Logistics for Grumps (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Greg Wilmoth -> Logistics for Grumps (8/30/2001 8:49:00 AM)

QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT:
Sorry for takeing so long on these replies. I would just like to say that this is a much more interesting thread than those god awful boreing production threads you usually find on this forum.[/QUOTE] The tactics...no, amateurs discuss tactics,.... Professional soldiers study logistics. - Tom Clancy, Red Storm Rising
The Logistician Logisticians are a sad and embittered race of men who are very much in demand in war, and who sink resentfully into obscurity in peace. They deal only in facts, but must work for men who merchant in theories. They emerge during war because war is very much a fact. They disappear in peace because peace is mostly theory. The people who merchant in theories, and who employ logisticians in war and ignore them in peace, are generals. Generals are a happy blessed race who radiate confidence and power. They feed only on ambrosia and drink only nectar. In peace, they stride confidently and can invade a world simply by sweeping their hands grandly over a map, point their fingers decisively up trrain corridors, and blocking defiles and obstacles with the sides of their hands. In war, they must stride more slowly because each general has a logistician riding on his back and he knows that, at any moment, the logistician may lean forward and whisper: "No, you can't do that." Generals fear logisticians in war and, in peace, generals try to forget logisticians. Romping along beside generals are strategists and tacticians. Logisticians despise strategists and tacticians. Strategists and tacticians do not know about logisticians until they grow up to be generals--which they usually do. Sometimes a logistician becomes a general. If he does, he must associate with generals whom he hates; he has a retinue of strategists and tacticians whom he despises; and, on his back, is a logistician whom he fears. This is why logisticians who become generals always have ulcers and cannot eat their ambrosia. Unknown Author



mogami -> (8/30/2001 12:58:00 PM)

Very good, I would only add that wars are won or lost before they begin. It is only how long they last that is undecided. Both Germany and Japan mistook their opening campaigns as war (they were very good at fighting campaigns but never understood the wars they were starting.)



byron13 -> (8/30/2001 8:45:00 PM)

So true about logistics. I happen to be reading one of the beloved Green Books right now on the logistical support of the armies in Europe. What they did was amazing. Mogami: if what you're saying is that someone will win and someone will lose, that is true enough. To say that someone, either at the time or even afterwards, can look at circumstances at the beginning of all wars and determine scientifically with 100% accuracy who would win is preposterous. It smells of a false Marxist/Leninist-type science. Some wars certainly seem lost from the start, but others hang in the balance until some critical event occurs - an event that could not be foreseen. In addition to other factors, wars are fought by fallible people, using equipment subject to failure - all in a world governed by chance. I would've laid good money on the Spanish Armada. Was Viet Nam lost from the beginning? Considering we'd just gone through another Viet Nam twenty years earlier in Korea, I would have thought that we stood a pretty good chance. We could have steamrolled up into North Viet Nam any time we wanted. We also could have dropped the Bomb any time we wanted, and even considered it seriously during the battle of Khe San. Who could have guessed in 1963 that Johnson would place such handcuffs on the military or that there would be massive peace demonstrations led by people called hippies? Who could foresee the evaporation of support for the war? Was Hussein's incursion in Kuwait lost at the beginning? What if Bush had not been able to mold one of the most unlikely coalitions that included Syrians? What if the U.S. had not been able to restrain the Israelis from retaliating against the Scud missile strikes? Remember, the IAF was already airborne and ready to hit Iraq. What if Hussein struck one of the main American airbases with chemicals in September or October before there was an Army build up? Would the fickle American public want to steamroll Iraq? Or would they want to sue for a negotiated settlement so no more of our boys came home in body bags fighting for the liberation of a spoiled Arab nation that did us no favors? Would America have demanded unconditional surrender if there had not been a Pearl Harbor? Sorry, I'm not bright enough to read the tea leaves.



madflava13 -> (8/30/2001 8:52:00 PM)

Would Germany have lost to the Allies if Hitler had stayed out of Russia? Imagine storming ashore on Omaha or Juno with 3 elite panzer divisions sitting on the bluffs? But we digress... Pacific theater anyone?



byron13 -> (8/31/2001 1:38:00 AM)

Or what would have happened if Hitler continued pushing east in 1940? And gotten an earlier start in the spring? Actually, the Germans may not have had enough stuff in 1940 to get to Moscow, but it's an interesting proposition. Yes, the Pacific War . . .



