Wartime production

[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!)

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by 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.

Apparently they fed upwards of one million Soviets. Not that the Soviet leadership would publicly acknowledge it was going a long way towards keeping them in the fight.
Another issue which isn't widely known is US infrastructure was cannibalised to support other countries - several electrical generators in the LA area were removed and shipped to the USSR as part of lend lease, the shortfall in local electrical production made up by other generators across the country. Just goes to show that not everything sent was new - a percentage was second hand and it's removal simply reduced the over capacity in some areas.

[Olefin]

"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)."

Lend Lease went into effect in March of 1941 so the US only started really supplying the Allies only a about eight months before the start of WWII - so its really about the same length of time in both models (i.e. US supplying China). And China would have had its own people buying stuff from US factories - could see a huge upswing in purchases of things like MRE's, medical equipment, trucks, etc. from US factories - but not necessarily military equipment per se

One thing I would argue is you might see a hell of a lot of reworks of older US equipment being done for sale to China and thus some of it going into US formations when the war started - especially after the TDM - stuff like tanks or APC's pulled out of the boneyards

One place I could see a big military order being placed fyi would be to Cadillac Gage - i.e. for Stingray tanks and armored cars

[cawest]

one data point that we are missing. it is how long the tensions were building up between china and Russian. Even if China was not "a friend" tensions in that area would alert SK, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam (depending on timeline), Singapore as well as India, New Zealand, and Australia.

if there were 24-36 months of building tensions. that would drive those counties to start building up. this would drive the US into building up also. that would give 2-3 years of building up and conversion of some assets to military production.

It also would "feed" the smaller complies to put product out now that there is market share available. Think about a company that builds unarmored SUV's and Limos. now they can make jump in and sell wheeled APC (lights) or scout cars. the F-20 also comes to mind along with Cat-Gage. Also think about how Caterpillar and John Deere could get in on the act.

You might have some cross palliation of weapons. Like say Germany can not make enough ATGM's they contact company X and they start up a line to help with the load. (Enfield rifles in WW1 and WW2 made in the us) if you can come up with a way to make 10-12 armored vehicles a month... that is a Company (10-12 companies a year or 3 to 4 new or upgraded Bat a year)

[Olefin]

I agree with you about a build up of tensions - and there is no mention in canon of the Soviet invasion being a bolt out of the blue - i.e. that they just invaded China for no reason after being best buddies right to the end - i.e. this wasnt Barbarossa where the Soviets were sending trains of supplies to the Germans right up to the moment they opened fire

Also keep in mind how fast you can convert a factory - JLG went from not making any armored equipment to making MRAP's in less than a year- yes they had to get the tooling made but you would be amazing how fast you can get tools made if money is no object under wartime conditions

And it does depend on what you are making - i.e. heavy tank factories dont just spring up in a year - but you can make certain armored vehicles and transport vehicles pretty easily using existing facilities - or convert facilities to get vehicles that are in storage ready for combat - i.e. like the hundreds of M47 and M48 tanks that were still in storage

[RN7]

Wasn't some of this covered in this post

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread....war+production

[Olefin]

Also keep in mind that the build up that I am talking about here doesnt make the US unbeatable or change canon in any way - i.e. it may in the end just be what gives the US enough to stay in the war all the way until the end of 2000 three years after the nukes flew - it also gives the US enough to properly arm the divisions it stood up during the war

And keep in mind the canon losses to US shipping in both the Atlantic and Pacific - i.e. how many tanks, APC's, artillery pieces etc.. ended up at the bottom of the Ocean and never made it to Korea or Germany or Kenya. Look at what happened to the 6th Marine Division in the US Army Vehicle Guide - they showed up after the TDM and lost most of their equipment and men on the way over - and the 278th Cav lost half its equipment on the way over as well

I have that shown in the East Africa Sourcebook when the Sheridans that were supposed to show in the follow up convoy after the initial air landings in Kenya were all sunk along with their ship by a Russian sub

[bash]

Another missing factor is the sheer amount of stuff the US just had at the beginning of the major fighting. The government could have (and did during WWII) run buyback programs for dual-purpose civilian equipment. Buying a bunch of 1-ton and 5/4-ton civilian pickups to repurpose as CUCV trucks would net thousands of vehicles requiring minimum modifications and industrial output.

