Mass production
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
If ww3 / The happening actually happened ( and i say if ) is the us still able to mass produce weapons and vehicles like it did in ww2 ?
What about Russia , china and india ?
It would probably take a bit longer to start up, but there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to.
>>29585806
No. It also takes a lot of time to train soldiers to use complex equipment.
And it's unlikely to matter to the outcome of a World War.
China is already doing that well during peacetime.
>>29585923
Good for them , they will have that capabilities to invade europe in the next 10 years
>>29585953
Nah, they only aim to get to at least 50% of the USN in terms of tonnage until 2020-2030.
But still, commissioning 80 navy ships in two and a half year is still scaring out the Japanese.
>>29585806
>is the us still able to mass produce weapons and vehicles like it did in ww2 ?
Not the same scale, and we'd have to spend about a year or so setting some of the missing infrastructure back up but eventually we'd be pretty set for a wartime footing.
>What about Russia , china and india ?
Russia would have similar issues but would be fine within a year. China is already doing MASSIVE modernization and expansion of all of it's forces, it'd probably take less than six months to reach peek wartime production. India... well... pfffftttt. They run out of reserves before they would get any of their production up to snuff.
>>29585953
I don't believe so.
Those ships don't have arabic.
>>29585984
kek
>>29585979
>MLP
the horror
>>29585806
>If ww3 / The happening actually happened ( and i say if ) is the us still able to mass produce weapons and vehicles like it did in ww2 ?
Yes and no.
It's possible, but it wouldn't happen.
>>29585806
In 1937 (pre-war production peak) the US produced 3.4 million motor vehicles, in 2014 11.7 million. Does that answer your question?
2014 figures for:
China: 23.7m
Russia: 1.9m
India: 3.8m
Important allies:
Germany: 5.9m
France: 1.8m
UK: 1.6m
Worldwide aircraft production is firmly in Nato hands.
Steel production is dominated by China, but that's solely a price issue and can easily be changed in times of war. Reopening old mines and cutting off iron ore and coal supply via maritime dominance would flip that in Nato's favor.
>>29586188
Oh, forgot Japan: 9.8m
>>29586188
>muh motor vehicles
Most of those are built on foreign parts, materials, and merely assembled in the US
>>29585979
>Nah, they only aim to get to at least 50% of the USN
They also have like, 50% of the coastline. Or less.
>>29585806
No.
Current systems are simply too complex and expensive to produce at WWII levels. Reaching WWII levels of production is not feasible in peacetime, much less a wartime environment that sees the loss of merchant ships that carry orders of magnitude more cargo.
Just a few stats to put the problem in perspective.
Finland produced more fighter aircraft in WWII then the US made F-22 Raptors.
In 1944 the US built the equivalent of the entire F-35 program every week.
In 1944 The Red Army received an average of 58 tanks per day. At this rate it would take ten days to double the number of T-90 in the Russian Army.
A WWII era tanker was ~16,600 tons, a current supertanker is over 200,000 tons. Both can be sunk with one torpedo.
With current system costs 1940s levels of production are simply not reachable.
That goes both ways. The US does export, too. You can also look at manufacturers. In 2013 the big three produced together around 20.4m.
>>29586284
was meant for >>29586216
>>29585806
>If ww3 / The happening actually happened ( and i say if ) is the us still able to mass produce weapons and vehicles like it did in ww2 ?
Chinks can. Russians will have troubles with imported parts and outdated production lines, but their facilities are Soviet style - one giant full cycle factory. US will have troubles with logistic nightmare and extreme inefficiency. They used to think about how to create more job places around states, not how to build more vehicles with maximum efficiency.
Today's weapons are vastly more complex than WW2's, but people forget that WW2's weapons were very complex for their era, too. The B-29 was the F-22 of its day in terms of complexity, and yet we cranked them out in the last year of the war.
In terms of sheer numbers, no, we're not going to crank out F-22s at the same pace we cranked out fighters in WW2. But do we need to? I don't think so. And I do think we could crank out some other weapon systems, like Abrams tanks, quite fine. And lesser-focused on but very important parts of wartime production like uniforms, food, kit, ammunition, clothing, parachutes shovels, construction equipment, we're unsurpassed in such things. Equipment like trucks, firearms, light vehicles, spare parts, ammunition, and so on, again, we're unsurpassed in such things. Quite honestly, in a single year of dedicated production we could make more firearms and ammunition than we could use in all of World War 3.
The country's industrial capacity is famous, and a huge strategic asset for us.
>>29586351
?
You think we could go into a car factory today and repurpose them to build military vehicles?
That shit is completely different, everything is automated with speciailized machines
And theres significantly less industry today than in WW2 era
Another serious issue is that always half the population is shitskins with little to zero loyalty to the country, this will be catastrophic in the event of a major war.
It's just a matter of factory layout. It has to be for high rate serial production. And it requires the political will to spend the money for that.
If these two conditions are fulfilled then it's just a matter of time until you've got enough workers together and trained to crank out arms en masse.
Isn't the whole point behind having $10 mil tank that you don't have to mass produce them?
>>29586396
>>29586396
>You think we could go into a car factory today and repurpose them to build military vehicles?
>That shit is completely different, everything is automated with speciailized machines
Yes, I think in reasonably short order, your standard car factory could be cranking out military trucks instead. There is not that much difference between a Mack truck and a military hauler. There is not that much difference between a HMMWV and an SUV. Not from a production perspective, anyway.
It would only require some re-tooling, not major changes to the factory's configuration.
>b-b-b-but niggers don't love america
Here's a protip: There was a massive, and I mean truly massive, effort in America to eke out the production it had in WW2. Media coverage of protests and worker disruption was routinely censored. There were massive propaganda efforts. Just Google Image Search "buy war bonds" if you don't believe me. We have this idealistic notion that WW2 was all of America coming together for the greater good in ways that don't happen anymore, but to be honest, it didn't happen then either, the government was just better at keeping up appearances.
>>29586216
And you think its different in Europe or China?
>>29586418
We might make thousands instead of millions, but I think we could easily make more Abrams tanks than we have crews to use them with if we really wanted to, in an absolute total war situation where American civilian manufacturing has switched to wartime production.
In fact in general I think experienced crews would be our limfac in most areas, not production. We could easily make more F-22s than we could train pilots to fly them and ground crews to maintain them. It'd be expensive as hell, massively expensive, but in a real total war that does not matter.
>>29586351
>WW2's weapons were very complex for their era, too.
Not necessarily. Look at the Sten gun, the T-34 (pic related) or Mosquito, all fine designs that saw extensive use and were only slightly more complicated then a rock. Now every aircraft needs radar, stealth coatings, specialized secure coms and a dozen other systems unique to warplanes, recruiting cabinet makers is no longer an option. Tanks have gone from 1 in 3 having a radio to packed with specialized systems such as thermal sights and turbine engines.
Making such systems requires specialized tooling and trained personal on a level that far above what was required in the 1940s. Making such an effort in a WWIII situation is not a practical solution , this is why nations keep vast qualities of old equipment mothballed, reactivating equipment is a practical solution when making new equipment is not
International trade will effect the supply of materials so thats a negative
You will see less advanced versions of the same equipment reach the front. Closer to export models of tanks. You also will see a resurgence of older designs, the military stores the tooling for all sorts of old designs. I personally have seen the A4 skyhawk tooling in storage in central kansas.
>>29586489
What the fuck does the welding have to do with how complex a tank is to operate?
>>29586489
Fair enough. But WW2 did have mass production of what were, at the time, revolutionary new weapons like the B-29. When the B-29 was started a lot of people didn't think the design could even fly, and it was legitimately a wonder-weapon every bit as much as the V-2 was. And we cranked them out like crazy.
Incidentally, didn't Nazi Germany make several thousand V-2s? And rocketry was really damn new at the time.
>>29586508
>how complex a tank is to operate
>thread is about production
You are a special type of stupid.
The point of that post was that shortcuts and production methods that were viable in the WWII are not longer usable.
>>29586284
Heche en mexico
>>29586558
>thread is not about training and operation if i ignore it hard enough
>>29585806
What do you mean, "like it did in ww2"?
If you mean numerically, I highly doubt it, except for things like uniforms, boots, and firearms that haven't honestly changed all that much since WW2. We can't crank out Abrams in the numbers that we cranked out Shermans.
But do you mean that in the event of a total war, could we use civilian factories in wartime production instead, like we did in WW2? Absolutely, I don't see why not.
>>29586558
>The point of that post was that shortcuts and production methods that were viable in the WWII are not longer usable.
>shortcuts and production methods
>he thinks the sheer incompetency of Russian potato peasants attempting to weld a tank together is a "shortcut" or "production method"
>>29586576
>is the us still able to mass produce weapons and vehicles like it did in ww2 ?
actually no is isn't you dumb nigger try actually reading the op
>>29585806
Some of the equipment, maybe. Abrams are incredibly fucking complex. Retooling the automotive industry to develop support vehicles like trucks, and maybe even Humvee's, that's possible, although it'd take time. Much of the limitation would come from the production of the advanced electronics used in a lot of platforms these days. You can retool to mill tank barrels and assemble turrets with enough money, but it'd be much more difficult to retool a factory to produce precision electronic target sights, since the US doesn't have a significant Micro circuitry industry in place. Those sorts of high tech components would be your hard to raise limit.
