Long wars and industrial mobilisation

[Targan]

This article touches on some of the issues we T2Kers have been discussing for as long as this forum has existed.

Long Wars and Industrial Mobilisation: It Won't Be World War II Again (https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/long-wars-and-industrial-mobilization-it-wont-be-world-war-ii-again/)

[mpipes]

Interesting, but I disagree in some measure.

I don't think any arms producers (except for maybe shipyards) operate on 24/7 basis. There is thus a lot of "slack" built into the manufacturing base. Full mobilization will occur, but will take probably six months to a full year. A lot of government military contracts require maintaining manufacturing equipment from closed production lines in storage - mothballed. For example, when the B-1B production line was closed, Rockwell was required to mothball the production line equipment with the ability to reactivate production by a specified date (I think was either 6-months or one year).

At one time, the F-16 production line was supposed to be able to "surge" to over 600 fighters per year. I think the requirement for M-1A1s was to surge to well over 500, but I am not sure.

[RN7]

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 they are reconditioned to such a degree that they are practically new tanks.

M1 tank reconditioning at Lima averages half a tank per day (15 tanks a month). General Dynamics has stated that it can easily 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 or re-commissioning the still existent Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant 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 after six months or so.


Some discussion on this here...http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=4627

[rcaf_777]

There are also a number of Ammunition Plants that are government-owned and government-operated or government-owned and contractor-operated

a few that I can think of are

Lake City Army Ammunition Plant
McAlester Army Ammunition Plant
Anniston Munitions Center
Crane Army Ammunition Activity
Scranton Army Ammunition Plant

[The Dark]

Interesting, but I disagree in some measure.

I don't think any arms producers (except for maybe shipyards) operate on 24/7 basis. There is thus a lot of "slack" built into the manufacturing base. Full mobilization will occur, but will take probably six months to a full year. A lot of government military contracts require maintaining manufacturing equipment from closed production lines in storage - mothballed. For example, when the B-1B production line was closed, Rockwell was required to mothball the production line equipment with the ability to reactivate production by a specified date (I think was either 6-months or one year).

At one time, the F-16 production line was supposed to be able to "surge" to over 600 fighters per year. I think the requirement for M-1A1s was to surge to well over 500, but I am not sure.

Speaking as someone who has worked on refurbishment programs, in my experience there are always hurdles when restarting a product line, because parts or materials will have gone obsolete, drawings won't be totally accurate (there will have been "tribal knowledge" that either wasn't recorded or wasn't kept), and the knowledge base will be shallow because of loss of experts to retirement or transfer to other programs. One of the items I worked on was an auxiliary sight, a pretty simple piece of optics (i.e. no special coatings and low magnification). It required six or seven engineering changes to become manufacturable again, with problems ranging from dimensions that were unreadable because part of the drawing was blurry to needing to find a substitute material because the metal that was specified hadn't been manufactured since the end of World War II (and this was for production circa 2010).

While there's slack capacity in that nobody runs 24/7 shifts, there's often a shortage of trained labor even at current production levels, so ramping up will actually slow production while new people are brought up to speed on things like CNC operations, material handling procedures, and clean room requirements. Given the number of reservists that work for DoD contractors who would be recalled to active duty, the lack of a reserve of trained labor, and production bottlenecks at sub-tier suppliers, it could easily take multiple years for some production lines to be able to expand, since all items would need to expand; it does no good to double the production of Hellfire missile bodies if you can't make any more of the seeker heads, or the engines, or the fuses for the warheads, etc, etc. As it currently exists, the industrial system supporting the military is capable, but brittle.

[RN7]

Speaking as someone who has worked on refurbishment programs, in my experience there are always hurdles when restarting a product line, because parts or materials will have gone obsolete, drawings won't be totally accurate (there will have been "tribal knowledge" that either wasn't recorded or wasn't kept), and the knowledge base will be shallow because of loss of experts to retirement or transfer to other programs. One of the items I worked on was an auxiliary sight, a pretty simple piece of optics (i.e. no special coatings and low magnification). It required six or seven engineering changes to become manufacturable again, with problems ranging from dimensions that were unreadable because part of the drawing was blurry to needing to find a substitute material because the metal that was specified hadn't been manufactured since the end of World War II (and this was for production circa 2010).

While there's slack capacity in that nobody runs 24/7 shifts, there's often a shortage of trained labor even at current production levels, so ramping up will actually slow production while new people are brought up to speed on things like CNC operations, material handling procedures, and clean room requirements. Given the number of reservists that work for DoD contractors who would be recalled to active duty, the lack of a reserve of trained labor, and production bottlenecks at sub-tier suppliers, it could easily take multiple years for some production lines to be able to expand, since all items would need to expand; it does no good to double the production of Hellfire missile bodies if you can't make any more of the seeker heads, or the engines, or the fuses for the warheads, etc, etc. As it currently exists, the industrial system supporting the military is capable, but brittle.


This might be true with older equipment not built for decades, but not if we are talking about equipment currently being made or reconditioned such as M1 tanks.

[Draq]

Speaking as someone who has worked on refurbishment programs, in my experience there are always hurdles when restarting a product line, because parts or materials will have gone obsolete, drawings won't be totally accurate (there will have been "tribal knowledge" that either wasn't recorded or wasn't kept), and the knowledge base will be shallow because of loss of experts to retirement or transfer to other programs. One of the items I worked on was an auxiliary sight, a pretty simple piece of optics (i.e. no special coatings and low magnification). It required six or seven engineering changes to become manufacturable again, with problems ranging from dimensions that were unreadable because part of the drawing was blurry to needing to find a substitute material because the metal that was specified hadn't been manufactured since the end of World War II (and this was for production circa 2010).

While there's slack capacity in that nobody runs 24/7 shifts, there's often a shortage of trained labor even at current production levels, so ramping up will actually slow production while new people are brought up to speed on things like CNC operations, material handling procedures, and clean room requirements. Given the number of reservists that work for DoD contractors who would be recalled to active duty, the lack of a reserve of trained labor, and production bottlenecks at sub-tier suppliers, it could easily take multiple years for some production lines to be able to expand, since all items would need to expand; it does no good to double the production of Hellfire missile bodies if you can't make any more of the seeker heads, or the engines, or the fuses for the warheads, etc, etc. As it currently exists, the industrial system supporting the military is capable, but brittle.

That's the same stuff hmg went through recreating the stg-44. https://youtu.be/iQxwVY7ziKs part 1

[CDAT]

Speaking as someone who has worked on refurbishment programs, in my experience there are always hurdles when restarting a product line, because parts or materials will have gone obsolete, drawings won't be totally accurate (there will have been "tribal knowledge" that either wasn't recorded or wasn't kept), and the knowledge base will be shallow because of loss of experts to retirement or transfer to other programs. One of the items I worked on was an auxiliary sight, a pretty simple piece of optics (i.e. no special coatings and low magnification). It required six or seven engineering changes to become manufacturable again, with problems ranging from dimensions that were unreadable because part of the drawing was blurry to needing to find a substitute material because the metal that was specified hadn't been manufactured since the end of World War II (and this was for production circa 2010).

While there's slack capacity in that nobody runs 24/7 shifts, there's often a shortage of trained labor even at current production levels, so ramping up will actually slow production while new people are brought up to speed on things like CNC operations, material handling procedures, and clean room requirements. Given the number of reservists that work for DoD contractors who would be recalled to active duty, the lack of a reserve of trained labor, and production bottlenecks at sub-tier suppliers, it could easily take multiple years for some production lines to be able to expand, since all items would need to expand; it does no good to double the production of Hellfire missile bodies if you can't make any more of the seeker heads, or the engines, or the fuses for the warheads, etc, etc. As it currently exists, the industrial system supporting the military is capable, but brittle.

Now I have no experience with any of this, but I do have a question, how much lead time would be needed to ramp up? I wounder as some things I think there would be enough surplus in the system to deal with some shortages for example on my last deployment before I got out in 2010-11 we got .50 BMG ammo with the date stamp of 44 so if they are still pulling ammo made for WWII and it is still good I would guess that they have some surplus that could take up some slack if they decided early enough, but like I said I have experience with this so just guessing.

[Adm.Lee]

"The words of Winston Churchill in the House of Commons, recalling the mobilization challenge of World War I, apply here:

'Here is the history of munitions production: first year, very little; second year, not much, but something; third year, almost all you want; fourth year, more than you need.'"

Probably the best summary from the article, IMO as a Churchil-phile.

[The Dark]

This might be true with older equipment not built for decades, but not if we are talking about equipment currently being made or reconditioned such as M1 tanks.

The simple optical device was the Abrams' GAS (Gunner Auxiliary Sight). There were drawings that hadn't been updated since before the XM1 was tested.

Now I have no experience with any of this, but I do have a question, how much lead time would be needed to ramp up? I wounder as some things I think there would be enough surplus in the system to deal with some shortages for example on my last deployment before I got out in 2010-11 we got .50 BMG ammo with the date stamp of 44 so if they are still pulling ammo made for WWII and it is still good I would guess that they have some surplus that could take up some slack if they decided early enough, but like I said I have experience with this so just guessing.

I had trouble getting .50 BMG back in 2012 when I needed to supply it to the firing range I had leased to be able to shock-test weapon sights. I was required by my contract to use ammo from LCAAP (to make sure the profile matched what the sights would experience in service); 5.56mm and 7.62mm were no problem, but .50 was short. It was only a few weeks delay, but I was only ordering a few thousand rounds. Around that time, LCAAP was producing about 1.4 billion rounds per year total, which is 0.2 billion rounds below their theoretical maximum capacity. In 2005 (which was the peak of ammunition demand since 2001), total ammunition demand exceeded capacity for both 5.56mm and 7.62mm. The total demand for 5.56, 7.62, and .50 was about 1.703 billion rounds of ammunition, and LCAAP was only able to produce 1.269 billion rounds that year, so overall reserves shrank by almost 450 million rounds.

For small arms ammunition, the biggest supply chain risks are the powder and primer. Only one powder manufacturer is approved (St. Marks Powder of Crawfordville, FL) and they only have one nitrocellulose supplier (Radford Army Ammunition Plant in Virginia). The primer is produced only by ATK, although they have multiple plants capable of producing it. Of the 13 chemicals in the primer, 4 are sourced only from China, 2 only from Mexico, and 1 only from Brazil, which introduces risk in the case of hostilities with those countries or with a country capable of interdicting supply lines.

The ability to expand small arms ammunition availability would depend on how willing the military was to use ammunition manufactured outside their control, because any project to expand LCAAP would require years to produce any significant amount of material. Early on, not a snowball's chance in hell. When the supply starts running short? Even if it's not done officially, there will be back channels procuring any ammunition they can get.

[CDAT]

I had trouble getting .50 BMG back in 2012 when I needed to supply it to the firing range I had leased to be able to shock-test weapon sights. I was required by my contract to use ammo from LCAAP (to make sure the profile matched what the sights would experience in service); 5.56mm and 7.62mm were no problem, but .50 was short. It was only a few weeks delay, but I was only ordering a few thousand rounds. Around that time, LCAAP was producing about 1.4 billion rounds per year total, which is 0.2 billion rounds below their theoretical maximum capacity. In 2005 (which was the peak of ammunition demand since 2001), total ammunition demand exceeded capacity for both 5.56mm and 7.62mm. The total demand for 5.56, 7.62, and .50 was about 1.703 billion rounds of ammunition, and LCAAP was only able to produce 1.269 billion rounds that year, so overall reserves shrank by almost 450 million rounds.