The same goes for a lot of other high complexity devices. Every Humvee (or equivalent) spared from rear echelon duty is one that can be assigned to front line units. Every repurposed civilian pickup was capacity of a factor freed up to build fighting vehicles.

I would also think (and used IMT2KU) as soon as major fighting started overseas life in CONUS would change to a total war footing. Rationing would start in earnest and you'd see victory gardens spring up through the suburbs. Any sorts of infrastructure that could be distributed would. Smaller subcontractor fabricators would be paid to relocate to the boonies so a nuke doesn't destroy all the manufacturing capability of a region. Colleges could expand more courses to use broadcast lectures and correspondence work. Civil Defense would start back up and every town would be doing seminars on canning, gardening, and first aid.

Even if the federal government didn't run such programs NGOs and local governments definitely would. Blood drives and every stockpiling idea would go into effect. It doesn't have to rewrite canon effects of TDM but the US wouldn't just be a Mad Max wasteland in 2001. Since T2K alcohol can power any ICE vehicle stills will pop up everywhere to run generators to run factories. Every small brewery and vineyard surviving TDM will be running constantly making go juice for the survivors.

[Olefin]

at the very least they would be going thru every boneyard and stored vehicle to be able to provide them to the Chinese as aid - and those that werent ready to go when the war started with the Soviets would have either been kept for the US or used to arm training units or National Guard units - now you arent talking top of the line equipment - but there were a lot of older M47, M48 and M60 tanks in storage along with older APC's and the lot

After all they did it with ships - and thats canon - at least one of the destroyers that were with the the Virginia in Satellite down had been brought back from the boneyard - USS Decatur was a Forrest Sherman class that was retired in 1988 and docked at Suisun Bay, California. The US got her back up and running in time to join Virginia by December 1997.

Thus wartime production isnt merely looking at new vehicles or ships or aircraft but how many old ones could be made operational again.

That is actually what we did at BAE when I was there - every M109 we built for the Army came out of various boneyards and cranberry bogs that they were stored in. Same with a lot of Bradleys - and our M88's were all rebuilds

[Legbreaker]

I don't suppose anyone's actually bothered to begin reading the book I linked to have they?

[Olefin]

Leg - there are those of us who have actually worked for the military,auto, truck and transport industries - and we know just how fast you can tool up for production if need be and what the capabilities are. And given the timing of the war and the Chinese Soviet war there was more than enough time for the US to ramp up production and get the US juggernaut started - most likely they were just getting to where they would have been able to start replacing their losses and re-equip their forces when the Soviet missiles hit.

Are we talking about a WWII build up and the Arsenal of Democracy - no. But are we talking about being able to triple to quadruple production over that time on existing lines and get some new tooling made for things like light armored vehicles - yes that for sure can be done.

Our line at BAE in York was designed to be able to accommodate up to three times the volume we produced at if we had to do it. During the time I was there we ramped up to two times our regular volume using stored tools and hiring and training new workers - it took a total of six months to do it. Three times would have taken nine months to a year.

[mpipes]

You are so right. In the 90s, military industries had the capacity to ramp up production fairly quickly. Plus, the tooling for a lot of weapon system not in current production was still maintained. For example, production of B-1B was supposed to be able to resumed with stored tooling within at most one year. Mothballed aircraft were suppose to be returned to service within about 30 days. There were plans in place for aircraft refurbishment lines at all the major USAF depots.

Most that poo poo any ability to rapidly expand production seem to forget that the US went from no nuclear weapons program in 1942 to a fully operational weapon and massive support infrastructure within 3 1/2 years.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by mpipes

You are so right. In the 90s, military industries had the capacity to ramp up production fairly quickly. Plus, the tooling for a lot of weapon system not in current production was still maintained. For example, production of B-1B was supposed to be able to resumed with stored tooling within at most one year. Mothballed aircraft were suppose to be returned to service within about 30 days. There were plans in place for aircraft refurbishment lines at all the major USAF depots.

Most that poo poo any ability to rapidly expand production seem to forget that the US went from no nuclear weapons program in 1942 to a fully operational weapon and massive support infrastructure within 3 1/2 years.

I will give you an example - we had the tooling for the M8 AGS in storage in a warehouse near BAE York from when the program was cancelled all the way until at least 2015 - we could have taken it out, set it up where we were producing the M109 (and moved that line) and been in serial production within 4 months of go, with limited production at first and full production 6-7 months after go under wartime "get it down now" conditions. We even proposed to do just that in 2012.

Same with the tooling to make new Bradley's. Its still in storage and we can be back in limited rate production within 6 months and full rate new production within 8 months of the go signal.

When we built new M88's for Iraq (i.e. new builds not reworks of older vehicles) we pulled the tooling out, made new parts and got the first one delivered to Iraq six months after program Go.

Keep in mind this DOES NOT apply to turning a car factory into a tank factory - this is ramping up production at existing military production facilities. You want to build a new factory from scratch or convert a factory that takes much longer.

[Raellus]

That's good to know, Olefin.

As you pointed out, it would take longer to convert civilian industries to military production (for example, a Ford truck plant switching over to AFVs of some sort). How long, I wonder. Is twice as long a reasonable estimate?

Regarding the U.S.A. getting a head-start on wartime military production when the U.S.S.R. attacks China, I don't think it's a given.

First off, although the enemy of my enemy is my friend applies here, as the Soviets would be seen as the greater of two evils, the PRC is still a communist nation and, after Tiananmen Square, tensions between the U.S. and China were high. I think some in the U.S. gov't and military-industrial complex would be reluctant to provide the PLA with large quantities of AFVs or combat aircraft, and/or particularly advanced ones.

So, I think only a few plants would see an upsurge in production before the Germans start WWIII in Europe. The U.S. might increase Stingray/LAV-75/M8 AGS production for export to China, but not necessarily add a line or open another plant making M1 Abrams. When it becomes clear that the U.S. is going to back the FGR militarily, it would be full steam ahead and, as noted, arriving at full wartime production would take a minimum of 12 months after the outbreak of hostilities.

Also, I made this point in the other thread (now merged with this one), but modern AFVs, combat aircraft, and naval vessels are far more complex than their WW2 equivalents. Therefore, it would take a lot longer, on average, to crank out a new F-16 in 1997 than it would a P-51 in 1943. For all of the reasons cited above, I don't think WWIII would see WWII-level production figures.

[Olefin]

Oh I completely agree with you Raellus on producing anywhere near WWII production levels - thats not going to happen except perhaps for production of trucks (both heavy and light) for the military - i.e. the military orders the full production of every truck Ford can make - ok there you could get WWII levels.

But definitely not for tanks, fighter aircraft, etc.. - I agree with you there as to production levels -

The AGS line would most likely be at full tilt as soon as the Soviets and Chinese went to war - remember it would have just been kicked off and you could see the US wanting to get as many of those built as possible for the airborne to replace the Sheridans - that would have been a priority for sure as the airborne is your early deployment force and desperately needed a replacement light tank

As for switching over a civilian line to make military vehicles I can also give you an example

Oshkosh got the contract to make MRAP's but couldnt make enough of them - so they switched over part of JLG's line to make MRAP's - they had to get tooling made and get the line ready to go - and it took about eight months total - and after that they had an MRAP line where before they were making boom lifts. That was done under an emergency effort because of how bad the IED issue was in Iraq - which would be similar to what happened in the Twilight War

Now that wasnt a car line - i.e. it wasnt automated with lots of robots - so it could be done relatively quickly

You could see the same for heavy truck manufacturers - turning out chassis for instance that could be modified into AFV's

Auto companies are a special case - especially today - in WWII they were still mostly building manually - now there is so much robotics and special tooling that switching a car company to make tanks would take a year minimum to even get to very limited production and probably 18 months to get to anywhere near full production

Plus no one thought that the war would go long term - i.e. military planners in general in the 90's werent looking at years long wars - they wear planning for short very violent 4-6 month at longest wars

Given that I could see them ramping up military production at existing plants as quickly as possible and select civilian plants that could make stuff that could easily be converted - things like:

clothing
MRE's
tents
shoes
boots
medical equipment
light trucks and SUV's for military use (i.e. like the Ford Ranger)
heavy transport trucks (Mack, Peterbilt, etc.)

but it would probably have been close to May or June for the US to see that this wasnt going to be a short war and decide that it was time for Honda of Marysville to be turned into a tank factory or to order all companies making electronics in the US to be turned into military production

FYI there is canon mention that US factories were on overtime producing for the military

Howling Wilderness in the Attack and Its Aftermath mentions a wartime boom in production that brought the US economy out of a recession and an industrial boom with some shortages in civilian goods but no rationing

To me that implies that some factories did get switched over (i.e. a shortage of good boots because they are all making combat boots, a shortage of winter coats because they are switching over to make cold weather gear for the Army, a shortage of freeze dried foods for camping because those companies are making MRE's) but not an en masse switch starting in November 1996

[pmulcahy11b]

I was once a PC in a campaign where my character was in a stateside unit that was raised late in the war (after the TDM). They were told to "come as you are" and to "bring as much military and survival gear, food, and weapons as you can. Basiically, it was an ad hoc unit composed of troops who supplied their own gear, and the recruiment for this unit targeted those who could take care of themselves. I ended up with a lot of gear and ammunition, along with a BM-92F and a LeGendre .458 carbine as personal weapons.

[cawest]

First off, although the enemy of my enemy is my friend applies here, as the Soviets would be seen as the greater of two evils, the PRC is still a communist nation and, after Tiananmen Square, tensions between the U.S. and China were high. I think some in the U.S. gov't and military-industrial complex would be reluctant to provide the PLA with large quantities of AFVs or combat aircraft, and/or particularly advanced ones.

to this statement above.

they US (Might not) send heavy weapons to PRC. But with as things got hot (before the shooting). Our friends that share borders with one or both or are with in weapons ranges of both. They will be getting very worried, and start looking at what is on the shelves. That is were first orders would start to flow from MBT, Aircraft, ect. that would be before the shooting war between PRC/USSR.

if Boeing or McD got even a hint that they might be able to sell as few as a dozen fighters or P-3s. they would jump on it like a dog on three legged cat. Now how many?

they built 100 F-35s this year (Jan-Nov). so you could look at new lines for major end items 1 year, production in year 2 (4 per month) year 3 (10 per month warfooting) every year after that (15-18 warfootting), 1 per month due to damage of TDM for one year, than your stored parts are done.) this is just me spit balling.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by cawest

they US (Might not) send heavy weapons to PRC. But with as things got hot (before the shooting). Our friends that share borders with one or both or are with in weapons ranges of both. They will be getting very worried, and start looking at what is on the shelves. That is were first orders would start to flow from MBT, Aircraft, ect. that would be before the shooting war between PRC/USSR.

if Boeing or McD got even a hint that they might be able to sell as few as a dozen fighters or P-3s. they would jump on it like a dog on three legged cat. Now how many?

they built 100 F-35s this year (Jan-Nov). so you could look at new lines for major end items 1 year, production in year 2 (4 per month) year 3 (10 per month warfooting) every year after that (15-18 warfootting), 1 per month due to damage of TDM for one year, than your stored parts are done.) this is just me spit balling.

Don't get me wrong, I think the U.S., encouraged by defense contractors, would send the PRC a significant amount of weaponry, but I'm thinking this aid would consist of second or third tier systems. Kind of like how the U.S. is currently supplying Ukraine a few select modern systems, and more of the basics. There's an unsaid red line that could provoke the enemy of the folks we are assisting. That's why Ukraine gets Javelins and .50 sniper rifles, but not M1A1s or F-15s. I think the same would apply to the Second Sino-Soviet War.

In the T2K timeline, that second or third tier aid would look like Stingray/LAV-75/M8 AGS, Dragon, TOW II, maybe Tankbreaker (basically the Javelin ATGM), Stinger MANPADs, and F-5 Freedom Fighters.

