NationStates Jolt Archive


Logistics: War and Peace

The Macabees
28-01-2005, 22:48
OOC: First one of these I've done...but, it differs from the last in the way that the last one kinda yelled at everyone for unrealistic military operations..this one talks more about...logistics.

__________________________

Throughout history logistics has been the driving force behind all armies, great and small, famous and infamous. Alexander the Great could not have conquered the known world without logistics, and Napoleon couldn't have terrorized Europe without logistics, and consequently, just as is impacts the real world logistics, and the problems that are attached to it, concern the World at War just as much. So, this text is offered to all world at war players in order to explain, as best as possible, what logistics are in a fully professional manner.

Napoleon is quoted to say, "An army marches on its stomach," and he is not far from the truth. Every single person who marches with your army, wether a front line soldier, a combat engineer or a measly cook must be fed, at the very least a single meal a day. For those that wish for one hundred percent combat effectiveness this number rises to just around three meals a day. Just as humans eat food vehicles eat gasoline, and so they too must be periodically resupplied with the essentials to run. So, it becomes an early realization that an uninturrupted stream of essential supplies is absolutely necessary during both peace and war. Failure to do so will seal the fate of your army, and doom its success. A list of essential needs of an army are: Rations, water, petroleum, spare parts to armaments, new uniforms, pay, etc, etc.

So, the next question is obvious. How do you ensure this constant flow of goods and services? Well, good luck finding the answer - the geniuses of war throughout history have spent their lives looking for it, and failed. However, their are ways to improve it and give it just about 97% effeciency. For example, when Alexander the Great was returning from the Indus Valley he used naval vessels to run along the coast, port to port, supplying his army by sea - although it didn't work too well as he lost the majority of his army crossing the desert - during the past two thousand years human beings have improved on ship designs and such an idea would most likely succeed nowadays. The most straightforward way of making sure your army does not suffer shortages during combat is to make sure your rear is always clear and open. To ensure this you must be able to always keep your lines closed, or else an enemy armored, or mechanized, force could easily roll into the rear echelon and ruin your front line's day. You also want to make sure that when you're in enemy territory to keep a security force to supress any attempted raids, ambushes, or general insurrections against your logistical highways. Other ways is to armor your logistical trucks and other vehicles and arm the men on them so they can defend themselves - however, this is both expensive and excessive. Furthermore, you need to make sure you use good roads, and you must have alternative routes, such as railways or by air. All of them suffer their own disadvantages, but a coalition of all of them might just work.

Now, realistically, taking in mind logistical problems, what's a realistic number for your military? Well, in times of total war, meaning a complete draft - as in you're about to get your ass kicked and you need men fast - 5% is the absolute maximum you should go - anything else you'll have so many men in the military your economy won't be able to supply them even in total war. For anything other than that it's pretty much of to you and how much money you want to spend for your war. Most nations use 1% to 2% of their total population for peace time/normal war circumstances.

Now, 2% of your population doesn't mean that all of those are front line troops. Included in that percentage are logistical personnel - meaning, engineers, cooks, janitors, drivers, etc - and realistically the front line personnel to logistical personnel ratio is anywhere from 1:7 to 1:11, however, for all intents and purposes on this RolePlay a ratio is 1:7 is sufficient and is advised - most of the better RolePlayers use this as their logistical ratio. Some claim that the United States has a ratio of 1:4. Until Agnosticium personally tells me that number is correct I won't buy it, so don't count on passing with that.

Now, just as important, your logistical personnel require logistics too. Yea, it's a pain in the butt having so much logistics - logistics, logistics, logistics - but, if you plan to have any sort of success you better count on logistics. So, in short, those truck drivers also require some kibbles and bits, so take that into account also. Additionally, the trucks you use to supply your armies require gasoline also, so that's also a major concern for logistics.

If you want to look truly proffessional in your writings always include logistics with utmost precision and the most accurate degree of detail in order to make sure your enemy knows you mean business and have a legitimate logistical system to get you to his capital. Meaning, if you fire two thousand missiles explain why and how - this saves later confusion and a lot of unecessary out of character bickering. So, solve the problem before it comes up.

