It's an old cliche that amateurs study tactics, but professionals study logistics. However, on today's battlefields, which one really matters?
Tactics?
Logistics?
Make your case in the comments with your thoughts!
By: Brant
08 March 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Sigh... After a promising start, the Sound Off! commentary seems to be just as voluminous as the rest of the website, eh?
OK, I'm very late to the party, but hopefully better late than never, right?
It is tough to pick between the two because they complement each other so nicely, but it since you're asking us to choose one, I would choose logistics.
It seems to me you could have the most elite fighting force at your disposal, yet if they don't have enough "beans, bullets and bandages", they won't last very long, especially in a protracted fight.
If the mission were very focused and could be completed in a very short period of time, tactics may be more important. But if a knockout blow couldn't be managed quickly, the tactical advantage seems to disappear and the group with the better logistics will have the upper hand.
~Zachary
Logistics...
Although everyone understands that the application of appropriate tactics may decide a situational win / loss condition, it is the overall strategy and underpinning logistics which ultimately a) determine what kind of units and tactics one can bring to bear and b) the effectiveness of said units / tactics.
What we are tending to see today (IMHO) is OPFORS adopting a tactical approach that accomodates the logistical capabilities of the conflict force majeure. So IED become the tactic of choice for an OPFOR that cannot table a technically advanced fighting presence.
Jack Nastyface
Post a Comment