Wartime production

[Legbreaker]

From the Greek navy thread...
IMHO, one of the unanswered questions of any timeline is when the U.S. started to ramp up production of its armament industry to support its needs.

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

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

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

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

We also know from pages 11-12 of the 2.2 BYB, and page 25 of the 1st ed Referees Manual (text is identical):
The Italian Army enjoys tremendous success in the first month of its involvement in the war, primarily for logistical reasons. Most of its opponents have already been at war for six months or more. Their peacetime stocks of munitions and replacement vehicles had been depleted, and their industries had not yet geared up to wartime production. The Italians have intact peacetime stockpiles to draw on. As summer turns to fall, however, the Italians too began feeling the logistical pinch, aggravated by the increasing flow of munitions and equipment from the factories of their opponents.

So that tells us there was at least a six month delay (probably longer) in ramping up production of war material.

[Legbreaker]

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

And then there's the "lesser" conflicts - Pakistan/India, Australia/Indonesia, and so on. Production patterns for those combatants would look very different again due to a number of factors, perhaps the main ones being the funds available to pay for those wars, history of the conflict (the P/I one going back a long time), and the intensity of operations.

[dragoon500ly]

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

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

IMHO, no matter what timeline, we are looking at two possible production runs, the first is for the use of China, particularly in munitions, this run-up would lead to the U.S. reopening ammunition plants and stockpiling the necessary chemicals for munitions production. It would also see an increase in the production of weapons, vehicles, helicopters, aircraft and armored vehicles that have been approved for foreign military sales, leading to increased production runs, especially for those systems used by our own military. Secondly, with Soviet aggression in the Far East, it would be very likely that Congress would vote to improve our military readiness and increase logistical stockpiles.

[dragoon500ly]

From the Greek navy thread...


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

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

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

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

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


So that tells us there was at least a six month delay (probably longer) in ramping up production of war material.

Realistically, tooling up additional factories, acquiring the machinery needed and training up the work force, you are probably looking at roughly 1-2 years to get production ramped up.

It's an interesting question, looking forward to the posts to come!

[swaghauler]

Realistically, tooling up additional factories, acquiring the machinery needed and training up the work force, you are probably looking at roughly 1-2 years to get production ramped up.

It's an interesting question, looking forward to the posts to come!

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

*This happens in 1999 in my timeline so the Players have only been "living off the land" for a matter of months before they are plowed under near Kaliz.

[Legbreaker]

THIS! This is the reason why my timeline results in a "come as you are" war. I start the serious hostilities in Poland AFTER the 1996 Elections and things escalate in 1997.

That's pretty much the timing for wider NATO involvement too in all editions - Germans don't ask for help until later in November 96, so after the US election.
The German/Poland war had kicked off properly on the 27th of July though, or the 7th of October in the 1st ed timeline. Either way, the US (and majority of NATO) were not actively involved early enough for the war to be a major political issue leading up to the election.

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

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

My thoughts are laws may have been altered to allow easier export to China, but that's probably about as far as the Government would have been willing to go.

[ChalkLine]

I've often thought that there's be an initial spike in R&D and technology increase at the beginning of the war on both sides. It would only last for a while until the final effects of the strategic strikes took effect.

[Legbreaker]

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

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

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

[ChalkLine]

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

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

The traditional Russian tactic is to keep fighting no matter how many conditions of victory have been achieved. This means a long war and eventually a war of attrition

[dragoon500ly]

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

My thoughts are laws may have been altered to allow easier export to China, but that's probably about as far as the Government would have been willing to go.

Considering the trade deficit between China and the U.S. at the time, I can see Congress altering these laws by quite a margin. I also hold with the thought that at the same time, there is an increase in U.S. military spending, dramatically increasing logistical stockpiles, bringing new weapons systems that have neared the end of their test and development phase into service, even a limited call of the reserves to "take part" in military exercises "testing" our military preparations.

[dragoon500ly]

I've often thought that there's be an initial spike in R&D and technology increase at the beginning of the war on both sides. It would only last for a while until the final effects of the strategic strikes took effect.

IMHO this would be a given! Given a chance to get intelligence on the actual performance of first line Soviet equipment, one would expect that the CIA and the DIA would be having knife fights over who got to go to China first. Not to mention all of the surveillance aircraft crowding international airspace!

[Legbreaker]

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

[dragoon500ly]

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

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

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

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

Would the Air Force get more aircaft? I can see upgrades, maybe even several dozen new planes added, but not much more than that.

[pmulcahy11b]

Would the Air Force get more aircaft? I can see upgrades, maybe even several dozen new planes added, but not much more than that.

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

Today there are hardly any QF-4s left, but in the early 1990s, there were lots of them, and a lot of F-4s and RF-4s stored at the Boneyard. There was even limited production of parts for the foreign air forces still flying F-4s.

[Olefin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

because after the TDM with the power and fuel issues I dont see US production being much more than a shadow of itself - especially by late 1998 when fuel and coal stockpiles were probably getting very low to generate power

[Olefin]

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

Today there are hardly any QF-4s left, but in the early 1990s, there were lots of them, and a lot of F-4s and RF-4s stored at the Boneyard. There was even limited production of parts for the foreign air forces still flying F-4s.

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

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

and there still had to be at least some munitions available for those ships that were still in commission that were newer - when Virginia fought her last battle she still had Tomahawks and Harpoons on board - i.e. she hadnt been reduced to just her guns

[CDAT]

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

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

and there still had to be at least some munitions available for those ships that were still in commission that were newer - when Virginia fought her last battle she still had Tomahawks and Harpoons on board - i.e. she hadnt been reduced to just her guns

I would be surprised if they did not have munitions. When I went to EOD School in 05 during our demo training part some of the munitions we blew up were 8" artillery (as near as I can tell last ones were retired from US service in 1994), and 16" battleship shells (when was the last one made?). Now the Battleships are still kind of in reserve status, but the artillery had been retired for 11 years and they still had ammo for it. The higher the tech the less likely they would have many I think but who knows for sure.

[swaghauler]

I would be surprised if they did not have munitions. When I went to EOD School in 05 during our demo training part some of the munitions we blew up were 8" artillery (as near as I can tell last ones were retired from US service in 1994), and 16" battleship shells (when was the last one made?). Now the Battleships are still kind of in reserve status, but the artillery had been retired for 11 years and they still had ammo for it. The higher the tech the less likely they would have many I think but who knows for sure.

Unfortunately, the Iowas are all museum ships as of 2006 (never to be returned to the reserves). But yes, ammo is kept for DECADES. We were shooting 155mm shells made in the 1950's in 1991.

[Olefin]

If I remember right the Air Force finally used the stockpile of 500lb bombs they had left over from WWII sometime during the Afghanistan War

[Legbreaker]

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

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

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

Also bear in mind that the Pact forces were in retreat until mid July 1997. It would seem inconceivable the government would be willing to spend more than was absolutely required in those circumstances. To do so would have been political suicide come the mid term elections in 1998, unless there was a concerted and effective public relations effort made to convince the voters the huge increase in national debt was to save as many US lives as possible by shortening the war (and even then there's always those who'd be demanding the US simply withdrew all troops and left Europe/Middle East/Korea/Africa/etc to fend for itself).

[pmulcahy11b]

If I remember right the Air Force finally used the stockpile of 500lb bombs they had left over from WWII sometime during the Afghanistan War

A lot of them had JDAM kits strapped onto them, turning them into smart bombs.

[Olefin]

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

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

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

or putting everything you have into getting Harry S Truman commissioned and into service by say mid to late 1997 due to the earlier fleet losses so instead of being nuked at Newport she is actually deployed and at sea for the TDM - given the war and the losses earlier in 1997 that I can see for sure - even if it means you pull resources off other ships to do it

[dragoon500ly]

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


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

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

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

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

These are all short-term fixes, but it wouldn't be out of the question for new systems that are nearing their test and development would be pushed forward into production with an eye for deployment in 6-12 months.

[Olefin]

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

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

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

These are all short-term fixes, but it wouldn't be out of the question for new systems that are nearing their test and development would be pushed forward into production with an eye for deployment in 6-12 months.