I can tell you of at least one reason for that, politics. Trying to stay as non-political as I can but here we go. First a little about my back ground I was EOD then and so a lot of the ammo rules did not entirely apply to us. But one rule that we found just stupid was that if the ammo turned in by a unit leaving was not in the same condition it was issued in they could not reissue it and it had to be turned over to EOD for destruction. What they mean by same condition was if you got a 100 round belt of ammo and when you went red you loaded a round, but never fired a round and at the end of your deployment you clear the weapon and put the 99 round belt and one lose round in the ammo can, all the ammo is "bad", but if the troops had relinked that one round it is good for issue. With the 5.56 if it did not come back in the cardboard boxes it was unserviceable. So when ever we wanted we would go and pick up as much "unserviceable" ammo as we wanted we would go to the range and shoot as much as we wanted, and still my unit burned (in fire pits) hundreds of millions of rounds. They also told us that it was cheaper to just destroy it than it was to send it back to the states to be inspected and repackaged for reissue. My first deployment every single member of my unit got to fire several AT-4's for this reason as they were going to be destroyed anyway. I was Army, but work OGA (Other Government Agency) a lot (got loaded out to the State Department) and we had a USMC FAST (not sure what this stands for) company come through and took them to the range, and let them shoot our Barret M82 .50 Cal's. We thought it was very fun when they asked how many rounds they each got to shoot, the look on there face when we said as many as you want and opened the back of the truck that was full of boxes of "unserviceable" .50 Cal ammo.

[RN7]

The simple optical device was the Abrams' GAS (Gunner Auxiliary Sight). There were drawings that hadn't been updated since before the XM1 was tested.

The XM1-FSED was developed in 1977-78, that's 40 years ago.

So as I stated "this might be true with older equipment not built for decades, but not if we are talking about equipment currently being made or reconditioned such as M1 tanks". The M1 has been reconditioned for the past 20 years, if there were major problems redeveloping parts, metals etc for the M1 then this would not be happening.

[Benjamin]

The Naval War College Global War Games touched on this in 1988. Over the course of 1985-87 they gamed out a World War Three scenario till D+64 or so, but the 1988 Game was different. In 1988 the refs moved the time period ahead till D+75 and then created three possible scenarios' Stalemate, Red Dominant and Blue Dominant. From there the participants examined various likely outcomes. One of these included what a prolonged, non-nuclear, War would be like. From what I remember the general consensus was that it would take at least until D+135 for Blue to shift vital industries to a war time footing, beyond an increase of 15% or so from slack.

Here's a link to the relevant PDF.

https://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Press/-Newport-Papers/Documents/20-pdf.aspx

Benjamin

[The Dark]

we had a USMC FAST (not sure what this stands for) Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team. They're intended for rapid reaction short term deployments to cover areas with temporarily heightened risk profiles.

The XM1-FSED was developed in 1977-78, that's 40 years ago.

So as I stated "this might be true with older equipment not built for decades, but not if we are talking about equipment currently being made or reconditioned such as M1 tanks". The M1 has been reconditioned for the past 20 years, if there were major problems redeveloping parts, metals etc for the M1 then this would not be happening. This was part of upgrading M1s to newer variants. The GAS is what's in the little hole below the coaxial machinegun on all Abrams tanks. The problem was likely because it hadn't needed manufacturing since the original production run (we weren't even updating that part, just replacing ones that had become irreparably damaged and left in place on M1s that were now scheduled for upgrade as they got cannibalized for spares for more modern Abrams). My suspicion is that there was a stockpile of the old metal left, and someone got lazy and specced it in as the only acceptable material, then the drawing was left untouched for 35 years or so, at which point we went to make more of these sights and the stockpile was gone. It was only a small problem (there was a readily available substitute), but it needed a little bit of engineering time for the original material's characteristics to be researched and an adequate substitute found among currently-produced metals. The problem's going to come when spares stockpiles start running short, since there may be other things where a "lifetime buy" ends up not actually being a lifetime supply at higher operational tempos, and parts for an active piece of equipment might have had production line shutdowns for years or decades after that lifetime buy.

It's possible we're talking past each other, so if you were stating that parts currently being manufactured should be scalable to a higher production rate, then yes, I agree to a large extent. However, the point I'm trying to clarify is that even on items currently in active service, there may be components that haven't been manufactured in a long time, and those components may be difficult to re-start and to get to a decent volume of production.

[swaghauler]

Speaking as someone who has worked on refurbishment programs, in my experience there are always hurdles when restarting a product line, because parts or materials will have gone obsolete, drawings won't be totally accurate (there will have been "tribal knowledge" that either wasn't recorded or wasn't kept), and the knowledge base will be shallow because of loss of experts to retirement or transfer to other programs. One of the items I worked on was an auxiliary sight, a pretty simple piece of optics (i.e. no special coatings and low magnification). It required six or seven engineering changes to become manufacturable again, with problems ranging from dimensions that were unreadable because part of the drawing was blurry to needing to find a substitute material because the metal that was specified hadn't been manufactured since the end of World War II (and this was for production circa 2010).

While there's slack capacity in that nobody runs 24/7 shifts, there's often a shortage of trained labor even at current production levels, so ramping up will actually slow production while new people are brought up to speed on things like CNC operations, material handling procedures, and clean room requirements. Given the number of reservists that work for DoD contractors who would be recalled to active duty, the lack of a reserve of trained labor, and production bottlenecks at sub-tier suppliers, it could easily take multiple years for some production lines to be able to expand, since all items would need to expand; it does no good to double the production of Hellfire missile bodies if you can't make any more of the seeker heads, or the engines, or the fuses for the warheads, etc, etc. As it currently exists, the industrial system supporting the military is capable, but brittle.

This is something I touched on in other Forum Threads (especially regarding steel production). Lean Manufacturing introduced in the Early 1990's really ate into excess manufacturing capacity. As a "for example," I'll discuss my best friend's employer Channel Lock Inc. Channel Lock is running 3 shifts a day 5 to 6 days a week. They could only squeeze out about 10% to 15% of additional production in the event of war. Building additional forges and adding CNC machines WON'T help because there isn't enough skilled labor now to run those machines. This is a product of the "outsourcing" of US manufacturing jobs since the mid-1980's. This also means that the powers who are at war will invariably need to take equipment out of mothballs to supplement what can be produced. This is a "real world" reason for older equipment showing up in the war zone. Just look at what showed up in Afghanistan and Iraq. I can imagine it would be FAR more pervasive in a major conflict.

[cawest]

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 they are reconditioned to such a degree that they are practically new tanks.

M1 tank reconditioning at Lima averages half a tank per day (15 tanks a month). General Dynamics has stated that it can easily 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 or re-commissioning the still existent Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant 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 after six months or so.


Some discussion on this here...http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=4627


I was in slidell, LA a few years back. that was were they were going mass produce the Stingray tank. production was to be up 25 per month. Now the hard part would be the 105mm cannons. Does anyone know about a tank planet that ran in the 80's in CA. Camdon AR also makes the M270 MLRS. this could be converted to M2/3 production. what about the Cat and John Deer production lines. the last two would not make "front line" weapons, but second line would be do able and spare parts would not be a problem they had shipped them all over the world. I think Henry rifles could change into production (a few hundred a month maybe more) of more modern designs. does anyone know how many armored car companies there are (the bank kind and the VIP SUVs types). how about 3/4 or 1 ton trucks production with M40 106mm. As older tanks take the field these will become usable, along with say Gatling (20mm? 12.7, 7.62, or 5.56) twin 50 cals with side good RHA would be a great gun truck.

[The Dark]

I was in slidell, LA a few years back. that was were they were going mass produce the Stingray tank. production was to be up 25 per month. Now the hard part would be the 105mm cannons. Does anyone know about a tank planet that ran in the 80's in CA. Camdon AR also makes the M270 MLRS. this could be converted to M2/3 production.The last M270 was built in 2003. Camden now produces the HIMARS vehicle, along with the ATACMS missile, the PAC-3 Patriot missile, the MLRS rockets, and portions of the THAAD system. It has ~650 employees. It would need tooling to do Bradleys, and wouldn't have the capacity without shutting down other lines. Bradleys produced there wouldn't have functional TOW launchers, since the optics for the TOW are at least partially manufactured in Florida.

what about the CatCaterpillar's agricultural vehicles are manufactured by AGCO, which licenses the name; some of them are manufactured by Carro Agritalia in Italy. The electronic systems are manufactured in Dayton, Ohio. Medium and large wheel loaders are made in Aurora, Illinois (as well as Japan, Belgium, Brazil, India, and PRC), and Caterpillar Defense is headquartered in Shrewsbury, UK.

and John Deer production lines.Deere & Company (dba John Deere) has vehicle manufacturing in East Moline (IL), Davenport (IA), Dubuque (IA), Thibodeaux (LA), and Augusta (GA). Some engines come from Torreon (Mexico) and others from Waterloo (IA), while the cabs and drivetrains mostly come from Waterloo. Without good transportation infrastructure, their system breaks down.

the last two would not make "front line" weapons, but second line would be do able and spare parts would not be a problem they had shipped them all over the world. I think Henry rifles could change into production (a few hundred a month maybe more) of more modern designs.Henry has a total of 410 employees. That's close to the size of Colt Defense (around 550 employees) but much smaller than Ruger (2000) or Remington (3500).

does anyone know how many armored car companies there are (the bank kind and the VIP SUVs types). how about 3/4 or 1 ton trucks production with M40 106mm. As older tanks take the field these will become usable, along with say Gatling (20mm? 12.7, 7.62, or 5.56) twin 50 cals with side good RHA would be a great gun truck.Quite a few bank trucks are badly overloaded pickup frames, and the typical protection level is UL II/III, which will typically stop pistol rounds up to .44 Magnum, but isn't rated for protection against rifles. Police vehicles would probably be more useful, since they tend to be more heavily armored.

[cawest]

The last M270 was built in 2003. Camden now produces the HIMARS vehicle, along with the ATACMS missile, the PAC-3 Patriot missile, the MLRS rockets, and portions of the THAAD system. It has ~650 employees. It would need tooling to do Bradleys, and wouldn't have the capacity without shutting down other lines. Bradleys produced there wouldn't have functional TOW launchers, since the optics for the TOW are at least partially manufactured in Florida.

Caterpillar's agricultural vehicles are manufactured by AGCO, which licenses the name; some of them are manufactured by Carro Agritalia in Italy. The electronic systems are manufactured in Dayton, Ohio. Medium and large wheel loaders are made in Aurora, Illinois (as well as Japan, Belgium, Brazil, India, and PRC), and Caterpillar Defense is headquartered in Shrewsbury, UK.

Deere & Company (dba John Deere) has vehicle manufacturing in East Moline (IL), Davenport (IA), Dubuque (IA), Thibodeaux (LA), and Augusta (GA). Some engines come from Torreon (Mexico) and others from Waterloo (IA), while the cabs and drivetrains mostly come from Waterloo. Without good transportation infrastructure, their system breaks down.

Henry has a total of 410 employees. That's close to the size of Colt Defense (around 550 employees) but much smaller than Ruger (2000) or Remington (3500).

Quite a few bank trucks are badly overloaded pickup frames, and the typical protection level is UL II/III, which will typically stop pistol rounds up to .44 Magnum, but isn't rated for protection against rifles. Police vehicles would probably be more useful, since they tend to be more heavily armored.


thank you for the info, but i was thinking about getting away from the TOW and moving more to thinking of arming them with laser guided Hellfires. the GLID or other laser designatetor that might be usable.

the link from Tank Encyclopedia on the Mahmia tank gave me some.... ideas

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/syria/t-72_mahmia

[CDAT]

Quite a few bank trucks are badly overloaded pickup frames, and the typical protection level is UL II/III, which will typically stop pistol rounds up to .44 Magnum, but isn't rated for protection against rifles. Police vehicles would probably be more useful, since they tend to be more heavily armored.

Also most of bank trucks are only an armored box, so the engine and all that are not armored, they would be very easy to disable.

[swaghauler]

I was in slidell, LA a few years back. that was were they were going mass produce the Stingray tank. production was to be up 25 per month. Now the hard part would be the 105mm cannons. Does anyone know about a tank planet that ran in the 80's in CA. Camdon AR also makes the M270 MLRS. this could be converted to M2/3 production. what about the Cat and John Deer production lines. the last two would not make "front line" weapons, but second line would be do able and spare parts would not be a problem they had shipped them all over the world. I think Henry rifles could change into production (a few hundred a month maybe more) of more modern designs. does anyone know how many armored car companies there are (the bank kind and the VIP SUVs types). how about 3/4 or 1 ton trucks production with M40 106mm. As older tanks take the field these will become usable, along with say Gatling (20mm? 12.7, 7.62, or 5.56) twin 50 cals with side good RHA would be a great gun truck.

I'm not sure what types of privately armored vehicles you might encounter after the exchange, but there are a dozen private companies armoring "EXEC PROTECT" vehicles in the US (ordinary looking cars and SUVs). As for Commercial Armored Cars, there are three large companies that provide 80% of all the Armored Cars in use in the US. The vehicles they produce will range in size from E350 (Ford)/3500 (GM) vans to "Y" bodies (popularized by GARDA) to the ubiquitous "B" body (introduced by Brinks) seen in movies like Heat, Armed & Dangerous, and The Book of Eli.

The "big three" armored car builders are:
LENCO Armoring of Pittsfield MA
MCT of Memphis TN (primary builder of Brinks "B bodies")
Texas Armoring of San Antonio TX (primary builder of GARDA "Y bodies" and both GARDA and LOOMIS "B bodies")

The most common types of Commercial Armored Cars are:

Lights: Built on E350/3500 vans, these weigh between 9,000 and 12,000 pounds and are armored to NIJ Level 3A. They will have no more than 2000lbs of cargo capacity and are primarily used in cities. The Dodge Sprinter is also included in this class of vehicle. These vehicles are not very durable.

"Y" Bodies: These trucks are built on 11/2 ton to 2 1/2 ton frames. They run as high as 20,000lbs GVW. They will run NIJ Level 3A in protection, require a DOT medical card to drive and can carry up to 3000lbs. They are not as common as "B" bodies but are more common than Lights.

"B" Bodies: The most common armored car in the US. Unlike "Y" bodies, which may be called by other names/designations, EVERYONE calls these trucks "B" Bodies. They were created by Brinks DECADES ago and are the most common truck seen in movies as well as on the road. They are built on the same chassis that the Army's 5-Tons commercial and school buses are (yes, school bus chassis are REALLY tough). The majority are armored with Aluminum armor to NIJ Level3 (rifle). The Loomis truck that rescued the wounded in LA's 44 Minute Shootout shrugged off several 7.62mm X 39mm rounds during the incident. Windows are often downgraded to NIJ Level3A to save money. I'd say 6 in 10 "B" bodies have 3A windows. The truck maxes out at 26,000 lbs (to stay under CDL requirements) with a 5,000lb cargo capacity.

"Super B" Armored Cars: These "stretched B Bodies" are about 4ft longer than a "B" and exceed 30,000lbs (making them Class B CDL trucks). They are NIJ Level3 (rifle) and used as FED pickup trucks or in high threat environments (like LA and Detroit).

It is standard practice for these vehicles to be equipped (at least initially) with run-flat tires, and self-sealing coolant systems which allow the vehicle to escape a kill zone with the tires or radiator shot up. Many will be equipped with armored push bars over their grills and gun ports too.

Those are the most commonly encountered commercial armored cars I encountered during my 10-year stint with Great Lakes Armored (now Loomis) and Fidelity Armored (no longer in business...like 99% of small armored car companies after the 2008 Collapse). You can GOOGLE the armored car companies for more info. They often have a selection of used vehicles to choose from.

[Silent Hunter UK]

The USSR kept a load of their old stuff in store. Like war era stuff.

[ArmySGT.]

The USSR kept a load of their old stuff in store. Like war era stuff.

The Soviets, and now the Russians, always have and still produce ammunition for them and clients around the world still using them. Things just get downgraded to the next lower mobilization tier... WW2 gear is something like partisan/police/ only in case of invasion/ depot tier... though with T-72s rotting in depots, I am skeptical of the "mobilization charts"

Soviets were producing new 85mm AP for Yugoslavia, North Korea, and maybe Eritrea right up to the collapse. For T-34s and ASU - 85s.

[cawest]

I'm not sure what types of privately armored vehicles you might encounter after the exchange, but there are a dozen private companies armoring "EXEC PROTECT" vehicles in the US (ordinary looking cars and SUVs). As for Commercial Armored Cars, there are three large companies that provide 80% of all the Armored Cars in use in the US. The vehicles they produce will range in size from E350 (Ford)/3500 (GM) vans to "Y" bodies (popularized by GARDA) to the ubiquitous "B" body (introduced by Brinks) seen in movies like Heat, Armed & Dangerous, and The Book of Eli.

The "big three" armored car builders are:
LENCO Armoring of Pittsfield MA
MCT of Memphis TN (primary builder of Brinks "B bodies")
Texas Armoring of San Antonio TX (primary builder of GARDA "Y bodies" and both GARDA and LOOMIS "B bodies")

The most common types of Commercial Armored Cars are:

Lights: Built on E350/3500 vans, these weigh between 9,000 and 12,000 pounds and are armored to NIJ Level 3A. They will have no more than 2000lbs of cargo capacity and are primarily used in cities. The Dodge Sprinter is also included in this class of vehicle. These vehicles are not very durable.

"Y" Bodies: These trucks are built on 11/2 ton to 2 1/2 ton frames. They run as high as 20,000lbs GVW. They will run NIJ Level 3A in protection, require a DOT medical card to drive and can carry up to 3000lbs. They are not as common as "B" bodies but are more common than Lights.

"B" Bodies: The most common armored car in the US. Unlike "Y" bodies, which may be called by other names/designations, EVERYONE calls these trucks "B" Bodies. They were created by Brinks DECADES ago and are the most common truck seen in movies as well as on the road. They are built on the same chassis that the Army's 5-Tons commercial and school buses are (yes, school bus chassis are REALLY tough). The majority are armored with Aluminum armor to NIJ Level3 (rifle). The Loomis truck that rescued the wounded in LA's 44 Minute Shootout shrugged off several 7.62mm X 39mm rounds during the incident. Windows are often downgraded to NIJ Level3A to save money. I'd say 6 in 10 "B" bodies have 3A windows. The truck maxes out at 26,000 lbs (to stay under CDL requirements) with a 5,000lb cargo capacity.

"Super B" Armored Cars: These "stretched B Bodies" are about 4ft longer than a "B" and exceed 30,000lbs (making them Class B CDL trucks). They are NIJ Level3 (rifle) and used as FED pickup trucks or in high threat environments (like LA and Detroit).

It is standard practice for these vehicles to be equipped (at least initially) with run-flat tires, and self-sealing coolant systems which allow the vehicle to escape a kill zone with the tires or radiator shot up. Many will be equipped with armored push bars over their grills and gun ports too.

Those are the most commonly encountered commercial armored cars I encountered during my 10-year stint with Great Lakes Armored (now Loomis) and Fidelity Armored (no longer in business...like 99% of small armored car companies after the 2008 Collapse). You can GOOGLE the armored car companies for more info. They often have a selection of used vehicles to choose from.

would put a 7.62 or 12.7... on the top of this beast with a gun shield. 3973

[The Dark]

One of the sites I've looked at is Alpine Armoring (http://www.alpineco.com/index.php), since they have a chart of what their ratings translate to (in caliber and number of rounds it's designed to resist), an inventory of available vehicles, and a list of what vehicles they do with the range of armoring options. There are probably others with similar information, but they were the first I found.

[CDAT]

would put a 7.62 or 12.7... on the top of this beast with a gun shield. 3973

Why? It barely has room for the one operator and no room to store any extra ammo and what not, also to use the MG the operator would have to stop and stand on the seat to use it.

[Olefin]

One of the weak links in getting up to speed as to production would be that you would need to get more welders certified to weld armor for tanks and heavy vehicles. We were always doing that at BAE as production ebbed and flowed during the time I was there - I asked someone there about what happened when they started building MRAP's and they said how they had had to go on a crash training program to meet production and had to bring a lot of guys out of retirement to meet the goals

you can train people up but it takes time - and that would figure into any quick ramp up on armored vehicles

as to running around the clock - BAE ran three shifts to get the MRAP's built that the military was screaming for in Iraq - with the third shift being a lot of maintenance and detail work but we added a complete production shift in a matter of weeks - with many of the guys doing it either being retired and brought back to train new guys or guys who had used to be on the line and then shifted back to get the second shift up and running

[swaghauler]

Also most of bank trucks are only an armored box, so the engine and all that are not armored, they would be very easy to disable.

This is true of Lights and "Y Bodies" (we call them "squats" because they have very low roofs but are as wide as a "B Body" with a 450 truck front end. About 50% of "B Bodies" have Kevlar "liners" that are attached to the inside of the fiberglass hoods. These would become worn and begin to "detach" from the inside of the hood over time. They would then be removed. The "Super B's" were completely armored (these are also used as SWAT vehicles).

a Light would be AV 1 on every location BUT the engine compartment. The engine compartment is UNARMORED (unless an AV 2 bumper guard is installed at the front).

a Squat/Y Body would have AV 2 on the cargo box and AV 1 on the driver's compartment (NIJ Level 3A Kevlar panels in the doors and NIJ Level 3A Lexan windows). The engine compartment is UNARMORED (unless an AV 2 bumper guard is installed at the front).

a B Body would have AV 2 on the passenger and cargo compartments and NIJ Level 3 (rifle) Lexan windows (AV 2) on a 1-3 (1D10) or NIJ Level 3A (AV 1) on 4-10 (1D10). The engine compartment will have NIJ Level 3A side panels under the fiberglass hood on a 1-5 (1D10) and NIJ Level 2 armored mesh over the front of the radiator (AV 1/2). B Bodies seldom have pushbars/bumper guards because the hood opens forward to the front and they can interfere with the opening of the hood.

a Super B will have AV 2 armor everywhere but the hood. The hood will be MADE of Kevlar at NIJ Level 3A (AV 1) in order to save weight. They also have a large "mesh guard" over the radiator that ups the AV to 2 on frontal hits. Push guards are seldom fitted because the hood opens forward and a guard could interfere with opening the hood.

Run Flat Tires: Unlike military run-flats, these will only reduce the severity of a hit by one level (ie a Major hit becomes a Minor hit) for 100km. After that, the tire must roll OVER its Wear Value or fail.

Self Sealing Fluid/Fuel Systems: These will reduce an engine or fuel hit by one level just like run-flats above. The engine sealing system will allow the engine to run for 100km or 30 minutes on a Major hit and the engine will run for 10 minutes on a Destroyed hit IF a roll OVER its Wear Value succeeds.

[Olefin]

and we know that bank armored cars are being used as APC's by several groups - the Florida module has New America using them as APC's, the NJ article in Challenge has Milgov using them also as armored cars

[rcaf_777]

One of the weak links in getting up to speed as to production would be that you would need to get more welders certified to weld armor for tanks and heavy vehicles.

