The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More Weight Than Ever

Re:The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More ... by ryanmercer on Monday January 07, 2019 @06:43AM (#18844440)

>I would expect to see some actual mules still in service.

SF have been using horses in places like Afghanistan for the past 2 decades and while DARPA is working on a robotic mule the DoD has brought in consultants to advise them about actual mules.

You'd be surprised what the military still does with animals, the Army even still has the U.S. Army Veterinary Corps with 700 something veterinarians for dogs, ceremony horses, working animals etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More ... by arethuza on Monday January 07, 2019 @07:49AM (#18844724)

The British Army apparently has more horses than tanks - though I suspect they aren't being kept for any practical purposes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More ... by desdiv on Monday January 07, 2019 @08:16AM (#18844843)

Fascinating stuff! A 2015 article from the horse's mouth[0] shows 485 horses for ceremonial purposes vs 227 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks.

[0] https://www.forces.net/services/tri-service/leading-charge-t...

Also a related BBC article with more background: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22951...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Overloaded Soldier: Why U.S. Infantry Now Carry More ... by arethuza on Monday January 07, 2019 @08:52AM (#18845038)

From one of those links:

"The figures don't necessarily mean we have got too many horses, it's more likely the figures mean we don't have enough tanks."

Edit: Mind you, on reflection, 485 horses does seem rather a lot.

[ Parent | on HN ]