A Soldier's Load, and His Lack of Mobility

[Vern Humphrey]

On this, we agree. More specifically, the drivers will be pulled from the infantry platoon. With an effective strength of 25-30, to lose even one man has a big impact.

The dirt bikes mentioned by Jfruser got me to thinking about ATVs. The learning curve for the operator is shallow, meaning the vehicle can be assigned to the squad and any squad member can drive it if necessary. (It does not remove the need for operator classes though) They're small and easily portable into theater. Some of the larger ones can be rigged with a simple pintle mount for a SAW/M240.

I developed the training program for the Motorized Brigade at Fort Lewis in the mid-'80s. You may recall that the original idea was to use dune buggies. That failed for a couple of reasons -- one was that introducing a new vehicle to the inventory was more costly than using existing vehicles (like the HMMWV.) The second was that small vehicles don't pull their weight -- you need more vehicles behind them in support.

But it still comes down to an added POL/maintenance strain to the unit, which an ATV per squad would definitely do.

It wouldn't be any differnt from the dune buggies -- too much of a load for too little return.

I disagree with using mules for training and then using local animals once in theater. Going from mules to burros/donkeys/ponies might not be a big jump for our GI muleskinner, but going from mules to llamas, say, might be. Also the tack needed for an equine animal might not fit or be adaptable to other pack animals. If we're going to go with mules, then stay with mules.

Few people nowadays work with beasts of burden. It's difficult to explain that a horse is not a dog -- and not a mule, either. You have to know the breed, and the animal as well.

I'll point out that when we use dogs, we procure them in the states and train them there before deploying them overseas. If you have access to back copies of The Western Horseman, check the June, 2003 edition, "The Making of a Pack String." Very good article on the basics of choosing and training your pack animals.

 

[NMshooter]

You can airdrop mules, can't you?

Funny that there really does not seem to be anything better than the mule for very rugged terrain.

I suspect that the 120mm mortar would make a suitable replacement for the 75mm pack howitzer.

While mules might not work for the Army as a whole, the 10th ID should have some units training with them. Maybe horses too. Just enough folks to get stuff done in places like Afghanistan.

 

[spartacus2002]

You can airdrop mules, can't you?

Yeah, but the hard part is teaching them to keep their feet and knees together

 

[carebear]

How many points of contact would that be for the PLF?

Yeah, but the hard part is teaching them to keep their feet and knees together

 

[Vern Humphrey]

How many points of contact would that be for the PLF?

Do I have to point out that we're talking about an animal that is the fourth point of contact?

 

[Brian Williams]

I kinda think that the show Rat Patrol had it just about right.



'cept it don't work in jungle or thick swamp/woods

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I kinda think that the show Rat Patrol had it just about right.



'cept it don't work in jungle or thick swamp/woods

It didn't work all that well for the rat Rat Patrol, either. This is an example of the English raiding tradition which a member of parliament once called "Breaking windows with guineas." (Meaning, or course, that the cost of such operations was usually all out of proportion to the damage inflicted on the enemy.)

 

[Sam]

I have seen pictures of mules being airdropped. Nothing to hint as to the sucess.

We used jump dogs pretty frequently. They go on a drop line just like the ruck. Never seen or heard of one being hurt. Support for the dogs was a case of Gainesburgers, that being the approved field ration at the time. They aren't bad either after your 3rd consecutive can of green eggs and ham.

Sam

 

[Sam]

duplicate post deleted...Jeff

 

[roo_ster]

How many points of contact would that be for the PLF?

I'm glad keyboards are cheap...& mostly resistant to sputum.

It's difficult to explain that a horse is not a dog

Well, I'll be...no wonder my German Shorthaired Pointer seemed unimpresed by the bowl of oats I poured for him.

 

[Jeff White]

I think you guys are over estimating the number of mules needed. I don't think that carrying the sustainment load for all the soldiers on mules or other pack animals is a good option. I do see a need for pack animals to carry ammunition, particularly mortar and AT ammunition and water.

From Battles in the Moonsoon SLA Marshall copyright 1966 even the larger Infantry companies carried quite a load. This is what the 126 men (31 not present for duty due to malaria and other reasons) of B-2-8 carried on an operation conducted 16 May 1966:

Every man carried at least 20 magazines, or 400 bullets for his M16. There were 1000 rounds apiece for the six machine guns. All hands had a minimum of two, but most of them carried four handgrenades. There were two M79 grenade launchers per squad, with 50 rounds for each weapon. Also they carried food for six meals, in C rations. For the one 81mm mortar that was carried along there were 26 rounds.

With a small train of pack animals you could carry all three of the mortars and enough ammunition for them to be useful in a sustained fight, plus enough water, food and small arms ammunition to sustain the rest fo the company for a while.

The only way each squad would need pack animals is if you had unique problems, such as carrying all the equipment necessary to survive in the arctic. Don't know if mules would be the animal of choice in that enviroment, but I know pulling the old ahkio sled and 10 man tent and yukon stove took most of the squad.

Jeff

 

[NMshooter]

A few things from a quick scan of Small Wars Manual USMC 1940 (lot of good info in here):

Pack loads should not exceed 25% of animal weight, 100 lbs. should be considered an average load.

Local purchase is recommended unless suitable animals are not available.

If animals must be transported from the US, a period of recuperation may be required before they can be used for transport.

It may be necessary to bring in food for non local animals.

 

[roscoe]

According to Linda Robinson's "Masters of Chaos", a history of the Special Forces during the last 25 years, the SF used mule trains while in the Balkans.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

A few things from a quick scan of Small Wars Manual USMC 1940 (lot of good info in here):

Pack loads should not exceed 25% of animal weight, 100 lbs. should be considered an average load.

Local purchase is recommended unless suitable animals are not available.

If animals must be transported from the US, a period of recuperation may be required before they can be used for transport.

It may be necessary to bring in food for non local animals.

The small load is because small, local animals were being used. An Army mule carried 400 lbs. In those days, animals had to be "salted" -- exposed to local diseases from which they either died or recovered with some immunity. Nowadays we have vaccines.

There is also an unspoken point there -- the Marines did not want to import horses and mules lest the Army take interest and tell Congress that what was really needed was cavalry and take the war away from the Marines.
(John W. Thomason discusses that point at some length.)

 

[madmike]

+1 armoredman

In the dark ages, the chainmail was so heavy and uncomfortably weighing down on the shoulders that typical patrols could only ride for a few hours before they had to rest.

That's largely myth. The Tower of London has a video that shows a gymnast wearing the typical helm and coat of plates of the 14th century and turning cartwheels and handsprings.

I have a thigh-length mail hauberk here. It weighs 35 lbs, and I'm 6' and 42" chest, on the large size for the middle ages.

The USMC did a study a few years back that 70lbs was a good compromise load--heavy enough to carry some essentials, light enough not to cause injury, and that it is DESIREABLE to try to orchestrate a load of that weight. That doesn't mean they succeeded.

The Roman legionnaires carried sizeable loads but had mule wagons as well.

My father in law said he carried the radio, bloop tube, water and spare socks and generally left everything else at the firebase.

 

[madmike]

I think we should design fighting units to fight, not to be convenient to the Air Force.

Well, speaking as an airfield engineer, that's a stupid statement. No offense meant. (EDIT: Let me add that I'm paying close attention to your expertise on the infantry mission. You clearly do know a lot about that and I'm taking notes.)

That aircraft requires crew, maintenance, a logistics train of engines, fuel, avionics and other support. The heavier load it carries, the more runway it needs. That means I need more excavators, dozers and graders to build/repair damage to said runway. That means said aircraft lands heavier, and damages said runway faster. That means the enemy can STOP the flow of gear to your Army with a few well-placed mortar rounds, until I go out and do spall repair, where a smaller craft can use a shorter section of the runway, or the taxiway in an emergency.

That means I need a C5 or C17 PER TANK you want delivered (theoretically 3 in a C5...but there are risks). Build a bigger tank, I need a bigger aircraft and more of said logistics.

