ljadw wrote: ↑16 Aug 2020 14:55
A smaller supply line does not mean that you cannot supply the forces required to ''win '' the battle .
Why ? Because the supplies needed to supply the forces required to ''win '' the battle have nothing to do with your supply line .
That depends. When a visiting Stavka general, I forget whom, asked Chuikov what he needed to continue defending Stalingrad, his answer was two words: "more ammunition." The fact that supplies there had to be ferried over the Volga, often under fire, forced a natural limit. Then there's also the surrenders that have happened when units ran out of ammo (meaning, "insufficient supply").
A smaller supply line can be much easier to choke.
ljadw wrote: ↑16 Aug 2020 14:55
If you ''need '' 100 supplies to ''win '',and your supply line can deliver 150 ,150 is to big, thus is there no objection to go down to a smaller supply line of 100 .
Yes. And if you're only getting 70 supply units, that will affect the conduct of the battle.
ljadw wrote: ↑16 Aug 2020 14:55
Other points which are mostly overlooked by today's logistical lobby
1 Needs are estimations, guesses and mostly,they are inflated,for obvious reasons.There is no automatism between the ''needs'',what you receive and the chance to win .
Of course. Supplies are necessary, but not sufficient, to win a battle. Supply requisitions are often overstated, as you say, but that doesn't mean that sufficient supplies are not necessary.
ljadw wrote: ↑16 Aug 2020 14:55
2 The presence of the enemy : if the enemy is weaker than assumed, less supplies are needed than claimed .
Another very obvious point. The opposite is true as well: if the enemy is stronger than expected, you will need more supplies to both kill the enemy and move ammo to the front.
ljadw wrote: ↑16 Aug 2020 14:55
Last point : the paucity of tanks : I thought that the tank myth had been destroyed, but I see that this is not so : the truth is that there is no relation (causal or not ) between the number of tanks, even the existence of tanks and the chance/probability to win a battle .There are numerous battles that were won without the use, presence of tanks .There are also battles that were lost notwithstanding the use of tanks .
It's a good thing I wasn't arguing that tanks are required to win all battles, then. I was positing an example, not a general rule. I had thought that was obvious.
ljadw wrote: ↑16 Aug 2020 14:55
In the Malayan campaign,Japan used 200 tanks, but it is impossible to prove that they won because of these tanks ,or that without them,they would have lost .
Tanks are cavalry and cavalry does not win a battle but is used for the exploitation .
And tanks would have been quite useless at Coral sea, for that matter. However, in NA, the length and volume of supply-lines had an impact on the battles fought there. Or, in another example, the 1944 Ardennes offensive, which the Germans launched relying upon the capture of Allied fuel stocks. When insufficient fuel stocks were captured, that hampered their offensive.
See, I don't think logistics is the only requirement for winning a battle; and I think you're misreading me if you think I do believe that. However, I do know that logistics plays an important part in any campaign, because a soldier can only carry so much ammo, a vehicle can only carry so much fuel, and the varied machinery of modern war is useless without ammo, fuel, and spare parts being available when needed.
And that is called "supply."
Urmel wrote: ↑16 Aug 2020 15:02
You're wasting your time mate.
That appears to be the case.
By the way, just wanted to say I've appreciated reading your stuff both here and in other threads, you're a thoughtful guy.
ljadw wrote: ↑16 Aug 2020 19:06
10 trucks advance faster than 100 trucks.This is something everyone knows .
Yeah, but how quickly can fighting troops advance on such spare rations? That is the advance that matters.