The horrors of British & US Logistics in WW2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 бер 2021
- The Allies may have had a lot of resources, manpower and industry, but that didn't mean that their logistics weren't inefficient or a disorganized mess. Today, we're going to look at how the British railways were disaster during WW2, how the Americans ran out of fuel on the way to Germany, and why Montgomery called the planning for the invasion of Sicily a 'dog's breakfast'.
🔔 Subscribe for more History content: / @theimperatorknight
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail for this video was created by Terri Young. Need graphics? Check out her website here www.terriyoungdesigns.co.uk/
- - - - -
📽️ RELATED VIDEO LINKS 📽️
Why the German Army couldn't overcome their bad logistics • Why the German Army co...
Why Soviet Logistics weren’t as nightmarish as German Logistics in WW2 • Why Soviet Logistics w...
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
"What If There Were No Prices?" by Learn Liberty • What If There Were No ...
"Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt • Video
"Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell • Video
How are monopolies formed? • 👞 How are monopolies f...
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Dunn, W. "The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945." Praeger Publishers, 1995.
Garvey, J. "Operation Husky: The Untold Story of the logistics of the Sicily Invasion." Farm Publications, Kindle 2019.
Hazlitt, H. “Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics.” Three Rivers Press, 1979.
MacDonald, J. "Supplying the British Army in the Second World War." Pen & Sword Military, Kindle 2020.
Molony, C. "The Mediterranean and Middle East, Volume V, The Campaign in Sicily 1943 and The Campaign in Italy 3rd September 1943 to 31st March 1944." The Naval & Military Press LTD 2004, first published in 1973.
Wolmar, C. "Fire & Steam: How the Railways Transformed Britain." Atlantic Books, Kindle 2007.
British Government, “Railways Act 1921,” www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...
Full list of all my sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from UA-cam ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos (note: I'm behind with the Q&A's right now, and have a lot of research to do to catch up, so there will be a delay in answering questions). There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
You’re insights about drivers reminded me of a story my grandmother told me. It is about a landowner who had a problem that many carts that were used to bring his produce to the market were breaking down. He had to buy as many as 10 carts every year to replace the ones that have broken down. It was not just the carts but the oxen pulling the carts as well. This kept happening until he proclaimed that after 10 years the cart and the oxen would belong to the peasant that operated them. Ever since than no cart has broken down nor has any of the oxen died.
Damn. That really gives food for thouvht. I think that also explains why, here in our country, our religious icons (apologies for the Catholic heresy if you are a greek orthodox christian) are well maintained and so swarmed with devotees; because instead of them being maintained by religious orders, they are maintained by specific families.
@@annyeonghaseyothisfight5897 nothing new in our world, you don´t care about things in your job. Because A things that need to change won´t change cause mid managment would need to say hey we made mistake and upper managment cares only for company to make money. B everything you fix or improve is always stolen by someone else who says. Hey look we at xy did this. So not a fuck given is best mindset in company above 50 employee.
@@annyeonghaseyothisfight5897 "apologies for the Catholic heresy if you are a greek orthodox christian"
The orthodox church also have icons my guy
It works in the Army as well. Big Carpools are great inefficient, better to have small Carpool and designated Vehicles and Drivers. If you have "your" Truck suddenly it is well mantained, as a driver. As you life in it, when it's broken down or needs repairs you are off during the time unless it's big repair. So you get 1-2 hours off for having minor things repaired. When your Truck is big down, you drive another or have guard Duty or something like that. As Military Driver myself: Mantainance with assigned vehicles is a blessing, the NGO or Officier is searching someone for some dull work: "Have to check Fluids." "The Lights are wonky, need to check the wiring." "One tire is losing air over the day, wanted to check the valve after break." And of course you are just ready with everything. "Have to keep my brakes to be rested when needed."
So a smart and lazy driver does all the mantainance and does less then the dumb and lazy driver, as those are regularly get caught doing nothing and those are drafted into all the unpleasant works. I can proudly say i ended up as staff corporal during my compuslory military service as driver. And i did the least without getting caught, but the 4 vehicles i was responsible at the end (started with one) man looked they sharp and all worked, even with the cutting down from the mandatory to 'necessary' mantenaince, which reduced the mantenaince time from 30 Minutes to 10 Minutes. But of course we did the 'full 1 hour inspection time' per vehicle which we were alotted for. But they never failed. While others got caught and got extra duties.
One Corporal made the error and checked all the mantenaince papers but didn't report it and took half an hour free time, our new Major came around on inspection with the NGO's which should have supervised us and the Major asked why we have not returned yet and the Corporal had no excuse for it.
I came up with a good plausible excuse and saved everybody.
Thats how i got my corporal stripes and later my Staff corporal.
But again all the vehicles looked good and worked good.
Can't imagine that many youtubers would still have viewers after posting about logistics. Your subscribers are a cut above.
This channel separates the true history nerds from the casuals. "TIK posted another logistics video - aw hell yesss!!!!"
TIK is one of a kind man
I complain a lot about the trolls, but honestly the vast majority of you guys are quality 👍
Logistic´s isn´t everything, but without logistic´s everything is nothing
logistics is life
22 million jerry cans went missing. Could build a large castle with those.
Or poor paperwork said there were 22 extra million cans...
"Missing" aka some unit decided to appropriate them when they could get their hands on it and didn't report it to not get punished lol
Pretty common phenomenon. U'll know if u ever handled anything big enough.
To paraphrase Prince George-'Jerrycans are like sex tons of them about I just never seem to have any'
Yet still the missing jerry can deniers won't accept the truth.
Sir Topham Hatt was very displeased with the British government
"YOU HAVE CAUSED CONFUSION AND DELAY!"
Being a former Logistics Specialist in the US Navy, I fucking believe this.
Me too.
Ex- RLC supply specialist. Dad was an RAOC supply specialist. The stories! xD
LOL did the gov van actually hit another if no one else saw it?
@@garethfairclough8715 At the system’s greatest extent, in 1914, there were about 20,000 miles (32,000 km) of track, run by 120 competing companies.
How do you co-ordinate that
/respect
@@julianshepherd2038 By force or threat of force. CEOs fold easily under _real pressure_
germans: wait do you guys get supplies
Yes, by converting combat troops to Legions of clerks.
Damnit...
I'm still waiting to see a Happy Medium here.
Maybe.... Thailand?
Sorry but the Kriegsmarine surface fleet is last in line Admiral, please win the Battle of Atlantic first then we will talk sbout throwing you a bone. No no no, that is not suicide, the British have the same supply issues you will be totally fine taking that Battleship out with just one support vessel.
@@Alte.Kameraden Weirdly enough, that worked once or twice, but not when it really counted.
(Tanya the Evil! Oh HELL yeah, maybe that 2nd season will actually happen someday?)
@@Alte.Kameraden im sorry im currently busy dying in bismarck because of some biplanes
@@yourlocalt72 Brits will take care of Lindemann's cat don't worry.
Fun Story
I was in the USMC, and we had to do a "rocket range" where we practiced firing live AT-4s. Each rocket cost more than what I made in a month. By the end of the training, we had almost 50 extra AT-4s left. We weren't supposed to have extra rockets and nobody wanted to fill out the extra paperwork required to return them, so what did we do? We grabbed about 10 privates and started firing them off in volleys. It was a pretty cool experience, and we ended up catching the range on fire.
Fugg em tax payers 😂😂😂
@vasiliymedvedev1532 how else US would enrich MIC?
I’m in management over drivers at UPS and this talk of drivers and proper care of vechiles has me lmao
that Tomas Sowell earned an interaction to feed the algorithm
Sowell economics are piss poor. Every good work he has put out was inspite of his economics and definitely not for it. The only good works in economics he put out where even in violation of his views of economics (Chicago school/ kenysianism).
@gillysuit2 because they are based off of kenysianism and empirical analysis off history. Economics is not a hard science and you can not engage in scientific experiments without a count too which the really world lacks. All of the useful insights he has produced in economics has been in the face of his epistemology.
@@brettmcclain9289 i dont think Sowell was ever a Kenysian. He was a radical marxist in his college days, so much so his thesis was actually on Marx and marxism which makes his recent book on marxism a great read. he now mostly trashes the purely quantitative approaches that clearly ignore the empirical evidence that kenysians often employ like the Phillips curve. Sowell doesn't engage in experiments or creates a model like a scientist but rather uses widely available statistics to support his arguments and theories.
@@politicalqueso he is still an empiricalist and still tries to use the real world examples to derive theory on how it works which is the opposite of how epistemology is supposed to be. He is a Chicago school economist which has the same epistemology as the kenysians and borrows heavily from them. If you want a real school that truest doesn’t have and hold over from kenysianism you have to go to the Austrian school.
If inflation is, always and everywhere, a printing press phenomenon, then minimum wage increases do not cause inflation, because the minimum wage is not a printing press phenomenon.
Let's all take a minute to recognize what TIK goes through to bring us these videos. Clearly suffered a few flashbacks in the process...
Once you've been in the retail trenches, you never forget
Yeah, I kinda thought the same...
I have a few friends who do tech support for the local state. Imagine appointed officals who do not know what a power button is on a desktop. Then you can answer easily why Socialism fails.
Yes. Was funny and appropriate though.
@TheImperatorKnight lol. I am currently in the retail trenches, all be it as a software developer.
The reason I searched for wwII logistics was due to admiration for how complicated other departments are in my company.
The crazy requests for data and reports needed to help them make ever better decisions becomes, in itself, part of the supply chain.
It's a good life. Nobody is shooting at me.
I can't imagine the countless days of coffee drinking, chain smoking, and untold amounts of stress/anxiety that Logistic and Staff Officers would have had planning all of these campaigns.
Seems we're at the point where ordinary folks' understanding of war has reached the "Hey.. This 'Logistics' Thing is Really Important" point. Heartening.
@` Velho I'm not gonna lie... the whole privatized war thing is a pretty radical position to defend. Don't know. Common sense tells me that surely all the big-brains that ran wars in the 19th and 20th century couldn't have all missed that option.. could they?
That said, throughout much of Early-Modern Europe, wars were indeed fought in *something like* that way, with each regiment being a for-profit venture by the colonel.. This is a topic that's beyond me.
@@dIRECTOR259 just like the American Civil war
@@dIRECTOR259 I mean, letting markets run themselves and people buy and sell things with minimal/no interference also seems like a no brainer to try yet it really isn't until post black death Europe that it is seriously attempted, and even then it was gradual movement to that point from the 15th-19th centuries. Humans like to meddle and it is to an extent against our nature to just let things ride, especially things we don't like personally.
@@dIRECTOR259 That their reputation brutality and tendency to pay themselves by looting the civilian population should probably be an indicator as to why a for-profit model for a military is a bad idea.
There's also the saga of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, who for a long time were hired guns for money, which were brought to crush strikers fighting for things like "a day off" or "less than horrible working conditions" or "meaningful pay."
Given that mercenaries exist, I think that the model could work. Whether it's a good idea is another matter entirely, especially given the historically poor reputation of mercenaries. Heck, even the term "mercenary" is used often to describe someone willing to put money over morals.
So... yeah. I think TIK's thoughts on economics and society should be compiled so writers can make a fictional dystopia from it. After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all ideas look great on paper until someone asks "how are we going to pull this off?"
Communism is a perfect example of this. The Bolsheviks who took power in 1917 believed what they were doing was the right thing, and they did some good. After all, it's hard to get popular support if they weren't doing something good. However, the practical implementation of their ideas soon morphed into a Leninist dictatorship, and eventually Stalinist totalitarianism. Which we know is a pretty bad system for all involved.
I recall his desire to move back to a true gold standard, without exactly elaborating on how it would solve the issues of using gold as a currency. Gold is a fairly dense metal which means its fairly heavy even in small quantities, making its transport difficult, vulnerable to attack, and expensive. Transporting large quantities requires the use of relatively slow transports, which were vulnerable to robbery and piracy, and even heavily-armed and well-equipped escort is no guarantee of success. Carrying gold around on the person would be heavy and impractical and make you a massive target.
That's why banks came around, with promissory notes which someone could redeem for gold. Eventually, people started using them as if they were gold, and that led to the process where paper currency was eventually cut from the gold standard. For such a gold-based economy to take effect would require the factors which led to its dismantling to simply not exist. Which isn't the case given that the laws of physics are the reason why. You can cheat tax, religious, traffic, and even criminal law, but you can't cheat Newton's.
@@dIRECTOR259
Let me say it worked so well, that it was long before decided to change it when feasible.
IIRC Something about 30 years war
US Marine here, would shoot 50cal from my helicopters during training. Would have 💯's of dollars in brass afterwards. I couldn't take it and recycle it, government couldn't too. Couldn't throw in dumpster illegally, so the only other place it could go was the ocean. Such a waste.
Seriously! They dumped it in the ocean!?
That's insane bro! In the British Army we had to sweep the range after live firing and pick up brass and put it in bags which were handed in. I think it was sent back to the manufacturer to be melted down and used again.
When I was in the Army, I was the Unit Training NCO. We had to bring spent brass back from the range to the Ammo Supply Point* we originally drew the ammo from. They weighed it against the original order and calculated the amount I was supposed to be bring back based on the brass alone. Usually this was an all morning affair and I decided during one range not to do the usual and burn up all the allocated ammo after everyone was qualified. I always thought that was wasteful too. Boy did I get an earful from the ASP* for bring back unopened ammo boxes. Made more paperwork on their end. Caught crap from the Battalion Training NCO as well, said that by doing so it made it harder to justify drawing more ammo for the unit next time, since it looked like we didn't really need as much as we asked for.
*Edited: Sorry, I meant Ammo Supply Point (ASP), not Depot. Been awhile since I was in.
We got in trouble if we got court weighing in the aluminium petals from the DST rounds. They generally paid someone to take them after we had collected and sorted it all.
@@leonardwei3914 I saw this a lot in the Army too and always thought it was stupid. We'd go to the range and get one mag to zero, two more to qualify, sometimes we'd do extra stuff like gas mask fire or buddy lanes. But asking for extra ammo to do stuff like practice on longer range targets or do suppressing fire always got the same answer - "nope, have to save it for qualification". Then of course at the end of the day they'd be sitting on half an open crate of ammo and suddenly they'd be throwing full mags at us - "here, burn this up so we don't have to take it back to the ASP" and guys would just dump it downrange on full-auto.
I grew up learning how to shoot from a very young age, and learned in the Army that most people didn't. Range day was just another chore, another thing to get checked off the training schedule instead of an opportunity to actually work on our marksmanship. What a waste.
Never expected stories about logistics nightmares to be so absolutely hilarious.
10:20 Considering Wavell had to administer forces from Syria to Kenya, Libya to Iraq, it is hardly surprising that someone who started with about 30,000 troops to cover such a vast area would need more administrative staff. After all, he is not just in charge of the British Army in the Middle East, he is also in charge of governing and administering all the countries/regions located in this area as well.
Can you cover American Logistics in the Pacific, I find it amazing that they were able to advance as fast as they did in the Pacific given the massive amounts of transport ships needed. I know that it wasn't "fast" considering the actual speed but given the distance and challenges that were present I think personally that the advance across the pacific was rather fast.
Plus how the navy sabotaged the army’s logistical needs needs a video.
Yo young Minecraft kid this UA-camr is spouting a bunch of nonsense. There's no economic incentive to his so called logistics model when the soldiers are forced to be there.
@@JokersAce0 uhhh the fuck? What TiK is saying makes sense if you understand economics and military based logistics. And he isn't the only historian stating that the lack of true prices makes logistics harder
@@Darqshadow lol dude this only makes sense for 15 year olds. No one wants to be there in a fucking war much less play games with logistics as if there's any incentive other than the one to NOT be there, it makes no fucking sense at all to allocate resources loke that and any army that does it will just sell the weapons to the enemy lmao
Yeah the Pacific especially the last two landings made D-Day look like a dress rehearsal!
How to recognise the horrors of logistics: Play Hearts of Iron 3
Based HOI3 enjoyer
I actually quite liked the OOB system in HOI3... It looks really nice until a war starts and then spaghetti
Or shadow empire. When half of your army disappears, you realize maybe something is wrong.
Brooooooo TIK plays HOI3! What if we got a hamachi game going?
@@TheImperatorKnight "no plan survives contact with the enemy"
I started working in a state owned company in France last september. We are in charge of repairing planes and helicopters for the ground army and the air force. I've rarely seen such a waste of ressources and staff. Like we are supposed to be at our post at 7h18 but no one work before 8h00-8h10. And everyone ready to leave 10mins before the end of Day. Ordering anything from the shop like gloves, clothes takes ages to receive. Employees do what is called "wigs" it's doing any parts which non-works related like tools for a friends, car parts for your family. Like a colleague write he spended loads of times plating some bolts then he restore wigs for half the day. I could write pages of exemples like this, all of this payed with tax payers money. The best is that on first day when presenting the site they tell you maintenance is not in private hands because they could have a monopoly.
I hope things are getting better, Roch.
"They don't give two messershimitz about the Veichle" best video coat kkkk
Yep, the Like on this video was exclusively due to that. I will also adopt it for my personal use, at least on UA-cam.
Tik I can’t state how it works war time , but piece time U.S. military supply appears( from firsthand experience) to operate on the assumption that if you aren’t willing to steal something, you didn’t really want it in the first place.
It's the same in the current German Army. There are two Ways to get something. First: Steal it. Second: Go the official Way, scream "Fuck it!" after not getting your Stuff after Weeks of Delay and do the first Method.
@@ArtjomKoslow of course they will give you something when you screw up ordering stuff , one of the guys in the shop needed some screw that we used a lot of , better order a hundred ( unit of issue was 100 ) base supply happily gave us what we ordered knowing that we didn’t want 10,000 and then refused to take the extras back. You go through official channels one way or the other you will be sorry.
THREE logistics videos in a row? You're on a roll, can't say I don't enjoy the videos though ;)
Yeah, and there will be more on this topic in the future because I need to address the criticisms... Thought I'd get this video out, then see what the critics are, then tackle them all in one go in another video in a few weeks time
@@TheImperatorKnight Would it be possible to do more topics in a trilogy format?
Take for example the unique of policies expeditionary forces. To simply make a single all encompassing with you would feel disjointed and overly simplistic.
@Erik Thomsen You'll be happy to know that after the success of this 'trilogy' of videos on logistics, I have been considering doing this for other video topics in the future. Some topics won't warrant it, but for those that do, it makes sense to do them one after another like this 👍
@@TheImperatorKnight 9
@@TheImperatorKnight I presume the future videos will include "Japanese Logistics", "Chinese Logistics", "French Logistics", and "Italian Logistics" to round out the set?
I agree lots of things in the logistics videos. I do not, however, agree on everything. To make a huge topic short: both private and state controlled trains/roads/railways has problems. And I have never, in my 49 years on earth, seen or heard of anything in those areas that actually works flawless over long periods of time (as in years and decades). There are systems that are totally rubbish (Swedish roads and railways, for example), and there are systems that is less rubbish. And - as TiK suggest - the more complex a system is, the more room for rubbishness. But I would argue that no one can set up a system of roads/railways logistic that are without flaws.
I can agree
I definitely support this, Tik is great and makes a lot of sense most of the time but at times I think his personal bias against basically any form of state control leads him to draw some strange conclusions, the tent situation in this video is a good example of this, you do not need an economic calculation to determine the best option in every situation and private control often leads to quite illogical decisions in the name of profit. Tbh though he can draw any strange conclusions he wants to and I would still enjoy every video
It’s not about perfection it’s about reaching an adequate level of operations. In business efficiency is defined by the minimization of waste not the complete annihilation of it. As that is impossible. In general privatized system are better or a happy medium would be outsourced services but Britain railways today’s are a great example of why state should either private or control a utility not outsource it.
At the system’s greatest extent, in 1914, there were about 20,000 miles (32,000 km) of track, run by 120 competing companies.
120
How do you co-ordinate that, sans computers
@@CoopersGaming couldn't agree more. Tik wouldn't admit it but seems to lean towards a USA style healthcare system where financial ruin is common, rather than the free at point of use NHS model. And in case @tik pops up, I am not saying that the NHS is 'free', so please don't patronise, as you often do
Logistics and supplies during war time must be like herding cats with ADHD
Using older, arthritic cats with PTSD.
Thank you for quoting Mises and Hazlitt. The Austrian insight into war economics is underrated.
My pleasure! You're right, although I think the reason for that is because Austrians tend to be against war. I'm against war too, but that doesn't mean I don't find it interesting or can't make content about it.
Japan has the best horror stories. Getting ready my popcorn ))
"The Japanese people are herbivore animals throughout history. You are surrounded by such lush mountains yet now you are reporting that food supplies were insufficient, which is impossible!" -- Lt. Gen. Renya Mutaguchi, replying a supplies request during the Battle of Imphal, also known as "Operation Genghis Khan".
「日本人はもともと草食動物なのである。これだけ青い山々を周囲に抱えながら、食糧に困るなどというのは、ありえないことだ。」
My favorite sign in air ground support lounge on an air force base "do not leave open batteries in the refrigerator". The sgt assured me that those signs are there for a reason
Glad to say things are better now! Having spent a lot of time overseas in Logs HQs, the integration between movers, stackers, beancounters and other loggies is generally pretty impressive. The British Army has deployable Logs HQs that are designed to do all that's required in theatre, combining J1 to J9, RN, Army and even RAF all in the same place. It works pretty well.
Edited to add - the bit about 'ownership' is correct! A Company of British soldiers that I worked closely with had their own vehicles - they looked after them, were proud of them fitted their own little comforts, etc. Then, to save money, they were withdrawn and placed in storage. The Coy retained 2 x vehicles for training, and whenever they went on Ops or exercise had to draw vehicles from a depot. Result = far, far more breakdowns and vehicle problems, as no-one really cared about the trucks any more. Money saved? Possibly. Operational efficiency lost? Definitely.
Although one component can have several different NATO stock numbers
Once you notice the ring light reflection in TIK's eyes you can't unsee how it makes him look like an android.
Beep boop
I hate ring lights.
In Operation Desert Storm (First Persian Gulf War 1990-1991), Logistics Base Alpha was located near Al Qaysumah, Saudi Arabia. It was a huge lot covered in a chaotic assortment of trailer mounted, metal cargo boxes. I wasted a few trips there trying to locate repair parts.
A fellow officer later served in Persian Gulf War II and was eventually tasked with getting control over the thousands of these same metal cargo boxes in 2005. Nothing had been learned in the intervening 14 years.
A lot has been learned, but since you are too stupid to learn thus you think nothing has changed.
Logistics for a large army is always going to be a mess. Not matter if it’s state controlled or private controlled. But neoliberals like TIK always pretend private is perfect and state controlled is bad. In reality private controlled logistics is shit. Medieval armies had the first hand experience in that.
@@royhuang9715 Yeah medieval armies were private? Who is the government then? STFU HUANG
This is the problem with ALL classic liberal thinking (it encompasses conservatives, liberals, commies, socialists, fascists, and nazis) is you all are so goddamn stupid with your definitions you are trying to claim. You are trying to say the nobility of Europe would raise their armies out of their "private" funds? How did a king or baron make money to begin with? Taxes ...because they are the fucking government back then! Go to the back of the class and shut up moron.
The reality is BOTH sides suck magically moving from private to public doesn't change what a pain in the ass the undertaking is. You notice even within his own video, while he is bitching about logistics his own experience is in a corporate logistics. He tries to call a corporation the government rather than admitting that all modern economics is mostly bullshit to begin with. There has likely NEVER been a free market economy since the elites meet amongst themselves to determine what they will be doing. This is why Bill Gates never loses his ass in the market because he's friends with everyone else so they can prop up their various investments. On the other side pure communism has and never will be able to exist because having someone in charge automatically creates a class difference and this is why all the commie leaders appear as kings because they would rather use their power to live in luxury and lie to the people that they are all equal in some magical economic fashion.
TIK can you do a video about the logistics of the North Vietnamese army and the Vietcong? Seems to me they were quite successfull. Does this has to do with ideology ,nationalism and fanatism ? I recall an American general saying the north Vietnamese cadre ,were quite incorruptible.
@@tassiek2450as Vietnamese who got informations from family lived during those time of war,I would say their logistic was very awful.The story about half of supplied convoys perished during the march from North of Laos mountain range to Central Highland of South Vietnam was heard many times.Not just from American planes bombing the convoy,but the mosquitoes,cholera infected and poisonous water inside the jungle and mountain range did a heavy toll for them.
While for Vietcong-who’re born and fought in South Vietnam against ROV and her allies,they were living off the land by the help of local people and using guerilla warfare.Their only problem was the lack of heavy weapons like tanks,artillery pieces and planes against South Vietnam’s forces that equipped and trained in U.S style of warfare. So that North Vietnam(or People Democratic of Vietnam) helped their “brethren” with Soviet and Chinese weapons.
Their success was the messy politic of South Vietnam,not wise foreign policies from U.S,America’s weak will to help her ally of South Vietnam after 1973(while North Vietnam still got military supplies from the Eastern Bloc) and division among South Vietnamese on choosing communism(Vietcong) or nationalism(front against the communism).
I still say Vietcong and North Vietnam did use the nationalism agenda to the war against South Vietnam and U.S,as they said U.S intervention to Indochina was “the new kind of colonialism and imperialism”.
The last part that you mentioned about North Vietnamese cadre not being corrupted,well it’s kinda disputed.The military,well the State indirectly ensure you would have better rations if you join the army,and it’s not good to be a corrupted officer in the army.For the civilian officials that behind the front,the system of distribution to people on necessities was under controlled of them.The people’s monthly of ration was under the mercy of those civilian cadres.
@@vuitui2121 although I agree with the points you make ,I have to bring to your attention a letter written by an American officer ,regarding the two sides.on the south Vietnam side he explains the elite of the regime ,military ,politicians etc they used to hold parties where the man were talking about their business in narcotics,prostitution ,illegal arms sales ,land grabs etc ,while their wives were showing each other their jewellery,cosmetics ,dresses,while on the other side ,little men in black pyjamas, armed with every weapon to be be found were going around the villages,inside the cities doing their job of kicking out the invaders and collaraborators.someone that was working in the merchant Navy all over the world as a ship mechanic told me during a seafaring to Saigon ,guerillas could be seen around thevperifery of the harbour.the corruption of the regime and the unwillingness of the young people to fight condemned the south to defeat.when in your army you have thirty percent desertion rate ,you are not going to win any war.
A comment of a German solder about during the Normandy invasion was how scarred he was when he realized the number of trucks the Americans had. Not tanks, not soldiers, not guns.
When I was in college taking classes on ww2 it always occurred to me that Hayek / Mises / etc austrian theories had a lot of implications on military history, but it always seemed like i was the only one interested in that angle. I'm glad that Tik talks about this stuff, it really hits the spot.
It makes no sense whatsoever and poses more questions than even could provide a single solution.
One point you may not have realized: If the the soldiers owned the trucks, the incentive would be to keep their trucks as far from the fighting as possible unless they are guaranteed to be reimbursed for a destroyed truck. However, a promise of reimbursement causes all the problems you covered.
It's scary how exactly all of the issues in the videos on logistic issues mirror working in big business. Almost every time I immediately am reminded of a number of similar situations in this or that workplace I have worked at, not to mention those I have heard of from friends or families.
C-level executives making stupid 10-year plans, everyone actually doing the work could have told them would fail, to double profit, by throwing around buzz words and "projects". Vice president's personal rivalries and inter-organization double efforts to avoid dealing with one another or to spite each other.
New ideas taking so long to reach the top, that by the time they pick them up, they are old news already.
People not even looking at the map (or whatever the equivalent is, depending on the business sector) once, before "planing".
Not to mention nepotism and corruption.
It's odd. Most companies, at least those with like 10000+ employees are either organized in an almost soviet style, with council electing councils, and useless quotas and "plans" being kicked downwards while tuned numbers are reported back up, and plans are made based on those doubly wrong KPIs, or they are organized around a glorious leader so pushed with external marketing that they start to bullshit their propaganda inwards, and end up demanding ever more ridiculous feats from their employees, while they are being told that they are working at the best place on earth.
I wonder has anyone ever worked in a company based on democratic, parliamentarian, or even just internal free-market ideas? Because I sure haven't, and I have worked for American companies, European companies, even Japanese companies, but at best, we got to write down how long we worked for which project, and got to elect a workers council "recommending" things to the C-level execs on what would make the workforce happier, lead to more and better employees wanting to join the company, etc.
Yeah, when people go full libertarian, believing that private - good, public - bad, it seems like a religious belief to me. Any person working for a private company would see how little difference there is between public and private companies. But if you have a religious belief, that's not going to change
@@sananguliyev4940 yeah people think of economics as a real scientific form of study but it just isn't. It is at best a philosophy at worst a dogma and probably just a political ideology. The systems can't be tested under rigorous conditions and so no scientific theory can be made just wild hypothesis.
