Marines Delay Female Fitness Plan After Half Fail

[happyslug]

87. The Army eliminated its last mules in 1956

Mules were liked for they could carry 400 pounds of supply and go any where a man can walk (i.e. it is only when men have to climb mountains that mules no longer followed armies). During WWII, the US Army used mules extensively in Italy, but these were Italian mules with Italian mule handlers (most had been trained by the Italian Army prior to WWII, and when Italy surrendered in 1943, defected to the Allied side).

In France, as the Allied force drove from the beachheads, it was hedgerow and hedgerow, once a hedgerow was taken additional ammunition could be brought in by truck, through some units found loose stock animals (that is what they claimed anyway) and used them to the same purpose. In may Father's unit the 81mm Section had mounted their 81mm mortars in some donkeys they had found,

The only place the US sent actual mules was Burma, for the simple reason British India did not have any. These mules were used to support General Sims Burma offensive. The troops were re supplied by the Air and Truck, but from the re supply point to the actual combat position, the supplies were hauled by mules. When a mules died, its cargo was divided among the men it was supporting.

Thus the US did not have to ship to many mules to Europe, till after WWII as part of the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe, then we shipped a LOT, more to replace the mules the Allies and the Axis powers had taken. Mules were so popular even after the war the when Mules were captured during the Korean War, units would NO turn them over to the General High Command, as they were ordered to do, but retained em for their own use. Trucks hauled those Mules to a lot of places in Korea (and had done the same in Italy and Burma).

After the mid 1950s the US decided that the US would abandoned the mule. There was opposition to this, but it was ignored. In 1956 the last 100 mule unit was replaced by a 10 helicopter unit and the Army said the Helicopter could haul more even to location mules could NOT reach at the cost of 2 million for each copter ($20 million for the 10 helicopters, PLUS about 10 million each year to keep them operating, as opposed to the 100 mules going for $4000 each, or $400,000 and good for 10-15 years.

The down side to getting away from mules was that, while the Helicopters could hall more supplies, they would drop off the supplies and go back to base. The Mules would have been with the unit the whole day. Some Commanders demanded Mules in Vietnam, for this reason, but they were over ruled.

The US Army plan to replace the mules, not only included Helicopters by the Adoption of the ALICE pack. During WWII, most soldiers went into combat with nothing more then a blanket role. A Shelter half (half of a tent), pegs and poles for the ten and two blankets. The infantry were trained to roll the two wool blankets inside the shelter half and that was how their slept at night. Next money they woke up, and depending on the expectations of Combat, either left their packs where they slept, of took them with them in a role from the left shoulder and tied to their right side (this left the right shoulder open to support the firing of their rifles). It appears the same blanket rolls were used in Korea (Through in the Winter of 1944-1945 the Troops were issued sleeping bags, and again during Korea's winter).

Now, much of the other equipment was carried on the truck that supported the platoon or Company and what ever other piece of transportation the solders were able to find and use.

AS I said above during the mobile parts of WWII and Korea the decision NOT to bring mules seems to be proven. The problem was when quick movement was NO longer possible and the US forces needed to protect their flanks away from the roads (One British Commander on seeing the US retreat after the Chinese intervention made the comment the US Army had forgotten how to fight away from roads and that is why the US was driven out of North Korea by the Chinese).

Thus by the mid 1950s it was clear the US needed to re-learn how to fight away from roads, the US Solution was Helicopters. The problem was how to survive from one Air drop to the next? THe Answer was they would divide up the ammunition required among each soldiers AND would issue each soldier an "ALICE" pack to carry those items, in additional to what the soldier needed, i.e. his shelter half and sleeping bag.

What was the soldier to carry in his ALICE pack AND on his person? His rifle, ammunition for his rifle, a spade, a Canteen, Chemical Warfare mask and a First Aid Kid. In his pack went his shelter half and his sleeping bag (The Sleeping bag was NOT issued in VIetnam, was not needed), went weather gear, Chemical Warfare uniform (Not issued in Vietnam and not issued in Iraq or Afghanistan) AND 1 BOX of 7.62mm Ammunition for the Companies machine guns, three rounds of 60mm Mortar Rounds for the Companies 60 mm Mortars, one 81 mm Mortar for the Battalion 81mm Mortar and a 50 caliber ammunition for the Battalions 50 caliber Machine gun. This would be needed if they went into combat. Notice no food, that was to come via the Helicopters OR trucks but when the unit was NOT in combat.

This tendency to have the troops haul what mules use to do pre 1956 is the primary reason the combat load to is so heavy.

Now, In Iraq and Afghanistan, they has been a rush to body armor that increases the weight a soldier has to carry. Our Soldiers are convinced this has saved lives, but that is ignoring the effect the armor has on performance i.e. it saved someone's life who if he did not have the armor would have MOVED faster through the danger zone. The high rates of wounded compared to dead seems to support the concept that the armor saved lives, but the bigger saver may be the new blood clotting material that makes would clot much faster the they did in previous wars. Deaths do to lost of blood is way down, and that is attributed to the clotting agents not the increase use of Armor. Thus, except for the helmet which has a solid record of saving lives, get rid of the Armor and see almost no change in combat losses. The armor is an additional 20-30 pounds. A good Argument can be made for the Body Armor, but I can also make a good argument to get rid of it for it is NOT as effective as saving lives as people think.

The electronic equipment is another area the troops should be stripped of. Platoons and Companies have Headquarters and anything electronics should be at that level only. Phones can be useful but they should be installed by the Headquarters NOT the squads.
"


What should an infantry man have on? The Following

1 Helmet
1 Protective mask
1 Rifle
1 Ammunition 300 round max (10 3 round magazine)'
1 spade, to dig improve combat positions
1 First aid Kit with tourniquet
1 Canteen


That is it. No body armor, to much weight, No night vision goggles, to much weight, no radio, to much weight. Now these should be available as needed, but keep at platoon or company level to be issued only as needed. 63 pounds is just to much for anyone to carry around. If you want infantrymen to carry such equipment, equip them with a mule or a bicycle to carry the excess weight.

Here is a story of one horse used like a Mule in Korea:
http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/video/sgt-reckless-korean-war-horse-hero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_Reckless

Even today, some people advocate bring back the Mule. The last open talk was at the end of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, they the US shipped mules to Pakistan so the Opposition to the then Communist Government of Afghanistan could sneak in man portable Ground to Air Missiles. At least on Congressman thought it was the US army buying mules, it turned out it was CIA. These mules seems to have stayed in Afghanistan to support the war against the Soviet backed Afghan government, till that Government collapsed.