US modern ability to mass produce tanks

[Guy w/gun]

With all this talk about Abrams, Leopards, T80s and such, I've been thinking about what the US would do if we really went to all out war. I mean total war, one that would call for the economy to go into "war mode" like it did during WWII.

Would the US be able to mass produce Abrams? They seem pretty sophisticated. I don't think it would be possible just to place an order to GM, Ford, or Chrysler for 20,000 M1A1s.

I realize that this ultra-sophistication would ultimatly lead to better tank and crew survivability. But what if we fought an opponent that could mass produce lower tech tanks, like the Leopard 1 or T72/80/90 series? I have this funny feeling we'd be like late war Germany - superior tanks but so sophisticated that they are unproducable in mass quantities.

This doesn't have to be the US either. It could be Britain, Germany, whoever has a sophisticated main battle tank.

I'm probably thinking the wrong way, like from a WWII stand point. Tanks aren't the only AFVs that can take out other tanks. Heck, AFVs don't even have to kill tanks.

[Stalins Organ]

I doubt that any nation can readily gear up to replace thousands of modern MBT's, assuming any war lasts long enough to need them!

The emphasis on 1st shot = kill these days makes me think that the losing side will have its front line units completely wiped out pretty quickly and not nearly enough time to do anything about it.

Not to mention that traiing the crews will take a wee while too!!

But if it should happen then IMO the Russians would have a significant advantage in that they don't seem to throw anythign away - so wehn the T-80's are destroyed they'll roll out a few thousand old T-72's, and when they go T-62's, then T55's and T10's, then T34/85's, and then CM2 will be useable for modern warfare!!

BTW I know about the US aircraft parks - do they do anything like that for old MBT's? I mean M-60's & -48's are still tanks after all, and would be pretty useful against 2nd line Sov-era MBT's.

[hellfish]

The United States has manufactured something on the order of 8000 M-1 series tanks. I think only 2000 are actually in Active and Reserve units. The remainder, minus about 750-1000 or so sold overseas (Kuwait, Saudi, Egypt), are stored at POMCUS sites in Europe, Quatar, Kuwait, Diego Garcia, Okinawa and CONUS.

I don't have firm numbers, though. 8000 heavy tanks should keep the US going for a while, though.

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: fytinghellfish ]

[lcm1947]

Just my opinion but I really don't think tanks would last long with all the different types of aircraft we have. I think I recall that there are helo's out now that knock out tanks left and right? Not to mention other types of aircraft that would also do that.

[Guy w/gun]

Yeah, I think you guys are right. I started thinking down those lines when I finished posting. I don't know, I heard the figure on how many Abrams the US has is like 3000. Am I off? 3000 does seem like a very small amount. Especially after playing tacops and seeing what a few BMPs did to a couple of tank platoon that they ambushed.

I guess in modern times it really does matter on who gets the first shot, or in this case, ambush.

[Guy w/gun]

Wow...I was beat to the draw! Ok, so we have 8000 Abrams. And Icm is right, air power continues to be a huge thorn in a tanks side (literally ). Especially modern air power.

I remeber reading how Iraqis slept in their tanks for protection against the Iranians during their conflict. They also tried that trick in the Gulf War and found out why that isn't a good idea...the hard way.

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Guy w/gun ]

[Warmaker]

Aaah. First of all, though it was great that the Allied Coalition quickly won the Gulf War I tend to think it sent the wrong message of warfare to the public. That future warfare is going to be quick, clean (for us, supposedly), and completely one-sided. The weapon systems we(allies, don't think I'm only talking about the USA) used were perfect for desert warfare. Long range and empty expanses were perfect for missiles and optics. The fact that Hussein stopped his advance and allowed the coalition to mass itself was a huge mistake and any future Hitler-wannable WILL learn from these mistakes. By hunkering down it allowed us to pick and choose our targets. Allied air power had a field day but the real damage was done when ground troops started fighting. Don't remember any figures but when ground units engaged the Iraqis in the little time of the ground war far more casualties and destroyed AFVs were inflicted than in the total time of the air war which lasted much, much, longer.

Now, let's do the recent air campaign over Kosovo as a contrast. Forgive me also for not spitting out exact figures but NATO officials were spitting out numbers like several thousand tanks were destroyed and roughly 15k casualties inflicted on the Serbians in this air campaign. Over time, they acknowledged their figures were "overinflated." End result? Maybe about 100 tanks destroyed and 1-2k casualties(military) if even that. Why? Even with fancy satellites/reconnaisance it is much easier to hide/camouflage and fool the pilots screaming by at high speeds. All you have to do is hide from the air power and the Serbians didn't even have to worry about ground troops. Hell, they set up dummy tanks/AFVs and we blew those up. Sometimes we got a real AFV also. Regardless, we sometimes even repeatedly bombed the same, dead target and "chalked up another one for the boys!" With these deflated figures, it doesn't justify the monetary cost. The U.S. for example was dangerously low on cruise missiles for these low figures and the same can be said about other munitions. Of course, politics played a role and some politicians were afraid of ANY casualties in any sort of ground engagements. You want proof of how effective the air campaign was on military targets? Look at miscellaneous photography of "retreating" Serbian troops after the campaign. Mounting trucks, sporting a clean shave, clean uniforms, clean AK's, and above all, sporting a smile. It didn't work for Germany in the Battle of Britain, it didn't work for the British in WWII, it didn't work for America in the bombings of North Vietnam. What did they do? Surely damage/casualties was inflicted but they did not bring the morale of the people down but increased their resolve.

