# CF Looking at Donkeys as Load Carriers in AFG



## The Bread Guy (13 Dec 2008)

Luckily, someone's already done a pam on this - also, I *love* the title of the SME on this (highlighted in red) - shared with the usual disclaimer.

*Canadian military looking to donkeys to help carry the load during summer*
Canadian Press, 12 Dec 08
Article link

The Canadian Forces already have tanks, armoured vehicles and helicopters at their command in their battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are about to add one more item to their arsenal - the donkey, perhaps the humblest of the beasts of burden.

Yes the donkey corps, for lack of a better name, is in the plans for next summer.

Even those involved in the project see the humour of going back to basics in an era of high-tech weaponry.

"You can't have a project like this that you don't laugh at a bit, but it has the potential to be very successful and, like a lot of things we do, we're adding another arrow to the quiver," said Capt. Chris Quinlan.

The terrain is one of the major challenges facing Canadian and coalition troops in Afghanistan. There are mountains, irrigation canals, grape fields, mud walls around compounds, and wadis - a dry riverbed that contains water only during times of heavy rain.

Roadways can be limited and narrow, meaning the Taliban can easily place improvised explosive devices that can prove deadly to vehicles carrying Canadian and Afghan soldiers.

The other problem is the heat during the summer months. The temperature can hit the 50s, even 60s.

"Last summer we were up to 55 degrees Celsius, so you're looking well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit," said *Maj. Charles Janzen, the self-proclaimed "Ass-Master" spearheading the donkey brigade idea.*

"And when you think of the average soldier - whether he's Afghan or Canadian Forces - when you start putting on all your battle armour and you've got bullets and grenades plus small packs, you're carrying anywhere from 100 to 200 additional pounds of gear."

And then there's water.

"In the heat of the summer and you're in combat: you're sweating bullets, you need a lot of moisture to sustain yourself. You need water," he said.

That's one use for the donkey.

"They can survive with very little water. They carry a significant amount of weight: an average donkey can carry over 350 pounds (nearly 160 kilograms)," Janzen said.

Janzen said the program will involve the purchase of up to 30 specially trained donkeys.

"In essence they'll be able to use pack animals to deliver critical supplies like water and ammo in places where you can't easily get to by any mechanized or aviation means," Janzen said.

Many countries like the United States and Britain already use pack animals to support special operations in the mountains. Using donkeys would also cut down on using tanks to breach walls to reach soldiers needing resupply, which has been a source of anger for many Afghan farmers.

A unit of Afghan soldiers, along with Canadian mentors will be in charge of deploying the donkeys next year.

Canadian troops have used donkeys before, but not since northern Sicily in the Second World War.

The Americans studied the use of camels, dogs and mules - but the donkey came out on top of the ratings. "And what's important is when something happens, most animals will bolt but a donkey will run for 200 or 300 metres and then stop," Janzen said.

"We're going back and learning the lessons we learned in the Second World War in northern Sicily and saying: 'You know what? Things really haven't changed all that much. We need to bring those back and put them to use today'."

Quinlan agrees the idea is nothing new, and that Afghanistan is not the only place where it's been the right solution.

For special forces soldiers who are working with local forces all over the world, how to work with pack animals has been part of their training for more than 50 years, he added.

"This gives us the option to support troops who are going in dismounted (on foot) as well," Quinlan explained.

"They allow us to cross this ground without having to knock down walls and to send the troops in to do the patrolling and the operations they need to do with the supplies they need," he said.

"Because a man cannot carry the water and ammunition needed to operate here during the summer."


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Dec 2008)

Finally... I've used them before during exercises in Oman. They're a great asset, but definitely have their drawbacks.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Dec 2008)

Can it be long before the LdSH deploys their mounted troop......thereby vindicating Field Marshal Haig.  >


----------



## GDawg (13 Dec 2008)

Been there, tried that. It didn't work out so well, but I suppose if people who actually know how to handle and care for donkeys are involved it will go a lot better than it did for us.


----------



## PhilB (13 Dec 2008)

We used donkeys, or as we called them the "battle ass"  > , on 1-08. Some donkey's were ok, others werent. It helped that one of our NCO's has been down to the states to do a course with the USMC where they dealt with mules/donkeys.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Dec 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> It helped that one of our NCO's has been down to the states to do a course with the USMC where they dealt with mules/donkeys.