I can definitely seeing the Navy doing what you are suggesting - even by salvaging systems off ships that will take too long to repair to give other ships a fighting chance - actually that is one way I said the US would have gotten equipment home during Omega

I.e. we have to be able to take some of our artillery, AA systems, 50 calibers etc.. to arm the ships you are sending us home in since they are defenseless civilian tubs

[Raellus]

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

It really depends on what you consider "full wartime production". "Full" as in how we didn't produce a single automobile for consumers from 1942 to 1945 (because the automotive companies were too busy producing tanks and aircraft engines)? If that's the benchmark, then I think the answer is quite clearly no. Has the U.S. ever gone to full wartime production just to aid an ally? No, not even prior to its entry into WWI OR WWII did the U.S. do that. Only during its direct involvement in WWII (after Pearl Harbor) did the U.S. ramp military production up to its maximum capacity.

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

[Olefin]

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

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

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

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

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

now I could see individual plants that were working with the Chinese having time to possibly tool up to get either a new plant going or new assembly lines - i.e. Stingray tanks by Cadillac Gage at both the Louisiana and Cocoa Beach assembly lines instead of just at one if the Chinese ordered them big time - there would be just about enough time to get said second line up and running by about August or so of 1997

[Olefin]

hey do we have an actual thread where Leg, Raellus and I all agree - doesnt that mean the end times or something like that is here?:D

[Legbreaker]

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

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

For another example look at Iraq/Afghanistan over the last 15 or so years. Not a total mobilisation for sure, but still significant numbers of troops and equipment involved.

[RN7]

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

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


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

M1 tank reconditioning at Lima averages half a tank per day (15 tanks a month). General Dynamics has stated that it can ramp that up to two and a half tanks a day (75 tanks a month). In wartime that figure could conceivably rise to over a 100 tanks a month. If we say that reconditioning takes the same amount of time as producing a new tank then that would be up to 1,200 tanks a year. Building another tank factory would not be that hard but it would probably take at least six months to either build from scratch or refit with the right machine tools and equipment. So with the right infrastructure it is possible that America could build up to 2,400 tanks a year.

[Olefin]

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

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

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

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

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

[Legbreaker]

And there I was thinking the LAV-75 was 1st ed and the M8 2nd ed and essentially the replacement/successor to the cancelled LAV-75.

[Olefin]

And there I was thinking the LAV-75 was 1st ed and the M8 2nd ed and essentially the replacement/successor to the cancelled LAV-75.

From what I remember the M8 showed up in Challenge Magazine between the two versions of the timeline - so thats a real question - is the LAV-75 V1 only and the M8 V2 only

Given the real timeline (i.e. not the game) the most likely answer would be that the M8 is the reality for both timelines (with the LAV-75 a rejected prototype) and should be used in place of the LAV-75 everywhere it is mentioned in the original game and modules

After all the M8 was greenlighted for production in reality - only cost cutting kept it from going into serial production - it had passed all testing and was approved by the Army - versus the LAV-75 which wasnt

Thus you would have the three different tank plants - the one making the M1, the one (or two) making the Stingray and the one making the M8

I know this has been discussed before but dont remember if there was ever a general agreement on this issue? (i.e. LAV-75 versus M8 for both timelines)

[kato13]

Given the real timeline (i.e. not the game) the most likely answer would be that the M8 is the reality for both timelines (with the LAV-75 a rejected prototype) and should be used in place of the LAV-75 everywhere it is mentioned in the original game and modules

I did close to this for my V1 game. I had a small production run of Lav-75s (40) to allow for the 101st to have a lt tank capable of being airlifted by CH-47s. I only had 13 deployed with the 101st in A company - 1/705 Armored (Tank destroyer)

[Olefin]

I did close to this for my V1 game. I had a small production run of Lav-75s (40) to allow for the 101st to have a lt tank capable of being airlifted by CH-47s. I only had 13 deployed with the 101st in A company - 1/705 Armored (Tank destroyer)

I could see also possibly another run of them after the TDM if you allowed for both - i.e. Lima has been nuked and further production at the M1 plant is out of the question given the damage to the electrical grid in the area - with the nukes at Kennedy and in New Orleans probably doing the same for the the Stingray plants - so the Army needs tanks and the only place they can get them is either York PA (which couldnt expand production much given they are also making M109's, Bradley's and M88's) or the plant making the LAV-75 - and thus (at least as long as the power stays on and there are parts coming in) a new order is placed for the LAV-75 and whatever is made gets shipped overseas and nationwide in 1998-1999 - so you have a mix of Bufords and LAV-75 possibly

[Olefin]

fyi from https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm as to how many M8's the Army was looking to produce when the order was placed in 1996 in our timeline

The FMC XM8 was designed to combine a tank's firepower with a highly mobile, air-droppable vehicle. AGS was intended to be the Army's new combat vehicle, but in the form of a highly deployable, light-weight vehicle, with high fire-power and reconfigurable armor protection. The AGS was intended to replace the M551A1 Sheridan in the 82nd Airborne Division, and was expected to replace TOW-equipped HMMWVs in the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light). A total of 237 systems were planned for procurement. The cancellation of the M8 Armored Gun System left the US Army airborne forces dangerously low on firepower.

The total program cost, including development, was estimated to be $1.3 billion. The Army had planned to procure 26 low-rate initial production vehicles with 1996 funding of $142.8 million

[swaghauler]

Don't forget that there could be a real-world LAV 75... actually the LAV 76. The 76mm OTO Melara Naval Cannon has a turret that can be fitted to an AFV. The US could have copied the idea with surplus 76mm OTO Melara's. This may have been initially deployed as a heavy AA self-propelled Gun and then pressed into service as a "bunker buster" when AFVs become scarce.

[Olefin]

Don't forget that there could be a real-world LAV 75... actually the LAV 76. The 76mm OTO Melara Naval Cannon has a turret that can be fitted to an AFV. The US could have copied the idea with surplus 76mm OTO Melara's. This may have been initially deployed as a heavy AA self-propelled Gun and then pressed into service as a "bunker buster" when AFVs become scarce.

Sounds like a great idea to me

[swaghauler]

Sounds like a great idea to me

OTO Melara actually has a pretty cool video about it. It looks like it's mounted on a Mowag Pirahnna to me.

[RN7]

American Armoured Vehicle Production

1) Lima Army Tank Plant, Ohio. Main General Dynamics production centre for M1 tank.
2) Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant, Michigan. General Dynamics closed the Detroit Tank Plant in 1996 due to the end of the Cold War, but in T2K the Cold War never ended and it is likely to still exist.
3) Anniston Army Depot, Alabama. Not a true tank factory but it is the General Dynamic's final assembly site for the Stryker vehicle, and it is also a depot for the repair and overhaul of the M1, M60 and other armoured vehicles. Engine maker Honeywell also has a significant presence at Anniston.
4) BAE York, Pennsylvania. British defence contractor BAE took over United Defence Industries and builds, reconditions and repairs the Bradley, M109, M113 and AAV-P7 at York.
5) Slidell, Louisiana. Textron builds the M117, US Navy LCAC and Cadillac Gage turret systems at Slidell.
6) London, Ontario (Canada). General Dynamics took over the GM factory in Ontario and builds the LAV-25 and variants.
7) Ladson, South Carolina: General Dynamics assembles MRAPS and customises the Stryker vehicle at Ladson.
8) San Clara, California. FMC built the M2 Bradley at San Clara in the 1980's. The factory still exists and is now owned by BAE.

Stratford Army Engine Plant: Stratford, Connecticut. Original design and production site for the Lycoming AGT1500 engine that is fitted to M1 tank. Stratford closed in 1995 but due to the different T2K timeline it could still be open. Honeywell acquired Lycoming Turbine Engine Division in 1999 and has consolidated all engine production at Anniston.

MRAP's are built by 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 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.

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 of them would be capable of making them.

Farm & Plant Vehicle Assembly Plants
Augusta, Georgia (John Deere)
Davenport, Iowa (John Deere)
East Moline, Illinois (John Deere)
Fargo, North Dakota (Case IH)
Fort Wayne, Indiana (Terex)
Grand Island, Nebraska (Case IH)
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)
Waterloo, Iowa (John Deere)
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada (Versatile)

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

Engine Plants
Anniston, Alabama (Honeywell)
Columbus, Indiana (Cummins)
Hagerstown, Maryland (Mack)
Huntsville, Alabama (Navistar)
Melrose Park, Illinois (Navistar)
Mobile, Alabama (Continental)
Mossville, Illinois (Caterpillar)
Peoria, Illinois (Caterpillar)
Redford, Michigan (Detroit Diesel)
Rocky Mount, North Carolina (Cummins)
Seymour, Indiana (Cummins)
Waterloo, Iowa (John Deere)
Waukesha, Wisconsin (Navistar)

[Olefin]

Some additional info

BAE York would also be the production center for the M8 Buford light tank

5) Slidell, Louisiana.
Would also be the production center for the Stingray and (if built) the Stingray II light tank.

