[Editor’s Note: This Blast from the Past article was initially published in the first issue of Army Logistician (the former title of Army Sustainment) in SEP-OCT 1969.]
“I don’t know what this ‘logistics’ is that Marshall is always talking about, but I want some of it.” With those words in 1942, Admiral Ernest J. King emphasized this need for logistics support in the Pacific campaigns of World War II.
General George C. Marshall, to whom Admiral King was referring in the above quote, stated in this 1943 Biennial Report as U.S. Army Chief of Staff: “The requirements of logistics are seldom understood. The burdens they impose on the responsible military authorities are rarely appreciated.” In his final report as U.S. Army Chief of Staff, he went on to say that the importance of logistics is “only vaguely appreciated by the public or even the rank and file of the Armed Forces.”
To bring about a better understanding of Army logistics problems and achievements is one purpose of this new magazine, Army Logistician. It also provides an important channel for the sharing of professional thoughts and experience in logistics. Through such sharing, solid logistics organizations can be built — organizations which are flexible and readily adaptable to the changing technological environment and to the fluctuating requirements of a modern Army.
Presently we are engaged in creating a second-generation U.S. Army Materiel Command, using the experiences of the past seven years as the foundation. The first generation was one of pioneering, amalgamation, and crisis management. Four of USAMC’s first seven years were wartime years with urgency the major consideration.
Decade of Change
Today a totally different environment prevails. We are entering the decade of the 70’s — not only for USAMC — but for Army logisticians worldwide. The war effort, from a logistics viewpoint, is in a period of consolidation, with a possible period of rapid retrenchment thereafter. Much thought is already being applied to reducing the gear ratio of the production base without wrecking the machine. We find mounting criticism of defense spending, defense management, and military influence in our national affairs. There is considerable impetus toward national introversion and concern over our domestic policies and needs. Increased clamor to the effect that adequate national security can be obtained at a much reduced cost is heard on all sides.
This national attitude toward the defense establishment, and its logistics activities in particular, is occurring at a most difficult time. The war in Vietnam is still being fought at a relatively high intensity and with no indication that the overall threat to our security has in any way abated. Yet, the armed forces of the United States — the servants of the people — must take account of the national mood and adjust their way of life accordingly.
The future, then, will likely bring new objectives, rules, and guidelines.
Professional Challenges
I do not look with dismay at this environment, with its constraints, controls, reduced resources, and questioning attitude. Rather, I accept it as a challenge. Army Logistician magazine will be devoted to meeting the challenge of our times by providing information to the logistician. Certainly, the challenge to the professional logistician in the 1970s will be as great as those faced by logisticians at any time in history.
History is replete with examples of successes — and failures — of armies because of logistics. Every school child knows the story of General George Washington and his troops — freezing and ill-equipped — and their crossing of the Delaware in the early morning hours on December 26, 1776, which led to victory over the British at Trenton. However, two weeks prior to this offensive, a logistics breakdown by the British forces turned the tide of battle and enabled Washington to recoup his forces, reverse the situation in New Jersey, and revitalize the American Army.
On December 9, 1776, General Cornwallis and the British Army, close on the heels of the retreating American Army, finally reached the Jersey side of the Delaware River, only to be stopped by lack of boats. General Washington had taken the precaution of securing or destroying all boats and watercraft on the Jersey shore before crossing to the Pennsylvania side. Therefore, for a purely logistics reason — the lack of essential means of transport — an important phase of the New Jersey campaign came to an end. The British advance was halted.
In those early days of our Army, forceful, able men achieved good results in logistics operations in spite of the handicaps. One the whole, the balance — more often than not — tipped in the direction of unsatisfactory results, due to problems of untrained personnel, shortages of transportation and lack of financial resources and organization.
As the Army grew and matured through the years, the value of logistics planning and organization became more apparent. One hundred and sixty-eight years after the crossing of the Delaware, the “Crusade in Europe” began with logistics considerations fully recognized from the beginning.
Challenge to the logisticians in 1944 was to sustain the landings on Normandy beaches and buildup an adequate supply base to support an expansion of the beachhead. With French ports in German hands, logistics planners had foreseen the need for floating pier facilities and met the challenge with unsurpassed performance. A month after the invasion began the millionth Allied soldier went ashore in France. And, equally important, ten days later the millionth ton of stores was landed, including nearly 300,000 Allied vehicles.
“From D-plus-2 onward,” General of the Army, Dwight D. Eisenhower commented, “except for the great storm later in June, there was never any real danger of our maintenance failing, and the armies never went short of food for men or ammunition for the guns. On July 1, the chief administrative officer was able to report that the commanders in the field had complete freedom of action so far as supply arrangements were concerned.”
After the breakthrough from the beaches, sustaining the on-rushing armored columns also was a formidable task. This was solved with the introduction of the “Red Ball Express” transportation system which helped achieved victory.
Korea, the Cuban Crisis, and Vietnam added further challenges to the logistician. Carrying the major portion of logistics operational responsibilities for the Army since 1962 has been USAMC. By its size and magnitude of effort, it qualifies as the training ground for Army logisticians, both military and civilian. From customer assistance offices in oversea areas, where the requirements of the user are analyzed on the spot, to research laboratories, where concepts developed by U.S. Army Combat Developments Command are tested for possible adoption, there is unlimited opportunity and challenge in USAMC for the professional logistician.
Project Management
Project management, a fertile training ground for logisticians, has been and will continue to be a way of life at USAMC. This provides a means for spotlighting projects and systems which are important in terms of national urgency, complexity, or high-dollar value. Project management — vertical management — is a proven means of attaining mission objectives — of getting visibility on important programs in terms of cost and need.
Additionally, there are many who feel that general officer selections of the future, especially in the logistics area, will place considerable weight on project manager experience. The job provides a wealth of experience, ranging from research and development, procurement and production, management, and funding to supply and maintenance in the field. In short, it provides — in a relatively short period — training in those requisites needed by the logistics manager of tomorrow. I urge all who are interested in a career of logistics to serve a tour in a project management office.
Because of the virtually unlimited scope of activities under the USAMC banner calling for a multiplicity of skills and talents, job incentives and job satisfaction are necessary at all levels. Within USAMC the young military officer of today will find his opportunities for professional training and growth limited only by his talents. For example, a young lieutenant from Reserve Officers’ Training Corps ranks, who was responsible for operation of an experimental satellite communications test terminal, said of his rewarding experience — and the experience of other young officers — in USAMC: “Our experience here has given us a new look at the advantages of a military career. We might make more money outside, but in civilian industry we would have had to accumulate years of experience and seniority before we could hope for such positions of responsibility and authority.”
We have been successful in obtaining from the Department of the Army a priority for military personnel equal to that of the training base. This is a very high priority indeed, second only to our Vietnam effort. The results will be an infusion of high-quality supervisory talent in sufficient numbers to insure more effective management of our resources.
For the civilian logistician in USAMC, increasing attention is being placed on career programs, providing for orderly progression to top levels. We are also stressing the need for continuing education programs to stay abreast of changing technology. Since assignment to USAMC, I have become increasingly aware of the heavy responsibilities carried by USAMC civilian employees. A major objective of the USAMC reorganization plan is to provide a better grade structure for USAMC headquarters, as a necessary first step for command wide improvement.
Training of the work force throughout the Army Logistics System also will assist us in meeting the logistics challenges of the 1970s. A first-class training program is, in itself, a boost for better motivation. It is vital to morale, to our ability to innovate and to our understanding of the advantages of automation. We must send more of our potential leaders to first-class schools. Our middle managers must be prepared to assume greater responsibility and our technicians kept continually abreast of changing technology. Thus, we must find ways and means of doing our work with a reduced work force so that time can be provided for this vital training mission.
Responsibility and authority of our defense logistics managers will become increasingly important in the 1970s, when limited manpower, materiel, and money are the order of the day. The task of senior staffs will then be — as now — to allocate shortages where they are least likely to hurt. I call it “stretch management.” At the other end of our logistics pipelines are thousands of using units. If unit commanders recognize the great national effort to provide them with their needs, they will utilize the assets with care and economy. The result can be startling. If $100 of savings by one unit is multiplied by 1,000 units, and this becomes a way of life, big savings can be achieved.
The exercise of care and economy of logistics resources at the unit level must be augmented by disciplined management systems at higher levels. We are fortunate that this “era of challenge” to do more with less coincides with an era of management revolution based upon the use of high speed computers.
The automation of the national inventory control points (NICP) under National Automatic Data Processing Program for USAMC Logistics Management (NAPALM) will revolutionize NICP operations beginning in July 1970. The system’s design is now well along. More than 500 dedicated people are actively engaged in perfecting it. This program goes into test at the U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command in December of this year. At the same time, we are designing System-Wide Project for Electronic Equipment at Deports — Extended (SPEEDEX) for our deports. Here again, considerable progress is being made. Results of these systems will give us a visibility over our operations never before achieved. They will permit management to more effectively use resources allocated and allow a closer association with our customers than has been the case heretofore.
We have designed sophisticated equations or models for computer assistance in force planning, force accounting, and manpower and logistics control at the top level in Washington. Computerized systems for the division, corps, and army levels are being provided for the same purpose in the field. We are designing management information systems to correlate and analyze data and to isolate problem areas.
Logisticians of the 1970s must be ardent enthusiasts for automation in all its forms. Our physical plant is rundown. It must be revitalized with the latest automated machine tools and mechanized equipment. We have not yet begun to tap the managerial potential of automatic data processing. We must seek “investments for savings,” with short amortization periods, so we may continue to perform our mission with sharply reduced resources. Indeed, we must be able to increase substantially our mission effectiveness.
In the management area, the logistics family has much homework to do. Most of the legitimate criticisms we are now receiving can be traced to inadequate or inept supervision. We must perfect our procedures and controls; insist on their faithful execution; be alert to devise better procedures; be willing to put in long hours of study and analysis to insure better performance. There is no shortcut to managerial excellence. Our workers throughout the Army Logistics System are our most precious asset. They should have a sense of pride in their work, their organization, and their mission. They must be kept abreast of what we are trying to do so that they can be part of it. Zero defects will not be achieved by exhortation alone. It takes leadership, training, understanding, and insistence on quality performance through inspection and supervision.
Success, in the final analysis, will be determined by our collective effort. We need virtuosos — but only as expert members of the orchestra. Each organizational element in the Army logistics structure has its own interests, but each element also needs a fierce pride in the logistics achievements of the Army as a whole since our common effort is devoted to one purpose — serving the soldier in combat.
Today’s logisticians are moving toward management challenges in a world of fantastic evolution. However, the challenging complexities of modern logistics management are well within the trained logistician’s ability to handle. The challenge of the 1970s will require flexibility in thought and action; a level of confidence by the public and our superiors that we can handle the job; and continuing effort by all to update our thinking, our management techniques, our attitudes and our ability to communicate intentions and actions accurately and effectively.
This prescription for our logistics ills contains nothing new or radical. It is similar to the call of a football coach for harder drill in fundamentals of the game. The coaching staff seeks harder and cleaner blocking and tackling, better charging, alertness, complete knowledge of offensive and defensive patterns, and complete adherence to team play. A sustained team effort will give Monday morning quarterbacks little to criticize of our performance, as we meet “The Challenge of Our Times.”
--------------------
GEN Ferdinand J. Chesarek was promoted to full general and became the second commanding general of the U.S. Army Materiel Command on March 10, 1969. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy and commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1938. He served as the commanding officer of the 28th Field Artillery Battalion, 8th Infantry Division, in World War II in Normandy, Northern France, Rhineland, and Central Europe. He then served as a legislative officer in the Logistics Division of the War Department’s General Staff and as assistant to the chairman of the Munitions Board at the Pentagon. He served with the Eighth Army in the Korean War, commanding the 5th Artillery Group. He served as the chief of the Military Personnel and Manpower Division at the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics and as the military assistant and executive officer to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. He was the chief of staff for the U.S. Army Communications Zone, Europe, and chief of staff for the U.S. Army Southern European Task Force, after which he became the commanding general of 4th Logistical Command. He was the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics. He became Comptroller of the Army in 1966. He was appointed senior U.S. Army member for the Military Staff Committee of the United Nations. He served as the commander of Army Materiel Command until his retirement on October 31, 1970. He received a Master of Business Administration degree from Stanford University. He also attended the National War College and the advanced management program at Harvard University. He passed away on November 20, 1993.
--------------------
This article was published in the winter 2025 issue of Army Sustainment.
RELATED LINKS
The Current issue of Army Sustainment in pdf format
Current Army Sustainment Online Articles
Connect with Army Sustainment on LinkedIn
Connect with Army Sustainment on Facebook
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Sharing