US war machine "nearly fell apart"

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-04 08:12pm

Iceberg wrote:Equipment shortages are nothing new to maneuver warfare. General Patton's famous charge through Germany nearly stalled for lack of gasoline at several points along the route.

"My soldiers can eat their belts, but my tanks gotta have gas."
- Lieutenant General George Patton, U.S. Army

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-04 09:22pm

"I'm pissing in the Rhine, give me some gas!"

(paraphrase, can't be bothered googling)

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-02-04 09:34pm

Vympel wrote:Yeah, but you'd expect an Army designed for war against the Warsaw Pact would have its act together for a fifth-rate shit-hole like Iraq. Then again, the WarPac was the one doing the attacking, and supply lines are always shorter when you're in such an entrenched position as Western Europe.

Yes. And given that we had much, much longer to prepare for a war in Germany, and that we wouldn't have been making advances nearly as far or nearly as quickly, I think we did rather well.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-02-04 09:35pm

Smiling Bandit wrote:
Yeah, but you'd expect an Army designed for war against the Warsaw Pact would have its act together for a fifth-rate shit-hole like Iraq. Then again, the WarPac was the one doing the attacking, and supply lines are always shorter when you're in such an entrenched position as Western Europe.
The Army is designed for slow, set-peicebatlle engagements. Rumsfeld has been knocking head with them and forcing them to update their work and strategies.

But honestly, you will have lots of this sort of thing in every engagement. There's always some supply that's totally whacked, some intel that we just cannot get, some item the troops need and we can't get to them. It happens. Its always happened. Troops are trained to deal with it, which is really all you can do. Especially in an advance this rapid, there really was no way to move supplies fast enough. The DoD is working on an upgraded supply infrastructure, though.

We had the same sort of problems in Gulf War I, even though we weren't traveling nearly as far.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-02-04 10:29pm

They pushed very hard and very fast. It was inevitable that supply problems would crop up. Some of the problems are inexusable and some are just going to happen in any war.

The trick is finding out which problem is what. The fact that American soldiers in many cases simply improvised shows just how much better our system of doing things is. There are armies out there that just cant function if thing deviate from their planned scripts.

We are lucky the Iraqi's did not have the same strength they had in 1991. It would have been a much longer, nastier slog.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-02-04 10:36pm

I fully concur. Of course, as the military becomes less a popular destination, it's really the only option.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-02-05 01:12am

For the most part, the study praises the army's combat operations and the ability of soldiers and commanders to adapt to rapidly changing battlefield conditions.

I dunno, it sounds less like "collapse" and more like "stall" to me... which kinda makes sense. Didn't we roll across Iraqi territory really damn fast? It could be we simply aren't prepared to move across territory that quickly.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-02-05 01:16am

Uraniun235 wrote:
For the most part, the study praises the army's combat operations and the ability of soldiers and commanders to adapt to rapidly changing battlefield conditions.
I dunno, it sounds less like "collapse" and more like "stall" to me... which kinda makes sense. Didn't we roll across Iraqi territory really damn fast? It could be we simply aren't prepared to move across territory that quickly.

That certainly is part of it. It's was one of the fastest armored cav advances ever after all. That's no mean feat.