Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: ordinance delivery systems: logistics/doctrine
Message-ID: <1991Mar18.001358.19713@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 18 Mar 91 00:13:58 GMT
References: <1991Mar13.000742.4022@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Lines: 84
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <1991Mar13.000742.4022@cbnews.att.com> kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA (Kevin Broekhoven) writes:
>Command & Control? Protection of weapons-delivery "assets"?
>(why do these guys sound more like accountants than warriors?)

Because in a very real sense they *are* accountants. War is the art
of delivering the proper amount of force on the proper objective at
the proper time. It's primarily a shipping operation. DHL, FedX, UPS,
and the US Military are basically oriented to the same mission. They
must deliver, on time, every time.

>1.  To what extent do the realities affecting transport of commercial
>    goods affect the transport of military "goods" on the scale we
>saw in the Gulf War? For bulk transport, there is a commercial advantage
>that favours sea over land over air.

The military would prefer to air express everything, but the realities
are that some military supplies are too heavy, too bulky, or both to
be air delivered. Also there is a chronic shortage of heavy airlift
capability. For massive cargos, sea transport is still best both from
an economic standpoint and from a speed standpoint. Rail, if available,
is second best. Then truck and air bring up the rear. Both are limited
in the size of cargos transported and by the amount of support labor
and fuel that they require.

>Looking at the cost of munitions, air-dropped "dumb" bombs must be
>cheaper than artillery, which in turn must be cheaper than "smart" bombs
>or any type of missile.
>I would expect then, that the cheapest way to hit a target would be via
>large calibre artillery mounted on a sea vessel like a WWII battle 
>ship; if the target was out of range of sea-based artillery, I would
>expect the next cheapest way would be to truck your ordinance overland
>to an artillery unit and deliver it by howitzer;  if the target
>was out of range of either of these two delivery methods, then you would 
>go to a flying bomb-rack like a B-52, delivering dumb bombs; and only if
>all of the above were impractical, to a fighter/bomber with missiles/smart 
>bombs.  
>
>The impression I got from CNN was almost the reverse.

The US, being a rich country, has the luxury of spending money to 
save trooper's and civilian's lives. The battlewagons are limited
to an effective range of 23 miles with their big guns. Considering
the minefields in place in the Gulf, and the small number of mine-
sweepers available to the Coalition, the battlewagons stayed out
in cleared waters to avoid risking their several thousand man
crews. In addition, the barrels of the big guns have a limited
lifetime and no new barrels are being produced. Field artillery
has the drawback that it, it's crew, and their support troops
must come within range of enemy artillery to deliver it's load.
So there is a risk of several casualties every time artillery 
is moved up into firing position. The B-52, doing high altitude
bombing, ran virtually no risk from AAA and faced almost no
enemy aircraft. Therefore it was ideal for delivering ordinance
on the Iraqi military in the field. It lacks the pinpoint 
accuracy needed to deliver bombs on targets in populated
areas. So the very expensive tactical aircraft went in with
smart weapons to take out those targets. A straight tradeoff
of costs versus casualties among friendlies and civilians with
the scales heavily weighted toward minimum casualties.

>2.  On a related note, I was puzzled by CNN coverage of US and
>    British field artillery. On at least two types of self-propelled, 
>and towed artillery, the gun would fire, the barrel would decline,
>perhaps to a horizontal positon, the crew would reload,
>and the barrel would again incline and be fired.

The British self-propelled guns were at least twenty years old and
are not automatic. This is simply how they are worked. Rapid fire
artillery is a problem due to barrel heating and the bulk and weight
of the shells. This cooling pause is necessary. Normally, artillery
fire is conducted by batteries in such a manner that one is firing
while another is reloading. Thus keeping up a continous barrage.
In Kuwait, it does indeed appear that artillery missions were limited
to harrassment fire rather than massive barrages. From the tapes I've
seen, it appears that the guns would move up, fire a few rounds, and
move away quickly before counter battery fire could be brought to
bear. Again, the overriding goal seems to have been to minimize
friendly casualties.

Gary