The Canadian army had the same issue when it deployed tanks to Afghanistan. What it did was bring Navy Hull Welders. So maybe you see welders brought in from some civilian ship yards, with the war on the demand for cruise ships and some other ships types would be down. The navy not going to need everybody

[RN7]

This list is I think a fairly complete list of US (and Canadian) vehicle production facilities. I also have had way to much time on my hands over the past two days!!

Tanks
The U.S. currently only builds the M1 Abrams, and has only active tank plant at Lima Ohio. The Lima plant is run by General Dynamics and hasn't built any new tanks since the mid-1990's. However General Dynamics rebuilds and refurbishes the M1 Abrams to such a degree that they are practically new tanks.

The Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant was closed in 1996. Some of the plant was sold to the city of Warren, but the U.S. Army still occupies part of the facility and uses it for a variety of armored warfare research and development purposes. Plant equipment needed to produce tank components were removed to the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama.
.
Anniston Army Depot is a U.S. Army facility. Its main function has been a munitions storage facility since the end of the Second World War, but it is also capable of rebuilding and repairing the M1 Tank and its principal components. General Dynamics has a large industrial presence within Anniston, as does Honeywell who builds/rebuilds/refurbishes the M1 gas turbine engine. The Stryker wheeled fighting vehicle are also sent to Anniston by General Dynamics for final assembly and overhaul. If the U.S. ever goes on a war footing expect Anniston to be building tanks alongside Lima.

Tank Assembly Plant
Anniston, Alabama (U.S. Army/General Dynamics)
Detroit, Michigan (U.S. Army) (* Closed)
Lima, Ohio (General Dynamics)

Armoured Vehicles
U.S. armoured vehicles are currently built/rebuilt by General Dynamics, Textron and British owned BAE. General Dynamics (LAV-25, M1120 Stryker), Textron (M117), BAE (AAV-P7, M2/M3 Bradley, M113, M109). Except for the Stryker few if any of these vehicles are currently being built, with other work concentrating on rebuilds and supplying components. Engines are supplied by Caterpillar, Cummins and Detroit Diesel.

Armoured Vehicle Assembly Plant
Anniston, Alabama (U.S. Army/General Dynamics)
Ladson, South Carolina (General Dynamics)
London, Ontario Canada (General Dynamics)
Slidell, Louisiana (Textron)
York, Pennsylvania (BAE)

MRAP's for U.S. forces are built by General Dynamics, BAE, Oshkosh and Navistar. General Dynamics (Buffalo, Cougar), BAE (Caiman, RG-33), Oshkosh (M-ATV) Navistar (MaxxPro). MRAP's are built at the armoured vehicle assembly plants or at commercial heavy vehicle assembly plants. Other companies also build MRAP's and police armoured vehicles such as Textron, Lenco, Texas Armoring, MCT and INKAS in Canada, but excluding Textron they are custom builders and not manufacturers. MRAP engines are supplied by Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Mack and Navistar.

Heavy Support Vehicles
The major suppliers of large trucks and engineer vehicles to U.S. forces are Caterpillar (CAT D9, CAT 277), BAE (M9 ACE, M88), John Deere (John Deere 850J, TRAM 624K), Oshkosh (FMTV series, HEMTT series, HET) and Terex (TX51-19M). The M939 series was built by AM General in the 1980's, but AM now only make lighter vehicles. Large trucks and engineer vehicles are built at commercial plant/agricultural and heavy vehicle assembly plants across the U.S. and Canada. Many of the assembly plants listed below don't make any vehicles for the military, but most would be capable of making them. There are also a dozen or more custom builders of firetrucks, tankers, buses and other heavy vehicles across the U.S. and Canada, but they are a bit beyond the scope of this.

Farm & Plant Vehicle Assembly Plants
Augusta, Georgia (John Deere)
Davenport, Iowa (John Deere)
East Moline, Illinois (John Deere)
Fargo, North Dakota (Case IH) (* CNH)
Fort Wayne, Indiana (Terex)
Grand Island, Nebraska (Case IH) (* CNH)
Hesston, Kansas (AGCO-Massey Ferguson)
Hutchinson, Kansas (Kuhn-Krauss)
Jackson, Minnesota (AGCO-Massey Ferguson)
Peoria, Illinois (Caterpillar)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Terex)
Ottawa, Kansas (Kalmar Ottawa)
Racine, Wisconsin (Case IH) (* CNH)
Waterloo, Iowa (John Deere)
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada (Versatile) (* Rostselmarsh)

Heavy Vehicles Assembly Plants
Appleton, Wisconsin (Oshkosh)
Chillicothe, Ohio (Kenworth) (* Paccar)
Cleveland, North Carolina (Freightliner) (* Daimler-Benz)
Cleveland, North Carolina (MAN) (* Volkswagen)
Denton, Texas (Peterbilt) (* Paccar)
Dodge Centre, Minnesota (Oshkosh)
High Point, North Carolina (Thomas Built Buses) (* Daimler-Benz)
Ladson, South Carolina (Daimler-Benz)
Macungie, Pennsylvania (Mack) (* Volvo)
Mount Holy, North Carolina (Freightliner) (* Daimler-Benz)
Oshkosh, Wisconsin (Oshkosh)
Portland, Oregon (Western Star) (* Daimler-Benz)
Renton, Washington (Kenworth) (* Paccar)
Springfield, Ohio (Navistar)
St. Therese, Quebec Canada (Peterbilt) (* Paccar)
West Point, Mississippi (Navistar)
Williamstown, West Virginia (Hino) (* Toyota)

Engine Plants
Anniston, Alabama (U.S. Army/Honeywell)
Columbus, Indiana (Cummins)
Hagerstown, Maryland (Mack) (* Volvo)
Huntsville, Alabama (Navistar)
Melrose Park, Illinois (Navistar)
Mobile, Alabama (Continental) (* AVIC)
Mossville, Illinois (Caterpillar)
Peoria, Illinois (Caterpillar)
Redford, Michigan (Detroit Diesel) (* Daimler-Benz)
Rocky Mount, North Carolina (Cummins)
Seymour, Indiana (Cummins)
Waterloo, Iowa (John Deere)
Waukesha, Wisconsin (Navistar)

Light Support Vehicles
Light vehicles include pick-up trucks, commercial vans and vehicles specifically designed for military service. The major suppliers of military light vehicles to U.S. forces are AM General (HMMWV) and Oshkosh (L-ATV series, LVSR). The Mercedes G-Class fast attack vehicle is built by Daimler-Benz in Germany, and the RSOV is built by Land Rover in Britain. Oshkosh builds light military vehicles at their heavy vehicle assembly plants, but any number of commercial assembly plants could be relatively easily converted to build these type of vehicles.

Vehicle Assembly Plants
Alliston, Ontario Canada (Honda)
Arlington, Texas (GM)
Avon Lake, Ohio (Ford)
Belvidere, Illinois (Chrysler) (* Fiat)
Blue Springs, Mississippi (Toyota)
Bowling Green, Kentucky (GM)
Brampton, Ontario Canada (Chrysler) (* Fiat)
Cambridge, Ontario Canada (Toyota)
Carton, Mississippi (Nissan)
Charlotte, Michigan (Isuzu)
Chattanooga, Tennessee (Volkswagen)
Chicago, Illinois (Ford)
Dearborn, Michigan (Ford)
Detroit, Michigan (Chrysler) (* Fiat)
Detroit, Michigan (GM)
East Liberty, Ohio (Honda)
Fairfax, Kansas (GM)
Flat Rock, Michigan (Ford)
Flint, Michigan (GM)
Fort Wayne, Indiana (GM)
Freemont, California (Tesla)
Georgetown, Kentucky (Toyota)
Greensburg, Indiana (Honda)
Ingersoll, Ontario Canada (GM)
Kansas City, Missouri (Ford)
Lafayette, Indiana (Subaru)
Lansing, Michigan (GM)
Lincoln, Alabama (Honda)
Livonia, Michigan (AM General)
Lordstown, Ohio (GM)
Louisville, Kentucky (Ford)
Marysville, Ohio (Honda)
Mishawaka, Indiana (AM General)
Montgomery, Alabama (Hyundai)
Normal, Illinois (Mitsubishi)
Oakville, Ontario Canada (Ford)
Orion, Michigan (GM)
Oshawa, Ontario Canada (GM)
Princeton, Indiana (Toyota)
San Antonio, Texas (Toyota)
Smyrna, Tennessee (Nissan)
Spartanburg, South Carolina (BMW)
Spring Hill, Tennessee (GM)
Sterling Heights, Michigan (Chrysler) (* Fiat)
Timmonsville, South Carolina (Nissan)
Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Mercedes) (* Daimler-Benz)
Wakarusa, Indiana (Isuzu)
Wayne, Michigan (Ford)
Warren, Michigan (Chrysler) (* Fiat)
Wentzville, Missouri (GM)
West Point, Georgia (Kia) (* Hyundai)
Windsor, Ontario Canada (Chrysler) (* Fiat)
Woodstock, Ontario Canada (Toyota)

Engine Plants
Alliston, Ontario Canada (Honda)
Anna, Ohio (Honda)
Buffalo, New York (GM)
Buffalo, West Virginia (Toyota)
Cambridge, Ontario Canada (Toyota)
Cleveland, Ohio (Ford)
Dearborn, Michigan (Ford)
Deckard, Tennessee (Nissan)
Defiance, Ohio (GM)
Detroit, Michigan (Chrysler) (* Fiat)
Dundee, Michigan (Chrysler) (* Fiat)
Essex, Ontario Canada (Ford)
Flint, Michigan (GM)
Georgetown, Kentucky (Toyota)
Huntsville, Alabama (Toyota)
Lima, Ohio (Ford)
Lincoln, Alabama (Honda)
Romeo, Michigan (Ford)
Romulus, Michigan (GM)
Trenton, Michigan (Chrysler) (* Fiat)
Windsor, Ontario Canada (Ford)
Wixom, Michigan (GM)
Woodhaven, Michigan (Ford)

[Olefin]

BAE is still remanufacturing and rebuilding Bradley's and they are building the M109A5 plus for foreign customers as well as the M109 PIM for the US Army. They also are continuing to make M88A2 conversions as well. They retained the ability and the tooling to make new Bradleys and M109's and M88's with the most recent new builds being a series of 8 M88A2's for Iraq.

Oh and it's John Deere by the way.

And you need to add the tank plant for the Stingray which would have been around for sure for the Twilight War as well as new build M8 light tanks at BAE in York.

[Olefin]

And you have the JLG mfg plants in PA that made parts for the MRAP's for Oshkosh as well as material handlers for the military. Those facilities in time of war could easily be converted to make light support and light armored vehicles.

[CDAT]

This is true of Lights and "Y Bodies" (we call them "squats" because they have very low roofs but are as wide as a "B Body" with a 450 truck front end. About 50% of "B Bodies" have Kevlar "liners" that are attached to the inside of the fiberglass hoods. These would become worn and begin to "detach" from the inside of the hood over time. They would then be removed. The "Super B's" were completely armored (these are also used as SWAT vehicles).

a Light would be AV 1 on every location BUT the engine compartment. The engine compartment is UNARMORED (unless an AV 2 bumper guard is installed at the front).

a Squat/Y Body would have AV 2 on the cargo box and AV 1 on the driver's compartment (NIJ Level 3A Kevlar panels in the doors and NIJ Level 3A Lexan windows). The engine compartment is UNARMORED (unless an AV 2 bumper guard is installed at the front).

a B Body would have AV 2 on the passenger and cargo compartments and NIJ Level 3 (rifle) Lexan windows (AV 2) on a 1-3 (1D10) or NIJ Level 3A (AV 1) on 4-10 (1D10). The engine compartment will have NIJ Level 3A side panels under the fiberglass hood on a 1-5 (1D10) and NIJ Level 2 armored mesh over the front of the radiator (AV 1/2). B Bodies seldom have pushbars/bumper guards because the hood opens forward to the front and they can interfere with the opening of the hood.

a Super B will have AV 2 armor everywhere but the hood. The hood will be MADE of Kevlar at NIJ Level 3A (AV 1) in order to save weight. They also have a large "mesh guard" over the radiator that ups the AV to 2 on frontal hits. Push guards are seldom fitted because the hood opens forward and a guard could interfere with opening the hood.