One also doesn't want to risk one's own most advanced weapon systems falling into the wrong hands lest the enemy reverse-engineers them for his own use. This is why it was such a big deal when an Israeli missile interceptor didn't detonate and landed in Syria (because the Syrians will no doubt give it to the Russians so that they can develop countermeasures and/or duplicate it).

Lastly, the F-35 might not be the best example to use when trying to extrapolate production figures because it is so advanced. I reckon is takes significantly longer to build an F-35 or F-22 than it does an equivalent type from an earlier generation (like the F-16 or F-15).

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Don't get me wrong, I think the U.S., encouraged by defense contractors, would send the PRC a significant amount of weaponry, but I'm thinking this aid would consist of second or third tier systems. Kind of like how the U.S. is currently supplying Ukraine a few select modern systems, and more of the basics. There's an unsaid red line that could provoke the enemy of the folks we are assisting. That's why Ukraine gets Javelins and .50 sniper rifles, but not M1A1s or F-15s. I think the same would apply to the Second Sino-Soviet War.

In the T2K timeline, that second or third tier aid would look like Stingray/LAV-75/M8 AGS, Dragon, TOW II, maybe Tankbreaker (basically the Javelin ATGM), Stinger MANPADs, and F-5 Freedom Fighters.

One also doesn't want to risk one's own most advanced weapon systems falling into the wrong hands lest the enemy reverse-engineers them for his own use. This is why it was such a big deal when an Israeli missile interceptor didn't detonate and landed in Syria (because the Syrians will no doubt give it to the Russians so that they can develop countermeasures and/or duplicate it).

Lastly, the F-35 might not be the best example to use when trying to extrapolate production figures because it is so advanced. I reckon is takes significantly longer to build an F-35 or F-22 than it does an equivalent type from an earlier generation (like the F-16 or F-15).

In fact the first edition timeline specifically mentions that the renewed Soviet offensive in 1996 broke down when they encountered Tank Breaker and Assault Breaker systems sold to the Chinese by the US and others.

It also states that winter had witnessed a flood of new modern equipment thru the Chinese ports from NATO countries specifically from the US. That right there means that it wasnt probably all old obsolete equipment.

And keep in mind that the Stingray and the M8 AGS have the same gun that the M1 has - which can take out most Soviet tanks handily.

[bash]

Let's also not forget, in the spirit of logistics, that the US could/would be supplying the PRC with replacement parts/ammo/POL for their own equipment damaged in the fighting. They send the US a bunch of engineering specs (which include licensed Russian specs) in exchange for manufacturing. Just something like advanced gunsights or night vision that could be retrofit onto Chinese tanks would be high value.

There's also the question of transport across the Pacific. Tanks and AFVs might be of great use against the Russians but getting them from the US to the Chinese front takes a lot of infrastructure. Whatever sealift capability used to supply China is sealift that cant be used in Europe for NATO or other theaters.

Consider Desert Shield's sealift. From the first order of the operation MSC ships set sail from Diego Garcia and Guam to deliver vehicles and weapons while Marines were delivered by air. It took about a month to get enough personnel and equipment to Saudi Arabia to have a meaningful fighting force. It took six months and hundreds of MSC operated or contracted ships to deliver the US forces used for Desert Storm. That's six months and hundreds of ships in completely uncontested seas/skies.

The Twilight war would be a tougher row to hoe as I imagine the Russians would do their best to interdict military sea and air lift. The US/NATO/ANZUS logistic movements would need pretty serious escorts. US pre-positioned equipment for US-force use would probably get moved into position as tensions ramped up but supplies from CONUS to allies would be more difficult.

I point this out as I think aid to a country like China would be mainly stuff that could be effectively airlifted in. That would be high density stuff like gunsights or night vision like I mentioned before or things like radios or computers.

[Olefin]

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

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Olefin]

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

[Olefin]

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

[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.

-

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

and Leg - even though some of the authors either obviously had a beef with the US military

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.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

People tend to forget about the Cash and Carry policy, which began shortly after Germany's invasion of Poland.

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.

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.

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.

[pmulcahy11b]

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."

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

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.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

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