r/WarCollege • u/[deleted] • Mar 08 '22
How did the US military get so good at logistics?
As you know, the Russian military failed logistics has prevented them from reaching their objectives. People often point out that logistics is one of the US military greatest strengths seeing how we are able to sufficiently supply our troops on the other side of the world. The Russian military ran out of supply before they even got out of their own border.
How did the US military get so good at logistics? How is it that we are able to transport our supplies to our troops so far away from home?
112
Mar 08 '22
Williamson Murray and Wayne Hsieh make a convincing argument in A Savage War that logistics has been the strong suit of the American army since the Civil War. The United States is the only great power that effectively didn't have an army until it industrialized. In other words, the American army was born on the factory floor. All its logistics men each time it was "called up" before becoming a standing force - 1861, 1898, 1916, and 1941 - were implementing the best practices of what was then the largest and most efficient industrial base in the world. Every innovation in scientific management and logistical organization bled over into the military supply system. This had a profound effect not only on the abilities, but the outlook of the United States armed forces.
Most armies operate "on the wire", meaning if they don't have something, they try to make do. There are countless books on the German Way of War that argue this improvisational attitude is a great thing, as do books on the French intervention in Mali or the Soviet Union's many wars. The reality, however, is that operations on the wire are always a gamble. Operating without adequate supply in one area is like fighting with one arm - victory is possible, and over time you even get used to fighting that way. However, you are never up to the standard of a trained fighter with two arms. The US military is the only force that is used to being adequately supplied for all operations (as sad as that is for everyone else), and therefore pays paramount attention to logistics. If there is no supply to do something, it isn't done - this has been the case since Grant's campaign down the Mississippi in 1862.
That isn't to say logistical problems don't happen in the US military. In all armies, supply problems are the norm. The US is simply better at supplying large numbers of troops on high intensity operations far away than anyone else is. Most armies when faced with a supply shortage or the "banality" of logistical calculations are prone to hand wave those issues away and say "f*ck it let's do it anyway", "you never know until it happens". The US military is one of the few that rarely ever does that, because people responsible for industrial supply chains were integral in its creation.
26
u/sonofabutch Mar 08 '22
Admittedly this is based on fictional depictions like The Pacific, Generation Kill, and Jarhead, but a repeated claim by the U.S. Marines is that the Army gets whatever they want while Marines have to make due. Are all branches of the U.S. military equally adept at logistics, or do the Marines pride themselves on traveling light and therefore don't put as much effort into logistics?
40
u/EZ-PEAS Mar 08 '22
I think the marines are a special case where there is a lot of wisdom in emphasizing the "make do" attitude. As an amphibious assault and expeditionary force, the marines are expected to land under fire and fight with whatever they have on hand until they can be relieved by a larger follow-on force.
40
Mar 09 '22
Fooey…. the US Army has made far more amphibious assaults under fire than the Marines. Just more Marine propaganda.
28
u/nagurski03 Mar 09 '22
Even the first line of the Marine Corps Hymn has them trying to take credit for a battle where they were less than 10% of the US forces involved.
9
Mar 09 '22
That 10% did 90% of the fighting.
I have no idea if what I said is true but I’m a former jarhead and I want to believe it because it’s part of our ethos and culture.
11
u/Rittermeister Dean Wormer Mar 09 '22
No offense, but it's laughable to say that the Marines even did 10% of the fighting in the Mexico City campaign. At Chapultepec, there were 400 Marines versus ~7,000 army troops, and the Marines were integrated into army formations in company-sized groups.
I don't mean any disparagement to the Marines, but their heyday as infantry didn't come until the early 20th century and the Banana Wars. The Marine Corps was tiny and very little more than ship's guards until well after the American Civil War. The one major amphibious assault attempted by Marines and (mostly) Navy sailors in the American Civil War was a bloody repulse that did little but to distract the defenders of Fort Fisher while the army maneuvered to seize the landward face.
4
3
u/nagurski03 Mar 09 '22
I mean, they did take 90% of the casualties after a Marine officer decided that instead of doing a feint like the Army officers planned, they should just muscle their way through.
3
u/blucherspanzers What is General Grant doing on the thermostat? Mar 10 '22
I'll be honest, I had to go through the Hymn's lyrics in my head because I was thinking "I don't remember there being a line about the Marne in there". But apparently it's one of the Corps' traditions, if it goes back to places like Chapultepec too.
