Com-Central.net

SHAWN · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 31, 2006 Posts: 484

I feel like I am asking a loaded question here, considering all that the auto industry did and achieved during the last world war, if faced with a third world war could the U.S. auto industry achieve the same?
(the more things change the more they stay the same)...
I never studied business and all, I have no idea how closely tied to the foreign market the US market was prior to WW2. I have only studied political history. I dont think that it was as tightly woven to the foreign markets as it is today.
Talking tanks, afv's, apc's, ifv's, abc's, pdq's, sop's, icup's, all wheels and tracks, could we produce?
S

Neil_Baumgardner

Could the auto industry be converted to some war production - almost certainly yes, I would say. Although it would more likely be able to build trucks, and other tactical wheeled vehicles - rather than bombers, etc like back then... Actually Senator Dodd just recommended that DoD involve the auto industry more...

Part of the "problem" is that the auto industry divested/seperated itself from defense a few decades ago. GM's defense business basically went away when it lost the XM1 contract, and Chrysler sold off its tank business to General Dynamics...

Neil

MarkHolloway

I doubt Detroit could even build a car from the ground up without foreign help. The electronics are probably made in China anymore. We (US) would be in deep doodoo in WW3 because all of the weapon systems and vehicles have electronics in them and I don't think they make them here anymore. They might assemble them here but using foreign components.

Kurt_Laughlin · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 577

The decisions as to what's made/not made here is are the result of choice, not ability.

People generally start off these discussions with implicit or explicit assumption that the US is doomed because we don't make anything any more. The premise is that we could not repeat WW II because everything is gone. Folks forget/ignore the fact that almost none of the military infrastucture from 1945 existed in 1940. It was all built from scratch, from the equipment, to the factories, to the machine tools. Facilities for basic materials were there, but there's no way we could've kept up with the 1940 steel, aluminum, petrochemical, or power plants. Much of this expansion was built from scratch as well. Given enough time and money you can make virtually anything - which was exactly what happened in WW II.

Aha, the discussions go, we are still doomed because it will take too long to build up the infrastucture - we'll have lost it all by then. The fact is, if we don't have enough time to build up as we did in WW II, we wouldn't have enough time to start production from "cold" plants and field armies, navies, and air forces anyway, even if they were already in place. And what about troops? How long to get the crews of these expanded fleets ready to use them?

There's really two scenarios: Either we'll have enough time, in which a total war mobilization would be perfectly reasonable to expect, or we don't have enough time, in which case our percieved inability to mobilize doesn't matter anyway.

KL

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big