CHAPTER XV
Transportation ofAnimals
During World War II, theanimals of the Army were transported in a number of ways: By road marching, inrailroad cars, on transports (ships), by motor vehicles, and in airplanes. Thefirst two means were used extensively in the movement of animals overland priorto World War I. In connection with the transportation by motor vehicle, recordsof World War I point to the common existence of veterinary ambulances, but manyyears passed before motorized port?e was tried in maneuvers as a means oftactical deployment of mounted units. The transportation of an animal on anairplanewas given headline news in veterinary publications during the late twenties (1),but it was not until World War II that this was used under the conditions of atactical deployment.
The transportation ofanimals, regardless of the means, proved a veritable hardship on animals.However, with proper care and management, animals were moved or transported-covering great distances and involving long periods of traveltime-without seriously lessening their physical condition or without too great aloss from disease and injury. A certain loss of animals was normally expected,but the experiences of World War II indicated that such losses can be minimal,such as 2.6 percent losses of animals when road marched in the tropical jungleareas of southeastern Asia, 0.25 percent in railroad shipments in the Zone ofInterior, less than 0.3 percent in long?distance overwater movements, andalmost no losses when animals were transported by airplane. An aggregate 60,000horses and mules-U.S. andAllied-were involved in these movements. Whatever themeans of movement, the successes in World War II involved the practice ofcertain veterinary principles. These included the examination of animals forphysical condition prior to embarkation, the technical supervision over thosemethods and facilities which had a bearing on animal health, and the dutyassignmentof personnel to accompany the animals while en route.
TRANSPORTATION BY SHIP
The principles of veterinaryservice concerned with the overwater movement of animals in World War IIwere developed during World War I. The practice of these principles was theassigned responsibility separately of the port veterinarian, the veterinarian ofthe animal embarkation depot, and the transport veterinarian. Of course, theport veterinarian was recognized as the central coordinating officer. Theirresponsibilities were described in AR (Army Regulations) 40-2055, 4 March 1922, and AR 40-2060, 4 March 1922. The two peacetime regulations were rewritteninto the superseding
540
AP 40-2055, 29 September 1942, but no changes were made on the assignedfunctions of the Army Veterinary Service.
During World War II, animalshipments originated from four ports of embarkation in the Zone of Interior (LosAngeles, Calif., New Orleans, La., New York, N.Y., and San Francisco, Calif.)and from a dozen or more points in two oversea theaters (the South and theSouthwest Pacific Areas). The animal embarkations at New York included 2,227 mules which were procured bythe Indian Army Supply Mission1 under the U.S. lend-lease program of supply to the United Kingdom(2, 3). With the exception of the shipments fromports in Australia (Brisbane, Melbourne, Newcastle, and Townsville) of 2,525horses to New Caledonia during 1942 and of 2,336 horses to the China-Burma-Indiatheater, the veterinary services at all embarkation ports were somewhat alike.The situation in Australia was occasioned by shortages in the numbers ofVeterinary Corps officers (1942) and by the imposition of civilian export andquarantine procedures on demands of the Australian Government.2 Altogether,port loadings under the technical supervision of the Army Veterinary Servicetotaled 15,000 horses and mules, this number including the aforementionedlend-lease mules which were shipped to India.
Port veterinary serviceordinarily began with the inspection of the animal transports and thetechnical supervision over their cleaning and other preparations for eachvoyage. The transport inspection, also conducted after the loading of theanimals but just before the ship's departure, was made on a variety of detailswhich had a bearing on animal health and management as follows: The ship'scapacity and stall accommodations; loading and unloading facilities; feeding,watering, lighting, and ventilating systems; sanitary and waste disposalfacilities; quantity and quality of the feed and water supplies; equipment andship's fittings; and facilities equipment to care for sick and wounded animals.The veterinary space requirements were expressed as 5 percent of the number ofstalls on shipboard; these stalls were conveniently located near the hatchways.Timely reports of veterinary transport inspections were rendered to the portcommanders for such corrective action as was indicated. Generally, suchreports were favorable; of course, certain deviations from the most desirablefacilities and systems were tolerated in view of the fact that none of theAmerican animal transports in use during the war was constructed for such use;at least 18 of them (with a carrying capacity for 6,600 horses and mules) wereconverted vessels.3
1Actually, the shipmentswere made from the stockyards, Jersey City, N.J., originally with the technicalassistance of the port veterinarian, New York Port of Embarkation, but later theArmy Veterinary Service, Second Service Command, assisted in the embarkation of thesemules.
