Wartime production

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by 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.

-

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]

Originally Posted by Olefin

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]

Originally Posted by Olefin

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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