Are modern nations capable of achieving WW2 levels of military production? Or if the cold war went hot, would nations during the 60's/70's/80's be able to?
It's not really applicable because no nation would ever need to reach that level of production again because if you've lost that many men and equipment then the nukes are coming out.
I've seen a BAE seminar that showed how at a total war footing a Type 45 destroyer could be built in 6-8 months rather than three years though so it's probably possible.
The only nation where this still seems possible is China, the west is deindustrialized and Russia was gutted after the SU collapsed
bump
>>28403447
Keep in mind that over the years the military has shifted away from cheaper/plentiful equipment in favor of more expensive but also more capable equipment.
Even if the country could convince its people to rally around a single cause, the shear number of ships/boats/trucks would be less than what we could build in the 40's.
Nukes would have dropped long before a nation lost WW2 levels of equipment.
>>28403447
Back in 45 you just needed a crappy motor and some steel plates to get a tank.
Today you need complex composite materials, highly precise optics, secure electronics and and and.
I'd say no because the logistics involved have become too big.
>>28403447
I think these days we are hoping for limited war and lightning war. Hoping if we can settle something like the SCS without nukes we could do it without 60million casualties as well.
How are you going to keep producing F35s when are war with china? Half the raw materials in the F35 comes from china. You'll be blowing up their factories with something that came out of their factories. Such is globalization. Likewise we'd be blowing up Chinese infrastructure made of Steal that came from the US.
Do you mean production in terms of could we build as much WWII stuff as they produced? Sure we could build a lot more.
Could we turn out similar numbers of modern gear? Likely not it takes more production and processing to make most of our gear.
Could we wildly raise our production number if they threw a fuck ton of money into automation and production planning? Oh hell yeah.
>>28404579
>How are you going to keep producing F35s when are war with china? Half the raw materials in the F35 comes from china. You'll be blowing up their factories with something that came out of their factories. Such is globalization. Likewise we'd be blowing up Chinese infrastructure made of Steal that came from the US.
Technically that's illegal. All US weapons must be 100% sourced from the US. But that's politely ignored.
What the US would need to do is build rare earth mines, tell the EPA to fuck off and that Thorium isn't radioactive waste. Tell the DoE that Thorium isn't a source material.
Once the mines and processing facilities are built the US regains access to the trillions of dollars of electronic manufacturing.
And they can take the Thorium and bury it in barrels again in case we ever want to build LFTRs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNTVDszP-zM
>>28403518
>the west is deindustrialized
Right.
Assuming a full war economy (I.E. all production is geared towards the war effort) we'd utterly crush the WW2 numbers. It's not even in the same league. One of my customers pushes outs 40,000,000lbs of product a month, from a building the size of a greyhound station with less than 30 people working in it.
>>28404723
Automation and computers have really changed industrial production since the 1940's.
>>28404739
Sure has. Hell one of my iso-thermal furnaces can process 16,000lbs an hour. That's one ton of metal every 13 minutes.
>>28403499
>Type 45 destroyer could be built in 6-8 months rather than three years
Are you serious? Why doesn't the government build them fucking now!!!!
daily reminder more military grade steel used in armored vehicles is produced nowadays than in 1943...
>>28403447
>Are modern nations capable of achieving WW2 levels of military production?
Modern nations already are exceeding their WW2 industrial output in military hardware, at a fraction of the GDP they would have needed 60 years ago. Quality, not quantity.
A single US carrier strike group, plus a single Marine Expeditionary Force and a couple of subs, could probably conduct the entire Pacific campaign, including preventing Pearl Harbor and nuking Japan, all by itself.
>>28405150
Costs more money and their is no pressing need for them now rather than in a few years.
>>28405299
> All by themselves*
I mean, not against a modern Japanese military, of course. But if Japan had everything it had in WW2, the US could rape it with a much smaller modern force.
A little something to think about..
In the Second World War, the U.S. had sixteen million servicemen out of a population of 132.1 million. Roughly thats 12%
If 12% of the current U.S. population were in the military, that would make it a hair over 37 million. Just imagine what that would do to the Global War on terror
>>28403518
sad but true:
This chart is what the Japanese intelligence has gathered about all surface warship commissionings of the Chinese navy in 2015 alone - 3x destroyers, 4x frigates, five corvettes, 3x 23k ton supply ships, 2x medium ton landing ships and seven other large naval support ships.
And that's the commissioned stuff only. In that same year, they launched, like 30, other ships.
Not counting submarines etc.
China's certainly producing at nigh Cold War level.
>>28403499
Wonder how long if they just went with cheaper concrete hull designs instead.
>>28406750
>Just imagine what that would do to the Global War on terror
And what would it do?
>Are modern nations capable of achieving WW2 levels of military production?
No never.
Three problems:
1. Equipment, vehicles, etc. are far more complex and specialized nowadays compared to WW2. Compare a Sherman to a M1 Abrams and you will quickly understand that you cannot just convert a Ford plant to crank out modern tanks.
2. Thanks to globalization it is impossible to make every component used to an airplane or a tank for example. For example most electronics are made somewhere in Asia and if you go to war against someone in that region then you will face a shortage of some kind.