Important logistical cases that some people tend not to pay attention to are amphibious landings, offensive operations into enemy territory, and aerial operations. All of these require a bit more than normal combat operations and this must be explained in detail.

Amphibious Operations
At a certain point in a war you may want to assault an enemy coastline, as it is your only offensive option at the given time, and consequently you're provided with a stretch of beach, and some landing craft. In all respects amphibious operations require you to ship your soldiers to sea and to the general area, which provide you with two logistical situations, the resupply at sea, and the twofold complication of supplying your men on land. Both of these will be dealt with in the following paragraphs in as much detail as my poor brain can stand - I do get tired of writing these you know.

Supply at sea is not as easy as you think. It's not as simple as driving to the line and dropping off some crates or having a big jumbo military jet paradrop boxes full of equipment and supplies. What is required are supply ships, which should not have to shuffle between your fleet in a continous stream, less they suffer horrible casualties at the hands of enemy raiders. It does require, though, that your fleet starts out from port with sufficient logistical vessels to carry what you're going to need for the upcoming operations, and to guestimate that you're going to need to actually sit down and plan out your strategy instead of typing it out of your ass - meaning, you're going to have to measure the distance between you and your enemy, the number of days you think your fleet will be in combat operations before enemy ports are captured, and the number of ships and men your fleet contains. All of these are relatively easy and should be dealt with in a hefty explenation in your first post. Sometimes, though, plans go awry and you're forced to swifty change to plan B. When plan B comes up you're probably going to need to organize large shipping convoys that sail in groups to your fleet with the resources necessary, and this may mean that you're going to have to set up multiple convoys and that convoys are going to have to sail back and forth as fast as possible. To ensure this the same basic rules as in ground operations apply, you want to keep your rear open, and you want to assign security forces to your convoys - that's why they sail in convoys.

Now, once your men start landing on the beaches you're presented with two different logistical scenarios - the fleet logistics and the ground logistics. Once your men are in combat operations they're going to need up to two or ten times the amount of goods as before, as they're going to be moving around quite frequently, even if you're not exactly advancing. Shuffling forces from one side of the front to the other requires fuel and food, and that fuel and food don't grow on trees - well the food does, but I doubt there are a lot of cherry trees on a beach. Additionally, your men don't secure sporadic supply dumbs when they first land like in Battlefield 1942 - those simply don't exist because I guess one day a general said, "Hmph, every time they land on the beach they take that damn supply dumb." Yea, damn that general, I know. Because of him you're forced to ferries supplies from the fleet to the beach - so the same rules apply... keep your rear open and assign security forces - again, men eat food - or if you're really, really, lucky your men will eat dirt.

Offensive Operations
When you enter enemy territory the enemy population rarely welcomes you as their new king, and gives you a golden crown hoping that they can give you a lap dance and return home without further ado. They normally raise arms and fire a couple of thousand shells into your army until you kill them. So, quickly put, when your army occupies towns and cities you're going to get a lot of insurrection and partisan action, which is going to danger your logistical supply routes, perhaps mortally.

For example, Soviet partisans were the main reason why the Werhmacht was unable to made quick advances along long axis, and was one of the major causes for the eventual German defeat. Tanks without spare parts aren't happy tanks, and unhappy tanks don't win wars.

That's pretty much it for this topic. Ah yes, one more thing. Roads in enemy countries aren't your roads, and sometimes your roads might be better than theirs - meaning, your trucks are accostumed to run on concrete, not on concrete with potholes, or sometimes concrete with big mines in it, and other times just mud and dirt. So, keep that in mind.

Aerial Operations
Look guys an aircraft with a ten thousand mile range doesn't mean it can go ten thousand miles straight, it means it can go five thousand miles, and then turn back. So keep that in mind when you go launch planes to bomb halfway accross the world. Also, aircraft require to be refueled, pilots also eat and planes also get pretty banged up. So that's that.