TIMJOT -> (8/31/2001 4:10:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Greg Wilmoth:
QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT:
[qb]Sorry for takeing so long on these replies. I would just like to say that this is a much more interesting thread than those god awful boreing production threads you usually find on this forum.
The tactics...no, amateurs discuss tactics,.... Professional soldiers study logistics. - Tom Clancy, Red Storm Rising
The Logistician Logisticians are a sad and embittered race of men who are very much in demand in war, and who sink resentfully into obscurity in peace. They deal only in facts, but must work for men who merchant in theories. They emerge during war because war is very much a fact. They disappear in peace because peace is mostly theory. The people who merchant in theories, and who employ logisticians in war and ignore them in peace, are generals. Generals are a happy blessed race who radiate confidence and power. They feed only on ambrosia and drink only nectar. In peace, they stride confidently and can invade a world simply by sweeping their hands grandly over a map, point their fingers decisively up trrain corridors, and blocking defiles and obstacles with the sides of their hands. In war, they must stride more slowly because each general has a logistician riding on his back and he knows that, at any moment, the logistician may lean forward and whisper: "No, you can't do that." Generals fear logisticians in war and, in peace, generals try to forget logisticians. Romping along beside generals are strategists and tacticians. Logisticians despise strategists and tacticians. Strategists and tacticians do not know about logisticians until they grow up to be generals--which they usually do. Sometimes a logistician becomes a general. If he does, he must associate with generals whom he hates; he has a retinue of strategists and tacticians whom he despises; and, on his back, is a logistician whom he fears. This is why logisticians who become generals always have ulcers and cannot eat their ambrosia. Unknown Author
[/QB][/QUOTE] You know I never said logistics were not important just dull. The amount of production and logistical control some people want available in this new game is mind boggleing and IMHO unneccessary even in a strategic game like WIP. Besides I dought any production decisions made after the war started made any difference in the ultimate outcome. Example; had the US decided to not to build 20 Essex CV's and instead built 200 independence CVL's Japan still loses. Japan's limited production capabilities ensured that nothing it did after Dec.7, 1941 could changed outcome in its favor. [ August 30, 2001: Message edited by: TIMJOT ]



madflava13 -> (8/31/2001 4:26:00 AM)

TIMJOT- I still feel like thats too much of a blanket statement... I think the Japanese can "win" the war.. (not with superior numbers though). I am at work and leaving in about 3 minutes, but I will write more when I get home.



Ringbolt -> (8/31/2001 11:37:00 AM)

I dont think there is any way the Japanese could have won in any sense of the word, short of occupying D.C. after Pearl Harbor. No Pearl attack Maybe. The PH attack even rallied long time isolationists and pacifists to the war effort. Once that happened the Japanese fate was sealed. Ringbolt



byron13 -> (9/1/2001 1:19:00 AM)

1. I'm really pissed off at Madman. I stayed up all last night waiting for his full response that was to have come when he got home. Me thinks the old lady got a hold of him. 2. Timjot: Boring? Boy, you just don't get it. Do we load fuel in 5 gallon cans so it's ready for distribution at the front? Or do we put in tankers for quicker shipping and face a slower distribution process at the far end? Wow! That's what I call riveting. How much toilet paper does a division need for one week? Logistics is so fascinating, that I've put aside my movie screenplays on cargo pilots ("Wings of Glory") and telephone line repairmen ("Call that Saved the World") to work on my third draft on a logistician (the previous two were rejected).



TIMJOT -> (9/1/2001 9:54:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by byron:
1. I'm really pissed off at Madman. I stayed up all last night waiting for his full response that was to have come when he got home. Me thinks the old lady got a hold of him. 2. Timjot: Boring? Boy, you just don't get it. Do we load fuel in 5 gallon cans so it's ready for distribution at the front? Or do we put in tankers for quicker shipping and face a slower distribution process at the far end? Wow! That's what I call riveting. How much toilet paper does a division need for one week? Logistics is so fascinating, that I've put aside my movie screenplays on cargo pilots ("Wings of Glory") and telephone line repairmen ("Call that Saved the World") to work on my third draft on a logistician (the previous two were rejected).
Thats exciting stuff! but it pales in comparison to being able to decide on the proper length of shoe laces for a standard army boot in 1942 and weather they should be lengthen or shorten in 1943 or weather to loose the laces alltogether and "now hold on to your seat"! use buckles instead.



