- Reaction score
- 27,510
- Points
- 1,090
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...
ironduke57 said:I seriously doubt that. Looking at the G36 or... the German Flag on the Uniform.
Regards,
ironduke57
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.
Brad Sallows said:5 pages, and no one has thought to ask how heavy a load a general officer can carry?
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
Old Sweat said:Still nothing on generals.
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 . . .
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