The IT Containers That Went To War

1sockchuck writes: Parachuting a container full of IT gear into a war zone is challenging enough. In the mountains of Afghanistan, helicopters had to deliver modular data centers in three minutes or less, lest the choppers be targeted by Taliban rockets. UK vendor Cannon recently spoke with DataCenterDynamics, sharing some of the extreme challenges and lessons learned from deploying portable data centers for military units in deserts and mountains. The same lessons (except, hopefully, with a lower chance of being shot) would apply in lots of other extreme enviroments, too.

Comments

Thanks for the fluff....

[Anonymous Coward]

That article couldn't have possibily lacked any more technical details..

what?

[hjf]

I don't understand why you would need a datacenter in a war zone.

Assuming you're able to get it running, what are you going to connect it to anyway? What is it going to do?

Re:what?

[Aelanna]

The modern military does a lot of computing. Computer systems keep track of the positions of troops and vehicles, and intelligence units constantly monitor and analyze signals that might be enemy communications. It doesn't surprise me that things like mobile data centers are a thing.

Re:what?

[freeze128]

The vendor was Canon, who is widely known for making imaging and copying devices. I can understand them dropping a bunch of DSLR's for surveillance, but I can't imagine why they would need a copier.

Re:what?

[guruevi]

Crunch bitcoins for the locals?

Re:what?

[halivar]

The "Internet of Things" concept may be new to our households, but the military has been using it for as long as they've had wigwams waving their little flags around. For military commanders, access to accurate, comprehensive data is an extreme force multiplier.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canon the camera company is one 'n'. This company is with two... Also, Canon the camera company is not based in the UK but based out of Japan.

Re:what?

[Fusen]

No, it was Cannon. A British company that has only existed for 30 years.

Re:what?

[hjf]

I don't think you understand the raw processing power of a modern CPU, maybe even combined to a GPU. You can have gigaflops of performance running on battery, in a laptop computer.
That's why this thing makes no sense to me.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Paperwork. Armies have just as many bureaucrats as any civvie organisation. Admin, supply depots, hospitals etc. Fucktons of paperwork.

Re:what?

[silas_moeckel]

A secure reliable network is not something they have so you need computing resources that are more local. Sure a sat uplink is nice, the latency sucks and the bandwidth is pretty limited.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Extreme environment drains batteries, which add to the already heavy load the soldiers have to carry. Facial recognition, real-time automatic interpretation, deep learning systems for situation awareness, explosive and bullet tracking systems and such all take lots of computing power. The vehicles have systems on board, and the hand helds will be connecting to the local cloud for heavier processing, perhaps via CMU's cloudlets. It's about the ping, just like in real computer games. An almost real time targeting system for covering all suspected enemy locations within a California-sized area takes an oil tanker sized system with over ten petaflops of computing power.
And of course the most important part is "where the men go, so does porn."

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was Cannon. A British company that has only existed for 30 years.

Of course they'd drop cannons into a war zone! Artillery has been proven in combat for hundreds of years.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

ITYM "wigwags".

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think I like the sound of all that. One well placed bomb or well executed suicide bombing or stealthy virus infection and it sounds like all the troops for 100's of miles in every direction would be as helpless as a turtle on its back. I think we're over-complicating war so that we can bring in too much on technology to fix it for us, much like in most other areas.

Re:what?

[CanadianMacFan]

The article talked about having units in Camp Bastion which was in a war zone and was a camp that could hold 28,000 people. It handled the logistics for Afghanistan and was a major staging area. They would have needed a lot of computing power there to manage logistics, telecommunications, aircraft control, running a city, in addition to planning military operations.

Re:what?

[bazorg]

How about remote control centres for drones without having high latency connections? I don't know where drones are controlled from, but I imagine there are advantages in reducing the distance to the targeted areas.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Computing should be done in a less hostile and hard to reach environment.

What magical resources provide "secure and reliable network uplink/downlink" without having a physical footprint on the ground?

What magical resources eliminate the high latency of satellite uplinks, which makes things like drones, fire control systems, and real-time intelligence systems next-to-useless?

Oh right, you don't know shit about the capabilities or needs of the modern military, but feel qualified to opine about how inept the military is, because you have a web browser.

Moving hardware to the combat theater is difficult

Yes.

wasteful

Not if it's worth the cost. And, turns out... it's worth the cost.

dangerous

Yes.

time consuming

Yes.

gives the enemy yet another target

Yes - but you may have noticed that modern networks benefit from fault tolerant designs, where they route around failure. If all of your computation in-theater is tied to a satellite uplink, then all the enemy has to do to paralyze you is neutralize that one uplink. With computation and a distributed footprint in-theater, they have to disable each and every modular datacenter to accomplish the same task. Lot harder to blow up 500 datacenter containers than it is to disrupt communications with a single satellite, champ.

Also, all of this stuff being expensive and hard and time-consuming is exactly why we have lots of men with big guns guarding them, to make sure that the resources aren't wasted or destroyed by the enemy. Whether they're spread across the mountains of Afghanistan or sitting in a Datacenter in Arlington, Virginia... they still need those guys with big guns standing post.

Whine somewhere else about how much smarter you are than the military... you're tedious.

Re:what?

[jfdavis668]

Take it from someone who has used them. It is a collaborative system. The system continues to work if you knock out one piece. Each vehicle has a computer on board with all the data it needs for situational awareness. You need larger data sites to process the data. It is so much easier to type in a supply request than try to read it to someone over a radio with voice. Cuts down transmission times and errors. All those requests need to be gathered together and forwarded to a higher headquarters, so they need some kind of processing center. If that one is knocked out, you send it to the backup site. If you are not in communication range, your system holds it until you are. Same way with enemy contact reports. They are gathered together, processed and then the results shared with everyone. Now you know about the minefield on your route that was reported by another unit.

Re:what?

[halivar]

Wow, yes I did. That imagery is... interesting.

Re:what?

[Rasperin]

I'm armchairing here, so please forgive me for spitting out what seems like a simpler solution. But doesn't the data center deployed on the front lines (as the summary doesn't make it sound mobile) still use some type of wireless communication? Couldn't this be done with a repeater system and with encryption? Maybe the same exact wireless protocol/encryption the deployed datacenter is using?

This just seems like over engineering at work to me. However, you are right the military probably (read: very very likely, or god I hope so) has far smarter people than me. I just can't see the benefits of the heavy/expensive/far more dangerous/less redundant solution.

Re:what?

[jimbolauski]

What magical resources provide "secure and reliable network uplink/downlink" without having a physical footprint on the ground?

What magical resources eliminate the high latency of satellite uplinks, which makes things like drones, fire control systems, and real-time intelligence systems next-to-useless?

Boeing E3
Northrop Grumman E-8
Boeing P8
Northrop Grumman RQ4

Re:what?

[rogoshen1]

Thank you for your service to your country AC. We'll inform the Joint Chiefs of your novel recommendations and have them implement it immediately. Not a one in the entire chain of command thought of these points, at all.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

it is encrypted, and frequency-hopping like mad.

Re:what?

[drizuid]

I don't understand why you would need a datacenter in a war zone.

Assuming you're able to get it running, what are you going to connect it to anyway? What is it going to do?

I participated in the standing up of an MPLS blackcore network with 5+ other "internets" (the one you know as the internet is one of many) using this mpls black core as a transport network. The amount of IT infrastructure in the middle of nowhere rivals that of many fortune 500 companies.

while heat and reliable electricity remain issues, cisco gear can run at temperatures up to 130F reliably.

Re:what?

[drizuid]

most vehicles in the modern army have a 'datacenter' in them with satellite terminals towed. they all shoot back to a centralized location via satellite and from there go elsewhere, be it via fiber, satellite or high speed line of sight connections.

During an exercise, we brought in an air-droppable hmmwv that had a slim dish on top (used for campers), 2 gutted cisco routers and 2 gutted cisco switches with a POE NSA Type 2 encryption devices (all packed in to a very small form factor) to provide secure video telephony capabilities aswell as command and control capabilities from the site of an airborne insertion, which would typically be surrounded by enemies trying to defend their airfield.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on Slashdot would somebody think this constitutes a rebuttal.

First: every one of the planes you just pointed to has a unit cost upwards of $200 million, with the possible exception of the Global Hawk, which also tops that number, if you include R&D figures. Given that the original complaint was about the "wasteful" cost... seems pretty wasteful strapping wings onto enough data centers to keep them airborne.

