Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Dirty Little Secrets Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Logistical Lessons of the War in Iraq
James Dunnigan    11/16/2003 6:47:26 PM

The Iraq campaign has proved a bonanza for logistical and maintenance units. Now they have practical experience to back their claims that the army has been shortchanging them when it comes to equipment, training and personnel. Field exercises are expensive, but putting all the troops into the field, at once and under combat conditions is the only way to see what works and what doesn't. But these exercises rarely last longer than a week, and are conducted mainly to give the combat troops a chance to move around, run through some of their tactical maneuvers and, well, "exercise" the unit (usually a battalion, brigade or division). The support (logistics and maintenance) troops don't get that much of a work out. When the support officers point out that more intense operations (like those during the advance on Baghdad) would find the unit without sufficient support resources to keep them going, they are generally ignored. No more. What support officers have been warning about for decades proved all too true during the Iraq campaign. First, there was the shortage of trucks to move the fuel and ammunition needed to keep the fuel, munitions and other stuff coming. This was foreseen, and it was thought that civilian truck companies from Kuwait could pick up the slack. But then the Iraqi irregulars began shooting at the supply convoys, and the Kuwaiti truckers pointed out that they were civilians and wound not provide target practice for trigger happy Iraqis. That's when it was discovered that decades of slacking off on combat training for support troops made it difficult for these supply convoys to defend themselves. Combat troops had to be diverted from the fighting to help with security, and provide on-the-spot refresher combat training. At this point, the support troops were eager to learn.

But trucks weren't the only problem. Maintenance troops were not up to maintaining armored vehicles traveling so far in such a short time. Armored vehicles are complex beasts with lots of components that are prone to failure. The result was maintenance troops worked to the point of exhaustion, and lots of armored vehicles operating with broken gadgets (usually communications, navigation or one of the many computers carried.) Even the support units found the tempo of operations more than their equipment could handle. Often truck convoys and support units were out of range of each others radios. The support units had never operated so far from each other before. Now everyone realized that new radio equipment was needed, along with a lot of other new stuff.

Why hadn't these problems been seen in advance? Call it tradition. Logistics is not sexy. Support officers are considered a bunch of geeky drones and the combat arms officers who populate the upper ranks generally ignore them. This is nothing new, it's been going on for centuries. It's not a uniquely American problem either. In fact, the United States is regarded as having one of the better attitudes towards logistics. But even with all that, things got messy on the road to Baghdad. Lessons were learned, but it remains to be seen if the lessons will turn into solutions.

 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Thomas    RE:The Logistical Lessons of the War in Iraq   11/20/2003 8:58:20 AM
If nothing else is learned, then this is a good thing, as the US is the most logistic dependent force.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:The Logistical Lessons of the War in Iraq   1/19/2004 7:20:56 AM
Allow me to repeat from the armour board: Mobility: One thing is the strategic mobility. The M1 can do the job and may not be that much more difficult bringing into place overseas than others; but it is a very demanding tank on the supply lines. A tank with no fuel and no grenades is not a tank. This banality reflects a more serious issue: Getting a larger army, to solve the problems around the world, is not just a question of getting more tanks and train their crews. You also need more supply trucks and their crews, You need more mechanics with their expensive equipment and spare parts, You need more field hospitals, because the supply people have a tendency to make road accidents, You need more light troops to protect the supply lines. Any increase in the shap end whiplashes backwards. If you insist on a tank that needs to pampered like a primadonna, you muliply an already high multiplication factor. This in turn moves the goalposts for the assesment of what is a vital security need, as the expense of moving into action skyrockets. Overwhelming firepower is a nice notion - if you can afford it - but someone has to carry all these shells. PGM help to some extend, but I do not believe it to be a pancea for all problems, as you cannot count on the opponent being as incompetent as Saddam. This is why I (with scant success) have tried to raise the question of the Medium - or even light tank (though a Sturmgeschütz of German pattern/HMMVV with missiles might be better bet). To me the important point is not the best MBT (there isn't much to choose from among the better ones), but the best ADEQUATE tank. Not that I would go without the MBT, but reserve it for occation where nothing else will do. The Abrams uses 75% more fuel than a Leo2, will it be possible to build a tank that uses 1/3 of the fuel of an Abrams with a 105 mm gun and enough armour protection to cope with all but the most serious opposing tank? To paraphrase you MG: The only thing more expensive than the best MBT, is to few MBT's - or there is more ways to kill a cat, than drown it in cream
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy