Writers of Mechanisation

[Darman]

I was browsing the library one day and I ran across this book:  Supply in Modern War, by G. C. Shaw. 
I read it and wrote a book review on it, sadly the book review has been lost in the depths of my computer.  However, I took away some good ideas from it, first and foremost being that mechanization is a lot better than motorization.  Motorization is simply taking a standard infantry division (or cavalry division) and putting it on wheels (or tracks but he wrote this in 1938).  The same logistical constraints exist as before, where you have to feed every single man and fuel the vehicles, although you do eliminate fodder, which is extraordinarily bulky.  But with mechanization, you can fit the firepower of an entire platoon of riflemen into one vehicle, and that vehicle, with its smaller crew, requires less food and fuel than a platoon of infantry with their supporting assets would.  How true that is today, I'm not sure, because the fuel efficiency of modern tanks is not very good. 

Anyways, I was searching desperately for it online and I finally found it.  I figured some people might be interested, I know I want to read Liddell-Hart when I get the chance. 

[ctwaterman]

*EVIL GRIN* 
Ok  so now that we are discussin Logistics...  lets just say the Fuel Efficency of tanks was never ever that good.   It can occasionaly be measured in Gallons Per Mile.... not Mile per Gallon.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I'd say the observations re: mech and motorization could be better expressed as supplies : firepower. 
The men eat the same or more, the unit may actually expend a higher tonnage of ammunition and require far more tail to teeth, but firepower does increase.

The War Dept. WWII Handbook on German forces I posted some pages from during the Dutch-Siamese war also covers supply needs for different units, though I don't recall how detailed it gets.

[Laertes]

I seem to recall that this was the logic used by the Luftwaffe divisions, and look how they fared.