Many services and even products in the US are supplied via cooperatives that are definitely not publicly traded corporations. Rural electricity cooperatives are common. Farmers often rely on cooperatively managed grain silos. REI is a staple of big box retail clusters. They sell recreational gear to their members and are staffed by members of the cooperative with periodic dividend payments for all.
Sears tried to implement an internal, free market system of competition, and it tanked the company lol. Turns out that in the pursuit of profit, rival groups hoarded information and resources, and began to sabotage each other's efforts. Meanwhile their competitor Walmart, which ran their shit like a communist dictatorship, won out bug.
The idea is that if your company is this inefficient there's room for another more efficient company to come in and wipe the floor with you (assuming a perfect world, of course there's a few things that can sometimes keep that from happening)
Most of the drivers had never driven anything before being in the Army. Most of them learned on the job, causing a lot of damage to transmissions.
This is getting ridiculous. I used to watch TIK's videos frequently, but as an economics student I cannot handle the level of ignorance. There is a reason that Austrian economics is not widely adopted in academia (and probably isn't the most accepted branch of heterodox economics).
Usually TIK's videos are thoroughly researched.. but he fails continually to grasp economics beyond supply and demand and the basic tenets of Austrian economic thinking. For instance.. there is a reason why prices/markets are abandoned in certain situations. Firms and governments do not generally use internal prices. Imagine if every worker in an assembly line had to "purchase" the input from the previous worker, produce the output, and then "sell" that output to the next worker. It would involve a huge waste of time, not to mention the difficulties inherent in pricing such a good (yes, supply and demand curves don't always exist... there is an abundance of literature on this in the world of real economics). The reality is that not a single government has ever mass-used internal pricing during wartime to deal with the supply problem, and this is because it doesn't work.
how do you know it doesn't work if it wasn't ever tried? you are useing circular logic "we don't use it because it doesn't work, we know it doesn't work because no-one has ever used it"
(also you are useing the appeal to authority fallacy in your first parapgraph, authority useing or not useing something doesn't mean its wrong. authorities like accademia have been monumentally wrong plenty of times in history, you need a better arguement than 'my lecturer said so' which is what 'not widely adopted in academia' comes down to)[furthermore not widely adopted does not mean not adopted. you must acknowledge that it has been adopted
try think of a better arguments next time. your example with the supply line is somewhat close, however it fails to actually say why they don't use it other than 'trust me, its bad'
now i don't really care if TIK is right or not, what i care about is you make a claim (he is wrong) but do not actually explain why he is wrong nor do you provide links/sources. we just have to believe you are correct...for no reason. TIK atleast provides sources and has done videos with sources on this stuff before...
Well it has been kinda used. They called it the Thirty Years War. They stopped for a reason...
Technically speaking correct, Austrian economics is not mainstream, though a few of its idea become mainstream (like subjective theory of value). Setting this aside - out of all weak heterodox economic theories, which other would you suggest as more serious one?
What about a system of scrip? What if the army's platoons or Navy's individual ships, rather than individuals, placed orders using an internal currency rather than using soldiers' paychecks?
Maybe the War on Cheese phase of the Iraqi war can be studied for this. High paid truck drivers, in company owned trucks delivered the supplies guarded by low paid army soldiers. But in the end they still travelled in convoys and only one or two companies had the contract. And the competition for getting that contract happened before the start of the implementation. Problem is market determined prices is only superior when it's free. How you can even think you can have a free market in a warzone is beyond me. For example if one party has the ability to use force and the other party has not there is no free price negotiation position. And there are just to many variables to calculate prices and there's already time to do.
I agree with your point about people being more responsible for stuff they own, but your proposition of a kind of private delivery system doesn't compute, what would stop these 'deliverymen' overcharging troops in desperate need of supplies aka making cartels, or just refusing delivering to dangerous battlefield areas? A 'socialized/governmental' system is the only way to provide such critical services, as a 'not-for-profit' circumstance, like healthcare, fire department etc.
*looks at the fact militaries are increaselingly relying on civilian contractors for logistics*
yeah, no. TIK is right.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 The reason they are using private contractors is because that way they can divert taxpayer funds directly to private companies they either hold stock in, or is owned by their buddies/revolving door of the MIC. Funny how those contracts on paper look cheaper that what it cost the military before, but always run into major budget overruns they happily bill the taxpayer, or do such a shit job while taking the money that the military has to do the whole job all over again. For reference, the US contractor that 'built' the sanitary infrastructure at Baghram, billed millions, and there were no functioning toilets, the Corps of Engineers had to come in and built it all out themselves. Contractor got paid in full with no complaints, make an even tidier profit as he never spent a dime on materials, records show there were never his personnel in country either...
Thank you for the video. Well done as always.
Constructive criticism.
1. Soldiers hiring cooks to prepare their meals in a combat zone, is, well, let's just call it extremely unrealistic. Some units at Brigade level might contract and purchase from a local economy. Any lower level does not have the resources including time, to do that. Good luck doing that in the desert, depopulated areas and hostile territories.
2. I am unclear of the thesis. It is either govt intervening in the economy is bad, govt generally sucks at whatever it does, or, the allied logisticians were incompetent. All three would be misleading. Far too simplistic.
3. For one claiming to be experienced in logistics, I would expect more context regarding the Herculean task that all the involved nations faced. Routine logistics is complex and difficult. Wartime emergency logistics requiring instant exponential expansion is impossible to accomplish with a high degree of efficiency or expertise. It seems to me that you set too high a standard and do not give enough credit.
4. With all due respect, I believe that many of your comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of military organizations and operations. You seem to think the military act as civilians. I recommend either expanding your area of expertise or focus on your area of expertise.
Regardless of these criticisms, I wish to acknowledge that few take the time to tackle this topic and I genuinely appreciate your effort and the video.
Recommendation: I think this kind of topic might be better served in a lessons learned format. I believe there have to be many studies and memorandums that the various militaries conducted.
TIK, I would love to see you do a collaboration with The Chieftain. He makes a powerful argument that the Sherman was a good design in large part due to logistics. If you got together and made a 3 hour (or some other length) video on logistics alone, I'd carve out the time to watch it in one viewing.
It was a better designed vehicle in basically every respect.
Then again it's not hard when the competition is deliberately designing tanks to break after a few days or just have a seemingly inescapable allergy to heavy usage. Or are the Japanese.
And Usurp Drac for the longest video.
@@lolroflroflcakes ?????? Sherman is far more reliable than German tanks.
Chieftain said it's a good logistics because they designed the tank form a ground up to fit with all transport methods from CONUS to the frontline and to fix the logistical problems for an expeditionary force. From the railway gauge, liberty ships and field maintenance, all had to be harmonious.
That's why US Armored corps never field their heavy tanks to Europe, because it's far more logistically efficient to ship more Sherman or Hellcat than a HT at the same space on the liberty ship.
@@saltymonke3682 One Liberty ship could hold 215 Sherman tanks but most only carried 12 so an assortment of other needed supplies could brought over with them. The US Army had the M4 designed so it wouldn't exceed the typical weight limits of bridges used for commercial traffic in Western Europe.
The verse John Lennon inadvertently left out of the lyrics of "Imagine":
"Imagine if the soldiers had to pay for their supplies".
On a more serious note: you should make a video about insurgency groups, specially tiny ones, where all members are volunteers and scrap for their own supplies.
Its one thing to do that for a force numbering maybe 120 men, now try doing that for an army of two and a half million.... It's just going to break down.
Yes....So war would not be affordable.
Or a pretty big mercenary company.
@@alganhar1 Yes. That's my point, Once again, TIK is oversimplifying one side of the problem to make his point. (It hurts me saying it, because for the most part I like his videos and his insights.)
For TIK, a "free market" seems to be the solution to all problems, a panacea: cut bureaucracy, let the market fix itself, done! He goes to the point of saying 34:02 logistics soldiers in a free market war "would be incentivised to get to their actual destination with their truck in one piece and deliver the needed supplies on time because they would get paid directly by the troops for doing that". Only, who determines if the supplies are the actually needed and when? Wouldn't that require a bureaucracy, an administration? And who was it that placed the order and provided the coordinates of the place of delivery? Or are we expecting the individual soldiers to get out of their foxholes, go to the nearest phone and place the order? (I guess there would be a marketplace for that too, because phone lines are a limited resource, too.) Or there is no orders and the supply trucks just roam the battle field like ice cream trucks, announcing their product? (Hey, they could sell to both sides, right there on the spot!) And who checks the supplies to verify that what you paid for is what you received? And if two suppliers compete for the same market, do the individual soldiers decide based only on the price tag, or is there a structure that compares not only the price but also the performance of the armament to make an informed decision? Or do they simply interrupt the battle and go to the firing range to perform tests on the supplies? (Not to mention all other types of supplies, from clothing to rations...) And do the soldiers carry, not only their gear, but also a few quid on their pockets to "pay directly to the supplier"?
I'm sorry, TIK, but you just fell through your rabbit hole...
Let's just admit it: war is a complex problem, as is logistics. There is no optimal solution to those problems, there will always be inefficiencies. The computational problem has no solution, with or without prices.
38:52 If only the Soviets had allowed their soldiers to freely chose/pay the best cooks in the market during the Winter War, they would have chosen the Finish catering service, which was notoriously better then the Soviet one, and, better fed, that would have speeded up the Soviet victory... And the Finish would profit too, because they would make a buck out of it instead of just pointlessly dying... It would be a win-win situation!
My dad served in France during WW2. He said that because the Nazis took all of France's trucks, US soldiers would sell trucks to French civilians. Gasoline/petrol was also in high demand.
I feel some key points are ignored when discussing state controlled vs free market.
-TiK loves to bring up the NHS as an example of state control gone wrong, but I've never seen evidence that healthcare can be done by the free market. If you cannot refuse service or must buy a product (e.g. firefighting, hospitals, etc), they should be regulated to prevent abuse. You can go all the way back to Roman times to find abuse among free market firefighting...
