A Soldier's Load, and His Lack of Mobility

[Vern Humphrey]

And we smoothly merge back into the crux of this thread.

I agree with you that armor is winning the race against ordnance and that an AT system that is top attack capable is the way to go. But at what physical cost to the grunt? The Javelin system is man portable...sort of. And so we pile yet more stuff on the back of Joe Snuffy. In addition to all his other mission essential gear (And I'm talking truly mission essential and not what the BC thinks is mission essential as his ruck gets loaded into his humvee and driven out to the DZ) he's now humping CLU's and smart missles.

The problem here is organizational, not technical. We don't have enough infantry in the infantry -- a WWI infantry company, with far less company gear, had twice as many soldiers to share the load. We should design crew-served weapons to be carried by crews -- crews who have enough men to take the extra load.

And I'm serious that we should have mules to carry much of the load.

 

[Lebben-B]

I cannot speak for other units, but in mine I must keep my weapons squad fully manned and gun crews consist of Gunner, AG and AB. This SOP is ruthlessly enforced (Once I got low on people due to a rash of PCS'es so I folded my WS into the line squads. It got UGLY when the BN CSM got wind of it).

As far as the infantry not having enough infantry, that's true. But its always been that way for the US since WWII. It's the US character, if you will, to seek a technical answer to a non-technical problem. "Why send a man when you can send a bomb." And if you're sending a bomb, you don't need as many men.

The current 100% strength of a line company is 110. A WWII company more than twice that. If the US Army went back to 11-13 man squads it would reduce the burden, but not remove it entirely. You posit a reurn to mule teams. And recent stories from Afghanistan lend your argument creedance. But consider these points:

- Mules are animals. They are prone to sickness and disease the same as humans. They can spread disease the same as humans. Are we going to add a veteranary platoon to the battalion? In addition to the 150 mules (I'll get to the math in a minute) you're adding to the battalion you'll have to add 2-5 vets and about 30 vet techs to your burgeoning battalion. But wait - there's more. In addition to vets, you'll need a team of ferriers to accompany the battlion for shoeing the mules.

- Mules are animals. You can load only so much upon them, just like humans. Here's how I came up with 150. Based on what I know about mules and with what a platoon carries, I figure 2 mules per squad, 8 per platoon, 35 per company, times 4 companies - 150. Probably more given the larger size of HHCs. I also did not include the D co, since they're mostly motorized anyway and light divs don't have them.

-Mules are stubborn. The difference between a horse and a mule is a horse will go until it falls over dead. When tired, a mule STOPS. Rule of thumb when dealing with mules is to have the reins in one hand and a 2x4 in the other. The term "Mule Skinner" is very appropriate.

- Speaking of mule skinners, are we to hand the reins of a large, live animal to Joe Snuffy and say, "Voila?" I should hope not. The squad will need a substantial amount of trining in the handling of a mule. The only large organization that still uses mules is the Grand Canyon National Park, which uses them for tourist rides down into the canyon.

- Currently, a US battalion consumes several tons of food a day. Double the amount of Soldiers in that battalion, as you would like, and that goes up exponentially. Now lets add pack animals. Again, an exponential increase in consumption. Let the mules graze, you say? There are areas in the world where there is no graze. Or it's winter and there is little to no graze. You must feed and water the animals. While the battalion is on the move, all these store must be packed, which means you now have to increase the size of your trans section to haul all those supplies. Which increases your need for POL.

- What happens when a patrol using pack mules makes contact? The mules will either die or run away. The mule dying is your best case scenario. Because the equipment it's hauling will still be there for you to use and it's carcass can now become cover. If the mule runs away - so does your gear. Provided the patrol survives the contact, it now has to go look for the mules.

Mules are not the answer,

Mike

 

[Lebben-B]

I almost forgot - How would you rig a mule to ride in an aircraft?

Historical Note: In the race to the south pole, the British used mule teams and the Norwegians used dogs. The Mules died and the Nowegians got there first.

V/R

Mike

 

[Vern Humphrey]

- Mules are animals. They are prone to sickness and disease the same as humans. They can spread disease the same as humans. Are we going to add a veteranary platoon to the battalion? In addition to the 150 mules (I'll get to the math in a minute) you're adding to the battalion you'll have to add 2-5 vets and about 30 vet techs to your burgeoning battalion. But wait - there's more. In addition to vets, you'll need a team of ferriers to accompany the battlion for shoeing the mules.

You're talking to a man who commanded a Mechanized Infantry company in combat -- do you know how many motor officers, motor seargeants, mechanics, recovery vehicle operators and specialized equipment we needed to keep us operational?

- Mules are animals. You can load only so much upon them, just like humans. Here's how I came up with 150. Based on what I know about mules and with what a platoon carries, I figure 2 mules per squad, 8 per platoon, 35 per company, times 4 companies - 150. Probably more given the larger size of HHCs. I also did not include the D co, since they're mostly motorized anyway and light divs don't have them.

No matter what you use, you are limited in what you can carry. But your 150 mules can carry thirty tons of supplies and equipment, over and above their own fodder, shoes and other needs.

-Mules are stubborn. The difference between a horse and a mule is a horse will go until it falls over dead. When tired, a mule STOPS. Rule of thumb when dealing with mules is to have the reins in one hand and a 2x4 in the other. The term "Mule Skinner" is very appropriate.

That's wrong -- and based upon old legends and movies. Mules are as trainable and tractable as horses.

- Speaking of mule skinners, are we to hand the reins of a large, live animal to Joe Snuffy and say, "Voila?" I should hope not. The squad will need a substantial amount of trining in the handling of a mule. The only large organization that still uses mules is the Grand Canyon National Park, which uses them for tourist rides down into the canyon.

The lack of experience in mule trains is a real problem -- one that will take a lot of time to solve, since we have lost virtually all our expertise.

- Currently, a US battalion consumes several tons of food a day. Double the amount of Soldiers in that battalion, as you would like, and that goes up exponentially. Now lets add pack animals. Again, an exponential increase in consumption. Let the mules graze, you say? There are areas in the world where there is no graze. Or it's winter and there is little to no graze. You must feed and water the animals. While the battalion is on the move, all these store must be packed, which means you now have to increase the size of your trans section to haul all those supplies. Which increases your need for POL.

Do you know what it takes to fly in supplies by helicopter? Aside from the enormous support force needed to do that, the helicopters also compromise your positions.

As I pointed out, your 150 mules can carry 30 tons in addition to their own needs.

- What happens when a patrol using pack mules makes contact?

A patrol using pack mules? That's like saying "a patrol using five ton trucks." The pack train isn't used on patrols, anymore than the battalion transportation platoon is used on patrols.

In action, expect casualties -- among trucks, people, aircraft and mules.

The mules will either die or run away. The mule dying is your best case scenario. Because the equipment it's hauling will still be there for you to use and it's carcass can now become cover. If the mule runs away - so does your gear. Provided the patrol survives the contact, it now has to go look for the mules

.

Why would anyone use a mule "on patrol?"

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I almost forgot - How would you rig a mule to ride in an aircraft?

It depends on the aircraft -- lots of livestock are carried by air. I've seen water buffalo sling loaded in Viet Nam.

Historical Note: In the race to the south pole, the British used mule teams and the Norwegians used dogs. The Mules died and the Nowegians got there first.

V/R

Mike

Nope. The British used Shetland ponies, not mules. The Norwegians ate their dogs, the British didn't eat the ponies -- which was a major error on their part.

Let me point out that both sides used animal transport.

 

[DRZinn]

in mine I must keep my weapons squad fully manned and gun crews consist of Gunner, AG and AB.

Marine platoons don't have a weapons squad, rather the company has a weapons platoon, elements of which are usually attached to one line platoon or another as needed.

Fully manned? Now that's funny!

 

[Lebben-B]

Vern,

Touche on the South Pole jibe.


I'm a lifelong light guy. And I also know Mech battalions are bigger with all the support guys. But I stand by my comment about the personnel, logistical, and medical/veteranary increases. And a BFV never gave a Soldier lice or the mange. Yes, great expense is involved in airlifting supplies to the unit. But those are occasional expenses. With livestock the expense is constant.

While I'm thinking on it, when the battalion is not deployed where are the animals housed and exercised? Do we replace the motorpool with a paddock?

