As the Army navigates the multifaceted demands of large-scale combat operations (LSCO) and multidomain operations (MDO), it has become evident that the current transportation doctrine does not fully address the challenges posed by these environments. Field Manuals (FMs) 3-0, Operations, and 4-0, Sustainment Operations, provide foundational guidance for operations and sustainment, and with recent updates they have begun to address the evolving LSCO/MDO environment. While these manuals emphasize various principles, additional adjustments can be made in areas such as multimodal integration, scalability of logistics networks, sustainment over extended supply lines, joint/coalition force coordination, and force protection. The successful adaptation of the Army’s transportation doctrine to these dynamic conditions is crucial for maintaining operational momentum and ensuring the resilience of our supply chains.
By examining recent practices — such as those implemented by the 1st Armored Division (1AD) in the Warfighter 25-01 exercise — we can identify specific solutions. The 1AD practices involved the innovative use of Joint Movement Control Centers (JMCCs), modular logistics hubs, and layered force protection protocols. These adaptations support a more agile, responsive, and secure Army sustainment enterprise, capable of meeting the unique demands of LSCO and MDO.
During Warfighter 25-01, III Armored Corps’ transportation office and 1AD’s transportation office confronted these challenges. They worked to sustain operational momentum in an environment where standard, predictable transportation doctrine was not viable. By anticipating future multidomain and dynamic challenges, 1AD used principles of sustainment such as responsiveness, simplicity, flexibility, and survivability.
Multimodal Transportation Integration
To support multimodal integration, 1AD’s G-4 prioritized cultivating professional relationships and establishing vital communication pathways with crucial personnel — including G-3, G-4, G-5, chief of staff, deputy commanding generals-sustainment, Army field support battalions, and the Army protection enterprise — and then made it clear that true responsiveness requires operating like a fusion cell across all environments. Using software such as the Virtual Joint Operations Center, the division transportation office (DTO) section provided real-time updates and a dashboard that integrated air, ground, and rail transport statuses. Standing interoperability protocols with the U.S. Transportation Command liaison officer and brigade support operations were implemented to facilitate seamless asset handoffs across modes.
In Warfighter 25-01, 1AD established JMCCs at the division level to aggregate real-time data from all transportation nodes. This setup allowed decision makers to dynamically reroute or shift assets as operational demands changed, creating a flexible logistics system to mitigate the fog of war.
Scalability and Flexibility of Transportation Networks
In the exercise, 1AD deployed modular logistics hubs, rapidly deployed and scaled according to operational demands. These hubs served as temporary bases for refueling, resupply, and maintenance, extending operational reach and maintaining logistical flexibility in real-time combat scenarios. Positioning the DTO alongside the G-3/5 and protection staff (instead of within the G-4) improved operational control and streamlined decision making. The DTO provided real-time transportation status updates to the deputy commanding general-sustainment in this new hybrid role, supporting faster and more effective logistics decisions.
Sustainment of Extended Supply Lines
Anticipatory sustainment doctrine is not always viable in LSCO because it relies on fixed, scheduled convoy movements along established routes. In traditional doctrine, transportation plans heavily depend on predetermined routes and timetables, with convoys moving supplies from logistics hubs to forward units in a structured, predictable manner. This approach assumes a relatively stable environment where routes are secure, infrastructure is intact, and threats are minimal or manageable. However, in a multidomain battlefield characterized by rapidly shifting combat fronts, contested territories, and a highly adaptable adversary, this predictable approach becomes a liability.
For instance, during 1AD’s exercise, the battlefield geometry initially required movement along north-south axes. However, as events unfolded and units became bogged down, the geometry shifted to an east-west alignment. This unexpected change in battlefield orientation meant that previously planned supply routes became ineffective almost overnight, and predictable routes could no longer be protected, nor could they sustain the force. The enemy could anticipate and target these supply routes using ambushes, improvised explosive devices, and even cyber attacks to disrupt the flow of logistics. In such environments, adhering to fixed schedules and established routes increases the risk.
To counter these challenges, 1AD shifted from traditional doctrine to one that emphasized anticipation and flexibility. Anticipating challenges in the multidomain environment involves continuously assessing and adapting to the battlefield’s evolving dynamics. Rather than following static plans, transporters and logistics planners must analyze real-time intelligence, adapt routes based on threat assessments, and regularly use alternative modes of transportation — such as aerial resupply, rail, or watercraft — to circumvent compromised areas.
In addition, 1AD developed a decentralized infrastructure by incorporating aerial resupply methods and corps throughput to sustain supply lines when traditional routes were compromised. By using aerial resupply and leveraging higher-echelon throughput capabilities, 1AD ensured that critical supplies reached forward units despite the contested environment.
