Close Combat Series :: View topic - Interesting quote..........

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: Interesting quote.......... Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 9:39 pm
—
"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."

Makes me think of CC5. The strategic maps and all the road vls are tons more important that the regular vls and strong points.

#2: Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:19 am
—
This quote taken literally could suggest that Rommel was an amateur.

Logistics are essential... but more important than tactics? Hummmm?

Who said it?

#3: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 11:48 am
—
It would be safe to assume Rommel understood his logistical requirements. I am pretty sure its part of the training to become a General.

I would say logistics are more important. You can fight with poor logistics porrly. Its all about getting your men and material to the front, its no easy task when you have hundreds of thousands of people to move, with all thier supplies. If you do not think its more important, take into account why support trades always outnumber combat arms trades by more than 2-1. Also why was it so important in WW2 for example to cut off your enemy? What happens when you are cut off? You starve and run out of ammo. The strategic bombing campaign was aimed at factories, supply roads and railroad and oil refineries.

Heres a good example... In the winter of 1863-64 General Lee's army in Northern Virginia was starving right next to a rail link which was only 30miles from the capital. They didnt have the ability and people to load food onto the tracks and bring them to Lee's army. The supplies were there, just no way to move them.

#4: Author: MörserCarl, Location: Tokyo

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:52 pm
—
Here's another one of Rommel's: Wars are not won on the front line but in the rear by the quartermasters". Even the greatest of "heroes" can't fight on an empty stomach - without supplies. The medals may be won on the front line but it wouldn't be possible unless there was well organised support for the front line troops.

I've been directing supply chain in a major multinational company for several years and I know that Rommel was spot on. Learnings from war can often be applied to business. Operation Barbarossa is my favourite example... perhaps a topic of another thread.

#5: Re: Interesting quote.......... Author: Polemarchos, Location: Polemarchopolis

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:40 am
—

mooxe wrote:

"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."

Makes me think of CC5. The strategic maps and all the road vls are tons more important that the regular vls and strong points.

logistics is part of strategy (the art of using battles for the object of war) and thus overarches tactics (the art of using forces within battle)

logisitcs are overrated...it is just one factor like any other.. Inner lines(strategic defense) => logistic there by themselves... Outer lines (strategic attack) => you either win at once or leave it.

#6: Author: Polemarchos, Location: Polemarchopolis

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:48 am
—

Quote:

I would say logistics are more important. You can fight with poor logistics porrly.

the logic says yes, historical realitiy teaches otherwise. That maxim is a factor, but it is not indespensible for victory.

Quote:

Its all about getting your men and material to the front, its no easy task when you have hundreds of thousands of people to move, with all thier supplies. If you do not think its more important, take into account why support trades always outnumber combat arms trades by more than 2-1. Also why was it so important in WW2 for example to cut off your enemy? What happens when you are cut off? You starve and run out of ammo.

Yes! mass, state and symmetric armies. But it does not apply for asymmetric foes or tactics.No front, supply by ambush, limited operational readiness, latent civil war.

Quote:

The strategic bombing campaign was aimed at factories, supply roads and railroad and oil refineries.

I'd say most of bombing were against cities (center of gravity = morale)

I recommend you all read Clausewitz "On War" he leaves logistics out. Not because they are not important, but because ure strategy determines your logistics anyway, a priori.

#7: Re: Interesting quote.......... Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:22 am
—

Polemarchos wrote:

logisitcs are overrated...it is just one factor like any other.. Inner lines(strategic defense) => logistic there by themselves... Outer lines (strategic attack) => you either win at once or leave it.

How can logistic be overrated?

A combat effective army must have fuel for movement, food for energy and morale, and ammo for fighting.
Remove supply and you have no energy to move tanks nor men. Remove supply and you have no ammo, how will you fight without ammo against an army supplied?

Polemarchos wrote:

the logic says yes, historical realitiy teaches otherwise. That maxim is a factor, but it is not indespensible for victory.

Such as?? There are examples, yes, but is it an exception or the rule? What force fight good when starving? Witch force is combat effective without ammo? What tank move good without fuel?

An army poorly supply don’t “develop” there combat effectiveness over time… It declines.
An army may be poorly trained, they develop over time and from experience, IF they are supplied combat effectiveness increase over time.

Stalk
PS: How many German tanks were lost due to logistic failure in WW2, as due to fuel and spare part or bridge repair material?

#8: Author: ronson, Location: England

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:39 am
—
Logistics or supply is one of the fundamentals of strategy, not only do you ensure that your own are secure but it is also desirable to deny this to your enemy.
This, in Britain an island nation, was the reasoning behind having a strong Navy which was well supported by shipyards and repair facilities, Nelson our greatest sailor paid this tribute to the supply services for their unseen assistance in his victories with these words.....'They also serve who stand and wait'.

There is little doubt that Napoleon in the 19th century or Hitler in the 20th could have landed thousands of soldiers on our shores............however the problem of suppling those same soldiers would have become insurmountable given the powerful force of the Royal Navy, which dominated the sealanes.

This same weapon was also used to project the strenght of Britain and her allies against their enemies over the centuries in numerous places, be it from Marlborough's lowland campaigns, through Wellingtons, right up to the domination of the Med. during WW2. None of these or indeed the formation of the British empire, and family of now independant nations itself would have been possible without the strong strategic tool of the navy.

Cheers
Ronson

#9: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:49 am
—

Polemarchos wrote:

I recommend you all read Clausewitz "On War" he leaves logistics out. Not because they are not important, but because ure strategy determines your logistics anyway, a priori.

