The United States is the world's premier military power fielding advanced equipment and superior
doctrine that no other nation can hope to match- but if World War III kicked off today,
the US would be out of combat equipment within months. This is the lesson that the Department
of Defense has learned from Russia's invasion of Ukraine- our stockpiles aren't big enough, and
all that high-tech equipment turns into a massive liability very quickly in a prolonged conflict.
Both Russia and Ukraine are feeling the squeeze after half a year of high tempo combat operations.
Russia has lost hundreds of vehicles, and it's estimated that it will take ten years just to
replace the losses in heavy equipment it's suffered so far. Ukraine is burning through
3,000 artillery shells a day, with Russia using up an estimated 20,000 shells a day.
Both sides have already burned through their initial supply stocks. Ukraine has had half
a million shells provided by NATO countries to suplement their stockpiles, meanwhile Russia has
had to dip into its reserves not allocated or expected to be used in this conflict,
putting it in a perilous position and forcing it to turn to North Korea for resupply. But
the hermit kingdom is unlikely to supply much past a few weeks worth of ammunition,
as it too has a great need for vast reserves of artillery- the only weapon
with which it can effectively threaten South Korea and its American allies.
Modern war consumes hardware and ammunition at truly frightening rates, especially when
peer or near-peer adversaries are facing off against each other. In the 1973 Yom-Kippur War,
Israel lost 400 of its 1700 tank stockpile, losing an average of 1.1% of its entire tank force every
single day of combat. The Arab forces fared far worse, losing up to 2300 tanks, or a whopping 63%
of their tank force in just 20 days of fighting. During the battle of Kursk in World War 2, Germany
lost 14 percent of its tank forces every single day over two weeks, forcing it to call in reserves
and ultimately losing 10 percent over the initial force. On the American side, the average infantry
battalion lost 2.6 percent of its men every day, requiring intense and continued resupply.
But in a modern global war, replacing manpower is infinitely cheaper than replacing hardware.
The United States today fields 11 armored brigade combat teams, each with approximately 87 Abrams,
most of them upgraded to the latest variant. Assuming a loss of just 1% per day, 9.57 Abrams
would be destroyed, abandoned, received enough battle damage to require repair back home,
or captured by the enemy. By the second month of high intensity combat ops,
the US Army would be down to half of its original tank forces, requiring it to dip
into its reserve of 2300 Abrams. That might sound like a significant number that should
see the US through a lengthy engagement, but most of these tanks are very old models hailing
back from the late Cold War. With smaller cannons, antiquated fire control, and less capable armor,
these Abrams would not have the capability of modern variants. The only bright side is
that the enemy would likely be seeing severe attrition as well, thus these old abrams would
likely be facing equally old threats such as the T-72s, leveling the playing field a bit.
Currently, the US Army only has plans to produce 22 brand new tanks in the fiscal year of 2023,
with 30 being produced in 2024, and 53 in 2025. The reason for these dismal figures is twofold.
First, the US Army is still busy upgrading active Abrams to the latest SEP package (just
say it sep). Secondly, the Army is having to make some hard choices on production of new
hardware versus funding new technologies needed to maintain America's unparalleled edge in combat.
The rate of technology acquisition is vastly outstripping our ability to manufacture hardware,
and when it comes to modern war there's nothing worse than showing up to today's fight in
yesterday's tank. Just ask the Russians, who are now being forced to show up not in
yesterday's tank, but last month's tank. But it's not just the swiftly evolving nature of technology
that's a problem, it's that all that tech is incredibly expensive. Adjusted for inflation,
a M48 Patton, America's first generation main battle tank, cost $2.8 million to produce back
in World War II. Meanwhile, a fully modern Abrams costs nearly four times as much at $9
million. In the second world war, it would take $252 million to fully equip a modern-equivalent
Armored Brigade Combat Team, while today it takes $810 million. Even the United State's
massive defense budget can't support that type of spending for a long time.
And this is only tanks, because the US Army has a plethora of other big ticket items
needed for it to maintain its unchallenged domination of the battlefield. The vaunted
Apache attack helicopter costs over $30 million a unit, and even the average infantry soldier
is now equipped with anywhere between 10 and 18 thousand dollars worth of high tech gear.
If the Army wants to continue being the most technologically advanced force in the world,
it needs to make sacrifices in order to fund new technologies- and that means dramatically slashing
the physical production of hardware in favor of research and development costs for tomorrow's war.
But that leaves the United States in serious risk of
not having enough equipment to fight today's war.