Now, if I need more engineers and maintainers, I also need more support equipment and personnel...which means more work for the engineers doing force beddown...which means more aircraft coming in and more fuel...

Yup, that means the AF has EXACTLY the same problem the Army does, only on a larger scale.

_MY_ basic combat load is 800 lbs and has to be transported on a pallet. That doesn't include shop equipment. That's my body armor, weapon, LBV, helmet, radio, MOPP gear, electrically insulated gloves, steel toed and shanked boots, climbing harness, several boxes of tools, measuring equipment, food, water and more tools.

Some of those convoys through IED laden parts of Iraq are driven by Air Force personnel hauling JET FUEL. Want that tasty job?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Well, speaking as an airfield engineer, that's a stupid statement. No offense meant. (EDIT: Let me add that I'm paying close attention to your expertise on the infantry mission. You clearly do know a lot about that and I'm taking notes.)

That aircraft requires crew, maintenance, a logistics train of engines, fuel, avionics and other support. The heavier load it carries, the more runway it needs. That means I need more excavators, dozers and graders to build/repair damage to said runway. That means said aircraft lands heavier, and damages said runway faster. That means the enemy can STOP the flow of gear to your Army with a few well-placed mortar rounds, until I go out and do spall repair, where a smaller craft can use a shorter section of the runway, or the taxiway in an emergency.

That means I need a C5 or C17 PER TANK you want delivered (theoretically 3 in a C5...but there are risks). Build a bigger tank, I need a bigger aircraft and more of said logistics.

Now, if I need more engineers and maintainers, I also need more support equipment and personnel...which means more work for the engineers doing force beddown...which means more aircraft coming in and more fuel...

Yup, that means the AF has EXACTLY the same problem the Army does, only on a larger scale.

_MY_ basic combat load is 800 lbs and has to be transported on a pallet. That doesn't include shop equipment. That's my body armor, weapon, LBV, helmet, radio, MOPP gear, electrically insulated gloves, steel toed and shanked boots, climbing harness, several boxes of tools, measuring equipment, food, water and more tools.

Some of those convoys through IED laden parts of Iraq are driven by Air Force personnel hauling JET FUEL. Want that tasty job?

My point is, if you're going to fly troops into battle half-way around the world, you should fly them to victory, not to defeat. And that, in turn means desiging their equipment for fighting, not for carrying.

Again, no offense meant, but the Air Force has given the Army short shrift in the past -- as in designing fighters under "not a pound for the ground" philosophy.

 

[madmike]

I can't envision a 10 foot UAV that could handle the weight and cube of a platoon resupply. 7.62x51 linked weighs about 8 lbs per 100 rounds. Water is 8 lbs per gallon. 5.56x45 weighs 1.35 pounds per loaded 30 round magazine. Say you're bringing your platoon 1500 rounds of 7.62x51 linked that's 120 pounds. Say 15 gallons of water (three 5 gallon plastic water cans) that's another 120 pounds. A new basic load of 5.56x45, just for purposes of our example, lets say 35 men times 210 rounds, that's 7350 rounds of 5.56x45 weighing in at approx. 330.75 pounds. You're up to 570.75 pounds just for ammunition and water. Figure in MREs, medical supplies, batteries and all the other little nitnoid things a platoon needs and you are looking at a vehicle much larger then a 10 foot long UAV. Jeff

And a 10 foot UAV can carry fuel for about 10 minutes. I'm researching that for a story right now.

So the launch and recovery point is at most 20 miles away, assuming a straight line approach, container drop and return.

Otherwise you're wasting a $10,000 vehicle to make a single logistical run. Not something you want to do casually.

Then there's the risk of small arms fire, jamming (if RP), terrain and weather issues...

 

[madmike]

My point is, if you're going to fly troops into battle half-way around the world, you should fly them to victory, not to defeat. And that, in turn means desiging their equipment for fighting, not for carrying.

