I'm not sure that this isn't understanding causality the wrong way round. If the military could've run those supply lines with EVs, they really might've done so -- but the batteries were just not up to it. This situation is improving, but consider that about 400km is the maximum range of many common electric vehicles. About 640km is quite long distance for electric vehicles, quoted for electric pickups, but that is about parity with the lowest number on this recent listing of ranges for common gasoline pickup trucks:
For non-logistics use cases, it's also notable that one thing you can do with gas vehicles that you can not readily do with electric vehicles is extend the range by carrying gas in the vehicle.
An electric vehicle with a gas generator might offer a good compromise, since you'd maintain the low maintenance and simplicity of the electric drive system and the ability to run off of mains power in most situations while being able to extend the range if needed.
Could you explain the logic there? I understand the first statement, but I don't understand how the current military dependency on petroleum for land war blocks mass adoption of EVs in the civilian market.
Sorry, I should have said that I think the auto industry and national highway system in America were put in place in the 40s and 50s to create a strategic economic flow of petroleum consumption. I.e. should there be another big global land war it's far faster to (repurpose Ford, GM, etc for military vehicles to consume an existing petrol supply chain) than to (build those factories fresh to make vehicles that run on the cutting edge of the energy supply chain).
We won't have mass adoption of EVs until this fact changes or becomes irrelevant (eg if land wars become irrelevant).