The successful implementation of a decentralized infrastructure relied on the hub-and-spoke logistics model designed to minimize dependence on long, exposed supply lines. By identifying strategic hub locations using intelligence from G-2 analysis and executing aerial resupply (air drop) to designated sites, 1AD established effective air lines of communication. This approach ensured a continuous flow of supplies and reduced vulnerabilities associated with reliance on a single mode of transport, thereby integrating resilience in contested areas. Furthermore, this strategy complicated the enemy’s ability to target lines of communication, because supply nodes were often relocated shortly after resupply.
Real-Time Coordination with Joint and Coalition Forces
Real-time coordination with joint and coalition forces was integral to the exercise’s success. By establishing joint logistics operations centers and fostering 360-degree collaboration across all command levels, 1AD ensured seamless cooperation with joint and coalition partners. These efforts allowed rapid adjustments to logistics plans, efficient allocation of resources, and sustained support for combat forces.
Although FM 3-0 emphasizes synchronized sustainment across all domains, the current doctrine lacks mechanisms or connective tissue for real-time coordination between Army units and joint or coalition partners. Without this synchronization, delays and inefficiencies can arise in high-tempo LSCO environments. The DTO section highlights the importance of continuous communication across organizational levels and ensures all relevant parties have a seat at the table. This allows information from all levels to be brought forward and helps prevent bottlenecks or loss of assets.
Force Protection for Transportation Assets
The vulnerabilities of transportation assets in LSCO are known, with convoys and hubs frequently becoming targets for enemy attacks. Protecting these assets from modern threats — such as direct attacks, electronic warfare, and cyber threats — requires a robust, layered defense strategy.
1AD’s G-2 and G-3/protection employed active protection systems and counter-unmanned aerial systems to neutralize threats, significantly increasing the survivability of convoys and hubs in contested environments. Additionally, rotating communication frequencies and blackout protocols minimized the risk of interception, with the ability to change or invoke these practices empowered down to the lowest operational levels for greater unpredictability.
Intelligence-driven threat assessments allowed planners to adjust convoy routes and operations in real-time, reducing the risk of enemy engagement. Modular logistics hubs, designed to operate autonomously for up to 72 hours, proved essential in sustaining forces under dynamic conditions. These hubs, deployable within 48 hours from logistics support areas and brigade support areas, were equipped with refueling and repair capabilities, thus optimizing resupply and minimizing downtime.
Conclusion
In the ever-evolving arena of LSCO, 1AD has pioneered a logistical framework that goes beyond conventional doctrine, adapting Army transportation strategies to meet the demands of a multidomain battlefield. Drawing from foundational Army Techniques Publications (ATPs) 4-16, Movement Control, and 4-93, Theater Sustainment Operations, 1AD has demonstrated agility and resilience and has not only followed doctrinal guidance but innovated upon it to address critical gaps.
As demonstrated by 1AD’s use of modular sustainment hubs and JMCCs, the ability to quickly scale and adapt sustainment in response to shifting operational needs may no longer be optional but essential. Their hub-and-spoke sustainment model, along with layered force protection measures, highlights a responsive approach to securing supply lines and resources in contested areas. These adaptations emphasize agility, resilience, and a commitment to real-time coordination with joint and coalition partners, making sustainment an integrated, proactive element in combat strategy.
Looking forward, could institutionalizing these practices across the Army sustainment enterprise be the key to ensuring readiness for future LSCO and multidomain threats? Next steps may include embedding modular, adaptable capabilities into Army doctrine and expanding cross-force training to streamline joint and coalition operations. But as we face increasingly contested environments, what role could autonomous capabilities, such as leader-follower systems and autonomous aerial resupply, play in enhancing resilience and responsiveness? And critically, what capabilities does the Army have to address these emerging challenges?
The lessons learned from 1AD’s experience highlight the need for the Army to move beyond traditional convoy-centric models and adopt a decentralized, flexible framework to remain responsive, efficient, and prepared for the demands of dynamic and contested LSCO environments. 1AD’s efforts showcase what Army innovation and teamwork can achieve. By building on the doctrinal foundations of FM 3-0, FM 4-0, ATP 4-16, and ATP 4-93, they have set a new standard for Army logistics that is ready to meet the challenges of the multidomain battlefield. This approach will improve operational efficiency and enhance the survivability and effectiveness of transportation assets in the face of evolving threats.
-------------------
MAJ Herman “TJ” Tisdale serves as the division transportation officer for the 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss, Texas. He previously served as the truck platoon leader and S-3 for the 17th Combat Service Support Battalion, with three combat training center rotations and one Arctic rotation, and later as the battalion executive officer and S-3 of the 842nd Transportation Battalion. He commissioned as a Transportation officer. His military education includes the Support Operations 1&2 Course, Division Transportation Officer Course, Unit Movement Officer Course, and Transportation Coordinator’s Automated Information for Movement System Course. He is a graduate of the Command and General Staff College resident program. He has a Master of Arts degree in procurement and acquisitions from Webster University, and a Master of Operational Studies degree from the Command and General Staff College.
--------------------
This article was published in the spring 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