Infantry accompanying load carriers

[Compost]

Tactical movement of military stores and supplies to support foot-mobile or already dismounted infantry units and sub-units is a vital activity. It excludes the actual transport of such infantry.
When terrain and conditions permit, cargo can be well protected and provided to infantry by accompanying vehicles that are preferably armoured and optionally cross-country and amphibious. But in dense vegetation, rugged terrain and urban labyrinths most vehicle types become remote. Similarly airdrop or actual supply from aircraft and VTOLs is only sometimes usable and timely.
A particular concern for tactical deployment is that many smaller self-propelled surface vehicles such as 6x6 and 4x4 ATVs are also too large and/or heavy to accompany infantry in all conditions and also onto expedient transport such as utility helicopters and GS vehicles. The fallbacks are 3-wheel ATVs and 2-wheel cross-country bikes. The lightest of these have empty weights of about 80kgand can carry a load of up to 150kg and optionally pull a trailer. At any speed above walking pace the overall load has to include the weight of a rider.
Animal transport such as camel, dog, horse, mule, oxen can carry only small loads relative to body weight: typically less than 33%. Animals can tow somewhat larger loads relative to body plus cart weight. But only dogs can be expediently transported together with infantry in the smaller types of vehicles, boats or aircraft. And several dogs are needed to carry a one-man load. Also, regardless of any natural forage, all load-carrying and draft animals introduce needs for additional food-types and veterinary support.
The inevitable result is that even when small ATVs are available, conditions often require that infantry move their immediate tactical supplies in personal packs augmented by own unit portering. Since Roman times it has been known that infantry used as mules become less alert. Modern infantry on operations are often loaded with about 50kg of own equipment and sub-unit stores. And the trend is upward with increasing use of body armour, communication/reporting and surveillance systems demanded as much for political as for tactical needs.
S.L.A. Marshall is sometimes criticised as a drummer but he accurately summarised the situation and costs then and now: “From faulty appreciation of the logistical limits of the human carrier come the loss of tactical opportunity and the wastage of good manpower”. [The Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation”, Marine Corps Association, Quantico, 1965, p47]
Various man-powered cargo carriers have been used to reduce the need for man-packing. Above the snow-line infantry routinely use small cargo sleds. Elsewhere some use has been made of man-propelled wheeled cargo carriers but these have not been widely adopted. The basic types are briefly 1-wheel barrow, 2-wheel in-tandem bike, 2-wheel side-by-side buggey, 3-wheel and 4-wheel carts.
One-wheel barrow used by old-time gold prospectors to push/pull gear and provisions long distances across rough country. On uneven ground a barrow is awkward to handle with a load as small as 75kg. Monowheel included on 210kg mount of 106mm M40 Rcl Rifle was problematic even for a short distance.
Two wheel in-tandem bike used to supply NVA and VC over long distance earthen and corduroy tracks. Designed for hard surface roads but modified with extended handlebars and seat tube, pedals and chain discarded. Weighed 10 to 15kg and carried up to about 90kg of cargo when pushed by one and probably often two small-statured men.
Buggey with two side-by-side wheels used as actual mount for Russian HMG. Golf buggey style two stub-axle layout tested by British Army in 1950/60s as carrier for infantry mortars, and wire cage buggey with low straight-through axle bar simultaneously tested as carrier for mortar bombs. Both types referred to as 1st Infantry Division trolleys. In 2001 the Singaporean Army ran a competition for an all-terrain personal 27kg load carrier (with side-by-side wheels ?): result not publicised. US Army has reportedly tested a bulky all-terrain all-purpose cart-sled (ATACS) derived from UT-2000 mountain stretcher system.
Three and four-wheel carts assessed as relatively cumbersome and not further discussed.
In my view both types of 2-wheel carrier have useful potential. Using modern materials and cross country wheels and tyres it is easy to see a 2-wheel in-tandem pack bicycle weighing approx 10kg and able to carry a load of up to about 75kg. Such a bike with wire panniers and straps would be somewhat heavier than the framed packs needed to load equivalent cargo onto say two human mules. However the push/puller could readily lay down and take up a cargo bike instead of having to more slowly undo or attach an extra 37kg backpack. Also despite times when both push/pullers had to work together to get a pack bicycle over/around an obstacle, there would be other times when the pack bicycle could be moved by one. Such a pack bicycle could negotiate narrow tracks and be attached to aids such as a flying fox or a cable pull up/down a slope . It could also be transported on the side or across the back of a GS or armoured vehicle, on a small boat or upright on a helicopter skid. It would increase the risk posed by anti-personnel mines.
A 2-wheel side-by-side buggey would have many of the same attributes. When appropriately loaded fore and aft it would require less effort to keep upright. If kept small it could fairly readily traverse narrow tracks, would be easy to move on a cable run but less so on a flying fox and could bulk awkwardly when transported on the side or back of a vehicle, or on a boat or helicopter. It would increase the risk posed by anti-personnel mines. With a basic configuration similar to that of a tripod it might (with wheels adjusted or detached) also be usable as a weapon mount.
That is enough to survey the topic. Infantry could benefit by having one or two types of small man-powered utility carriers to carry stores and some crew-served weapons. The main carrier is envisaged as a bicycle with two wheels in tandem. The second is a golf buggey style with two side-by-side wheels that might also function as a weapons mount. So several questions.
What types of man-powered cargo carriers been tested or used recently ? With what results ?
Why aren’t wheeled man-powered cargo carriers already in widespread military use ?
What characteristics are needed to make such carriers acceptable/useful ?
Scale of issue: one per platoon weapon team, one per infantry section ?
Would 50 to 75kg be a useful and readily manoeuvrable load size ?
2-wheels in-tandem and/or side-by-side or something else ?