Again, no offense meant, but the Air Force has given the Army short shrift in the past -- as in designing fighters under "not a pound for the ground" philosophy.

Oh, I agree on that. Fricking fighter jockeys regard cargo pilots as trashhaulers, and CAS pilots as not real men, even though the CAS guys take more fire. But they aren't doing mach 2 at the time. It's a Freudian thing. The fighter pilot mafia who runs the AF won't seriously consider any mission except air superiority.

Um...over WHO at this point? Is there ANYONE who can challenge us in that venue who isn't a close ally?

But 170K lbs is about the max you can stick in any currently extant airframe. That's a tank. The C5 can theoretically do 2, 3 in an emergency, but there are reasons not to. And the C17 still needs 50% more runway than anything else we take to the field.

BTW, I've also been Army and am swearing back in next week for OCS. I'm sure I'll be LOVED for my years of cynicism.

And yet the A10 can loiter for up to 4 hours to provide that personal, loving touch...and the AF wants to get rid of it.

 

[madmike]

When you are outnumbered and surrounded by your own bureaucrats you have to outsmart them; after all, you are not allowed to shoot them.

Damn!

Now I have to draw up an entirely different opplan.

 

[NMshooter]

So, Mike, what do you think of mules and the other alternatives we have been discussing?

400lbs. gives quite a bit of capacity. Guess that equals roughly 1600lbs. of mule. Maybe 8-10 per 130, can not forget handlers, tack, equipment, etc.

Is two M-1A1 tanks per C-5B a bit ambitious? Not sure if I would be willing to sign off on that load, much less ride in that aircraft, but I will trust your judgement...

I have always wondered about the follow on aircraft for the 130. There is none. Matter of fact, there do not seem to be any large scale plans to purchase more 130s.

 

[madmike]

So, Mike, what do you think of mules and the other alternatives we have been discussing?

400lbs. gives quite a bit of capacity. Guess that equals roughly 1600lbs. of mule. Maybe 8-10 per 130, can not forget handlers, tack, equipment, etc.

Is two M-1A1 tanks per C-5B a bit ambitious? Not sure if I would be willing to sign off on that load, much less ride in that aircraft, but I will trust your judgement...

I have always wondered about the follow on aircraft for the 130. There is none. Matter of fact, there do not seem to be any large scale plans to purchase more 130s.

C5 is rated at 260K pounds, IIRC. 2 Abrams is 240K pounds.

There's allegedly a stretch Herky in the works, with 25% better capacity. Lockheed designs are always decades ahead anyway.

Farrier needs a supply of coal (or a small propane forge), any steel will work in a pinch, but also an anvil and a set of tools at at least 200 lbs based on my experience as a bladesmith. While animals have certain advantages, they were replaced by vehicles for a reason. Though that's not always axiomatic--bows were superior tactically to muskets for 600 years, but the musket displaced it almost at once despite that.

My current SF stories, I have the military using trained leopards for detection and patrol.

 

[NMshooter]

Well, from what Sam mentioned the C-130J is wonderful, but we are not buying them.

So if animals are out what kind of vehicles?

 

[madmike]

Well, from what Sam mentioned the C-130J is wonderful, but we are not buying them.

So if animals are out what kind of vehicles?

Not really my area, but tracks for certain, and lots of mounts for machine guns. An organic weapon mount is good. Payload capacity essential. Diesel, not turbine.

What about an M113? It can do all that and is very reliable.

Oh, right. It doesn't come with a fancy new contract and huge pork projects for Congress.

http://planenews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2564 C130J, now in delivery to USAF.

 

[NMshooter]

Well, I hope they are purchasing more than a few 130Js.

I do not think there was any question of vehicles in general, but for the specific mission of supporting light infantry units, especially in rough terrain, such as Afghanistan.

Personally I really like the original LAV-25, very fast, very manuverable, and very reliable. I got to drive one, and some local National Guard folks tried their best to kill a couple and failed. But with time and a whole lot of money I suppose the Stryker will eventually become a good vehicle for troop transport. We are still stuck with trucks for supplies and troops in non-combat situations.