3 ms·
Why would NATO run out of supplies?
by sickbeard 10y ago
Why would NATO run out of supplies?
- greedo 10y agoWithout bullets and beans, an army isn't worth much. "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." Implied in his comment is that what little force actually deployed to Western Europe would have been dramatically outnumbered from the very start. In some categories the ratio was higher than 10:1. Until the mid 80's, we'd have been lucky to avoid crossing the nuclear threshold had the balloon gone up.
- stcredzero 10y agoThere was the Polder Gap. We had plans to collapse mountains into the mountain passes wth nukes to try and slow down the Warsaw Pact forces.
- greedo 10y agoFulda Gap maybe? This is really a wide open plain, not really a mountainous region. If we went nuclear first (and odds are the Soviets would have beat us to the punch), SIOP was pretty broad and the idea of containing fissiles to the battlefield never had much credibility. Pershing and the GLCM were deployed so that NATO could easily and reliably hit deep into the USSR with European based weapons.
- stcredzero 10y agoFulda Gap maybe? Yes Fulda gap. I mis-membered it. (It was a JROTC class in the 80's!)
- stcredzero 10y agoAfter WWII, the rate at which weapons could use ordnance increased. In general, soldiers and weapons systems could move faster, fire faster, and engage more targets at greater distances. Mobility expanded and became even more important. In general, greatly increased firepower and more advanced machines require lots more logistics. (By that measure the Soviet T-33 was superior to the German Tiger. It was more reliable and required less logistics for amount of firepower.)
- CapitalistCartr 10y agoAt Kursk, that proved true. Numbers won.