Curtis Lemay
Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004 From: Houston, TX Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ColinWright Where are your sources for units commonly being without fuel but having plenty of ammo or vice-versa? When was this a problem? Once? If an army isn't primarily mechanized, fuel is not a big issue in the first place. If it is mechanized, then fuel is necessary to distribute the ammo. I'm very skeptical that it was especially common for there to be plenty of ammo but a crying shortage of fuel, or for there to be a shortage of ammo but plenty of fuel. You've displayed remarkable faith in the abilities of quartermasters in the past -- in your book, they can simply magically generate whatever tonnage is needed. I wouldn't go that far myself, but they can at least correctly apportion fuel and ammo. They are really very similar. They've both commodities that usually can't be found locally, are needed in large volume, and have to be brought up to the front. If there's no fuel, the ammo can't be brought up, so any fundamental shortage of fuel but not ammo is moot. Ammo that can't be distributed might as well not exist. So why -- and where -- would one be short but not the other? If the army's driving but not fighting, the quartermasters will automatically start shipping more fuel and less ammo. If it's fighting but not driving, the ratio will reverse. This is not a necessary change. It's not even an advantageous one. It's just going to introduce a complication that probably usually wasn't there in the first place. You're a big fan of the 'not in most scenarios' argument as well. Even if you do have some instance of a force chronically being short of ammo but not fuel or vice-versa, can you really say this was a common problem? Given that quartermasters do have brains if not magical powers, I doubt if it was. This doesn't affect distribution, only expenditure. While fuel and ammo may be distributed in tandem, they are not expended in tandem. It is undeniable that units do not expend ammo just by moving. Conversely, combat mostly expends ammo. This flaw affects all scenarios. Now, forces can't afford to manuver because they will be treated as if they are out of ammo by the time they get there. This makes the best tactic to just bludgeon straight ahead. It's a serious TOAW shortcoming. This change would permit units to manuver and still arrive with their full ammo load - and thereby most of their combat strength. And then they can fight while still retaining most of their mobility. And, furthermore, it will justify lower CS/MA values than can be justified for just 1% supply. If we know that the unit has blown off its fuel instead of its ammo, a lower MA value for 1% fuel could be justified. If we know that a unit has blown off its ammo instead of its fuel, a lower CS value for 1% ammo could be justified. That, if you will recall, was what this discussion started about.
< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 2/18/2010 5:39:05 PM >
|