Mixing
Feasibility of “in situ†ammunition production and salvage
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In a (relatively) near future setting, several factions scramble to militarize as civil unrest on their planet turns into civil war. Factories are reprogrammed and prototypes sent to the front, guns blazing, in an effort to preempt the opposition. Without a large stockpile of ammunitions, however, those guns are about to run dry. How do we prevent that?
Background
A typical "heavy armor company" consists of 3-5 large vehicles (for the sake of this question, let's say two main battle tanks, one heavy artillery and a recon aircraft) with an individual mass of up to 120 tons, supported by a convoy of transport and engineering vehicles, a few drones, power armored infantry and lots of support personnel.
The company has the ability to perform extensive repairs and/or modifications, provided that spare parts are available. Anything but minor repairs requires a hangar and some stationary equipment (think airliner maintenance). However, vehicles can be refueled and rearmed in the field, if necessary.
New vehicles, weapons and spare parts are made in large factories and sent to the front via convoy. However, since production cannot keep up with losses, most companies rely in part on field salvage and black market trade to remain operational. Vehicles are fairly modular, so removing e.g. a capacitor bank from a wrecked tank and installing it in your own is possible.
In a pitched battle, a single vehicle can use up to five or six tons of ammunition, hopefully taking out multiple targets in the process.
Factors that make ammunition more scarce:
- This society is already pretty good at making (civilian) vehicles. They've just started producing weapons and ammunition on a relevant scale.
- Point defenses and active protection systems are very common, so a sigle shell or missile is likely to be deflected. To stop a tank, you fire volleys.
My Question
Considering the above circumstances, would it make sense to salvage and/or produce ammunition between battles or does a company have to rely entirely on supplies delivered from the factories? Would it at least be feasible to re-produce simpler ammunition types (e.g. railgun projectiles)?
reality-check warfare logistics
asked 1 hour ago
Ruther Rendommeleigh
21115
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In a (relatively) near future setting, several factions scramble to militarize as civil unrest on their planet turns into civil war. Factories are reprogrammed and prototypes sent to the front, guns blazing, in an effort to preempt the opposition. Without a large stockpile of ammunitions, however, those guns are about to run dry. How do we prevent that?
Background
A typical "heavy armor company" consists of 3-5 large vehicles (for the sake of this question, let's say two main battle tanks, one heavy artillery and a recon aircraft) with an individual mass of up to 120 tons, supported by a convoy of transport and engineering vehicles, a few drones, power armored infantry and lots of support personnel.
The company has the ability to perform extensive repairs and/or modifications, provided that spare parts are available. Anything but minor repairs requires a hangar and some stationary equipment (think airliner maintenance). However, vehicles can be refueled and rearmed in the field, if necessary.
New vehicles, weapons and spare parts are made in large factories and sent to the front via convoy. However, since production cannot keep up with losses, most companies rely in part on field salvage and black market trade to remain operational. Vehicles are fairly modular, so removing e.g. a capacitor bank from a wrecked tank and installing it in your own is possible.
In a pitched battle, a single vehicle can use up to five or six tons of ammunition, hopefully taking out multiple targets in the process.
Factors that make ammunition more scarce:
- This society is already pretty good at making (civilian) vehicles. They've just started producing weapons and ammunition on a relevant scale.
- Point defenses and active protection systems are very common, so a sigle shell or missile is likely to be deflected. To stop a tank, you fire volleys.
My Question
Considering the above circumstances, would it make sense to salvage and/or produce ammunition between battles or does a company have to rely entirely on supplies delivered from the factories? Would it at least be feasible to re-produce simpler ammunition types (e.g. railgun projectiles)?
reality-check warfare logistics
asked 1 hour ago
Ruther Rendommeleigh
21115
1
It is a lot easier to make ammunition than a tank. I would think that you'd run out of tanks before you'd run out of ammunition, at least from the industrial output point of view. On the other hand, ammunition has to be shipped to the tanks, so it is the transportation of ammunition from the industrial base to the units in the field that is the weak link. You should reframe your question to just say: Supplies have been cut off, what can you do in the field?
– kingledion
1 hour ago
This question seems to have a big XY Problem component - the real question seems to be about how to reduce the logistical needs of a heavily-mechanized fighting force. The usual answer is not to reduce ammunition, but instead to reduce support troop requirements - simple repairs done by crew instead of mechanics, replacing cooks with pre-packaged meals, etc.
– user535733
1 hour ago
Four MBTs and a cannon is a platoon. Four platoons + support vehicles are a company. And aircraft are sufficiently different that they're always in separate units.
– RonJohn
46 mins ago
"Civil unrest on their planet turns into civil war." that implies a One World Government.
– RonJohn
26 mins ago
@TCAT117 I think you give the best answers for questions like this.
– Renan
23 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In a (relatively) near future setting, several factions scramble to militarize as civil unrest on their planet turns into civil war. Factories are reprogrammed and prototypes sent to the front, guns blazing, in an effort to preempt the opposition. Without a large stockpile of ammunitions, however, those guns are about to run dry. How do we prevent that?
Background
A typical "heavy armor company" consists of 3-5 large vehicles (for the sake of this question, let's say two main battle tanks, one heavy artillery and a recon aircraft) with an individual mass of up to 120 tons, supported by a convoy of transport and engineering vehicles, a few drones, power armored infantry and lots of support personnel.
The company has the ability to perform extensive repairs and/or modifications, provided that spare parts are available. Anything but minor repairs requires a hangar and some stationary equipment (think airliner maintenance). However, vehicles can be refueled and rearmed in the field, if necessary.