The Department of Defense predicts that it can ramp up production on modern Abrams to
about 20 a month if it needed to, which is a great improvement over today's dismal annual
figures. However, that means that it can only replace about two days worth of combat losses
every single month. It doesn't take long to figure out that after three to four months
of hard fighting, the primary vehicle of the US Army is not going to be the tank,
but rather much cheaper to produce gun trucks and the like.
In 2018, the Army asked Congress for extra money to buy 150,000 artillery shells in order to be
prepared for high intensity combat ops. As Ukraine has taught us all by now, that number is absurdly
low, forcing the Department of Defense to question just how many bombs, missiles, and shells it
really needs to keep on supply at all times. With nearly a million shells given to Ukraine so far,
US reserves are starting to wane, and artillery shells aren't things you can just keep on a
shelf indefinitely. While they are infinitely simpler than say a precision guided missile,
a 155mm shell still only has a shelf life of about 20 years. That means that all of
our vast reserves from the Cold War when we were prepared to fight a true high intensity
conflict are all gone by now, along with the industrial capacity to replace them.
And that's America's biggest problem in waging another high intensity war- we can't build things
anymore. In 1993, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the White House had a famous 'last supper'
with representatives from dozens of different major defense contractors. The messaged relayed
to them was simple: half of you are going to go out of business. Sure enough, over the next
five years the defense industry was forced to consolidate, with a huge amount of mergers and
some contractors simply going out of business entirely. All those mergers meant factories
were also being shut down, and eventually sold off or torn down for the real estate.
Restarting wartime production isn't as simple as just re-opening old factories that simply don't
exist anymore, nor as easy as simply expanding production at the factories that do remain. Back
in World War II automobile manufacturers were able to switch from making cars to making tanks
with only moderate difficulties. Today's tanks however are far more technologically advanced,
requiring not just specialized tools to build them, but highly trained and educated individuals
as well. Rosey the Riveter won't be showing up to a Ford factory today to build an Abrams,
though five months later she may indeed be welding armor plates to Ford pickup
trucks because that's the only vehicle the US can rush out to combat troops in dire need.
To further add to US difficulties, consolidation of the defense industry has led to many single
points of failure in its acquisitions chain. For example, only a single contractor provides
electronic screens for US aircraft, and only a single company can repair the Navy's propellers.
This leaves the US extremely vulnerable to disruption due to attacks or sabotage.
So if we know that the US is not ready for a high intensity war, why don't we just invest
in increased manufacturing capability now in case we need it tomorrow? The problem with this is that
the US government does not like to spend money that doesn't see an immediate return. Building a
new tank plant that's just going to be mothballed until a major war starts will cost billions,
and not see any return on that investment until a major war actually happens. Instead,
the US government would prefer to put that money to direct use by funding new technology
or upgrading old equipment. Empty factories are expensive and require high maintenance costs,
but we get nothing out of it in return- until we absolutely
need it. It's a risk/reward ratio that's highly dis favorable for the US military.
The US isn't completely doomed however, as these severe rates of attrition are
only applicable in peer or near-peer conflicts. The force that does exist today is so extremely
capable that it might never suffer such extreme losses. During Desert Storm,
the US and its allies faced the world's 4th largest military, with one of the densest air
defense networks in the world. But revolutionary technologies such as GPS and precision guided
munitions allowed America to absolutely rout the Iraqi military at a cost that's frankly,
absurdly small. The entire coalition suffered only 31 tanks destroyed or disabled, while Iraq had
3,300 tanks destroyed. US military superiority carried the day, inflicting such an incredible
defeat on a Soviet-trained and equipped military that the Soviet Union and China both immediately
threw their old war plans out the window and rushed to develop new ones to counter the US.
Ten years later during the second invasion of Iraq, the US was able to decimate the Iraqi
military with only 5 divisions, a figure that nearly everyone at the department of defense
warned would lead to battlefield catastrophe. However, once again advancement in technology
had made smaller, nimble US forces far superior to even greater Iraqi numbers.
Today the only near-peer opponent the US faces is China, and while China is shaping up to be a
capable foe, it's still unknown just how well China would fare in modern war. It's last war
was in the 1970s against Vietnam, and it lost that conflict. If the US’ doctrinal
and technological edge holds, then perhaps there is no need for vast amounts of equipment
reserves. The fact that America enjoys a whole host of global allies and partners
also means that in any major conflict, it's going to bring a lot of friends to the fight,
while its opponent will struggle to find any. Perhaps we've finally seen the end of major
conflicts due to America's massive edge and a largely united world order- but if we haven't,
the United States risks fighting World War III in gun trucks and other low-tech solutions
that might spell disaster. As it stands, that disaster is more likely than ever.
Now go watch How US Lost The Hypersonic Missile War or click this other video instead.