In a way, haven't we _*ALL*_ been on courses like that - dealing with some sort of mules/donkeys?   ;D


----------



## Haggis (13 Dec 2008)

... and so begins another pun filled thread.

P.S.  don't Google "Ass Master" with your kids around.


----------



## Old Sweat (13 Dec 2008)

I checked my handy-dandy Field Service Pocket Book 1914. On page 134 it details the loads for pack transport as: Mules and ponies, 160 lbs; Pack-horses, 200 lbs; Camels, 320 to 400 lbs; Bullocks, 200 lbs; Men, 50 lbs; and Donkeys, 100 lbs. These figures are probably for prolonged use in moves and perhaps not tactically, where it may be possible to overload an animal.

A difficulty with animal transport is the man power bill to lead, feed and generally tend the beasts, say a 'driver' for every one or two beasts. A portion of the available load would be taken up carrying fodder for them. However in the situations described in the story this might not be that large a problem as Afghans are being hired along with the animals and there might be enough grass, etc available to enable them to graze. There would, however, still be a requirement to provide for the security of the animal train.

It seems like a workable solution if going out into the boondocks to deny the enemy safe havens in the hinterland. Certainly the column might not be as road bound as vehicle convoys.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Dec 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I checked my handy-dandy Field Service Pocket Book 1914. On page 134 it details the loads for pack transport as: Mules and ponies, 160 lbs; Pack-horses, 200 lbs; Camels, 320 to 400 lbs; Bullocks, 200 lbs; Men, 50 lbs; and *Donkeys, 100 lbs*. These figures are probably for prolonged use in moves and perhaps not tactically, where it may be possible to overload an animal.



(_I will barely refrain from asking if the book was issued to you in an as-new condition._)  It would appear that the load bearing rate for donkeys was routinely exceeded as illustrated in these scenes from Gallipoli.  Despite almost assuredly having endured some weight loss, most men serving would have tipped the scales well above 100 lbs.














And then I am reminded of this old "tail" about the military use of donkeys.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Dec 2008)

As I mentioned, I suspect the 100 lbs figure is for planning for long term usage. Certainly, just as a soldier can carry more than the planning figure of 50 lbs per man, there are probably problems with injury and fatigue if the load is too heavy for too long a period. I know I have carried loads of much more than 50 lbs for what seemed like very long distances at the time with no long term effects. 

As a demonstration of the wear and tear on animals in action, cavalry horses in the Boer War carried a load of about 280 lbs once the rider, his weapons, ammunition and tack, rations for the animal and man, spare horseshoes, etc were totalled. The practice in well run units was for the riders to dismount and lead the animals whenever possible. Even with good horse management, the casualty rate among horses was much higher than among riders, not least because they were a bigger target. However the vast majority of the 335,000 horse casualties in the war were not battle related.


----------



## ironduke57 (14 Dec 2008)

Maybe not such an good I idea. Someone could think that that could be an cheap alternativ to expensive new tanks:

SCNR,
ironduke57 ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Dec 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> *I checked my handy-dandy Field Service Pocket Book 1914. * On page 134 it details the loads for pack transport as: Mules and ponies, 160 lbs; Pack-horses, 200 lbs; Camels, 320 to 400 lbs; Bullocks, 200 lbs; Men, 50 lbs; and Donkeys, 100 lbs. These figures are probably for prolonged use in moves and perhaps not tactically, where it may be possible to overload an animal.
> 
> A difficulty with animal transport is the man power bill to lead, feed and generally tend the beasts, say a 'driver' for every one or two beasts. A portion of the available load would be taken up carrying fodder for them. However in the situations described in the story this might not be that large a problem as Afghans are being hired along with the animals and there might be enough grass, etc available to enable them to graze. There would, however, still be a requirement to provide for the security of the animal train.
> 
> It seems like a workable solution if going out into the boondocks to deny the enemy safe havens in the hinterland. Certainly the column might not be as road bound as vehicle convoys.



Wow dating yourself again Old Sweat  ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Dec 2008)

_Smokin' my pipe on the mountings, sniffin' the mornin' cool,
I walks in my old brown gaiters along o' my old brown mule,
With seventy gunners be'ind me, an' never a beggar forgets
It's only the pick of the Army
         that handles the dear little pets -- 'Tss! 'Tss!_ 


link


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Dec 2008)

One should remember that old age and treachery will always triumph over youth and skill!


