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

Logistics, How Did They Do It, Part I: The Problem

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: Logistics, How Did They Do It, Part I: The Problem

#41

Post by WheatM »

msla wrote: post #23
Animats wrote: post #20

We can see this today with Russia's early Ukraine campaign. The attacking armored forces moved fast at first, but outran their logistics tail. Large military operations have reasonably well defended rear bases, a moving attack front, and a "communications region" in between. The communications region is vulnerable; the attackers don't yet have full control of that region. Both air and ground attacks on the communicat…

> So, having failed at a complicated, fast campaign, Russia has moved to a simpler form - bring up many troops and artillery and slowly pound the opposition into rubble. It's like WWI. That kind of war can go on for years if enough resources are available. It seems to be working for Russia. "Working" to the extent a country with a GDP smaller than California's is in a war of attrition against NATO.

No post body was provided.

Re: Logistics, How Did They Do It, Part I: The Problem

#42

Post by WheatM »

labster wrote: post #27
sbierwagen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia has a "smaller" GDP than California, but check the price of electricity in western Europe today. Few industries in Germany can survive energy prices tripling. It won't be much of a war of attrition with "NATO" if a bunch of NATO members drop out and pursue a separate peace.

It’s too bad when countries like Germany haven’t learned to live within their means. Decades of mismanagement have a price.

No post body was provided.

Re: Logistics, How Did They Do It, Part I: The Problem

#43

Post by watwut »

msla wrote: post #23
Animats wrote: post #20

We can see this today with Russia's early Ukraine campaign. The attacking armored forces moved fast at first, but outran their logistics tail. Large military operations have reasonably well defended rear bases, a moving attack front, and a "communications region" in between. The communications region is vulnerable; the attackers don't yet have full control of that region. Both air and ground attacks on the communicat…

> So, having failed at a complicated, fast campaign, Russia has moved to a simpler form - bring up many troops and artillery and slowly pound the opposition into rubble. It's like WWI. That kind of war can go on for years if enough resources are available. It seems to be working for Russia. "Working" to the extent a country with a GDP smaller than California's is in a war of attrition against NATO.

Imo, while they are trying hard to make it war against NATO, NATO is not fighting back beyond supporting Ukraine. Had NATO actually committed to push Russia back, it would be all over at this point.

Re: Logistics, How Did They Do It, Part I: The Problem

#44

Post by TomMckenny »

watwut wrote: post #43
msla wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, having failed at a complicated, fast campaign, Russia has moved to a simpler form - bring up many troops and artillery and slowly pound the opposition into rubble. It's like WWI. That kind of war can go on for years if enough resources are available. It seems to be working for Russia. "Working" to the extent a country with a GDP smaller than California's is in a war of attrition against NATO.

Imo, while they are trying hard to make it war against NATO, NATO is not fighting back beyond supporting Ukraine. Had NATO actually committed to push Russia back, it would be all over at this point.

True but then none of us would be alive to comment about it.

Re: Logistics, How Did They Do It, Part I: The Problem

#45

Post by watwut »

TomMckenny wrote: post #44
watwut wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imo, while they are trying hard to make it war against NATO, NATO is not fighting back beyond supporting Ukraine. Had NATO actually committed to push Russia back, it would be all over at this point.

True but then none of us would be alive to comment about it.

I don't think it would became nuclear war.

Re: Logistics, How Did They Do It, Part I: The Problem

#47

Post by EricE »

herodotus wrote: post #2

Are there any computer or table top war games that deal in a somewhat realistic way with logistics?

War in Europe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Europe_(game)

A couple of times I watched friends play a game that had been going on for a few years at that point. Some of the various charts were pinned to 4x8ft sheets of insulation board.

Re: Logistics, How Did They Do It, Part I: The Problem

#48

Post by euroderf »

photochemsyn wrote: post #30

An interesting case of logistics deciding outcomes is the North Africa campaign in World War II. It's discussed in Daniel Yergin's "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power" in some depth, and there are a few other sources. Essentially, this is where the code-breaking efforts of Bletchley Park had a major result. The reason that Rommel had such shortages of fuel, according to Yergin and other sources, was tha…

SPI's "Panzerarmee Afrika" is a "beer & pretzels" wargame where supply dumps and supply counters are pretty critical. Also it has some units with 60 and 80 movement points, making it lively.

Re: Logistics, How Did They Do It, Part I: The Problem

#49

Post by BlueTemplar »

eastbound wrote: post #37
photochemsyn wrote: post #30

An interesting case of logistics deciding outcomes is the North Africa campaign in World War II. It's discussed in Daniel Yergin's "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power" in some depth, and there are a few other sources. Essentially, this is where the code-breaking efforts of Bletchley Park had a major result. The reason that Rommel had such shortages of fuel, according to Yergin and other sources, was tha…

And Russia has unlimited gas. Gas decuples human work, same as IT decuples human brains. I’m worried for Europe. Russia will lack a lot of things, but it’s a race on natural resources.

Also coal. But oil is better than both, and cannot be effectively embargoed for a country as big as Russia.

And the Mid to North African pipeline projects will be supercharged now, but how long will they take ?

(At least, the first German methane vaporization terminal should be up and running this winter ?)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32052302

Finally, not «unlimited» - this shows yet again (and we knew this for nearly 70 years now), that it was foolish to rely medium-term on fossil fuels - only viable if your goal was medium-term survival as a polity against industrialized polities - and I have the suspicion that the oncoming decade of industrial recession and freezing will push public opinion even more towards short-, rather than long-term comfort and survival...

Post reply on HN