Quote Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
That doesn't sound right to me. Could you find a source for that?

The cavalry used 25% as a rule of thumb for the amount a saddle horse should carry for sustained operations. That means 1000lbs of horse carries 250lbs of trooper and gear. Some Arabs can sustain 1/3 bodyweight.

So, using that rule of thumb, a 1000 - 1200lbs mule should have a 250 - 300lbs load, maximum. If anything, pack stock should carry less proportionately, not more; dead weight is actually harder on an animal than a good rider.

Having said that, both animals and men were pushed past exaustion on campaigns when the tactical situation required it.
I missed this one earlier....

There was much talk about mules being able to carry 250-400 pounds, but it was just that...talk. Thomas Devin discovered in 1868 that mules were really only capable of handling about 200 pounds; anything more than that and mobility was reduced to an unacceptable level. Crook's packers might have squeezed a few more pounds on them, and had better stock, but you're still looking at 250 pounds as a maximum (and the 1944 packers' manual was based on articles and manuals that were a direct result of Indian Wars experience with mules).

Crook was notorious for his expenditure of men and horses on campaign, and had been since before the Civil War. He was much more careful of his mule train (too much so in the opinion of many who campaigned with him in 1876). Other commands had reasonable success with them (Mackenzie used mules during his Remolino raid in 1873 and later during the Red River War...and if I recall he also complained about Crook's logistics during the 1876 campaign).

Mules, on the whole, tended to work best with small scouting operations or columns that had under, say, 150 men. Once you cleared that point, it became something of a toss-up, IMO.