Modern warfare depends not only on tactics or weapons, but
also on whether a military force may continue operating across distance and
under sustained pressure. This ability is called operational sustainment.
It includes transportation, fuel, repair, medical support, and troop
replacement. Without these systems functioning together, even the strongest
battlefield plans may stall. Historical and ongoing conflicts reveal that
victory depends not just on movement and attack, but on the infrastructure that
makes both possible.
Core Components of Operational Sustainment
Operational sustainment refers to the systems that keep
military operations functioning after combat begins. These include:
- Transportation
– Moving troops, fuel, weapons, and supplies by land, air, or sea. When
transport fails, operations may halt.
- Maintenance
– Repairing vehicles, weapons, and communications at the front or rear.
Without maintenance, equipment becomes a liability.
- Medical
support – Treating, evacuating, and rehabilitating the wounded. This
preserves fighting strength and morale.
- Manpower
replacement – Replacing lost, injured, or fatigued personnel with
trained reinforcements. Sustained combat requires continuous renewal.
Each of these pillars supports the others. If one fails, the
entire operation may lose momentum.
Sustainment and Strategic Reach
Every strategy is shaped by what logistics may support. A
campaign may only advance as far as its fuel and medical systems may carry it.
A unit may only hold if its equipment remains functional and its personnel
remain sustained. When logistics fall out of sync with plans, the strategy may
fail before it begins.
Russia’s Centralized Model Under Pressure
Russia began its 2022 invasion of Ukraine with approximately
190,000 troops. Its logistics model was designed for short-range operations and
relied on centralized command and rail infrastructure. As the war expanded,
several limitations emerged:
- Rail
supply lines were fixed and vulnerable to attack.
- Truck
convoys moved slowly and lacked protection.
- Frontline
units had little control over their resupply.
- Combat
planning was disconnected from sustainment planning.
- Reinforcements
included conscripts and penal battalions with limited training and low
morale.
These issues led to stalled offensives, abandoned equipment,
and diminished combat power.
Ukraine’s Decentralized and Adaptive Approach
Ukraine applied a NATO-style, decentralized logistics model.
Local commanders were empowered to manage sustainment near the front. This
structure allowed rapid adaptation. Key features included:
- Truck-based
supply networks that reduced reliance on rail.
- Brigade-level
logistics control for faster decision-making.
- Forward
repair teams that returned equipment to service quickly.
- A
layered medical system for treating and evacuating the wounded.
- Rotational
deployments to prevent fatigue and maintain readiness.
This model helped Ukraine remain flexible in dynamic
environments.
The 155th Brigade: A Case of Logistical Disconnection
In 2023, Ukraine deployed the 155th Brigade to a contested
zone near Pokrovsk. The unit, reportedly trained and equipped in France with
around 1,700 personnel, entered combat before it was fully integrated into
Ukraine’s logistics and command systems. Reports identified several issues:
- Supply
lines were underdeveloped and inconsistent.
- Communication
with supporting commands was limited.
- Timely
resupply and maintenance were unavailable.
- Casualties
mounted, and performance declined.
This case illustrates how even elite, well-equipped units
may underperform when logistics are not synchronized with operations.
Manpower as a Sustainment Factor
Personnel readiness is a critical aspect of sustainment.
Replacing combat losses must not degrade force effectiveness.
- Russia
relied on conscription and penal units. Many replacements lacked
discipline and proper training.
- Ukraine
mobilized civilians quickly. Some brigades were prepared, but others
lacked time for full readiness.
Troop replacement must maintain unit cohesion and
capability. Poorly integrated reinforcements may weaken rather than strengthen.
A Historical Echo: The Wonsan Landing
In October 1950, following the Inchon landing, U.S. forces
attempted a second amphibious assault at Wonsan. The operation faced immediate
logistical problems:
- The
1st Marine Division spent seven days afloat awaiting mine clearance, known
by troops as “Operation Yo-Yo.”
- The
7th Infantry Division waited ten days in Pusan before being diverted north
to Iwon.
- South
Korean troops had already secured Wonsan before U.S. troops landed.
- No
combat occurred, but fuel, shipping, and planning resources were diverted.
The operation failed to achieve strategic impact and
disrupted momentum. It serves as a cautionary example of logistics being
overlooked.
Strategic Lessons from Ukraine, Russia, and Korea
- Logistics
shape strategy – Plans must align with what sustainment may deliver.
- Centralization
adds friction – Russia’s model slowed response in fluid conditions.
- Decentralization
adds speed – Ukraine’s approach enabled flexibility under fire.
- Personnel
systems matter – Reinforcements must be trained and integrated.
- History
repeats – From Wonsan to Pokrovsk, ignoring logistics leads to
setbacks.
Strategic Reflections
- Failure
risk – Transport and personnel systems often collapse first under
pressure.
- Flexibility
– Decentralized logistics may build resilience in unstable environments.
- Long-term
vision – Iraq and Afghanistan showed how sustainment shapes outcomes.
- Training
– Leaders with logistics fluency may align strategy with operational
reality.
Conclusion
Operational sustainment is not background support. It is the invisible framework that powers movement, response, and survival. Russia’s model failed to scale. Ukraine’s logistics allowed resistance to continue. The Wonsan landing showed how even disciplined forces may falter when logistics are misaligned. Victory in war depends on more than plans. It depends on the fuel truck, the mechanic, the medic, and the replacement convoy. In future conflicts, the most successful strategies will be those built to last.
No comments:
Post a Comment