• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CF Looking at Donkeys as Load Carriers in AFG

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.
thefinger.gif


Regards,
ironduke57

Of course... I keep forgetting that the helmets look the same these days. Even the Germans are wearing 'German' helmets now.
 
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.
 
Sorta like rentals without the "return to where you got it" fee... Cool - thanks for the info!
 
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.
 
5 pages, and no one has thought to ask how heavy a load a general officer can carry?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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 . . .
 
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?  ;)
 
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.)

 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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!!
 
Back
Top