Wartime production

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by kato13

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sounds like a great idea to me

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Olefin

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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-tha...o-World-War-II

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

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-tha...o-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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

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]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

...
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]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

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]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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]

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".