Why take the mule on a patrol? Because you have to. Would you, as a Mech CO tell your troops that the tracks are merely there to get you into the AOR, after that it's back to shank's mare? Of course not. The track carries too much extra stuff - ammo, chow and water. The same stuff that you want the mule to carry. In essence, the mule replaces the track. But perhaps I was a bit loose in my terminology. Instead of patrol I should have used the word movement.

Helicopters would indeed compromise a units position. As would a large group of mules. In arid, dry environemnts (Like here) the cloud of dust the animals would kick up would be substantial. In temperate environments, the trail left by a unit with pack animals would be huge.

Mike

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern,

Touche on the South Pole jibe.


I'm a lifelong light guy. And I also know Mech battalions are bigger with all the support guys. But I stand by my comment about the personnel, logistical, and medical/veteranary increases. And a BFV never gave a Soldier lice or the mange.

Nor did a mule ever give a soldier lice or mange. There are very few parasites and diseases that mules and men share. On the other hand, many a female camp follower has given a soldier lice and similar parasites.

Yes, great expense is involved in airlifting supplies to the unit. But those are occasional expenses. With livestock the expense is constant.

No, airlift is not an occasional expense -- the people who fly and maintain the aircraft must be paid and fed. The vehicles and other equipment they use must be kept operational. And in most aviation organizations, the ratio of maintenace to flying hours means the bulk of the unit works all the time.

While I'm thinking on it, when the battalion is not deployed where are the animals housed and exercised? Do we replace the motorpool with a paddock?

You're imagining a total transition to mule power -- we would continue to operate aircraft and motor vehicles. A good example to study would be Merrill's Marauders during WWII. They were periodically resupplied by parachute drop. They picked up supplies at the drop zone, packed them on mules, and moved out rapidly -- since the Japanese would be attracted to the air activity.

Yes, we would pasture mules -- I recommend we convert all the golf courses in the Army to pasture.

Why take the mule on a patrol? Because you have to. Would you, as a Mech CO tell your troops that the tracks are merely there to get you into the AOR, after that it's back to shank's mare?

As a mech commander I often ran dismounted patrols. And when we took tracks we took them for firepower, not for logistical reasons.

Of course not. The track carries too much extra stuff - ammo, chow and water. The same stuff that you want the mule to carry. In essence, the mule replaces the track. But perhaps I was a bit loose in my terminology. Instead of patrol I should have used the word movement.

Now you're talking -- you would operate with the mules replacing the unit trains, and they would be no more exposed than the trains are today.

Helicopters would indeed compromise a units position. As would a large group of mules. In arid, dry environemnts (Like here) the cloud of dust the animals would kick up would be substantial. In temperate environments, the trail left by a unit with pack animals would be huge.

Mike

If the enemy were able to fly over your AO at a few thousand feet, he might well see trails (as he would if you were using motor vehicles) and dust. But for most operations, the enemy is limited to a worm's eye-view -- and helicopters are much easier to spot.

 

[Lebben-B]

As a golfer, that comment about post courses borders on sacrilige.

many a female camp follower has given a soldier lice and similar parasites

But wenching is an integral part of the Soldier's overseas experience.

No, airlift is not an occasional expense -- the people who fly and maintain the aircraft must be paid and fed. The vehicles and other equipment they use must be kept operational. And in most aviation organizations, the ratio of maintenace to flying hours means the bulk of the unit works all the time.

The expense for the airlift (and all it's second- and third- order expenses) is not borne by the client battalion, but by the flying unit. The expense of maintaining a herd of mules is borne squarely by the battalion.

If the enemy were able to fly over your AO at a few thousand feet, he might well see trails (as he would if you were using motor vehicles) and dust. But for most operations, the enemy is limited to a worm's eye-view -- and helicopters are much easier to spot.

Are we presuming complete air superiority here? Or fighting an adversary with little to no aviation capability? If so, I can agree with that statement. However, in a fight with an enemy that has a substantial aviation capability seeing that "40-mule train" would prove much easier.

You're imagining a total transition to mule power -- we would continue to operate aircraft and motor vehicles. A good example to study would be Merrill's Marauders during WWII. They were periodically resupplied by parachute drop. They picked up supplies at the drop zone, packed them on mules, and moved out rapidly

The above statement seems to contradict your argument somewhat. Earlier you stated that mules are better than helos because helos give positions away. (paraphrase) You also went on to argue how expensive it was to airlift supplies to a unit. Yet as an example you use a unit equipped with mules that was "...periodically supplied by parachute drop." If I accept your statement about the expense of using aircraft for re-supply as valid, how can I by the same token hold Merill's up as a good example when they were equipped with mules but needed supply by air anyway?