Does make me wonder if a third world war would even last long enough for the idea of moving to war economy to even make sense. Like, even discarding nukes, modern combat involves a lot of precision strikes on valuable targets, quickly. Airlift and the like permits rapid deployment of forces in ways the last world wars didn't. I guess what I'm saying is that after six months, the war would probably be decisively in one direction or another.
if ww3 happens, you'd see the re-production of shit like the M-72 LAW or RPG (man carriable anti-tank weapons) before you'd see Abrams being rushed into mass production for several reasons.
1. Needing special clearance on highly sensitive technology
2. Needing people who can be vetted and cleared for that security (not spies)
3. Tooling change over, because unlike in WW2 the Abram's isn't going to be running off of a Ford transmission unlike the Sherman.
4. Lack of major industrial carry over (ie. truck/tractor manufactures producing tank transmissions during WW2)
5. Lack of serious ability to repair these multi-million dollar vehicles in the field (compared to ww2 where there were literally plane/tank graveyards the mechanics would rummage through for spare parts
6. It'd be more likely that we'd see more WW2 esk tanks produced and enter service only equipped with better anti-tank weaponry, simply due to scale needed, availability of replacement parts, and work-ability of machinist crews in the field.
>>29585806
the soviets had a very interesting perspective on this
even with such innovations as tractor factories that could converte to producing tanks within a week they still thought that the complex components necessary for modern warfare systems made them too hard to mass produce during wartime. their plan was to, once resources had become scarce and probably a fair few nukes had gone off. they would start producing downgraded models of current tanks, without such frivolities as lazer range finders and ballistic computers and tungsten carbide SABOT rounds and complex compositie armor
they called these downgraded designs monkey models and offered them as exports to middle eastern states.
saddam's army went to war in tanks designed to be useful after a nuclear apocalypse.
Better question: if a major, no-holds-barred war ever broke out, what features do you think would be removed/dumbed down from modern vehicles/equipment in the name of faster production?
I'd bet on any wartime production Abrams being the equivalent of the export models. Not sure about aircraft.
If the war didn't end within a certain timeframe we'd probably end up with one big artillery stalemate because there's too much enemy AA and we wouldn't be willing to risk what we have left. Would probably end up like a large-scale Ukraine: lots of small skirmishes that accomplish nothing while we lob rockets at each other.
I have yet to find a point defense system that can defeat howitzer shells.
>>29585806
what are nuclear weapons alex
>dude there will not be time for production to ramp up, or even fucking start
>>29585806
we could, but we would also have to set up ways to rebuild all our old shit.
we have TONS of tanks, planes, guns, bombs, just waiting to be used.
we just have to activate them.
>>29587639
full nuclear war isn't all that likely 3bh
it would probably be iran or best korea launching one or two nukes and then getting glassed and cratered to hell.
>>29586396
Our factories are already pledged for military production. Most of them could be refit relatively quickly, as they made that a part of their design when they were built.
>>29585923
haha arent they fucking broke?
welcome to mothballing retardely huge amounts of planes and vehicles.
http://www.coolturehunter.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Davis-Monthan-Air-Force-Base.jpg
>>29585806
Stuff would get pulled out of storage well before any new production began
No.
WW3 between nuclear powers would be over in weeks. Not nearly enough time to get factories rolling.
As more weapons become precision, it takes fewer to do similar amounts of damage to the enemy. That is why armies have gotten smaller, weapons more complex, etc.
During modern high intensity combat we would probably see a situation similar to the early months of WWI, where massive losses were cause very quickly, before anyone really understood how much the new weapons had changed warfare.
Additionally, you'd probably see major munition shortages, again similar to WWI. Every combatant would go through missiles far faster than they planned for, just like the British and French did in Libya.
Honestly though, if the Russians got involved in a fight with the US, it would come down to nukes. Russia's military can't fight a major war, hold down unrest at home, and deter Chinese opportunism without nuclear weapons. Given the early use the Soviets had built into their war plans, I think we'd see nuclear strikes on NATO targets fairly quickly, probably within hours of American mobilization.
>>29586930
>saddam's army went to war in tanks designed to be useful after a nuclear apocalypse.
And we all know how well they worked.