New vehicles, weapons and spare parts are made in large factories and sent to the front via convoy. However, since production cannot keep up with losses, most companies rely in part on field salvage and black market trade to remain operational. Vehicles are fairly modular, so removing e.g. a capacitor bank from a wrecked tank and installing it in your own is possible.
In a pitched battle, a single vehicle can use up to five or six tons of ammunition, hopefully taking out multiple targets in the process.
Factors that make ammunition more scarce:
- This society is already pretty good at making (civilian) vehicles. They've just started producing weapons and ammunition on a relevant scale.
- Point defenses and active protection systems are very common, so a sigle shell or missile is likely to be deflected. To stop a tank, you fire volleys.
My Question
Considering the above circumstances, would it make sense to salvage and/or produce ammunition between battles or does a company have to rely entirely on supplies delivered from the factories? Would it at least be feasible to re-produce simpler ammunition types (e.g. railgun projectiles)?
reality-check warfare logistics
asked 1 hour ago
Ruther Rendommeleigh
21115
In a (relatively) near future setting, several factions scramble to militarize as civil unrest on their planet turns into civil war. Factories are reprogrammed and prototypes sent to the front, guns blazing, in an effort to preempt the opposition. Without a large stockpile of ammunitions, however, those guns are about to run dry. How do we prevent that?
Background
A typical "heavy armor company" consists of 3-5 large vehicles (for the sake of this question, let's say two main battle tanks, one heavy artillery and a recon aircraft) with an individual mass of up to 120 tons, supported by a convoy of transport and engineering vehicles, a few drones, power armored infantry and lots of support personnel.
The company has the ability to perform extensive repairs and/or modifications, provided that spare parts are available. Anything but minor repairs requires a hangar and some stationary equipment (think airliner maintenance). However, vehicles can be refueled and rearmed in the field, if necessary.
New vehicles, weapons and spare parts are made in large factories and sent to the front via convoy. However, since production cannot keep up with losses, most companies rely in part on field salvage and black market trade to remain operational. Vehicles are fairly modular, so removing e.g. a capacitor bank from a wrecked tank and installing it in your own is possible.
In a pitched battle, a single vehicle can use up to five or six tons of ammunition, hopefully taking out multiple targets in the process.
Factors that make ammunition more scarce:
- This society is already pretty good at making (civilian) vehicles. They've just started producing weapons and ammunition on a relevant scale.
- Point defenses and active protection systems are very common, so a sigle shell or missile is likely to be deflected. To stop a tank, you fire volleys.
My Question
Considering the above circumstances, would it make sense to salvage and/or produce ammunition between battles or does a company have to rely entirely on supplies delivered from the factories? Would it at least be feasible to re-produce simpler ammunition types (e.g. railgun projectiles)?
reality-check warfare logistics
reality-check warfare logistics
asked 1 hour ago
Ruther Rendommeleigh
21115
asked 1 hour ago
Ruther Rendommeleigh
21115
edited 35 mins ago
asked 1 hour ago
Ruther Rendommeleigh
21115
asked 1 hour ago
Ruther Rendommeleigh
21115
asked 1 hour ago
Ruther Rendommeleigh
21115
21115
1
It is a lot easier to make ammunition than a tank. I would think that you'd run out of tanks before you'd run out of ammunition, at least from the industrial output point of view. On the other hand, ammunition has to be shipped to the tanks, so it is the transportation of ammunition from the industrial base to the units in the field that is the weak link. You should reframe your question to just say: Supplies have been cut off, what can you do in the field?
– kingledion
1 hour ago
This question seems to have a big XY Problem component - the real question seems to be about how to reduce the logistical needs of a heavily-mechanized fighting force. The usual answer is not to reduce ammunition, but instead to reduce support troop requirements - simple repairs done by crew instead of mechanics, replacing cooks with pre-packaged meals, etc.
– user535733
1 hour ago
Four MBTs and a cannon is a platoon. Four platoons + support vehicles are a company. And aircraft are sufficiently different that they're always in separate units.
– RonJohn
46 mins ago
"Civil unrest on their planet turns into civil war." that implies a One World Government.
– RonJohn
26 mins ago
@TCAT117 I think you give the best answers for questions like this.
– Renan
23 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1
It is a lot easier to make ammunition than a tank. I would think that you'd run out of tanks before you'd run out of ammunition, at least from the industrial output point of view. On the other hand, ammunition has to be shipped to the tanks, so it is the transportation of ammunition from the industrial base to the units in the field that is the weak link. You should reframe your question to just say: Supplies have been cut off, what can you do in the field?
– kingledion
1 hour ago
This question seems to have a big XY Problem component - the real question seems to be about how to reduce the logistical needs of a heavily-mechanized fighting force. The usual answer is not to reduce ammunition, but instead to reduce support troop requirements - simple repairs done by crew instead of mechanics, replacing cooks with pre-packaged meals, etc.
– user535733
1 hour ago
Four MBTs and a cannon is a platoon. Four platoons + support vehicles are a company. And aircraft are sufficiently different that they're always in separate units.
– RonJohn
46 mins ago
"Civil unrest on their planet turns into civil war." that implies a One World Government.
– RonJohn
26 mins ago
@TCAT117 I think you give the best answers for questions like this.
– Renan
23 mins ago
1
1
It is a lot easier to make ammunition than a tank. I would think that you'd run out of tanks before you'd run out of ammunition, at least from the industrial output point of view. On the other hand, ammunition has to be shipped to the tanks, so it is the transportation of ammunition from the industrial base to the units in the field that is the weak link. You should reframe your question to just say: Supplies have been cut off, what can you do in the field?
