Infantry accompanying load carriers

[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…..