• 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

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,060
Points
1,260
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."

 
Finally... I've used them before during exercises in Oman. They're a great asset, but definitely have their drawbacks.
 
Can it be long before the LdSH deploys their mounted troop......thereby vindicating Field Marshal Haig.  >:D
 
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.
 
We used donkeys, or as we called them the "battle ass"  >:D , 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.
 
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
 
... and so begins another pun filled thread.

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

 
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.


simpson.jpg


henderson.jpg



And then I am reminded of this old "tail" about the military use of donkeys.
 
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.
 
Maybe not such an good I idea. Someone could think that that could be an cheap alternativ to expensive new tanks:

SCNR,
ironduke57 ;D
 
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
 
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
 
One should remember that old age and treachery will always triumph over youth and skill!
 
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 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
 
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.
 
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?
 
loadeddonkey.jpg


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