Run Flat Tires: Unlike military run-flats, these will only reduce the severity of a hit by one level (ie a Major hit becomes a Minor hit) for 100km. After that, the tire must roll OVER its Wear Value or fail.

Self Sealing Fluid/Fuel Systems: These will reduce an engine or fuel hit by one level just like run-flats above. The engine sealing system will allow the engine to run for 100km or 30 minutes on a Major hit and the engine will run for 10 minutes on a Destroyed hit IF a roll OVER its Wear Value succeeds.

This may be what they are supposed to have, but after working at the FED for ten years, not a single one from the van sized to the Semi sized had this. So I do not know if they (the private companies) just went cheap or if the standards have changed. Also it was interesting that the larger you went the newer was less reliable then the older.

[RN7]

BAE is still remanufacturing and rebuilding Bradley's and they are building the M109A5 plus for foreign customers as well as the M109 PIM for the US Army. They also are continuing to make M88A2 conversions as well. They retained the ability and the tooling to make new Bradleys and M109's and M88's with the most recent new builds being a series of 8 M88A2's for Iraq.

I did say "BAE (AAV-P7, M2/M3 Bradley, M113, M109)". and "BAE (M9 ACE, M88)".

And "Except for the Stryker few if any of these vehicles are currently being built, with other work concentrating on rebuilds and supplying components." which is they are not being mass produced.


Oh and it's John Deere by the way.

Thanks that's a typo

And you need to add the tank plant for the Stingray which would have been around for sure for the Twilight War as well as new build M8 light tanks at BAE in York.

This list is for 2017 not 1997.

I would class Stingray as an armoured vehicle not a tank, and it hasn't been built for about 25 years. The M8 was cancelled in 1997 before it went into production. The Stingray was built by Cadillac Gage now part of Textron and I believe their assembly plant is at Slidell, Louisiana which I listed under armoured vehicles.

[RN7]

And you have the JLG mfg plants in PA that made parts for the MRAP's for Oshkosh as well as material handlers for the military. Those facilities in time of war could easily be converted to make light support and light armored vehicles.

I stuck with main assembly line and engine plants only.

There are hundreds more companies and factories that make accessories and components, or who custom build vehicles and chassis from major suppliers. If you want to list them all feel free but I haven't got time to spend the next 2 years looking them all up.

[Olefin]

I did say "BAE (AAV-P7, M2/M3 Bradley, M113, M109)". and "BAE (M9 ACE, M88)".

And "Except for the Stryker few if any of these vehicles are currently being built, with other work concentrating on rebuilds and supplying components." which is they are not being mass produced.




Thanks that's a typo



This list is for 2017 not 1997.

I would class Stingray as an armoured vehicle not a tank, and it hasn't been built for about 25 years. The M8 was cancelled in 1997 before it went into production. The Stingray was built by Cadillac Gage now part of Textron and I believe their assembly plant is at Slidell, Louisiana which I listed under armoured vehicles.

FYI - the M88A2 production rates have been pretty constant for quite a long - and the Bradley was being remanufactured on a two shift line for almost the entire time I was at BAE - in fact it predated my employment there

it only finally slowed down in 2012-2013 after being that way for years

And a rate of 8 M88A2 per month is what the line was designed for - for that vehicle that is a very good production rate

I am looking at what could be done during the Twilight War time period - which is why vehicles like the M8 and the Stingray need to be figured in

[Olefin]

I stuck with main assembly line and engine plants only.

There are hundreds more companies and factories that make accessories and components, or who custom build vehicles and chassis from major suppliers. If you want to list them all feel free but I haven't got time to spend the next 2 years looking them all up.

JLG in McConnellsburg built half the M-ATV's that Oshkosh delivered - they were building close to 500 vehicles per month

So they definitely need to be added to the light armored vehicle producers if you are looking at current military production sites - it could easily get back to those numbers if need be.

[RN7]

FYI - the M88A2 production rates have been pretty constant for quite a long -

And a rate of 8 M88A2 per month is what the line was designed for - for that vehicle that is a very good production rate

FYI I listed the M88 under Heavy Support Vehicles and never made any mention about how and what sort of level it is being produced at.

and the Bradley was being remanufactured on a two shift line for almost the entire time I was at BAE - in fact it predated my employment there it only finally slowed down in 2012-2013 after being that way for years

And I stated that "U.S. armoured vehicles are currently built/rebuilt by General Dynamics, Textron and British owned BAE. General Dynamics (LAV-25, M1120 Stryker), Textron (M117), BAE (AAV-P7, M2/M3 Bradley, M113, M109). Except for the Stryker few if any of these vehicles are currently being built, with other work concentrating on rebuilds and supplying components".

That is pretty much what you are talking about, remanufacture!

I am looking at what could be done during the Twilight War time period - which is why vehicles like the M8 and the Stingray need to be figured in

Well I listed the current assembly lines and they also existed in 1997, so just add them to it.

[RN7]

JLG in McConnellsburg built half the M-ATV's that Oshkosh delivered - they were building close to 500 vehicles per month

So they definitely need to be added to the light armored vehicle producers if you are looking at current military production sites - it could easily get back to those numbers if need be.

Does JLG Industries build the chassis, transmission or engine for the M-ATV? If it does I would include JLG in such a list.

[Olefin]

Description of the JLG work

The work has been split between Oshkosh Defense plants in Wisconsin and JLG’s McConnellsburg plant, with JLG making 100 percent of the MATV cabs and completing 50 percent of the M-ATV assemblies. The remaining half of the assemblies are completed by Oshkosh Defense. This combined effort has produced 1,000 M-ATVs per month since December.

JLG built the cabs and completed the assembly of the vehicle - the engines came from Caterpillar, the chassis came from the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) chassis that Oshkosh designed and Oshkosh's TAK-4 suspension system and the transmission came from Allison

Which is standard for vehicles - i.e. Oshkosh's assembly plant doesnt build their own engines or transmissions they bring them in and install them just like we did - same for BAE - we didnt build engines or transmissions

[RN7]

Description of the JLG work

The work has been split between Oshkosh Defense plants in Wisconsin and JLG’s McConnellsburg plant, with JLG making 100 percent of the MATV cabs and completing 50 percent of the M-ATV assemblies. The remaining half of the assemblies are completed by Oshkosh Defense. This combined effort has produced 1,000 M-ATVs per month since December.

JLG built the cabs and completed the assembly of the vehicle - the engines came from Caterpillar, the chassis came from the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) chassis that Oshkosh designed and Oshkosh's TAK-4 suspension system and the transmission came from Allison

JLG is a subsidiary of Oshkosh.

It builds the cabs as you have stated, but it is part of the production chain not the main assembly line. There are many other companies across the U.S. and Canada who also build armoured vehicles including MRAP's, and firetrucks, emergency vehicles, construction vehicles, buses etc who are as big or bigger than JLG and who's imput into the completed vehicle is greater. Some even market these vehicles under their own brand name. But they are custom builders not manufacturers, and that is what I would class JLG as.

If you want to list all of these companies then go ahead, I will give you a few dozen names to get you started but I think we are going way beyond the scope of this topic.

To quote the site you used "With Oshkosh beginning to gradually ramp down production of the M-ATV, complete assemblies of the new order for MATVs will take place at Oshkosh Defense plants and not at JLG. 100 percent of the cabs will continue to be made by JLG, however."

So JLG make the cabs but are not the main assembly line.


Which is standard for vehicles - i.e. Oshkosh's assembly plant doesnt build their own engines or transmissions they bring them in and install them just like we did - same for BAE - we didnt build engines or transmissions

Oshkosh doesn't build engines for any of its vehicles. All of their vehicles supplied to the U.S. military use Caterpillar or Detroit Diesel engines. I listed these engine factories.

BAE doesn't make its own engines either, in fact General Dynamics and Textron don't either, they all use Caterpillar, Cummins, Daimler-Benz, Detroit Diesel, Mack and Navistar engines. The M88 built by BAE uses a Continental engine built in America and owned by the Chinese government. In fact I forgot to list Continental so I'll add to the list.

The M1 Abrams also uses a Honeywell engine, but its fitted into the M1 at the main assembly plant at Lima.

The point being that there is a difference between a main assembly line and a custom builder.

[Olefin]

We did the assembly of the MATV - half of them were built by us - i.e. 100% of the cabs were made by JLG and half the MATV's that were made by Oskhosk were fully assembled by JLG at a rate of 500 per month

Now why would I mention that - because that shows just how quickly production might have ramped up for the war during the Twilight War that a plant that makes material handlers (i.e. telehandlers) was able to convert to build 1000 MATV cabs and fully assembly 500 MATV's a month in a time consistent with ramping up for the Twilight War - meaning that US war production during the Twilight War if it had happened in reality is probably significantly higher than the canon writers allowed for - thus allowing for more replacement armored vehicles than were seen in the canon

its interesting how little of the US military production network was actually hit during the nuclear strikes in the canon - i.e. they hit Toledo but not York PA or San Jose CA (i.e. Bradley, M109, M88) and the aircraft plants were barely touched if at all

you would think that it would have been the Soviets number one target with the refineries being number two - i.e. cutting off oil is important but it takes quite a while to get new aircraft and tank production going if you nuke the existing plants

[Cdnwolf]

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/sierra-army-depot

How long to bring these back into fitness ready status.

[WallShadow]

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/sierra-army-depot

How long to bring these back into fitness ready status.
I wonder if the folks setting up the Strategic Reserve stashes have packed away a bare-bones M1 remanufacturing kit with lots and lots of spares? Yeah, I know, just a fancy, but nice to dream about.

[RN7]

We did the assembly of the MATV - half of them were built by us - i.e. 100% of the cabs were made by JLG and half the MATV's that were made by Oskhosk were fully assembled by JLG at a rate of 500 per month


Olefin what part of the M-ATV was built by BAE or by JLG?

We know that Caterpillar supplied the C7 engine, Allison supplied the 3500 transmission, Marmon Herrington supplied the axle, and Oshkosh supplied the TAK-4 independent suspension system. What did BAE and JLG build by itself or was it all supplied by Oshkosh?

Also were these individual components fitted to a vehicle body when BAE and JLG received them, or were they shipped to BAE and JLG separately and assembled on the vehicle afterwards?

Was the cab an Oshkosh Core1080 crew protection system? Did BAE or JLG make it or did they assemble it in parts? Also did BAE or JLG actually make the armor plates and the ballistic glass or was it shipped to BAE and JLG. If so did BAE or JLG get a license from Plasan the Israeli company who designed the armor kit for the M-ATV and built it in their factory in Bennington Vermont?

[Olefin]

JLG buiilt the M-ATV

BAE built MRAP's as well

JLG built the cabs for all the M-ATV's and did the assembly work on half the part total M-ATV's built by Oshkosh, assembling complete vehicles that were ready to be shipped. It wasnt a knock down plant they put the complete vehicle together piece by piece, welding it together and then doing all the assembly of all the various pieces.

