Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/History of military logistics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

History of military logistics

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

History of military logistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I split this article off from Military logistics, which I am still working on. This is one of those high-level articles that a traditional encyclopaedia has, but where the Wikipedia is sadly deficient. I have tried to make a start with this article, which I created by splitting the history section off from the parent article, Military logistics, which I am still working on, and rewriting and adding material, mainly to the front and the back. Almost all the article is now my work.

If you look at a selection of the top level articles in the scope of our project you'll find that little work has been done on them. There are good reasons for this, the major one being that they are very hard to write. This article has to cover 2,000 years of military history. Ideally, it would be a summary of its subarticles, but none of them currently exist. The task of this article is therefore to cover important developments without getting into to much detail, and it degenerating into a catalogue of battles and wars.

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I am therefore appealing to the project for a bit of help here, for people to look over the sections in areas where they have particular expertise. Specific issues for consideration are the level of detail, what could be omitted and what else should be mentioned, especially important omissions. Opinions are also sought on the layout of the references, whether they sghould be by period or all together, and the Further reading section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the final boss. The white whale. The city on the hill. The part in the anime where the (first) OP starts playing. I will DEFINITELY look this over. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Schierbecker

[edit]
Can you say anything about the changing tooth-to-tail ratio of militaries of the world? This could be represented as a bar chart. How did logistics work in the New World? Did the lack of domesticable working animals in the western hemisphere contribute to the fall of the Aztecs and others? Additionally how did Europeans surmount the distance from home problem in the new world. How did logistics work in the new world prior to Columbus? Hunter gatherers don't keep surpluses of food, but how about weapons? Obsidian spear tips have been found in Ohio. There are no volcanos in Ohio. How did it get there? You kind of touched on this, but I would also like to know more about the evolution of push vs pull logistics. Did quicker forms of communication contribute to more pull and just-in-time logistics? More information about the trend of globalized economic warfare (i.e. when did nations start cooperating to refuse passage to enemies of their allies?). Please say something about standardization of NATO equipment (especially calibers and fuels), dieselization in the '60s (the range of the gas M48A2 is 160 miles compared to 300 mi for the diesel M48A3) and metrification. When did armies start bringing their own gas fuel for heating meals instead of relying on wood? Should probably mention that canning was explicitly invented to preserve food for soldiers. Need something about airdrop. Shinseki's Army and the conversion of Heavy Brigades to Stryker brigades and brief flirtation with intratheatre lift should probably be mentioned. What about aerial refueling and transcontinental strategic airlift? The Suez and Panama Canal? Are new passages through the arctic relevant? Use of GPS? What is the U.S. base strategy and when did that come about? How does the U.S. military stockpile equipment abroad in ready reserve? NATO palletization and Russia's failure to adopt this. Article should note corruption and failures of accountability in Russian supply depots and a failure to invest in support vehicle acquisition. Schierbecker (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe also the discovery of the cause and cure for Rickett's, allowing for longer deployments and blue water navies. Have you ever read Omnivore's Dilemma? The first chapter where he laments the explosion of production of kilocalories from processed corn, namely corn syrup, consumed by world. The surplus of energy-dense processed food has surely affected the way militaries feed themselves and victims of humanitarian disasters. I don't have a good source readily available, but I'll try to find one. Food surplus on this scale is without precedent in history. Particularly after the Dust Bowl, the U.S. government has subsidized food overproduction partially to meet potential wartime need. Is this done anywhere else? Another interesting rabbit hole: the USDA cheese caves of Missouri. Schierbecker (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rickets (vitamin D deficiency) was not a major problem, since northern Europeans have pale skin, but scurvy (vitamin C deficiency) and beri beri (vitamin B deficiency) were. I've written about this before, so the material is on hand. What is interesting is that the discovery of the cause (vitamin deficiency) dates only to the inter-war period, about 150 years after the treatment was found. I will also add a bit about tropical diseases (malaria) and antibiotics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yep I meant scurvy. Schierbecker (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of armies using gas fuel to heat food. In my day we had hexamine stoves to heat our food and brew a cup of tea. I haven't read the Omnivore's dilemma. I will have a look. Corn syrup is seldom used here; we have to sweeten our tea with sugar, which is produced here in large quantities. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sweeten my tea with honey personally. But I get why corn syrup would be less common elsewhere. But I would think global production of energy dense food staples has increased leading to less famine. Schierbecker (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, but global populations are expected to increase by a third by 2050, thereby wiping out the surpluses. There's an article on this, Green Revolution, but it is out of scope. Most countries that subsidise food production do so for food security purposes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The diesel vs gasoline tank engine controversy is a long-running one in the US. It dates back to World War II, when the Guiberson diesel engine was rejected in favour of the Ford GAA engine. (The General Motors 6046 diesel was used for Sherman tanks shipped to the UK and USSR, which demanded diesel engines.) Early versions of the M48 Patton used gasoline, but in Vietnam the diesel was preferred. I think this is too detailed for this particular article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your judgement. Please let me know if I suggest something in this review that doesn't make sense. I'm not an SME. And that sounds interesting. Do you happen to have any material you could point me to on the subject of that controversy? Schierbecker (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have added some additional information about:

  • tooth-to-tail ratios
  • economic warfare
  • vitamins
  • diseases
  • automatic supply

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to add on any of these things: the multirole-erization of aircraft, crew reduction and automation (particularly on ships), loitering UAVs? I'm curious also if you've come across any information about the disaggregation of deployable units? In Iraq/Afghanistan I believe the U.S. Army transitioned to Brigade Combat Teams from division size units. Is that part of a larger trend? Can Kabul airlift be mentioned? Schierbecker (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is tactical rather than logistical. Mentioned the Kabul airlift. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has modern weather forecasting improved the reliability of logistics? Allied weather forecasting was supreme in WWII due to the strategic location of weather stations in Canada, Greenland and Iceland (See the book, The Forecast for D-Day). Mention some failures to account for weather. Schierbecker (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Military logistics is increasingly taking pages from commercial logistics. Please mention something about Japanese TQM, just-in-time, The Toyota Way and/or Kaizen. Also military analogues lean logistics and focused logistics. Mention challenges to adopting this way as well. Schierbecker (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will add a bit about this in the next few days. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The South West Pacific Area adopted one of its key features, the block loading of ships for a particular destination. Please define "block loading".
Helicopters were used by the United States in the Korean War to deliver supplies. A statement of the obvious. Was U.S. the first widescale user of helicopters in war? Consider also mentioning Mobile Army Surgical Hospital by name and also state importance of "golden hour."
Can you mention LCACs? Schierbecker (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schierbecker: Do you support this article for A-class? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comments Support from Artem

[edit]

Hey, I'm new to A-class reviews, but would treat it as extended GA-review. I'm not an expert in military hostory, so please ignore everything that sounds stupid.

Welcome! I'm always in need of reviewers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Antiquity
Middle ages
Early modern
new comments

Stopping at the Second World War for now. Artem.G (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I still have no time for the review, but I'll try to finish it by the end of this week. One comment though - I think that these two photos from materiel can be used in the article, especially the modern one. File:USMC tanker trailer lowered over the side of SS Gopher State in Thailand, May 1998.jpg, File:RASC troops stacking ration boxes in the harbour at Dieppe, 14 October 1944. B10867.jpg Artem.G (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem.G: Do you support this article for A-class? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, I completely forgot about the review, sorry for that! I just reread it, and I'm happy to support this great article for the A-class! Artem.G (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

[edit]

I'll be taking a look here soon. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I'll leave my comments there, but if you think there are any more areas you'd like me to look at I'd be happy to do so. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Do you support this article for A-class? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

G'day Hawkeye, heroic effort to get this together. Given I'm recovering from some surgery, it may take me quite a while to work through this, though it is in fine condition already. So bear with me.