– kingledion
1 hour ago
It is a lot easier to make ammunition than a tank. I would think that you'd run out of tanks before you'd run out of ammunition, at least from the industrial output point of view. On the other hand, ammunition has to be shipped to the tanks, so it is the transportation of ammunition from the industrial base to the units in the field that is the weak link. You should reframe your question to just say: Supplies have been cut off, what can you do in the field?
– kingledion
1 hour ago
This question seems to have a big XY Problem component - the real question seems to be about how to reduce the logistical needs of a heavily-mechanized fighting force. The usual answer is not to reduce ammunition, but instead to reduce support troop requirements - simple repairs done by crew instead of mechanics, replacing cooks with pre-packaged meals, etc.
– user535733
1 hour ago
This question seems to have a big XY Problem component - the real question seems to be about how to reduce the logistical needs of a heavily-mechanized fighting force. The usual answer is not to reduce ammunition, but instead to reduce support troop requirements - simple repairs done by crew instead of mechanics, replacing cooks with pre-packaged meals, etc.
– user535733
1 hour ago
Four MBTs and a cannon is a platoon. Four platoons + support vehicles are a company. And aircraft are sufficiently different that they're always in separate units.
– RonJohn
46 mins ago
Four MBTs and a cannon is a platoon. Four platoons + support vehicles are a company. And aircraft are sufficiently different that they're always in separate units.
– RonJohn
46 mins ago
"Civil unrest on their planet turns into civil war." that implies a One World Government.
– RonJohn
26 mins ago
"Civil unrest on their planet turns into civil war." that implies a One World Government.
– RonJohn
26 mins ago
@TCAT117 I think you give the best answers for questions like this.
– Renan
23 mins ago
@TCAT117 I think you give the best answers for questions like this.
– Renan
23 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
The enemy gets a vote, too
When the enemy discovers you scavenging to re-use ammunition, they will promptly start booby-trapping it.
Then some clever enemy will begin seeding your scavenging areas with slightly mis-sized ammunition, so you damage your own weapons upon use.
The process of scavenging and recycling, say, railgun projectiles will require additional workforce in the most dangerous and most expensive locations possible. That workforce seems likely to increase (rather than decrease) your support requirements - all those technicians need food, security, energy, and ...thanks to the booby traps... special equipment and medical care.
Any kind of war manufacturing within range of enemy detection will quickly draw enemy attention as a high-value target, and enemy recon will immediately seek them out. Since the mass and volume of inputs to a manufacturing process tend to be vastly greater than the outputs, forward manufacturing will require many more convoys of input materials...all of which need to be crewed and protected and supplied.
Finally, there's a strategic problem: Historically, running-low-on-ammo usually means that you have outrun your supplies, and it's time to go on the defensive until your supplies catch up to your troops. Generals keep an eye on next week's supply estimates because it influences today's actions. Scavenging resources from the battlefield is great, but it seems unpredictable, and therefore prone to influence a more conservative (and longer) campaign.
answered 47 mins ago
user535733
5,2821224
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
A lot of assumptions are missing in this question, so the answer is actually "it depends".
If weapons are electromagnetic railguns or coilguns, then portable 3D printers could theoretically make the rounds so long as a suitable material is available to feed them (and a suitable power supply is also available). The Quartermaster might have some sort of mechanism to grind salvaged metal into the powder form for the 3D printer, and a "sifting" mechanism to separate out materials which are unnecessary or harmful to the process. As a bonus, lower performing rounds can be produced if there are shortages of the correct materials, imagine a metal "can" full of dirt or concrete, with the metal being used to provide something for the magnetic or electric fields to grab onto, while the fill provides mass for a kinetic energy attack.
If you are using conventional ammunition, then the problem is insurmountable in the field. Ammunition is a system with multiple parts, all of which need to be made to fairly high tolerances, otherwise you will have issues with feeding the ammunition, reliable firing and even ballistic performance of the rounds. While you "could" make it using a 3D printer, the process would be painfully slow, and require you have access to lots of different materials to manufacture all the different parts. In the time you "print" one round in the field, a factory could produce hundreds or even thousands of conventional rounds (depending on calibre etc.)
A similar calculus will be in effect when looking at other logistical supplies, from food, to fuel to spare parts.
In WWII, we saw a fairly extreme example, with the Western allies choosing to build relatively simple, rugged vehicles (like the Sherman tank) while the Germans chose to build much more complex, expensive and ultimately unreliable vehicles (like the Panther). A Panther broken in the field would need to be recovered and often sent back to a second or third line depot to replace a broken transmission (a common fault), while a Sherman was much less prone to these sorts of breakdowns, and could often be repaired in the field.
The other issue in logistics goes right back to the manufacturing. The German industry was not well organized and eventually suffered breakdowns in production and the ability to ship units to the front (much less other issues of feeling and manning the advanced equipment), while the Western allies continually built their manufacturing base to the point that the Willow Run assembly plant was producing entire B-24 Liberator bombers at a rate of 1 every 24 hours (and this was a large, 4 engined bomber). Similar production rates were happening with tanks, trucks, cargo ships...you get the idea.
It seems very surprising that your fictional nation is unable to ramp up production to the needed extent, but perhaps like WWII Germany or post war USSR you have a command economy which focused on the "sexy" fighter planes and tanks, while ignoring transport trucks and other more mundane elements of the fighting force. They are going to have to convert to a wartime economy very quickly; or else...
answered 38 mins ago
Thucydides
77.1k674225
That makes a lot of sense. Regarding your last paragraph, the problem's that they haven't had large scale conflict for generations, and the situation got out of hand while everyone was still in the scheming and preparation phase. So they end up producing the, well, sexy but overpriced, overcomplicated prototypes their engineers dreamed up and scrambling to make ends meet. And yes, whoever gets there first is bound to win this war.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
If you're salvaging and making ammunition on the front lines, you're losing.
