In reply to NOHOME :
That is the beauty of it, they don't have effective logistics. Even if St. Himars wasn't actively blessing them.
In reply to NOHOME :
That is the beauty of it, they don't have effective logistics. Even if St. Himars wasn't actively blessing them.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
To quote Mike Tyson: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
I do not do logistics. Not because I don't appreciate them, but because I do not have the unique mindset that they require. They enable those of us doing a job to do that job. People who are good at it deserve every penny that they get, be they in the shipping- receiving dep or the transport branches. What they tend NOT to be, is easily found or politically appointed.
Trying to expand a logistics team from what was required for a short term "special military operation" meant to last a few weeks to what has turned into a full-blown war is akin to making a new plan while repeatedly getting punched in the mouth.
The difference between what is going on in Ukraine and the "Enemy at the gate" scenario is that the war on russia is not even declared. You can not get the bulk of your citizens to pitch in full-effort unless you declare that the nation is at risk and they buy the story to the point where every able bodies civilian wants to join the fight. I am not seeing that mindset take place in the russian population yet.
In reply to NOHOME :
Well said. One of the bloggers I follow is a US veteran who served in Afghanistan. He constantly mentions that untrained personnel hinders professional soldiers, and not just in battle. Reminds me of a saying my old Corner Worker group had at the track. "The only thing worse than being shorthanded is being shorthanded and having to babysit."
The latest package from the US will give the Ukrainians the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDM) which can be fired from the HIMARS and is effectively a guided warhead with pop-out wings for an extended glide range of 93 miles. I can also maneuver a bit so it's capable of flying around things (like mountains). It's even capable of hitting moving targets that are laser designated.
Should make for some fun times in the Russian rear area.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/GTGCE2K2GRB2JNJF3Z7PS3724Y.jpg)
In reply to friedgreencorrado :
My observation of what people are reporting in the field is that Russia has more or less the same logistics as the USSR had in WWII: Logistics is organic to a group. That is, they go out with what they can carry, and when they run out, they are SOL unless someone happens to bring them more supplies. Men getting sent out for weeks with only a day's worth of food, no ammunition, etc.
An effective logistics train is something like, we have 500 men with rifles going *here*. We expect them to fire X rounds and move Y kilometers per day, so we need to supply 500X rounds, 1500X meals, and enough fuel for any vehicles they have to move Y kilometers per day, to a target that is moving, so we need the food and fuel and vehicles to continue to feed and fuel the men required to supply...
During Germany's push west in Europe, some of their more successful commanders had to lie about how fast they were advancing so they wouldn't get told to slow down so they didn't overrun their ability to be supplied.
OHSCrifle said:My family visited the American military cemetery in Normandy, France last week. My first visit. Also saw a German cemetery in the vicinity.
We had an 84 year old retired British army general as a guide. He is writing a book about how logistics win wars.
I sure hope he lives long enough to publish it because he was extremely passionate about his research including interviewing many of the combatants and leaders of the D-Day invasion. He told many interesting stories.
We obviously talked about the Ukraine war and one thing he said was particularly poignant. He said the Russians fight today like they always have: with mass. Mass in weapons. Mass in men. Treating both like easily replaced sledge hammers.
I strongly recommend visiting Normandy. It's chilling and powerful
Recent posts reminded me about one more thing the general told us: When the US came ashore at Normandy the flotilla carried twenty five HUNDRED locomotives to move materials around France. I totally believe him when he says wars are won by logistics.
Edit: correction. The number he said was 1,800 locomotives. Still a lot.
I wonder if logistics failures could be systemic with a corrupt autocracy like Russia. If every functionary is jockeying for positive recognition and avoiding negative recognition, no one is going to want to do the unsung jobs, especially one that can be blamed for failure.
Assuming someone with enough power tries to fix their logistics issues, but fails, or there is an unrelated loss on the battlefield that could be blamed on them, they could end up falling out a window. Any credit for victories would be taken by someone else.
In reply to eastsideTim :
Honestly, I think they just don't give a E36 M3. You save a lot of money on logistics if you expect your men to die before they run out of food or fuel. And if they run out of food or fuel first, they are sitting ducks, so either way? Problem solved.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to eastsideTim :
Honestly, I think they just don't give a E36 M3. You save a lot of money on logistics if you expect your men to die before they run out of food or fuel. And if they run out of food or fuel first, they are sitting ducks, so either way? Problem solved.
I can't imagine being able to defend any other possibility than this.
Well, this is a big number if true.
Not sure they will be ready in time for the next Russian push, but the Canadian Leopards are already on the way.
In reply to OHSCrifle :
A common theory is the main reason Ike was put in charge of the European army was not his combat abilities but because he was really good at logistics.
Pete, that is a horrific theory, but I don't think it can be dismissed.
Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to OHSCrifle :
A common theory is the main reason Ike was put in charge of the European army was not his combat abilities but because he was really good at logistics.
I'd heard it was because the UK military was hopelessly fragmented, like any officer from a colony was subordinate to any English officer, and all sorts of other chain of command issues. So they (and they I mean probably Churchill) said berk it, you're outside this whole Empah mess, YOU be in charge, so everyone knows who to take orders from and who to give orders to, with no awkward feelings.
why-not-both.jpg
Pete, that is a horrific theory, but I don't think it can be dismissed.
Absolutely horrific, and while I partially jest, I'm forming a theory based on observation.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
Yes. Probably a bit of both and a few other considerations.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
Didn't Eisenhower say (perhaps in "Victory in Europe") that the three most important pieces of equipment he had were the Jeep, the Dodge 6x6, and the C-47? Can't fight without ammo and food.
In reply to friedgreencorrado :
Apparently you left out the bulldozer.
A quote from "The Great Crusade" by General Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Incidentally, four other pieces of equipment that most senior officers came to regard as among the most vital to our success in Africa and Europe were the bulldozer, the jeep, the 2-1/2 - ton truck and the C-47 airplane."
Asked about the weapons used to win the war, Admiral Halsey offered: "If I had to give credit to the instruments and machines that won us the war in the Pacific, I would rate them in this order: Submarines first, radar second, planes third, bulldozers fourth."
In reply to Karacticus :
Oh man, the bulldozers were instrumental in taking islands back from Japanese control. Infantry firing light weapons from caves and tunnels can do nothing to an oncoming bulldozer bent on closing up the hole.
They made armored bulldozers, too! At that point they are just tanks with a plow on the front instead of a gun.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to Karacticus :
Oh man, the bulldozers were instrumental in taking islands back from Japanese control. Infantry firing light weapons from caves and tunnels can do nothing to an oncoming bulldozer bent on closing up the hole.
My grandfather was a ww2 tank commander. First tank battalion into guadal canal. He told me of the caves there. They pulled the tank up to the entrance and let loose with the flame thrower to neutralize the Japanese soldiers who had small arms or grenades.
also they had a soldier pop up in front of them and as grandpa put it, as the guy went to throw the grenade, they threw the flamethrower and he got turned to charcoal.
got a photograph of a gudal canal native happily holding a japanese soldiers severed head. There was a deal with the marines and the natives. They traded japanese soldier severed heads for marine uniforms.
Cripes
ive been getting told these stories since i was pretty young. No wonder im kinda screwed up, haha.
oh and you can bet your ass that when grandpa was telling me, it lacked ANY political correctness.
but goddamn i miss that man. Legendary.
In reply to Karacticus :
I did. And I'm glad you were here to fix it. Thanks.
That interview with the Canadian medic was powerful.
Our missionary (working as a chaplain to the Army and providing humanitarian aid for civilians) that has been operating out of Kharkiv region came back to the US around Christmas for shoulder surgery. Had it scheduled for today. He had to fly out on Saturday to go back to help with evacuation. According to him, they are expecting a large Russian attack going towards Kiev so the UA will be pulling back from the Kharkiv region.
Karacticus said:....Asked about the weapons used to win the war, Admiral Halsey offered: "If I had to give credit to the instruments and machines that won us the war in the Pacific, I would rate them in this order: Submarines first, radar second, planes third, bulldozers fourth."
The role of the US submarines in the Pacific is generally not given the credit it was due. They had a huge impact on Japans ability to wage war, especially when you consider they where effectively neutered until what, mid 1943 (crap torpedoes).
A bit up an update...
Question:
At what point does Crimea come into play?
I would think that Ukraine has the means to start destroying civilian infrastructure in Crimea so that the largely russian population can start to share in the fun of living in a war zone.
Crimea seems to have some of the same imunity as does russia itself when it comes to delivering western armaments. Crimea is neither russia not Ukraine when it comes to population support. If they evacuated, I imagine a lot would head to Ukraine and a lot would have to evacuate through the land-bridge war zone since the bridge is compromised.
How long until World War 3 starts. Both sides seem to be working tirelessly toward that end.
There has been a good amount of partisan activity in Crimea. Lot's of random things blowing up. The Russians have effectively evacuated Sevastapol as a navy base (too threatened). I think they have also mostly abandoned the airbases there. I would be rather surprised if there are any "Ukrainians" left in Crimea, although I suspect there may be some Russian loyalist who are tired of their oppression (e.g. being falsely accused of being a partisan) what with the Russian tendency to "torture first" as way of dealing with potential civilian issues.
As far as invading Crimea, that is a tall order. It's effectively an island (the narrow causeways would be very very easy to defend) and the Ukrainians have no navy.
As far as terrorizing the population there, I am not sure that is working in the direction the Ukrainians claim to be. If the Ukrainians want Crimea back, turning the population against them does not seem like a good idea. The Russians are likely to be very cautious about putting anything significant there considering how potentially easy it is to target and cut it off (Kerch bridge).
Crimea does however appear to be a prime vacation spot for Russia since it is one of the few warm areas accessible by Russia (the other being the Sochi area of the eastern Black Sea). If there are Russians this summer, who are brave enough (or stupid, or miss-informed, or forced) to vacation there, I could see some potential for bad things being done to Russian natives.
NOHOME said:Question:
At what point does Crimea come into play?
I would think that Ukraine has the means to start destroying civilian infrastructure in Crimea so that the largely russian population can start to share in the fun of living in a war zone.
Crimea seems to have some of the same imunity as does russia itself when it comes to delivering western armaments. Crimea is neither russia not Ukraine when it comes to population support. If they evacuated, I imagine a lot would head to Ukraine and a lot would have to evacuate through the land-bridge war zone since the bridge is compromised.
What's the benefit of striking civilian infrastructure in Crimea? Ukraine has tended to go after military and logistics targets, and they have hit those in Crimea (Saki airbase, Sevastopol naval base, Kerch Strait bridge). Striking civilians in an area that they intend to occupy and reintegrate with their national territory at some future point doesn't seem particularly useful.
You'll need to log in to post.