The unit that I used for my "testbed enhanced Muleborne" battalion was a light infantry battalion, since it's TOE is the easiest to expand. I thought I brought that up a few posts ago. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

Mike

 

[Gun Wielding Maniac]

What an interesting thread! Great reading. BTW, to the earlier poster who said that in Iraq, the M240B was always mounted... I'm here to tell you as a former M240B gunner that isnt the case. I didnt have to carry the tripod though. Only the M145, PVS-4, spare barrel, 600 rounds linked M80 ball, gas mask, Interceptor, kevlar, water... Ughh. I don't want to think about it anymore

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The expense for the airlift (and all it's second- and third- order expenses) is not borne by the client battalion, but by the flying unit. The expense of maintaining a herd of mules is borne squarely by the battalion.

The expense is borne by the force as a whole. Why do modern infantry companies have so few men? Because so many are needed in the support units.

Are we presuming complete air superiority here? Or fighting an adversary with little to no aviation capability? If so, I can agree with that statement. However, in a fight with an enemy that has a substantial aviation capability seeing that "40-mule train" would prove much easier.

Seeing a mule train is no easier than seeing a 40-truck convoy. Indeed, depending on the terrain, the mules may be almost invisable.

The above statement seems to contradict your argument somewhat. Earlier you stated that mules are better than helos because helos give positions away. (paraphrase) You also went on to argue how expensive it was to airlift supplies to a unit. Yet as an example you use a unit equipped with mules that was "...periodically supplied by parachute drop." If I accept your statement about the expense of using aircraft for re-supply as valid, how can I by the same token hold Merill's up as a good example when they were equipped with mules but needed supply by air anyway?

You need to study the campaigns.

First of all, a large scale airdrop is cheaper in terms of support resources than a daily small resupply.

Next, the tactical advantage of not being tied to aerial resupply on a daily basis was enormous (that's why Wingate refused to use paratroopers -- he needed the mules, and they had to march in.)

Finally, the mule trains allowed the units to carry things they would otherwise have not had (or would have had to abandon) when they made contact.

The unit that I used for my "testbed enhanced Muleborne" battalion was a light infantry battalion, since it's TOE is the easiest to expand. I thought I brought that up a few posts ago. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

Mike

I agree that a light infantry battalion is a good candidate.

 

[Tokugawa]

John George in "Shots fired in anger" considered the M-1 carbine the only firearm we had that was not grossly overwieght. Unfortunately it was also grossly underpowered, and from reports , unreliable to boot.

I could carry a grunts load for about 10 seconds before deciding, "screw it , just nuke the @#$%^S.

 

[Lebben-B]

Why do modern infantry companies have so few men? Because so many are needed in the support units.

So you would strip out the support units IOT provide the slots for your return to a WWII-era infantry company? Then who will work on those machines you rode into combat? Are you willing to have a much lower OR? Are you willing to give up the amount of CAS and other supporting arms you would normally receive? Are willing to put up with slower turn-around times for equipment turned in for repair/replacement?

If you were worth a chewed plug of tobacco as a commander, the answer to all those questions is "No." But that's what will happen when you play a zero-sum game with manning. I call it a zero-sum game because the services have mandated end strengths, you know this. At heart, your argument is based on wanting your cake and eating, it too. You want large companies of infantry with the same level of support (if not more) that you have currently. And as it always has, it boils down to how much tooth to how much tail.

Even if the Army decided to go back to 200+ man companies, it would have trouble filling them. As infantrymen, you and I both know it's a very hard life. There's no way to "church up" the infantry and make it sexy for the average teen-ager. Grunts don't fly aircraft, drive tanks, or fire cannons. The skill set a good grunt acquires has no correlation to civilian life, except for LEO and contractor. The infantry, as it always has, takes what it can get and does the best it can.

First of all, a large scale airdrop is cheaper in terms of support resources than a daily small resupply.

