 
I have a feeling I really need to expand the general bio of the Singaporean Commonwealth Laboratories of Technology, Science and Engineering.
 
Hey y'all, here is a quick rundown on post independence India. Special thanks to traveller76.


Indian Republic

Capital: Calcutta
Premier Mundakkal Mirdha 1959-1963
Premier Sayed Koya 1963 – 1967
Premier Harshad Nanda 1967-1968

United Republic of India
Capital: Ekata Sahara (formerly Nagpur)
Leader Harshad Nanda 1968-1979
Leader Shrinivas Dev Korrapati 1979

Indian Republic

Capital: Delhi
Prime Minister Mukul Priti (Provisional/Nonpartisan) 1979-1980
Prime Minister Gotam Varghese 1980-1984
Prime Minister Sharma Preeti 1984-1992*
Prime Minister Arvind Verma 1992-2002
Prime Minister Lal Sita 2002-2004**
Prime Minister Shirish Birender Chandra 2004-2006

Prime Minister Hari Lanba 2006-2010
Prime Minister Mohandas Nithya 2010-Present


†Died in Office
*First female Prime Minister
** Resigned



Hindu People's Party: Socially Conservative, Economically Liberal. Strong belief in India as a Hindu Nation.

Democratic Party of India Socially Liberal, Economically Conservative. Support for secularism in politics. Viewed as pro-business.

All Indian Socialist Party: Socially Liberal, Economically Liberal. Composed largely of ethnic and religious minorities. Strong support for labor unions.

Indian National Coalition: Socially Conservative, Economically Conservative. Composed of Remnants of the REP.

Indian Ecoist League: Focused on environmental cleanup, improving clean industries and assistance to minority communities.

Technocrats for a Better India: Krulikist. Favor dramatic increases in education and infrastructure spending and good relations with the TU.

National Unity Party Rastriya Ekata Parti (REP) Corporatism, anti-western imperialism, and pan-Indian ultranationalism. (Defunct)

United Front for the Liberation of India (UFLI) Main resistance movement during War for Independence. Economically protectionist. (Defunct)
 
Anyone have an opinion on Rowland running for a third term?
It really depends on what is happening with the Chinese and how tense things are there. If things are looking like a war is likely Rowland can claim that he will pull a RTL and seek a third term to help guide the nation through these times and hopefully back to peaceful relations if not he will lead the nation to victory. However, if the Chinese back down enough that will be harder to claim and Rowland through populate could be seen in a power grab.
 
Top