If you're gonna go somewhere and kill someone, you better do it right and not do it half-@$$ed with only an air campaign. Send in whatever you got for the task and don't become scared if casualties start. And above all, support your troops in such actions.

[von Lucke]

From WW2, through the Arab-Israeli Wars, up to the Gulf War, it's been a field-tested axiom that highly trained/motivated crews using state-of-the-art tanks will achieve a significantly higher kill ratio over an enemy using inferior equipment and/or doctrinal approach.

8000 M1A1/A2's should be sufficient to take out about 80000 lesser AFV's fielded by most 3rd World trouble-makers.

Now, if we ever got into a pissing match with somebody on a level with us technologically --- say the Germans, or Brits, or even (God forfend!) the Canadians --- we'd probably have a much harder time of it. If we ever went mano-a-mano with any of the above nations, an (at best) 2:1 kill ratio might be possible.

The original question is a good one. Wish I new the answer. What with the expense and complexity of modern tanks, it's hard to say what we'd run out of first: resources to build 'em, or money to pay for 'em. God knows the expense of maintaining 'em is high enough...

[Guest ckoharik]

But there is the crew factor that "Mike the bike" brought up as well. Even if, and that is a big if, the U.S. could bring production levels up to any meaningful level it would only be useful for resupplying tanks to crews who had lost theirs. Of course, with the touted survivabilty of the Abrams that could be a very significant factor in any large scale war.

[Guest Babra]

I think any nation which tried to mass-produce modern tanks on the scale of WW2 would soon find itself bankrupt.

The Vietnam conflict cost the United States an entire re-equipment cycle. The cost of that limited conflict was so high, the military could not afford scheduled upgrades and had to put them off for something like another ten years.

[Warmaker]

I prefer to have quality and reliability with equipment, despite cost. What would you have your sons fight in? A Leopard 2A5/Challenger/M1A2 or a T-55/62(both of which still can be found in many places)?

[Guest ckoharik]

Bankruptcy smankruptcy! If we had to produce equipment for a conflict on the scale of WWII then I doubt we'd be caring about the money. Our survival itself would be on the line.

[Kurtz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmaker:

Maybe about 100 tanks destroyed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the total was 15 tanks knocked out.

[Chupacabra]

In response to Warmaker -

It's perhaps true that the ground war did more damage overall to the Iraqi forces than the air war did.

But it's also true (IMO) that no nation is going to be able to win a straight set-em-up, knock-em-down war against a opponent who possesses air superiority, as the US did.

I also believe that unconventional warfare is going to become the norm rather than the exception, and that tanks and planes will become increasingly less important.

[Jeff Heidman]

The problem is not just the expense and time of replacing the tanks (not to mention all the F-15s, B-2s, F-117s, F-16Cb52, etc., etc.), it is the speed at which modern warfare consumes equipment.

With one-shot kills a reality, and the extremely lethal nature of modern weaponry, modern large scale warfare is going to be win or lose with what you have NOW, not what you can build a year or two from now.

Jeff Heidman

[Mannheim Tanker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Boxb:

Bankruptcy smankruptcy! If we had to produce equipment for a conflict on the scale of WWII then I doubt we'd be caring about the money. Our survival itself would be on the line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone still has to pay for all of those toys, though. The gov't could write out trillions of dollars in IOUs, but only at the risk of completely destalizing the economy. It's pretty clear that nobody can afford a war at the scale of WWII (in terms of intensity, land area and time). A modern war would likely have to sacrifice at least one of these factors (eg have a low intensity conflict over a long time period, or a high intensity, short conflict like in the Gulf).

[Guest ckoharik]

Yes, we would have to pay for them...eventually. War bonds, loans, subsidies, etc. would handle it in the near term. Eventually either we would lose, and not have to pay anything back, or would win, in which case we could make the other people pay for it. (Third scenario, both sides are exhausted and the world economy goes to hell.)

Now, I don't believe that if a conflict broke out on the scale of WWII that we wouldn't be trying to mass produce a super complicated piece of equipment like the M1 Abrams tanks but rather try to dumb it (or produce another, less sophisticated model) down a bit so we could produce more and less training would be required.

And I do think that a conflict on the scale of WWII is not out of the question. Yes, smaller scale, lower intensity conflicts would probably more common but a large scale, long duration war is still a very real danger. However, I do not believe that most nations have the moral fortitude to engage in such an endeavor, including the U.S., without some driving force. (i.e.: Pearl Harbor) We are just too used to having everything our way and being comfortable. That is a whole other situation that what was originally brought up.