No, it's not. A large scale airdrop with multiple ships? Fixed wing aircraft need airfields to operate from. These airfields tend to be far away from the "front," if you will. This increases your fuel expenditure. The airfields also require constant upkeep, particularly the strip itself. Earlier you mentioned the cost of heliborne resupply as including support personnel. It takes more airmmen to keep a fixed wing aircraft in the air than it does Soldiers an army helo. Then there's the cost of the cargo chutes, pallets, and rigging that won't be coming back. You'll also need a suitable DZ to bring the loads in on, or do you plan on dropping it in the trees? You can expect to eat the cost of un-recoverable/damaged/destroyed supplies in either event. Earlier in this thread, the was a bit of a discussion on the lack of Airlift on the part of the USAF. Your "Muleborne" Battalion might be in desperate need of re-supply but the USAF might not have the air frames available. This points out another flaw in your MM example. The USAF wasn't an independant service in WWII. Today it is. In WWII the army told the airplanes where to go. Today, the USAF's answer is, "We'll think about it."

Helicopters on the other hand can operate in much more austere airfields/FAARPs, require fewer man hours for maintenance, and are much closer to the the unit being supported. Equipment used for sling loaded supplies are easily recovered and re-used, virtually all supplies are delivered intact and areas needed for LZ/PZ ops are much smaller than those required for cargo drops by fixed wing aircraft. Also the Army controls the aircraft, not an outside service. On the whole, helo resupply is much cheaper than fixed wing. And since the battalion is Muleborne, more supplies can be brought in at a time reducing the need for daily log birds.

The "cheapest" cargo A/C in the USAF is the C-130 and I based my estimation using this aircraft.


Mike

 

[JesseJames]

Man, all you old dogs make me feel like an effete baby.
I did two years in the Infantry, stationed at Fort Hood with the 1st Cavalry Division. Delta Co. 2nd Battalion 5th Cav. Regiment.
It's a heavy armored division now so it helped out the grunts a lot that we had our M2A2 Bradleys to fall back on and leave a lot of extra gear with. We'd strip down to the bare essentials when we went out on missions and leave the gear on the Brads. It's a great system. Saves a lot of wear and tear on the grunts. Also having that extra firepower to back you up was a very comforting thought.
Occassionally we'd re-visit the Cav of old and go do airmobile missions. That was a blast. I remember in Basic training when a Blackhawk roared low overhead and my DI said that someday we'd get to ride in one of those Infantry Cadillacs. He was right.
They tried to make me a Bradley driver but I flat refused. I wanted to stay on the ground. I'd drive every now and then to fill in for someone who had to go back to Post for whatever reason but that Bradley is an awful big target.
My sentiment was that I'd take my chances on the ground with a squad.
I don't see the Army Infantry changing much from what it is right now. It's practically all Mechanized Infantry now. The only new thing is the Stryker Brigade. Supposedly developed to expedite to hot spots faster than a heavy Division.
Looking back, I can't believe half the stuff I did as a grunt. You gotta be young and strong for that sh*t.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So you would strip out the support units IOT provide the slots for your return to a WWII-era infantry company? Then who will work on those machines you rode into combat? Are you willing to have a much lower OR? Are you willing to give up the amount of CAS and other supporting arms you would normally receive? Are willing to put up with slower turn-around times for equipment turned in for repair/replacement?

Who said "strip?" Did we "strip" the heavy forces to create light forces?

No. We tailored our force. Where we need heavy forces, we have heavy forces. Where we need light forces, we have light forces. And we have the flexibility to have anything in between.

If you were worth a chewed plug of tobacco as a commander, the answer to all those questions is "No."

So you would do away with all light forces, and convert the whole Army into heavy forces?

But that's what will happen when you play a zero-sum game with manning. I call it a zero-sum game because the services have mandated end strengths, you know this. At heart, your argument is based on wanting your cake and eating, it too. You want large companies of infantry with the same level of support (if not more) that you have currently. And as it always has, it boils down to how much tooth to how much tail.

No -- I haven't said a thing about end strength. I'm willing to increase end strength, but even if we can't, in some situations we get a net gain, both in manpower and combat power from using other means than the conventional.

Even if the Army decided to go back to 200+ man companies, it would have trouble filling them. As infantrymen, you and I both know it's a very hard life. There's no way to "church up" the infantry and make it sexy for the average teen-ager. Grunts don't fly aircraft, drive tanks, or fire cannons. The skill set a good grunt acquires has no correlation to civilian life, except for LEO and contractor. The infantry, as it always has, takes what it can get and does the best it can.