Hope you have a swift recovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • the comparison "from Egypt to Rome by sea than 80 kilometres (50 mi) by road" doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I'm being too literal, but this is a scenario where sea was the only way to bring grain to Rome from Egypt, and there was no road to compare it to. Perhaps it would be better to use an example within Italy to show the cheapness of sea transport. Or even drop Rome and Egypt from the statement. Surely it was far quicker and cheaper to bring grain by sea along the Roman coast than by road? Maybe I'm overthinking it, but the Med wasn't exactly easy to travel over in the Iron Age, so perhaps it isn't a great example in that respect either.
    checkY Changed to "it was far less expensive to transport by sea than by road" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for an entire whole campaign" delete either entire or whole
    checkY Deleted "whole" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Antiquity

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages
I think you need to explain that large forces had to be made up of smaller forces controlled by vassals of the king etc, and they owed first loyalty to their local lord. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The feorm. I think you need to explain what about it made maintaining forces easier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Added explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early modern
Nineteenth century
Twentieth century
Post-Second World War (should this be a level higher as it includes Twenty-First century developments? And change the earlier one to "World Wars" or something?

OK, I reckon that's me done. Brilliant job, Hawkeye7! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your review is greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good. I consider this is now very comprehensive. Brilliant work on a very important subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by Donner60

[edit]
  • All of the images are from Wikimedia Commons and have the required image information on the Commons pages. All are either public domain or own work with a version of a Creative Commons share-alike license. Clicking on the image leads to the Wikimedia Commons page from which there is a link to the Creative Comments page providing info on the applicable license type. None have restrictions unacceptable for Wikipedia use. Donner60 (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made three small edits: typo correction ("where">"were"), singular word to plural, delete redundant "in shipping."
  • I have some familiarity with the subject. This is an outstanding summary of its history.
  • Support for A class. Donner60 (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • I'm a little concerned that coverage of the logistical aspects of the Eastern Front is pretty minimal. Both the Soviet and German armies used a WWI-style system with extra trucks and both suffered severe defeats when outrunning their supply lines. Even with the flood of trucks provided by Lend-Lease, the Soviets had notable operational pauses between offensives as railheads and supply depots had to be moved forward. I think that something about continuing to use the old ways, including porters, when full mechanization is unaffordable or impractical in terrain like the Kokoda Trail or heavy jungle.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Added another paragraph about the Eastern front, and a couple of sentences about the use of animals and porters by the Allies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most ships were relatively small, weighing 30 to 40 tonnes." Possibly "weighing" should be 'with a freight capacity of' or similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source says:

    The Romans routinely carried supplies for the army in merchantmen or transport ships, called onerariae naves in Latin, and phortegoi, hokladai or skeuophorai neai in Greek. By the first century, ships could carry well over 900 metric tons (tonnes) of grain; vessels of 360 to 450 tonnes were not uncommon. Rougé notes the difficulty of estimating the tonnage of ancient vessels, but estimates that average Roman merchant ships ran from 90 to 150 tonnes. Houston’s analysis shows that though the Chinese built 1000-tonne ships in the 13th and 14th century A.D., 80 percent of their seagoing craft were under 40 tonnes. Similarly, 16th century port manifests from London show that 56 percent were of 40 tonnes or less, 82 percent of 60 tonnes or less and only 4.7 percent were of 100 tonnes or more. This suggests that the average Roman merchant ship probably weighed no more than 30 to 40 tonnes, and almost certainly less than 60 tonnes.

    It is possible that the author is mixing tonnage with the weight of the ship. Re-worded the text to avoid the issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the way that source segues from capacity to vessel weight. Do academics not proof read their work these days? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it on my to do list. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from replacing the Vrancx this is good to go, so on the assumption that will happen I will pass the images. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/History_of_military_logistics&oldid=1182825256"