Previous posts in this discussion:
PostStrategy vs Logistics (David Duggan, USA, 02/22/21 2:34 am)
George Shultz's service as an artillery officer in World War II brings to mind my nephew's service in Afghanistan, calling in Hi-Vees ("high velocity" missiles, sometimes called High Mobility Artillery Rockets) from a FOB (forward operating base, location classified).
Like his grandfather, Lt. Andrew went to Officer Candidate School, served his time and used his GI bill benefits to further his education. He did his advanced training at the Army's Field Artillery School at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma. The officer who had recruited him was also in the artillery.
The 11th Marine Regiment, based at Pendleton, has seen service at Peleliu, Okinawa, and the Chosin Reservoir. But at Pendleton, my nephew developed a new specialty: logistics. His mother said that the Marines choose their logisticians from the top ranks of the Corps' military occupation specialties (infantry, air, artillery).
"Every Marine a rifleman" is a Corps watchword. Equally important though is that while amateurs debate strategy, professionals debate logistics.
JE comments: Absolutely: there is no strategy (arrows on the map) without logistics (getting the personnel there, fed and supplied). A naive question from this armchair general: why is artillery still important in warfare? With air power, satellite-guided bombs, drones and the like, isn't the artillery shell the "dumb" weapon par excellence?