Second: Robust & reliable? Not when the plane goes out of sight, as it certainly can in the mountains of afghanistan - they don't hover, they circle. Also, if your data center gets shot down, you're in a world of hurt.

Third: force protection on those AWACS, ELINT, and COMINT assets is one of the highest priorities the military has. The fact that we haven't recently faced a foe that could offer a strong air superiority threat doesn't mean there's no such foe. Getting in the habit of providing network services by circling an expensive, slow, and VERY VERY attractive target over the battlefield means that your soldiers are going to be left blind at the worst possible moment.

Fourth: If you think any of those things are replacements for long-distance communications via fiber or even satellite, you're sorely mistaken.

But thanks for playing.

Re:what?

[jimbolauski]

My response fulfilled everyone of you requirements in your first rant. Now to dismiss your second rant. First let me ask you do you know how the dropped in equipment communicates to the outside world? You are limited in every way that you were just complaining about. You do know you can't put the internet on a hard drive right? All putting the data center on a plane does is remove it from remote isolated FOB where they have to be parachuted in and can be easily overrun.

By the time you are dropping data centers all the SAM sites have been neutralized, shoulder fired rockets can not fly high enough to reach AWACS. I really don't know what your point was here. I'm guessing you don't know about max flight altitude of shoulder fired sams

In conclusion go back to playing Call of Doodey because you are way out of your depth in the real world.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

My response fulfilled everyone of you requirements in your first rant.

No, it didn't. Planes are neither robust nor reliable for the purposes of providing 24x7 low latency high bandwidth network coverage to the entirety of an operational theater. That's what you use *datacenters* for.

First let me ask you do you know how the dropped in equipment communicates to the outside world? You are limited in every way that you were just complaining about.

Jesus you're thick. If I'm on patrol 50 km north of Kandahar, I need to network primarily with in-theater units: my command, my own unit, neighboring units, and supporting units on standby in case I get in some shit. Datacenters like these are the core of providing a high-speed, secure, LOCAL network to people operating in-theater. Yes, the data that has to be sent back to the Pentagon is going to go over a high-latency connection. NO, all of the data generated during normal operations does NOT all go back to the Pentagon. Once again: a high latency, low bandwidth network is death on communications, and communication is about the most important thing that you can have in a fight. Planes do not have the capabilities to do an effective job. There is no magical wifi router you can just strap to the bottom of a fucking AWACS plane and blanket 100 square miles with secure wireless networking.

By the time you are dropping data centers all the SAM sites have been neutralized,

Right, because planes magically attain air superiority with no ground presence. And mobile SAM units are impossible to move around on the ground in the dark. And it's as easy as looking at your HUD to know that you've gotten all the enemy's SAM units. Who's too busy playing Call of Duty, again, friend?

shoulder fired rockets can not fly high enough to reach AWACS.

Other planes can, you fucking idiot. So can drones. And you don't have to get your shoulder-fired rocket very high if you hit that magical AWACS just after takeoff, or on approach at an airfield. Further, given that there are literally on the order of "a few dozen" AWACS planes in the US Air Force's arsenal, the odds that they're going to be using them to provide any sort of continuous networking capabilities to units across the theater is pretty fucking non-existent. You have NO idea what you're talking about, and you're only demonstrating how stupid you are by continuing to argue.

Re:what?

[Jack Griffin]

Yes - but you may have noticed that modern networks benefit from fault tolerant designs, where they route around failure. If all of your computation in-theater is tied to a satellite uplink, then all the enemy has to do to paralyze you is neutralize that one uplink. With computation and a distributed footprint in-theater, they have to disable each and every modular datacenter to accomplish the same task. Lot harder to blow up 500 datacenter containers than it is to disrupt communications with a single satellite, champ.

So distribute your up-links then.
Combined with some land and air based repeaters, Predators would be perfect, you mesh your network back to your one data centre in the nearest green zone or carrier group.

Re:what?

[jimbolauski]

Jesus you're thick. If I'm on patrol 50 km north of Kandahar, I need to network primarily with in-theater units: my command, my own unit, neighboring units, and supporting units on standby in case I get in some shit. Datacenters like these are the core of providing a high-speed, secure, LOCAL network to people operating in-theater. Yes, the data that has to be sent back to the Pentagon is going to go over a high-latency connection. NO, all of the data generated during normal operations does NOT all go back to the Pentagon. Once again: a high latency, low bandwidth network is death on communications, and communication is about the most important thing that you can have in a fight. Planes do not have the capabilities to do an effective job. There is no magical wifi router you can just strap to the bottom of a fucking AWACS plane and blanket 100 square miles with secure wireless networking.

