Tom Donnelly explains what that chart on Army force structure in WW II tells us
By Thomas Donnelly Best Defense office of historical force structure analysis, French and Indian War to World War II division Beyond the official story, that Army chart tells you a couple of things: 1. Army was never as big as planned. 2. It got heavier — more tanks and more artillery. 3. It got heavier ...
By Thomas Donnelly
By Thomas Donnelly
Best Defense office of historical force structure analysis, French and Indian War to World War II division
Beyond the official story, that Army chart tells you a couple of things:
1. Army was never as big as planned.
2. It got heavier — more tanks and more artillery.
3. It got heavier in different ways than planned — fewer tanks, a lot more artillery.
4. Didn’t buy as many aircraft as planned.
5. Needed many more higher-echelon support troops than planned.
Questions why:
1. Were the differences a result of policy, manpower constraints, industrial constraints, tactical learning?
2. For a war that’s supposed to be about the rise of tactical aviation and close air support, the increase in artillery and failure to meet aircraft goals is interesting.
3. Higher-echelon support troops: Like other wars, this was fought in coalition and at great strategic distances from the United States and at great operational distances within the theaters. Is “tail” actually “tooth?”
More from Foreign Policy


Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.


Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.


It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.


Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.