----------



## IntlBr (14 Dec 2008)

I love this, as it reminds me of a story my father told me from his days in the militia as a young gunner of 16 shortly after the Second World War.  I suppose militia training hadn't really been updated in some years, and they had recently transitioned to gun tractors as the standard method of drawing the guns.  After some confusion about what to do with the now extra gun number in the crew, the officer staff put the question to higher - what do we do with the extra gun number?  

After reaching its way to some presumably crusty and disconnected staff officer, the answer came back:  "_Well he holds the bloody traces!_" - that would be the traces of the horses which were no longer used to tow the guns, ha!

Knowing my dad there is likely a bit of embellishment to this anecdote (which I really genuinely love), but it just goes to show you (along with this thread) that some things will never change.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Dec 2008)

keep them away from Highlanders....


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Dec 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> keep them away from Highlanders....



They are going to use donkeys....not sheep!! ;D

The SAS used donkeys on an op, but whoever bought the donkeys went to the lowest bidder....the Somali donkey. Didn't work out too well. 

Beware of where you buy your donkeys..... ;D


----------



## Haggis (14 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> They are going to use donkeys....not sheep!! ;D
> 
> The SAS used donkeys on an op, but whoever bought the donkeys went to the lowest bidder....the Somali donkey. Didn't work out too well.
> 
> Beware of where you buy your donkeys..... ;D



Don't worry, OldSoldur.  Our donkeys will be purchased, following a thorough, fair and competetive bidding process..., from Quebec.  Only VanDoos will be able to "operate" them.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Dec 2008)

Sheep-Nog said:
			
		

> Don't worry, OldSoldur.  Our donkeys will be purchased, following a thorough, fair and competetive bidding process..., from Quebec.  Only VanDoos will be able to "operate" them.



And as Old Sweat will testify, the majority of "horse casualties" in the Boer War were due to their transport overseas; the transport by sea itself, and then the digestive problems and other ailments and illnesses that they got on arrival in South Africa.  Most of Canada's remounts then had to be purchases locally.

Does this mean that we have to reactivate the Royal Canadian Veterinary Corps?


----------



## PhilB (14 Dec 2008)

This is what we used our donkeys for. One thing we learned was that it was much easier to control and use female donkeys.


----------



## Haggis (14 Dec 2008)

And that's not a Highlander next to the donkey.  it's clear to see she's just not tha interested in him.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Dec 2008)

I can just see the PERs with all the possible ass connotations.


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Dec 2008)

Sheep-Nog said:
			
		

> And that's not a Highlander next to the donkey.



So that's not a toorie on his kevlar bonnet?    ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Dec 2008)

Never mind the toorie.  It's well seen that he's no' properly equipped for the job.  No wellington boots.


----------



## tech2002 (14 Dec 2008)

man best friend... !!! ;D


----------



## ArmyRick (14 Dec 2008)

Um. I...ar...where do i go with this one? Maybe the LdSH riding troops will have a practical function now?


----------



## Garett (14 Dec 2008)

I can hear the cries coming from PETA already.....


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Dec 2008)

PETA can kiss our ass.     ;D


----------



## GAP (14 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> PETA can kiss our ass.     ;D



Wearing wellingtons?


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Dec 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> PETA can kiss our ***.     ;D



They wouldn't do that, it's MEAT!   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (15 Dec 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> They wouldn't do that, it's MEAT!   ;D



It depends on which asses we are talking about.  I am sure that a member of PETA wouldn't have any problem swapping spit with a donkey.  They may have more problems with a hairy butt supporting clingons.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Dec 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It depends on which asses we are talking about.  I am sure that a member of PETA wouldn't have any problem swapping spit with a donkey.  They may have more problems with a *hairy butt supporting clingons*.


----------



## 211RadOp (15 Dec 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> One should remember that old age and treachery will always triumph over youth and skill!



And anyone who knows Old Sweat will know he can be treacherous!!


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Dec 2008)

Rad Op 211,

I do apologize for dropping you on your head when you were a toddler. Well, for the second time I dropped you anyway, after I realized the first time didn't take.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2008)

Those of us who know Charles are laughing hard.

