12 ms·
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 pr
by kayo_20211030 3mo ago
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 The outdated concept of the tooth-to-tail ratio, which implies the logistical tail is a bureaucratic waste that must be minimized to support the combat teeth, must be fundamentally reexamined. In modern warfare, the tail is the primary target. If the tail is severed, the teeth are rendered useless.
- aprentic 3mo agoIt's always about logistics. The Three Kingdoms War was one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history. It was largely enabled by the invention of the wheelbarrow.
- Linell 3mo agoDo you have any more information about this?
- 9question1 3mo agoProbably talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooden_ox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooden_ox. This page suggests this may be a bit of a myth
- silvestrov 3mo agoOne of the most interesting innovations in the Ukraine war is their internal market place for drones, letting each drone group decide which drones they want to procure and use in battle. It is not a top-down decision, production and supply as other armies use for their weapons logistics.
- homeonthemtn 3mo agoI hadn't heard this before. Do you have a good article on it? I'd be curious to learn more
- abejfehr 3mo agoThey might be referring to the e-Points system, where hitting targets awards points and you can trade the points in for drones, etc
- zhengyi13 3mo agoThey literally gamified it? Amazing.
- esseph 3mo agoFrom what I remember: Equipment was worth more than a capture. Capture was worth more than a kill (get Intel, trade for Ukranian captives). Kill was xyz points. The more points, the more weapons, equipment, and support you got. This was several years ago, I'm not sure its still in play.
- elictronic 3mo agoIt is. Article from last month. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-e-points-system-steers-units-toward-more-strategic-targets-2026-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-e-points-system-stee...
- fragmede 3mo agoThat's fascinating, thank you for sharing. A market economy lets individual optimize from the bottom up.
- holoduke 3mo agoPeople talk like Ukraine is the first one doing this. Already in WW2 pilots had similar gamification where proof had to be filmed or with minimum witnesses. It probably goed back even further.
- larrik 3mo agoThey should probably rename it from "tail" to "neck" and watch the attitudes shift immediately.
- mcswell 3mo agoOr maybe "dentures"?
- ykonstant 3mo agoThat will certainly resonate with the generals (≧▽≦)
- danhodgins 3mo agoIf the tail is gone, the dentures become useless
- cucumber3732842 3mo agoTooth to tail is crappy PC/corporate-approved rename. The concept used to have a bunch of arrow and spear related names and a bunch of informal phallic counterparts all of which are better suited to the fundamental workflow of mechanized offensive operations.
- LPisGood 3mo agoFor curiosity’s sake, what were these things referred to historically and informally?
- xvedejas 3mo agoReading between the lines, it sounds like it was probably one of "tip"/"point"/"head" and "shaft", or similar
- cucumber3732842 3mo agoThe spear analogy dates at least as far back as 1940. Heavy mechanized units as the tip and then reinforcing units behind them, further units to secure flanks, logistics flow. From the metal differences across the head of a spear (something that people who have a passing familiarity of artillery or naval gunnery will be able to relate to) the finish of the handle to keep the wood in good shape the analogies basically write themselves. The dick jokes are an obvious follow on.
- alansaber 3mo agoThe driving force of peacetime military procurement and organisation is bureaucracy. Hence we see the real developments in military doctrine from Ukraine, Iran etc.
- phkahler 3mo agoThe US military knows full well the importance of logistics. TFA is somehow arguing for distributed distribution networks that are harder to track and attack. Why not advocate for improved defenses along the supply lines? Or is it down to percentages where just one good hit has large effect?
- zipy124 3mo agoThey argue for both no? Increased armour for logistics, but also the notion that yes, if one good hit destroys your whole stockpile then you would need a 100% success rate defense mechanism which is impossible when you can be overwhelmed by the number of drones/missiles seen in modern warfare.
- maxglute 3mo agoKnowing logistics is important =/= able to adapt logistics to modern environment. Last 40-50 years US adversaries couldn't really contest/degrade US logistics at scale. Article is suggesting with new tech, they probably could, and hence may have to redo the entire system for distributed survivability / operate under chaos. Aka 60/70% of the force (the tail) is going to have to change the way they do things. It's hard to make 60/70% of org change, especially the boring bureaucratic/logistics part built around predictability, who are going to want to stay predictable and insist everything is fine with these minor changes, until its not.