>>29587765
>just like the British and French did in Libya.
That never happened.
nope. not enough willing labor to run the machinery.
>>29587680
>China
>Broke
They still have one of the hugest foreign exchange reserves and saving rate in the world.
Also, China merely spends less than 2% of their GDP on defense. And since they are cutting the PLA hard and concentrate investment on the Navy and Airforce, their spending didnt even increase - but actually decrease the last year.
>>29587007
>Not sure about aircraft.
I don't think we'd rush new jet fighters into production. We'd focus our efforts on un-mothballing old B-52s and older F-15s and F-16s. We couldn't make new F-22s and new F-35s so easily in a total war industrial scenario. Lockheed could conceivably make new F-22s, I suppose; the F-35 is probably too problematic.
>I have yet to find a point defense system that can defeat howitzer shells.
Israel's Iron Dome has been used against mortar shells and artillery shells as well as rockets.
I don't think it would ever happen again at the same scale.
Every country has a finite number of places to build ships, tanks, and jets. Every country knows exactly where those shipbuilders, tankers, and aerospace factories are.
In a full scale war, those are going to get hit first with conventional weapons, and the rest of the war will be spent rebuilding them while using mothballed equipment to fight.
>>29587680
how are they broke if they can make that?
It's not like WWII where you could build a Mosquito bomber in a Piano factory.
Means of production would cease to exist fast. WWIII would be short with an insane attrition rate.
>>29588014
That's an interesting aspect too, good luck convincing those gender studies majors to work in a missile factory or munitions plant when war breaks out, they've been told their entire lives to avoid blue collar work for some reason.
>>29588137
You're talking about a conflict measured in weeks at most. Nowhere near the time to start increasing a workforce.
What about individual protection such as plate carriers and plates for them, would they be bothered with? Or would it be the case of to few benefits for to many dollars?
>>29588152
Well this is a hypothetical situation, so lets just assume for whatever reason, neither side see's their homelands hit. Maybe its a war against a third party. Think reopening of the Korean war, China backs Best Korea with their might, US backs South with theirs. That sort of conflict could drag on, and neither party would likely strike at the others homeland because the retaliation would almost certainly be nuclear.
>>29587765
That's not really true
this precise weaponry thing is more about limiting collateral damage in subnational wars, not about combat effectiveness
>>29588026
Easy to build ships when they cost maybe a tenth of what the US pays for their new burkes
>>29588026
Doesnt change the fact that theyre shit at fighting in any aspect
They didn't randomly decide to start building massive amounts of war materials the second WW2 kicked off. Germany didn't even fully mobilize before 1944.
The problem with today's industry is globalization so if a war was the break out and say Australia wanted to start building tanks it would either need to import critical tools to build things or take the time to build up the tools themselves. I don't think there's a company left in Australia that builds lathes or milling machines for example, or if there is even a company that could build such machines without importing anything
>>29588224
beat the americans in corea with pitchforks and old civil war era muzzle loaders
>>29588172
Do you mean for like, drafted soldiers? They'd absolutely provide plates and carriers for them, and it'd not be too difficult. Unlike the details of how to build an Abrams, the details of how to make kevlar and ceramic/steel plates are not Military secrets, they could easily give factories the details on how to make it. And an acceptable body armor setup is much cheaper than the costs they sunk in to train a soldier.
Sending soldiers without body armor would be absolutely suicide from a public relations point as well, the families of the draftee's would absolutely riot, and moral would plummet among said draftee's. Wouldn't happen.
>>29588221
>this precise weaponry thing is more about limiting collateral damage in subnational wars, not about combat effectiveness
But that is wrong.
>To Soviet planners the most troubling trend was the seeming dominance of the battlefield, if not the theater as a whole, by modern technology in the form of high-precision weapons
>Soviet anxiety over the poor performance of specific Soviet weapons and integrating systems will probably pale beside their realization that modern high-precision weaponry, artfully and extensively applied, produced paralysis and utter defeat.
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rs-storm.htm
>>29588276
body armor is overrated
>>29588270
And the Russians beat the Germans by flooding the battlefield with men. Numerical superiority doesn't account for much now when we can control the sky.
>>29588287
Eh, helps stop fatal shrapnel injuries, and that'd be worth something when your fighting an army that actually has artillery.
>>29588349
>>29588287
Because insurgents have no way to produce shrapnel or bullet wounds huh.
And it's just a coincidence that increase in armour has lowered fatalities, and that fatalities are most often from the upper leg, armpit and face.