However, putting on my NDHQ hat, who will be responsible for this on a national level?  Obviously Chief of Military Personnel and ADM(HR-Civ) can't take it on; the surgeon general is for humans; CANOSCOM doesn't have any veterinarians... so obviously we'll have to stand up Canadian Donkey Command (or CAN-DO Com).  Another three star to command it; new bases and quarters; new badges and decorations... why, this could add many more years in Ottawa for poor staff officers scheduled to be posted out after 15 years in the NCR...


----------



## GAP (15 Dec 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Those of us who know Charles are laughing hard.
> 
> However, putting on my NDHQ hat, who will be responsible for this on a national level?  Obviously Chief of Military Personnel and ADM(HR-Civ) can't take it on; the surgeon general is for humans; CANOSCOM doesn't have any veterinarians... so obviously we'll have to stand up Canadian Donkey Command (or CAN-DO Com).  Another three star to command it; new bases and quarters; new badges and decorations... why, this could add many more years in Ottawa for poor staff officers scheduled to be posted out after 15 years in the NCR...



The ASS Brigade?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Dec 2008)

I think CANDON.COM would be better falling under CANCEF.COM........................Some how this is starting to sound like a Trojan commercial.


----------



## geo (15 Dec 2008)

Sheep-Nog said:
			
		

> Don't worry, OldSoldur.  Our donkeys will be purchased, following a thorough, fair and competetive bidding process..., from Quebec.  Only VanDoos will be able to "operate" them.



Nope, no donkeys over here... but there are Goats, really big goats :baah:


----------



## Cleared Hot (15 Dec 2008)

This new take on an old idea first raised its head on 1-08.  Then, the OMLT would be the ones responsible for the donkeys as they interfaced with the ANA who would ultimately watch over them.  No one had more fun with it than the OMLT clerks who were getting ready to do up pers files on the donkeys complete with names, service numbers and pictures - quite elaborate really.  Unfortunately their tour ended before any donkey showed up.  The conspiracy theorist in me is willing to bet there would have been SISIP Insurance policies with the Clerks as beneficiaries - maybe even pay, those girls may have seemed innocent but boy, could they be devious!


----------



## geo (15 Dec 2008)

Ummmm... I shuder at the thought of putting a donkey through the recruiting process.....
Their medicals would take forever & dread the look of the successful candidates. :shudder:


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Dec 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> However, putting on my NDHQ hat, who will be responsible for this on a national level?  Obviously Chief of Military Personnel and ADM(HR-Civ) can't take it on; the surgeon general is for humans; CANOSCOM doesn't have any veterinarians... so obviously we'll have to stand up Canadian Donkey Command (or CAN-DO Com).  Another three star to command it; new bases and quarters; new badges and decorations... why, this could add many more years in Ottawa for poor staff officers scheduled to be posted out after 15 years in the NCR...



Obviously, it's time to recreate the Veterinary Corps.  



> "Certainly, in no other period of the world's history, has so much been undertaken and performs, have such multitude of new and strange ideas, innovations and methods of defence and offence, crowded the old order from the sphere of man's endeavour in so remarkably a short space of time."


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> The *** Brigade?



No, they're already in Valcartier.


(I kid, I kid...)


----------



## Haggis (15 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Nope, no donkeys over here... but there are Goats, really big goats :baah:



"Training donkeys"?  Just like the AVGP Cougar was a "training tank".


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2008)

I suppose it should also be noted that the lead proponent is an EME officer.  I guess he figures being a blacksmith will be easier.


----------



## hugh19 (15 Dec 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Wearing wellingtons?



Yes you put thier hind legs in the wellies so the animal cannot run away.  Notice the kilt in my pic hehehehehehehehe


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Dec 2008)

Canadian Forces Pack Animal Command (CFPANCOM)....


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Dec 2008)

Can I be the first Donkey Sergeant Major? ;D


----------



## Haggis (15 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Can I be the first Donkey Sergeant Major? ;D



"DSM"...  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Dec 2008)

US Army mortar team and German mountain troops using mules....


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Dec 2008)

Oops. Here's Uncle Sam's finest...


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Dec 2008)

Never look a gift donkey in the mouth.

Given that we have only a few people that know anything about donkeys, is this feasible?