6) Cocoa Beach, FL tank production center for the Cadillac Gage Stingray tank until 1994

MRAP’s were also built by JLG Industries (part of Oshkosh) as well at McConnellsburg, PA

Heavy Vehicle Assembly Plant - Need to add:

Dublin, VA (Volvo originally, now Volvo/Mack)

Fort Valley, GA (Bluebird Bus)

Winnsboro, SC (Mack Trucks 1987-2002)

Other facilities that can be used for military production

McConnellsburg, PA, Bedford PA (JLG) – scissor lift, telehandlers, booms – produced MRAP’s and ATLAS material handlers for US military

Orrville, Ohio – (Gradall till 1999, JLG after that) – hydraulic excavators, rough-terrain material handlers – tracked vehicles that could be used for military needs

[rcaf_777]

If I remember right the Air Force finally used the stockpile of 500lb bombs they had left over from WWII sometime during the Afghanistan War

I don't think that happened or that storing bombs for that long is possible or if they would see work

Give this a read

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-during-the-First-Gulf-War-the-United-States-emptied-stockpiles-of-bombs-and-munitions-dating-back-to-World-War-II

[dragoon500ly]

I don't think that happened or that storing bombs for that long is possible or if they would see work

Give this a read

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-during-the-First-Gulf-War-the-United-States-emptied-stockpiles-of-bombs-and-munitions-dating-back-to-World-War-II

Not only the issue with fusings, but different explosives were used in WW2, stuff has a much lower flash point then modern bombs, something the order of as much as 100 degrees lower, RE the USS Forrestal fire in July 1967, this involved 1,000-pound bombs left over from the Korean War, these had been improperly stored and in some cases were leaking chemical residue.

Considering that this was ordnance that had laid around since 1953, one has to wonder the conditions ordnance left over from 1945 would have been in!

[Olefin]

Most likely it would be just the casings for the bombs that were made and never used - which given how much production there was for the war could have been considerable - remember they were stocking up for an extended campaign against Japan when they suddenly surrendered

[ChalkLine]

Another thought is that the Picatinny Rail was standardised in 1995.

It could be assumed that every weapon was modified for this attachment by the general engagement in the Twilight War

[Legbreaker]

Another thought is that the Picatinny Rail was standardised in 1995.

It could be assumed that every weapon was modified for this attachment by the general engagement in the Twilight War

Generally takes time for something to be introduced on a wider scale, even if standardised.
I'd be interested in knowing when IRL the number of rifles with the rails outnumbered those without. Perhaps Paul can shed some light?

[CDAT]

Generally takes time for something to be introduced on a wider scale, even if standardised.
I'd be interested in knowing when IRL the number of rifles with the rails outnumbered those without. Perhaps Paul can shed some light?

I can not say when there were more with than without, but first unit I got them in was in late 2002 (got them in preparation for Iraq deployment but we did not know that at the time), and every unit after that had them when I was transferred to them.

[Adm.Lee]

Another thought is that the Picatinny Rail was standardised in 1995.

It could be assumed that every weapon was modified for this attachment by the general engagement in the Twilight War

Heh. I was explaining the game to my teen son and his pals, and had to explain that the timeline took place before the Picatinny rail. That just blew their little videogaming minds.

A GM could assume that the rail /was/ adopted in the buildup to war, maybe some units got them by the US intervention in late '96, maybe most of them by the '97 offensive, but there could still be lots of weapons floating around without them.

You could also assume that they never got standardized in the rush to get more weapons out to the field NOW. I was just reading (again) about the Union Army's opting against breechloaders in 1862, so there's precedent for that kind of decision.

[Raellus]

A GM could assume that the rail /was/ adopted in the buildup to war, maybe some units got them by the US intervention in late '96, maybe most of them by the '97 offensive, but there could still be lots of weapons floating around without them.

You could also assume that they never got standardized in the rush to get more weapons out to the field NOW. I was just reading (again) about the Union Army's opting against breechloaders in 1862, so there's precedent for that kind of decision.

I totally agree. Here's another real-world example supporting said conclusion. Mass production of the M1 Garand began in 1937, first deliveries to the U.S. military in 1938. That's three years before the U.S.A. officially entered the war, yet many Marine and quite a few regular Army units were still carrying the old M1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle into battle well into 1942.

That's a five-year spread between the beginning of mass production and near universal service. Apply that to the T2K timelines: between new-production and retrofitting, I reckon 60-75% of American M16s and M4 carbines would be sporting Picatinny rails. Yes it would be standard by 1997, but it takes time to replace and/or retrofit every service rifle/carbine, especially when a nation is in the midst of total war.

[swaghauler]

Prior to Picatinny rails being adopted there were at least four major systems introduced by different manufacturers. H&K had the most common rail after the Picatinny and the Mark23 SOCOM Pistol carries a proprietary example of that rail.

I remember when the 10th adopted a "rail" for designated marksmen. At this time (1996), the Marines were using M14 Conversions but the Army used M16A2 rifles fitted with the then-new ACOGs as DMRs. The "rail" in question was inserted over the A2's carrying handle (forming a "tube" to allow the use of the iron sights) and secured by a bolt through a hole in the carrying handle (through a hole originally put into all A1s/A2s carrying handles to secure scope bases). There were MAJOR issues with this piece of rail/scope base for the ACOG. The first was the ACOG's short 1.5" eye relief. This required you to smash your nose against the charging handle to use the ACOG. The second issue was the security of the mount. With a single bolt holding it, it could allow the scopes to fall out of adjustment. The bolt also BLOCKED the shooter's view of the front sight from the rear sight, rendering the iron sights USELESS. It was also interesting to see the "field-expedient" methods of putting some form of cheek/stock riser on the A2's stock to raise the shooter's eye high enough to use the ACOG. A lot of duct tape and foam was employed here. All of these issues eventually resulted in "Flat Top" AR15/M16 platforms.

I think that rails would flow into the war zone until the Exchange. A person being equipped with a rail would require a Scarce Scrounging roll in my game.

[swaghauler]

I think you will see "off the self" procurements just like you did in the War on Terror. When it became CLEAR that there weren't enough helos in the country to supply the units in Afghanistan and several of those lacked the Altitude Ceiling to reach some OPs, the Army began weighing its options. The more "redneck" soldiers gave the Army that solution. ATVs (4-wheelers in American slang) were employed to navigate the narrow mountain trails and move BOTH troops and ammo. Those 4-wheelers became critically important for resupplying troops, recon, and the removal of casualties to LZs. Now the Army has PURPOSE-BUILT CanAm quads and side-by-sides for Special Forces and Calvery Units operating in mountainous terrain. All of this due to a few off the self Polaris ATVs being deployed in Afghanistan.

[Legbreaker]

I think that rails would flow into the war zone until the Exchange. A person being equipped with a rail would require a Scarce Scrounging roll in my game.

Agreed. Scarce would seem to be a reasonable rate of availability, with a rail equipped rifle perhaps only available during character generation to elite units and perhaps a few light fingered supply types.
Alternatively a rail equipped rifle might only be issued to those characters with a minimum rifle skill of say 70/7 (1st/2nd ed).

[Adm.Lee]

...
I think that rails would flow into the war zone until the Exchange. A person being equipped with a rail would require a Scarce Scrounging roll in my game.

OR maybe a Difficult Gunsmithing roll? Someone who's invested time & learning in weapons work would probably be likely to have gear like that at chargen.

[Legbreaker]

OR maybe a Difficult Gunsmithing roll? Someone who's invested time & learning in weapons work would probably be likely to have gear like that at chargen.

They'd have to have it first. Maybe substitute a decent Rifle skill for Gunsmithing to qualify for the ability to "buy" a rail at chargen?
Of course anyone with a rail on their weapon will be expected to be able to shoot well. This could be a negative modifier later on if they're found to be a poor shot - stolen valour sort of situation.