Maintaining Forces
I've noticed that nations have a tendency to have batches of different classes of ordnance for the same type - such as having an Arleigh Burke AEGIS Cruiser and also having a Russian class Cruiser, or an older American class Cruiser. I severely suggest against this, as this forces said nation to provide spare parts for all three different type of weapons - meaning, there's going to be mix ups most likely and you're going to be wasting money trying to produce three things, when you're much better off simply mass producing one. Therefore, I sugggest you standardize your equipment - as in, have one type of MBT, not five, have one type of carrier. That way, when you have to deliver spare parts your logistical personnel in the back only have to worry about one type, so it makes things easier for them, and consequently, makes logistics faster and much more fluid.

If you have trouble standardizing your equipment because you're afraid that only having one type of battleship means that its weaknesses aren't going to be made up by another then make your own equipment incorporated the strengths of both kinds - although the idea of such a thing is plain silly. Nonetheless, choose one, if you don't like either make your own.

-Macabees out
The Zoogie People
28-01-2005, 22:56
Excellent post - a major and recurring problem is people failing to acknowledge the need for logistics, and stretching their army sizes to as large as they suppose possible - 5% of your population, all in the military. Ridiculous.

However, in roleplays is it truly necessary to describe all your logistics? It is generally assumed that logistics happens, and if this is acknowledged then one does not need to roleplay that to utmost precision, unless we're talking about an attack on a supply line or transport ship convoy. There's not too much excitement in writing about a truck driver shipping food and clothing to an army, regardless of his importance to the war.
MassPwnage
28-01-2005, 22:57
Excellent post.
The Macabees
28-01-2005, 22:59
Excellent post - a major and recurring problem is people failing to acknowledge the need for logistics, and stretching their army sizes to as large as they suppose possible - 5% of your population, all in the military. Ridiculous.

However, in roleplays is it truly necessary to describe all your logistics? It is generally assumed that logistics happens, and if this is acknowledged then one does not need to roleplay that to utmost precision, unless we're talking about an attack on a supply line or transport ship convoy. There's not too much excitement in writing about a truck driver shipping food and clothing to an army, regardless of his importance to the war.

Well, I guess I see your point - however, in my RPs if I were to let's say invade someone with a million men I would state how I would be able to supply them - because if I were the receiver of so many men I would be wondering how in the hell he was able to supply these men in combat.
The Macabees
28-01-2005, 23:09
bump
Risban
28-01-2005, 23:24
Very good... You bring up some excellent points.
Euroslavia
28-01-2005, 23:27
Good job Macabees! Would you like me to put this in the Guide To Nationstates? :)
Risban
28-01-2005, 23:28
Good job Macabees! Would you like me to put this in the Guide To Nationstates? :)


I think you should. Useful information. -nods-
The Macabees
28-01-2005, 23:31
Good job Macabees! Would you like me to put this in the Guide To Nationstates? :)
Sure!
Euroslavia
28-01-2005, 23:41
Added. ^.^
imported_Vermin
28-01-2005, 23:47
Tanks without spare parts aren't happy tanks, and happy tanks don't win wars.

Good, i'll stop sending spare parts to my armored units.
The Macabees
28-01-2005, 23:49
oops...edited
imported_Vermin
29-01-2005, 00:09
You took all the fun out of it

Anyways, what i wanted to say
Dealing with partisans is fairly easy, a number of special forces units with helicopters, heavily armed ones can do the job with ease. A partisan usually lacks proper training, a high morale and good equipment.
The best example is Afghanistan where 7 Soviet and 4 Afghan specialist units dealt the Mujahideen serious blows through airborne attacks, slowly the Afghan army (that had always been a problem for the Soviet) got better while the morale of the Mujahideen decreased, this was especially the case in 85-86.
In '87 the Mujahideen received Blowpipes(English AA weapons) and later the famous Stingers, these gave the mujahideen a boost but the Government forces gradually regained their superiority. Whenevr the Mujahideen attacked a convoy the Specnaz moved to the location and took a position along the escaperoute of the rebel forces: The ambusher got ambushed, then imagine an Mi-24 showing up to give the specialist soldiers some support and you know how late it is.