----------



## ironduke57 (16 Dec 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Oops. Here's Uncle Sam's finest...


I seriously doubt that. Looking at the G36 or... the German Flag on the Uniform. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Dec 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Never look a gift donkey in the mouth.
> 
> Given that we have only a few people that know anything about donkeys, is this feasible?



The quote in the original article seems to indicate the "Ass Master' seems to think so.   ;D

There may be some in-country experience with ITA troops:
http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/news/2008/03-march/080317a.html

Not to mention some of the same puns spiraling into a bashing of Sam Hughes from a while back here (any of the engineers who handled this donkey still in the system?):
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/72609.0;all

IN a related vein, it appears we're not the only ones seeking equine load bearing advice - from another forum this past summer:
http://www.militaryhorse.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9066&start=0


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Dec 2008)

I beleive the USMC uses mules? Why can't we?


----------



## PhilB (16 Dec 2008)

we can and do. We used them quite often in panjwaii west on 1-08


----------



## geo (16 Dec 2008)

... musta been bought on an LPO ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Dec 2008)

Will the ass qualification be stamped on your 404s or placed in the UER?


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Dec 2008)

PhilB said:
			
		

> We can and do. We used them quite often in panjwaii west on 1-08



Jokes notwithstanding, I'm curious - how much info are you comfortable sharing on these means re:  how you/the team managed the beasts?

EDIT - just found this in my surfing, from the  "Course Description" booklet (MS Word) at the  Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center (MCMWTC) web page:


> ....*Animal Packers *
> 
> This course is designed to aid Marines to become more effective in a mountainous environment utilizing alternative methods for transporting crew served weapons, ammunition, supplies, and wounded personnel to and from areas inaccessible to mechanized and air mobile transportation.
> 
> ...


----------



## PhilB (16 Dec 2008)

To be honest, it really depended on the donkey. Some were really easy, just pull them a little and they are off the the races. Others (we found males were harder to control) wouldn't go unless you basically beat the shit out of them. For the most part the ANA were easily able to control them for us, in conjunction with a couple guys who grew up around horses and donkeys, etc. To be honest, I was completely hopeless when it came to controlling them!


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Dec 2008)

Sounds reasonably informal, then.  Did the donkeys "belong" to the ANA, or did someone in our system buy them?

Excuse the morbid curiosity, but I really AM intrigued by this....


----------



## dapaterson (16 Dec 2008)

Yes, if the CF had better methods to keep jackasses doing what they're supposed to, instead of wandering off in search of greener pastures, NDHQ would work much better...


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Dec 2008)

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> I seriously doubt that. Looking at the G36 or... the German Flag on the Uniform.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course... I keep forgetting that the helmets look the same these days. Even the Germans are wearing 'German' helmets now.


----------



## PhilB (16 Dec 2008)

we bought them using some of the funds provided to each COP. I believe that we sold them once we reached our destination (as the pic shows we were using them just to haul a bunch of kit). We bought more a couple more times and sold them off. To much hassel to keep them, feed them, etc.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Dec 2008)

Sorta like rentals without the "return to where you got it" fee... Cool - thanks for the info!


----------



## GDawg (16 Dec 2008)

I was the Tp Sig for the Engineers that had Hughes the donkey, the whole thing didn't really pan out at all. We got no useful service out of that thing.


----------



## mercury (17 Dec 2008)

:warstory:
great idea, what goes around comes around.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Dec 2008)

5 pages, and no one has thought to ask how heavy a load a general officer can carry?


----------



## Yrys (18 Dec 2008)

Woudn't it be the same as men ?



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I checked my handy-dandy Field Service Pocket Book 1914. On page 134 it details the loads for pack transport as: Mules and ponies, 160 lbs; Pack-horses, 200 lbs; Camels, 320 to 400 lbs; Bullocks, 200 lbs; *Men, 50 lbs*; and Donkeys, 100 lbs. These figures are probably for prolonged use in moves and perhaps not tactically, where it may be possible to overload an animal.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Dec 2008)

Yrys,

Say what?


----------



## Yrys (18 Dec 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 5 pages, and no one has thought to ask how heavy a load a general officer can carry?



He's asking how much weight a general officer can carry.
Seems to me that it should be around the weight that men can carry.
Or does becoming an officer change the load one can carry ?  :-X


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Dec 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> He's asking how much weight a general officer can carry.
> Seems to me that it should be around the weight that men can carry.
> Or does becoming an officer change the load one can carry ?  :-X



In the case of generals, it's not how much one can carry. It's all about how much one will carry, usually just a golf bag with the approved number of clubs.

There is another table in my handy Field Service Pocket Book on pack transport which along with data on all sorts of critters, cites a figure for coolies. Still nothing on generals.


----------



## Yrys (18 Dec 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Still nothing on generals.



Well, anyone of you guys want to ask a general  > ?


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Dec 2008)

I would not have to ask the question of any of the generals, mostly retired, that I know well. I know the answer already. They are the type of person that would carry at least the same load as the troops they led and not consider it a big deal. As for the others . . .


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Dec 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I would not have to ask the question of any of the generals, mostly retired, that I know well. I know the answer already. They are the type of person that would carry at least the same load as the troops they led and not consider it a big deal. As for the others . . .



...they're the REAL donkeys, right?


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Dec 2008)

It looks like there are few WW1 keeners on this forum. If you're so inclined to pursue this subject even further, why not pursue a Master of Arts at the Centre for British First World War Studies in Birmingham? It looks like a few of you have already roughed out your thesis outlines!

MA British First World War Studies
Programme Structure 

http://www.firstworldwar.bham.ac.uk/ma/structure.htm


Credits 


All taught degree programmes at the University of Birmingham have a modular structure, in which each module has a credit weighting.  A taught MA consists of 180 credits.  The MA in British First World War Studies delivers these credits through six compulsory taught modules (each of 20 credits) and a supervised 12,000-word dissertation (worth 60 credits).  One taught module will be offered in each of the University’s teaching terms: the supervised dissertation will be researched and written in the Long Vacation at the end of the student’s second year.

Interim Awards
If for whatever reason a student is unable to complete the full degree programme he or she is eligible for an interim award: either the Postgraduate Certificate in British First World War Studies (after successful completion of 60 credits) or the Postgraduate Diploma in British First World War Studies (after successful completion of 120 credits). 

Module Outlines
(Click a title for more information)

Research Skills: Methodology and Sources (British First World War Studies) 
(Module Code 09 18164) 

‘Brass Hats and Frock Coats’: British Strategy in the Great War 
(Module Code 09 18160) 


Operational Development in the British Expeditionary Force on the Western Front, 1914-1918 (Module Code 09 18162) 

Training, Tactics and Technology in the British Expeditionary Force on the Western Front, 1914-1918 (Module Code 09 18163)

Bullets and Billets: The British Experience of the First World War
(Module Code 09 18161)

Research Skills: Dissertation Preparation (British First World War Studies)
(Module Code 09 18165)

Dissertation (British First World War Studies)
(Module Code 09 18166)

Delivery
Each of the six taught modules will be delivered through three intense Saturday Schools, held on the campus of Birmingham University between 10.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. The Saturday Schools will involve lectures, student presentations, student-led discussion and small group workshops. Prior to the start of each module students will receive a Module Handbook, detailing teaching arrangements and providing a full reading list.

Assessment
Each of the 20-credit taught modules will be assessed by an essay of not more than 4,000-words, chosen by the student from a prescribed list, and submitted after the completion of the module.  Submission arrangements will be notified in writing. 

Teachers 
The Programme Co-Ordinators will be Dr John Bourne, Director of the Centre for First World War Studies, and Mr Robert Thompson, Teaching Fellow of the Centre for First World War Studies. The programme will also make full use of guest lecturers and teachers from the distinguished Members of the Centre for First World War Studies. (See Members  of the Centre for details and their areas of expertise.)


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Dec 2008)

Once the lions were led by donkeys; but what's the point of the lions leading the donkeys if a donkey can't bear more weight than a lion?


----------



## pbi (20 Dec 2008)

Hi folks. Been away for a bit, but happy to be back. This is an interesting subject in our Army, but not a new one. Anybody serving in 1 PPCLI in the mid-90's will recall that during a bn winter ex in the eastern fooothills, B Coy (then Maj Pat Stogran) experimented with using pack horses. Although the experiment was never documented, it was found that the animals were much more use in the stump-strewn, heavy underbrush forests and very rocky terrain than the BV 206, which doesn't (or didn't...) like stumps or very rough terrain. Helicopters were also on the ex but as we all know (and any tac hel guy will tell you), hels in the mountains especially in winter are iffy at best, and bring their own problems.