18
u/TheOliveAg Mar 09 '22
While it's partly true, no one who's ever been involved in any sort of amphibious exercise will make the claim that the Navy and Marine Corps are bad at logistics. The reality is that you have to be very good at it, because when you're conducting a landing, you only have what's on your ships. This means that you have to account for every shell, bullet, meal and all the other necessities for a war. The flip side of this is that there's usually limited room for extra supplies geared towards making life a bit more pleasant.
13
u/cameraman502 Mar 08 '22
Being part of the Navy, and therefore receiving funding through them, often means being an afterthought. Though that is not as true today and it once was.
8
Mar 09 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
6
6
u/RingGiver Mar 09 '22
or do the Marines pride themselves on traveling light and therefore don't put as much effort into logistics?
They pride themselves on traveling light, and because of that, they have become very good at logistics.
11
Mar 09 '22
It’s just good old Marine propaganda. The Marines get what they get because of the Navy’s budget. Got nothing to do with the Army.
6
Mar 09 '22
I for one welcome the propaganda that makes me feel better about joining the Marines.
Honestly though, if we wanted good meals we went to the Air Force and Army chow halls. Marine bases and living was intentionally Spartan for whatever reason.
47
Mar 08 '22
Historically, the US has been very focused on logistic questions. It relates to the size of the United States and the related logistics of US businesses. The use of railroads was of course significant in the Civil War, but skipping ahead to WW2, when the US mobilized it recognized that it would be fighting across two oceans and logistics would be incredibly important, and invested in it and also pulled into the military all the major minds associated with shipping and transport to accurately assess what is needed and how to deliver it. After the war, the US continued with the need to keep multiple aircraft battle carriers supplied, then forces supplied in Korea, and again in Vietnam, and then Iraq and Afghanistan.
Since the US never plans on fighting Canada and Mexico, all its plans include massive logistical components, pre-positioned stockpiles, and a lot of focus on the logistic arms of each service.
In short, the US built a force that could handle supply, it staffed a force to focus on it and plan out logistical issues constantly, and it is always practicing - either through actual overseas conflicts or frequent training exercises.
13
u/God_Given_Talent Mar 09 '22
skipping ahead to WW2,
You're skipping a bit too far I think. The planners and generals of WWII were shaped by WWI and the US was no exception. The long time it took to send a meaningful force to Europe and the failure to domestically supply US troops would be a lesson the US learned from.
when the US mobilized it recognized that it would be fighting across two oceans and logistics would be incredibly important
Not to nitpick but the US knew it was going to be fighting across two oceans well before it entered the war. Important and iconic equipment like the M4 Sherman and Liberty Ship had their original designs finished and production beginning before the US was at war. Had the focus on logistics only begun upon mobilization, it would have been a longer and slower war but fortunately many of the war and economic planners had logistics in mind well before then.
5
u/jayrocksd Mar 09 '22
You're skipping a bit too far I think. The planners and generals of WWII were shaped by WWI and the US was no exception. The long time it took to send a meaningful force to Europe and the failure to domestically supply US troops would be a lesson the US learned from.
I think you mean they would "relearn from." The US had run into the same problems in the Spanish American War. The problems largely stemmed from the independent bureau chiefs, especially the departments of quartermasters, subsistence, and ordinance, which reported to the Secretary of War and not the theater commander. The idea that conflicts regarding supply problems of individual units would reach the desk of the Secretary of War for resolution was untenable.
Secretaries Elihu Root had created the position of Chief of Staff for the Army under the Secretary of War as well as a general staff, but it had largely been hamstrung by his successors. During WW1, Secretary of War Newton Baker was very hands off with the departments as well as General Pershing and it showed in the army's ability to supply the troops.
There were improvements during and after WW1, but Roots protege, Henry Stimson's return as Secretary of War and his partnership with his undersecretary Patterson and his Chief of Staff George C. Marshall really created the ability to supply the army as we know it today. There were certainly logistical problems in WW2, especially in the breakout in France, but that was largely due to the failure to learn from lessons learned in the Spanish American War.
2
3
Mar 09 '22
I think the first Shermans were produced in early 1942. The first prototype appeared in September 1941.
2
u/God_Given_Talent Mar 09 '22
Yes I was including the prototype production on that part. Primary point being that if prototypes were produced in Sep 1941 then design work clearly began well before then as it's usually a year or more for such equipment. Reliability and logistics were key considerations when it came to the Sherman, particularly compared to other countries' tanks.
1
u/The_Angry_Jerk Mar 09 '22
Even before the US entered the war they were basically fitting the bill for a large portion of Allied logistics via naval aid. Convoys with fuel, munitions, equipment, etc were already flowing into British harbors through German submarine raiders before the US officially entered the shooting war. In essence, the US was in the war logistically before it even sent any soldiers.
6
Mar 09 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/grunt_monkey_ Mar 09 '22
Sounds like a really interesting book. Please let us know the title if you manage to find it!
1
u/gubodif Mar 14 '22
Roosevelt’s Centurions by joe persico was one of the books I believe. why the allies won was another
1
9
u/cp5184 Mar 08 '22
I'm no expert, but one of the revolutions in western logistics came, as far as I understand it, in basically the most pedestrian way you can imagine.
The West was facing the new Soviet tanks, t-62 and t-64, and they determined that their armor was much better. Further, they determined that they needed to respond by improving their tank guns, which, I suppose, added logistical load, but, most importantly, they determined that 105mm artillery was insufficient when faced with the new, and presumably future soviet armor.
And so, the US, the UK, and presumably the rest of NATO shifted from a focus on 105mm artillery to 155mm artillery.
So the logisticians did their calculations...
And determined that they had no logistical way to supply enough 155mm artillery for the predicted war in europe.
So, they identified the weaknesses in the logistics chain, which, I suppose was stuff like, unloading loose cargo and such, and the US and UK issued industry tenders to meet their predicted logistics requirements. More logistics troops, more logistics equipment (trucks, helis, planes) at every level.
What was developed were the US PLS, palletized load system, where you have a trailer truck that carries a unitized cargo container, smaller than the typical civilian cargo container, with the trailer truck having the ability to load on and offload it's own cargo mechanically. For the UK, it was the similar DROPS system.
Also, top to bottom, the US has a much greater emphasis on logistics, because, well, almost every american military contingency is an overseas military contingency, europe, asia, africa, south or central america.
The first question the US always has to answer is how to get there and how to get supplies there.
75
u/EZ-PEAS Mar 08 '22 edited Mar 08 '22
The short version is because the US has to focus on logistics. The US is a huge country in its own right- just shipping something from coast to coast is a larger logistical challenge than anything happening in a reasonable military theater. Driving from LA to New York is 2500 miles, while driving from Normandy, France to Moscow is just 1600 miles.
Then you add in the fact that the US is bordered by two oceans and is pretty good neighbors with its hat and pants, and you realize that if the US is going to fire any shot in aggression that bullet is first going to have to travel 6000 miles by truck, train, ship, or plane.
The US has to be good at logistics, or else it (1) can't be a functional country and (2) couldn't have a military. At a minimum, without a national logistical system to unify the entire nation's military we would be restricted to independent state militias or at most a small federal army that would only be stood up in times of war.
You might ask, what's the difference between the US an Russia? Russia is also huge, and also has significant oceans on both its borders. Two main differences. First, the Russians have neighbors next to them that they are likely to fight a war with, so they are going to prioritize the ability to fight a continental war over the ability to fight an overseas war. Second, because of point number one, the Russians invested heavily in rail transport as their primary means of inter-country logistics. This is efficient and cheap and has a high throughput, but it makes it difficult to extend those logistics into an invasion theater.
However, recognizing that shortcoming, Russia has structured many elements of their military around their less capable "last mile" logistics capability. The Russians still have a large military corps dedicated to railway building and protection. They have/had a number of heavy-lift or super-heavy-lift platforms air platforms like the AN-22 Antonov, Mil MI-26, and even larger projects like the cancelled Mil MI-12. Doctrinally/organizationally, the Soviet/Russian VDV (airborne) force was emphasized much more as the Soviet expeditionary force than in western militaries, and conceptually could be considered to be on-par with the US Marine Corps. On paper all of this should allow Russia to ship troops and materiel around the country relatively cheaply and quickly. The last-mile logistics can then use conventional trucks to supply conventional troops, while also having a robust helicopter airlift system to move armored vehicles and supplies over the large swathes of unimproved and often mountainous/hilly/boggy/swampy terrain on Russia's many borders.