3. Modern day military equipment is fucking expensive and no one country could afford the losses than occurred in WW2 with modern day gear without a complete economic loss.
>>28404694
He is right. Germany and America are one of the few countries in the west that still has a manufacturing base.
Look at England and see how the country is crumbling as it went from a country of factories to a country of service industries.
>>28405150
Because hiring workmen to do 24 hour shifts across the whole of the shipbuilding industry would cost a fucking fortune.
Wouldnt reactivating the fucktons of mothballed Cold War era equipment lying around be cheaper if a total non-nuclear war situation arrived? I mean hell The tons of F-4s are still easily a match for "modern" slavshit which has barely met Gen 3 capabilities, and Patton tanks are easily the rquals of the T-72s that theyd be fighting
>>28403447
The USN was confident that they could build a Nimitz, from cutting steel to sea trials, in less than three years, There's a similar reduction in construction length for other vessels.
The reason warship construction lasts so long is because the USN doesn't want the yards to fire then re-hire/retrain people between contracts.
>>28411114
>Look at England and see how the country is crumbling as it went from a country of factories to a country of service industries.
>5th largest economy in the world despite being 78th smallest country
>Fastest growing economy in the EU
>Main exports are turbines, aircraft parts, cars and petroleum
Guess how I know your knowledge of England is passive from 4chan
>>28411097
>1. Equipment, vehicles, etc. are far more complex and specialized nowadays compared to WW2. Compare a Sherman to a M1 Abrams and you will quickly understand that you cannot just convert a Ford plant to crank out modern tanks.
Wait, why are we assuming it would be full production of cutting-edge designs?
Surely if a nation went to total industrial war footing, they'd crank out shittons of cheap basic stuff, and a smaller amount of high-end weapon systems for critical roles.
Say, spam the skies with simple, cheap, disposable UAVs, and a few squadrons of 6th-gen AWACS/Interceptor multiroles to coordinate them.
Spam the seas with cheap and simple arsenal frigates, and a few next-gen DDX railgun laser AEGIS battlecruisers.
That sort of thing. High-Low doctrine at power level > 9,000.
>>28412408
Why do people assume that UAVs which have never been used for combat can suddenly be purposed for that role?
>>28411280
Well he is right in that it is now a country of service industries.
We still have manufacturing, buts niche/high tech etc engineering, not slabs or steel engineering.
You're right that his assessment of Britain 'crumbling' is bollocks though.
>>28406750
>imagine what that would do to the Global War on terror
Nothing? Make it worse?
>>28411114
>Look at England and see how the country is crumbling as it went from a country of factories to a country of service industries.
Yes, because being one of the largest economies with the second largest aerospace industry in the world, having a high number of car production, one of the largest engineering equipment productions, high end ship and submarine building. Chemical and construction industries are high end. They have excellent defense exports (particularly in light vehicles recently like the Supacat ones) and in sniper rifles. The fifth largest electronics sector in the world.
They're the 11th strongest manufacturing country in the world. On a tiny little fucking island.
Nice to see you know pretty much nothing about the UK then, including its geographical existence to simply say "England".
It's usually a quick way to spot retards, the ones who think England = UK.
>>28412416
Because historically, nations show a remarkable capacity to innovate quickly when on a total war footing.
I think what we're seeing now from the US--and even more so from Russia--are peacetime, interim designs at low production rates.
If a major, protracted war broke out, there would be insane evolutionary pressure at the low end, and unmanned tech development would accelerate tremendously.
And seriously, UAVs not being very good at it isn't necessarily a problem, if they're cheap and expendable and you can make a *lot* of them.
>>28404694
Are you actually this stupid?
No, seriously. Memes and posturing aside, do you actually, literally believe this?
>>28412416
>UAVs which have never been used for combat
>UAVs
>never been used for combat
>>28411114
>country of service industries
That's partially because the service sector is more cost-effective, profitable, and easier for start-ups due to the small amount of capital (human and otherwise) needed to enter than the manufacturing sector.
Service replaced the secondary sector (in the Western world) because of the start of the information and automation age, just how manufacturing phased out agriculture and cottage industry as the dominant type of employment in the Industrial revolution.
It's not all bad, though. The US, Japan, and EU as a whole are all among the top 4 largest economies in the world with high standards of living and wages compared to the rest of the world. South Korea and Canada have a similar situation,
China (and up-and-coming India) only has a large GDP and exports because of their > 1 billion populations, lousy urban living conditions, and ability to pay their employees starvation wages thanks to extremely high competition and lack of safety and health regulations. Compare their per-capita GDPs with the other big countires.
Unless they make sweeping changes, those bubbles will deflate like Brazil has and China started to in Q3 of FY15.
The West may have problems, but London and New York are still the financial capitals of the world. The UK (primarily England and Scotland) have great technology/digital sectors, and the US is still the leader in specialized manufacturing. You can't stay afloat, let alone dominate, by just running steel mills and oil refineries anymore.
>>28412446
I would like to see what would come of combat aircraft in that respect.
>we can't build F-22s and F-35s fat enough, but we need high-performance fighters and fighter/bombers with some of the qualities of those two
>RnD produces true successors to F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s.
