Destruction of Weapons.

[kato13]

Well there still will be empty trucks.

Dunnigan's "How to make war" has US and Soviet Division needing similar tonnage (about a maximum 40% variance) of material. It is not 10 to one. For both it ends up being in the range of 2000 tons per day.

(OT Does anyone have the Third Edition of the above mentioned book. I think the US and Soviet divisions are flip flopped as it has the Sovs using more fuel and the US units using more ammo.
Figure 23-1 page 472.)

[Legbreaker]

10 to 1 might be a little extreme in some cases, but it's certainly believable for the units I was in.
Most of the time we were foot mobile with only one 4 tonne truck, two 110 landrovers and two trailers assigned to a company of about 110 men. The Battalion motorpool had more vehicles, but only enough to transport one company at a time with a handful of vehicles left over. Fuel requirements therefore weren't anywhere near as high as in a mechanised or armoured unit.

Ammunition and food are the two main supply items for any infantry unit and I just can't see any one soldier needing more than about a hundred kilos total even in heavy combat. Rockets, mortars and other miscellaneous equipment might push requirements up to about 200kg, but this would leave the soliders in relative luxury.

1000kg of supplies per soldier is just plain excessive and wasteful. It would have to include pizza's helicoptered in, prefab buildings in the basecamps, entertainment, and about a million other things not actually contributing to combat capability. In a T2K environment all of these things could, and would be stripped away to allow the available support units to concentrate on maintaining combat effectiveness.

All that is truely needed to keep fighting is bullets and food. Everything else is secondary.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

10 to 1 might be a little extreme in some cases, but it's certainly believable for the units I was in.
Most of the time we were foot mobile with only one 4 tonne truck, two 110 landrovers and two trailers assigned to a company of about 110 men. The Battalion motorpool had more vehicles, but only enough to transport one company at a time with a handful of vehicles left over. Fuel requirements therefore weren't anywhere near as high as in a mechanised or armoured unit.

Ammunition and food are the two main supply items for any infantry unit and I just can't see any one soldier needing more than about a hundred kilos total even in heavy combat. Rockets, mortars and other miscellaneous equipment might push requirements up to about 200kg, but this would leave the soliders in relative luxury.

1000kg of supplies per soldier is just plain excessive and wasteful. It would have to include pizza's helicoptered in, prefab buildings in the basecamps, entertainment, and about a million other things not actually contributing to combat capability. In a T2K environment all of these things could, and would be stripped away to allow the available support units to concentrate on maintaining combat effectiveness.

All that is truely needed to keep fighting is bullets and food. Everything else is secondary.

Well the Battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division were similar equipped. There were enough to motorized on company in a pinch, but we largely still foot mobile. Not all US combat units were Mechanized and Armor equip. Up until the conversion of what was left of the Light Infantry that were from the remains of the 6th ID and the 25th ID that were merged into the 25th Division which now has 3 Stryker Brigades and 1 Airborne Brigade were similar equipped.

Honestly the logistical units during both Iraqi wars were overtaxed and they were using numbers that were near what was quoted. The fighting that was speculated to have happen in Europe and even in Korea would push the limit. It is why so much equipment was pre-positioned throughout Europe. While after the initial invasion in 2003, the logistical had eased up a bit too. Lot of the rules and thinking is geared to Heavy Mechanized/Armor warfare.

I think we have case where people are trying to compare apples to oranges...

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

1000kg of supplies per soldier is just plain excessive and wasteful. It would have to include pizza's helicoptered in, prefab buildings in the basecamps, entertainment, and about a million other things not actually contributing to combat capability. In a T2K environment all of these things could, and would be stripped away to allow the available support units to concentrate on maintaining combat effectiveness.

That 1000kg includes fuel, ammo, food and spares for a mechanized unit. For the US 60% is fuel 37% is ammo 1% is food and 2% are spares. Soviet Units flip flop fuel and ammo but are similar.

[fightingflamingo]

there will definately be some empty trucks or at least space on some partially loaded trucks with space moving to the rear. IMO a key item being moved to the rear by both sides will be EPW, and at different stages the volume of EPW could be very heavy.
Damaged vehicles and large equipment being moved to the rear won't be moved by to the rear by supply vehicles so much as by wreckers or flatbed/tank transporters used to move replacement vehicles to assemble area's behind the main battle area.

in 1996 through 1997, these truck crews will be worked very hard, especially during periods of active nonattritional campaigning. The rate of consumable expenditure in heavy formations (Armor & Mechanized) will be particularly high, somewhat lower but still very high in motorized formations. In Europe there aren't that many true light infantry formations present (meaning those without organic wheeled transportation), but those present will still have high ammunition expenditure, even if their fuel expenditure is lower (they still have some organic vehicles).

I know the WP planned to put a substantial number of trucks from the civilian economy into military service during wartime to support their logistical needs. I do not know if NATO had similar plans, but it seems reasonable that they might use trucking drawn from the civilian economy under contract to move containerized supplies from the ports in Holland & Denmark, to Logistics Supply Bases in Germany where the supplies would be sorted, then picked up by tactical vehicles for transport to units in the battle area. These Logistics Supply Bases would move forward from Germany into the DDR, and possibly Western Poland as the Battle Area moves East in summer of 1997, then back as the WP regains lost ground in Poland. They should be early deep targets in the tactical nuclear exchange. The LSB's would service differenent classes of supply primarily, but will also be cross loaded with all classes of supply in various degree's. Once the tactical exchange begins, they break down and disperse as they inviting targets for tactical nukes, which will add ineffeciency to the logistics system even if the dispersed sites escape destruction. A further consideration would be the quality of the road networks in the DDR & Poland and their ability to sustain high volumes of heavy truck traffic. I've been to Poland a few times and I see the road network there impairing both the attacker and defender...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by fightingflamingo

There will definately be some empty trucks or at least space on some partially loaded trucks with space moving to the rear. IMO a key item being moved to the rear by both sides will be EPW, and at different stages the volume of EPW could be very heavy.
Damaged vehicles and large equipment being moved to the rear won't be moved by to the rear by supply vehicles so much as by wreckers or flatbed/tank transporters used to move replacement vehicles to assemble area's behind the main battle area.

This is a VERY good point and ties in to the tank transporter thread http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1390
The average supply truck might be empty, but the vehicles capable of shifting the heavy loads aren't going to be all that available...

[copeab]

Originally Posted by kato13

(OT Does anyone have the Third Edition of the above mentioned book. I think the US and Soviet divisions are flip flopped as it has the Sovs using more fuel and the US units using more ammo.
Figure 23-1 page 472.)

I have the 3e. It indeed lists the Soviets as using more fuel and the US using more ammo. On p.473 it notes that Other Western armies tend to use even more ammo than the US.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by copeab

I have the 3e. It indeed lists the Soviets as using more fuel and the US using more ammo. On p.473 it notes that Other Western armies tend to use even more ammo than the US.

I do think they must be flipped as IMO the Sovs would need more artillery munitions and the US would need more fuel.

[fightingflamingo]

One thing to keep in mind is that US divisions at peactime strength are larger than Soviet divisions of the same type, so that plays into the consumption rates. Soviet divisions have more tubes, but the US divisions (at least the mechanized ones) have the Artillery support vehicles and throw more rounds down range faster per mission, so that may balance out... US division have more support vehicles, in addition to the combat vehicles, plus an aviation brigade in every division so it's a no brainer that the fuel consumption would be higher...

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by fightingflamingo

One thing to keep in mind is that US divisions at peactime strength are larger than Soviet divisions of the same type, so that plays into the consumption rates. Soviet divisions have more tubes, but the US divisions (at least the mechanized ones) have the Artillery support vehicles and throw more rounds down range faster per mission, so that may balance out... US division have more support vehicles, in addition to the combat vehicles, plus an aviation brigade in every division so it's a no brainer that the fuel consumption would be higher...

The Soviet Division was about two-thirds the size of their US counterpart. In the version one, the Soviet Divisions that had 8000 men would be almost staffed to prewar Cat B levels.

One of the many things the Soviets had planned on was to strip it population all vehicles. This was to make all Motorized Rifle Division indeed Motorized, as well as to help bring supplies to the front. Many of the Cat C and almost all Mobilized Only Motorized Rifle Division had only one Regiment worth of equipment that the TO&Es called for. The other two Regiments would get what ever they could liberate. These Regiments would be basically glorified motorized light infantry. Many of these units would be used for occupational duty if things went correctly.

Just some thoughts.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by kato13

I do think they must be flipped as IMO the Sovs would need more artillery munitions and the US would need more fuel.

Dunnigan's assumptions may be based on Soviet forces being on the attack and US forces being on the defensive. A Soviet tank division has more tanks, and while on a per-tank basis the Abrams is more of a fuel hog, the defender can sit with his engines off for longer (in a grossly overgeneralized sense). I'm not quite sure why US formations would be less consumptive of ammuntion, though. The Soviets planned massive bombardments. It could be that it was assumed that US guns would stay in action more continuously than their Soviet counterparts, given the superior ability of the US logistical system to keep ammunition moving to the big guns. On the other hand, all that movement of large-caliber ammunition would burn fuel, wouldn't it?

Webstral

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Dunnigan's assumptions may be based on Soviet forces being on the attack and US forces being on the defensive.

No, he breaks down fuel and ammo required for various situations (attack, defense, pursuit, etc) and I think in all cases the Soviets required more fuel and less ammo. A few pages before the table he notes that Soviet divisions tend to carry more fuel and ammo than NATO divisions since they expected more of a resupply problem.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by kato13

Well there still will be empty trucks.

Dunnigan's "How to make war" has US and Soviet Division needing similar tonnage (about a maximum 40% variance) of material. It is not 10 to one. For both it ends up being in the range of 2000 tons per day.

(OT Does anyone have the Third Edition of the above mentioned book. I think the US and Soviet divisions are flip flopped as it has the Sovs using more fuel and the US units using more ammo.
Figure 23-1 page 472.)

You have to remember this is no trucking company where they make more money to keep cargo hold loaded as they move. So yeah some will return to the rear supply dump empty, no big deal. Besides they use less fuel while empty too.