A interesting Military assestment?

Question

I reamember reading a study on modern war, based on oil usage.

In World War II we fought (the US alone) for 4 years. Probbaly used up zillions of gallons of fuel, millions per day. This included ship fuel, plane fuel, tanks, trucks, and whatever else.

But yet when a study was done on a Modern war (world War III) it was assumed that no modern military could last more then 2 weeks (including a invasion on Europe by the Soviet Union), and that after that time one of the sides would be out of fuel.

Is this reasonable?

Could we use up that much fuel that fast?

Were talking the SOviet union which just happens to sit on one of the biggest untapped (so far) resource bed on earth.

Also it was said the same for NATO.

But even without oil from the middle east surely it could last longer.

Answer 1

The problem that this 'assessment' points to is the one of supply. In wars of rapid movement the problem of keeping supplies 'up' to the front line become a 'limiting factor'. In World War 2 it was critical in the success and failure of battles and even campaigns. The allies had to use shipping to get fuel where it was needed (particularly Britain), and the Nazi war against shipping was, said Churchill, the only thing that had him really worried during the war.

In a cold war turning hot scenaria (the Soviet invasion of Europe) my recollection was that the expectation was that the Russians would be on the French Atlantic coast in seven to ten days. Western armoured divisions in Germany were expected not to repel a Soviet armoured thrust, but simply to delay it 'a bit' to give the US time to 'respond'. The limiting factor was - as I understand it - not so much fuel, as running out of roadway to drive their tanks on.

The problem is not oil reserves 'in the ground' but how much refined product (petrol) is available to refill the tanks. There might have been a contingency plan to destroy all of the fuel stocks in Western Europe (in order to force the Soviets to send tankers to resupply their armoured columns), but I can't say that I've ever read anything about it. It would have been one of the priorities of the west to destroy rail lines and other communication lines back to the Soviet heartland, but it is an open question as to who would have had control of the air. Unlike the ground war (where the Soviets had overwhelming superiority) the air forces were more evenly balanced.

Ammunition gives you the same problem, in fact worse because you can't rely on it being left behind by a retreating enemy (as you can fuel left behind) Most military campaigns are designed to be 'short and sharp', but an essential part of the planning is to have sufficient 'material' to get the job done. Which is why army campaigns are (supposed to be) designed by professional soldiers who understand these things.

Answer 2

I think that this assessment was based on the total number of military vehicles multiplied by the daily fuel use at maximum level.
However in real life military vehicles do not move all the time- many units (eg staff, air defense, etc) simply reach a site and stay put. Even combat units do not attack all the time- some stay on defense, others in reserve- which again means less fuel use.
The only units which need all the fuel they can get are the attacking ones. Here indeed it is a problem, but not one of overall fuel shortage. The problem is that the fuel is available in the back stores, but the fuel trucks cannot keep up with the attacking tanks (due to bad roads, clogged up trafic or enemy action- fuel trucks being far more vulnerable to enemy action than tanks)
An attacking unit uses up resources at an amazing rate, which is why the usual offensive is done in "jumps"- a short attack followed up by a longer time for re-arming and refuelling (also repair of damaged weapons and replacement of casualties). There is also the question of support units- the whole "tail" (staff/ artillery/ air defense/ air force/ stockpiles) has to catch up with the front units. this takes time.

Fuel alone is not much of a problem- there is always the railway network which can be used to move whole divisions at one go.