Yep. We do it for our own reasons.

But how does that tie into the discussion?

No, it's not. A large scale airdrop with multiple ships? Fixed wing aircraft need airfields to operate from. These airfields tend to be far away from the "front," if you will. This increases your fuel expenditure.

Nope. Remember how Wal Mart works -- it eliminates the middle man. Similarly, battalion-sized weekly air resupply is cheaper and more efficient than company-sized daily helicopter resupply.

Remember, all the support for the helicopters comes the same route!

The airfields also require constant upkeep, particularly the strip itself. Earlier you mentioned the cost of heliborne resupply as including support personnel. It takes more airmmen to keep a fixed wing aircraft in the air than it does Soldiers an army helo.

No. Helicopters have a 2 to 1 maintenance disadvantage over fixed wing.

Then there's the cost of the cargo chutes, pallets, and rigging that won't be coming back. You'll also need a suitable DZ to bring the loads in on, or do you plan on dropping it in the trees? You can expect to eat the cost of un-recoverable/damaged/destroyed supplies in either event. Earlier in this thread, the was a bit of a discussion on the lack of Airlift on the part of the USAF.

Much of that is eaten by the tail, not by the combat troops.

Your "Muleborne" Battalion might be in desperate need of re-supply but the USAF might not have the air frames available. This points out another flaw in your MM example. The USAF wasn't an independant service in WWII. Today it is. In WWII the army told the airplanes where to go. Today, the USAF's answer is, "We'll think about it."

Why do you assume that all resupply would be by air? Air drops would be an option for an entire battalion operating away from roads for an extended period. But mostly we'd operate the way we always have -- except that when a company marched out, it would have enough supplies, weapons and ammo to last a week or so.

Helicopters on the other hand can operate in much more austere airfields/FAARPs, require fewer man hours for maintenance,

Nope, by a factor of 2 to 1.

and are much closer to the the unit being supported.

How did the get closer? By having all sorts of equipment and supplies flown in by fixed wing. The helicopters are the middlemen in the logistics chain.

Equipment used for sling loaded supplies are easily recovered and re-used, virtually all supplies are delivered intact and areas needed for LZ/PZ ops are much smaller than those required for cargo drops by fixed wing aircraft. Also the Army controls the aircraft, not an outside service. On the whole, helo resupply is much cheaper than fixed wing. And since the battalion is Muleborne, more supplies can be brought in at a time reducing the need for daily log birds.

All this comes about because Merrill's Marauders (and the British Chindits) used air drops. They didn't have helicopters.

 

[Lebben-B]

Who said "strip?" Did we "strip" the heavy forces to create light forces?

With the current force manning and end strengths, in order to create the 11B/C slots in your new old companies, other MOS' would have to have their slots curtailed.

To create the first LID, that div (7th, IIRC) was "tailored" by stripping out most of it's vehicles and support personnel. Same with the 25th. The 10th MTN was the only LID to be "built" from the ground up. (I discounted the 6th Inf Div because it's force composition - it wasn't entirely light)

So you would do away with all light forces, and convert the whole Army into heavy forces?

Absolutely not. But I would give the Light BCT's more arse. As it stands right now, when a Light BCT comes here it must "fall-in" on additional vehicles in order to perform it's missions because it's TOE doesn't make allowance for them. Is it right to have an organization that's so austere that it has to be plussed up when it arrives in-country?

The comment about recruiting and infantrymen? The vast majority of a company are E1-E4. In order to populate this larger organization you'll need some additional E-5s and E-6s with one or two additional E-7s. What you'll need the most of are E1-E4s. Privates just don't appear out of thin air. Civilians must be recruited and turned into Soldiers. The infantry lifestyle won't appeal to the majority of them. With that in mind, where do you get the privates?

How can you say this in reference to the cost of air drops:

Much of that is eaten by the tail, not by the combat troops.

When earlier you said this in refuting my statement about who bears the cost of the airlift?:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebben-B
The expense for the airlift (and all it's second- and third- order expenses) is not borne by the client battalion, but by the flying unit. The expense of maintaining a herd of mules is borne squarely by the battalion.


The expense is borne by the force as a whole...

Mike
Mike

 

[Vern Humphrey]

With the current force manning and end strengths, in order to create the 11B/C slots in your new old companies, other MOS' would have to have their slots curtailed.

When did I say I was going to increase the number of 11B/Cs? I'd like to do that (and increase some other MOSs as well) but that's not germain to to te issue of using mules.

To create the first LID, that div (7th, IIRC) was "tailored" by stripping out most of it's vehicles and support personnel. Same with the 25th. The 10th MTN was the only LID to be "built" from the ground up. (I discounted the 6th Inf Div because it's force composition - it wasn't entirely light)

Which is to say, we wound up with a net increase in tooth to tail.

Absolutely not. But I would give the Light BCT's more arse. As it stands right now, when a Light BCT comes here it must "fall-in" on additional vehicles in order to perform it's missions because it's TOE doesn't make allowance for them. Is it right to have an organization that's so austere that it has to be plussed up when it arrives in-country?

Of course not -- but that's outside the scope of using mule trains when needed.

The comment about recruiting and infantrymen? The vast majority of a company are E1-E4. In order to populate this larger organization you'll need some additional E-5s and E-6s with one or two additional E-7s. What you'll need the most of are E1-E4s. Privates just don't appear out of thin air. Civilians must be recruited and turned into Soldiers. The infantry lifestyle won't appeal to the majority of them. With that in mind, where do you get the privates?

I haven't proposed increasing the force -- I'd like to, but that's another subject entirely.

How can you say this in reference to the cost of air drops:

When earlier you said this in refuting my statement about who bears the cost of the airlift?:

It's very simple -- the force in theater is a tailored force. If we make it heavily dependent on air resupply, we must get the assets from the total package. If we use a less costly method, we can use those assets for other purposes.

 

[KriegHund]

A Soldier's Load, and His Lack of Mobility

Is closely related to

A Soldier's Load, and His Lack of Survivability

and

A Soldier's Mobility, and His Lack of Survivability

 

[Lebben-B]

When did I say I was going to increase the number of 11B/Cs? I'd like to do that...

Earlier you you said:

We don't have enough infantry in the infantry

Back to mules:

When an M113 or BFV throws a track or a humvee blows a CV boot during a unit movement how is it handled?


Mike

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Earlier you you said:]

"There isn't enough Infantry in the Infantry." But that's not a proposal to change the end strength.

When an M113 or BFV throws a track or a humvee blows a CV boot during a unit movement how is it handled?

Normally by the crew or the unit -- there are times when you'd simply drag the vehicle to the MCP.

Now, when a mule throws a shoe, how is it handled? The mule skinner nails it back on or puts on a new one. Shoeing a mule is much easier than breaking and re-installing a track.

 

[Lebben-B]

Normally by the crew or the unit -- there are times when you'd simply drag the vehicle to the MCP.

So the vehicle is repaired and RTD'd. What's the turn around? (Edited to add: I realize that's kinda vague and repair time is based on what's actually TU on the vehicle.)

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So the vehicle is repaired and RTD'd. What's the turn around? (Edited to add: I realize that's kinda vague and repair time is based on what's actually TU on the vehicle.)

It depends on the situation -- where the vehicle is and how many people are available (particularly in the case of a thrown track.)

But I can nail on a horse (or mule) shoe much faster than I can change a tire.

 

[Lebben-B]

It depends on the situation -- where the vehicle is and how many people are available (particularly in the case of a thrown track.)

But I can nail on a horse (or mule) shoe much faster than I can change a tire.

Of that, I have no doubts. But when the mule breaks a leg, what then? That animal is lost for weeks, if not put down altogether and the unit is now less a transport.

Mike

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Of that, I have no doubts. But when the mule breaks a leg, what then? That animal is lost for weeks, if not put down altogether and the unit is now less a transport.

Mike

Mules are not unique subjects for combat loss. How often have you seen the burning hulk of a motor vehicle? That's lost, too.

 

[carebear]

[ducking in]I ran out of tires once on a CAX, well the whole Bn did, but I got the last one.

It's got to be easier to locate a local supply of horseshoes than HMMV or 5-ton tires.

I thought we still had a mule school in the Corps or Army, I seem to remember reading a Leatherneck article about it. But that could be 14 years ago.[/ducking out]