Pre-nuclear wartime production.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

A lot is made (as well it should be) of the industrial output of the US during the second world war. Without any real way to bomb the US, we could crank out in excess of 40000 tanks, and as many planes and enough ships to carry both (as well as goods) to various points east and west to essentially supply the world's war effort against the Axis.

However, given the short window between conventional and limited nuclear exchange of the Twilight War, would there even be time to ramp up production of anything? I know during the cold war many types of production lines were open, but when it comes to some assets, there'd just be no chance due to complexity. I mean, in WWII if we lost a sub, or subs, or destroyers, and so forth, another was a mere month away. However, during the conventional part of the Twilight War was there even any consideration given to building replacements for weapon systems as the war went on? I recall reading Sir John Hackett's books and how NATO was on pins and needles because the US strategic bomber force (B52s and B1s) had been attritted so badly that a conventional strike planned to break the back of the 3rd Shock Army in Central Europe was seriously questioned.

I would think in the 18 or so months where we, to quote Isoroku Yamamoto, we "ran like a wild beast" across Europe we wouldn't have enough time to ramp up production before the first nukes flew to the west.

Thoughts?

[Raellus]

I'm curious about this as well. And something else to consider...

Building an M4 Sherman and building an M1 Abrams are not the same thing. Due to its mutitude of advanced components, especially its armor and optics, an Abrams takes longer to manufacture from start to finish. How much longer, I'd love to know. This is doubly true of aircraft and ships.

So, how many advanced weapon systems could the U.S. crank out in the eventuallity of a full-scale conventional war? I think it's safe to say that the numbers would be significantly lower than the output during WWII but, again, how much lower?

I know that over the past couple of decades, and maybe even prior, that the U.S. has closed a large number of major shipyards because it couldn't complete with lower cost producers like South Korea. I can't see the U.S. cranking out a carrier a week like they did with the Essex class in the later years of WWII. Could the U.S. even keep up with combat losses during the last decade of the Cold War?

How about now? To bring this to the present day, I'm really worried about how the U.S. would able to keep up with its rivals (read Russia and China) in the event of a conventional WWIII. An F-22 is a fearsome beast, but they cost a ton and take a while to build. I fear that the U.S. has lost the production advantage that we had during the last World War.

[Olefin]

I can give you some insight into this - when I was at BAE we took Bradley production from 40 per month to 160 per month in the course of a six month period - but remember these were all either reworks or upgrades to existing vehicles

same with M88A2- line went from 1 per month to 16 per month in a six month period

we built 8 brand new M88A2's for the Iraqi Army where we ordered castings and other material - and the lead times were over 6 months for the material

and MRAP's were built on a crash basis during the war - but many of them had a lot of quality issues because we didnt have time to properly get the kinks out during the build process

so the real questions for war production would be:

1) Are you talking modifications and upgrades to existing hulls (turn an M1 into an M1A1, a Persian Gulf Bradley into a more modern Bradley, an M88A1 into an M88A2) or are you talking about new production?

New production means armor plate and castings - and there are only so many producers of armored plate and heavy castings in this country. Even on a war footing around the clock you could only ramp up production so far.

2) If its mods how much extra equipment is there to be able to send to the factories for the upgrades? At one point we had nearly 800 Bradleys and 90 M88A1 hulls sitting in our storage areas at York waiting for the upgrade or refit process - but in an all out war can you afford to have that much equipment sitting to be upgraded at a factory?

3) How much repair work will be done at the factories? Is there shipping to bring the stuff back? We were repairing Bradley's with battle damage at York when I was there - would any equipment be sent back or would it stay overseas

And even if you can make the vehicles - can you keep them armed? One thing that they ran into during both Gulf Wars was the shortage of artillery shells - it doesnt help if you have 500 new M1A1 tanks but dont have enough shells to arm more than 200 of them at a time. Lots of replacement tanks available but your real strength multiplier is just the 200 tanks you can arm at any one time.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Thanks for the info Olefin. I'm not entirely sure what "modern" war production would entail - would they be shipping back wrecked vehicles (that one has a dead turret, that one has a compromised hull e.g., deformed fuel cell) to rebuild? If so, there's your "40 a month" figure. But from raw iron up? How long would it take to build a basic model M1 "from scratch"? A month? More? And how many could go at the same time?

For aircraft, I'd imagine it'd be just as long if not longer given the much tighter tolerances. And, lastly, capital ships ... well, anything you didn't already have started would practically go un-built before the nukes started to fly.

[Raellus]

Thanks for the inside scoop, Olefin. I hadn't factored in rebuilds. That complicates things. I was focussed on new production to both replace total scratch combat losses and to equip new units. I don't know for sure, but I'm under the impression that if would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to keep up with demand, even if WWIII had occured at the height of the Cold War.

Olefin, do you happen to know how many Bradley assembly lines were operating at the height of production?

Any idea about how long it would take to set up a new production line? Once again, I think it would take a lot longer in the 1980s and beyond than it would have in the 1940s. There were a lot fewer automobile and heavy machinery plants in the U.S.A. starting in the 1970s and there are very few (comparatively) here today.

I think I remember another thread that discussed this issue a while back. IIRC, there might have even been a list of plants building M1s or major components. I'll see if I can find it and maybe merge it with this one.

[Olefin]

I would say given the length of the war that capital ships would be whatever would be in the pipeline for anything large

You might get some new freighters, patrol boats, landing craft, etc.. - but I dont see anything destroyer or submarine or larger from scratch unless all the parts, etc.. were already ordered and it was in the build pipeline priot to the war start - especially with all the electronics you would need and lack of American steel production versus WWII

however you could get faster production of what is already in the pipeline due to wartime need and increased around the clock production

for instance I think there is a real chance that the Harry S. Truman - which in our timeline wasnt commissioned until July 25 1998 - might have been ready in time to be commissioned before the Thanksgiving Massacre - given the start of the Russian Chinese war you could see getting her ready being given higher priority and especially with the start of hostilities in 1996 with the Soviets

With the losses in the Atlantic she would have been built around the clock and probably commissioned no later than August to September of 1997 - i.e. in time to get some kind of air group and join the war before the strike on Norfolk

On the other hand you could bring older ships back into action faster - for instance it took two years to get the Iowa class battleships back into commission and improved with all their upgrades in the mid 80s' - but if all they had needed was to put them back into commission as is with no upgrades they might have been ready in as little as 18 months - and this wasnt working around the clock in a war situation

[Olefin]

The Bradley production lines would have just transitioned from San Jose CA to York PA and we had two production lines - one for mods and one for refits

The final assembly, integration and test is conducted at the BAE Systems facility in York, PA. Unlike RESET programs, designed to replace all defective or worn parts and restore/service a vehicle back to pre-combat condition, remanufacture is a complete rebuild designed to return it to full “zero miles” condition, and install upgrades

the other lines were for making M88's and M109's - and also keep in mind that the M8 AGS would have been in production too given a wartime order

all of this would have been at York

There was another facility at Fayette in Uniontown as well for disassembly and structural modifications of Bradley's that were then sent to BAE Systems in York. This started in 1993 and raises an interesting addition to the Allegheny Uprising module.

When they wrote the module the facility wasnt there - so if you want to make an interesting addition you can have that facility there in Uniontown - there would be an assortment of partially torn down or older Bradleys and M109's there that would barely be driveable waiting to be worked on - in pretty sad shape but a few might have been operable. Could make for yet another reason that they want you to go to that area - to get parts off the vehicles or possibly capture some operable ones that are in the hands of the militias in the area