Logistics in War
I usually perform atleast some research before writing my posts .. However, this post is purely based on my perception, which might be completely wrong.
"War is won or lost by the quartermaster" said Rommel, one of the shrewdest tacticians among the Nazi forces. "An army travels on its stomach" is another one of the long list of quotations that reinforce the importance of logistics in war.
Getting the right rations, ammunition and other necessities is a pre-requisite to successful warfare. Of course, today's soldiers have a much greater degree of comfort/infrastructure than the soldiers of the past. Soldiers in Iraq even have access to computers, air conditioners, microwaves etc ...
And I think that is phenomenal - No doubt that this does a great deal in boosting the morale of soldiers ...
However, I am inclined to think that this might have gone a bit too far ... Do American soldiers by virtue of the luxury they are accustomed to back home, require a much greater degree of infrastructure than say a Chinese soldier ? In other words, both of these armies have different definitions of what "minimum infrastructure" is, meaning that an American soldier would require a lot more to get the same degree of morale boost as a Chinese soldier (because the Chinese soldier probably sleeps on the floor at home anyway).
If there is an impending war between the US and China, it would almost seem to me that the US would require a much greater amount of time to get their "minimum" ready as compared to China.
Would that be a disadvantage in a war where the US isnt the aggressor ? A war in which the US doesnt get to dictate the timeframe and terms of engagement ? I certainly think so.
"War is won or lost by the quartermaster" said Rommel, one of the shrewdest tacticians among the Nazi forces. "An army travels on its stomach" is another one of the long list of quotations that reinforce the importance of logistics in war.
Getting the right rations, ammunition and other necessities is a pre-requisite to successful warfare. Of course, today's soldiers have a much greater degree of comfort/infrastructure than the soldiers of the past. Soldiers in Iraq even have access to computers, air conditioners, microwaves etc ...
And I think that is phenomenal - No doubt that this does a great deal in boosting the morale of soldiers ...
However, I am inclined to think that this might have gone a bit too far ... Do American soldiers by virtue of the luxury they are accustomed to back home, require a much greater degree of infrastructure than say a Chinese soldier ? In other words, both of these armies have different definitions of what "minimum infrastructure" is, meaning that an American soldier would require a lot more to get the same degree of morale boost as a Chinese soldier (because the Chinese soldier probably sleeps on the floor at home anyway).
If there is an impending war between the US and China, it would almost seem to me that the US would require a much greater amount of time to get their "minimum" ready as compared to China.
Would that be a disadvantage in a war where the US isnt the aggressor ? A war in which the US doesnt get to dictate the timeframe and terms of engagement ? I certainly think so.
Comments