LAV-75; Stingray; M8 AGS

[Dog 6]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

As I said, everyone's welcome to approach things the way they want. If you want that many tanks rolling off the production line, go for it.
On the other hand, I like to limit things so that there isn't a tank over every hill and when PCs find new toys to play with, they're a bit more interesting, unique, and valuable.

cool. I play large games with each player controlling divisions at a min battalion sized unit. they and I like lots of tanks

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

cool. I play large games with each player controlling divisions at a min battalion sized unit. they and I like lots of tanks

So it is T2K at a wargaming level? Interesting.

[kato13]

The tank production numbers seem huge, but I have planned for similar. Not necessarily for T2k, but for a general fantasy WWIII scenario. I think you would have to have Reagan win the presidency in 1976 and some type of incredible economic boom. Perhaps some sort of economical way for the US and Canada to process their massive Oil shale reserves came our of the oil shocks of the ealry 70s.

As a programming and numbers nut it is always fun for me to take numbers to the extreme and see where the points of failure are. I think the tanks could have been made but for each one you would also need almost one and a half M2s variants, half an M113, 30+ trucks and at least 120 personnel (plus another 100 in the Reserves). Personnel in a non conscripted US army always seems to be the limiting factor in my calculations. And if you have a booming economy the problem becomes even more difficult as recruitment becomes harder.

[Raellus]

Leg reiterates a couple of really good points.

First of all, producing a current-gen tank like the M1A1 takes a lot of skill, resources, and money. It's not like WWII were a Ford automotive factory could be relatively easily converted to producing M4 Shermans, and its assembly lines staffed with former autoworkers or relatively inexperienced "Rosie the Riveter" types. The engine technology in the M4 was similar to existing tractors and trucks and the most hi-tech components were the simple gun sights.

Now compare that with the Abrams. It's gas turbine engine is a lot more complex than a tractor or truck engine. It's "Chobam" [sic] composite armor is much more difficult to make than molded steel armor. It's gun systems are incredibly complex. All of this also requires highly skilled labor to produce and assemble.

So, best case scenario, it's going to take months just to get the "extra" M1 factories up and running. Are they already up by '96, making M1s for China? I don't think so. I'm not sure the Chinese could afford many full-priced Abrams and I don't think the U.S. gov would be willing to subsidize the sales (think Lend-Lease). Then there's the political implications of providing a nation-at-war with current-gen weapons sytems. There could be the perception in the administration that this could constitute a causus beli in the eyes of the USSR, dragging the U.S. into the war. For these reasons, I think less expensive, less complex tanks like the Stingray, LAV-75/LAV-75A1, and or M8 AGS are all more likely options. So, it's going to be a while before additional M1 factories are set up and running at full capacity. By then, the TDM pretty much makes the whole issue moot.

Lastly, there's the question of cost. I've mentioned this already in the Defense of the Red Army thread a few weeks back, but even a relatively robust economy like the U.S.'s (at least in the mid-'90s) is going to have a helluva time sustaining maximum production rates for hi-tech systems like the M1A2, F22, JTF, Seawolf, etc. They are just too expensive and difficult to produce. WWII levels of production are simply unsustainable with modern weapon systems. Production-wise, the Soviets would be in a much better position with their comparitively more simple tanks.

But hey, that's just my take on the matter. It's totally up to others whether they want to pump it up the numbers for their T2KU. More power to ya.

[kato13]

I agree that given the standard T2k timeline those numbers would be impossible to achieve. Even if you throw all the resources possible at it. One of my favorite quotes related to that concept is "Nine women can't make a baby in a month". But the alternate history buff in me likes to see how far back you need to go and how you could get there. Are they tremendously optimistic, absolutely, but I tried to apply the same optimism to the USSR (by discovering massive gold, diamond and oil reserves) in the scenarios where I just wanted to see what two titans at their maximum possible capabilities would do against each other. In my case this really does apply more to wargaming (TWW and Harpoon series) than to T2k but since there is quite a bit of crossover in the underlying data, it seems appropriate to discuss here.

[Dog 6]

"Nine women can't make a baby in a month". love that.