TIMJOT -> (9/2/2001 2:06:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by madflava13:
TIMJOT- I still feel like thats too much of a blanket statement... I think the Japanese can "win" the war.. (not with superior numbers though). I am at work and leaving in about 3 minutes, but I will write more when I get home.

I never said the Japanese could not win "A" war just that it couldnt have won "THE" war. Meaning the all out total war it got itself into. On the contrary I believe Japan may have been able to win a war or at least gotten terms favorable. Like I stated before, had they just attacked the NIE and Malaya and not the US. Its doughtful FDR could have declared war under these circumstances. Churchill feared this and pressed FDR for some formal guarantee that a Japanese attack on Malaya/Singapore would mean war with the USA. FDR would not or could not give this. In any case had FDR been able to get a declaration of war through congress even without the US being attacked, then it most certainly would not have had the total support of the people. It probably would have developed more on the lines of Korea and Vietnam with large sections the populus ambivilant to or outright against it. Under these circumstances I can see , especially with some crushing early defeats, the US becoming war weary and negotiating a end to the war.



1089 -> (9/3/2001 12:24:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by TIMJOT:
Thats exciting stuff! but it pales in comparison to being able to decide on the proper length of shoe laces for a standard army boot in 1942 and weather they should be lengthen or shorten in 1943 or weather to loose the laces alltogether and "now hold on to your seat"! use buckles instead.
Your suggestion to "loose laces" has left me aghast! Do you not remember all those wartime posters with the slogan: "Loose laces smash faces" Well, it was something like that. The meaning, of course, was that soldiers would be falling flat on theirs after tripping on those loose laces that you are attempting to factor into an otherwise hardly-burdened production system. It would be interesting to see if Japan could capture enough softwood forests to produce the requisite amount of toilet paper to prosecute their ill-fated war, without taking Seattle (TP Factory with 22 points!) Trying to come up with enough destroyer escorts to protect the convoys from Brazil bringing in the cashew nuts for the American troops would be a problem, as well, for the Allies. And to add to the what-ifs of the production arguments, "What if the US had been able to supply enough Tabasco sauce and Spam to Guam? Would the natives there have assisted in successfully beating off the Japanese attack?" Factoring in the consumption level of these two products in modern-day Guam would lead one to have to dedicate 1-2 Liberty ships per week to bring enough in. Heavy Inustry points would have to be allocated to expand the factories in New Orleans and Davenport to produce for the increased demand. kp



TIMJOT -> (9/3/2001 10:57:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Keith Price:
Your suggestion to "loose laces" has left me aghast! Do you not remember all those wartime posters with the slogan: "Loose laces smash faces" Well, it was something like that. The meaning, of course, was that soldiers would be falling flat on theirs after tripping on those loose laces that you are attempting to factor into an otherwise hardly-burdened production system. It would be interesting to see if Japan could capture enough softwood forests to produce the requisite amount of toilet paper to prosecute their ill-fated war, without taking Seattle (TP Factory with 22 points!) Trying to come up with enough destroyer escorts to protect the convoys from Brazil bringing in the cashew nuts for the American troops would be a problem, as well, for the Allies. And to add to the what-ifs of the production arguments, "What if the US had been able to supply enough Tabasco sauce and Spam to Guam? Would the natives there have assisted in successfully beating off the Japanese attack?" Factoring in the consumption level of these two products in modern-day Guam would lead one to have to dedicate 1-2 Liberty ships per week to bring enough in. Heavy Inustry points would have to be allocated to expand the factories in New Orleans and Davenport to produce for the increased demand. kp
Been to Guam, they really do love their spam there dont they? I will never understand the pacific islanders love affair with that stuff [ September 03, 2001: Message edited by: TIMJOT ]



Ringbolt -> (9/4/2001 12:29:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Keith Price:
It would be interesting to see if Japan could capture enough softwood forests to produce the requisite amount of toilet paper to prosecute their ill-fated war, without taking Seattle (TP Factory with 22 points!)
Thats why, as the Japanese, I ALWAYS forego the Pearl Harbor attack and hit Seattle. The Devastating blow of losing all that TP instantly forces the Allies to a negotiated peace.
Ringbolt



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.328125