RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Archive

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-15-2010, 02:33 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,264
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default Industrial Production

************
chico20854

Industrial Production

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you that are interested:

I just pulled the following information on US weapons production rates out of a 1987 Congressional Budget Office report. It lists the "minimum economic production rate" and "maximum economic production rate" of specific weapons systems. The minimum rate is somewhat mushy, but the maximum rate is of more interest to me - it is the maximum production possible without expanding plant capacity. Given the relatively short period of time between the outbreak of war in China (and lag time to decide to establish purchasing commissions, negotiate contracts, etc.) and the TDM, I doubt there was much expansion of plant capacity before the TDM. So this gives you how much the US (and the allies it is supplying) can replace. (While the figures are annual, most can be converted easily to monthly production).

So enjoy the crunchiness! (Sorry to send it as an attachment, I couldn't get the new message editor here to get the spacing right...)
-Chico
Attached Files Weapon Systems Production Rates.doc (62.0 KB, 34 views)



chico20854






************
TrailerParkJawa

Thats pretty interesting. I haven't taken a look at the full site yet, but I wonder if these numbers reflect the maximum capacity for all systems or each individual system.

What I mean is if you surge UH-60 production do the resources exist to also surge AH-64 production? A lot of systems might have a few similar components that are supplied by the same sub-contractor.

Modern weapons systems dont suit to well to mass production, something like the Hummer probably could be cranked out really fast, especially if you allowed for plant expansion or licensed out the production to several different car companies.

I wonder how much QA might suffer for a surge in high tech items. Making extra TOWs is certainly needed but how many would suffer defects from a rush job?

Lots of fun stuff to ponder or add into your campaigns or OOB's.


TrailerParkJawa





************
Blackrider

i just thought i should add to the discussion, quality control would be a a MAJOR problem.

there has been some mention before of nazi germany in the closing days of WWII as a example of industry continuing after the devestation of the war. but lets also remember that they had major problems with the quality of the ammunition the troops were being supplied with had a high failure rate. (how would you feel if you had only one shot and one chance to kill a tank and the round turned out to be a dud?)
__________________
"those who speak of the glory of war, have never seen it," Gen. William Tecumsah Sherman


Blackrider





************
FightingFlamingo

to get the most out of this information it would be useful to look at what stocks were on hand at the outbreak of the War... specifically with the slower production rate items (munitions specifically), compared to the rate of expendature (this includes transfers to other belligerents prior to US entry).
Quality control of the high tech munitions would be diminished.
An additional thing to look at would be the production rate for critical spares to keep the existing (surviving) critical equiptment in the fight.
There is over 24 months between the start of the Sino-Soviet War and TDM, so some increase in production could be reasonably expected in high demand items sold/transfered to the PRC. But I'd lean towards those items being HUMMERS, Artillery Rounds, and small arms ammunition primarily, with limited new production of AFV'S or airframes for the PRC. The main high tech items I see increasing would be production of ATGM's (per canon), and those items mentioned above.
__________________
Cold Blue Steel - the spirit of the bayonet


FightingFlamingo





************
antimedic

I remember reading several years ago that several factories were about to do a short term surge of alot of high end equipment. Something like 300 M1s and I want to say 144 F16s. That would have to exhaust your parts inventory quickly, not to say the people builing the equipment.

In the TW200, with alot of factories till at least building some hardware, how long would it take to reallt boost production? At least a year for most of the stuff?


antimedic





************
TrailerParkJawa

Quote:
Originally Posted by antimedic
In the TW200, with alot of factories till at least building some hardware, how long would it take to reallt boost production? At least a year for most of the stuff?



Quite a long time for some items I'd think. Scaling up the skilled employee base to build something like an M-1 , B-2, etc takes time. I could see us surging production of something like 3/4 trucks, Hummers, M-16s, grenades, etc to fairly respectable numbers if we chose to do so. The question being can China hang on long enough and keep a port open for the US to bring in the supplies?


TrailerParkJawa





************
chico20854

In my view, increasing production would be a somewhat gradual process. The first priority would be to maximize use of existing plant capacity. Hire & train more workers, implement a second shift, get your suppliers to increase their output. Before going all out, increase the stock of parts in hand or in the system.

In the Twilight war, for aircraft I see the following evolution. Prior to mid 95, production remains around the mid-late 1980s level with the continued Cold War and export sales. (To who? Well, Iran rebuilds its ties to the West, and there are F-5s and F-4s around the world to be replaced, etc.) During the fall & winter of 95, the Chinese Purchasing commissions come and (essentially) order every aircraft that can be built, along with asking for AMARC to be emptied. That's when the hiring of the second shift and expansion of supplier capacity begins. It doesn't really pay off for the Chinese, as production really gets ramped up about the time the US enters the war. (And during this time, the USAF also goes on a crash re-equipment plan to replace the last few wings that have F-4s, after seeing the Chinese ones from AMARC get slaughtered by SU-27s). China gets several squadrons of F-16s, but most of the production goes to replace USAF and NATO combat losses.