Perhaps because you've lost the home factories or because the home factories are now on the front lines. Purpose built factories can put out ammunition at higher qualities and quantities than anything you'll be able to make do and mend at the front.
It's possible that this is an apocalyptic scale war and that everyone is losing and they're all doing this, but if it's just you and everyone else's logistics can bring supplies from home, you're losing.
It sounds like your logistics are failing. You're trying to shorten your supply lines.
Traditionally that's done by retreating, given that the other option is to run out of bullets and either surrender or die, it may be better to order the retreat.
Now may be a good time to sue for peace
If both sides are resorting to this, a cease fire may be in order before your front lines resort to throwing rocks at each other. It's generally considered a good time to end a war if neither side can afford to keep it going. If it's just you...
answered 53 mins ago
Separatrix
67.7k30159264
The premise is that this used to be a low-military society and, while they have a lot of know how and capacity to make vehicles, production of weapons and ammunition is something they've just started to do, and will take some time to get up to full speed. I should probably put this in the question more clearly.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
42 mins ago
@RutherRendommeleigh, still not worth it. You'll can use more ammunition in a minute than you can make in a day by hand, even without having to salvage materials.
– Separatrix
39 mins ago
"If you're salvaging and making ammunition on the front lines, you're losing." This is not completely true. The US salvaged all its brass shell casings. And the spent projectiles will be mangled.
– RonJohn
32 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Sorry, posted an answer to another question.
answered 52 mins ago
FilthyCasual
1
New contributor
FilthyCasual is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
You should delete the answer.
– RonJohn
45 mins ago
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
The enemy gets a vote, too
When the enemy discovers you scavenging to re-use ammunition, they will promptly start booby-trapping it.
Then some clever enemy will begin seeding your scavenging areas with slightly mis-sized ammunition, so you damage your own weapons upon use.
The process of scavenging and recycling, say, railgun projectiles will require additional workforce in the most dangerous and most expensive locations possible. That workforce seems likely to increase (rather than decrease) your support requirements - all those technicians need food, security, energy, and ...thanks to the booby traps... special equipment and medical care.
Any kind of war manufacturing within range of enemy detection will quickly draw enemy attention as a high-value target, and enemy recon will immediately seek them out. Since the mass and volume of inputs to a manufacturing process tend to be vastly greater than the outputs, forward manufacturing will require many more convoys of input materials...all of which need to be crewed and protected and supplied.
Finally, there's a strategic problem: Historically, running-low-on-ammo usually means that you have outrun your supplies, and it's time to go on the defensive until your supplies catch up to your troops. Generals keep an eye on next week's supply estimates because it influences today's actions. Scavenging resources from the battlefield is great, but it seems unpredictable, and therefore prone to influence a more conservative (and longer) campaign.
answered 47 mins ago
user535733
5,2821224
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
The enemy gets a vote, too
When the enemy discovers you scavenging to re-use ammunition, they will promptly start booby-trapping it.
Then some clever enemy will begin seeding your scavenging areas with slightly mis-sized ammunition, so you damage your own weapons upon use.
The process of scavenging and recycling, say, railgun projectiles will require additional workforce in the most dangerous and most expensive locations possible. That workforce seems likely to increase (rather than decrease) your support requirements - all those technicians need food, security, energy, and ...thanks to the booby traps... special equipment and medical care.
Any kind of war manufacturing within range of enemy detection will quickly draw enemy attention as a high-value target, and enemy recon will immediately seek them out. Since the mass and volume of inputs to a manufacturing process tend to be vastly greater than the outputs, forward manufacturing will require many more convoys of input materials...all of which need to be crewed and protected and supplied.
Finally, there's a strategic problem: Historically, running-low-on-ammo usually means that you have outrun your supplies, and it's time to go on the defensive until your supplies catch up to your troops. Generals keep an eye on next week's supply estimates because it influences today's actions. Scavenging resources from the battlefield is great, but it seems unpredictable, and therefore prone to influence a more conservative (and longer) campaign.
answered 47 mins ago
user535733
5,2821224
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
The enemy gets a vote, too
When the enemy discovers you scavenging to re-use ammunition, they will promptly start booby-trapping it.
Then some clever enemy will begin seeding your scavenging areas with slightly mis-sized ammunition, so you damage your own weapons upon use.
The process of scavenging and recycling, say, railgun projectiles will require additional workforce in the most dangerous and most expensive locations possible. That workforce seems likely to increase (rather than decrease) your support requirements - all those technicians need food, security, energy, and ...thanks to the booby traps... special equipment and medical care.
Any kind of war manufacturing within range of enemy detection will quickly draw enemy attention as a high-value target, and enemy recon will immediately seek them out. Since the mass and volume of inputs to a manufacturing process tend to be vastly greater than the outputs, forward manufacturing will require many more convoys of input materials...all of which need to be crewed and protected and supplied.
Finally, there's a strategic problem: Historically, running-low-on-ammo usually means that you have outrun your supplies, and it's time to go on the defensive until your supplies catch up to your troops. Generals keep an eye on next week's supply estimates because it influences today's actions. Scavenging resources from the battlefield is great, but it seems unpredictable, and therefore prone to influence a more conservative (and longer) campaign.
answered 47 mins ago
user535733
5,2821224
The enemy gets a vote, too
When the enemy discovers you scavenging to re-use ammunition, they will promptly start booby-trapping it.
Then some clever enemy will begin seeding your scavenging areas with slightly mis-sized ammunition, so you damage your own weapons upon use.
The process of scavenging and recycling, say, railgun projectiles will require additional workforce in the most dangerous and most expensive locations possible. That workforce seems likely to increase (rather than decrease) your support requirements - all those technicians need food, security, energy, and ...thanks to the booby traps... special equipment and medical care.
Any kind of war manufacturing within range of enemy detection will quickly draw enemy attention as a high-value target, and enemy recon will immediately seek them out. Since the mass and volume of inputs to a manufacturing process tend to be vastly greater than the outputs, forward manufacturing will require many more convoys of input materials...all of which need to be crewed and protected and supplied.
Finally, there's a strategic problem: Historically, running-low-on-ammo usually means that you have outrun your supplies, and it's time to go on the defensive until your supplies catch up to your troops. Generals keep an eye on next week's supply estimates because it influences today's actions. Scavenging resources from the battlefield is great, but it seems unpredictable, and therefore prone to influence a more conservative (and longer) campaign.
answered 47 mins ago
user535733
5,2821224
edited 35 mins ago
answered 47 mins ago
user535733
5,2821224
answered 47 mins ago
user535733
5,2821224
answered 47 mins ago
user535733
5,2821224
5,2821224
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
A lot of assumptions are missing in this question, so the answer is actually "it depends".
If weapons are electromagnetic railguns or coilguns, then portable 3D printers could theoretically make the rounds so long as a suitable material is available to feed them (and a suitable power supply is also available). The Quartermaster might have some sort of mechanism to grind salvaged metal into the powder form for the 3D printer, and a "sifting" mechanism to separate out materials which are unnecessary or harmful to the process. As a bonus, lower performing rounds can be produced if there are shortages of the correct materials, imagine a metal "can" full of dirt or concrete, with the metal being used to provide something for the magnetic or electric fields to grab onto, while the fill provides mass for a kinetic energy attack.
If you are using conventional ammunition, then the problem is insurmountable in the field. Ammunition is a system with multiple parts, all of which need to be made to fairly high tolerances, otherwise you will have issues with feeding the ammunition, reliable firing and even ballistic performance of the rounds. While you "could" make it using a 3D printer, the process would be painfully slow, and require you have access to lots of different materials to manufacture all the different parts. In the time you "print" one round in the field, a factory could produce hundreds or even thousands of conventional rounds (depending on calibre etc.)
A similar calculus will be in effect when looking at other logistical supplies, from food, to fuel to spare parts.
In WWII, we saw a fairly extreme example, with the Western allies choosing to build relatively simple, rugged vehicles (like the Sherman tank) while the Germans chose to build much more complex, expensive and ultimately unreliable vehicles (like the Panther). A Panther broken in the field would need to be recovered and often sent back to a second or third line depot to replace a broken transmission (a common fault), while a Sherman was much less prone to these sorts of breakdowns, and could often be repaired in the field.
The other issue in logistics goes right back to the manufacturing. The German industry was not well organized and eventually suffered breakdowns in production and the ability to ship units to the front (much less other issues of feeling and manning the advanced equipment), while the Western allies continually built their manufacturing base to the point that the Willow Run assembly plant was producing entire B-24 Liberator bombers at a rate of 1 every 24 hours (and this was a large, 4 engined bomber). Similar production rates were happening with tanks, trucks, cargo ships...you get the idea.
It seems very surprising that your fictional nation is unable to ramp up production to the needed extent, but perhaps like WWII Germany or post war USSR you have a command economy which focused on the "sexy" fighter planes and tanks, while ignoring transport trucks and other more mundane elements of the fighting force. They are going to have to convert to a wartime economy very quickly; or else...
answered 38 mins ago
Thucydides
77.1k674225
That makes a lot of sense. Regarding your last paragraph, the problem's that they haven't had large scale conflict for generations, and the situation got out of hand while everyone was still in the scheming and preparation phase. So they end up producing the, well, sexy but overpriced, overcomplicated prototypes their engineers dreamed up and scrambling to make ends meet. And yes, whoever gets there first is bound to win this war.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
A lot of assumptions are missing in this question, so the answer is actually "it depends".
If weapons are electromagnetic railguns or coilguns, then portable 3D printers could theoretically make the rounds so long as a suitable material is available to feed them (and a suitable power supply is also available). The Quartermaster might have some sort of mechanism to grind salvaged metal into the powder form for the 3D printer, and a "sifting" mechanism to separate out materials which are unnecessary or harmful to the process. As a bonus, lower performing rounds can be produced if there are shortages of the correct materials, imagine a metal "can" full of dirt or concrete, with the metal being used to provide something for the magnetic or electric fields to grab onto, while the fill provides mass for a kinetic energy attack.
If you are using conventional ammunition, then the problem is insurmountable in the field. Ammunition is a system with multiple parts, all of which need to be made to fairly high tolerances, otherwise you will have issues with feeding the ammunition, reliable firing and even ballistic performance of the rounds. While you "could" make it using a 3D printer, the process would be painfully slow, and require you have access to lots of different materials to manufacture all the different parts. In the time you "print" one round in the field, a factory could produce hundreds or even thousands of conventional rounds (depending on calibre etc.)
A similar calculus will be in effect when looking at other logistical supplies, from food, to fuel to spare parts.
In WWII, we saw a fairly extreme example, with the Western allies choosing to build relatively simple, rugged vehicles (like the Sherman tank) while the Germans chose to build much more complex, expensive and ultimately unreliable vehicles (like the Panther). A Panther broken in the field would need to be recovered and often sent back to a second or third line depot to replace a broken transmission (a common fault), while a Sherman was much less prone to these sorts of breakdowns, and could often be repaired in the field.
The other issue in logistics goes right back to the manufacturing. The German industry was not well organized and eventually suffered breakdowns in production and the ability to ship units to the front (much less other issues of feeling and manning the advanced equipment), while the Western allies continually built their manufacturing base to the point that the Willow Run assembly plant was producing entire B-24 Liberator bombers at a rate of 1 every 24 hours (and this was a large, 4 engined bomber). Similar production rates were happening with tanks, trucks, cargo ships...you get the idea.
It seems very surprising that your fictional nation is unable to ramp up production to the needed extent, but perhaps like WWII Germany or post war USSR you have a command economy which focused on the "sexy" fighter planes and tanks, while ignoring transport trucks and other more mundane elements of the fighting force. They are going to have to convert to a wartime economy very quickly; or else...
answered 38 mins ago
Thucydides
77.1k674225
That makes a lot of sense. Regarding your last paragraph, the problem's that they haven't had large scale conflict for generations, and the situation got out of hand while everyone was still in the scheming and preparation phase. So they end up producing the, well, sexy but overpriced, overcomplicated prototypes their engineers dreamed up and scrambling to make ends meet. And yes, whoever gets there first is bound to win this war.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
A lot of assumptions are missing in this question, so the answer is actually "it depends".
If weapons are electromagnetic railguns or coilguns, then portable 3D printers could theoretically make the rounds so long as a suitable material is available to feed them (and a suitable power supply is also available). The Quartermaster might have some sort of mechanism to grind salvaged metal into the powder form for the 3D printer, and a "sifting" mechanism to separate out materials which are unnecessary or harmful to the process. As a bonus, lower performing rounds can be produced if there are shortages of the correct materials, imagine a metal "can" full of dirt or concrete, with the metal being used to provide something for the magnetic or electric fields to grab onto, while the fill provides mass for a kinetic energy attack.
If you are using conventional ammunition, then the problem is insurmountable in the field. Ammunition is a system with multiple parts, all of which need to be made to fairly high tolerances, otherwise you will have issues with feeding the ammunition, reliable firing and even ballistic performance of the rounds. While you "could" make it using a 3D printer, the process would be painfully slow, and require you have access to lots of different materials to manufacture all the different parts. In the time you "print" one round in the field, a factory could produce hundreds or even thousands of conventional rounds (depending on calibre etc.)
A similar calculus will be in effect when looking at other logistical supplies, from food, to fuel to spare parts.
In WWII, we saw a fairly extreme example, with the Western allies choosing to build relatively simple, rugged vehicles (like the Sherman tank) while the Germans chose to build much more complex, expensive and ultimately unreliable vehicles (like the Panther). A Panther broken in the field would need to be recovered and often sent back to a second or third line depot to replace a broken transmission (a common fault), while a Sherman was much less prone to these sorts of breakdowns, and could often be repaired in the field.
The other issue in logistics goes right back to the manufacturing. The German industry was not well organized and eventually suffered breakdowns in production and the ability to ship units to the front (much less other issues of feeling and manning the advanced equipment), while the Western allies continually built their manufacturing base to the point that the Willow Run assembly plant was producing entire B-24 Liberator bombers at a rate of 1 every 24 hours (and this was a large, 4 engined bomber). Similar production rates were happening with tanks, trucks, cargo ships...you get the idea.
It seems very surprising that your fictional nation is unable to ramp up production to the needed extent, but perhaps like WWII Germany or post war USSR you have a command economy which focused on the "sexy" fighter planes and tanks, while ignoring transport trucks and other more mundane elements of the fighting force. They are going to have to convert to a wartime economy very quickly; or else...
answered 38 mins ago
Thucydides
77.1k674225
A lot of assumptions are missing in this question, so the answer is actually "it depends".
If weapons are electromagnetic railguns or coilguns, then portable 3D printers could theoretically make the rounds so long as a suitable material is available to feed them (and a suitable power supply is also available). The Quartermaster might have some sort of mechanism to grind salvaged metal into the powder form for the 3D printer, and a "sifting" mechanism to separate out materials which are unnecessary or harmful to the process. As a bonus, lower performing rounds can be produced if there are shortages of the correct materials, imagine a metal "can" full of dirt or concrete, with the metal being used to provide something for the magnetic or electric fields to grab onto, while the fill provides mass for a kinetic energy attack.
If you are using conventional ammunition, then the problem is insurmountable in the field. Ammunition is a system with multiple parts, all of which need to be made to fairly high tolerances, otherwise you will have issues with feeding the ammunition, reliable firing and even ballistic performance of the rounds. While you "could" make it using a 3D printer, the process would be painfully slow, and require you have access to lots of different materials to manufacture all the different parts. In the time you "print" one round in the field, a factory could produce hundreds or even thousands of conventional rounds (depending on calibre etc.)
A similar calculus will be in effect when looking at other logistical supplies, from food, to fuel to spare parts.
In WWII, we saw a fairly extreme example, with the Western allies choosing to build relatively simple, rugged vehicles (like the Sherman tank) while the Germans chose to build much more complex, expensive and ultimately unreliable vehicles (like the Panther). A Panther broken in the field would need to be recovered and often sent back to a second or third line depot to replace a broken transmission (a common fault), while a Sherman was much less prone to these sorts of breakdowns, and could often be repaired in the field.
The other issue in logistics goes right back to the manufacturing. The German industry was not well organized and eventually suffered breakdowns in production and the ability to ship units to the front (much less other issues of feeling and manning the advanced equipment), while the Western allies continually built their manufacturing base to the point that the Willow Run assembly plant was producing entire B-24 Liberator bombers at a rate of 1 every 24 hours (and this was a large, 4 engined bomber). Similar production rates were happening with tanks, trucks, cargo ships...you get the idea.