-This free market logistics operation assumes there will be enough volunteers willing to risk their lives to make a profit.
-You can still figure out what something costs in a hybrid system, it doesn't need to be unfettered capitalism/free market (which is just as bad as the other side of the spectrum)
on your third point, the issue is in all 3 armies logistics systems so far is they were not hybrid systems. a good example of a modern hybrid system would be the US armie's logistics in the middle east today, which is mostly civilian contractors (the free market element) with relatively minor military regulation (which brings in the government and makes it a hybrid system) which has been adopted as the traditional system just wasn't up to scratch.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Yes... and no. It's true that the US army operates on such a system and it works. Royal Navy has something similar, I believe. (Not a military guy). However, you have to agree that US picks its wars. Aside from surface political pressure, they can extend their wars for however they like and sink as many resources as they like.
On the other hand, as I wrote on an earlier video, all these problems motivated the development of operational research, or operations research, as is known to Americans. This is what most large companies use today. Thanks for the information. I'm glad to see historians are paying attention to this less glamorous but so important issue. By the way, regards from a fellow Orwellian.
Very few people have the ability to make logistics extremely interesting. You are definitely one of those people. This series has been amazing.
I'm a fan of most of what you do and I understand your point here, but at the end you don't make much sense. Yes Drivers would have more care about their work if they were paid for their result, but your comment implies that this would somehow be a better option? That enough people would be ready to accept the risk of buying their own truck and be responsible for it while driving supplies in a theater of war? How much money would the government had to pay them for enough people to accept that responsibility for the need in supplies of the army?
Yes, the government would have to pay certain people to incentive them to do certain jobs. That is where subsidizing comes into play. Keep the free market price system, but the government will give out low interest loans or simply free money to incentive people to do the higher risk jobs or jobs that require a large investment to get going. When I thought about enlisting in the USN, the USN recruiters made sure to list the financial benefits of working on submarines (because not many people would want to work on a submarine otherwise).
The government pays more for sure, but price system with its superior incentives (like TIK mentioned) will more than make up for the cost to the government by limiting waste and delays.
@@Gauntlet_Videos There is a reason why conscription exist. Not enough people are ready to go to war even if you pay them
Some of you do know you don't have to agree with literally everything tik says, right?
Good point. Haliburton and Blackwater Security spring to mind. Are we still thinking from inside 'our thought coffin' though? Can you conscript people for war and say to them, "You can either prosper or starve, your choice. Serve your customer and prosper, fail to and starve?" Would the competent truck driver do the right thing and succeed the incompetent one fail and starve? Equally can you say to a divisional commander, "I want you to achieve this and I'm willing to pay that." Followed by negotiation? Would this lead to a better equipped division for its needs being more successful in what it is tasked to do? In the age of sail prize money seemed to stiffen the resolve.
@@TheAllardP True. Some people will do the absolute minimum no matter how much they are incentivized otherwise. However, the incentive system is simply designed to get as many people possible invested rather than everyone. It is getting the most efficient system not a 100% efficient system.
Thanks TIK - this reminds me of the prize system in the navy (at least in the age of sail - not sure what happened after that). Ordinary blokes, some of them pressed from the pub or merchant navy, were incentivized to work hard, shoot straight and rapidly, and leap aboard an enemy vessel cutlass swinging by the fact that if they could capture the enemy vessel they would get a share of the prize money for it. They were also incentivized to fix up the prize vessel and make damn sure it stayed afloat. Camaraderie and flogging no doubt helped too, and of course most of the hard won gold would go on beer and loose women in Portsmouth rather than the pension fund, but that's another story. Keep the vids coming, cheers, Monty.
I get your point, but... the free market solution would generate its own games and failures. Would money supply be an adjustment variable?
Also, can you picture the dialog:
- No, the price of ammunition has gone up today, I will not bring the trucks to your unit below X £
- F... you mate, have you heard we have a war to wage??!!
- Sorrrrrry... No pay, no ammo...
Obviously you would have to multiply the MP tenfold at least 😉
And if they were even allowed to choose their destination, they would go to the easiest one. I think just increasing the wage would probably have the simmilar effects
@@panzerofthelake506 the premium is better
@@user-jh1hm2kp3j wat
Just shows that no countries logistics were perfect, not even the Allies. Makes me wonder how unstoppable a nations military would be if their logistics were perfect and always on point.
>if their logistics were perfect and always on point
Perfect, on-point logistics get you there firstest with the mostest, every time.
Look at the Prussian Army's logistics during the Franco-Prussian War. Although it was not perfect, it was so far ahead of anyone else on Earth's at the time that it might as well have been. They were able to run circles around the French Army, and despite being quite badly outnumbered by the French in terms of the total number of soldiers, they outnumbered the French in every battle they fought, and had more ammunition per man than the French too. This resulted in every battle being a major victory and in them reaching Paris in a matter of weeks, even capturing Emperor Napoleon III. Von Moltke's logistical reforms, using proper train scheduling and timetables to control and track troop and supply movements, so that troops and supplies got where they needed to go when they needed to be there. On the other hand, the French actually lost track of entire regiments in their own countryside if I recall correctly xD
Thank you Tik. This series of videos has made me appreciative of all the work my great grandfather did. I recently learned he was a logistics officer for the US army in the South Pacific. I had no idea it was this difficult and even if he wasn't in charge of the entire system I have grown to appreciate his contribution. I always knew logistics were important but I had no idea it was this hard to manage. After the war he began running his own hardware store.
Being a Government official now, the level of bureaucracy has NOT improved despite the technological leaps. Even something as simple as permitting staff to work at a remote location requires three different forms.
We even track administrative cost burdens, and despite INCREASING the admin costs, we do little to make improvements. "Wrongthink/Groupthink" from a select few is what leads to "planning meetings for future discussions", the then "actual meeting" itself, and finally a third "review meeting" to analyze what was discussed at the second meeting.
Waste on top of waste on top of waste.
And then you kinda realise why things are like they are.
You need minor meetings before the actual meeting to make sure everyone clears the schedule for the important one. Clearing the schedules means that if the meeting lasts 2 hours, you should clear 3-5 hours, because the big meeting can overextend.
You need minor meetings to plan for the 'logistical' side: Where are you going to hold it? Is the location available? Book it while it lasts! Are you going to need special tech equipment? Who's going to handle that? You want to serve snaks? Who's going to handle that?
And you need a review meeting to see if everything has been taken care of
@@nottoday3817 I hate meetings like that
I should just start a trucking business after all these free logistics lessons.
33:26 Ironically, this is kinda what messed up the system. The millions of jerry cans which had 'misteriously disappeared' were 'bought' by the soldiers for free (aka stolen) and sold to the civillians. So, the question would be: if Jerry buys his jerry cans from the depot, can you guarantee that the can will end up to the frontline or in the hands of a good looking lady promising to do what his wife never does? Remember one of the golden rule of capitalism: Value is always subjective.
I don't fully understand that but I like it.
I knew a US solider from the peacetime army in the 1930's and even then the drivers would drive their trucks to breaking before doing maintenance. They considered themselves DRIVERS not mechanics and it "wasn't their job". Truck breaks, give me another one. Absolutely no interest in maintenance.
"Amateurs worry about Tactics. Pros, worry about logistics." I heard this in an audiobook a while ago and thought it appropriate for this third video in a row. Logistics. Matter.
Monty and Slim understood this aspect.
I am not sure that quote is understood. The truth is that neither can be overlooked. Both affect the other. Might want to throw in the importance of intelligence while you are at it. It is remarkably easy to screw up a military plan. A lot of work goes into a mediocre plan. Great plans usually take too long to still reflect the reality on the ground.
And often the plan goes out the window at first contact anyways.
@@charlietipton8502 Very true, and apt pointing that neither thing can be ignored. Your bit on intelligence is also right. Information is Ammunition. Certainly enjoyed learning more on History and stuff about Logistics I didn't really know over much.
@@charlietipton8502 Yes, throwing an atomic bomb (or any big quantity of explosives), offsets the tactical part, and maybe he intelligence part. Making an atomic bomb s also a problem of logistic
TIKs logistic system would be a disaster. For a start it would totally dismantle the chain of command.
The 1st Polish Armoured division set up their artillery at my family's farm during their operation to liberate Ypres (Ieper) in Belgium. We still have about 15 jerrycans and about 10 empty ammo boxes for 25pdr shells that they either left behind of possibly traded for other stuff. It's not suprising that they lost so much stuff.
What does TIK say, a mercenary army (fighting for profit) is much better than state-controlled army. Well, that will be tested one day, as the US transfers more and more missions to private military contractors. We will see then. But I would still ask one question that was asked every time someone got similar idea: what if the enemy pays more? Is that "out of the box thinking" enough? :D
I liked your comment, however I do have a decent answer - if the mercenaries ever wanted to go into battle again, they would be badly perceived by their potential "clients" - no government would contract a group of mercenaries with a treacherous past ;)
PS. If they would go over to the enemies side (for example: Germans) any army which would defeat them/capture them wouldn't be interested in showing mercy ;)
switching sides was not actually something that happened that often in real life. an untrustworthy mercenary can't get new jobs, so they are risking their entire lives just on switching sides, so it has to be for a god damn good reason. thus most of the time we historically see mercinaries switching sides was either they weren't getting paid at all, or they were being starved out of a fortress and were foreign mercinaries (national mercinaries tended to do quite well regardless, the english army at agincourt was mostly english mercinaries for example, they were sick and starveing but they still fought for england)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Well, in total war once is more than enough.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 In Italy mercenaries switched sides all the time, and their fights were more like a show than a battle because the commanders negotiated to not hurt each other too much before the battle.
