Having done the AOC thing part-time for almost a decade I can say that while it is by no means perfect our process works decently well for getting the job done, albeit with lots of room for improvement, I would hope so after doing it for over 30 years straight now. At least we have gotten past the stage where we had to fly 'Miss Piggy' (US-3A) around to each of the carriers in Desert Storm to get them paper copies of the ATO, which the air wing would then go through line by line to see what missions they were assigned the next day. That's straight from one of our more senior guys was a VFA LSAO on the Midway in Desert Storm.
Do you mean they had to fly a plane to a carrier, land, give a paper copy, take off, fly to another carrier, and repeat?
- Staff work and logistics matter. They are underappreciated and often derided but there is a reason we have them, and with all their foibles and issues they usually get the job done. Planning and implementing an invasion of a country on the other side of the world might seem easy on TV but unless you've got the 'tail' to go along with the teeth even invading your next door neighbor ain't going to go real well. #POGLivesMatter
Only a fool of a military professional would mock logistics. People who don't know any better sometimes mock them because they're the "fat ugly POGs," "rear echelon MFers," "in the rear with the gear," "the lowly quartermaster," the attitude of, "Yeah yeah, just see to it..." supplies-wise, etc...plus logistics is very boring to most people and there is no glory in it in the way that the combat arms has. But a military culture that looks down on the logistics personnel is going to find itself in a world of hurt. This was one of the issues the German military had in WWII. They had a culture that looked down on logistics. For example, everyone likes to cite the genius of Rommel, and he was a genius at the tactical level from my understanding, but at the operational level Rommel was, for lack of a better word in my opinion, a moron . He kept outrunning his supply lines in North Africa and gave short shrift to the logistical limitations of the Wehrmacht. As a result, he kept getting beaten back. Whereas Montgomery, who was smart about logistics, patiently built up his supply lines and pre-positioned supplies and refused to counter-attack Rommel when Rommel was trying to goad him to (which Rommel then ranted about). He also made sure to watch the speed of his forces so that they did not outrun their supply lines. As a result, he drove Rommel all the way back across Africa. Patton too also kept outrunning his supply lines and could have suffered severely had the Germans had the ability to launch a major counter-attack when he did so.
The United States has by nature of its geography had to be good at logistics to project force anywhere. Going anywhere in North America will involve long supply lines, and then as for the rest of the world, there are the two minor bodies of water called Atlantic and Pacific. The Soviets in WWII were logistical masters. They were tactically inferior to the Germans until near the end I believe, but logistically, were far superior and in fact were the inventors of the operational level of warfare.
You can have the best equipment and best-trained combat forces, but if you can't get them adequate food, fuel, ammunition, spare parts, medical supplies, etc...and if in cold weather conditions, cold weather lubricants, winter clothing, etc...then they will be far less effective. The design of the equipment also comes into play, as it must be designed to operate in the field and be repairable a long way away from the factory. I've read that when designing a new battle tank, one of the first limiting factors is that the turret width is governed by tunnel width, as you can't transport the tanks anywhere if they're too wide for the tunnels. In WWII, one of the limiting factors of the weight of American tanks were the cranes at the ship loading docks.
The same is also true in the business world. People come up with an idea for a new product or invention and don't think at all about the supply chain/logistics involved or manufacturing, then when they try to take it to market, they learn the hard way they may have to redesign the product to make it suitable for mass manufacturing, then they learn the hard way about issues with suppliers and acquiring raw materials, and all that. So when designing a new product, taking into account the supply chain/logistics and manufacturability issues must be considered from the start.
It still strikes me as odd to refer to the Ukrainians and the Russians not just as a separate people but as enemies at war. Having grown up in the last stages of the Cold War and viewing Russia as one and the same as the monolithic USSR and knowing that 'modern' Ukraine was only an independent country, if you can call it that, for less than 3 years before 1991 it is still odd for me to wrap my head around this whole situation. From what I've seen in the news I think many Russian and Ukrainian people are having the same difficulty, as this really is a war of choice driven by just one man.
The Ukrainian people are distinct from the Russians and have been for centuries, though similar, but the Russians have been invading Ukraine for hundreds of years. Same with many of the peoples of the other former Soviet republics. I also once read somewhere that this is partially what caused the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, that Russia was "Russifying" Ukraine during the Cold War, and as a result, censored Ukrainian scientific publications that were critical of that reactor design (I can't confirm this though).