I will try to make this very simple since you seem very slow, the only place you drop in data centers is remote FOBs, those remote FOBs are going to be very far from main bases. You need to be able to communicate from your data center to the main base. This can be done one of 4 ways. 1 hard line connections, not an option for any area where you can't truck in a data center. 2 Line of sight communication/ tower relay's, not an option as you need tall towers in line of sight with each other you will need to truck in lots of equipment to build a tower. 3 satellite as you have said latency and bandwidth are an issue. 4 AWACs and other comms planes communicate from main bases to FOBs.

Right, because planes magically attain air superiority with no ground presence. And mobile SAM units are impossible to move around on the ground in the dark. And it's as easy as looking at your HUD to know that you've gotten all the enemy's SAM units. Who's too busy playing Call of Duty, again, friend?

Your Call of Doodey training is failing you again. You are not gong to be dropping data centers from a helicopter before you have attained air superiority. You do know SAMs can be used against helicopters.

Other planes can, you fucking idiot. So can drones. And you don't have to get your shoulder-fired rocket very high if you hit that magical AWACS just after takeoff, or on approach at an airfield. Further, given that there are literally on the order of "a few dozen" AWACS planes in the US Air Force's arsenal, the odds that they're going to be using them to provide any sort of continuous networking capabilities to units across the theater is pretty fucking non-existent. You have NO idea what you're talking about, and you're only demonstrating how stupid you are by continuing to argue.

So you think heliocopters don't face these issues when they are dropping data centers? Do you think it is a good idea to put data centers in FOBs when the enemy can bomb them because they still have planes and drones? Do you think AWACs are the only plane that can handle comms? I listed 3 other that I know of off the top of my head that also provide comms, there are more then enough to provide coverage. Hitting a plane taking off or landing with a shoulder fired rocket is more difficult then you think, first the planes go dark so the enemy can't see them same with the runway, second they dive from a high altitude and land very quickly. I'm guessing Call of Doodey doesn't explain this.

three minutes to avoid targeting?

[fustakrakich]

These last 13 years have made the place so safe and secure and fun for the whole family, haven't they? Well, as long as the opium pipeline remains open, there's not much else to worry about, I suppose. After all, that is why we are there...

Docker vs. LXC

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Reading the title, I was expecting a Docker vs LXC flamefest...

Re:Docker vs. LXC

[Anonymous Coward]

Very disappointing, indeed.

Re:Docker vs. LXC

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I figured someone was breaking out the pitchforks and spazzing over Docker vs. Rocket.

Re:Definition of container?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, a mad reddit luser

I expected this to be about Docker.

[KeithJM]

I expected this to be about software containers.

Data Center = Logistics Support

[Anonymous Coward]

"Clearly, logistics is the hard part of fighting a war."
- Lt. Gen. E. T. Cook, USMC, November 1990

"Gentlemen, the officer who doesn't know his communications and supply as well as his tactics is totally useless."
- Gen. George S. Patton, USA

"Bitter experience in war has taught the maxim that the art of war is the art of the logistically feasible."
- ADM Hyman Rickover, USN

"Forget logistics, you lose."
- Lt. Gen. Fredrick Franks, USA, 7th Corps Commander, Desert Storm

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980

"I am tempted to make a slightly exaggerated statement: that logistics is all of war-making, except shooting the guns, releasing the bombs, and firing the torpedoes."
- ADM Lynde D. McCormick, USN

"Because of my wartime experience, I am insistent on the point that logistics know-how must be maintained, that logistic is second to nothing in importance in warfare, that logistic training must be widespread and thorough..."
- VADM Robert B. Carney, USN

"Logistic considerations belong not only in the highest echelons of military planning during the process of preparation for war and for specific wartime operations, but may well become the controlling element with relation to timing and successful operation."
- VADM Oscar C. Badger, USN

" in its relationship to strategy, logistics assumes the character of a dynamic force, without which the strategic conception is simply a paper plan."
- CDR C. Theo Vogelsang, USN

"Logistics is the stuff that if you don't have enough of, the war will not be won as soon as."
- General Nathaniel Green, Quartermaster, American Revolutionary Army

"Strategy and tactics provide the scheme for the conduct of military operations, logistics the means therefore."
- Lt. Col. George C. Thorpe, USMC

"Only a commander who understand logistics can push the military machine to the limits without risking total breakdown."
- Maj.Gen. Julian Thompson, Royal Marines

"There is nothing more common than to find considerations of supply affecting the strategic lines of a campaign and a war."
- Carl von Clausevitz

"In modern time it is a poorly qualified strategist or naval commander who is not equipped by training and experience to evaluate logistic factors or to superintend logistic operations."
- Duncan S. Ballantine, 1947

"The war has been variously termed a war of production and a war of machines. Whatever else it is, so far as the United States is concerned, it is a war of logistics."
- Fleet ADM Ernest J. King, in a 1946 report to the Secretary of the Navy

"A sound logistics plan is the foundation upon which a war operation should be based. If the necessary minimum of logistics support cannot be given to the combatant forces involved, the operation may fail, or at best be only partially successful."
- ADM Raymond A. Spruance

"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics"
- Sun Tzu

"Leaders win through logistics. Vision, sure. Strategy, yes. But when you go to war, you need to have both toilet paper and bullets at the right place at the right time. In other words, you must win through superior logistics."
- Tom Peters - Rule #3: Leadership Is Confusing As Hell, Fast Company, March 2001

"Logistics sets the campaign's operational limits."
- Joint Pub 1: Joint Warfare of the Armed Forces of the United States

"Logistics comprises the means and arrangements which work out the plans of strategy and tactics. Strategy decides where to act; logistics brings the troops to this point."
- Jomini: Precis de l' Art de la Guerre. (1838)

"Behind every great leader there was an even greater logistician."
- M. Cox

"Logistics ... as vital to military success as daily food is to daily work."
- Capt. Alfred Thayer Mahan, Armaments and Arbitration, 1912

"The essence of flexibility is in the mind of the commander; the substance of flexibility is in logistics."
- RADM Henry Eccles, U.S. Navy

"My logisticians are a humorless lot ... they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay."
- Alexander

No, it's not a challenge.

[digitalPhant0m]

Parachuting a container full of IT gear into a war zone is challenging enough

Silly me, I thought it would only require attaching a parachute and gravity.

Re:No, it's not a challenge.

[Dragonslicer]

Parachuting a container full of IT gear into a war zone is challenging enough

Silly me, I thought it would only require attaching a parachute and gravity.

The part that you're missing is "and have it land where you want it to." I know someone that use to work on parachuting supply containers, so I've heard about how difficult it is.

Re:No, it's not a challenge.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you think GI Joe cartoons are documentaries.

Hmmm...if the enemy is watching...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> helicopters had to deliver modular data centers in three minutes or less, lest the choppers be targeted by Taliban rockets

There's something Brian Williams-y about this story. It seems like anything within visual range of rockets would also be within visual range of mortars. Why try to shoot the helicopters when everyone's on high alert? Why not just target whatever they dropped when things have settled down a bit?

Re:Hmmm...if the enemy is watching...

[coolmoe2]

Probably because the aircraft is more vulnerable beings its an easy target when close to the ground. Im sure the container itself has ground forces protecting it once its dropped off.

Re: Hmmm...if the enemy is watching...

[jmac_the_man]

Seriously?

The containers are dropped at a drop point near the bunker where they are needed. They're then dragged inside the bunker. Since the bunker is more mortar resistant than the helicopter, the enemy's best chance of preventing the system from being set up is to shoot down the helicopter.

Re:Hmmm...if the enemy is watching...

[jandrese]

Maybe it takes 3 minutes to set up a Vietnam era shoulder launched missile? They figure the Choppers are spotted on the way in and have to get out before the guys with the missiles are ready.

Re: Hmmm...if the enemy is watching...

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, if you've been anywhere near FOB Shank, you already now how the story ends.

Protip, it ends with IDF. (That's InDirect Fire for everyone else, IE. Mortars and rockets)

Re:Hmmm...if the enemy is watching...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, their comms are fairly slow, plus, helo's fly high until they have to come in low. There's a reason we are so good at this, we've been at it for a decade now. This story is nothing new. Waking a guy up with a phone call, having him get himself, his brother, and a neighbor ready, loaded with an unguided rocket and in position takes a lot more than the time required to drop off a package and move on. Casualties in Afghanistan are low, really low, and the reason is that we win at logistics.

Abstinence

[MagickalMyst]

Perhaps just staying out of Afghanistan altogether would be best.

Re:Abstinence

[The Real Dr John]

I am glad someone brought up the fact that we should be thinking about why we are even engaged in a war of aggression against a poor, nearly unarmed country on the other side of the world, rather than second guessing how the military delivers computers to the field. Questioning US militarism in such circumstances seems more important than discussing the details of battlefield IT. Americans seem a bit too comfortable with wars of aggression, to the point where they will discuss how to implement the details of battlefield IT rather than talking about why we are there in the first place. Your tax dollars at work.

Re:Abstinence

[MagickalMyst]

+1

Re:Abstinence

[Anonymous Coward]

Discussing the logistics of a war does not imply agreement with the war.

False dichotomies are for idiots and liars. Which one are you?

Re: Abstinence

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not at war with Afghanistan, we are fighting elements within it.

Re:Data Center = Logistics Support

[GTRacer]

Where on earth did you find this many military quotes about logistics?

Re:Data Center = Logistics Support

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like UPS Logistics should be engaged immediately. ISIS wouldn't stand a chance!

Re:Data Center = Logistics Support

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been sitting on them for years, just waiting for the opportunity to post them. I can now die knowing I succeeded. Farewell, cruel world, farewell.

fire control?

[belmolis]

Are these things used for fire control? Are artillery spotters and forward air controllers communicating with these things?

Re:fire control?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, everyone is using a dropped stack. Each battalion (and lower to a lesser degree) requires at least 1x NIPR 1x SIPR for the S1 (personnel), 1xNIPR, 2xSIPR for the S2 (Intel), 2xNIPR, 3xNIPR for the S3 (Operations), 1x NIPR 2x SIPR for the S4 (supply), 1x NIPR 1xSIPR for the S6 (commo, who owns the stacks), and the BN commander who needs a 1xNIPR 1xSIPR for communications with higher. Then, yes, you have the use of TAC (tactical Air Controllers, Airforce), and the ability to communicate with others in the area, and you can maybe see how each of these units requires a separate server stack.

TL;DR: The military does need the ability to deploy stacks of switches and hard-drives in short notice.

Re:Data Center = Logistics Support

[penguinoid]

Reminds me of the time some smartypants European country tried to take over the world, ended up deep in Russia with nothing but snow to eat or wear, having won every battle but with no supply chain. The enemy doesn't need to shoot you if you're dying of starvation/exposure.

Re:Data Center = Logistics Support

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Reminds me of the time some smartypants European country tried to take over the world, ended up deep in Russia with nothing but snow to eat or wear, having won every battle but with no supply chain. The enemy doesn't need to shoot you if you're dying of starvation/exposure.

Yes. It's happened at least three times on a major scale. All attempts ended the same way. The principal difficulty of invading Russia are the vast distances over a largely featureless landscape with little of value to sustain the advance. The vast steppes are like the ocean, only you can't sail ships on them, and the roads and rail roads (depending time period) were and are bad or incompatible on purpose.

Hitler in particular had the problem that since he promised a short and quick campaign, he couldn't send proper supplies (e.g. winter gear) with the units at the start, and when it became necessary he could get it to the large rail way depots in Russia (the German army's corps of engineers re-laid the rail roads to standard gauge, a herculean task), but he couldn't get it to the troops. He had a major "last mile" problem. :-) (Well, several miles, but still.)

So, it's an interesting military problem in that fighting in Russia is easy. It's like the place was made for mobile warfare. But it's so bloody big, with infrastructure that's either poor on purpose, or easily destroyed by the retreating forces, that it's a logisticians nightmare. The faster you advance the further away from your (long and vulnerable) supply train you get. All three that tried were lucky to get out of there alive, and of course, in all three cases, most of their troops actually didn't.

Re:Data Center = Logistics Support

[WallyL]

Oblig. related https://xkcd.com/512/

Rugged Cell Phone Infrastructure

[Agripa]

Many years ago I heard a lecture from a Motorola representative where he discussed the types of communications equipment they deployed when various hazards were present. Some areas like Los Angeles required bullet resistant trailers and enclosures for cellular communications equipment.