RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-10-2018, 06:51 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,247
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default Wartime production

From the Greek navy thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
IMHO, one of the unanswered questions of any timeline is when the U.S. started to ramp up production of its armament industry to support its needs.
A very good question which requires it's own thread. I'm sure plenty of others will have something to say on the topic.

Given the war appeared to be going well for NATO up until the first nukes were used by the Pact on the 9th of July 1997, and many units still remained to be deployed (take the 49th AD for example, slated for Europe, but redeployed in late 97 for internal CONUS duty), my thoughts are production would be more focused on maintaining existing supply levels.

I don't see the logic in boosting production much more with the war looking almost won. NATO was on Soviet soil, China was making huge gains in the east. Nowhere really were the Pact on the advance mid summer 1997.

Within a few weeks, perhaps even days, some foresighted people may have seen the wisdom in ramping up production and instituting more widespread conscription (not just into the military, but into essential industries and food production too). Too little, too late though most likely given the exchanges of November 1997...

We also know from pages 11-12 of the 2.2 BYB, and page 25 of the 1st ed Referees Manual (text is identical):
Quote:
The Italian Army enjoys tremendous success in the first month of its involvement in the war, primarily for logistical reasons. Most of its opponents have already been at war for six months or more. Their peacetime stocks of munitions and replacement vehicles had been depleted, and their industries had not yet geared up to wartime production. The Italians have intact peacetime stockpiles to draw on. As summer turns to fall, however, the Italians too began feeling the logistical pinch, aggravated by the increasing flow of munitions and equipment from the factories of their opponents.
So that tells us there was at least a six month delay (probably longer) in ramping up production of war material.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-10-2018, 07:00 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,247
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

The other NATO nations (excluding Germany) are likely to have followed a similar production pattern to the USA.
The PACT though, given they run on a command economy, and they'd been at war a bit longer, were probably well on their way towards a high production level, however their forces were nowhere near as fresh as those in the West by the time Germany and Poland butted heads.

And then there's the "lesser" conflicts - Pakistan/India, Australia/Indonesia, and so on. Production patterns for those combatants would look very different again due to a number of factors, perhaps the main ones being the funds available to pay for those wars, history of the conflict (the P/I one going back a long time), and the intensity of operations.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem

Last edited by Legbreaker; 09-10-2018 at 09:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-10-2018, 02:17 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,585
Default

Targan did a thread from Nov, 2017 called "Long Wars and Industrial Mobilization."

while it doesn't directly answer when the U.S. ramps up its war production (for its own use), it does give some interesting numbers from some of the leading lights on this site. I highly recommend running this thread, as well as the links, interesting reading.

IMHO, no matter what timeline, we are looking at two possible production runs, the first is for the use of China, particularly in munitions, this run-up would lead to the U.S. reopening ammunition plants and stockpiling the necessary chemicals for munitions production. It would also see an increase in the production of weapons, vehicles, helicopters, aircraft and armored vehicles that have been approved for foreign military sales, leading to increased production runs, especially for those systems used by our own military. Secondly, with Soviet aggression in the Far East, it would be very likely that Congress would vote to improve our military readiness and increase logistical stockpiles.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-10-2018, 02:35 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
From the Greek navy thread...


A very good question which requires it's own thread. I'm sure plenty of others will have something to say on the topic.

Given the war appeared to be going well for NATO up until the first nukes were used by the Pact on the 9th of July 1997, and many units still remained to be deployed (take the 49th AD for example, slated for Europe, but redeployed in late 97 for internal CONUS duty), my thoughts are production would be more focused on maintaining existing supply levels.

I don't see the logic in boosting production much more with the war looking almost won. NATO was on Soviet soil, China was making huge gains in the east. Nowhere really were the Pact on the advance mid summer 1997.

Within a few weeks, perhaps even days, some foresighted people may have seen the wisdom in ramping up production and instituting more widespread conscription (not just into the military, but into essential industries and food production too). Too little, too late though most likely given the exchanges of November 1997...

We also know from pages 11-12 of the 2.2 BYB, and page 25 of the 1st ed Referees Manual (text is identical):


So that tells us there was at least a six month delay (probably longer) in ramping up production of war material.
Realistically, tooling up additional factories, acquiring the machinery needed and training up the work force, you are probably looking at roughly 1-2 years to get production ramped up.