Plasan was on site working to assist with building the capsules (which is what we called the cabs) along with supplier and JLG personnel.

So yes during that time period the plant was basically a fully operational light armored vehicle manufacturing facility.

FYI - ballistic armor and glass isnt made by any armored vehicle supplier in the US - that armor and glass comes from suppliers - when I was at BAE we had all our armor plate and ballistic glass shipped in - we didnt make it ourselves.

[RN7]

Olefin I'm not questioning what you did at BAE or the manufacturing capabilities of York, but I am trying to figure out what JLG's assembly capabilities are at McConnellsburg.

The reason for this is that JLG designs and builds aerial work platforms, telehandlers and stock piling lifts. It is not a vehicle manufacturer or does it have a history of vehicle manufacturing, or is it even a custom vehicle maker in the traditional sense of the word.

You state that JLG fully assembled the M-ATV at McConnellsburg, and in particular the cab (capsule). But were all the component parts already built before they were shipped for assembly or were they built at McConnellsburg?

Assembling a vehicle is a very complicated and costly process, and involves major investment by the manufacturer into an assembly plant including robotic automation.

On automobile assembly lines much of the work is now done by robots rather than humans. In the first stages of automobile manufacture, robots weld the floor pan pieces together and assist workers in placing components such as the suspension onto the chassis. Worker attaches the radiator, and another bolts it into place. Because of the nature of these heavy component parts, articulating robots perform all of the lift and carry operations while assemblers using pneumatic wrenches to bolt component pieces in place

Assembly plants represents only the final phase in the process of manufacturing a vehicle, as all of the thousands of different components supplied by outside suppliers and company-owned parts suppliers are brought together for assembly. Once the component parts are assembled production control specialists track and assign them using vehicle identification numbers, or in some cases a small radio frequency transponder is attached to the chassis and floor pan.

The typical vehicle is constructed from the ground up. The frame forms the base on which the body rests and from which all subsequent assembly components follow. The frame is placed on the assembly line and clamped to the conveyer to prevent shifting as it moves down the line. From here the automobile frame is moved to component assembly areas where complete front and rear suspensions, gas tanks, rear axles and drive shafts, gear boxes, steering box components, wheel drums, and braking systems are installed.

The vehicle's engine is then mated with its transmission, and robotic arms are used to install heavy components inside the engine compartment of the frame.

The floor pan is the largest body component to which a panels and braces will be welded or bolted. As it moves down the assembly line the shell of the vehicle is built. The left and right quarter panels are robotically disengaged from pre-staged shipping containers and placed onto the floor pan, where they are stabilized with positioning fixtures and welded. The front and rear door pillars, roof, and body side panels are assembled in the same fashion. The shell of the automobile assembled in this section of the process lends itself to the use of robots because articulating arms can easily introduce various component braces and panels to the floor pan and perform a high number of weld operations in a time frame and with a degree of accuracy no human workers could ever approach.

The body is built up on a separate assembly line from the chassis. Robots once again perform most of the welding on the various panels, but human workers are necessary to bolt the parts together. Once the body shell is complete, it is attached to an overhead conveyor for the painting process. The multi-step painting process entails inspection, cleaning, undercoat dipping, drying, topcoat spraying, and baking.

Prior to painting, the body must pass through a rigorous inspection process. As the shell exits the cleaning station it goes through more drying, cleaning and painting processes.

The body and chassis assemblies are then mated near the end of the production process. Robotic arms lift the body shell onto the chassis frame, where human workers then bolt the two together. After final components are installed, the vehicle is driven off the assembly line to a quality checkpoint.

This is standard procedure at every major vehicle assembly plant in the world, and the heavier the type of vehicle being built will mean more automation. The fact that we are talking about military vehicles will mean more specification. Obviously some work on military vehicles can only be done by technicians, but component parts still have to be built before they are assembled. If Oshkosh had a contract to build millions or even hundreds of thousands of M-ATV's I could see Oshkosh investing hundreds of millions in developing and expanding JLG's manufacturing and assembling capabilities at McConnellsburg. But less than 10,000 M-ATV's were built, and only a minority of them by JLG.

I'm still finding it hard to list JLG as a major assembly plant.

[Olefin]

We built 1000 cabs a month - meaning full cabs/capsules with the armor protection system from Plasan

We then used 500 of those cabs/capsules - that we had welded together from component parts that were delivered to us by suppliers just like the transmissions and engines and harnesses etc. were delivered to us - per month into full working and running M-ATV

Thats 9 a shift, 25 to 27 each day, 500 a month - fully assembled and delivered with us building 4000 vehicles in the course of a few months

Sorry but 4000 armored vehicles built from the ground up qualifies you as a major assembly plant - and it shows just what the US would have done during the Twilight War

Now this was in 2009 - so for those playing Twilight 2013 if you are looking at adding a possible armored vehicle supplier adventure to your game then JLG's location in McConnellsburg would be definitely an idea

For those playing the Twilight War timeline it is possible - the plant was there - but we werent owned by Oshkosh - we were making military vehicles but they were just material handlers - but something similar could have been done in the timing of the Twilight War that the facility could have been a military producer

FYI RN - military vehicles arent built like autos are - I know I have worked for two companies now that have built them and neither of them do what auto companies do for assembly

[RN7]

We built 1000 cabs a month - meaning full cabs/capsules with the armor protection system from Plasan

We then used 500 of those cabs/capsules - that we had welded together from component parts that were delivered to us by suppliers just like the transmissions and engines and harnesses etc. were delivered to us - per month into full working and running M-ATV

Thats 9 a shift, 25 to 27 each day, 500 a month - fully assembled and delivered with us building 4000 vehicles in the course of a few months

Sorry but 4000 armored vehicles built from the ground up qualifies you as a major assembly plant - and it shows just what the US would have done during the Twilight War

Now this was in 2009 - so for those playing Twilight 2013 if you are looking at adding a possible armored vehicle supplier adventure to your game then JLG's location in McConnellsburg would be definitely an idea

For those playing the Twilight War timeline it is possible - the plant was there - but we werent owned by Oshkosh - we were making military vehicles but they were just material handlers - but something similar could have been done in the timing of the Twilight War that the facility could have been a military producer

FYI RN - military vehicles arent built like autos are - I know I have worked for two companies now that have built them and neither of them do what auto companies do for assembly

So most of the components including the engine block, transmission, axles and suspension and the other parts were already fully built by Oshkosh and the other suppliers and then shipped to you where you assembled them. Then you assembled the cab and some fittings with the armour and completed the vehicle.

This is exactly what a custom builder would do, although in some cases they also modify the vehicle and fit their own equipment. And this is the point that I am trying to make about JLG. JLG is a custom builder, although I am not implying that BAE at York is also a custom builder.

The fact that JLG assembled a relatively large number of vehicles, certainly more than a custom builder would normally build, is to do with the fact that it was doing so on behalf Oshkosh who funded it. Oshkosh and its main suppliers already built the main components at their own factories and then shipped them to JLG and BAE for assembly. Obviously Oshkosh hadn't got the space at their own production lines to assemble and fit out the M-ATV without a major investment of their existing facilities, so they used JLG (which they bought) and also contracted BAE to do this.

[Cdnwolf]

Now why would I mention that - because that shows just how quickly production might have ramped up for the war during the Twilight War that a plant that makes material handlers (i.e. telehandlers) was able to convert to build 1000 MATV cabs and fully assembly 500 MATV's a month in a time consistent with ramping up for the Twilight War - meaning that US war production during the Twilight War if it had happened in reality is probably significantly higher than the canon writers allowed for - thus allowing for more replacement armored vehicles than were seen in the canon


The war at the time of the Battle of Kalisz had been going on for 3 years. That uses up a lot of material. Building the product during optimal conditions would account for your numbers but what happens if the plant had no power? Fuel supplies would probably be dwindling. And does anyone know of the total losses to the merchant fleet that was bringing the vehicles to Europe? How many vehicles were lost that way?

Just my two cents.

[Cdnwolf]

This list is I think a fairly complete list of US (and Canadian) vehicle production facilities. I also have had way to much time on my hands over the past two days!!



The problem with the list is how many were in operation in 1997. General Dynamics didn't start the London Ontario plant until 2003.

The red box was GM Diesel which had owned the lands and buildings at the time and made Locomotives.

[Olefin]

So most of the components including the engine block, transmission, axles and suspension and the other parts were already fully built by Oshkosh and the other suppliers and then shipped to you where you assembled them. Then you assembled the cab and some fittings with the armour and completed the vehicle.

This is exactly what a custom builder would do, although in some cases they also modify the vehicle and fit their own equipment. And this is the point that I am trying to make about JLG. JLG is a custom builder, although I am not implying that BAE at York is also a custom builder.

The fact that JLG assembled a relatively large number of vehicles, certainly more than a custom builder would normally build, is to do with the fact that it was doing so on behalf Oshkosh who funded it. Oshkosh and its main suppliers already built the main components at their own factories and then shipped them to JLG and BAE for assembly. Obviously Oshkosh hadn't got the space at their own production lines to assemble and fit out the M-ATV without a major investment of their existing facilities, so they used JLG (which they bought) and also contracted BAE to do this.

RN7 - you are describing a knock down plant - that is not what JLG did - we built ALL the cabs for the M-ATV that Oshkosh contracted for to the US Govt - i.e. 100% of them - and then we finished the assembly of half of them and sent the other half of the cabs to Oshkosh for them to fully assembly - in other words we assembled the cab and then fitted it out with the engine, transmission, interior, electronics, etc. and built half the M-ATV's that were built by Oshkosh - over 4000 of them

and BAE built their own MRAP's all on their own - they arent part of Oshkosh

[Olefin]

The war at the time of the Battle of Kalisz had been going on for 3 years. That uses up a lot of material. Building the product during optimal conditions would account for your numbers but what happens if the plant had no power? Fuel supplies would probably be dwindling. And does anyone know of the total losses to the merchant fleet that was bringing the vehicles to Europe? How many vehicles were lost that way?

Just my two cents.

we had the plant up and running in less time than it took to go from the US start of being in the war to when the nuke strikes happened in the game - and given the Chinese Russian war most likely the US defense industry would have gone into high gear soon after their war started - even just to be able to supply the Chinese let alone the US

As for shipping material across the ocean yes that is a valid point - but if there was a lot of US war material stuck in the US then they would have made short work of the Mexican Army and any Soviet invaders - frankly the original authors definitely understated the ability of the US to ramp up production and get new vehicles out there let alone get older ones up and running

[RN7]

The problem with the list is how many were in operation in 1997. General Dynamics didn't start the London Ontario plant until 2003.

The red box was GM Diesel which had owned the lands and buildings at the time and made Locomotives.


I did state a few posts up that " This list is for 2017 not 1997".

If you want to look up what was about in 1997 and compare it with what's still around in 2017 or what has been shut down or built since 1997 go ahead. While your at do you know what happened to the FMC plant in San Jose California that built the Bradley back in the 1990's?

[RN7]

RN7 - you are describing a knock down plant - that is not what JLG did - we built ALL the cabs for the M-ATV that Oshkosh contracted for to the US Govt - i.e. 100% of them - and then we finished the assembly of half of them and sent the other half of the cabs to Oshkosh for them to fully assembly - in other words we assembled the cab and then fitted it out with the engine, transmission, interior, electronics, etc. and built half the M-ATV's that were built by Oshkosh - over 4000 of them

and BAE built their own MRAP's all on their own - they arent part of Oshkosh

No Olefin I think I'm describing a custom builder, as I think custom work is the closest resemblance to the work that JLG did with the M-ATV. Its a lot more skilled than a knock down plant and I've been implying that over a few posts, but I do not consider JLG to be a large assembly plant. And I know BAE builds its own MRAPS, I stated it in earlier posts.

