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

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.

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

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

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.

-

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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