[CDAT]

OR maybe a Difficult Gunsmithing roll? Someone who's invested time & learning in weapons work would probably be likely to have gear like that at chargen.

The rails that we got were operator installed, so a very easy task.

My guess is that they would in this time line only have been issued to elite units, Delta, Seals, Special Forces, and maybe the Rangers.

[pmulcahy11b]

I reckon 60-75% of American M16s and M4 carbines would be sporting Picatinny rails. Yes it would be standard by 1997, but it takes time to replace and/or retrofit every service rifle/carbine, especially when a nation is in the midst of total war.

I've always felt as the war ramped up, the US would start buying things like rifles and pistols from other manufacturers of AR-15-type rifles and pistols which could subsitute for .45s and 9mms. Some of these pistols may come from the factory with Pictatinny Rails, Weaver Rails, or other proprietary rails. The Military would also begin to buy ACOGs, lasers, scopes, NVGs, etc, to equip those weapons. As usual, special ops would have first dibs on these items, and the Marines would scramble to get anything new. (Unfair, I know, but that's the way things were in the 1989s and 1990s.)

[Legbreaker]

You have to wonder though how many of those things would be available given civilians (ie survivalist types) usually buy up everything in sight whenever there's even a sniff of danger.

[Legbreaker]

As part of the research I'm doing for the Anzac book (which I'm thinking of renaming to better reflect the geographical area covered), I'm reading a LOT on Logistics. One very interesting book I'm about halfway through at the moment is "The Big L: American Logisitics in World War II" edited by Alan Gropman. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-Fwd.html It raises several extremely interesting points on why the US was able to supply the allies with so much material. Essentially, it's in large part due to the depression and the massive amount of unused manpower and factories just sitting around idle, as well and the (relatively) very long lead time before the US entered the war.

The US really had several years of lead time before entering as an actual combatant, with the Lend Lease system effectively putting them economically on a war footing well beforehand. However, even with several years of lead time, it wasn't until 1943-44 that many of the production issues were finally sorted out - 1939-42 were absolute chaos logistically speaking.

How does this relate to T2K? Well with the Twilight War the US was not coming out of a decade + long depression which means there wasn't all that spare industrial and manpower capacity just sitting around idle. The US also doesn't get several years warning to build up before entering into hostilities - they get weeks, at best.

Another interesting point is the depression prevented many ideas and inventions being developed during the 1930's. This, in part, explains the huge leap forward in technology during the war years - development of radar for example. Yes, there were many breakthroughs during the war period, but quite a number of them would have occurred earlier but for the depression putting the dampeners on innovation, experimentation and exploitation. People were still coming up with ideas during the 30's, they just weren't acted upon.

Additionally, the US was not under direct attack in WWII. It's industries, population and research facilities were not being damaged, people killed and so forth.

In T2K it's a different matter - no lead time to war, and (depending on which timeline you're using, 1st ed of 2.x) devastating attacks on mainland US within a year, which, if WWII is anything to go by, is well before production has properly switched to war footing.

There's a LOT more in the book than I've touched on in my rambling above, and well worth checking out if you've got the time. I've come away with a strong feeling that ALL combatants wouldn't have been able to make very many technical advances before the nukes flew, and industry would barely have begun switching over to wartime production. Really drives home the scarcity of the more advanced munitions and the like in T2K...

[Olefin]

Leg you are forgetting something - the Chinese Soviet war - the US was sending over all kinds of munitions, food, weapons, armored vehicles etc for close to a year before they went to war with the Soviets - and during that time the Chinese were also buying anything they could get their hands on - so that would have ramped up production of military goods before the start of NATO and the Soviets being in combat.

Keep in mind that I worked at a US military vehicle production facility - i.e. BAE in York - and we were able to ramp up production very quickly during the Iraq War - produced several thousand MRAP's in the course of a year along with tripling production of remanufactured Bradley's, M109's and M88's.

Thus the US did have enough time to ramp up production and get a lot of weapons, armored vehicles, food, etc. made - its what allowed the US forces to keep fighting for three years after the nukes. And per the canon there was still some production even after the TDM - they were turning out mortars, light cannon, mortar shells and even some vehicles and armor as long as there was power.

BAE York back then had nearly 6 months of spares on hand and parts - this was long before just in time and reduced inventories. So as long as there was any power or fuel for their backup generators they could have kept production up for as long as 6 months after the TDM until finally they ran out of parts.

Now the US did take several hits that really screwed over any chance to produce more main battle tanks after the TDM. The only place they had left to produce tanks was the Detroit Arsenal Tank Factory - so the question is how long did that stay active after Lima stopped producing after the nuke hit in their area and Cadillac Gage's facilities in Florida and Louisiana got taken out

Other than that all you have is the M8 AGS being made in York at the BAE plant.

So yes their build up got aborted - but it wasnt in the infant stages, it was more just as they were hitting their stride - and the Mexican and Soviet invasions of the Southwest and Alaska pulling away troops that could have kept order and kept production areas going was the final straw.

[Legbreaker]

Leg you are forgetting something - the Chinese Soviet war.
You are correct, that did slip my mind, however that wasn't on anywhere near the level of Lend Lease and only ran about a third of the time. Although the US (and others) were supporting an anti-Soviet country, China still was in no way the wests ally. Given that no other war was envisaged at the time (unlike in 1939), there's little need to ramp up US production - existing stocks and production facilities would be more than enough (and political considerations and interference would stop much more anyway).

Existing facilities are one thing, and prior to WWII, the US did have some industrial capacity devoted solely to war material, but it was nowhere near enough. It took several years for more facilities to be constructed, and existing factories manufacturing consumer goods to be converted (some which ended up making radically different products to their peace time lines - a refrigerator factory being one example which produced machineguns).

After the war, the US government owned a lot of recently constructed, purpose built factories which were sold off in the following decade, although some (such as the one you've mentioned) have been maintained and updated as the years have passed.

In theory, it doesn't take long to convert, but as the book details, reality is a LOT different. There's lack of machine tools, necessity to construct new factory buildings, acquisition of manpower, housing, feeding and entertainment of said manpower, availability of raw materials, sourcing supplies of vital components, and of course the political and bureaucratic hurdles which are ALWAYS getting in the way. Just look at the political games being played over the Mexico-US border at the moment for examples of that last bit.

The book, and the papers it's based heavily upon, dates from 1997, right in the middle of our timeframe. Well worth a read to see just how difficult it is, and how many factors are involved in ramping up to a "total war" situation. Comparing WWII and the (obviously fictional) Twilight War, using the historical records and assessments in the book shows the US (and others) would have been nowhere near full production by the time of the nukes.

I'm sure we've all know somebody who absolutely INSISTS that technical advancement would have occurred much faster in T2K than in reality, with for example night vision gear being far more available in the game than in real life. Given the points I've already mentioned, and others in the book (seriously, read it if you can) it's clear this just isn't so. A few prototypes perhaps, but there's just no way everyone's carrying around the good stuff, or in most cases even aware of somebody who's see said goodies.

[Legbreaker]

It is interesting to note that the US was the only country on the globe that had living standards actually improve during WWII. They were also the only country where the civilian population actually increased their annual food consumption even though there was some rationing (which was actually used as a tool to help minimise inflation and profiteering rather than a real lack of most food stuffs). Meanwhile, in other parts of the globe, people were dying of starvation, disease and exposure.
It's no wonder US troops had the negative reputation of "over paid, over sexed, and over here".

[StainlessSteelCynic]

North America was producing enough food that the US was able to supply food to the Soviet Union as part of the aid it sent. While it's reasonably well known that the US sent food to the UK, it's not often mentioned that tons of food was also sent to the Soviet Union.
I think it's on Youtube, there's a video of one of the Russian groups that scour WW2 battle sites that discovered tins of pork (or beef? can't recall) in lard that had been shipped over as US aid. They said it was so well packed in lard that the meat still appeared unspoiled in any way and still edible, (although none were willing to try it, not surprising given that it was nearly 70 years old!)

[Legbreaker]

North America was producing enough food that the US was able to supply food to the Soviet Union as part of the aid it sent.

Apparently they fed upwards of one million Soviets. Not that the Soviet leadership would publicly acknowledge it was going a long way towards keeping them in the fight.
Another issue which isn't widely known is US infrastructure was cannibalised to support other countries - several electrical generators in the LA area were removed and shipped to the USSR as part of lend lease, the shortfall in local electrical production made up by other generators across the country. Just goes to show that not everything sent was new - a percentage was second hand and it's removal simply reduced the over capacity in some areas.