[pmulcahy11b]

I think JLG would best be termed an assembler.

[RN7]

I think JLG would best be termed an assembler.

What would be your definition of assembler Paul as I really cant figure out what to class JLG as?

[RN7]

its interesting how little of the US military production network was actually hit during the nuclear strikes in the canon - i.e. they hit Toledo but not York PA or San Jose CA (i.e. Bradley, M109, M88) and the aircraft plants were barely touched if at all

you would think that it would have been the Soviets number one target with the refineries being number two - i.e. cutting off oil is important but it takes quite a while to get new aircraft and tank production going if you nuke the existing plants

That's a valid point. Soviet nuclear missiles seem to have missed an awful lot of important industrial facilities in America and also in other countries.

[RN7]

In regards to 1997 and 2017 there are some major changes in the structure of the North American auto industry.

The U.S. makes the same number of vehicles (12.1 million) in 2017 as it did back in 1997. Canada makes about the same (2.1 million to 2.2 million), while Mexican production has jumped from 1.3 million to 3.5 million. But the share of the domestic producers has fallen dramatically.

In 1997 the Big Three American producers (GM, Ford, Chrysler) built a total of 9.1 million vehicles in the United States, while Navistar, Paccar and Mack built another 200,000 units. In Canada that figure was 1.7 million for 1997 and just over 700,000 units in Mexico.

Today the Big Three American producers share has fallen to 6.4 million, with just over 100,000 for Navistar, Paccar and Mack. Mack incidentally is now owned by Volvo of Sweden. In Canada its fallen to 1.3 million although its risen to nearly 1.7 million in Mexico. Ford actually makes more vehicles in the U.S. than GM does now.

Foreign owned vehicle production (Japanese, German and Korean) has risen in this period. In the U.S. it was 2.4 million in 1997 and is 5.3 million today. In Canada 350,000 units in 1997 and nearly 1 million today, and in Mexico under 550,000 units in 1997 and is over 1.5 million today.

Also the Germans and Swedes own or build a lot of American heavy vehicle production, and the British through BAE own a big chunk of America's military vehicle manufacturing. So fewer auto assembly plants in the U.S today than in 1997, at least American owned ones.

[unkated]

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/sierra-army-depot



This was my favorite part: "Pending an anachronistic World War II-style armor clash on the European plains....."

... since that's exactly what we're talking about.

Uncle Ted

[The Dark]

That's a valid point. Soviet nuclear missiles seem to have missed an awful lot of important industrial facilities in America and also in other countries.

Sure, but that's where the Soviet nuclear strikes make sense. Rather than widely dispersed industrial sites, focus on the (relatively) centralized fuel production. Harvey knocked out around 25% of the US's refining capacity. Hitting the Baton Rouge area and the two refining centers in California in addition to Houston/Galveston would knock out close to 60% of US refining capacity.

Most refineries are also near port facilities, so striking them will also damage shipping capacity and limit imports of fuel. That will force the use of ground transportation to move supplies, which requires more fuel, further exacerbating the shortage. Striking at the refineries is a logistical attack.

[RN7]

This was my favorite part: "Pending an anachronistic World War II-style armor clash on the European plains....."

... since that's exactly what we're talking about.

Uncle Ted

If you look up Sierra Army Depot on Wikipedia and then click on the coordinates link it will take you to Google Maps were you can see a satellite map of the whole base. Its amazing there are thousands of military vehicles just lined up in rows for miles including M1 tanks that you can make out and hundreds of bunkers.

Was this base a target in T2K? I'm sure U.S. forces would have taken many of these vehicles back into service during the course of the war, but many older ones and maybe a few new ones would still be there. Whoever controls this base would have a major advantage on the West coast.

[RN7]

Sure, but that's where the Soviet nuclear strikes make sense. Rather than widely dispersed industrial sites, focus on the (relatively) centralized fuel production. Harvey knocked out around 25% of the US's refining capacity. Hitting the Baton Rouge area and the two refining centers in California in addition to Houston/Galveston would knock out close to 60% of US refining capacity.

That's true but what happens if the nuclear missile doesn't hit the target and you still have a functional or even partially functional oil refinery, and also have a fully functional tank factory?

Harvey knocked out around 25% of the US's refining capacity. Hitting the Baton Rouge area and the two refining centers in California in addition to Houston/Galveston would knock out close to 60% of US refining capacity.

Are we talking 1997 or now?

Sure Texas, Louisiana and California have a big chunk of America's oil refining capacity but there are plenty more today. There are 6 refineries in Alaska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wyoming, 5 in Washington state and Utah, 4 in Illinois, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio and Oklahoma, 3 in Alabama, Kansas and New Mexico, 2 in Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota and North Dakota, and I in Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

Most refineries are also near port facilities, so striking them will also damage shipping capacity and limit imports of fuel. That will force the use of ground transportation to move supplies, which requires more fuel, further exacerbating the shortage. Striking at the refineries is a logistical attack.

BY 2000 there is basically no functional air or shipping capacity, so in the main it will all be by ground transportation.

[The Dark]

Are we talking 1997 or now?

Sure Texas, Louisiana and California have a big chunk of America's oil refining capacity but there are plenty more today. There are 6 refineries in Alaska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wyoming, 5 in Washington state and Utah, 4 in Illinois, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio and Oklahoma, 3 in Alabama, Kansas and New Mexico, 2 in Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota and North Dakota, and I in Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

By capacity (bbl/day), 59% of the United States' current refining capacity is in 3 states - California, Texas, and Louisiana. To pick some examples out:
Louisiana's five largest refineries (Garyville, Baton Rouge, Lake Charles Citgo, St. Charles, and Convent) combine for 1,967,800 barrels per day. There are 11 more refineries in Louisiana that range from 8,300 to 247,000 barrels each. Total capacity of all 16 refineries is 3,310,100 barrels per day. Texas has at least 5,252,000 barrels per day capacity (I don't know the capacity for Calumet Penreco or Double Punch), and California has 3,331,000 barrels of refining capacity.


Pennsylvania is (I think) the largest of the non-Big Three states, with a total refining capacity of 775,000 barrels per day. Of that, 10k barrels are in Bradford (near the PA/NY border south of Buffalo), 70k are in Warren (on the other side of the Allegheny National Forest from Bradford), and the other 695k are in Philadelphia and likely to be glowing for a few years.

New Jersey technically has six refineries, but Perth Amboy closed in 2006, Eagle Point in 2010, and Port Reading in 2013, so only Bayway, Paulsboro Asphalt, and Paulsboro are still running, with a total capacity of 461,000 barrels per day.


Picking from some of the other states listed:
Alaska's six refineries combined can do 302,000 barrels per day.
Wyoming's six refineries combined can do 158,000 barrels per day.
Utah's five refineries combined can do 179,200 barrels per day.
Hawaii's two refineries can do 148,000 barrels per day
Virginia's one refinery shut down in 2010.
West Virginia's one refinery can do 19,400 barrels per day.

That's 20 refineries (not counting the closed one in VA) that can do a total of 806,600 barrels per day, or about 2/5 of what the 5 biggest refineries in Louisiana can do.

For the entire southeast (and being somewhat generous by including trans-Appalachia) excluding Louisiana, you have:
Alabama - 3 refineries, 156,100 bbl/day
Georgia - 1 refinery, 28,000 bbl/day
Kentucky - 3 refineries, 439,000 bbl/day
Mississippi - 4 refineries, 409,800 bbl/day (370k of which is 1 refinery, Pascagoula)
Tennessee - 1 refinery, 180,000 bbl/day

There are no refineries in Florida or the Carolinas or Virginia, so that entire 9 state region has about 1.2 million barrels per day maximum refining capacity, slightly more than 1/3 of what Louisiana has, and about 1/3 of that capacity could be eliminated by hitting Pascagoula (which is where Ingalls is, so it'd be a target anyway).

The other problem is crude oil production. That same 9 state region produces only 83,000 barrels of crude oil per day (5k from Florida, 22k from Alabama, 56k from Mississippi). Unless they can import oil from somewhere, even the small capacity they have will grossly exceed the inputs they receive.

Interestingly, West Virginia might be able to be close to self-sufficient; they produce 20,000 barrels of crude per day, and can refine 19,400 barrels per day at their one refinery.

[RN7]

That's a very detailed analysis of American oil refining capacity there Dark, I presume your figures are from the present and not 1997.

But let's have another look at them, and to be clear these are my figures are 2016/2017.

By capacity (bbl/day), 59% of the United States' current refining capacity is in 3 states - California, Texas, and Louisiana. To pick some examples out:
Louisiana's five largest refineries (Garyville, Baton Rouge, Lake Charles Citgo, St. Charles, and Convent) combine for 1,967,800 barrels per day. There are 11 more refineries in Louisiana that range from 8,300 to 247,000 barrels each. Total capacity of all 16 refineries is 3,310,100 barrels per day. Texas has at least 5,252,000 barrels per day capacity (I don't know the capacity for Calumet Penreco or Double Punch), and California has 3,331,000 barrels of refining capacity.

Louisiana has 18 oil refineries, produces 3,343,206 barrels per day and accounts for 18% of US capacity.
Texas has 29 oil refineries, produces 5,671,490 barrels per day and accounts for 30.5% of US capacity.
California has 18 oil refineries, produces 1,990,671 barrels per day and accounts for 10.7% of US capacity.

So yes your figure is correct as all three states account for 59.2% of US capacity. But these are peacetime figures and all three states expect for Texas are crude oil importers.

Louisiana produces 1.5% of US crude oil production
Texas produces 37.4% of US crude oil production
California produces 5.2% of US crude oil production

The big three US oil producing states are Texas (37.4%), North Dakota (11.2%) and Alaska (5.5%), although to be fair California is in 4th place. However Federal Offshore oil production also accounts for about 19% of US oil production.

So only the refineries in Texas will be refining oil at anywhere near peacetime levels unless the threat to shipping is totally eliminated.


Pennsylvania is (I think) the largest of the non-Big Three states, with a total refining capacity of 775,000 barrels per day. Of that, 10k barrels are in Bradford (near the PA/NY border south of Buffalo), 70k are in Warren (on the other side of the Allegheny National Forest from Bradford), and the other 695k are in Philadelphia and likely to be glowing for a few years.

Pennsylvania's refining capacity is 576,000 barrels per day, which is behind Illinois, Washington and Ohio. And if Philadelphia is likely to be glowing for years so would the big cities and oil refineries in California, Louisiana and Texas.

New Jersey technically has six refineries, but Perth Amboy closed in 2006, Eagle Point in 2010, and Port Reading in 2013, so only Bayway, Paulsboro Asphalt, and Paulsboro are still running, with a total capacity of 461,000 barrels per day.

True and I think Perth Amboy and Eagle Point have been converted into oil terminals. New Jersey has a total capacity of 475,000 barrels per day.

Picking from some of the other states listed:
Alaska's six refineries combined can do 302,000 barrels per day.
Wyoming's six refineries combined can do 158,000 barrels per day.
Utah's five refineries combined can do 179,200 barrels per day.
Hawaii's two refineries can do 148,000 barrels per day
Virginia's one refinery shut down in 2010.
West Virginia's one refinery can do 19,400 barrels per day.