The reason the Wehrmacht had problems with Russian and Ukrainian partisans was because they treated them as a lower lifeform, had Hitler been a bit smarter he could have raised a Russian liberation army, big enough to fight the invasion in the Sovietunion almost completely on their own.

President Najibullah of Afghanistan realized that and when he replaced mr Karmal he reinsituted several old laws, and strated a 'live and let live' policy which made the Afghan army' hands clear to fight the more active rebels in the Eastern provinces. The only mistake the Afghan army made was that it tried to hold on to every city or fort they took, while the Soviets remained mobile. Had the Afghans adopted the Soviet tactics they would have had more succes.

The French made a similar mistake in Indochina by holding on and protecting fortresses instead of going mobile with their best forces(better than the Vietminh, thats for sure), a tactic that worked for Lord Templer in Malacca.

For the rest, nice post
thats all
The Macabees
29-01-2005, 00:18
...a number of special forces units with helicopters, heavily armed ones can do the job with ease. A partisan usually lacks proper training, a high morale and good equipment.

However, NationStates wars rarely follow the steps of real world wars and instead of invading third world countries all your invasions are most likely going to be against people who consider themselves fully first world. As a cosequence, partisans are going to have high morale, and excellent armament, making them much more dangerous to you.


In '87 the Mujahideen received Blowpipes(English AA weapons) and later the famous Stingers, these gave the mujahideen a boost but the Government forces gradually regained their superiority. Whenevr the Mujahideen attacked a convoy the Specnaz moved to the location and took a position along the escaperoute of the rebel forces: The ambusher got ambushed, then imagine an Mi-24 showing up to give the specialist soldiers some support and you know how late it is.


The point of the partisan force is not to have a casualty ratio in their own favor - it's to wear you down. Wether for every one they kill you kill sixty it matters not - in Iraq, according to resistance leaders - for every US soldier dead sixty rebels die, however, casualties in relation to the number of US soldiers there is relatively high - 1,300 to 1,600 US soldiers dead. As a consequence, partisan warfare is highly effective.

Not only that, but nowhere in my guide did I exxagerate partisan ability to defeat armies. I merely stated the fact that partisan warfare can do immense damage to your logistical routes. Take for example the French resistance in France during the allied '44 campaign. It's impact is irrefutable and extremely dangerous to a campaign's success.
Zarbia
29-01-2005, 00:36
Well done. This is very useful.
Hogsweat
29-01-2005, 00:41
Aye, awesome thread man.
The Macabees
29-01-2005, 00:44
Thanks everyone!
The Macabees
29-01-2005, 01:05
bump
Present Day Comatica
29-01-2005, 01:28
As ashamed as it makes me, being an August nation and having participated in several operations in all, I must say that I learned a few things in this thread.

I liked it!
Euroslavia
29-01-2005, 02:26
As ashamed as it makes me, being an August nation and having participated in several operations in all, I must say that I learned a few things in this thread.

I liked it!

Suprisingly enough, I've been around since July 2003, and I'm still learning things. :) I know I said it before, but mad props to the Macabees for this one.
The Macabees
29-01-2005, 03:49
heh, I'm planning a series called Modern War Studies which are analysis of major wars, the armies of major players, etc - should help those who want to study how others think and play to improve.

Good idea, or bad idea?
Euroslavia
29-01-2005, 16:56
heh, I'm planning a series called Modern War Studies which are analysis of major wars, the armies of major players, etc - should help those who want to study how others think and play to improve.

Good idea, or bad idea?

That's actually a very good idea. If you need any help with it, I'd gladly take some time for it.
The Evil Overlord
29-01-2005, 20:39
Several people have commented about the fact that getting chin-deep into logistical concerns takes a lot of the fun out or RPing a combat scenario. This is largely true, if you get too deep in the minutiae. It stops being a story and becomes an exercise in numberwanking.

However, logistics- if RPed properly- can add several dimensions to the usual slok people post when trying to roleplay a war.