I'm fortunate to have known BGen Denis Thompson for a fairly long time (since he was G3 2 CMBG) and he is among the smarter and wiser of our generals (Who, by the way, are absolutely head and shoulders in almost every way above most of the people I saw wearing that rank in my days as a junior officer...). I'm pretty sure  that some decent thinking went into this idea. Let's see how it goes.

Cheers

pbi


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Dec 2008)

pbi, it is good to see you back. I echo your comments about BGen Thompson as I had the pleasure of working with him on my last posting before my retirement.

The Edmonton-based Airborne Battery used mules to move their guns in Jamaica in 1969 and then tried pack horses circa 1974 in the Rockies. In the first case they towed the guns using the animal 'yoke' that was strapped to the shield; the other time I recall Ted Itani, the BC, told me they broke the L5s down into pack loads. (I know yoke isn't the correct word, but this old farm boy can't think of the right one.)

Sometimes willingness to try something old, or is it new, pays off.


----------



## pbi (20 Dec 2008)

Old sweat: thanks. Ref your comments: exactly. A horse, or donkey, or mule, is a tool just like a tank or a howitzer or a CF18. In some situations a tool is great; in others it's useless or even dangerous. I could kill somebody with a crossbow or javelin just as well today as a thousand years ago. What matters is what works best. Never rule anything out. (Unless its illegal or fattening...)

Cheers

pbi


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Dec 2008)

pbi said:
			
		

> Old sweat: thanks. Ref your comments: exactly. A horse, or donkey, or mule, is a tool just like a tank or a howitzer or a CF18. In some situations a tool is great; in others it's useless or even dangerous. I could kill somebody with a crossbow or javelin just as well today as a thousand years ago. What matters is what works best. Never rule anything out. (Unless its illegal or fattening...)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> pbi




Even illegal fattening stuff has it's place!!


----------



## muskrat89 (31 Dec 2008)

OS - Is it a whiffle tree?


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Dec 2008)

Whiffle tree had popped into my mind, as did the ditty "The old grey mare, she pooped on the whiffle tree, pooped on the whiffletree, pooped on the whiffle tree, the old grey mare, she pooped on the whiffle tree many long years ago."

Edit. Google is my friend. The whiffle tree is the swinging bar that the harness is hitched to, so that ain't it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2009)

Damm there goes my plans to have a drink with an ass of a veteran  

Canadian military dumps plans to use donkeys in resupply efforts
September, 2, 2009 - 02:20 pm Graveland, Bill - (THE CANADIAN PRESS) KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - They may be the cream of the crop when it comes to strength, stubbornness and agility, but it turns out that in Afghanistan, the donkey makes a lousy soldier.

A trial project to use the humble beast of burden to help resupply Canadian soldiers out in the field came to an abrupt halt this summer.

The idea was to help ease the load for Canadian troops contending with the often difficult Afghan terrain. There are mountains, irrigation canals, grape fields, mud-walled compounds and wadis - dry riverbeds that carry water during heavy rains.


Roadways can be narrow and the choice of thoroughfares limited, making vehicles carrying Canadian and Afghan soldiers particularly susceptible to deadly improvised explosive devices, the weapon of choice for Taliban insurgents.

However, the practical considerations involved with using donkeys made the idea less effective in practice than it appeared it would be in theory, said Capt. Kirk Watson, whose unit - G-4 Ops, based at Kandahar Airfield - is in charge of logistics.

"We got to a point where we fielded a few donkeys on patrols and unfortunately we lost a couple - one actually drowned and another actually deserted and ran off," Watson explained.

"After that we took a significant amount of time and reviewed the particular project and moved forward without it."

With heat during the summer months surpassing 50 C, it is next to impossible for a soldier in full battle gear to carry enough water and ammunition to survive. The plan was to purchase up to 30 specially trained donkeys and turn them over to a unit of Afghan soldiers and their Canadian mentors.

The hope was the donkey, which can survive with little water and carry more than 350 pounds of gear - nearly 160 kilograms worth - would be able to help.