That's 20 refineries (not counting the closed one in VA) that can do a total of 806,600 barrels per day, or about 2/5 of what the 5 biggest refineries in Louisiana can do.

Alaska actually has now only 5 oil refineries producing 158,900 barrels per day
Wyoming has 6 oil refineries producing 177,500 barrels per day
Utah has now only 5 oil refineries producing 196,830 barrels per day
Hawaii is exactly right
Virginia is exactly right, its former refinery has been converted into and oil terminal
West Virginia has 1 refinery produces 22,300 barrels per day.

That's 19 refineries that can do a total of 703,500 barrels per day, about 1/5 of what all the refineries in Louisiana can do.

For the entire southeast (and being somewhat generous by including trans-Appalachia) excluding Louisiana, you have:
Alabama - 3 refineries, 156,100 bbl/day
Georgia - 1 refinery, 28,000 bbl/day
Kentucky - 3 refineries, 439,000 bbl/day
Mississippi - 4 refineries, 409,800 bbl/day (370k of which is 1 refinery, Pascagoula)
Tennessee - 1 refinery, 180,000 bbl/day

There are no refineries in Florida or the Carolinas or Virginia, so that entire 9 state region has about 1.2 million barrels per day maximum refining capacity, slightly more than 1/3 of what Louisiana has, and about 1/3 of that capacity could be eliminated by hitting Pascagoula (which is where Ingalls is, so it'd be a target anyway).

Alabama has 3 refineries producing 131,675 barrels per day.
Georgia has no refinery any more.
Kentucky has 2 refineries producing 278,500 barrels per day.
Mississippi has 3 refineries producing 377,500 barrels per day.
Tennessee has 1 refinery producing 190,000 barrels per day.

So the entire 9 state region has a capacity of less than 1 million barrels per day maximum refining capacity, slightly less than 1/3 of Louisiana

The other problem is crude oil production. That same 9 state region produces only 83,000 barrels of crude oil per day (5k from Florida, 22k from Alabama, 56k from Mississippi). Unless they can import oil from somewhere, even the small capacity they have will grossly exceed the inputs they receive.

Louisiana only produces 1.5% of U.S. crude oil, the rest is imported. Alabama produces 0.2%, Florida produces 0.1%, Kentucky produces 0.1% and Mississippi produces 0.5% of U.S. crude oil, and it's not imported.

Also you missed the refineries in rest of the country.

Colorado has 2 refineries producing 103,000 barrels per day
Delaware has 1 refinery producing 182,200 barrels per day
Illinois has 4 refineries producing 981,500 barrels per day
Indiana has 2 refineries producing 441,700 barrels per day
Kansas has 3 refineries producing 361,000 barrels per day
Michigan has 1 refinery producing 132,000 barrels per day
Minnesota has 2 refineries producing 388,515 barrels per day
Montana has 4 refineries producing 214,700 barrels per day
Nevada has 1 refinery producing 2,000 barrels per day
New Mexico has 2 refineries producing 123,500 barrels per day
North Dakota has 2 refineries producing 93,300 barrels per day
Ohio has 4 refineries producing 583,000 barrels per day
Oklahoma has 5 refineries producing 511,300 barrels per day
Utah has 5 refineries producing 196,830 barrels per day
Washington has 5 refineries producing 633,700 barrels per day
Wisconsin has 1 refinery producing 38,000 barrels per day
Wyoming has 6 refineries producing 177,500 barrels per day

That's 5,163,700 barrels of oil per day, nearly equivalent to the whole of Texas!

[pmulcahy11b]

What would be your definition of assembler Paul as I really cant figure out what to class JLG as?

They're shipped the manufactured parts sourced from manufacturers able to make the components, but without the means or assembly lines to build the items themselves. (Or maybe it was just a budget thing, or some congressman throwing some business to his district.) A company like JLG would receive all those parts and knock-down kits and put them together into whole vehicles -- assembling them, but not actually involved in the manufacturing process.

[The Dark]

The numbers I had are probably a few years old - I was doing some interviews in the industry (for one of the Galveston refineries, IIRC - it was definitely Texas, but I'm not 100 percent sure exactly where).

So yes your figure is correct as all three states account for 59.2% of US capacity. But these are peacetime figures and all three states expect for Texas are crude oil importers.Almost every refining state is a net importer. The US produces less crude than it refines. Using the EIA's peak average monthly crude oil production from 2011-2016 and comparing it to your list refinery capacity:
Texas: 5.67 million barrels refining, 3.45 million barrels crude (+1.6 million off-shore)
Louisiana: 3.34 million barrels refining, 0.197 million barrels crude
California: 1.99 million barrels refining, 0.561 million barrels crude
Illinois: 981,500 barrels refining, 27,000 barrels crude
Washington: 633,700 barrels refining, 0 crude
Ohio: 583,000 barrels refining, 73,000 barrels crude
Pennsylvania: 576,000 barrels refining, 19,000 barrels crude
Oklahoma: 511,300 barrels refining, 447,000 barrels crude
Indiana: 441,700 barrels refining, 7,000 barrels crude
Minnesota: 388,515 barrels refining, 0 crude
Mississippi: 377,500 barrels refining, 68,000 barrels crude
Kansas: 361,000 barrels refining, 136,000 barrels crude
Kentucky: 278,500 barrels refining, 9,000 barrels crude
Montana: 214,700 barrels refining, 82,000 barrels crude
Utah: 196,830 barrels refining, 112,000 barrels crude
Tennessee: 190,000 barrels refining, 1,000 barrels crude
Delaware: 182,200 barrels refining, 0 crude
Wyoming: 177,500 barrels refining, 237,000 barrels crude
Michigan: 132,000 barrels refining, 21,000 barrels crude
Alabama: 131,675 barrels refining, 29,000 barrels crude
New Mexico: 123,500 barrels refining, 404,000 barrels crude
Colorado: 103,000 barrels refining, 336,000 barrels crude
North Dakota: 93,300 barrels refining, 1,177,000 barrels crude
Wisconsin: 38,000 barrels refining, 0 crude
West Virginia: 22,300 barrels refining, 23,000 barrels crude
Nevada: 2,000 barrels refining, 1,000 barrels crude
Alaska: 0 refining, 561,000 barrels crude

There are other dribs and drabs of crude oil production (like Florida's 6k or New York and Idaho's 1k), but Alaska's the only major crude producer without refineries. Peak crude production was 9.408 million barrels per day in 2015, slightly more than half the refinery capacity. It's also not necessarily conveniently located, with major crude oil producers having relatively small refining capacities and not necessarily located near states with significant refining capacities (*coughNorthDakotacough*).

And if Philadelphia is likely to be glowing for years so would the big cities and oil refineries in California, Louisiana and Texas. Most likely. The U.S. Nuclear Targets list in v2.2 includes 8 refineries in California, 7 in Louisiana, and 13 in Texas. It also includes the Delaware refinery, 3 refineries in Illinois, 1 in Indiana, 1 in Kentucky, 2 in Kansas, 1 in Mississippi, 1 in Missouri, 4 in New Jersey, 2 in Ohio, 2 in Oklahoma, 2 in Pennsylvania, and 2 in Washington. In total, 50 refineries are on the target list, and some of the strikes may have included multiple refineries located in the same city. Another 18 refineries in Canada are also on the list.

I'm not sure if striking at refining capacity is the best strategy, but it's certainly a plausible strategy, given the tendency to cluster refining capacity and the need to transport crude to refineries. Crude production tends to be more dispersed (and not necessarily near other valuable infrastructure), which makes it a less ideal target. Hitting at fuel supplies limits both civilian and military efficiency. Even if one considers the distillation of ethanol, that reduces the available food for the military and civilians, which is problematic once farm yields decline (due to the loss of modern fertilizers and pesticides, even if one ignores the drought) and the lean times start.

[RN7]

Peak crude production was 9.408 million barrels per day in 2015, slightly more than half the refinery capacity.

The U.S. actually produced 10,044 million barrels per day in November 1970. It steadily declined to as low as 3,971 million barrels in September 2008, but has been rising since 2009 and recent peak production was 9,626 million barrels in April 2015.

Alaska: 0 refining, 561,000 barrels crude.

?

There are other dribs and drabs of crude oil production (like Florida's 6k or New York and Idaho's 1k), but Alaska's the only major crude producer without refineries. Peak crude production was 9.408 million barrels per day in 2015, slightly more than half the refinery capacity. It's also not necessarily conveniently located, with major crude oil producers having relatively small refining capacities and not necessarily located near states with significant refining capacities (*coughNorthDakotacough*).

Most likely. The U.S. Nuclear Targets list in v2.2 includes 8 refineries in California, 7 in Louisiana, and 13 in Texas. It also includes the Delaware refinery, 3 refineries in Illinois, 1 in Indiana, 1 in Kentucky, 2 in Kansas, 1 in Mississippi, 1 in Missouri, 4 in New Jersey, 2 in Ohio, 2 in Oklahoma, 2 in Pennsylvania, and 2 in Washington. In total, 50 refineries are on the target list, and some of the strikes may have included multiple refineries located in the same city. Another 18 refineries in Canada are also on the list.

There are also pipelines and they cross the whole of the U.S. and Canada.

North Dakota is served by 7 crude oil pipelines (Belle Fourche, Koch, Lakehead, Little Missouri, Madador, Magellan and Portal), and also 4 petroleum products pipelines, 2 natural gas liquid pipelines and 5 interstate natural gas pipelines.

I'm not sure if striking at refining capacity is the best strategy, but it's certainly a plausible strategy, given the tendency to cluster refining capacity and the need to transport crude to refineries. Crude production tends to be more dispersed (and not necessarily near other valuable infrastructure), which makes it a less ideal target. Hitting at fuel supplies limits both civilian and military efficiency. Even if one considers the distillation of ethanol, that reduces the available food for the military and civilians, which is problematic once farm yields decline (due to the loss of modern fertilizers and pesticides, even if one ignores the drought) and the lean times start.

It would be impossible to hit every crude oil wellhead, and even more so with offshore oil rigs. But hitting the major refineries and clusters of refineries does make sense.

[Targan]

Industrial Base Too ‘Brittle’ For Big War (http://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/industrial-base-too-brittle-for-big-war-dunford/)

[RN7]

Industrial Base Too ‘Brittle’ For Big War (http://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/industrial-base-too-brittle-for-big-war-dunford/)

But as the article states it only applies to America and other Western democracies by default, and not to China or Russia. And the reason why this has happened would be that big corporations have deemed that there is not enough demand (profit) to justify retaining mass production levels in certain industries that would be critical in war. Much easier (and more profitable) to transfer this industrial bulk to China and elsewhere while the corporations make bigger profits through cheap labour and lack of human rights.

According to this article the solution to this is 3D Printing! Absolute nonsense, a 3D printer is too slow and limited to substitute a factory and human craftsmanship no matter what its supporters say. Can you see China building loads of 3D printers to replace its factories and millions of workers.

The problem is that certain Western governments do not take enough interest in its industries. They only listen to big corporations who are only interested in profits and shareholders. If the government took a controlling stake in some industries which are important to the strategic interests of the country this would not happen. Some European countries including Germany, France and Italy protect their key national industries, and the French government would fire any director who suggested a large factory should close because its not making enough of a profit.

A prime example of this is General Motors. When it was bailed out to the tune of US$ 50 billion it was the world's biggest vehicle maker. Today GM is the 3rd or 4th largest and not even the biggest vehicle maker in America. GM repaid the U.S. tax payer by closing down factories in the U.S. and opening new ones in China and Mexico. In China or Russia the entire senior management of GM would be in prison or worse.