#365 in History books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of Supplying War: Logistics From Wallenstein To Patton

Sentiment score: 3
Reddit mentions: 9

We found 9 Reddit mentions of Supplying War: Logistics From Wallenstein To Patton. Here are the top ones.

Supplying War: Logistics From Wallenstein To Patton
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
Used Book in Good Condition
Specs:
Height9 Inches
Length6 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateMarch 2004
Weight0.992080179 Pounds
Width0.74 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 9 comments on Supplying War: Logistics From Wallenstein To Patton:

u/cynical-man-is-here · 22 pointsr/ShitWehraboosSay

https://www.amazon.com/Supplying-War-Logistics-Wallenstein-Patton/dp/0521546575

This book has a great chapter on the North Africa campaign and argues, with a massive amount of evidence from records on logistics, that Rommel never had a chance to win in North Africa.

You can read a lot of that chapter in the book preview if you're interested. Check out the conclusion to chapter 6 for a quick run down

u/13FiSTer · 3 pointsr/Military

I'm honestly surprised not more people know about this.

The Third Army was a sitting duck multiple times in a row. If the Germans weren't themselves stretched thin at this point by the Russians, the Third would've been decimated. Granted, it's true that the diversion of logistics as a whole was fucked, but Patton knew this and still chose to drive on out of hot-headedness.

>The arrogance and opportunism that had served the Third Army so well in its spectacular break out could just as easily have broken it on the wheel of an increasingly strong German defence. Carlo d'Este has written that Patton's Achilles' heel was that rather than cut his losses he would attempt to storm his way out of a bad situation

But don't let logic and actual history stand in the way, let's continue the circlejerk.

I'm surprised no one learned from the Lone Survivor thread. We have to accept and learn from our mistakes, not treat it like it's some holy relic that can't be criticized.

Wartime logistics is actually an extremely interesting topic, and to anyone else who thinks so, I strongly recommend this book. It's a great resource that the DoD endorses all Logistics Managers for the DLA to read, and with great reason; it's a thorough analysis of great feats of logistical planning, as well as logistical nightmares.

EDIT: This comment below kinda supports me on this. As I said, the man's ego and ambition were too big, at times unrealistically big, and it lead to a lot of preventable mistakes that could've caused the Allies a lot of serious damage, not to mention a lot of preventable deaths.

u/shane_il · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

Most of the goods were shipped in to France. By 1944 German Naval power was not what it used to be and while there were still attacks on supply convoys the Allies did a decent job of establishing Naval dominance. As they moved forward they also established supply bases on the mainland so as not to stretch supply lines as well as massive logistic backing behind each unit. Especially interesting is their concept of airborne units where the entire unit staff is dropped with supplies.

There's a very good book about the history of military logistics by Martin van Creveld called Supplying War if your interested in that (https://www.amazon.com/Supplying-War-Logistics-Wallenstein-Patton/dp/0521546575).

u/reginaldaugustus · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

To recommend a good secondary source on the subject, you should take a look at Supplying War by Martin van Creveld.

u/BionicTransWomyn · 1 pointr/DebateFascism

>What is the role and place of a military within the state/society.

My ideal position is as an apolitical force enforcing the will of the State and its interests. The military should not meddle in politics, it usually ends poorly. Democracy is for me trusting citizens to ultimately make the right choice for society. Within a more authoritarian society, the military might be needed in some cases as a control measure to prevent the autocrat from going overboard.

>What is the purpose and goal of war.

Clausewitz describes the purpose of war as being to bend the will of your enemy to your own in order to obtain what you want. War is the second to last on the continuum of force, the only further extremity I could see would be genocide.

>How should one conduct a war.

With maximum aggressiveness and with the aim to strike at points that will break the will of the enemy. This could be the destruction of the enemy's army or it could be the occupation of his capital, or it could be the occupation of a key economic region. It all depends in what kind of conflict one is in and the capabilities of the enemy.

>When is military conflict or intervention either advantageous, justifiable or needed.

Much more rarely than the number of actual wars being fought. Often emotions and human fallibility gets in the way and wars are fought for pride, ideology and so on. Wars should be fought for vital national interests, irreconcilable ideological differences that are actually a risk to your country and so on. Not for minor points of interest.

>How has the nature and conduct of war evolved due to social or technological changes.

I will direct you to the excellent Technology and War by Martin von Creveld. It contains everything you might want on the topic and more.

>Describe to me in excessive and unnecessary detail about the logistics/supplying/staffing/bureaucracy that is needed for a large military.

Let me take a simple example. I had to organize a stalking exercise recently (basically troops hide and camouflage in the grass and attempt to get as close as possible to a set point without being spotted). I briefed my sergeants on my intent, then wrote up a training support request, which went up to my company second in command, who then sent it to the Operations department, who then sent to each department requests for what I needed, not counting the personal requests I had to make. You need a request for transport (a truck as a safety vehicle, if someone gets injured), rations, ammo, staff, training area and I had to show up and lead the exercise myself. Each of these requests goes to different persons/departments.

I also recommend the excellent Supplying War, again by Martin von Creveld.

>What is the ideal soldier?/What is the ideal military?

That rather depends on the attributes of your country. A nation with plentiful manpower but little technological edge and an obedient population will do well with a mass conscript army, whereas a smaller nation with a conscious population must take more care with casualties and will tend more towards a smaller professional force.

>Describe to me relationship between civilian and military command as well benefits or problems that arise.

The prime example of the problems between civilian/military leadership remains the procurement process for weapons. Too often, civilians interfere in the procurement of new weapons/equipment, changing things for political reasons. In Canada the F-35 program is a good example. While civilian oversight of the military is a good thing in general, sometimes too much oversight can hamper our ability to do our job.

>What can I do to better support or understand our soldiers/military up to and possibly enlisting myself.

I only know about the recruitment process in Canada. If you have more specific questions about that, I'd be happy to oblige. Other than that, simply show respect and gratitude, buy a veteran a beer at the bar, show that you care and please oh please don't ask them if they have killed someone. Ask questions, be polite.

u/sebastion64 · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

Not exactly trucks, but is this the book your looking for?

https://www.amazon.com/Supplying-War-Logistics-Wallenstein-Patton/dp/0521546575

I remember seeing it sighted as a good source for logistics but not sure where I saw it.