Here's a link to my thread on the subject:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=275828

There's a lot of good information there from other players as well.


TEO
The Macabees
30-01-2005, 02:06
I actually read it when it first came out and it was, in fact, the spreadsheet used for my World at War - however, I wrote my own to go 'chin deep'. Altogether, I can speak for most of the W@W players - logistics in an NS type game is very, very, fun and W@W has had its popularity... I think you should check it out - *cough* join *cough*
Huzen Hagen
30-01-2005, 11:22
nice thread
Verdant Archipelago
30-01-2005, 12:21
You took all the fun out of it

Anyways, what i wanted to say
Dealing with partisans is fairly easy, a number of special forces units with helicopters, heavily armed ones can do the job with ease. A partisan usually lacks proper training, a high morale and good equipment.
The best example is Afghanistan where 7 Soviet and 4 Afghan specialist units dealt the Mujahideen serious blows through airborne attacks, slowly the Afghan army (that had always been a problem for the Soviet) got better while the morale of the Mujahideen decreased, this was especially the case in 85-86.
In '87 the Mujahideen received Blowpipes(English AA weapons) and later the famous Stingers, these gave the mujahideen a boost but the Government forces gradually regained their superiority. Whenevr the Mujahideen attacked a convoy the Specnaz moved to the location and took a position along the escaperoute of the rebel forces: The ambusher got ambushed, then imagine an Mi-24 showing up to give the specialist soldiers some support and you know how late it is.

The reason the Wehrmacht had problems with Russian and Ukrainian partisans was because they treated them as a lower lifeform, had Hitler been a bit smarter he could have raised a Russian liberation army, big enough to fight the invasion in the Sovietunion almost completely on their own.

President Najibullah of Afghanistan realized that and when he replaced mr Karmal he reinsituted several old laws, and strated a 'live and let live' policy which made the Afghan army' hands clear to fight the more active rebels in the Eastern provinces. The only mistake the Afghan army made was that it tried to hold on to every city or fort they took, while the Soviets remained mobile. Had the Afghans adopted the Soviet tactics they would have had more succes.

The French made a similar mistake in Indochina by holding on and protecting fortresses instead of going mobile with their best forces(better than the Vietminh, thats for sure), a tactic that worked for Lord Templer in Malacca.

For the rest, nice post
thats all

An interesting interpretation, but you forget that America lost in indochina too even when they had aircav using the tactics you mentioned. It's irrelevent that the army was 'stabbed in the back' by the civilians. To quote Iab M banks, who put it better than I ever will

We are invincible. We will never give up.'
'Well, you've proved fairly vincible before.' He sighed, remembering the history of this place.
'We were betrayed!' the woman shouted. 'Our armies never were defeated; we were -'
'Stabbed in the back; I know.'
'Yes! But our spirit will never die. We -'
'Aw, shut up!' He said, swinging his legs off the narrow bed and facing the woman. 'I've heard that [expletive deleted] before. "We was robbed." "The folks back home let us down." "The media were against us." [Expletive deleted]...' He ran a hand through his wet hair. 'Only the very young or the very stupid think wars are waged just by the military. As soon as news travels faster than a despatch rider or a bird's leg the whole... nation... whatever... is fighting. That's your spirit; your will. Not the grunt on the ground. If you lose, you lose

-Ian M Banks
Use of Weapons

Partisans aren't nessisarily going to defeat an army, but they will defeat a nation. As america is finding in Iraq, they CAN cause problems that reverberate on the home front

By the way, I believe america does officially have a low combat to logistics personnel ration, but that's becaiuse they've outsourced so much work to civilian contractors. Even in the gulf war, 2% of coalition forces were mercenaries... that's WAY higher now. They're earning $4000 a month to $1000 a day, usually in non-combat roles, while american combat troops are making less than $50000 a year... something's not right.

In any case, interdicting supplies is probably the most important job of the airforce, but I ihave yet to see an aircraft optimized for the job in NS, other than the DCA Stormbringer.

You forgot to mention the absolute necessity of good railroads and of establishing railheads. Using transport aircraft is often more of a problem than a solution because of the vast amounts of fuel they need... and how do you get the fuel to the forward airfields?

