Not sure, I never really looked into them. From their website
, it looks like they could be, though, through their involvement with communications.
I was speaking to Octo about the German military, and he didn't seem to think its logistics were up to much. What exactly is wrong with the Bundeswehrs support system?
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.This is a complete guss but it's probably due to them not having any reason to expect a big style deployment. I'm pretty sure that the German military is banned via the constitution from taking part in any none defensive wars so they likely have no reason to bother with their logistics when a deployment is so unlikely to happen.
edited 12th Jan '12 6:17:19 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThere was a study some months ago. Basically, the German military has a three times worse support to combat personal ratio than France and the UK - and yet still the troops in Afghanistan have logistics problems. And they aren't even on a full combat mission! That's where the problem seems to be: The whole support and logistic apparatus of the Bundeswehr is overblown and ineffective.
That the Bundeswehr has never been really tested is certainly a large part of that.
edited 12th Jan '12 6:27:13 AM by Octo
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 FanficMaybe. But the US system works, at least. Whereas the (again, non-combat) German deployment to Afghanistan shows how much already even only this strains the German support apparatus.
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 FanficA key pillar of American logistics is its worldwide network of military bases, though, and it's a potential weakspot as it means America has to keep certain nations politically sweet that it would not otherwise give the time of day to.
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.True, though our air-logistics means that honestly we can afford to lose a few if we absolutely have to. We've got half a million ways to fly to afghanistan and iraq. Keeping at least one nation happy between Turkey, Kuwait, Germany, and Italy isn't that hard. All of whom can be flown to via the UK, which to be honest is our biggest non-negotiable stopover point.
And to go from the other direction, there's always Hawaii to Japan, and then Kyrgystan.
Which is amusing, because before World War II we were known as the idiots who couldn't keep a regiment properly armed for a single battle, let alone an army for an entire war.
See: The Spanish-American War, World War I.
"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."I still like the story about the officers at an American military academy (can't remember which) during the Spanish-American War who were supposed to go out and do shit but couldn't because nobody had uniforms...
...while all the uniforms sat on a train car like five miles away...
"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."First time I've heard someone speak ill of Rommels command ability. I was under the impression he was beaten by sheer force of numbers.
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.It was a whole host of things, though I don't know all the specifics.
Among them were that his logistics eventually got fucked up and the Allies got better hardware on the field (ie. The stopgap M3 Lee/Grant was quite a formidable tank when it was introduced with it's long(ish) 75mm gun in 1942, which meant it could bring more firepower to bear than anything Rommel had at the time (the panzer III and IV (with short 75mm cannons)). And yes, also numbers, though the logistics were certainly a big part of it, if not the biggest.
You can't really fault Rommel for the logistics, he kept asking for supplies which Hitler eventually just stopped giving.
When logistics fails, tactics is all you have. Having no fuel for your tanks because there is no fuel coming means tactics comes into play, you bury the tanks that are out of gas and turn them into pillboxes, and you just sort of keep going from there.
That's sort of what Rommel was great at, making do with very little, I'm kind of the same way in a command situation I suppose. Give me every possible thing I could want logistically, and I don't know what to do with it all and become wasteful. Give me comparatively little and tell me that's all I get, and I'll use each resource I have to great effect.
It's why I'm a turtler in most RTS games when I play with a team, I can't manage the broader battle itself. I'm best teching up and managing my economy while I act surgically with a small force that I can micromanage better. Multitasking is not my strongpoint, which is why I function well as an NCO, but I wouldn't make a very good commander at the battalion level.
I'm probably at my maximum efficiency at the squad or platoon level.
edited 12th Jan '12 11:05:22 AM by Barkey
Rommel was a very good commander. But he got promoted to a position that stretched him too much, plus, yeah, he got shafted in terms of logistics. It's been said that he was a very good battalion or regiment commander, but a division might have been too much, too soon. YMMV on that, though.
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.Even if his African campaign ended in disaster (eventually), his success in France was outstanding, and in WW 1 he did some neat tricks with alpine infantery.
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 FanficReally? I've heard that his core area of competency was at the divisional or corps level. In France he commanded a division. I believe his corps commander was Guderian, which goes a long way to explaining the German success. (By the way, we have a trope page for Onkel Erwin.)
My explanation for Rommel is that he was brilliant at performing ranging, risky attacks, breakthrough-style. Unfortunately, this style of blitzkrieg warfare tended to be carried out on a shoestring logistical budget; the campaign must be executed quickly or not at all, and in order to do so it depends on bypassing enemy troop concentrations to hit command points. In Africa Rommel's logistical lifeline was being strangled by the Allies in the Med, and Second El Alamein was what happened when he reached the end of his logistical line, and got hit by a thoroughly methodical commander who refused to be cowed by his audacious tactics.
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.

The Super Tucano is the base plane, but the work to make it fit the contract is being done in the US by Sierra Nevada Corp. As for Hawker Beechcraft, they're owned by a Canadian firm, so the "home brew" thing is a bit questionable in and of itself (not to mention being based on the Pilatus PC-9).
It bothers me a bit that the US is paying for planes for another country's air force (Afghanistan), even if the gigabuck or so it costs* doesn't even qualify as a rounding error for the US federal budget.
As for the Shorts Tucano, no bearing on that as far as I know. The US isn't involved at all with that setup.
All your safe space are belong to Trump