Logistics In War

“Amateurs study tactics, armchair generals study strategy, but professionals study logistics,” as the old saw goes. While the veracity of this statement is debatable, there can be little doubt that the study and appreciation of the role of sustainment in warfare lags behind that of the sexier topics of strategy and tactics.  A new blog, Logistics in War, [also on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/logisticsinwar/) and Twitter (@logisticsinwar)] is seeking to change that.

The anonymous and somewhat mysterious purveyor of the blog bills it as “a public, unofficial, ‘Professional Military Education’ site,” the purpose of which is “to instigate and inspire, continue and create, a discussion on military logistics that is so often sorely lacking (or if it does occur, does so behind closed doors).”

It seems safe to conclude that the blog’s owner is an Australian Army loggie, however: “Although the blog currently reflects an Australian and Army orientation, its vision is to become broadly applicable; to reflect the many different approaches to logistics as practiced by different military Services, the Joint domain, and militaries of all persuasions.”

The initial posts range in subject from a list of suggested readings about logistics, to the impact of sustainment in battle in recent history, to the challenges of supplying combat forces in the multi-domain battle construct. The writing is crisp, clear, and professional, and the questions and topics addressed are of undeniable importance. Logistics in War is a welcome addition to the online conversation about warfare, and is well worth the time to peruse. It will be very interesting to watch it progress and grow.

Share this:
Shawn Woodford
Shawn Woodford

Shawn Robert Woodford, Ph.D., is a military historian with nearly two decades of research, writing, and analytical experience on operations, strategy, and national security policy. His work has focused on special operations, unconventional and paramilitary warfare, counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, naval history, quantitative historical analysis, nineteenth and twentieth century military history, and the history of nuclear weapon development. He has a strong research interest in the relationship between politics and strategy in warfare and the epistemology of wargaming and combat modeling.

All views expressed here are his and do not reflect those of any other private or public organization or entity.

Articles: 302

5 Comments

  1. Thanks for the kind words. I am indeed a currently serving Australian Army officer, and PhD researcher at the Australian National University. I can be found on Twitter at @davidblogistics. The Australian Army, as with other armies, is adapting as strategic interests change. Furthermore, it is looking to shake a few habits and internal expectations established after fifteen years of fairly consistent operations. I believe the blog can contribute, positively, to this change. The blog itself is very young (four weeks now!) and I hope to introducing changes over time that make it more relevant to a broader audience as the audience grows. With this in mind, and once again, thanks for introducing the blog to others.

    • You are off to a very good start. There seems to be a lot of fresh thinking going on in Australia about modern warfare these days.Thank you for contributing your insights and also drawing attention to an important and under-appreciated topic.

  2. Is there actually a reliable way of calculating logistical demand in correlation to “standing” ration strength/combat/daily strength army size?

    Did Dupuy ever focus on logistics in any of his work?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *