Military Logistics

Do you mean like how are they capable of supplying everything or what makes them the best?

Either way a huge part of it is how big the navy and airforce are. Most countries cannot compete because they just dont have the vehicles to transport supplies at the same rate as the US. Also the US spends way more on the military than any other country enabling them to purchase and operate said vehicles

Because we got fucking airfield bases every fucking where within cargo plane distance and having the biggest logistical airfleet and navy in the world doesn't make us slower either

Its the most important factor in war because an army without supplies is an army that cant fight.

The US is the best at it because we have the biggest military. We have the two biggest airforces in the world (airforce and navy branches), along with the largest navy.

Fighting two world wars and having to get supplies and material from North America to Europe (and africa, asia, the entire god damn pacific, basically the world) quickly and in high enough quantities also made the US pros at logistics. Our ability to not only mass produce war material but get it to where it needs to be, even if that place is across the ocean and over mountains all while under threat by enemy forces - is what ultimately turned both those wars from bloody meatgrinder stalemates into a one sided ass kicking. The fact we sent troops is actually quite minor when compared to the effect our logistics train had.

Our logistics capabilities also is the reason why our military is present across the entire globe - while other world powers are mostly limited to their backyards. We not only have the military forces but the ability to keep them supplied no matter the circumstances anywhere on earth.

>"Amateurs talk strategy; generals talk logistics"

Mostly because supply chain is the most important part of waging a war, especially if it's not taking place right in your backyard. Which has basically been all the wars we've been involved in for the past century.

>Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics

if you can't supply and replenish your fighting force they are absolutely useless. During the Libyan intervention European forces ran out of bombs after a week and had to have their bombs supplied the US. This is insane considering that Europe is right next to Libya and the US is an ocean away. That is how well the US does logistics.

Countries like Russia can drop their airborne troops anywhere in the world but without any logistics chain it's only a matter of time before they are wiped out. The US can drop troops, build bases, and continue fighting indefinitely.

>>32432779

Its also worth mentioning how our logistic ability compares to the next biggest militaries - China and Russia. Both have powerful militaries and could in theory give the US a run for its money.

There is zero question whatsoever that if one of these countries attempted to invade the US, they would be utterly BTFO. They would get their ass kicked so fucking hard that the story would be told again and again over millions of generations and until the end of time. Its not even a debate. It is simply impossible for them to invade and succeed - hell, they would be lucky to even reach US soil let alone conquer it.

Now flip the coin - suppose the US invades Russia. Would the US win? Maybe, but the cost of doing so would be too great to make it worth it. But in the end, if the US wanted to, they could - and would succeed, although they would cripple themselves in the process.

Thats the difference logistics makes. Russia or China would never stand a fucking chance if they tried to invade the US. They have difficulties performing military action in their own backyards. But the US? We have a long and storied history of kicking ass around the globe.

>>32432779
No, strategy is something amateurs don't talk about. Most of you turds don't even know what the word actually means. It's also more the realm of the top levels of government, above the military. Generals don't even do strategy.

>>32432687

hey op, former logistics special for the army here

without going against OPSEC and getting into detail, im just going to flat out say the army wastes a metric fuckton of money on worthless shit

just thought i'd pitch in, thanks op

File: 1482587423930.jpg (39KB, 800x479px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 800x479px

OBREZES ARE NEATO!!!!!!!!!!

>>32432720
You don't need airbases when you can use rough dirt runways, or air drop equipment. Cargo planes can always refuel on the way.

>>32432830
I agree strategy is important but you're thinking of policy.

The SecDef/POTUS/civillian leadership will come up with a policy. Military/Generals will strategically implement it. LtCol/CPT/LT/NCO will accomplish it tactically.

>>32432842
You're not thinking big enough.

Dirt runways have landing weight restrictions, civilian contractor planes can't land on dirt runways, not all passengers can be dropped by parachute. To have a wide variety of logistical options you build an airbase.

>>32432687

A big part of this is global reach, and why the US is so good at logistics is very complicated.

As others have mentioned, part of this is the web of partnerships and alliances. The ability to transport supplies though nations's territory is important, from the free use of their air space to being able to send trucks on their roads.

The US relationship with Pakistan is complicated as fuck, but it's vital to the ability of the US to operate in landlocked Afghanistan.

Beyond that, there's the ability to move supplies and men in rough conditions. The US operates a large fleet of heavy cargo aircraft, airborne refueling tankers and enough fighter aircraft to secure an area that would allow air-supported operations. Russia, China and the UK could support small forces via aircraft, while the US could support divisions this way.

The US also has a fleet of logistic ships able to land massive amounts of supplies on nearly any beach, absent a deep-water port. Entire armies could be supplied this way.

Beyond that, the US armed forces have a tremendous number of trucks and cargo helicopters. This allows them to support forces at a distance from transportation hubs.

File: 1482601625024.jpg (41KB, 1035x339px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1035x339px

>>32432834
i agree with anon here. Obrezes are very very cool.

File: 1482626085516.jpg (208KB, 1103x578px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1103x578px

>>32432834
>>32432957
funnily enough, i also enjoy Obrezes. We should really exchange numbers.

File: 2000px-USN-Seabees-Insignia.svg.png (668KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 2000x2000px

>>32432903
Or straight up dredge and build a deep water harbor.

>>32432687
Quite simply, the US has the most of everything. The US has the most logistics vessels, it has BY FAR the most logistics aircraft, both small and large, it has the most forwards bases, it has the most allies from which those bases can be placed, it has the most preplaced equipment (less now than would be ideal and what was had in the past, but growing). Crucially, it has the most experience. The US has been fighting large expeditionary wars the past seventy years. The only decade that didn't have one such conflict was the 1980s, but that had the brief conflicts in both Grenada and Panama, as well as everything surrounding both the Gulf of Sidra incident and Operation Praying Mantis, all of which were sizeable military actions. Now, not all of that experience is equally valid, and there is currently some talk about having learned some wrong lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan (specifically regarding how scheduled everything was ahead of time due to a lack of many changing conditions across the entire theater, such as one might expect if there was a large conventional war, with the frontline moving and enemy action trying to sever supply lines), but having experience at all is by far the most important aspect. I can't understate this.

Now, it must be said that this is a necessity, because unless the US is fighting in North or Central America, it will need to cross at least one ocean. Part of the reason why the US is the best at logistics is because of that simple fact. The US is the best because it NEEDS to be the best in order to be even somewhat competitive on the global stage. Other nations that are placed much closer to the action have a massive advantage logistics wise. If a war were to break out in Eastern Europe between Russia and the US, Russia would have FAR shorter supply lines. US, if it wants to fight, is going to have massively long supply lines. They've identified that and taken measures to make sure that it doesn't hinder them.

>>32432819
nice western propaganda faggot
I thought they stopped paying CTR

>>32432797
>During the Libyan intervention European forces ran out of bombs after a week and had to have their bombs supplied the US.

NATO said this was bullshit about one week after it happened. Why has that piece of information been ignored yet this one stays around?

>>32432687
Logistics cost additional money on top of stuff that just kills dudes who show up at your doorstep.

So a military can reasonably defend its nation with weak logistics. They are paramount to attack, however.

More money - more shit - better logistics.
No one else can get the government to pay twice as much just to allow them to attack when they don't want to attack anything.

reminder to all americans that u lost from both vietnam and afghanistan farmers

>>32432687

In addition to all this, American doctrine supports its huge strategic mobility. Let's argue by contrasting with Russian doctrine.

Russians prefer cheaper, simpler weapons systems which make up for less accuracy with greater explosive force and greater volume of fire. That has some major advantages... until you try to move all those extra units, shells, and their support systems across an ocean. More precise munitions means fewer shells and less support for those shells.

Russians have far more ground-based air defense. Again, very good reasons for that, but it's one more thing to cart around when you deploy overseas.

Russian doctrine calls for application of massive weight of fire and huge numbers operating in close coordination. Great approach, but totally unportable.

Plus whether it's ammo, support units, or extra troops, you have to add in more consumables to support them, more men to bring in and guard the consumables, and transport units.

So it isn't just that we have the transport assets. We also have a doctrine, force structure, and equipment based on fighting extended wars across an ocean and at the other end of the world.

Britain has similar constraints and (surprise surprise) similar forces. That would be true even if we weren't close allies.

Meanwhile, Russia's main theaters of operations are all on its borders. So with different requirements, of course they have different capabilities. They've tried to be global, back in the Soviet days, but they'd have to have rethought their entire military and they simply haven't gone there.

China's army is mostly laid out right now to defend against hypothetical, ridiculous wars vs Russia. Otherwise it's mostly laid out to fight their ancient rival, the Chinese. ;) I'm actually surprised that they aren't retooling for more global power projection.

>>32434305

Due to our fragile political system. The war fighting and support assets were fine.

>>32432797
This had nothing to do with logistics and everything to do with peacetime governments thinking they can get away with purchasing sample quantities of ammo to cut corners.

>>32434305
So...

Are you saying that the Viets and Afghanis had better logistics?

>>32436025
>I'm actually surprised that they aren't retooling for more global power projection.

I thought they were taking steps in that direction. Adventurism in Africa, building a cardboard navy, shitposting about their planes, etc.

>>32432687
Russia and China don't compare. Straight up. America is so far and away larger in strategic and tactical airlift capacity, helicopter numbers and readiness, and naval might. No one on the planet can directly compare to that kind of supply chain power.

America doesn't do everything right. Some things they don't even do well. But large scale logistical support is one of the areas in which they're absolutely dominant. The only thing that could dent it would be total war, where interceptor fighters are hunting C5s and attack subs are sinking shipping lines, but at the moment, at least for awhile yet, American airpower would eventually enable continued sky dominance and the resumption of air logistics.

>>32433136
....wut?

Not him, but (you).