One other aspect of the F-16 is other production lines (other than the main one in Fort Worth, TX). The European F-16s were assembled at lines in the Netherlands, Belgium and (later) Turkey. The Dutch and Belgian ones were built with mostly European parts, while the Turks essentially assembled kits sent from GD. The Koreans also set up an assembly facility for many of their F-16s. So I see the emphasis on increasing US production being at the component level (engines, electronics, etc) so that the US can send parts kits to the other assembly lines. Once the US enters the war, the government forces the Gulfstream and Cessna bizjet production lines to convert over to F-16 production, but with a 6+ month conversion time before any useful output there isn't a lot of payoff before the TDM. Again, the limiting factor is components, as there is demand all around to increase production from multiple production lines as well as a need for parts for all the aircraft in operation at a much higher rate than before.

As for increasing production of M-1 tanks, B-2 bombers and many missiles beyond the rate in the document, I can't see it. They is just too much high-tech and special materials involved to convert an airliner or truck plant to making them. Trucks, HMMWVs, small arms, sure no problem to increase production. A maybe on the missiles - the electronics wouldn't be too hard to increase (eventually by diverting civilian entertainment equipment manufacturing to guidance systems) but the propellant and warhead production would be difficult. Especially with a lot of demand for aluminum and other raw materials (which could be purchased overseas or diverted from civilian use... maybe make beer cans a rare item due to aluminum rationing??)


chico20854






************
FightingFlamingo

Beer is better from a bottle anyway
__________________
Cold Blue Steel - the spirit of the bayonet


FightingFlamingo





************
ReHerakhte
Foolish Mortal

G'Day All,
Just to throw something in for discussion that could probably be placed in the Asia campaign thread...
When T2k was written, I'm guessing that there wasn't so much known about China's ability to manufacture it's own equipment. They have been steadily gaining the technical abilities since the late 1980s so I'm surmising that by the time of the Twilight War, they had a good number of amoured vehicles and aircraft of Soviet/WarPac origin with some ability to replace attrition losses.
Given that statement, I think they would be better served by parties such as the US, giving them lower end equipment (i.e. anti-aircraft, anti-tank missiles, soft-skin vehicles, etc.) and assisting them to get more WarPac manufactured gear to replace their lost tanks, aircraft etc.
I figure that, for example, the training cycle to get Chinese pilots up to scratch even on older aircraft such as the F-4, is simply too long when the US could probably get say it's Middle Eastern allies to swap their Soviet planes for US (I'm thinking of nations like Egypt which operated F-4s alongside Mig-21s, the US gives them more F-4s and they ship their Mig-21s off to China)

The whole point I'm getting to is that I think less of the US heavy equipment production would need to be sent to China.

Thoughts? Discussion... flames...

Cheers,
Kevin
__________________
It's not whether you win or lose...

It's whether I win.


ReHerakhte





************
Targan ,147

I think you are exactly right Kev. The US encouraging nations with WarPac aircarft and combat vehicles to ship them to China in return for older US equipment makes a lot of sense. Not alot that China could do with 50 F-16s if they couldn't train pilots fast enough to fly them before the Warpac rolled over their airfields.
__________________



Targan





************
chico20854

You guys are right to be concerned with China's ability to absorb advanced weapons.

The context I was working from re: the PRC is more detailed in Webstral's Winter War pt.3 (archived in pdf on Antenna's web site). In early 2004 we discussed additional weapons for China - the what from where and why. I just posted a cache of it in the other forum under the "Strategy and Operations" folder.

I think the conclusion we reached was that the Chinese were getting such a pounding that they would take whatever they could get. They realize that more old gear is a waste of their soldiers' lives, and they want advanced tanks that can defeat modern Soviet tanks and advanced aircraft that can tangle with SU-27s and MiG-31s... every time they send a knock-off MiG-21 up it gets blown away before it even acquires the Soviet aircraft on radar. More MiG-21s is not the answer!

I see the US paying Egypt, Yugoslavia and Israel to manufacture or upgrade WP standard or caliber equipment to give to the PRC, as that will be easier to absorb and integrate. This allows them to keep on fighting, make up for the loss to their own industry, and concentrate the most modern stuff against the best Soviet troops. Good idea on buying out Egypt and other US Allies' old Soviet equipment and selling them more of the newer models that they may already operate. None of the technology transfer risk that was discussed with the PRC.

Kevin, I see China as a major but not the only export market for US weapons. Turkey, Taiwan, South Korea, Egypt and a newly-moderate Iran all have a need for modern weapons and with the winds of war blowing all line up for guns...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by chico20854 : 08-24-2006 at 10:00 AM. Reason: typo, 1 more thought...


chico20854






************
Jason Weiser

Agreed Chico, and also, there is the fact that the AVG is there to hold the line until those Chinese pilots (who are getting a rather abbreviated course) are ready to be sent into combat. Even with the newer airframes and NATO standard training, losses will be high because of it's abbreviated nature.
__________________



Jason Weiser
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 03:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.