[Olefin]

"You are correct, that did slip my mind, however that wasn't on anywhere near the level of Lend Lease and only ran about a third of the time. Although the US (and others) were supporting an anti-Soviet country, China still was in no way the wests ally. Given that no other war was envisaged at the time (unlike in 1939), there's little need to ramp up US production - existing stocks and production facilities would be more than enough (and political considerations and interference would stop much more anyway)."

Lend Lease went into effect in March of 1941 so the US only started really supplying the Allies only a about eight months before the start of WWII - so its really about the same length of time in both models (i.e. US supplying China). And China would have had its own people buying stuff from US factories - could see a huge upswing in purchases of things like MRE's, medical equipment, trucks, etc. from US factories - but not necessarily military equipment per se

One thing I would argue is you might see a hell of a lot of reworks of older US equipment being done for sale to China and thus some of it going into US formations when the war started - especially after the TDM - stuff like tanks or APC's pulled out of the boneyards

One place I could see a big military order being placed fyi would be to Cadillac Gage - i.e. for Stingray tanks and armored cars

[cawest]

one data point that we are missing. it is how long the tensions were building up between china and Russian. Even if China was not "a friend" tensions in that area would alert SK, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam (depending on timeline), Singapore as well as India, New Zealand, and Australia.

if there were 24-36 months of building tensions. that would drive those counties to start building up. this would drive the US into building up also. that would give 2-3 years of building up and conversion of some assets to military production.

It also would "feed" the smaller complies to put product out now that there is market share available. Think about a company that builds unarmored SUV's and Limos. now they can make jump in and sell wheeled APC (lights) or scout cars. the F-20 also comes to mind along with Cat-Gage. Also think about how Caterpillar and John Deere could get in on the act.

You might have some cross palliation of weapons. Like say Germany can not make enough ATGM's they contact company X and they start up a line to help with the load. (Enfield rifles in WW1 and WW2 made in the us) if you can come up with a way to make 10-12 armored vehicles a month... that is a Company (10-12 companies a year or 3 to 4 new or upgraded Bat a year)

[Olefin]

I agree with you about a build up of tensions - and there is no mention in canon of the Soviet invasion being a bolt out of the blue - i.e. that they just invaded China for no reason after being best buddies right to the end - i.e. this wasnt Barbarossa where the Soviets were sending trains of supplies to the Germans right up to the moment they opened fire

Also keep in mind how fast you can convert a factory - JLG went from not making any armored equipment to making MRAP's in less than a year- yes they had to get the tooling made but you would be amazing how fast you can get tools made if money is no object under wartime conditions

And it does depend on what you are making - i.e. heavy tank factories dont just spring up in a year - but you can make certain armored vehicles and transport vehicles pretty easily using existing facilities - or convert facilities to get vehicles that are in storage ready for combat - i.e. like the hundreds of M47 and M48 tanks that were still in storage

[RN7]

Wasn't some of this covered in this post

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=5732&highlight=war+production

[Olefin]

Also keep in mind that the build up that I am talking about here doesnt make the US unbeatable or change canon in any way - i.e. it may in the end just be what gives the US enough to stay in the war all the way until the end of 2000 three years after the nukes flew - it also gives the US enough to properly arm the divisions it stood up during the war

And keep in mind the canon losses to US shipping in both the Atlantic and Pacific - i.e. how many tanks, APC's, artillery pieces etc.. ended up at the bottom of the Ocean and never made it to Korea or Germany or Kenya. Look at what happened to the 6th Marine Division in the US Army Vehicle Guide - they showed up after the TDM and lost most of their equipment and men on the way over - and the 278th Cav lost half its equipment on the way over as well

I have that shown in the East Africa Sourcebook when the Sheridans that were supposed to show in the follow up convoy after the initial air landings in Kenya were all sunk along with their ship by a Russian sub

[bash]

Another missing factor is the sheer amount of stuff the US just had at the beginning of the major fighting. The government could have (and did during WWII) run buyback programs for dual-purpose civilian equipment. Buying a bunch of 1-ton and 5/4-ton civilian pickups to repurpose as CUCV trucks would net thousands of vehicles requiring minimum modifications and industrial output.

The same goes for a lot of other high complexity devices. Every Humvee (or equivalent) spared from rear echelon duty is one that can be assigned to front line units. Every repurposed civilian pickup was capacity of a factor freed up to build fighting vehicles.

I would also think (and used IMT2KU) as soon as major fighting started overseas life in CONUS would change to a total war footing. Rationing would start in earnest and you'd see victory gardens spring up through the suburbs. Any sorts of infrastructure that could be distributed would. Smaller subcontractor fabricators would be paid to relocate to the boonies so a nuke doesn't destroy all the manufacturing capability of a region. Colleges could expand more courses to use broadcast lectures and correspondence work. Civil Defense would start back up and every town would be doing seminars on canning, gardening, and first aid.

Even if the federal government didn't run such programs NGOs and local governments definitely would. Blood drives and every stockpiling idea would go into effect. It doesn't have to rewrite canon effects of TDM but the US wouldn't just be a Mad Max wasteland in 2001. Since T2K alcohol can power any ICE vehicle stills will pop up everywhere to run generators to run factories. Every small brewery and vineyard surviving TDM will be running constantly making go juice for the survivors.

[Olefin]

at the very least they would be going thru every boneyard and stored vehicle to be able to provide them to the Chinese as aid - and those that werent ready to go when the war started with the Soviets would have either been kept for the US or used to arm training units or National Guard units - now you arent talking top of the line equipment - but there were a lot of older M47, M48 and M60 tanks in storage along with older APC's and the lot

After all they did it with ships - and thats canon - at least one of the destroyers that were with the the Virginia in Satellite down had been brought back from the boneyard - USS Decatur was a Forrest Sherman class that was retired in 1988 and docked at Suisun Bay, California. The US got her back up and running in time to join Virginia by December 1997.

Thus wartime production isnt merely looking at new vehicles or ships or aircraft but how many old ones could be made operational again.

That is actually what we did at BAE when I was there - every M109 we built for the Army came out of various boneyards and cranberry bogs that they were stored in. Same with a lot of Bradleys - and our M88's were all rebuilds

[Legbreaker]

I don't suppose anyone's actually bothered to begin reading the book I linked to have they?

[Olefin]

Leg - there are those of us who have actually worked for the military,auto, truck and transport industries - and we know just how fast you can tool up for production if need be and what the capabilities are. And given the timing of the war and the Chinese Soviet war there was more than enough time for the US to ramp up production and get the US juggernaut started - most likely they were just getting to where they would have been able to start replacing their losses and re-equip their forces when the Soviet missiles hit.

Are we talking about a WWII build up and the Arsenal of Democracy - no. But are we talking about being able to triple to quadruple production over that time on existing lines and get some new tooling made for things like light armored vehicles - yes that for sure can be done.

Our line at BAE in York was designed to be able to accommodate up to three times the volume we produced at if we had to do it. During the time I was there we ramped up to two times our regular volume using stored tools and hiring and training new workers - it took a total of six months to do it. Three times would have taken nine months to a year.

[mpipes]

You are so right. In the 90s, military industries had the capacity to ramp up production fairly quickly. Plus, the tooling for a lot of weapon system not in current production was still maintained. For example, production of B-1B was supposed to be able to resumed with stored tooling within at most one year. Mothballed aircraft were suppose to be returned to service within about 30 days. There were plans in place for aircraft refurbishment lines at all the major USAF depots.

Most that poo poo any ability to rapidly expand production seem to forget that the US went from no nuclear weapons program in 1942 to a fully operational weapon and massive support infrastructure within 3 1/2 years.

[Olefin]

You are so right. In the 90s, military industries had the capacity to ramp up production fairly quickly. Plus, the tooling for a lot of weapon system not in current production was still maintained. For example, production of B-1B was supposed to be able to resumed with stored tooling within at most one year. Mothballed aircraft were suppose to be returned to service within about 30 days. There were plans in place for aircraft refurbishment lines at all the major USAF depots.

Most that poo poo any ability to rapidly expand production seem to forget that the US went from no nuclear weapons program in 1942 to a fully operational weapon and massive support infrastructure within 3 1/2 years.

