« What does the word “civilizational” mean in French? | Main | President Trump cannot pardon himself out of trouble »

July 12, 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

But in Iraq it's my opinion that the existing combat service support structures could have supported twice as many warfighters as they did. No matter how few convoys are running, the sustainment headquarters are about the same size.


One implication of your assumption is that HQ units made large efficiency gains between 1990 and 2005. They fell by somewhere between four and ten percentage points between Gulf One and Gulf Two, even though Gulf Two mobilized fewer soldiers. (The 369th CSB HQ certainly didn't seem very efficient, but I have no basis for comparison.)

Is that conclusion reasonable?

I should add that the Germany comparisons might not be entirely fair; American HQ elements would have been responsible for non-American NATO units in the event of war.

The comments to this entry are closed.