Derek Lyons wrote:
That's something a lot of nations can't seem to understand about running
a modern military. Strategy is one thing, equipment design is another,
but logistics is what wins wars.

Yep. Some time back a gentleman asked over on sci.military.naval what
it would take to build a small, modern, and regionally important naval
force. He was quite taken aback when the vast majority of the
responses emphasized all the 'non-sexy' bits. (Repair parts, repair
training, DC training, countermeasures, infrastructure, general
training, communications...)

I recall a conversation reported or paraphrased in Proceedings
in the late 1970s. Someone noted to a senior admiral, I think,
that the equipment on paper specs for the new Aegis ships weren't
much better than the previous generation of missile cruisers,
other than the really great multi-target capability from SPY-1.
Missile range, target director capabilities, etc.

The response was "Yes, but now they're working 95% of the time,
rather than 55%".

That lesson is hard even for well funded navies...


-george william herbert