I will give you an example - we had the tooling for the M8 AGS in storage in a warehouse near BAE York from when the program was cancelled all the way until at least 2015 - we could have taken it out, set it up where we were producing the M109 (and moved that line) and been in serial production within 4 months of go, with limited production at first and full production 6-7 months after go under wartime "get it down now" conditions. We even proposed to do just that in 2012.

Same with the tooling to make new Bradley's. Its still in storage and we can be back in limited rate production within 6 months and full rate new production within 8 months of the go signal.

When we built new M88's for Iraq (i.e. new builds not reworks of older vehicles) we pulled the tooling out, made new parts and got the first one delivered to Iraq six months after program Go.

Keep in mind this DOES NOT apply to turning a car factory into a tank factory - this is ramping up production at existing military production facilities. You want to build a new factory from scratch or convert a factory that takes much longer.

[Raellus]

That's good to know, Olefin.

As you pointed out, it would take longer to convert civilian industries to military production (for example, a Ford truck plant switching over to AFVs of some sort). How long, I wonder. Is twice as long a reasonable estimate?

Regarding the U.S.A. getting a head-start on wartime military production when the U.S.S.R. attacks China, I don't think it's a given.

First off, although the enemy of my enemy is my friend applies here, as the Soviets would be seen as the greater of two evils, the PRC is still a communist nation and, after Tiananmen Square, tensions between the U.S. and China were high. I think some in the U.S. gov't and military-industrial complex would be reluctant to provide the PLA with large quantities of AFVs or combat aircraft, and/or particularly advanced ones.

So, I think only a few plants would see an upsurge in production before the Germans start WWIII in Europe. The U.S. might increase Stingray/LAV-75/M8 AGS production for export to China, but not necessarily add a line or open another plant making M1 Abrams. When it becomes clear that the U.S. is going to back the FGR militarily, it would be full steam ahead and, as noted, arriving at full wartime production would take a minimum of 12 months after the outbreak of hostilities.

Also, I made this point in the other thread (now merged with this one), but modern AFVs, combat aircraft, and naval vessels are far more complex than their WW2 equivalents. Therefore, it would take a lot longer, on average, to crank out a new F-16 in 1997 than it would a P-51 in 1943. For all of the reasons cited above, I don't think WWIII would see WWII-level production figures.

[Olefin]

Oh I completely agree with you Raellus on producing anywhere near WWII production levels - thats not going to happen except perhaps for production of trucks (both heavy and light) for the military - i.e. the military orders the full production of every truck Ford can make - ok there you could get WWII levels.

But definitely not for tanks, fighter aircraft, etc.. - I agree with you there as to production levels -

The AGS line would most likely be at full tilt as soon as the Soviets and Chinese went to war - remember it would have just been kicked off and you could see the US wanting to get as many of those built as possible for the airborne to replace the Sheridans - that would have been a priority for sure as the airborne is your early deployment force and desperately needed a replacement light tank

As for switching over a civilian line to make military vehicles I can also give you an example

Oshkosh got the contract to make MRAP's but couldnt make enough of them - so they switched over part of JLG's line to make MRAP's - they had to get tooling made and get the line ready to go - and it took about eight months total - and after that they had an MRAP line where before they were making boom lifts. That was done under an emergency effort because of how bad the IED issue was in Iraq - which would be similar to what happened in the Twilight War

Now that wasnt a car line - i.e. it wasnt automated with lots of robots - so it could be done relatively quickly

You could see the same for heavy truck manufacturers - turning out chassis for instance that could be modified into AFV's

Auto companies are a special case - especially today - in WWII they were still mostly building manually - now there is so much robotics and special tooling that switching a car company to make tanks would take a year minimum to even get to very limited production and probably 18 months to get to anywhere near full production

Plus no one thought that the war would go long term - i.e. military planners in general in the 90's werent looking at years long wars - they wear planning for short very violent 4-6 month at longest wars

Given that I could see them ramping up military production at existing plants as quickly as possible and select civilian plants that could make stuff that could easily be converted - things like:

clothing
MRE's
tents
shoes
boots
medical equipment
light trucks and SUV's for military use (i.e. like the Ford Ranger)
heavy transport trucks (Mack, Peterbilt, etc.)

but it would probably have been close to May or June for the US to see that this wasnt going to be a short war and decide that it was time for Honda of Marysville to be turned into a tank factory or to order all companies making electronics in the US to be turned into military production

FYI there is canon mention that US factories were on overtime producing for the military

Howling Wilderness in the Attack and Its Aftermath mentions a wartime boom in production that brought the US economy out of a recession and an industrial boom with some shortages in civilian goods but no rationing

To me that implies that some factories did get switched over (i.e. a shortage of good boots because they are all making combat boots, a shortage of winter coats because they are switching over to make cold weather gear for the Army, a shortage of freeze dried foods for camping because those companies are making MRE's) but not an en masse switch starting in November 1996

[pmulcahy11b]

I was once a PC in a campaign where my character was in a stateside unit that was raised late in the war (after the TDM). They were told to "come as you are" and to "bring as much military and survival gear, food, and weapons as you can. Basiically, it was an ad hoc unit composed of troops who supplied their own gear, and the recruiment for this unit targeted those who could take care of themselves. I ended up with a lot of gear and ammunition, along with a BM-92F and a LeGendre .458 carbine as personal weapons.

[cawest]

First off, although the enemy of my enemy is my friend applies here, as the Soviets would be seen as the greater of two evils, the PRC is still a communist nation and, after Tiananmen Square, tensions between the U.S. and China were high. I think some in the U.S. gov't and military-industrial complex would be reluctant to provide the PLA with large quantities of AFVs or combat aircraft, and/or particularly advanced ones.

to this statement above.

they US (Might not) send heavy weapons to PRC. But with as things got hot (before the shooting). Our friends that share borders with one or both or are with in weapons ranges of both. They will be getting very worried, and start looking at what is on the shelves. That is were first orders would start to flow from MBT, Aircraft, ect. that would be before the shooting war between PRC/USSR.

if Boeing or McD got even a hint that they might be able to sell as few as a dozen fighters or P-3s. they would jump on it like a dog on three legged cat. Now how many?

they built 100 F-35s this year (Jan-Nov). so you could look at new lines for major end items 1 year, production in year 2 (4 per month) year 3 (10 per month warfooting) every year after that (15-18 warfootting), 1 per month due to damage of TDM for one year, than your stored parts are done.) this is just me spit balling.

[Raellus]

they US (Might not) send heavy weapons to PRC. But with as things got hot (before the shooting). Our friends that share borders with one or both or are with in weapons ranges of both. They will be getting very worried, and start looking at what is on the shelves. That is were first orders would start to flow from MBT, Aircraft, ect. that would be before the shooting war between PRC/USSR.

if Boeing or McD got even a hint that they might be able to sell as few as a dozen fighters or P-3s. they would jump on it like a dog on three legged cat. Now how many?

they built 100 F-35s this year (Jan-Nov). so you could look at new lines for major end items 1 year, production in year 2 (4 per month) year 3 (10 per month warfooting) every year after that (15-18 warfootting), 1 per month due to damage of TDM for one year, than your stored parts are done.) this is just me spit balling.

Don't get me wrong, I think the U.S., encouraged by defense contractors, would send the PRC a significant amount of weaponry, but I'm thinking this aid would consist of second or third tier systems. Kind of like how the U.S. is currently supplying Ukraine a few select modern systems, and more of the basics. There's an unsaid red line that could provoke the enemy of the folks we are assisting. That's why Ukraine gets Javelins and .50 sniper rifles, but not M1A1s or F-15s. I think the same would apply to the Second Sino-Soviet War.

In the T2K timeline, that second or third tier aid would look like Stingray/LAV-75/M8 AGS, Dragon, TOW II, maybe Tankbreaker (basically the Javelin ATGM), Stinger MANPADs, and F-5 Freedom Fighters.

One also doesn't want to risk one's own most advanced weapon systems falling into the wrong hands lest the enemy reverse-engineers them for his own use. This is why it was such a big deal when an Israeli missile interceptor didn't detonate and landed in Syria (because the Syrians will no doubt give it to the Russians so that they can develop countermeasures and/or duplicate it).