>>29588349
body armor just creates more injured people.
dead people are better than limless people logistically
>>29588349
not much difference between a permanently crippled person and a dead person
Reducing the weight load of the soldier allows them to be more mobile & alert, saving lives
>>29588380
Logistically? Sure, Burying and bagging people is easier than dealing with wounded. In reality? You'll be torn apart by PR. This isn't the 40's, if thousands of soldiers die preventable deaths, the media will raise a shitstorm. People will raise a shitstorm.
>>29588397
Same as above, you'll be torn apart on the homefront for letting those people die. And being mobile and alert doesn't help when a mortar air burst goes off over your foxhole.
>>29588475
why the fuck would you be in a foxhole? this is 2016, they should be in their M113 or armored shipping container
>>29588380
>>29588397
Do you morons understand that getting hit in the chest doesn't make your arms fly off but since you have armour you'll live fine?
technology is proven, that nowadays is more advanced than in World War II. Therefore if the answer is yes we would be able to produce weapons in mass quantities and produce and even maybe more.The real question is though which weapons from World War 2 and nowadays would be more useful in a world war three depending on what country or what state is fighting us. Our weapons nowadays are much more accurate than back then in World War II but some of the weapons in World War II are more useful.
>>29588479
Sometimes you gotta dig in. Maybe not a foxhole, but there's always going to be instances of infantry in cover, and you can't spend forever in an armored vehicle. Infantry WILL be under shells at some point, and when they do, they will want body armor.
>>29588613
A physical shield to put between them & bullets/shrapnel
>>29588243
The US had an advantage in that regard in that we'd been producing war materiel for the Allies already. It was relatively easier for us to ramp up to wartime production because we already had a lot of wartime production.
>>29586508
More the difficulty of production. They couldn't even make the plates the right size.
>>29585953
Honestly, if the Invasion came by land through Russia or the Balkans, they could probably do it now. Merkel has taken a greasy shit on the German Army and Europe has for some reason assumed that Poland alone is a suitable barrier to the East.
Not to rag on Poland, they have done a lot with very little, but they couldn't repel Russian or Chinese invasion
>>29588754
>Not to rag on Poland, they have done a lot with very little, but they couldn't repel Russian or Chinese invasion
What the fuck are you on where you think a Chinese invasion through Poland is a threat to NATO
>>29588772
?
Defense of the counntry is the only legitimate interest of the government
The fact liberals do all they can to undermine it goes to show their treasonous nature
>>29585806
Only if Trump is in charge.
Otherwise of course not, the entire point of everything going on right now in the world is weakening America and Russia to the point the Jew World Order can be enacted, silly goy.
>>29586859
>third world war would even last long enough
Yea I highly doubt it. A no shit war, not the hide and seek bs in Iraq and afg, would be over quickly enough that either
A: No need to re-tool or change factories
B: We get destroyed. Like nuked.
My money is on A. Also, we have the maritime prepositioning force, and a bunch of shit sitting around, maintained, waiting to be used.
>>29588786
Way to absolutely not answer the question
>>29585806
Believe me: there's like a couple hundred square miles worth of manufacturing equipment mothballed away under mountains by the government after WWII; given a year, we can have half of it shipped to factories across the country and started up to again produce from scratch the largest military the world has ever seen.
>mfw gov't's buying up scrap metal left & right at today's historically-low prices in preparation for the conflict foreseen with china
WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGE
>>29589129
>couple hundred square miles.
>implying not couple hundred thousands already being used by the NWO to build their super huge and elite army for the Agenda 529 supra-empire.
We would never need to.
If it ever got to the point where we were on the back foot in a ww3 we would ket the nukes fly. And so would russia.
>>29586930
That's utter bullshit.
The Soviet's plan to keep operating after the bombs fall is to simply take stuff out of storage. The Soviets simply never threw away their old equipment.
Up until 1990, there were millions of PPSH in storage all around Russia. You know what year the Soviets finally decided to scrap their inventory of IS-2's? 1991.
The Soviets knew they couldn't produce enough to fulfill wartime needs if it came to that, so they just produced a lot during peacetime and kept it all in storage. In WW3, once the T-72's and T-80's were shot up, they would pull the T-62's and T-55's out of storage and use those. If those got shot up, they still had thousands of T-34/85's. Sure they are old and obsolete, but by this point NATO would be completely out of tanks.
The "monkey model" this is because the Soviets didn't trust their satellite states as much as the US trusted theirs. Anything exported to the Arabs was as good as giving it to the Israelis, which is as good as giving it to the Americans. With the extreme wealth disparity between the Warsaw pact nations and NATO, it's all too tempting for a pilot to fly across the border and seek asylum. That's why they didn't give the poles/czech the good stuff.
