Wartime production

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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