[Mr. Johnson--]

As long as we don't piss off our allies that produce the parts for our M1 we be in good shape. Cannons from Germany. Rubber gaskets from Hondorous. LCD screens from Korea. Ball bearings from Japan. Turbine engines from Cananda. Communication equpiment from Taiwan.

America does not like manufacturing for itself anymore. American workers just ask for too many benifits and high pay. Much cheaper to build componets in 3rd world countries.

Can you say Black Berets made in China and Hatiti?

[MrWinterbottom]

Just wanted to say that I agree with Warmaker on his post. Ever since the Gulf war (Or the great propaganda war as I like to refer it as) the public have had this weird idea that all we have to do is to send in the planes and bomb the hell out of any enemy and that will be that.

Allow me to just put on record that Saddam was a *PERFECT* enemy back then. They just don't come any better than that with all his talk about rivers of blood and all that good stuff, while the landscape itself suited us perfectly as well. I mean...it was perfect.

But back to my point.. The whole idea of the "clean" air campaigns to destroy an enemy is ludicrous in my opinion. You will always need the man on the ground to go kick in the enemy's front door.

Don't get me wrong. Yes, air power is awfully nice to have. Yes, we *do* need it. But only as a part of the combined arms.

Combat support and team work... that is what it is all about. Everything else is secondary to that effort.

Allow me to quote something I read some time ago; "It is a dangerous thing when you start to believe your own bull****."

I for one think that sometimes we tend to venture a bit to far into that territory.

heh..I'll get off my soap box now.

Mr.Winterbottom

[The Commissar]

I think I'll agree with Chupacabra that most wars fought these days will be "unconventional" or simply guerrilla wars. Especially when the enemy doesnt have the economy, technology, or manpower to go toe-to-toe with some of the more powerful nations around.

Much easier to hide in the bushes until the air strike passes, pop anyone on the ground in the back of the head, and scurry off to a hiden underground bunker while beatnicks and hippys hold anti-war protests that totally demoralize the more powerful country.

[CrapGame]

I really don't believe manufacturing capability would have much of an impact in a future conflict.

If the opponent was large enough to require more MBT's, etc., than those already in place (i.e. Russia, China?), then that opponent already has more than enough technology and firepower to prevent the US from getting those wonderfully new, mass-produced AFVs across the pond to wherever the conflict may be throught the use of sub-launched or air-launched cruise missiles. This is on top of the already diminished capability of the shrinking US Merchant Fleet.

This is not attacking the effectiveness of the US Navy, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that even a slew of Aegis systems can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of low-tech (and very cheaply made)cruise missiles.

[JunoReactor]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

As long as we don't piss off our allies that produce the parts for our M1 we be in good shape. Cannons from Germany. Rubber gaskets from Hondorous. LCD screens from Korea. Ball bearings from Japan. Turbine engines from Cananda. Communication equpiment from Taiwan.

America does not like manufacturing for itself anymore. American workers just ask for too many benifits and high pay. Much cheaper to build componets in 3rd world countries.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice point, except that none of the countries you mentioned are of the 3rd world. (except, erm, Hondorous, but I dont think thats a country.)

[Guy w/gun]

Nice discussion so far. I agree with you guys. Air power alone isn't enough. No matter what, it always comes down to Guys w/guns .

I wonder if all this means we've seen the last of huge scale conflicts. Wishful thinking! Though it does seem that even the most powerful nations on the planet can only sustain even "police actions" in small bursts.

If lack of sufficient capital becomes the slayer of warefare, more power to it. It would be kinda cool to think that large scale warfare has become "too expensive". You know, I wonder what someone from 40 years would say ago if we told them that in the year 2001, conventional (as opposed to nuclear) warfare is still alive and well.

[Gyrene]

Ever since the Gulf war (Or the great propaganda war as I like to refer it as) the public have had this weird idea that all we have to do is to send in the planes and bomb the hell out of any enemy and that will be that.

That's not exactly a new concept (Misconception?) The US/Allies got caught with their pants down in Korea in 1950, just 5 years after the war because of the same line of thinking. "Let the Air Force handle them"

Its a sad fact, but its a scenario that's bound to be repeated a couple more times.

As for the Russians/Chinese/Whomever having 80,000 million tanks (Exaggeration ), it does them little good aside from attacking their direct neighbors. Neither one, esp. China, has the logistic ability to make a major war effort very far away from their own borders.

The ability of the Allies to completely pick apart any invading convoy is undisputable.

But, as mentioned before, odds are most modern conflicts will be the low intensity type, as evidenced by the creation of the US's 4th branch of the military, SOCOM. (Coast Guard doesn't count )

Gyrene

[Hilhil45]

About mass producing. We wouldn't need to produce too many. We have the most powerful tank. Plus the only country worth fighting right now is China. They use the same tanks the russians do. Iraq used those same tanks in the Gulf War. We still massacred them. :cool: