Wartime production

[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.

[ChalkLine]

A general conflict of of NATO vs WTO would still be 'total war' though and defence industries would start work on a long war whether the war was going well or not.

Not knowing the future the assumption would be that the USSR alone would summon up its vast manpower reserves and that NATO wouldn't be able to get past the border.

The traditional Russian tactic is to keep fighting no matter how many conditions of victory have been achieved. This means a long war and eventually a war of attrition

[Legbreaker]

I'm not at all convinced.
The Soviets and their allies were seen to be on the back foot. NATO and China were pushing forward everywhere, even without France, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal, and the withdrawal of the Netherlands (who's main task was to provide sea mine clearing and laying for the combined navies - with lesser roles in other areas). That's approximately 25% of NATO's manpower missing, and in the case of Italy and to a lesser extent France and Belgium, becoming an enemy. The withdrawal of some of those countries also opened up a serious capability gap (see the Netherlands naval responsibilities for example).
And all this after the previous 50 years assuming NATO would start the war on the defensive and not be able to make any offensive progress until the Pact had battered themselves to pieces.
Given everything we know from the game timelines and other sources, there's just no way I can see the early war being perceived as anything other than going very well for NATO, and therefore there being little justification for ramping up production in the same way as happened in WWI and WWII.

[dragoon500ly]

There is always going to be some disagreement on this, but based on my last experiences and observations of the U.S. Military and our beloved Congress...the military would take the opportunity presented by the Sino-Soviet War and the increased production of military supplies, to convince Congress that an increase in logistical support and military readiness, the observations of Soviet technology would also give R&D a push to develop countermeasures, the question, of course, is just how much Congress will be willing to spend.

At the very least, I would rate an increase in the R&D to be very high (just too good an opportunity to miss), the logistical stockpiling "to replace older lots of ordnance," with the older lots being expended during increased training periods ( this actually happens quite often).

Would there be an effort to bring new weapons systems online? This would depend on how near they are to the end of their testing phase. Certainly i would expect some moves to bring missiles and PGMs into service. Upgrades to vehicles, may be pushed forward as well.

Would new warships be laid down? Possible, but I would rate this lower, perhaps with the fleet adding new frigates and destroyers, mothballing some classes to free up trained personnel, but now many? Perhaps a dozen or so in the BYB time line.

Would the Air Force get more aircaft? I can see upgrades, maybe even several dozen new planes added, but not much more than that.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Would the Air Force get more aircaft? I can see upgrades, maybe even several dozen new planes added, but not much more than that.

One Twilight 2000 move that may be possible is the conversion of QF-4 Phantom II target drones back to combat aircraft. They are designed to remain man-flyable aircraft, they've just had most of their combat avionics removed -- and with parts from the Boneyard (or before the TDM, new parts), they might be able to carry men and women back into combat.

Today there are hardly any QF-4s left, but in the early 1990s, there were lots of them, and a lot of F-4s and RF-4s stored at the Boneyard. There was even limited production of parts for the foreign air forces still flying F-4s.

[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.