But the animal didn't live up to the billing that has made it popular with United States and British soldiers, who use pack animals to support special operations in the mountains. The Americans studied the use of camels, dogs and mules - but the donkey came out tops in the ratings.

The last time Canadian troops used donkeys was during operations in northern Sicily in the Second World War.

"At the end of the day - was it a good idea? Yeah, it was definitely a good idea," Watson said.

"Was this particular taskforce ready to employ it? No."

The recent Canadian deployment of a half-dozen used Chinook helicopters has rendered the need for the donkeys a moot point, he added.

"The amount of stuff you can load into a chopper - whether it's sling-loaded (suspended underneath) or you can throw in the back - is ideal," Watson said.

"At the end of the day, if there is a position that's on a mountain and you are utilizing a Chinook, you don't even have to land it. You just have to get in proximity to release the material and drop it off."

The military is also using heavy trucks to make sure the troops are resupplied.

Even though the donkey brigade idea initially elicted a few snide remarks and some laughter, Watson called it a shame it didn't work out.

"You always want to have something in your back pocket, but it just happened donkeys weren't as easy to hold in your back pocket as a Chinook or a truck," he chuckled.

"Unfortunately, they were a little more temperamental."

Read


----------



## dapaterson (2 Sep 2009)

See also:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/82039.0.html

although the referenced article mis-spells the ass-master's name.


----------



## Sam 45 (3 Sep 2009)

Plus, if the American media caught wind of this they wouldn't shut up about it. It's be like all those "Canadian Navy = my buddy Steve and his canoe" but with donkeys. 

They'd really make us look like asses.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Sep 2009)

Funny I was just reading “Vancouver Defended” last night and there is a part of the book where the 15th field artillery brigade started experimenting with mechanization (1928 if I recall correctly) by hiring local trucks to pull their guns. The men were impressed by the speed of the march (10mph average) over the horses and the greatly reduced workload by not having horses that required feeding and tending.


----------



## Newt (3 Sep 2009)

I'm sure the MSEOP's are relieved they won't have to add LLVD - Light Logistics Vehicle Donkey to their 404's.


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Sep 2009)

Having been on an attachment to an Allied animal-transported pack artillery regiment many years ago, I would like to add a couple of comments.

Animal transport is very expensive in terms of people to look after the animals and in terms of continually requiring food and water. A horse-drawn field battery requires about fifty percent more personnel than a vehicle-drawn one. As Colin P noted, there is also the speed factor. And, of course, they require halts for water. There are very good reasons why they were replaced in military service, except in very specialized situations.

A small pack train of donkeys cannot really lift much more than part of the stuff the troops are humping. Perhaps that is why they have a use with SOF who operate in small parties, than in support of a dismounted company.

Still, it was a worth a try. BZ for trying.


----------



## Teflon (3 Sep 2009)

I guess now those fine folks at PETA will have to dump all their plans for a "Stop the Evil Canadian Military Turning Innocent Donkeys into War Crimals" Campaign. Oh well gives them more time to focus on their study on the psychological damage caused my leash walking of your dog.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Sep 2009)

So you are saying that my idea of strapping taliban caught redhanded to pigs and making them walk through IED areas might just offend PETA?


----------



## Newt (3 Sep 2009)

Colin P said:
			
		

> So you are saying that my idea of strapping taliban caught redhanded to pigs and making them walk through IED areas might just offend PETA?



Why would you waste a perfectly good source of bacon on a Taliban?


----------



## mariomike (6 Oct 2009)

I saw this recently on the Discovery Channel:
http://www.history.co.uk/shows/deep-wreck-mysteries/deep-wreck-mysteries/episodes.html
"Search for the Bone Wreck" tells the story of "the 9,000-tonne White Star liner Armenian had been carrying a cargo of 3,000 mules, destined for the trenches of France, when it was torpedoed by a German U-boat on June 28, 1915."
http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/livingcornwall/Divers-grim-discovery-liner-sunk-U-boat/article-480889-detail/article.html
It shows how much the Army relied upon mules in WW1.


----------



## bdave (7 Oct 2009)

I never understood why people hate P.E.T.A.
I, myself, am a member of *P*eople for the *E*ating of *T*asty *A*nimals.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Oct 2009)

I guess the subtitle should read: "Fewer Asses in the Log Branch"


----------