About a year ago I read the autobiography of General U.S. Grant. Grant deserves great credit for the Vicksburg campaign in which he has the Navy run supplies past the Vicksburg batteries and crosses his army behind enemy lines where they are cut off from his base of supply. But the most interesting takeaway for me about Grant is when he takes command of all the US armies. He reorganizes the entire supply system. Wagons in supply depots are now, under his orders, marked to designate Corps and Division supply. Further, wagons were marked for what they were to load and carry. Ammunition for artillery, rounds for infantry, rations for troops, supplies for cavalry are loaded and then marshalled for delivery to the specific units in the field. Grant sped up supply to all fronts by making it easy for a Quartermaster Sgt. to do his job. Great ideas seem obvious. He covers this important detail about logistics in a few paragraphs that apparently went unread by General Pershing in 1917.
I believe that the soviet system of giving incompetent logistics personnel a 3 day vacation to learn to use a rifle without ammunition which they'd receive upon arriving to the front line was a great motivation.
Hey Tik, just finished up, "Monty's Men," by John Buckley. Touched a little upon the logistics, especially the controversy surrounding Antwerp. A hot take, I don't think the war could have been won in 1944 if resources had been swung from Market Garden to the south. There just wasn't enough to push to go the needed distance. On a side note, I remember this wise saying. "Policy is not there to make you feel dumb. It is there because someone in the past has screwed up!" I see the same with security work. ^^
It does seem highly unlikely.
By the time they unsnarled their supply lines winter would be setting in.
I don't think people risked their lives because they didn't care.
War isn't the same as your logistics company.
you would be suprised. they might care about the war in general, but they might be conscripts/draftees so they might not, but even if they do care about the war in general does not mean they care about their vehicles/etc. my dad was a logistics officer in war zone and he speaks of the dificulty of getting soldiers to check things and maintain things. if the soldier thinks he can get away with beign lazy he will be lazy.
@@dutchrjen The nationalised NHS in Britain costs much less per head than the US healthcare system, and the British have a longer life expectancy. Still think that the free market inevitably gives better results?
@@jerry2357 The US does have the longest life expectancy in the world if you don’t count homicides and car accidents so I don’t know if your healthcare point is relevant. Admittedly, our life expectancy has been falling over the past few years.
@@jerry2357 the US has a mostly socialist healthcare system. Years ago I tried to get a treatment my insurance didn’t cover but I couldn’t get a price estimate from anyone. No up front prices = no market.
The areas of the medical system that are free market like lasik eye surgery show declining costs while increasing quality as you would expect in a free market with lots of Competition.
@@altaiaurelius umm, no, it very much does not, not even close. Literally every modern developed country has a higher life expectancy and more than a few developing countries beat it as well. What's more most of the counties also pay less for their better healthcare.
I had a chat with my Grandad today about military logistics and what you covered in these videos. My Grandad was a Paratrooper and after a shoulder injury became a motor logistics driver during the 40's and into the 50's.
He didn't agree with your assessment of how the men treated their vehicles but did comment that not many people knew how to maintain their vehicles anyway.
Don’t have to take TIK seriously on this one. Handing supply to private contractors would be a nightmare. Just imagine the front line are engaged in battle thus requires a lot of ammunition, so you as a solider would pay any price to get more ammo, the private contractors take advantage charged you $100 per box.
On the next day, you realize you run out of food and water. But the private contractors was still shipping ammo to the frontline cause he doesn’t know the battle is over. And now you has to go without food or water for at least a day. A day later, he brought you food and water but again charged you $100 per bottle of water and you are forced to pay cause you haven’t drink or eat all day. Unless you have an money printing machine, you will ran out of money very quickly. And even if you do, the over supply of money meant inflation and money soon became worthless.
When comes to economics, TIK is so narrow minded it almost became intolerable.
@@royhuang9715 you copy paste that to all the girls?
What does any of that have to do with truck maintenance?
Oh, Tik, troops DO pay for their food these days (in the British army, at least) and have done for some years. The only exception being when they are actively deployed.
The system was brought in about 15 years ago and known as "pay as you dine". This replaced the previous system which was "take x amount of money from troops wages every month".
Before, army cooks handled everything, with only a few civilians helping out with the more menial tasks (unless they were old military chefs who were really really good and wanted to stay on). **Unit cooks managed (more or less) the whole thing.**
The replacement PAYD system replaced this with a contract that was given out to a huge company (was Sodexho when I was in, not sure who it is now), so that they ran the kitchens with their own staff, own recipes, own food, etc, using only a few army chefs as "free labour" provided by the army. Troops paid on the spot for what they wanted, from a limited menu.
PAYD has been an absolute disaster. Quality plummeted, cost went way up, availability took a nosedive, army chef skills basically died out and it's incredibly unpopular.
What can you expect from something the Tories touch?
In free market logic of this video i would say that "monopoly is the source of the problem in your example".
But myself i think that market logistics in a war situation is at the same level of impossibility as calculations for planning it centrally and accurately.
Maybe it can work when military is deployed already, enemy mostly neutralised (risks are limited) and nobody moves too much.
Realistic way is making and delivering way more supplies than needed.
@@JGregory32 Plot twist; this was all brought in under Tony Blair, but keep on with the "TORIEZ BAD" meme.
@@sodinc over supply is probably the only practical solution, I agree. Brute force is sometimes very valuable!
@@garethfairclough8715 #strong_military_industrial_complex_gang
The first time I heard the term "dog's breakfast" on this side of the Atlantic was in a episode of Yes Minister.
Jolly good show, ol' chap!
It's a common expression in Canada, where quite a lot of Britishisms made it across.
@@JK-rv9tp In checking the episode Sir Humphrey refers to it as a "pig's breakfast" (which is even funnier) but I suppose it's the same thing.
@@znentitan4032 I have heard both, but as an elderly Canadian, I've been saying Dog's Breakfast since I was a kid. We also used to call cigarettes "fags" up until the 70s or so when that sort of became a problem. We also use Brit spellings generally, and pronounce Z as zed, not zee.
@@JK-rv9tp As a older brit , it was always "a dog's dinner".
Things don't go to plan in wars. You do the best you can, and have limited options. Priorities are set for you, either from you own side, or from the activities of your enemy.
No plan survives contact with the Enemy.
My father was in the US Marines during WW2.
As I read books on military history, the importance of logistics and communications was very critical in some battles.
Those who ignore these two facits of warfare may find themselves not understanding why battles were really lost. Or perhaps, lose a winnable battle.
"Why didn't you bring the food supplies to the front lines?" "Well, my wife wanted a pair of new nylons and I ran out of money for the fuel. Whaat? It's my money anyway and I can spend it as I want."
@rimacutem of Alsvartrsmiðr good. I'm going home. 🙂
@rimacutem of Alsvartrsmiðr These are conscripts. They want to get fired so they can go home.
Love you TIK, but on your old job, you must have been one of those killjoy supervisors who didn't let me take a nap during working hours! Come on man! I have better things to do than following safety rules or thinking about making money for the company! Hahahaha
I worked with people returning to work post injury
Almost every hideous industrial injury I met had been a safety officer
@@davethompson3326 Statistical bias. Safety officers have to deal with dangerous machinery/fix problems so it's not hard to guess why they may statistically be more prone to accidents. Also they tend to have better pay/insurance so that may be another bias of the target you are looking at. Better pay=can spend for rehab while many low lever workers dont bother with that.
Logistics: We can do it in two days, tell them four. Works just as well today as it did then.
Buffer time.
Waging war under free market conditions is an interesting edge case. Concerning D-day, I think free market would decide not to land at all and let Germany and Soviet Union fight it out, then be conquered by the winning power.
@John Milton sounds very games of thrones
The question that comes to my mind when considering this system that you are proposing, while I do believe it would work, is "where does the money come from?".
Can you explain the system to me? Because I do not get it.
@@charlietipton8502 Imagine how an independent contractor is operates, then apply that to every member of the military as an individual.
Hmm, and if the Germans offered MORE for having the supplies delivered to them instead?
@@roverboat2503 Can’t supply with what you don’t have. ;P
@@roverboat2503 Catch 22, when Milo contracted to bomb their own base
Putting the truck drivers at the time into context. They were all young, and mostly uneducated. Most of the farm boys would have ridden a horse more often than drive a truck or car. The citidiots would have seen cars and trucks more often, but they would have had non-driving jobs. Anyone who had experience with motor vehicles would have been put into the motor pool. My Grandpa bought his first fuel powered tractor in 1940. He did have a Model T Ford earlier. My Dad would jack the car up and get uncle to spin the rear wheel to start it and they would go joy riding. When they got home, Grandpa held the boys upside down with one hand by he ankle and whipped them with his belt. Uncle was not small, either. Grandpa plowed with horses all day long and was very strong. Grandpa could load steel 55 gallon barrels of gas onto a truck by himself.
This is why the "Farmer Johns" from the Royal Regina Rifles were so good. They were volunteers, paid for their own training, using their own trucks and fuel, and reloaded their used ammunition.
@Mind-numbing Inevitability Man, ur handle says it all, what were those boys thinking?
I also worked in logistics for some time, and many of the stuff you said are absolutely true.
Very interesting video, but still some issues there, related to the blatant propaganda:
1) If people are forced to die in war and to pay for their own stuff, how do you expect the war to be even remotely popular and accepted? If they were not conscripted, Would the allies have defeated Germany with an army of volontaries with entrepreneurial spirits?
2) How would the single free market initiative on the soldier level be compatible with a chain of command? Are you advocating for an ancap army in ww2? How would that work?
3) What about risk taking? How would people take any risk involving their equipment (which, sometimes in war in necessary)? Would they be ordered to (problem 2) ) or would they be free to pursue their own interest (maybe not related to what the military situation requires).
How about people who, for example lost their truck because of a bombing even if they are decent drivers: would they just go broke? Should someone insure their stuff? Who would that on a fucking war zone?
4) You did not address a point I made in previous videos: what about previous examples of private armies in history or today: Do their logistics really works better, or does not, since they are big business? Do you realize that is impossible for a small business to produce modern military equipment? So how would your idea work in practice?
5) Dude please, don't put environmental issues the cauldron. Capitalism is about producing and selling without properly disposing the wastes (since it's just a cost for the capitalist). it's about polluting more if it's cheaper, fucking up the environment if in makes a profit, focusing on the short term gain in spite of the long term problem (global warming, for example).
It's about using pesticides to increase productivity even if they are killing bees and threatening life on planet earth (and the economy as well). People like you with only profit in mind, who hate (necessary) environmental regulations, are the reason why our future is so fucked up.
Anyway, looking forward for the next Stalingrad episode!
1. Romans dealt a lot with living off the lands and also making stuff they needed on the fly with what they could get their hands on. Mind you, the low lvl of sophistication made it possible in those times. Fighting motivation was usually high, because survivability was good and veterans were paid in land.
The closest model of an ancap fighting force was Washington's army. Of course it wasn't ancap and they had a hierarchy, although many of it's soldiers tried their best to ignore it.
I was thinking pretty much the same. If the truck drivers owned their own trucks than they would have to be paid obscene amounts of money to risk their lives and their main asset to deliver to the front lines. I would imagine most of them could find less risky work delivering to the civilian market. Then you get the real "entrepreneurs" who would take advantage of the chaos to claim to have done the delivery but instead dumping the cargo by the side of the road or selling it on the black market.
I studied logistics systems and you have to pay careful attention to how such system operate in emergency and/or distress situations. A highly efficient system will fail miserably if it sacrifices too much redundancy and is hit with a large enough shock. Was is essentially a number of shocks coming one after another and you need a ton of redundancy to keep your logistics going. The Allies had that redundancy and the Germans did not.
3. I won't tell you to read Sven Hassel books and find out their hilarious solutions. However, there's a grain of truth in there, because each unit, no matter under which hierarchy, is somewhat on their own - nobody will save their hide and they have to be both servicemen and beneficiaries.
@@alexandragamingronyno2275 After the marian reform the Roman army was totally a state's army (uniformed equipment and logistics, professonal soldiers instead of citizen soldiers).
Living off the land it's bad for the discipline (and the looted people), see the mercenary armies during the 30 years war.
And, since most of their compensation relied on looting (another issue not addressed by TIK), they were more faithful to their general (the one providing said loot), creating many other problem (civil wars, usually bad for the economy and the political stability).
The land at the end of service was something similar to modern military pensions in principle (and created many other issues, since many of them had no farming abilities).
Like TIK said in the video, "one problem solved created many others", and "the bad economist does not see the long term picture". (or something)
My point being: his solution creates more problems than the ones it solves (not just in logistics).
Free markets make sense in stable situations, however, I imagine bullets and bombs make things a bit trickier. If the truck drivers are to function as independent contractors, then shouldn't the soldiers as well? After all, they are the ones who are best suited to say if they need ammunition or food more urgently. However, if you leave it to the soldiers, they can minimize the expense of ammunition by not attacking. Solve this by paying them to attack. But doesn't that just turn the soldiers into mercenaries? Ask the Carthaginians how well mercenaries worked for them. (If you say the Carthaginian Senate should have paid what was owed, fair enough, but what happened to them is just one example of the failure of mercenary armies.)
I would love to see free market principles work for soldiers, but I have yet to be convinced that it could work and still allow the army to do what it needs to do.
I am open to learning; show me what I'm missing.
regular soldiers have issues with not being paid, just look at the roman army when it was professionalized and how often it caused issues because it wasn't paid. this isn't a uniquely mercinary thing.
soldiers that don't get paid don't fight.
the US army also disagrees with you, the bulk of the logistics in their various war zones has been done by civilian contractors for years. your soldiers don't need to be civilian contractors just because their logistics are.
While I don’t believe free market principles would work in times of war, it would make sense for profit to motivate production and efficiency better than a gun pointed at your head or simply because your government demands it. The examples you use is rather inadequate since ancient armies requires much different supplies and field much smaller armies as compared to the millions in ww2. You bring up a fair point, I just believe that you can word it better with more relatable arguments
I do wonder if both sides were to employ such a system, if there wouldn't be regular mass desertions and switching sides because one side has raised the pay or lowered it. Large loudspeakers constantly blaring offers of a prize for switching sides and staying for a certain time. Now that would really be a capitalist hell.
@@baryonyxwalkeri3957 They're called "contractors" for a reason. Just like in any other services, you served out your signed contracts. Violating this will result in your reputation being tarnished, not to mention breaking the law. Mercenaries have been an integral part of warfare ever since currency was invented.
@@majungasaurusaaaa Mercs are usually small highly trained ex elite forces. TIIK is talking about an entire army of millions doing crazy stuff like buying their own tanks. His ideas in this video are nothing short of crazy.
Sounds like German and Soviet armies had problems with distributing limited resources. While Allied armies on the other hand had almost unlimited resources...but had huge problems in transporting those resources to units on the frontline.
23:35 What is Princess Elizabeth doing at the front? :-D
Haha I put that in there to see if anyone would spot who it was 😂
Megan Markle will be doing the same soon, then telling opry whimpy how opressed she is.
Princess Elizabeth volunteered to serve in the ATS (Auxiliary Transport Service), as a mechanic repairing vehicles, of all things. Mary Churchill also served in the ATS in anti-aircraft units (probably working the radars), as did my mother.
Repairing trucks or airplanes most likely.
@@boll0cks45 The Royal Family are just a bunch of pompous good for nothing bullies that are detached from reality, so it wouldn't surprise me that they bully and talk shit to Megan. She is American after all.
The descriptions of trains in WW2, minus soldiers, are eerily accurate today in Britain.
And the smoking instruction reminds me of the design changes of the Galli in the IDF. Soldiers were damaging their rifles by using a part of their old rifle to open bottles. Rather than stop soldiers doing it, they built a bottle opener into the Galli
I be curious to know how many soldiers could drive and had regular driving experience driving pre War. I doubt car ownership was very high in 1930's UK. Which makes me more sympathic to the truck sop when driven by 19 years olds who only want to get pissed and laided. Honestly I don't know about the rest. If your not motivated in a war zone/area I think your facing bigger problems than a lack of incitives. Also I question how much lyod george and the success of the top down war bureaucracy influence the decision making of ww2
I guess most of them learnt to drive in the Army. My grandfather was an Italian farmer in a mountain village without roads until after the war, but when drafted he wasn't sent to Russia because in 1942 he was already one of the most skilled drivers of the regiment (mountain artillery) and needed at the HQ. I can only conclude that either the standard was incredibly low or that he learnt how to drive artillery trucks in two years
@@brainyskeletonofdoom7824 In ww1 in rural Europe including italy basic literacy wasn't the norm so it's entirely reasonable that in ww2 driving wasn't common. Military history visualised made the argument as part of the reason half tracks existed because at least you had a reasonable chance of training people to drive them vs complex fully tracked vehicles.
So maybe standards were low. (Not meaning any disrespect or anything)
@@alanredmond88 i totally agree
The German army had a driver profeciency badge to show that you had learnt to drive while in the army. It's also why motorcycles were so common in the German army, more people knew how to ride them so they didn't need to be trained.
A common ability to drive was a US advantage during WW2. US farm boys grew up driving the farm's tractor and truck.
My dad was on the receiving end from the red ball Express. He said a lot of positive things about those guys period one of the things that would happen to those trucks they would be overloaded Beyond capacity at the Depot period and one particular instance the deuce-and-a-half came up it had two brand new track sets for Sherman. One of those track sets was enough to critically load a deuce and a half oh, he had to that's the way they loaded him. When he got to them his rear differential was smoking. Small Wonder. They got the tracks off the truck and we're about to change tracks on the tank when incoming artillery fire started dropping. The driver hopped in that truck with a burned up rear end and yes hauled ass out of there oh, he wanted no part of what was happening. Can't say as I blame him he wasn't trained as an infantryman at all. Beyond that it was prioritized Fuel and ammunition! Food if you got time and room. 3rd Army was scrounging food from the countryside they didn't have hot meals for weeks on end.
Well, truck drivers don't add anything to the defense against an artillery barrage.
@@lamwen03 he was justifiably scared. He didn't know the Germans were that close. These guys were organized in theater due to the demand for supplies. They were not trained truck drivers at least not many of them. They weren't trained to operate the vehicles. The roads that Tik described as plentiful and wonderful we're in a lot of places strewn with debris from combat. Other places they were mined and the engineers hadn't cleared them necessarily. The bridges had only partly been repaired. Keep in mind in the lead up to D-Day all the bridges were dropped leading into Normandy by Air attack. They either went through on improvised Bridges, portable or Bailey Bridges or repaired to some degree bombed out Bridges. The Army engineers were extending the railheads from the beachhead deeper into the country but they couldn't repair The rail lines as fast as the third Army in particular was moving.
As for truck drivers owning their trucks in the army let's look at that further. you're a guy that just put money into a truck that's more money than you've seen in your lifetime possibly. This is a major investment. Would you seriously drive your vehicle into a combat zone where you could get shelled or machine gun? Probably not if you owned it. Your insurance company sure as hell isn't going to repair your truck if it gets blown up by military action. I understand what he's trying to say in his description but these were ad hoc transportation groups. Do you have air in your lines is your heart beating? Good you're now a truck driver that was the extent of many's training. That happens a lot in the military especially in combat. It doesn't matter what your MOS is you're going to go do this for now.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Yes. At the end of the day a vast Industrialised war fought by multiple Nations requiring the full mobilisation of he largest economies on the planet cannot be supplied using market forces, because market forces do break down in that kind of situation. There HAS to be some centralisation or the people are not going to get enough food, the factories not enough raw resources, and the troops not enough of anything.
