Total Warmaking Potential

[Bertie Wooster]

I was reading the thread in OT speculating whether or not the Axis could have won WWII, and Sea Skimmer brought up an interesting term called "Total Warmaking Potential."

1)Is this basically the maxim which says that in a war the nation that produces the most steel will win? Or does T.W.P. take into account soldier-age population, nukes, technological factors, and intel?

2) In terms of 21st century global security and military strategy, what are the world rankings of T.W.P., especially considering that manufacturing capability and quality in the U.S. has been in decline since the early 1960s?

[Darth Wong]

Could you explain how you came to your conclusion that manufacturing capability and quality have been declining in the US since the 1960s?

[Nathan F]

I would like to know that, too. Our total number of military industrial facilities might have decreased, but that doesn't mean our production capability has been decreased. New production techniques and technologies allow some factories to do in one facility what it used to take to do in five. Then you must consider the fact that we have literally thousands of pieces military equipment mothballed ready to be refitted and put into use.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Perhaps he means the general decrease in industry over the years, at least in the UK industry has taken a back seat to service and logistics what with cheaper production abroad.

[Axis Kast]

He's referring to general "heavy" industries.

An excellent example of the downgrade would be the closing of the General Motors tank works in Detroit and the end of the Brooklyn and Philadelphia Navy Yards.

This point is however moot, considering "potential" would also take into account our ability to reopen such facilities (or, instead, expand existing ones) if the need became pressing. His own calculation negates the need to address the issue because of our preeminence in other sectors.

[phongn]

I was reading the thread in OT speculating whether or not the Axis could have won WWII, and Sea Skimmer brought up an interesting term called "Total Warmaking Potential."

1)Is this basically the maxim which says that in a war the nation that produces the most steel will win? Or does T.W.P. take into account soldier-age population, nukes, technological factors, and intel?

TWP is essentially heavy industrial production. With the relatively close technology levels for the major world militaries in WW2, that was the important part since you needed to crank out massive numbers of all sorts of vehicles.

[Bertie Wooster]

In response to Darth Wong's question, I came to the conclusion about u.s. industry capability decreasing since the 1960s because starting in the 1950s American business were turning away from manufactering to service. At some point in the 1950s, the number of persons engaged in in goods-producing activities fell below the 50% mark of the civilian labor force. By 1962, it was down to 42 % of workers. From 1964 to 1973, there was a drastic increase in of government regulatory power with new agencies created like the EPA, OSHA, and the Consumer Product safety commisson, because middle-class america wanted more regulation. Also starting in the 1960s, U.S. industry was losing and eventually dislodged from its dominance in the world market because it had to begin competing with German and japanese products. U.S. business blamed their decline in profits on increased regulation which I think was innacurate - Germany and Japan were beginning to kick ass in producing superior goods. In the 1970s u.s. industry decided not to re-invest or reinvigorate themselves, but to increase profits and avoid competition head on. They wanted tax-breaks and to be able to invest in easy profits such as financial manipulations, junk bonds, and futures. Mergers and acquisitions became more common as was zapping labor. The hollowing out of american industry had begun. Profits were revived in the 1980s (which is all what american businesses cared about by this point.) It was in the 1980s that I would say the manufactering abilities of the U.S. became limited because of these trends. U.S. firms were pursuing profits to reinvest away from production, moving investments and manufactering overseas, and selling away/licensing technology to foreign competitors who had not yet developed those techs. Reagen's economic policy was a big factor in why u.s. firms moved manufactering and production overseas because they did not have to pay tariffs to import them into the U.S. General Electric became the largest importer into the U.S. from Taiwan. As U.S. investment in industry shifted overseas, investment in and joint ventures with foreign firms became more predominant, as well as trading technology for stock were also common by this point. The production in the U.S. was dropping, and emphasis was placed on financing and since anti-trust laws were ended in the 1980s, the largest mergers took place, and the speculative market prospered.
So I'm pessimistic about U.S. industrial capability in the 21st century, and therefore believe that the U.S. warmaking ability as a world percentage has decreased since the 1950s.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Ow, my eyes! Big, bad blocks of text make English students mad.

Anyway, the amount of hardware is not what really matters anymore, it's how effective it is pound-for-pound and how flexible you are at deploying it. Look at China for instance, bloody massive standing army yet it can't really do anything unless some poor sod decides to start a land war in Asia.

I think raw numbers of just how much your war factories can churn out isn't a good indication of effective warring capability.

[Sea Skimmer]

1)Is this basically the maxim which says that in a war the nation that produces the most steel will win? Or does T.W.P. take into account soldier-age population, nukes, technological factors, and intel

It also factors in transportation and a few other assets with direct military applications; it's not quite the same as Industrial Potential though the two are generally very close.

2) In terms of 21st century global security and military strategy, what are the world rankings of T.W.P., especially considering that manufacturing capability and quality in the U.S. has been in decline since the early 1960s?

Quality has without question gone up, volume has gone down but that's really irrelevant the nations ability to make war these days. Weapons have become so lethal, capable and as a result expensive that it is not the production line that wins the war it is what is in the arsenals when the shooting starts. The disparities in technology and training are also far greater.