That makes me wonder how much of the current tooth-to-tail ratio is driven by circumstance and attitude. I asked a professor of mine one time about his thoughts on T3R and he shrugged and said that a heavy logistical tail is the price of industrialized war. I'm not entirely convinced, given that there are ways to improve efficiency while increasing effectiveness (although I recognize that in many cases they are inverse.)
In 1917 the AEF deployed to France with almost 80% of its personnel in Combat Arms roles. 90 years later that favorable ratio has been inverted; only 25% of the total personnel are in Combat Arms units. That is including some contractors. (Search for an article called "The Other End of The Spear.")
The Power Surety Task Force undertook a project to insulate tents. Where they used this approach they were able to save 83% of the fuel that had previously been consumed for space cooling. In the future they will continue to switch from large air conditioners to smaller air conditioners, and they hope to make greater use geothermal heat pumps.
The end result is fewer convoys, fewer support troops, decreased force protection requirements, fewer ambushes, fewer road accidents, fewer expenditures, etc. The cost is minimal and the return on investment is almost as good as stealing.
So while the natural tendency might be towards more permanence and greater resource use, there are ways to have what you want (an air conditioned tent) without the baggage that comes along with it.
ETA: In 2001, 70% of the supplies that the Army carried by weight was fuel. I am unsure of more modern statistics in OIF/OEF, especially considering that much of the fuel is carried by contractors.
Bookmarks