[jcustis]

A better load carrier will simply result in greater loads...that we don't need in the first place.

Now, take my combat load and cut it to half its weight from lighter materials and then we're talking!

[Ken White]

A better load carrier will simply result in greater loads...that we don't need in the first place.

We are spoiled and most of those "solutions" don't quite do the job...

Though my guess would be some form of transport will prevail and training will not be improved.

[Fuchs]

The German infantry used one horse-drawn cart (a small one) per infantry platoon in WW2. There was no need to move it into combat itself, but it was a company-level asset and therefore brought quite close to the action.
This kind of load carrying arrangement (=non-combat loads on trucks/APCs) looks still optimal to me unless we're talking about long-range patrols.

For long range patrols over (mostly) wheel-compatible terrain I would have a look at working dogs. They can help as scout dogs (much superior senses), bolster morale, help security at night and at the same time pull a small cart. The latter is possible for soldiers as well, of course. We just don't like to do the job of working animals.
A cart no heavier than what can be lifted over a wall by four men would likely be useful, especially for troops that carry especially heavy single loads (AT and mortar teams, for example).

[Tom Odom]

M-gators were a common sight at the JRTC prior to 9-11 and even afterward until we made the formal switch to MREs for Iraq and secondarily for Afghanistan. The M-gator served the same purpose as the WWII Jeep and trailer and they work quite well.

Tom

[Rifleman]

A cart no heavier than what can be lifted over a wall by four men would likely be useful, especially for troops that carry especially heavy single loads (AT and mortar teams, for example).

The 1st Ranger Battalion found that useful in the Italian campaign.



As did other units: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...a%3DN%26um%3D1

[tankersteve]

Just need a way for a narrow bicycle-style tire to be quickly replaced with a balloon-style tire when dealing with sand/muck. Make it out of lightweight aluminum, make it able to be disassembled for air assault or manpack, and again, keep it light.

Some of my Canadian friends have told me of pulling sledges while wearing snowshoes, with 2 Soldiers pulling the sledge with over-the-shoulder traces, while a third pushes and steers.

Tankersteve

[Compost]

How does one ride a bicycle in full battle rattle? Very carefully i would presume.

A “pack bicycle” is best ridden side-saddle and downhill.

My use of the term was intended to mean a pack carrying bicycle that is manually pushed or pulled, as opposed to a pedal bicycle that can be dismantled and packed. Pack bicycles used by the NVA/VC had the chain, gears, pedals and seat removed. The seat tube was extended for use as a push post. For control the handle bars were lengthened and any handbrake may have been retained.

I know wheels have many mechanical advantages. The problem is that wheels are the thin edge of wedge. They enable stupidity.

Allowing infantry to carry more weight, by allowing wheels, means that they will be get even more overloaded. Man-packing is a simple and coherent method of forcing the argument back to basics, as is Mules or Llamas, or even well trained Hamsters.

We want to try and avoid making doing stupid things possible, because history shows that Infantry Officers always overload their men - almost always because of stupidity, and a failure to ask the right question in the right context.

I also submit that a well trained and well lead army does not have load carrying problem because it has already exercised the judgement necessary to avoid it.

Every infantry unit has load carrying problems. When self-propelled vehicles are not available/usable, a load carrying task is usually tackled by assigning infantry as porters: often using more than is operationally advisable and thus creating a problem. For example, three 81mm mortars and 300 bombs can be relocated across country by assigning 30 infantry to carry bombs alongside about 18 men in the mortar teams.

Alternatively - if unit equipment included pack bicycles - the mortars and bombs could be relocated by 10 infantry push/pulling bicycles together with the mortar teams. The 20 unburdened infantry could then provide local security or be committed to other tasks. Hence fewer or less severe problems.

[Pete]

During the First World War the Germans had a type of harness to help the crews of machine guns carry the guns cross-country. These harnesses are said to have been the origin of the trench myth of "dead Germans found chained to their machine guns." I have a U.S. Navy landing force manual from the 1920s that has a diagram of a harness for use by sailors or Marines for pulling small field pieces on land.

