Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

mwi.westpoint.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 701 posts

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#251

Post by skywhopper »

dahart wrote: post #60
kayo_20211030 wrote: post #2

A very insightful, and correct, piece. I'll quote in full the following, which I think gets to the heart of the matter. If you have no push, you can't apply pressure to the point. > The notion that amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics is frequently discussed in military academies and war colleges, yet it is rarely reflected in the Army’s budget requests or modernization priorities. The outdated conc…

> A very insightful, and correct, piece. I agree, or at least it feels insightful and right, though I can’t personally validate if it’s correct. But the big question I have is who is this written for, and what do they want to see happen? Is this to sway the public, to push politicians, to convince the Army internally to plan better, stop using contractors & no-bid contracts, or simply ask for more? Looks like militar…

It’s written by folks who want to convince the military to do better.

The fact that the US wastes a lot of money on what’s likely a very ineffective military is not a surprise, surely. Yes, they should have a better logistics system for all that money.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#252

Post by robotnikman »

rwmj wrote: post #144
mikewarot wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During WW2 in the United States, you had all sorts of consumer goods companies reorganized to output a prodigious amount of military supplies. There were multiple companies making the same model of things, with fairly rigorous QA to ensure quality and uniformity. For example, the BC-348 receiver, widely used in aircraft, was produced initially by RCA, and eventually "farmed out" to 3 other manufacturers. More than 4…

It's not a great comparison because Germany could not hit the US mainland. Even if there had been a single giant everything factory it wouldn't have mattered.

IIRC the US did plan in case either Japan or Germany somehow became capable of bombing the states. Some factories had their roofs painted to make them blend in with the surroundings, others were built out of reinforced concrete to make them bomb proof

https://airmail.news/arts-intel/highlights/masters-of-disgui...

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#253

Post by mythrwy »

anjel wrote: post #65
bad_haircut72 wrote: post #6

When Russia invaded Ukraine, nobody (even the Ukranians) imagined that 5 years later they would have their own missiles hammering Russia 2500kms in the rear. Americans need to start accepting that a) the Iran war will also probably still be going on in 5 years and b) Iran will probably in a better place than they are now, strategically speaking.

History reveals that every war is won by the nation with superior industrial capacity.

The Mongol army was much less industrialized than the people they conquered though so I'd say it's factor but not decisive.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#254

Post by lostlogin »

orthoxerox wrote: post #88
tristramb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He learnt the hard way (as did all those who followed him into Russia)

Napoleon planned his Russian campaign extensively: he had supply hubs set up all over the Duchy of Warsaw, with feeder routers from Prussia keeping them full. What he didn't anticipate was how bad the roads in Russia would be and how long the Russian army would retreat along them. You can't resupply an army that is marching on a narrow dirt road through a forest because it's blocking its own supply lines.

If you’re going to Russia for the winter, have somewhere to stay and take a jacket. Napoleon screwed up the logistics with all his assumptions.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#255

Post by [deleted] »

segbrk wrote: post #20
malfist wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Iran war will also probably still be going on in 5 years The Russia/Ukraine war has a goal, to make Ukraine either part of Russia or a client state. What's the goal of the US/Iran war? So far it seems like the goal is to mostly return to the status quo prior to the war. I can't imagine that could continue 5 years because there's just not an objective. Of course, I could easily be mistaken.

That’s exactly why it could continue indefinitely. A war with no goal can’t be won. Nor can it be abandoned without bruising powerful egos.

[deleted]

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#256

Post by m_dupont »

yborg wrote: post #92

I wonder when the use of 'culminate', v. "reach a climax or point of highest development" for "cease to be effective" became the standard in military-related writing when trying to sound smart. The original usage in the specific context of an army's advance or offensive coming to an end made some sense but it's now used as basically a wordy synonym for "stops" in any context.

I'm also loving their phrase "on a nonlinear battlefield"

... not sure what a linear battlefield would be

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#257

Post by diddid »

This has been true for as long as war has been a thing. The Army logistics won’t break, it’ll adapt, because that’s what war machines do. What’s good today isn’t good tomorrow. It’s a nice piece but nothing Sun Tzu or a good game of hearts of iron couldn’t teach you.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#258

Post by remarkEon »

nradov wrote: post #74
dahart wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A very insightful, and correct, piece. I agree, or at least it feels insightful and right, though I can’t personally validate if it’s correct. But the big question I have is who is this written for, and what do they want to see happen? Is this to sway the public, to push politicians, to convince the Army internally to plan better, stop using contractors & no-bid contracts, or simply ask for more? Looks like militar…

Foreign military budget numbers are largely fake and can't be attempted to be believed. China's government spending isn't publicly released and can't be independently verified. A lot of what the US considers to be military spending falls into separate categories in China. At least on a purchasing power parity basis their actual spending is probably close to ours now, maybe even higher.

Yeah, this is true, and PRC is pretty explicit about this too. For those who pay close attention to stuff like this, the raw comparisons in dollars spent are just not that useful with PRC has developed entire industry infrastructure around swiftly swapping over to a military purpose.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#259

Post by actionfromafar »

skywhopper wrote: post #243
asdff wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can they not use firebombing and other conventional munitions? If they can deliver a nuke surely they can deliver a conventional warhead. That is enough to level an urban area as we see in Gaza.

Because Russia doesn’t actually have the resources to do this at the scale required. Russia is also not trying to obliterate Ukraine. They want to take over a real economy, not a wasteland.

At this point, I think they would take the wasteland "win" if they had to. But they really don't have the resources to do carpet bombing or something like that. Just lobby pot-shots.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#260

Post by manvillej »

a34729t wrote: post #182

China has missed their window of opportunity, sadly. For the next big war, the US will simply not even need to air or sea to deliver weapons or supplies (see SpaceX's StarFall, of which 60x4 should fit into Starship). Per my calculations, the JDAM version of this will be cheaper than flying planes (and pilots) to drop bombs or cruise missiles. For small(er) wars, cheap drones break everything as they can destroy your…

I just don't see how the fuel costs of getting things up to space winning out unless production is located up there. especially since rocket launches tend to be extremely static.

More dangerously, I think that would inevitably lead to space being the battlefield. Since that area doesn't need any more shrapnel orbiting at 17,500 mph; it seems an idea best left to the drawing board. The cleanup required will make clearing mine fields seem like dusting the living room.

Post reply on HN