Is it efficient? No, but unlike a market economy in an all out industrialised war it at least *works*.
@@alganhar1 are you sure? i mean you might be correct, but name 1 industrialized war where there wasn't a centralized authority. oh wait you won't be able to because nations centralized their militaries long before the industrial age. the closest you might get is the boers in the boer war, but i am not sure about that (and they lacked their own industry so i am not sure it counts).
on the flip side militaries are becoming increaseingly free market. mercinaries and 'civilian contractors' are increaseing in number relative to national soldiers, mostly in logistics as it turns out...
@@matthiuskoenig3378 the red ball is Express in particular was an ad hoc formation created based on crying need at the battlefront. It was composed of men that were drag kicking and screaming from whatever job they were doing and we're told you're now a truck driver. They did a tremendous job the conditions that they worked under were pretty freaking bad. The lack of sleep, the lack of proper food and shelter, they just kept driving. Yeah some of the trucks that they had were worn out because of improper use, but what can you expect most people today even with their modern knowledge couldn't be thrown into a 6x6 two and a half ton truck and told to drive it without some instruction. And then to have to go over the terrain and the rubble of War plus take fire the average person that they would probably crap their pants. They would get the hang of it but it would be OJT under fire basically. The existing formations that were created to provide the supply needs of the army were totally inadequate to the task. The logistics faced by the Allies in France or beyond anything anyone could predict because that kind of warfare with that kind of supply chain stretching back across the Atlantic and a lot of instances had never been used. logistics by today's standards are still based on World War II the Korean war and Vietnam. While we have implemented changes based on the technology of transport, it's still a tremendous task to support a unit in the field.
I disagree. I think, if there were people, whose job was writing instructions, they wrote instructions, no matter whether they were needed or not.
It happens in the private sector too. To reduce lawsuit possibility, instructions for consumer goods tend to be overly long and consist mostly of safety precautions.
My historical essays focused on politics economy and war. To me, these three are the triangle that has made history to this point to where we are right now.
Stepdad's unit, Fort Garry Horse (armored rgt.) landed at Liverpool. Once embarked on trains, it took fifty-six hours to get to Aldershot, 232 miles away. Their 1700 mile trip from
Ontario to Nova Scotia had taken sixty-six hours.
The overworked, underpaid soldiers living in squalid, unsafe working conditions being told to risk life and limb for superiors who would abuse them physically and mentally is terribly similar to Engel’s notes on the conditions of workers in England. That’s all without mentioning the destruction wrought on the planet in both cases.
well... its not exactly like the allies had much of a choice on the environment, it was either break the axis or go down one by one, though the manhatten project really could have been a bit more careful with their nuclear materials
Great video, another one that really stimulates the brain, however, I do worry about unintended consequences. The ultimate aim is to win the war, but how do you incentivise the individual soldier to this aim? You could say when we win the war we will all a massive bonus, but it's the sort of thing governments always promise, few believed after the great war and far too distant to motivate on a day to day basis and anyway doesn't help if you're dead.
You have to use proxies. These proxies are where the problem lies. So, for example, you could pay the soldier by the number of enemies they kill - this leads to Belgians collecting hands, prisoners being shot and your men being shot in return. You could do it by advances made, this would probably lead to Arnhem being a weekly event. You could get them to pay for their ammo, so people would try to conserve it, increasing your casualty rate. Why would a fighter pilot use his own bombs to help a unit he has no contact with. He could bill that unit but that leads to decisions divorced from military necessity - Sorry lads we've used our budget this year you'll all have to die instead (facetious I know but you can see the headlines). Incentivise your truck drivers you might find all the best men leave the front line and concentrate on logistics - this might not be a bad thing in small numbers but likely to cause deficits in other areas.
I don't see how you can develop a market that actually works. War is unlike commerce in that it is a consumer not a creator of wealth so a market system has to be devised, it won't spontaneously generate itself. Get that wrong and you will have a disaster, maybe it could be got to work, but I think you'll have lost the war first.
Another question is how can you let market forces aid making your decisions before that market exists? Before the invasion of Normandy the "invasion market" is not there to provide supply and demand, you have to plan with the information you have and hope you get it more right than wrong.
This is not to say you're wrong, I agree that the market is a guide to value. To paraphrase Churchill - capitalism is the worst system except for all the others, but I just don't see how it can be applied in a war.
I think agency is an important factor, if people can be given a goal, usually as part of a small team, the means to do it and a certain amount of liberty in how they do it, the results are often far better than imposed rigid rules. Particularly if good practice is shared.
I was hesitant about the first video but now these are probably my favorite non-battlestorm videos. It's very cool to get a description of the sheer complexity and impact of supplying an army.
Managed a fleet of 120 cars for some time. My team was amazing, saved my ass a number of times, and even then, your portion about managing truck drivers hit so close to home. Great video
Tik, stick to horses.
Neigh!
Mongol Tik
Mongol Tik
You use horses? I use my legs
@Strawberry Dragon then you had better hope that the rubber supply holds out, or you will be marching around in cardboard boots before you know it
@@micfail2 Shoes just result in unemployment for honest, hardworking, barefooted folk.
"Stay inside your thought coffin." Great quote!
Another excellent video, TIK. This trilogy highlights one of the under represented sides of WW2.
I'd be grateful if you could explain more on how a free-market based system would be implemented into an army / country at war, with individuals being responsible for their kit and supplies and having incentive to make profits throughout the whole chain of logistics and how that would work etc.
Keep up the good work! I really enjoy your videos and would love to understand more on this particular topic
I found myself laughing far more than appropriate throughout this video because I've seen the mental acuity responsible for these kinds of logistical shortcomings firsthand. Another presentation well researched and delivered!
Has anybody said "TIK, stick to logistics"???? :)
I'll make sure to tell him that the next time he makes a tank video
@@winnietheblue3633 Tanks are logistics, fare more so than any other ground force.
TIK logistics would be an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions.
23:38 The mechanic we would later call Queen Elizabeth was part of the logistics operation.
I expect royalty to be able to change a tire.
they can't though, they can only change tyres
I love how Thomas Sowell made a brief appearance for the "scarce resources with alternative uses" line.
An excellent series that explains some of the thoughts that I had had from knowledge from other areas at that time. My own family and family friends for example who lived through this time. As a Production Engineer (now Mechanical Engineers) this was a field that we were trained in - LOGISTICS and MATRIX PLANNING which was a secret technique from the US Forces of WW2, adopted from big business in the USA of the 1930's. Your own knowledge and experience shows in your analysis - excellent. Watched all the series now.
How is a free market supposed counteract souvenir hunting?
How is a free market supposed to make sure that one unit doesn't penetrate too far into the enemy lines and get cut off?
How is the free market supposed to counteract outright theft and black marketeering?
You think free market is going to solve all of it? How?
Free market makes a lot of money for a few people, and the lowest levels starve. Same as central planning. Same result, different path.
If free market forces were so good, why were there laws put in place to punish 'war profiteering'?
Everything else is welfare of one sort or another, propping up inefficient companies because your buddies have the purse strings.
Those in power will do whatever they can to increase what power they have at the expense of others. Those that work for the greater good get betrayed.
There's only one truly 'free market' I can think of: drug trafficking/organized crime.
There's no bailout if they screw up.
Free market, in stock markets at any rate, see a boom-bust cycle that doesn't help anyone but the ones at the top.
That's one of the reasons the SEC was created, so the 1929 crash wouldn't happen again. It worked for a while.
why do you assume the laws put in place to punish 'war profiteering' were there for the common good and not the good of the central planners? you seem to simultaniously believe those in power are evil yet can not comprehend the idea that they might have made an unfair rule (not saying 'war profiteering is fair, or whatever, but it seems you answer your own question)
and you are correct, the stock stock market isn't free and thus liberatians dislike it (hence the whole gamestonks thing recently)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 the problem with politics in america is that the government is assumed to be so bad, that we somehow came to the conclusion that doing absolutely nothing about it and having absolutely zero accountability applied to them was a good idea, because we're obsessed with applying all the accountability on society's poorest members; meanwhile the government can fuck everyone and you lot will do nothing and just say "yep that's the government for you, don't you wish we had no government instead?" as though those are the only options.
Apply some accountability and stop playing victim because it's fucking pathetic
"If you don't care then you do the bare minimum or less and watch the rest of it burn down"
Accurate
I cannot find such well researched information like this anywhere. Brilliant content. Many thanks
An interesting series of videos. I have a few questions/ideas/thoughts though.
1: One thing these videos doesn't address is how much impact the more heavily motorization/mechnization had on the way the administrative guys had to think about logistics. I think it could be valuable to see comparisons to later conflicts to see if they at least learnt some of the lessons, even though such comparisons would be difficult simply because of the scale of WWII.
2: The thought occured to me during the talk about the North African salvage operations that one of the factors contributing to the Royal Navy's effectiveness during the age of sail was the concept of prize money.
3: An example (though not military) of how monetary incentives can work. A shooting range that my dad uses frequently had some problems getting people to clean up their spent casings, so they implemented a "ransom" on spent casings. It's nearly a symbolic amount we're talking about and the money was only usable for services at the range, like something to drink from the fridge or clay pidgeons to shoot, but people started to actually collect their spent casings after this was implemented, and I don't see why similar approaches can't be done with some military endeavors as well.
Pretty sure the penny pinchers would stay back to pick up those brass and get their pay. Most join for the money nowadays so..
"stay inside your thought coffin" ... so incredibly true.
28:10
easy way to make drivers fill up trucks after their shifts - 10 % salary cut for every time they fail to do it .
We implemented that in our logistics company ( small package delivery ) and it was not an isue after 3 days .
Ty for your videos. I enjoy the facts. Keep up the hard work.
Something tells me you didn't like your old job, lmao XD