[tankersteve]

The pic of the Rangers carrying mortars on a 2 wheeled cart is great and the use is appropriate. I don't want to give anything to the rifleman - he has to carry his own equipment. More loadcarrying ability means more load. But what about the supporting elements?

As the picture demonstrated, a single mortar team could move the mortar, baseplate, bipod, and several rounds, expending less energy and with more ammunition (I think), than if they were to hump it on their back. While the same load could be spread around to the rifle platoons, if 3 men could move the same amount, that leaves the riflemen unencumbered. That is the key, IMHO - keep the riflemen light, by enabling the mortars (and machine gun or automatic grenade launcher teams, if separate from the rifle platoon) to move their own loads.

A basic cart, pulled by two and pushed/guided by a third seems effective. But you would need wide wheels for rough terrain/sand, skinny tires for hardpack or rock, and skis for snow. Maybe one set of tires could do both, I don't know.

I don't know if we will make substantial weight reductions in the weight of the soldier anytime soon. Body armor has really driven this to a new level of concern. However, if we can create a lower likelihood of adding more gear to him, that helps. The gator sounds great, but it creates its own logistical tail. Perhaps at the battalion level for 81s.

One question - we don't use 'light' infantry in nice, flat terrain much anymore. In this territory, we use mech or motorized infantry, unlike WWII where almost everyone was just plain 'leg' infantry. Even light infantry in flat or urban terrain is probably going to use/acquire vehicles required for longer movements. The light guys will probably find themselves in really bad terrain, where only the mule is likely to be of much use. So perhaps this is all just OBE - only the flesh and blood mule is practical now, due to the likely terrain?

Tankersteve

[Kiwigrunt]

One question - we don't use 'light' infantry in nice, flat terrain much anymore. In this territory, we use mech or motorized infantry, unlike WWII where almost everyone was just plain 'leg' infantry. Even light infantry in flat or urban terrain is probably going to use/acquire vehicles required for longer movements. The light guys will probably find themselves in really bad terrain, where only the mule is likely to be of much use. So perhaps this is all just OBE - only the flesh and blood mule is practical now, due to the likely terrain?

Tankersteve

I think you’ve raised some good points there. Just compare 2 Para in Arnhem and 2 Para in the Falklands. In Arnhem they could have (and did) made good use of any vehicle, including wheelbarrows. Not so in the Falklands.
What ever type of cart or bike or whatever would be introduced as standard will sooner or later find itself in terrain for which it is not suited. In this situation (where these vehicles are left behind) the additional weight that the introduction of these vehicles will have allowed to become standard, will have to be man-handled…because the goodies can’t possibly be left behind. And I do think that introducing these vehicles will increase the standard loads because they will IMO be seen more as an extension to the human body than as a true vehicle. Don’t think we can compare ‘us’ using these gizmo’s with the VC in NAM using bikes. Different context, different attitude and philosophy, different situation, different motivation underpinning it (absolute necessity on a long supply route as opposed to just wanting to carry more on patrols). And I don’t think it likely that we will ever (never say never?) again operate like the Chindits or Merrills Marauders.
Differentiate perhaps between strategic/operational use and tactical use.

Note, I'm talking mainly about man-handled/powered vehicles.

So back to Wilf’s:

Allowing infantry to carry more weight, by allowing wheels, means that they will be get even more overloaded. Man-packing is a simple and coherent method of forcing the argument back to basics, as is Mules or Llamas, or even well trained Hamsters.

We want to try and avoid making doing stupid things possible, because history shows that Infantry Officers always overload their men - almost always because of stupidity, and a failure to ask the right question in the right context.

I also submit that a well trained and well lead army does not have load carrying problem because it has already exercised the judgement necessary to avoid it.

I do think that the last statement is a bit simplistic though. Think again about the Falklands for instance. They did not plan to loose most of their helicopters. Murphy will always bring along the #### happens factor. We will always have load carrying issues, the trick is to minimise it. Do we do that by adding transport or by reducing weight? Bit of both I think.

So, as much I do like the idea of load carrying aids like bikes or the 'trailer up your a..' below, I think that introducing them as a standard may do more damage than good, as Wilf suggests. Not sure about task specific issue…..

[reed11b]

ISo, as much I do like the idea of load carrying aids like bikes or the 'trailer up your a..' below, I think that introducing them as a standard may do more damage than good, as Wilf suggests. Not sure about task specific issue…..

hehehe, That is a "Sparky" website pic..

I say porters baby, just like them good ol' days. Ken remembers, I am sure of it.
Reed

[Kiwigrunt]

A “pack bicycle” is best ridden side-saddle and downhill.

Not sure what other countries are like but in New Zealand we don't have downhill, only uphill.