Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: fritzs@microsoft.UUCP (Fritz SANDS)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: ordinance delivery systems: logistics/doctrine
Message-ID: <1991Mar20.033649.1615@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 20 Mar 91 03:36:49 GMT
References: <1991Mar13.000742.4022@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar15.035911.9345@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 21
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: fritzs@microsoft.UUCP (Fritz SANDS)

In article <1991Mar15.035911.9345@cbnews.att.com> jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes:
>Translation:  the military has to maintain its own fast-sealift fleet,
>because no private shipping company in its right mind is going to go
>back to break-bulk -- economics dictates containers.

Yeah, but it ain't going to happen, not in the volumes that they need, given
budget realities.

Let's flip it around.  If the merchant marine has container and Ro-Ro ships
available for wartime use, and the problem is that military gear is break-bulk
because the destination may not have a container port -- how hard is it to
fabricate a makeshift container-handling facility?  

On another logistics note -- how were most of the M1A1's transported to the
Gulf -- airlift or sealift?

   Fritz Sands