![elitefon.ru_19705[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/M2ivoLi.jpg "elitefon.ru_19705[1].jpg")
>>29590104
While I don't disagree with you that that's their doctrine, you wrongly assume all of these mothballed tanks are in serviceable condition. A metric fuckload of them were simply abandoned after the collapse of the USSR. Many of these stores of outdated vehicles aren't so much mothballed as mounds of rust of no military value whatsoever. It would be less costly and easier to build a new tank than to restore some of these vehicles to basic functionality.
Soviet recordkeeping for these things was not always stellar, nor did post-collapse Russian forces have the budget to pay maintenance and upkeep on these things. Try as you might, you can't simply stick ten thousand tanks somewhere, come back sixty years later, and expect them to be in fighting shape. They have storage costs, maintenance checks, parts that wear out even at idle storage, rust, and all sorts of other problems. Many of these stores were parked outdoors in facilities that, for years, were literally not even guarded, or were guarded by troops with poor discipline and alcohol abuse problems. Journalists made a game of simply walking into motor pools and photographing hundreds of T-72s.
>>29586876
I u derstand your reasoning but when it comes to stuff like transmissions y'all are talking from a personal car point of view. Sure no Abrams wil run on a F350 trans right off the shelf. But you forget that the US produces much bigger stronger vehicles. Yeah a modern tank may not work with a rrgular ford trans but what about the transmission of some big ass Deere tractor? Some hige Caterpillar?
>>29589777
The war will probably continue even after we let fly.
>>29590532
The Allison trans in an Abrams could be manufactured fairly easily and quickly by almost any company that can manufacture anything requiring cast and machined parts. It would be infinitely easier to provide a bunch of companies(Cat, Komat'su, Deer, Ford, GM, Chrysler, hell, anyone with a foundry and machines, just to name a few) the tooling or tooling specs and to tell them to build it than it would to adapt commercially available transmissions to the Abrams. At a guess, the Abrams transmission could probably be tooled up for and in serial production at 20+ sites in America within months. The engine would be the tricky bit, but then, GE, Allison, Honeywell, Pratt and Whitney, and probably others I'm not thinking of could all make them given a short time to adapt.
>>29590605
Thats exactly what I was talking about. Mechanical stuff like engines and transmissions and even bare hulls and turrets are no rocket science. Yeah they sure would have to cut some of the electronics, perhaps even more than some for a WW3 Abrams but the mechanical stuff alone could be made by anyone who makes similar stuff today.
>>29587681
What this guy said. The US already has [big numbers here] of ships, planes, tanks, and other salvageable pieces of equipment its can throw into a fight. Tank for instance, the M1 Abrams tank. Operationally there are only 3000 thousand or so, but there are another 5-6000 of them sitting around in motorpools, warstock, or boneyards. A competent maintenance team with bear minimums can take a Abrams hull and turn it into a fully functional tank in a month. I've seen it happen. The same can be said for the "off the books" carriers and stuff we got.
>>29590647
We've managed to un-mothball world war two battleships before. I assume we can do so again.
>>29586565
>annex mexico
>annex canada to get that faggot out of office
It is now made in tbe United States of America and it's territories
>>29590670
>>29590647
I dont think you guys have a clue what ships we actually still have and which ones were already scrapped
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_reserve_fleets#Bremerton
One single carrier for example
>>29589129
anything that has been mothballed since WW2 is useless now
>>29590671
Notabadidea/10
>>29590230
Did...did they leave a shitton of ERA just lying out on those tanks?
Aren't those bricks high explosives? They don't dispose of them,, they just leave them out to rust?
What the shit, Russia?
Most people here assume that a WWIII would happen suddenly, like tomorrow without warning. This would not be the case. Big wars like these do announce themselves way before.
It's a common misconception, that the attack on Poland in '39 was a "surprise" to all. They all did know about the massive troop movements to the east, but didn't want to see that an attack might happen.
Same with germanys re armament. Militaries around the world knew that the so called "Großtraktor" was a tank, but they pushed it aside.
Nowadays we know ever bigger troop movement as soon as it happens. Do you guys really think that a country who is still at peace time readiness could mobilize without us knowing?
If that happens we could easily start changing to wartime production.
The western production capabilities are fucking scary. The US and EU alone have half the worlds GDP.
However would the tech be the same as our peace time models?
Fucking no, but they don't have to. Nowadays we put every thing in our equipment we can. The GTK Boxer has a toilet(!) for fucks sake!
We could cut some things and thus cut cost too.
But in the end if an industrial assembly line doesn't need changing if it's set up and it'll crank out stuff until shut down or destroyed.
>>29588108
Do you know when German Production in WWII peaked? Yes It was '44 when the bombing was strongest. You don't need a roof to produce a fucking tank.
>>29588276
>>29588475
Not so sure about that. If your country, or an ally is going to be attacked (i.e. you are not the aggressor) Public opinion is much different from a low intensity conflict like Vietnam or Iraq.
Look at the UK in '40 for example.
It's entirely different if you are attacked or not.
>>29586396
That last part jives me a bit because the US tossed all those filthy Chinks in that internment camp and took their land because they MIGHT not be loyal enough.
>>29591830
1. Its not Russia, its Ukraine
2. ERA block =/= ERA block case
>>29586418
Yeah, that's the reasoning behind the f35. Only gonna need 1
>>29590776
They probably weren't dumb enough to mothball tech that hasn't been around for a while. Also probably run inventory every few years to toss out the crap
>>29589703
>supra-empire
[bov intensifies]
>>29588290
You can't ensure air superiority with such powerful AA's. The Ruskies does too have airplanes and they will knock enemy jets from the sky as long as they can produce missiles. As an Air Force major said "As long as they have missiles, they'll knock us down". The logic to use high-quality jets like F-35 and F-22 (which aren't really that high-quality) against an enemy that bases on asymmetrical warfare is heavily flawed.
>>29585806
making tanks back in ww2 was the equiv of making ford mustangs and I don't mean the planes
it takes a 3 month period for a single tank to roll out of a factory fresh, half of the resources are on hold and reserved
we cannot fully arm every tank we have at the moment
we've still got loads of M103's etc
>>29585827
The US has more modern MBTs sitting in a fucking desert than the entire Russia, Chinese and Indian militaries have in shitty old Warsaw Pact models. The only problem is that they are JP-8 fueled and left to sit there so you'd have to refurbish them and hope you can fuel them all.
US logistics are the best in the world, without a doubt infact, but there's still no legitimate war since Vietnam, regardless of what you consider Iraq. We have no idea how the US supply lines would hold up in a proper full on military scenario where the opponents aren't using 40 year old tanks and planes.
But it'll never happen until total economic collapse of the US so probably not within our lifetime.
Shit's just too complicated now to mass produce during war time. Think Germany in WW2 and how their factories were constantly getting bombed so they have to ghetto rig alot of their newer shit and pray it didn't collapse, even with relatively simple parts.
That's the theatre of war that would take place.
I'd personally expect tech to be reigned back a couple of generations, possibly back to 1960s levels of shit, because then you could just use a truck engine for a T-55 level tank and there's dozens of over the counter range finders, night vision and IR cameras that could be installed in a modern version and give it better mission parameters and ability to the old models.
The problem with modern stuff is it's too specialised for the majority. You'd do fine for transport, logistical trucks and such but for tanks, APCs and so on, they are made in specific facilities now because they have complicated fabrication and manufacturing involved that's way too hard to do in a car plant.
>>29592054
You forgot to add that we passed a bill to make more
>>29592054
By 2020, the Russians would have around 2,300 T14s while the US has only around 1,174 M1A2s (and a whole load of obsolete M1A1s).
>>29592132
>thinks that Russia will produce 2300 T-14s
You are delusional. If they were going to do that, they'd have done it with the T-90. Russia couldn't afford to even mass produce that while India footed the bill and NOONE else is touching Armatas at this moment so it's all on Russia, while they only just made a laser range finder system for it after using Thales models for the past 10 years.
>>29592132
That implies America wouldn't build more in the meantime.
>>29592154
>they'd have done it with the T-90
A total of around 2000 built. Thats mass production.
>>29592173
Yes and that was over 25 years and due to Indian pressure for them.
Russia didn't make 2000 for themselves.
>>29592132
They'll need them if they wanna get the rest of Ukraine
>>29592184
Implying there is a difference.
What if we just mass produce drones?
Send formations of 1,000 Predators around. Predator clouds.
>>29592154
Why would you need 2k of T-90s when you're putting out 300 modernized T-72B3s at anual rate?
The assembly lines are in place. The rearmament contracts have been paid for in advance. Completely nothing stops Russia from mass producing 500 T-14s a year. If the US has given up on new armor procurement in favor of jets and drones it doesn't mean the rest of the world did too.
