Wartime production

[Legbreaker]

From the Greek navy thread...

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Olefin

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!)