It's an interesting question, looking forward to the posts to come!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-10-2018, 07:38 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 853
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
Realistically, tooling up additional factories, acquiring the machinery needed and training up the work force, you are probably looking at roughly 1-2 years to get production ramped up.

It's an interesting question, looking forward to the posts to come!
THIS! This is the reason why my timeline results in a "come as you are" war. I start the serious hostilities in Poland AFTER the 1996 Elections and things escalate in 1997. By the time the NATO and Russian forces begin to realize that they are in a major war, The Exchange occurs*

*This happens in 1999 in my timeline so the Players have only been "living off the land" for a matter of months before they are plowed under near Kaliz.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-10-2018, 09:18 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,247
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
THIS! This is the reason why my timeline results in a "come as you are" war. I start the serious hostilities in Poland AFTER the 1996 Elections and things escalate in 1997.
That's pretty much the timing for wider NATO involvement too in all editions - Germans don't ask for help until later in November 96, so after the US election.
The German/Poland war had kicked off properly on the 27th of July though, or the 7th of October in the 1st ed timeline. Either way, the US (and majority of NATO) were not actively involved early enough for the war to be a major political issue leading up to the election.

2nd ed actually allows the west a longer period of preparation than 1st ed, provided of course anyone was awake enough to see the signs of imminent conflict. Given there was an election campaign under way, I'm pretty damn sure neither side would have been very happy to be publicly supporting or advocating increasing military spending. Vietnam was only a generation earlier, and we all know how public opinion effected that little conflict and the political scalps it claimed....

That said, increasing production my private companies to supply the Chinese may have been promoted by one side or the other as "job creation", although I'm not convinced the country as a whole would have been very happy to be supplying a communist country with weapons and ammo, even if they were fighting another communist country. Too much publicity during the election campaign could have spelt political death.

My thoughts are laws may have been altered to allow easier export to China, but that's probably about as far as the Government would have been willing to go.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-11-2018, 02:27 AM
ChalkLine's Avatar
ChalkLine ChalkLine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 266
Default

I've often thought that there's be an initial spike in R&D and technology increase at the beginning of the war on both sides. It would only last for a while until the final effects of the strategic strikes took effect.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:50 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,247
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

Would there be though?
The first six months or so of the war went pretty well for NATO with Pact forces pushed back pretty much everywhere right up until they used nukes in July 97.
Can't see anyone thinking there'd be much of a need for new tech, not like in WWII where the Allies started well behind in just about all areas, and Germany pushed pretty hard for a "wonder weapon" to end the war in recognition of their limited manpower and resources (compared to the Allies).

When the tide turned in favour of the Soviets, it was less because of deficiencies in equipment, and more because there really isn't much you can do to defend against tactical nukes besides taking out the artillery and aircraft delivering them. Okay, improved counter-battery radar and air defences might help, but that tech was pretty well developed already in 1997 and any further advances weren't likely to help in the next couple of years, let alone the new few weeks when it might have actually done some good.

It's not just equipment though that might get some attention. Tactics would absolutely be in constant and rapid development - the first time really that NATO have actually gone up against Pact forces outside small scale encounters and exercises. These developments would take on a whole new flavour after the first few nukes, and again when supply lines broke down and the high tech gear couldn't be repaired or replaced any more.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:56 AM
ChalkLine's Avatar
ChalkLine ChalkLine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 266
Default

A general conflict of of NATO vs WTO would still be 'total war' though and defence industries would start work on a long war whether the war was going well or not.

Not knowing the future the assumption would be that the USSR alone would summon up its vast manpower reserves and that NATO wouldn't be able to get past the border.

The traditional Russian tactic is to keep fighting no matter how many conditions of victory have been achieved. This means a long war and eventually a war of attrition
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:38 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
That said, increasing production my private companies to supply the Chinese may have been promoted by one side or the other as "job creation", although I'm not convinced the country as a whole would have been very happy to be supplying a communist country with weapons and ammo, even if they were fighting another communist country. Too much publicity during the election campaign could have spelt political death.

My thoughts are laws may have been altered to allow easier export to China, but that's probably about as far as the Government would have been willing to go.
Considering the trade deficit between China and the U.S. at the time, I can see Congress altering these laws by quite a margin. I also hold with the thought that at the same time, there is an increase in U.S. military spending, dramatically increasing logistical stockpiles, bringing new weapons systems that have neared the end of their test and development phase into service, even a limited call of the reserves to "take part" in military exercises "testing" our military preparations.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:44 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChalkLine View Post
I've often thought that there's be an initial spike in R&D and technology increase at the beginning of the war on both sides. It would only last for a while until the final effects of the strategic strikes took effect.
IMHO this would be a given! Given a chance to get intelligence on the actual performance of first line Soviet equipment, one would expect that the CIA and the DIA would be having knife fights over who got to go to China first. Not to mention all of the surveillance aircraft crowding international airspace!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-11-2018, 05:03 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,247
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

I'm not at all convinced.
The Soviets and their allies were seen to be on the back foot. NATO and China were pushing forward everywhere, even without France, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the withdrawal of the Netherlands (who's main task was to provide sea mine clearing and laying for the combined navies - with lesser roles in other areas). That's approximately 25% of NATO's manpower missing, and in the case of Italy and to a lesser extent France and Belgium, becoming an enemy. The withdrawal of some of those countries also opened up a serious capability gap (see the Netherlands naval responsibilities for example).
And all this after the previous 50 years assuming NATO would start the war on the defensive and not be able to make any offensive progress until the Pact had battered themselves to pieces.
Given everything we know from the game timelines and other sources, there's just no way I can see the early war being perceived as anything other than going very well for NATO, and therefore there being little justification for ramping up production in the same way as happened in WWI and WWII.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-11-2018, 06:22 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,585
Default

There is always going to be some disagreement on this, but based on my last experiences and observations of the U.S. Military and our beloved Congress...the military would take the opportunity presented by the Sino-Soviet War and the increased production of military supplies, to convince Congress that an increase in logistical support and military readiness, the observations of Soviet technology would also give R&D a push to develop countermeasures, the question, of course, is just how much Congress will be willing to spend.

At the very least, I would rate an increase in the R&D to be very high (just too good an opportunity to miss), the logistical stockpiling "to replace older lots of ordnance," with the older lots being expended during increased training periods ( this actually happens quite often).

Would there be an effort to bring new weapons systems online? This would depend on how near they are to the end of their testing phase. Certainly i would expect some moves to bring missiles and PGMs into service. Upgrades to vehicles, may be pushed forward as well.

Would new warships be laid down? Possible, but I would rate this lower, perhaps with the fleet adding new frigates and destroyers, mothballing some classes to free up trained personnel, but now many? Perhaps a dozen or so in the BYB time line.

Would the Air Force get more aircaft? I can see upgrades, maybe even several dozen new planes added, but not much more than that.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-11-2018, 01:20 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
Would the Air Force get more aircaft? I can see upgrades, maybe even several dozen new planes added, but not much more than that.
One Twilight 2000 move that may be possible is the conversion of QF-4 Phantom II target drones back to combat aircraft. They are designed to remain man-flyable aircraft, they've just had most of their combat avionics removed -- and with parts from the Boneyard (or before the TDM, new parts), they might be able to carry men and women back into combat.

Today there are hardly any QF-4s left, but in the early 1990s, there were lots of them, and a lot of F-4s and RF-4s stored at the Boneyard. There was even limited production of parts for the foreign air forces still flying F-4s.
__________________
All that stuff we know -- what if we're wrong? --Science Channel

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:36 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,161
Default

There definitely would have been an increase in war production across the board - but there would have been a limit based on what the tooling and parts suppliers could handle based on what their pre-war capabilities would have been.

For instance look at the Lima Tank Plant - that plant in the 1980's was building 120 tanks per month - currently that plant is building 11 per month. However its suppliers tooled up to make 120 a month - meaning that very soon after the war started they could hit that number without having to build new tooling. Also in a war situation where you work two shifts instead of one you basically double your production - so that plant could have made as many as 240 a month very quickly - most likely within 3-4 months of the war start - i.e. long before the TDM

An example of this would have been the real world ramp-up that occurred when I was at BAE on the M88A2 and the Bradley. We had been producing four per month of the M88A2 and forty per month of the Bradley (keep mind we are talking rebuilds here not new production) when the Army had us ramp up production to eight per month and 120 per month - how did we do that?

Answer - we added a second shift and Saturday work and had suppliers ramp up as well - and hit that level within four months of go - with corresponding increases as we initially brought the lines up to full capacity and then implemented the second shift at both our plants and our suppliers

And it is mentioned in a couple of modules how workers were getting paid very well with overtime at war plants

And I dont see the US thinking they had it won and not ramping up production - for one they would have been using up bombs and tanks and shells at a prodigious rate - you see what it did to the Italians - that would have been the case everywhere else - look at how quickly the bomb stockpile, much of which was from WWII, was depleted from the rather short Gulf War

Now think what it would have been like after six months of conventional warfare

That is why the Soviets launched the nuclear attack - because the US was getting their war stocks replaced and increasing - and that they knew if they didnt stop that in the end they would be losing

And its not like the US wasnt taking enough losses to justify increasing production - between what raiders put at the bottom of the sea, the losses the Navy took, the need to replace what we sent China when it turned out we needed it ourselves and the pace of the war there were more than enough reasons to get more tanks and shells and APC's

a clue would be that the US grabbed the Stingray tanks that were supposed to go to Pakistan before the TDM - i.e. the units that got them in Europe were from one of the last convoys bringing over heavy equipment - that tells me that losses in tanks were bad enough that they grabbed anything they could find to fill the gaps

also keep in mind that they were deploying National Guard units as well - units that desperately needed better tanks if they were going to be able to survive against first line Soviet units (i.e. not the guys with T-55's)

given that the Lima plant had to have been shoved to full all out production long before the TDM - most likely by mid year at the latest

that is probably why the NATO forces were still capable of fighting by 2000 - i.e. that surge from mid-April to the TDM got enough stuff made that they made it thru 1998-2000 still able to field units that were capable of combat

because after the TDM with the power and fuel issues I dont see US production being much more than a shadow of itself - especially by late 1998 when fuel and coal stockpiles were probably getting very low to generate power
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:39 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
One Twilight 2000 move that may be possible is the conversion of QF-4 Phantom II target drones back to combat aircraft. They are designed to remain man-flyable aircraft, they've just had most of their combat avionics removed -- and with parts from the Boneyard (or before the TDM, new parts), they might be able to carry men and women back into combat.

Today there are hardly any QF-4s left, but in the early 1990s, there were lots of them, and a lot of F-4s and RF-4s stored at the Boneyard. There was even limited production of parts for the foreign air forces still flying F-4s.
I can see the boneyards being swept clean of every plane they could find that was still able to fly - that by the time the Mexicans overan it that there wasnt much left for them to have

same with the Navy and reserve ships - we know (canon) that they pulled USN ships out of reserve status and got as many as they could ready for war duty - but that those ships were far less capable than what they replaced

and there still had to be at least some munitions available for those ships that were still in commission that were newer - when Virginia fought her last battle she still had Tomahawks and Harpoons on board - i.e. she hadnt been reduced to just her guns
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-11-2018, 04:00 PM
CDAT CDAT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
I can see the boneyards being swept clean of every plane they could find that was still able to fly - that by the time the Mexicans overan it that there wasnt much left for them to have

same with the Navy and reserve ships - we know (canon) that they pulled USN ships out of reserve status and got as many as they could ready for war duty - but that those ships were far less capable than what they replaced

and there still had to be at least some munitions available for those ships that were still in commission that were newer - when Virginia fought her last battle she still had Tomahawks and Harpoons on board - i.e. she hadnt been reduced to just her guns
I would be surprised if they did not have munitions. When I went to EOD School in 05 during our demo training part some of the munitions we blew up were 8" artillery (as near as I can tell last ones were retired from US service in 1994), and 16" battleship shells (when was the last one made?). Now the Battleships are still kind of in reserve status, but the artillery had been retired for 11 years and they still had ammo for it. The higher the tech the less likely they would have many I think but who knows for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-11-2018, 05:40 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 853
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDAT View Post
I would be surprised if they did not have munitions. When I went to EOD School in 05 during our demo training part some of the munitions we blew up were 8" artillery (as near as I can tell last ones were retired from US service in 1994), and 16" battleship shells (when was the last one made?). Now the Battleships are still kind of in reserve status, but the artillery had been retired for 11 years and they still had ammo for it. The higher the tech the less likely they would have many I think but who knows for sure.
Unfortunately, the Iowas are all museum ships as of 2006 (never to be returned to the reserves). But yes, ammo is kept for DECADES. We were shooting 155mm shells made in the 1950's in 1991.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-11-2018, 06:55 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,161
Default