Think of how the Seawolf submarine was cancelled and the Virginia was introduced. The Navy got a cheaper submarine to replace the Los Angeles but still has the more important capabilities of the Seawolf by cutting out some of the fat.
>>28412416
>implying UAVs have never been thought of for combat since day 1
>>28413788
they're really cramming the ordnance onto that thing
>>28413831
well, what do you expect out of the embodiment of the PC-era or warfighting
>precision armaments
>UAVs
>UAV operators are allowed to claim PTSD like they are actual soldiers/infantry
Seriously. it's fucking Tumblr
>>28413788
>executing unsuspecting goatherders is combat
This meme needs to stop.
>>28412444
Britain is not a tiny island. It's a large island.
>>28414074
>implying I said that
>ignoring initial concept compared to reality
right, because that thought wasn't cooked up on paper during the time when a T-80/BMP zergrush into Germany was actually a thing
I wasn't saying what it's actually doing now. I was talking about what it was designed for.
Back then, any machine shop and welders could make military equipment.
Nowadays, everything has lots of fancy alloys, composites, electronics, etc
>>28413693
>Compare their per-capita GDPs with the other big countires.
It's massively increased in the last 15 years
It's a fantasy opinion to think China's GDP is actually just a BUBBLE.
>>28414074
>UAVs cannot into combat.
>>28414074
But anon, UAVs can very into combat.
>>28403447
In the US, steel mills are no where producing their potential. They were designed for WWII levels of production. If WWIII started Gary, IN would be booming, along with Detroit. You'd be surprised at how many hot and cold mills have been abandoned post WWII just BC we don't need them.
>>28415876
anything that has been abandoned that long is horrendously obsolete and probably stripped of useful materials/tools.
>>28415876
With the amount of time it would take to retool and reset those factories, the outcome of ww3 would either be concluded or the world would be in flames.
For everything else, low intensity conflicts and proxy wars do not require ww2 levels of mass production.
>>28405299
Doubtful. It simply wouldn't have enough ammo to take out all the planes.
>>28417944
Super hornets could literally melee zeros to death.
>>28417958
Could they each melee 100 zeros to death?
>>28417979
The entire Kidou Butai can send about 20 Zeros at a time, so yes, 12 super hornets could easily melee 100 zeros in succession.
>>28403447
With globalisation is self efficincy even posible you got lerts say a tank half its shit is made in placws like china or india and the metal comes from germany
I woild like to know how long would it take to change the industry once war starts
>>28413950
>>UAV operators are allowed to claim PTSD
Of course they are, you shithole. Guilt from murder is a real thing. Imagine that your mission is to eliminate a terrorist leader. It's believed that he's hiding in a small house in the middle of desert. You fly your UAV there, launch a missile and blast that house into rubble. But guess what, the jihadist nigger wasn't there, but you killed an innocent 12 member family instead. Nothing you could have done, the intel was wrong, and you were just following orders, but in the end, you killed them and you know it. Nothing is going to bring them back, they are gone forever.
Not even an edgelord could just shrug that off. Only a literal psychopath could.
>>28422365
The SJW is strong with this one!
>>28422379
Yeah!!!! How about making them ingest meth pills and flying 168 hours without any rest?. That would help them go into full blown psychosis faster :^)
>>28417979
The jet wake alone and the shockwave from a Mach 1+ pass would knock a zero to pieces.
>>28411097
>1. Equipment, vehicles, etc. are far more complex and specialized nowadays compared to WW2. Compare a Sherman to a M1 Abrams and you will quickly understand that you cannot just convert a Ford plant to crank out modern tanks.
You raise a point, but to some extent this is counterbalanced by the fact that making things is cheaper, automated assembly lines reduce production costs. This doesn't completely balance out the increased cost from complexity of course, but it's worth considering. You could build a Sherman in 2015 faster and cheaper than you could in 1940.
>2. Thanks to globalization it is impossible to make every component used to an airplane or a tank for example. For example most electronics are made somewhere in Asia and if you go to war against someone in that region then you will face a shortage of some kind.
This is true for many countries, but not the US, China, Russia, France, Maybe the UK and India? There are more still who could adapt and make ertsaz products for lost imports if you gave them time, Sweden, Pakistan.
>3. Modern day military equipment is fucking expensive and no one country could afford the losses than occurred in WW2 with modern day gear without a complete economic loss.
Keynes said that WW1 couldn't last more than a year because every nation involved would be destitute by that point.
He wasn't wrong about the destitute bit, but it turns out that Nations *really* hate losing and are willing to do horrible things to themselves to avoid it.
>>28403447
Sort of. You wouldnt be churning out abrams and F35s all damn day. The government saves the tooling for the last generation of equipment, you would likely see stuff like skyraiders and other slightly simpler designs being spammed.
>>28405150
This is classified information anon. You must never reveal this secret.
The Pentagon is not actually interested in warfighting at all. That is merely their cover.
Their secret identity is really the world's largest and most wasteful welfare program.
>>28414074
>executing unsupecting slavs/chinks/iranians is combat
oh wait