Oh, and bridges. You need bridges. And you can't assume that your 100 ton tanks can cross the bridges in your enemy's country.

Which brings me to another rant. The more sophisticated a vehicle, the more parts it has. The more parts it has, the more it breaks down. But I have yet to see an NS thread where tanks become maintenence casulties or throw treads, or have their turrets seize up, or have their milimeterband radar short out. All these things BREAK. And you need REPLACEMENTS. For everything, because you don't know what will break. A No. 2 valve is a little insignifigant thing, but without it, your tanks don't run. Make sure that strain is reduced by using the same engine in all of your vehicles. By having one, standardized ammunition size (tanks with five different guns need five different ammo bins and need trucks to bring up five different kinds of ammo. A tank with just a 120mm and a .50 cal is that much more efficient). And missiles... putting missiles on your tanks seems like a wonderful idea until you realize that they are big, bulky, maintenence intensive, and need to be brought up from the rear.

Sigh. This post is incoharent, but heartfelt. Thank you for writing about logistics. It needed to be done
The Macabees
30-01-2005, 18:02
I believe I had a short section, or a short paragraph, on railroads, but I completely forgot about modernization - so when I have the time I'll update it with modernization problems (the more advance, the more parts, the harder and more expensive to replace). I mentioned replacement parts for vehicles though. And I yes, the next time I update I will talk about the three Rs (replacements, refitting and rests) - although, I did touch on them a bit.
Notquiteaplace
30-01-2005, 18:41
Excellent post - a major and recurring problem is people failing to acknowledge the need for logistics, and stretching their army sizes to as large as they suppose possible - 5% of your population, all in the military. Ridiculous.

However, in roleplays is it truly necessary to describe all your logistics? It is generally assumed that logistics happens, and if this is acknowledged then one does not need to roleplay that to utmost precision, unless we're talking about an attack on a supply line or transport ship convoy. There's not too much excitement in writing about a truck driver shipping food and clothing to an army, regardless of his importance to the war.

Of course, if someone chose to attack your logistics, then role playing it might have effects.

Otherwise, I don't see why any of this thread needs more than to be bourne in mind, and perhaps your armies changed to reflect that. In RP terms. There is no point in describing your supplies more than maybe as a mention in one or two posts, however if your enemy starts attacking them things are different.

At which point you should start RPing in a way that reflects this. It's a tactic rarely seen in NS, and one that would be most effective I think, if used against a good RPer.
The Macabees
31-01-2005, 05:44
As I said.
The Macabees
11-02-2005, 19:51
A bump for the sake of logistics.
Sarzonia
11-02-2005, 20:08
I think the real problem regarding RPing logistics here on NS is at least twofold: One, many RPers find a long post that details a supply convoy or a ship being refuelled boring, or they find the idea of trying to RP fixing a part on a VTOL fighter to allow it to take off vertically too complex and beyond their understanding, so they just assume everything will be done in due course.

Two, many people want to go straight into the action of blowing up other armies or cities rather than spend the time developing the story. They also don't want to spend long times describing how many tankers they have or the actions of getting supplies to the troops and they just assume everything is there. True, they get to the shooting more quickly, but then the reader is bereft of the reason Country A is at war with Country B.

The other thing that affects storefront buyers or sellers is the fact that most developed nations assume they have what they need so there's little interest in the supply truck or the cargo vessel, except from the most serious RPers. It's a shame, but it's also part of what seems to be a reflected desire for instant gratification.

But this is another good epistle on the value of logistics. It's nice to see.
The Macabees
13-02-2005, 05:40
-updated with Maintaning Forces-
Hogsweat
13-02-2005, 12:33
Logistics can add fun to an RP, because if you RP it then you can RP cutting off someones supply lines and that is fun.
The Macabees
13-02-2005, 17:39
Logistics can add fun to an RP, because if you RP it then you can RP cutting off someones supply lines and that is fun.

*orgasm* I know how you feel... kessels are always fun.