- rawgabbit 3mo agoUkraine is deploying AI enabled drones that require no fiber optic wires and no electronic tethering. They patrol autonomously and identify targets; a human authorizes the strike and they take out targets by themselves. This is the holy grail of modern warfare; destroy the enemy’s rear staging and logistics. If they don’t have fuel or ammo, they are a defenseless sitting target.
- nickphx 3mo agohuh? how does one keep a human in the loop for decision making it there is not an 'electronic tether'?
- dahart 3mo ago> 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 military spending is currently ~20% of all Federal Revenue at somewhere close to $1T, and it exceeds the combined spending of China and Russia by maybe 2x. Are we wanting to go back to 1960’s 50% of Federal Revenue? Why don’t we have reasonable logistics and supply lines and infrastructure with $1T? Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_...
- tclancy 3mo ago>who is this written for, and what do they want to see happen It's at wespoint.edu. The US military has a long and proud history of really good thinkers writing insightful and important pieces the government then ignores. My outsider impression has always been there was a freedom of ideas there. Don't get used to it though as Pete Hesgeth is fixing it fast as he can.
- nradov 3mo agoForeign 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.
- ecshafer 3mo agoThis is a good point that shows the weakness in a lot of these comparing military budgets. Imagine an example where one country spends $1000 per soldier and another spends $100k per soldier. IF they both field 100 soldiers. One budget is 100x the other, but by PPP they are equal. A practical example is health care. US Gov gives free healthcare to service members. This is in the military budget. A different gov which already gives free health care to everyone, would have this in a different budget even if its effectively still supporting the military for each service member. US Soldiers/Airmen/Sailors/Marines are incredibly expensive each.
- zcw100 3mo agoI guess you're just supposed to read Clausewitz not actually understand it.
- Someone 3mo agoHistorically, that was phrased as “an army marches on its stomach” I think that’s an apt comparison because it was hard to keep an army fed (https://acoup.blog/2022/07/15/collections-logistics-how-did-they-do-it-part-i-the-problem/ https://acoup.blog/2022/07/15/collections-logistics-how-did-...)
- asdff 3mo agoIt is kind of interesting seeing the ukraine war tiptoe from actually striking the tail in earnest. We see some attacks on moscow refineries in recent days, yes, but why not full scale targeting of total industrial collapse of the russian state? Similarly, why doesn't Kyiv look like Gaza? I guess ukraine doesn't want to be slapped equally hard. We see this in the iran war too. Small scale, targeted attacks to some cherry pieces of infrastructure to make headlines and perhaps bring people to the negotiating table, while all the power and capability is there to wipe Iran back to the stone age if so inclined. I think there are complex factors at play that prevent an actual total annihilation attack on the tail, even though it seems like it should be well within capabilities.
- siriusastrebe 3mo agoMoscow could only accomplish this with nukes, and only early in the war. By this point Ukraine has dug underground for most of its crucial war-sustaining industry. Ukraine, well they don't have nukes but as I understand it, much of the USSR's nuclear arsenal was built in Ukraine. I suspect Ukraine could respond tit for tat.
- asdff 3mo agoWhy 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.
- siriusastrebe 3mo agoRussia fires conventional warheads into Kiev all the time. Thousands of civilians have been killed and injured. The city survives. Buildings in Kiev aren't made out of wood. Firebombs would do very little damage.
- lostlogin 3mo agoIsrael levelled Gaza after capturing the area, with artillery and with air strikes. Russia hasn’t captured Kiev, their artillery can’t reach that far and they don’t have air superiority - Russia hardly has an airforce anymore.
- anonymars 3mo agoAlmost like a Prince Rupert's drop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Rupert's_drop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Rupert's_drop)
- pfortuny 3mo agoThe first thought when moving people must be "where/how will they shit?" Only once this is solved can you ask "what will they eat?".
- petesergeant 3mo ago> which implies the logistical tail is a bureaucratic waste that must be minimized to support the combat teeth, must be fundamentally reexamined Current SecDef thinks looking like a war movie hero is more important, however, so action on this front may be delayed.
- iwontberude 3mo agoGiven the defense budget recently doubled and they lose account of trillions of dollars, I guess I don’t see how they aren’t spending money on the tail.