It seems very surprising that your fictional nation is unable to ramp up production to the needed extent, but perhaps like WWII Germany or post war USSR you have a command economy which focused on the "sexy" fighter planes and tanks, while ignoring transport trucks and other more mundane elements of the fighting force. They are going to have to convert to a wartime economy very quickly; or else...
answered 38 mins ago
Thucydides
77.1k674225
answered 38 mins ago
Thucydides
77.1k674225
answered 38 mins ago
Thucydides
77.1k674225
answered 38 mins ago
Thucydides
77.1k674225
77.1k674225
That makes a lot of sense. Regarding your last paragraph, the problem's that they haven't had large scale conflict for generations, and the situation got out of hand while everyone was still in the scheming and preparation phase. So they end up producing the, well, sexy but overpriced, overcomplicated prototypes their engineers dreamed up and scrambling to make ends meet. And yes, whoever gets there first is bound to win this war.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
That makes a lot of sense. Regarding your last paragraph, the problem's that they haven't had large scale conflict for generations, and the situation got out of hand while everyone was still in the scheming and preparation phase. So they end up producing the, well, sexy but overpriced, overcomplicated prototypes their engineers dreamed up and scrambling to make ends meet. And yes, whoever gets there first is bound to win this war.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 mins ago
That makes a lot of sense. Regarding your last paragraph, the problem's that they haven't had large scale conflict for generations, and the situation got out of hand while everyone was still in the scheming and preparation phase. So they end up producing the, well, sexy but overpriced, overcomplicated prototypes their engineers dreamed up and scrambling to make ends meet. And yes, whoever gets there first is bound to win this war.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 mins ago
That makes a lot of sense. Regarding your last paragraph, the problem's that they haven't had large scale conflict for generations, and the situation got out of hand while everyone was still in the scheming and preparation phase. So they end up producing the, well, sexy but overpriced, overcomplicated prototypes their engineers dreamed up and scrambling to make ends meet. And yes, whoever gets there first is bound to win this war.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
11 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
If you're salvaging and making ammunition on the front lines, you're losing.
Perhaps because you've lost the home factories or because the home factories are now on the front lines. Purpose built factories can put out ammunition at higher qualities and quantities than anything you'll be able to make do and mend at the front.
It's possible that this is an apocalyptic scale war and that everyone is losing and they're all doing this, but if it's just you and everyone else's logistics can bring supplies from home, you're losing.
It sounds like your logistics are failing. You're trying to shorten your supply lines.
Traditionally that's done by retreating, given that the other option is to run out of bullets and either surrender or die, it may be better to order the retreat.
Now may be a good time to sue for peace
If both sides are resorting to this, a cease fire may be in order before your front lines resort to throwing rocks at each other. It's generally considered a good time to end a war if neither side can afford to keep it going. If it's just you...
answered 53 mins ago
Separatrix
67.7k30159264
The premise is that this used to be a low-military society and, while they have a lot of know how and capacity to make vehicles, production of weapons and ammunition is something they've just started to do, and will take some time to get up to full speed. I should probably put this in the question more clearly.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
42 mins ago
@RutherRendommeleigh, still not worth it. You'll can use more ammunition in a minute than you can make in a day by hand, even without having to salvage materials.
– Separatrix
39 mins ago
"If you're salvaging and making ammunition on the front lines, you're losing." This is not completely true. The US salvaged all its brass shell casings. And the spent projectiles will be mangled.
– RonJohn
32 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
If you're salvaging and making ammunition on the front lines, you're losing.
Perhaps because you've lost the home factories or because the home factories are now on the front lines. Purpose built factories can put out ammunition at higher qualities and quantities than anything you'll be able to make do and mend at the front.
It's possible that this is an apocalyptic scale war and that everyone is losing and they're all doing this, but if it's just you and everyone else's logistics can bring supplies from home, you're losing.
It sounds like your logistics are failing. You're trying to shorten your supply lines.
Traditionally that's done by retreating, given that the other option is to run out of bullets and either surrender or die, it may be better to order the retreat.
Now may be a good time to sue for peace
If both sides are resorting to this, a cease fire may be in order before your front lines resort to throwing rocks at each other. It's generally considered a good time to end a war if neither side can afford to keep it going. If it's just you...
answered 53 mins ago
Separatrix
67.7k30159264
The premise is that this used to be a low-military society and, while they have a lot of know how and capacity to make vehicles, production of weapons and ammunition is something they've just started to do, and will take some time to get up to full speed. I should probably put this in the question more clearly.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
42 mins ago
@RutherRendommeleigh, still not worth it. You'll can use more ammunition in a minute than you can make in a day by hand, even without having to salvage materials.
– Separatrix
39 mins ago
"If you're salvaging and making ammunition on the front lines, you're losing." This is not completely true. The US salvaged all its brass shell casings. And the spent projectiles will be mangled.
– RonJohn
32 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
If you're salvaging and making ammunition on the front lines, you're losing.
Perhaps because you've lost the home factories or because the home factories are now on the front lines. Purpose built factories can put out ammunition at higher qualities and quantities than anything you'll be able to make do and mend at the front.
It's possible that this is an apocalyptic scale war and that everyone is losing and they're all doing this, but if it's just you and everyone else's logistics can bring supplies from home, you're losing.
It sounds like your logistics are failing. You're trying to shorten your supply lines.
Traditionally that's done by retreating, given that the other option is to run out of bullets and either surrender or die, it may be better to order the retreat.
Now may be a good time to sue for peace
If both sides are resorting to this, a cease fire may be in order before your front lines resort to throwing rocks at each other. It's generally considered a good time to end a war if neither side can afford to keep it going. If it's just you...
answered 53 mins ago
Separatrix
67.7k30159264
If you're salvaging and making ammunition on the front lines, you're losing.
Perhaps because you've lost the home factories or because the home factories are now on the front lines. Purpose built factories can put out ammunition at higher qualities and quantities than anything you'll be able to make do and mend at the front.
It's possible that this is an apocalyptic scale war and that everyone is losing and they're all doing this, but if it's just you and everyone else's logistics can bring supplies from home, you're losing.
It sounds like your logistics are failing. You're trying to shorten your supply lines.
Traditionally that's done by retreating, given that the other option is to run out of bullets and either surrender or die, it may be better to order the retreat.
Now may be a good time to sue for peace
If both sides are resorting to this, a cease fire may be in order before your front lines resort to throwing rocks at each other. It's generally considered a good time to end a war if neither side can afford to keep it going. If it's just you...
answered 53 mins ago
Separatrix
67.7k30159264
edited 46 mins ago
answered 53 mins ago
Separatrix
67.7k30159264
answered 53 mins ago
Separatrix
67.7k30159264
answered 53 mins ago
Separatrix
67.7k30159264
67.7k30159264
The premise is that this used to be a low-military society and, while they have a lot of know how and capacity to make vehicles, production of weapons and ammunition is something they've just started to do, and will take some time to get up to full speed. I should probably put this in the question more clearly.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
42 mins ago
@RutherRendommeleigh, still not worth it. You'll can use more ammunition in a minute than you can make in a day by hand, even without having to salvage materials.
– Separatrix
39 mins ago
"If you're salvaging and making ammunition on the front lines, you're losing." This is not completely true. The US salvaged all its brass shell casings. And the spent projectiles will be mangled.
– RonJohn
32 mins ago
add a comment |Â
The premise is that this used to be a low-military society and, while they have a lot of know how and capacity to make vehicles, production of weapons and ammunition is something they've just started to do, and will take some time to get up to full speed. I should probably put this in the question more clearly.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
42 mins ago
@RutherRendommeleigh, still not worth it. You'll can use more ammunition in a minute than you can make in a day by hand, even without having to salvage materials.
– Separatrix
39 mins ago
"If you're salvaging and making ammunition on the front lines, you're losing." This is not completely true. The US salvaged all its brass shell casings. And the spent projectiles will be mangled.
– RonJohn
32 mins ago
The premise is that this used to be a low-military society and, while they have a lot of know how and capacity to make vehicles, production of weapons and ammunition is something they've just started to do, and will take some time to get up to full speed. I should probably put this in the question more clearly.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
42 mins ago
The premise is that this used to be a low-military society and, while they have a lot of know how and capacity to make vehicles, production of weapons and ammunition is something they've just started to do, and will take some time to get up to full speed. I should probably put this in the question more clearly.
– Ruther Rendommeleigh
42 mins ago
@RutherRendommeleigh, still not worth it. You'll can use more ammunition in a minute than you can make in a day by hand, even without having to salvage materials.
– Separatrix
39 mins ago
@RutherRendommeleigh, still not worth it. You'll can use more ammunition in a minute than you can make in a day by hand, even without having to salvage materials.
– Separatrix
39 mins ago
"If you're salvaging and making ammunition on the front lines, you're losing." This is not completely true. The US salvaged all its brass shell casings. And the spent projectiles will be mangled.
– RonJohn
32 mins ago
"If you're salvaging and making ammunition on the front lines, you're losing." This is not completely true. The US salvaged all its brass shell casings. And the spent projectiles will be mangled.
– RonJohn
32 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Sorry, posted an answer to another question.
answered 52 mins ago
FilthyCasual
1
New contributor
FilthyCasual is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
You should delete the answer.
– RonJohn
45 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Sorry, posted an answer to another question.
answered 52 mins ago
FilthyCasual
1
New contributor
FilthyCasual is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
You should delete the answer.
– RonJohn
45 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Sorry, posted an answer to another question.
answered 52 mins ago
FilthyCasual
1
New contributor
FilthyCasual is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Sorry, posted an answer to another question.
answered 52 mins ago
FilthyCasual
1
New contributor
FilthyCasual is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 52 mins ago
FilthyCasual
1
New contributor
FilthyCasual is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 52 mins ago
FilthyCasual
1
answered 52 mins ago
FilthyCasual
1
1
New contributor
FilthyCasual is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
FilthyCasual is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
FilthyCasual is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
You should delete the answer.
– RonJohn
45 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2
You should delete the answer.
– RonJohn
45 mins ago
2
2
You should delete the answer.
– RonJohn
45 mins ago
You should delete the answer.
– RonJohn
45 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125077%2ffeasibility-of-in-situ-ammunition-production-and-salvage%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
It is a lot easier to make ammunition than a tank. I would think that you'd run out of tanks before you'd run out of ammunition, at least from the industrial output point of view. On the other hand, ammunition has to be shipped to the tanks, so it is the transportation of ammunition from the industrial base to the units in the field that is the weak link. You should reframe your question to just say: Supplies have been cut off, what can you do in the field?
– kingledion
1 hour ago
This question seems to have a big XY Problem component - the real question seems to be about how to reduce the logistical needs of a heavily-mechanized fighting force. The usual answer is not to reduce ammunition, but instead to reduce support troop requirements - simple repairs done by crew instead of mechanics, replacing cooks with pre-packaged meals, etc.
– user535733
1 hour ago
Four MBTs and a cannon is a platoon. Four platoons + support vehicles are a company. And aircraft are sufficiently different that they're always in separate units.
– RonJohn
46 mins ago
"Civil unrest on their planet turns into civil war." that implies a One World Government.
– RonJohn
26 mins ago
@TCAT117 I think you give the best answers for questions like this.
– Renan
23 mins ago