If I remember right the Air Force finally used the stockpile of 500lb bombs they had left over from WWII sometime during the Afghanistan War
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-11-2018, 07:39 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,247
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

I think I may have been a little unclear earlier.
Production would be ramped up, but new technology wouldn't be a high priority. The M1s, M2s, etc were obviously doing the job against the Soviets, and unless improvements where already in the pipeline, where's the benefit of a massive R&D expenditure? Sure, some further research would be done on captured equipment and weapon systems, but with a view to implement major, non-urgent upgrades at a later date and without the associated costs of a rushed development.

Compared to WWII, there weren't all that many new Divisions created for T2K. Most of the units already existed at least in cadre form, and the newer ones created through splitting and expansion of a handful of older units (yes, I know there are exceptions). The military as a whole basically only doubled in size, compared to the 26 fold in the period 1940-1945 (https://www.infoplease.com/us/milita...nel-1940-20111). Production would be increased to keep the units on the front lines supplied, and as we can see in the unit histories of later units, equipped with older AFVs (M60A4, M113, etc) and if they were lucky, any surplus newer machines. This tells us production of AFVs at least couldn't have been particularly great, not unless losses were proving to be utterly devastating.

As other have mentioned, ships and aircraft are unlikely to have been produced in any significant numbers, mainly due to cost, complexity, and particularly the scarcity of necessary electronics. Focus must surely have been on maintenance and repair of those existing ships and aircraft, with perhaps mothballed machines refurbished and brought back into service.

Also bear in mind that the Pact forces were in retreat until mid July 1997. It would seem inconceivable the government would be willing to spend more than was absolutely required in those circumstances. To do so would have been political suicide come the mid term elections in 1998, unless there was a concerted and effective public relations effort made to convince the voters the huge increase in national debt was to save as many US lives as possible by shortening the war (and even then there's always those who'd be demanding the US simply withdrew all troops and left Europe/Middle East/Korea/Africa/etc to fend for itself).
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-11-2018, 10:00 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
If I remember right the Air Force finally used the stockpile of 500lb bombs they had left over from WWII sometime during the Afghanistan War
A lot of them had JDAM kits strapped onto them, turning them into smart bombs.
__________________
All that stuff we know -- what if we're wrong? --Science Channel

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-12-2018, 08:50 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,161
Default

Leg - I dont agree on the US not going to full wartime production earlier that July of 1997 - given the scale of the fighting and the earlier orders from China I think that the US would have been on full scale wartime production by as early as January 1997-March 1997 - possibly even earlier - especially if China had placed large orders

I can see even selected companies having bought new tooling to expand production and getting it online in time for the war to expand to include the US - a perfect example would be Cadillac Gage - the Stingray I and II tank would have been perfect for Chinese use and could see them getting it to where they were building it at Cocoa Beach and in Louisiana as well even before the US got involved

I do agree with you on research and development in most cases not being able to get stuff to the battlefield in time except perhaps things like getting the LAV-75 up-gunned so it had an actual chance against a decent Soviet tank or rushing some ships by cutting corners or focusing on them to the detriment of others - i.e. if you have four destroyers on the ways in various stages concentrate on the ones you can get out the earliest and let the others go

or putting everything you have into getting Harry S Truman commissioned and into service by say mid to late 1997 due to the earlier fleet losses so instead of being nuked at Newport she is actually deployed and at sea for the TDM - given the war and the losses earlier in 1997 that I can see for sure - even if it means you pull resources off other ships to do it
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-12-2018, 10:14 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
I think I may have been a little unclear earlier.
Production would be ramped up, but new technology wouldn't be a high priority. The M1s, M2s, etc were obviously doing the job against the Soviets, and unless improvements where already in the pipeline, where's the benefit of a massive R&D expenditure? Sure, some further research would be done on captured equipment and weapon systems, but with a view to implement major, non-urgent upgrades at a later date and without the associated costs of a rushed development.


As other have mentioned, ships and aircraft are unlikely to have been produced in any significant numbers, mainly due to cost, complexity, and particularly the scarcity of necessary electronics. Focus must surely have been on maintenance and repair of those existing ships and aircraft, with perhaps mothballed machines refurbished and brought back into service.
With the Soviet use of their more modern systems against China, U.S. R&D efforts would most likely be focused ECM and ECCM upgrades (especially if it only required changing software).

For the Army, efforts to upgrade the M-1 and M-2 fleets with the IVIS system, or replacement of the older 105mms tank cannons with the 120mm, and installation of the DU armor inserts, upgrading the latest TWO missiles and a host of minor changes that will increase the effectiveness of our most modern armor.

For the Navy, retrofitting 25mms autocannons, .50 HMGs, even Phalanx to fleet auxiliaries and older warships would be very possible.

These are all short-term fixes, but it wouldn't be out of the question for new systems that are nearing their test and development would be pushed forward into production with an eye for deployment in 6-12 months.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-12-2018, 12:18 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
With the Soviet use of their more modern systems against China, U.S. R&D efforts would most likely be focused ECM and ECCM upgrades (especially if it only required changing software).

For the Army, efforts to upgrade the M-1 and M-2 fleets with the IVIS system, or replacement of the older 105mms tank cannons with the 120mm, and installation of the DU armor inserts, upgrading the latest TWO missiles and a host of minor changes that will increase the effectiveness of our most modern armor.

For the Navy, retrofitting 25mms autocannons, .50 HMGs, even Phalanx to fleet auxiliaries and older warships would be very possible.

These are all short-term fixes, but it wouldn't be out of the question for new systems that are nearing their test and development would be pushed forward into production with an eye for deployment in 6-12 months.
I can definitely seeing the Navy doing what you are suggesting - even by salvaging systems off ships that will take too long to repair to give other ships a fighting chance - actually that is one way I said the US would have gotten equipment home during Omega

I.e. we have to be able to take some of our artillery, AA systems, 50 calibers etc.. to arm the ships you are sending us home in since they are defenseless civilian tubs
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-12-2018, 01:06 PM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Marana, AZ
Posts: 2,571
Default Close But Not Quite

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
Leg - I dont agree on the US not going to full wartime production earlier that July of 1997 - given the scale of the fighting and the earlier orders from China I think that the US would have been on full scale wartime production by as early as January 1997-March 1997 - possibly even earlier - especially if China had placed large orders
It really depends on what you consider "full wartime production". "Full" as in how we didn't produce a single automobile for consumers from 1942 to 1945 (because the automotive companies were too busy producing tanks and aircraft engines)? If that's the benchmark, then I think the answer is quite clearly no. Has the U.S. ever gone to full wartime production just to aid an ally? No, not even prior to its entry into WWI OR WWII did the U.S. do that. Only during its direct involvement in WWII (after Pearl Harbor) did the U.S. ramp military production up to its maximum capacity.

Yes, the U.S. would increase production significantly in the wake of the Sino-Soviet War, and this would help the U.S. further ramp up military production as soon as it enters the war, but I'm not sure full wartime production would have been achieved by the TDM. This is because modern weapon systems are so much more complex and time-consuming to produce than those in the early-to-mid 1940s. Compare the time (in man hours) it took to build a tank c. 1941 to the time it took to build an M1 Abrams, or a P-41 v. an F-16. I think a more realistic military production rate (by the TDM) would be between 80-90% of total capacity, if that high.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis. - Erasmus

Last edited by Raellus; 09-12-2018 at 01:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-12-2018, 01:58 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,161
Default

Let me redefine - what I mean by full military production isnt a WWII all guns no butter production rate - what I mean is pushing the assembly lines/production facilities to their full maximum rate and putting a second shift on to increase production to their full maximum rate (meaning the most the lines/factory could make given the tooling/machinery/supplier base that they had)

i.e. as per my example the current M1 line makes 18 tanks a month - but when it kicked off in the 1980's it could make 120 a month - and most likely with a second shift might have been able to hit 180-200 a month

or what we did at BAE when we put on a second shift when I was there and got the Bradley rework/rebuild and the M88A2 line up to maximum production rate using our current tooling/machinery both that we had and our suppliers had

But I dont see any WWII style "hey lets convert the automobile plants to all making planes and tanks" kind of build up in any way - at least not pre-TDM

now post TDM probably any factory that still had power and employees was most likely converted to war work of some sort to whatever extent they could do so - i.e. as per the canon using machine shops to turn out mortars and mortar shells by 1999-2000 or bicycles for transporting men or small amounts of equipment (which dont need fuel to run)

now I could see individual plants that were working with the Chinese having time to possibly tool up to get either a new plant going or new assembly lines - i.e. Stingray tanks by Cadillac Gage at both the Louisiana and Cocoa Beach assembly lines instead of just at one if the Chinese ordered them big time - there would be just about enough time to get said second line up and running by about August or so of 1997
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-12-2018, 02:30 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,161
Talking

hey do we have an actual thread where Leg, Raellus and I all agree - doesnt that mean the end times or something like that is here?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-12-2018, 08:42 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Blood soaked, axe wielding psycho
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,247
Send a message via Yahoo to Legbreaker
Default

There's no way anyone can really look at this purely from a military viewpoint (or any one view point for that matter) and even come close to what the situation would likely have been. All factors, military, political (domestic and foreign), economic, social, etc must be considered before we have a hope of guessing what might have happened.

Only have to look at the Vietnam war period for an indication of how complex the issue is. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers deployed, social unrest at home in the latter years, an economy still recovering from the effects of WWII and Korea, the risk of widening the war, and so on.

For another example look at Iraq/Afghanistan over the last 15 or so years. Not a total mobilisation for sure, but still significant numbers of troops and equipment involved.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-12-2018, 11:51 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
Let me redefine - what I mean by full military production isnt a WWII all guns no butter production rate - what I mean is pushing the assembly lines/production facilities to their full maximum rate and putting a second shift on to increase production to their full maximum rate (meaning the most the lines/factory could make given the tooling/machinery/supplier base that they had)

i.e. as per my example the current M1 line makes 18 tanks a month - but when it kicked off in the 1980's it could make 120 a month - and most likely with a second shift might have been able to hit 180-200 a month

America now has only one tank factory at Lima Ohio. They haven't build a new tank from scratch at Lima since the mid-1990's as all tanks are reconditioned. But the tanks are reconditioned to such a degree that they are practically new tanks. Although the Trump administration may start building new tanks even if the army doesn't need them.

M1 tank reconditioning at Lima averages half a tank per day (15 tanks a month). General Dynamics has stated that it can ramp that up to two and a half tanks a day (75 tanks a month). In wartime that figure could conceivably rise to over a 100 tanks a month. If we say that reconditioning takes the same amount of time as producing a new tank then that would be up to 1,200 tanks a year. Building another tank factory would not be that hard but it would probably take at least six months to either build from scratch or refit with the right machine tools and equipment. So with the right infrastructure it is possible that America could build up to 2,400 tanks a year.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-13-2018, 07:24 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 2,161
Default

The plant was originally laid out to produce 120 new production tanks per month - but with a second shift and weekend production it could have made more - and given the V1 timeline it would have been still making new tanks right up to and including the war - V2 there would have been that time where they switched to just recondition and rebuilt but would have been easy to make new ones

There was a second tank plant in the US that was building the Stingray Light tank - Cadillac Gage built the Stingray Tank at Cocoa Beach FL and that plant was still there and still ready to build tanks as late as 1994 in our real timeline, with the machinery and tooling transferred to the Louisiana plant after that - thus in the V1 and V2 timeline they could have two tank plants if Cadillac Gage decided to put in a new line in Louisiana instead of transferring the line from Florida - which could have happened given the order for Pakistan in the canon - and if China ordered tanks from them as well

And in both timelines the M8 Armored Gun system - which is a light tank - would have been in production at York PA - all new production tanks

Also you have the V1 LAV-75 as a production vehicle - thus you have a light tank plant (AAI Corporation) in Maryland as well

Thus the US would have had a total of four tank plants for the Twilight War and possibly five - one at Lima making the M1's, one (and possibly two) in Florida and Louisiana making Stingray light tanks, one in York PA making M8 light tanks and one in Maryland making the LAV-75 light tank

Last edited by Olefin; 09-13-2018 at 07:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.