>>29592212
>implying the b3 is any good after its horrific performance in Ukraine and getting shown up by ancient designs at their own tank biathlon
Tanks are really not that expensive, and labor costs in russia are a fraction of that of the US
>>29592224
> its horrific performance in Ukraine
What performance?
>getting shown up
Russia won both biatlons.
Besides, i do not even know why i argue with a person who mentioned "thales laser rangefinders".
>>29592154
>You are delusional. If they were going to do that, they'd have done it with the T-90.
Thats because the T-90 was always meant to be a stopgap while waiting for the 4th generation MBT.
They already done fucked with 4 concurrent lines of MBT that are of the same generation and similar capability, they aren't that rich enough to afford such a mistake again.
But still, as a stopgap it has done remarkably well for itself.
Its considerable export success is not easy to replicate- its Western counterparts had to resort to either selling 2nd-hand/3rd-hand tanks on the cheap or outright giving the customer money to buy tanks.
>>29592161
It won't. The Pentagon is cutting contracts with General Dynamics and BAE because 'lol tanks are obsolete'
>"The reality of it is we've already started shutting down," manufacturing executive Alice Conner informed the Washington Post. "If BAE does not get any new Bradley funding — or win new work from commercial firms or foreign governments, it will close the line in 2015."
>In another defense spending casualty, General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), which builds M1 Abrams tanks — the most powerful tank in the world — is scaling down its Lima, Ohio factory. Over the past decade, the contractor's workforce has been slashed from over 1,200 to some 500 today.
>The Army simply doesn't see the need for more tanks. Speaking before Congress in 2012, General Raymond Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, put it as simply as possible: "We don't need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We're in good shape, and these are additional tanks that we don't need."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-the-tank-the-army-says-it-doesnt-need-it-but-industry-wants-to-keep-building-it/2014/01/31/c11e5ee0-60f0-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html
http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/21st-century-warfare-renders-the-tank-obsolete/5017
>>29592224
People like to talk shit about the B3 but its actually a really dangerous customer.
Costing just about $200k(thats with all domestic stuff so there is no adjustment) which is like the cost of just refurbishing Western tanks, it gives you a tank with basic network capabilities, night-fighting capability, better mobility, better serviceablity and of course, much deadlier armament and armor. The night-fighting capability and better firepower and armor means it is a match in a fight for Leo 2A4s and M1A1s, which are the bulk of Western tank numbers, with comparably skilled crews of course. The night fighting capability and networking capability alone ensures T-72B3s in the hands of skilled users can put up fierce resistance against even the latest Western tnks. It is not like the crap T-72 excuses Saddam had that just could not stand a chance evn if crewed by Wittmanskis.
>>29592154
>India footed the bill and NOONE else is touching Armatas
First off, Armata isn't meant for export until UVZ fulfills immediate domestic need in new generation MBTs. Secondly, international funding of military equipment is hardly ever relevant for its commissioning domestically. Being born and raised in the background of F-35 procurement tragicomedy you were probably led to believe that no national defense project can survive without foreign orders, corporate fraud, overdue deadlines and mounting volumes of terminal flaws. I assure you it doesn't have to be like that. It's only large multinational programs that always bound to fail.
>>29592368
I haven't seen any sources that suggest that the B3's protection is any better than T-72 Obr 89. It's still the T-72B armor underneath Kontakt-5.
The reason that the B3 upgrade is so cheap is that the parts upgraded/replaces are the easily removable ones; the sight, the gun, the power pack, and the computers. Shit gets expensive when you try start to open up the turret and replace the sandwiched armor modules.
>>29587639
A war with China is unlikely to involve nuclear weapons for quite a while.
>>29585806
Now here's a good question: If Russia was being invaded/human waved by the Chinese, and they absolutely could not stop them conventionally (we'll pretend that they aren't ballsy enough to use nukes even though I have no doubts they would), do you think they would scorched earth their entire country before they asked NATO for help?
>>29592359
>Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now.
ULTRA bullshit. Only of you count any 55 times refurbished M1 built during the 80s as new just because it has new paint.
>>29594071
Kid, it doesn't work like this. Sheer number of troops doesn't provide you any kind of conventional advantage over white man with multiple rocket launchers, long range ballistic missiles and strategic bombers
>>29592224
>performance in Ukraine
Oh look, an actual idiot.
It's a T-72B which addresses the main flaws of the T-72: bad sights and poor ability to fire on the move. It now has a stabilizer and sights that bring it on par with a Leopard 2A4.
>>29593915
This is true.
But it's still the best T-72 upgrade in terms of cost-effectiveness.
Smart move on Russia to bring the old T-72Bs back into service.