He may have left it out for another reason, book was made in the 1820th pre industry war.

Before industry war the supply was set by another factor.
Before the railroad and truck movement an army was able to get an average of 10 % of it supply’s form outside the region your station in. The rest of the 90% of the supplies had to be confiscated or bought from the local aria.
This set firm “maximum” of troops one may have in a region depending on time and on size and resources available.
Large army had to move faster from its region, and move forward and if the enemy move back they may well have emptied that aria and your army starve. And at that stage move back will then cause same problem as you already emptied that rear aria.
Out maneuvere your enemy and starve him, use or destroy the strategic material.

The knowledge of the regions and its resources was way more important back then. I have some interesting military statistic books printed in 1840 when Clausewitz was published and it clearly shows how they keep extreme detail knowledge over the local resources. Maybe I start a separate thread and make some scans, so this thread don’t go OT.

Stalk

#10: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:41 pm
—

Quote:

I recommend you all read Clausewitz "On War" he leaves logistics out. Not because they are not important, but because ure strategy determines your logistics anyway, a priori.

I have read portions of it, but not cover to cover.

Its interesting you say strategy determines logistics. I believe the opposite. The American Civil War was quite the opposite. Many of the battles were all fought along the railroad lines. This was thier main means of supply. After the railroads, there was only draft animals available and they were not sufficient. In Europe before Napoleon, it was the same case. You could not venture too far from the roalroads or you lose your supply. Napoleon changed this though by breaking his armies down into smaller divisions and gave them orders to forage. Modern day I suppose is a different story for some armies. With the ability to drop supplies anywhere in the world strategy may come first.

The Prussian victories in the late 1800's were excellent examples of good logistics. It makes me wonder why the Germans were still using draft animals in WW2. Its like they learned thier lesson in the 1800's and stopped learning after that.

#11: Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:03 am
—
.
How do you think the world felt about this 'tactics vs logistics' debate after the Battle of France for example?

MörserCarl wrote:

Here's another one of Rommel's: Wars are not won on the front line but in the rear by the quartermasters".

I'm not saying logistics aren't important just that some of you are going too far. No doubt Rommel said the above but his actions are repeatedly at odds with this quote and I strongly doubt he would agree with Mooxe's initial quote. At the most he might have agreed with it toward the end of WW2 in one of his less-optimistic moments when pondering his many logistical defeats (in what I've read I haven't seen a case where he was beaten by tactics... but I haven't read that much...).

The same Rommel quoted above disobyed the German High Command in Afrika who told him not to advance because of supply issues. He advanced anyway, immediately. Further along in teh Afrika campaign, in reply to protests from his superiors he's quoted in a biography I've read as famously replying 'that's your problem' in regard to questioning on how his Army would be adequately supplied [Trail of the Desert Fox].

Also according to this book it was a commonly held view among many of Rommel's opponents in the German High Command and even many of his supporters that he paid too little attention to the grander strategic issues including logistics. As a result many felt that he was not fit for the rank of Field Marshall. It was not until later in the war after his defeat in Afrika that he began to show a more visible appreciation of and concern with logistics.

In terms of logistics, Rommel won countless battles against a vastly superior enemy in Afrika with superior tactics and often vastly inferior logistics. Of course logistics played a role but for what I know of the man, it was always secondary to tactics for Rommel at least. I doubt any of us would call WW2s most famous general an amateur.

#12: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:23 am
—
Think of the quote I found be to be used on a much much higher level of command. Not from our ground view.

#13: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:04 am
—
Yes you cannot win a war with out supply.. ie britans abbility to supply its troops thru the first world war was because its navy could steam around the world to its dominons...second world war saw American industrial output and British and American navy move mountains of supply compared to axis output..Allied forces in Vietnam could not shut down the "ho chi min trail" well supplied vc added to there woes

#14: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:08 am
—
Sanctions used today against countries who arnt marching to the beat are much the same thing..

#15: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:39 am
—

mooxe wrote:

Think of the quote I found be to be used on a much much higher level of command. Not from our ground view.

Yes, i belive so to. ....

Rommel Africa…

There was an overriding problem for Rommel in witch he had no control over, that was the UK base at Malta and the problem it caused on supplies at a higher level to DAK.

In early 1942 Malta was made less effective for a period by the Germans air attacks and supplies to DAK was restored, and Germans combat effectiveness was greatly restored.

UK understood the importance of Malta for interrupt the Africa supplies of Germans, and having Malta operational was a high priority.
The convoy “Piedestal”, of 85 000 ton supplies sent by ship only 32 000 ton arrived to Malta, the rest was sunk by the Germans/Italy. Germans also understood the importance for UK to supply Malta (the Piedestal convoy was protected by 3+1 carriers, 2 battleship, 7 cruisers, 24+8 destroyers and numerous surface ships, and 8 subs, just to protect 14 cargo ships..).

The losses for Axis logistic to Africa due to UK at Malta was acute in mid 1942.
Sep 1942 Axis lost 20% of cargo to Africa. (they got 31 000 to petrol)
October 1942 Axis lost 40% of cargo to Africa. (they got 12 000 ton petrol)
No nation can sustain 20% cargo losses a month and absolutely not 40% cargo losses a month in a main theatre of war.

Malta was Rommel’s problem, or a problem for him, but not his responsibility to solve, it was OKW’s, as in Hitler – Jodl.

It's an intresting qoute I belive!

Stalk

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1