Lastly, the F-35 might not be the best example to use when trying to extrapolate production figures because it is so advanced. I reckon is takes significantly longer to build an F-35 or F-22 than it does an equivalent type from an earlier generation (like the F-16 or F-15).

[Olefin]

Don't get me wrong, I think the U.S., encouraged by defense contractors, would send the PRC a significant amount of weaponry, but I'm thinking this aid would consist of second or third tier systems. Kind of like how the U.S. is currently supplying Ukraine a few select modern systems, and more of the basics. There's an unsaid red line that could provoke the enemy of the folks we are assisting. That's why Ukraine gets Javelins and .50 sniper rifles, but not M1A1s or F-15s. I think the same would apply to the Second Sino-Soviet War.

In the T2K timeline, that second or third tier aid would look like Stingray/LAV-75/M8 AGS, Dragon, TOW II, maybe Tankbreaker (basically the Javelin ATGM), Stinger MANPADs, and F-5 Freedom Fighters.

One also doesn't want to risk one's own most advanced weapon systems falling into the wrong hands lest the enemy reverse-engineers them for his own use. This is why it was such a big deal when an Israeli missile interceptor didn't detonate and landed in Syria (because the Syrians will no doubt give it to the Russians so that they can develop countermeasures and/or duplicate it).

Lastly, the F-35 might not be the best example to use when trying to extrapolate production figures because it is so advanced. I reckon is takes significantly longer to build an F-35 or F-22 than it does an equivalent type from an earlier generation (like the F-16 or F-15).

In fact the first edition timeline specifically mentions that the renewed Soviet offensive in 1996 broke down when they encountered Tank Breaker and Assault Breaker systems sold to the Chinese by the US and others.

It also states that winter had witnessed a flood of new modern equipment thru the Chinese ports from NATO countries specifically from the US. That right there means that it wasnt probably all old obsolete equipment.

And keep in mind that the Stingray and the M8 AGS have the same gun that the M1 has - which can take out most Soviet tanks handily.

[bash]

Let's also not forget, in the spirit of logistics, that the US could/would be supplying the PRC with replacement parts/ammo/POL for their own equipment damaged in the fighting. They send the US a bunch of engineering specs (which include licensed Russian specs) in exchange for manufacturing. Just something like advanced gunsights or night vision that could be retrofit onto Chinese tanks would be high value.

There's also the question of transport across the Pacific. Tanks and AFVs might be of great use against the Russians but getting them from the US to the Chinese front takes a lot of infrastructure. Whatever sealift capability used to supply China is sealift that cant be used in Europe for NATO or other theaters.

Consider Desert Shield's sealift. From the first order of the operation MSC ships set sail from Diego Garcia and Guam to deliver vehicles and weapons while Marines were delivered by air. It took about a month to get enough personnel and equipment to Saudi Arabia to have a meaningful fighting force. It took six months and hundreds of MSC operated or contracted ships to deliver the US forces used for Desert Storm. That's six months and hundreds of ships in completely uncontested seas/skies.

The Twilight war would be a tougher row to hoe as I imagine the Russians would do their best to interdict military sea and air lift. The US/NATO/ANZUS logistic movements would need pretty serious escorts. US pre-positioned equipment for US-force use would probably get moved into position as tensions ramped up but supplies from CONUS to allies would be more difficult.

I point this out as I think aid to a country like China would be mainly stuff that could be effectively airlifted in. That would be high density stuff like gunsights or night vision like I mentioned before or things like radios or computers.

[Olefin]

Or a crapload of anti-tank and anti-air missiles

[Legbreaker]

I've just started the chapter specifically dealing with Lend Lease, however I would like to point out that it was only possible because of decisions and actions taken as early as the mid-1930's. There was a LOT of planning, development and production in the years before the program officially started.

War was seen as inevitable years before the US actually sent troops anywhere. Preparations were well underway with plans and contingencies well advanced by Pearl Harbour.

Meanwhile in T2K, exactly what warning did the west actually get? Remember in 1st ed, the reunification of Germany and following move into Poland caught EVERYONE completely by surprise. In 2.x, Germany's allies received even less notice hostilities were coming.

Understanding this fact is vital to understanding why military equipment is in short supply in 2000, and why technical advancement should be kept to a minimum. Sure, there's no reason why some prototypes can't be found from time to time, but they should be extremely rare and (if they actually work as advertised) highly sought after.

[Olefin]

you will see some new weapons deployed just due to the correct timing - i.e. the M8 AGS was going into production right about that time - thus having the M8 AGS be available for the airborne and light infantry units is more an example of good timing than anything else - i.e. just so happened to coincide with the beginning of the war

and the 1st edition has a time of growing tensions between the Soviets and Chinese and the Cold War never ends - thus you have weapons deployed that never would have been deployed in our timeline and production of more weapons continuing - whereas the 2nd edition has more of the Cold War stopping or at least being put in abeyance and then it comes back with a vengeance

and the Soviets invading China would have immediately put the US military into high gear preparing for war - you dont see something like that and just sit back on your heels - not after WWII caught the US military unprepared

[Olefin]

and Leg - even though some of the authors either obviously had a beef with the US military or they had to come up with some real stupid behavior to justify the Great Game results (some of what they have the US do is flat out stupid) - there is no way that the US military would just sit there and watch an all out war go on between China and the Soviets and not want to get production ramped up on weapons they were going to need

And Lend Lease wasnt years in planning- we gave them a crap load of old obsolete stuff because that was what we had - lets look at some of what was sent when Lend Lease kicked off

old artillery pieces in storage from WWI

old rifles with 50 rounds a piece stored away since WWI

old WW1 destroyers that the USN didnt need anymore

the vast majority of the aircraft we sent were obsolete planes or older designs

tanks that even the Russians and British really didnt want because they were basically useless in combat against the Germans

the only place the US really lucked out on was the build up of the Navy - if they hadnt laid down the new battleships and the Essex class carriers the Japanese would have run riot in the Pacific until probably late 1944

the US came within a couple of bomb hits of having no carriers left in the Pacific in 1942 - and I would have hated to take a bunch of light carriers and escort carriers against front line carriers in 1943 if they hadn't started the Essex when they did

[Raellus]

People tend to forget about the Cash and Carry policy, which began shortly after Germany's invasion of Poland. FDR got around Congress' isolationist Neutrality Acts by making a case for supplying friendly nations with arms in a manner that would not end up with the U.S.A. getting dragged into the war (i.e. a reprise of 1917). As long as friendly nations paid up front and picked up American weapons in their own ships, the U.S. could help its friends and avoid a Lusitania incident whilst giving a country still in the grip of the Great Depression a much needed cash infusion.

Lend-Lease was put into place in early 1941 because the UK could no longer pay cash for American arms and it looked like the Nazis were close to winning the war in Europe.

So, the United States had already ramped up military production a couple of years prior to the start of Lend-Lease.

I disagree that the U.S. would dramatically increase military production for its own use once the Soviets and Chinese went to war. Yes, I think the Pentagon would probably ask for increased military spending for the sake of preparedness, and to aid the Chinese, but I think a lot of folks in Congress would be satisfied just to watch the world's two great Communist powers kicking the snot out of one another whilst adopting a wait-and-see attitude.

By the late 1980s, the U.S. had already skyrocketed the deficit and national debt on military spending. If the Cold War had continued a-la T2K v1.0, the U.S. would not have been able to sustain that level of military spending without prompting some sort of economic downturn or crisis. If you go with the v2.2 timeline, there would be some inertia there from the end of the Cold War. Military spending would already be down and it would take a while to build it up again. Either way, I see the U.S. as being late to the party when it comes to shifting to a wartime economy.

-

[Legbreaker]

and Leg - even though some of the authors either obviously had a beef with the US military

I suggest you at least read the introduction to the book and you will see the authors are experts on the subject with absolutely no axe to grind whatsoever.
They use facts and back them up with loads of sources. About a quarter of every page in the book is devoted to quotes taken directly from the sources.
You couldn't get a more accurate, authoritative document if were standing next to Roosevelt himself at the time it was all happening.

[Legbreaker]

People tend to forget about the Cash and Carry policy, which began shortly after Germany's invasion of Poland.

Started even earlier than that actually. The UK and France had orders with US companies significantly before Germany moved on Poland. Lend Lease was simply a continuation of business as usual, just with a different payment plan.

A point I just came across in the book was the fact that lend lease was actually a two way deal. The UK, France, Belgium, USSR, India and quite a few others were sending raw materials and finished goods to the US during the war. As one example, 30% of all the food consumed by US troops 1944-45 was supplied by the UK.

I disagree that the U.S. would dramatically increase military production for its own use once the Soviets and Chinese went to war. Yes, I think the Pentagon would probably ask for increased military spending for the sake of preparedness, and to aid the Chinese, but I think a lot of folks in Congress would be satisfied just to watch the world's two great Communist powers kicking the snot out of one another whilst adopting a wait-and-see attitude.
This!
Sums up what I've been trying to say all along. Prior to Germany calling upon NATO to assist them, there's no military reason to build up US forces, and certainly no political will especially with a presidential election campaign culminating right around the US entry into the war. Politically it's absolute suicide to even talk about sending US troops into battle against a nuclear armed opponent, right when you want the most number of people to vote for you. Add in the little issue about Germany arguably being the aggressor in Europe, and doing almost a carbon copy of the events of 1939....
So why did the US get involved in late 96? Perhaps the incumbent saw the writing on the wall for his presidency, and wanted to leave a nasty situation for the other side? Perhaps it was simply a matter of honouring treaty obligations? Regardless though, an early build up would not have been perceived as either warranted, nor politically prudent.

[pmulcahy11b]

If war is imminent and you know it's going to be a nasty one, why not take the Soviet approach and say, "No, we can't pay you right away. Do it anyway."

[Legbreaker]

If war is imminent and you know it's going to be a nasty one, why not take the Soviet approach and say, "No, we can't pay you right away. Do it anyway."

A great way to ruin your economy and send your people into bankruptcy and starvation. Businesses need to pay their people, their suppliers, etc. If they don't, nothing gets done.
Another important issue is the one I mentioned earlier - 2016 is an election year in the US. Telling companies to "just do it and we'll pay you....later" is a sure fire way to loose masses of votes.

[Olefin]

I suggest you at least read the introduction to the book and you will see the authors are experts on the subject with absolutely no axe to grind whatsoever.
They use facts and back them up with loads of sources. About a quarter of every page in the book is devoted to quotes taken directly from the sources.
You couldn't get a more accurate, authoritative document if were standing next to Roosevelt himself at the time it was all happening.

I am talking about the guys who wrote Twilight 2000 having a beef with the US military and making our military act dumb - not the book on Lend Lease

[Olefin]

People tend to forget about the Cash and Carry policy, which began shortly after Germany's invasion of Poland. FDR got around Congress' isolationist Neutrality Acts by making a case for supplying friendly nations with arms in a manner that would not end up with the U.S.A. getting dragged into the war (i.e. a reprise of 1917). As long as friendly nations paid up front and picked up American weapons in their own ships, the U.S. could help its friends and avoid a Lusitania incident whilst giving a country still in the grip of the Great Depression a much needed cash infusion.

Lend-Lease was put into place in early 1941 because the UK could no longer pay cash for American arms and it looked like the Nazis were close to winning the war in Europe.

So, the United States had already ramped up military production a couple of years prior to the start of Lend-Lease.

I disagree that the U.S. would dramatically increase military production for its own use once the Soviets and Chinese went to war. Yes, I think the Pentagon would probably ask for increased military spending for the sake of preparedness, and to aid the Chinese, but I think a lot of folks in Congress would be satisfied just to watch the world's two great Communist powers kicking the snot out of one another whilst adopting a wait-and-see attitude.

By the late 1980s, the U.S. had already skyrocketed the deficit and national debt on military spending. If the Cold War had continued a-la T2K v1.0, the U.S. would not have been able to sustain that level of military spending without prompting some sort of economic downturn or crisis. If you go with the v2.2 timeline, there would be some inertia there from the end of the Cold War. Military spending would already be down and it would take a while to build it up again. Either way, I see the U.S. as being late to the party when it comes to shifting to a wartime economy.

-

No we didnt ramp up production prior to Lend Lease in WW2. The only place we did was for the US Navy with the big buy of ships - but the Army and Army Air Force and Marines got screwed

The Army sent so many rifles and artillery pieces overseas that they were drilling with broomsticks and logs. And the Army Air Force and Marines sent a crap load of planes overseas as well from 1939-1941 - thats why we were so badly equipped at the start of the war. If we had been producing a lot of equipment we wouldnt have sent the Army over to Africa in November of 1942 equipped as badly as it was equipped. It took six months to beat a force that was very badly supplied and barely equipped - and if Rommel had made a couple of changes at Kasserine it might have lasted until late summer.

And I dont see the US sitting on their ass and not ramping up production once China went to war with the Soviets. Sorry but you know it doesnt take much to sell increased production when the Soviets just did a bolt out of the blue invasion of China - doesnt exactly make them very trustworthy.

Especially with version 2.2 - there the US spent years drawing down its forces after the end of the Cold War - so they start from a much weaker position versus version 1 where the Cold War never ended and there was no peace dividend or draw down of forces in the early 90's.

And before I get the usual "you are making the US a juggernaut that would have won the war" stuff - getting the stuff made is one thing - but between the nuke attacks on US divisions, losses in shipping (basically a Marine division got destroyed on the high seas), losses to nukes in the US (i.e. who knows how much armor and vehicles and artillery went up in a nice mushroom cloud at Norfolk or ships that got sunk at the quay in Louisiana when they nuked one of the main shipbuilders the US had) you get a lot of what was built gone even if they US was at full rate production in early 1996 or late 1995

have the Soviets sink a couple of ships full of M1A1's and you just threw away your increased production for several months

keep in mind guys what full rate production is nowadays - we arent talking about cranking out a new carrier every other month or 30 bombers a day or a hundred tanks a day here.

M88 production at York BAE - low rate - 4 per month, standard rate - 6 per month, increased rate - 8 per month, full war rate- 12 per month

meaning even if the US was at full war production for two years you get a grand total of an extra 144 M88A2's - yup the American steamroller cant be stopped, time to tell Loren that the Great Game be damned the US wins

and that applies to Bradley's, M109's, M8 AGS - all of which came out of a grand total of one plant in York PA

and yes I know thats sarcastic - but the US going to full rate production isnt going to produce an unbeateable army no matter what time the US had - even if they were great guns for two years it still wouldnt have over-burdened the game to the US side

not against the Soviets that literally had tens of thousands of old but serviceable vehicles in stock that while not as good as what they started with were a lot better than nothing by 1999 - whereas we destroyed a lot of our older vehicles instead of storing them away

[Legbreaker]

I am talking about the guys who wrote Twilight 2000 having a beef with the US military...

I don't believe they did. Bear in mind that the decision to go to war is a political one, not military. Soldiers simply carry out the will of the civilian leadership to the best of their ability (except of course in a few exceptions such as military dictatorships and the like).

[Legbreaker]

No we didn't ramp up production prior to Lend Lease in WW2.

The experts disagree. As I've already indicated, and the official records show, initial moves were made in 1936, and both the UK and France had very sizable orders with US industry for very large amounts of military equipment, weapons and ammunition. Lend lease was nothing more than an alteration to the terms of payment, widening of who got the goods produced, and a what amounts to a formal acknowledgement by the US of just which side they were actually on.

[pmulcahy11b]

I don't believe they did. Bear in mind that the decision to go to war is a political one, not military. Soldiers simply carry out the will of the civilian leadership to the best of their ability (except of course in a few exceptions such as military dictatorships and the like).

Old saying I learned in ROTC, don't remember who said it: "War is a continuation of politics by a different means."

[Legbreaker]

Old saying I learned in ROTC, don't remember who said it: "War is a continuation of politics by a different means."

Swiss Baron Antoine Henri de Jomini wrote something very similar in his book "The Art of War" based on his experiences as a staff officer in Napoleons armies, and later switching sides to the Russians (in 1714 I believe).
He's widely believed to have written the first comprehensive work covering the need to pay attention to logistics, politics and everything else not directly involved in two soldiers physically trying to kill each other.
He didn't write those exact words as far as I recall, but the issue is covered in some detail.

[Olefin]

I don't believe they did. Bear in mind that the decision to go to war is a political one, not military. Soldiers simply carry out the will of the civilian leadership to the best of their ability (except of course in a few exceptions such as military dictatorships and the like).

You really need to read Frank Frey's facebook sometime - a fan of the US military he is not