2The difference between the15,000 animals loaded under the supervision of the Army Veterinary Service at ports and the totalnumber of horses and mules embarked wasoccasioned by the fact that approximately 5,000 animals did notcome under the supervision of the Army Veterinary Service until after they had been loaded on animaltransports.
3Between the two wars, theU.S. Army Transports Dix, Meigs, Kenowis, and Ludington were used in the transportation of animals;however, they were not usedas such during World War II.
541
FIGURE 50.-The S.S.Virginian, converted animal transport used in World War II.
As a matter of fact, manyof these conversions-made by the War Shipping Administration and involving forthe most part the Liberty EC-2-type ship-were based on plans which werereviewed by port veterinarians. A larger proportion of the converted transportshad stall capacities of 320; a few could carry more than this number of animals,the S.S. Virginian having the greatest carrying capacity (679 stalls) (fig. 50).
Another prerequisite tooverwater shipping was the selection and preparation of the animals. Theseactions usually were begun at the quartermaster remount depot which shipped thehorses and mules to the port or to the latter's animal embarkation depot. Byregulatory authorization, no disabled, unserviceable, or unsound animals weremoved into a transport, and such animals, if not withdrawn previously, wererejected on the recommendations of the port veterinarian during the actualloading operations. The preparations included the shoeing of the animals(usually on the front feet only), the clipping of the hair coat, and specialfeeding and watering in the 2 or 3 days preceding embarkation. The individualrecord cards of the animals were reviewed as to the status of the prophylacticimmunizations against equine encephalomyelitis, in the Zone of Interior only,and against tetanus, and of the mallein test for glanders (within the preceding21 days). During the latter part of the war, on request of the Army VeterinaryService in the China?Burma-India theater, animals scheduled for overseamovement were routinely
542
vaccinated against anthrax. Because a greater part of this selection andpreparation wasaccomplished in the quartermaster remount depots during World War II, no largeport embarkation depots came into existence-at least, none which were comparableto those established at Newport News, Va., and Charleston, S.C., in World War I (4). However, two animalembarkation depot facilities were established and operated by the ArmyVeterinary Service: The Animal Depot, Puente, Calif., of the Los Angeles Port of Embarkation(5) andthe Animal Remount Station, Camp Plauche, La., of the New Orleans Port of Embarkation(6).Animals for the San Francisco port were held at the Presidio of San Francisco,Calif., under the control of the Ninth Service Command (7). In the overseatheaters, movements were usually made directly to the transports from the fieldremount depots. The lessening dependence onanimal embarkation depots during World War II was conditioned by the fact thatno unexpected withdrawals or shortages of ships were experienced whichnecessitated the holding of large numbers of animals for a long period of timeand that no newly purchased, or "green" (unconditioned) animals, whichwere highly susceptible to the shipping fever complex, were sent to the ports.
The port veterinarian alsoexercised a technical supervision over the veterinary service on the animaltransports. This service included the development of standing operationalprocedures which were used on shipboard; the selection, training, and assignmentof veterinary transport personnel; and the provision of veterinary equipment andsupplies. In World War II, these personnel on the transports includedspecially qualified personnel of the port veterinarian's office or theveterinary units and animal service detachments which were en route to anoversea theater. The temporary detail of so-called casual personnel to accompanythe overwater movements of animals was avoided.
Once en route, the transportveterinarian was responsible for the sanitary discipline in that part of theship occupied by the animals, and he technically supervised the care andmanagement of the animals, including their feeding, watering, exercising, andtreatment. In these activities, the transport veterinarian was provided adetachment of enlisted personnel including a staff sergeant and a private (orprivate first class) for each hundred animals on shipboard, and an additionalnoncommissioned officer for each four privates. The detachments established aroutine as soon as the transport departed from the port, and this routine wascontinued throughout the voyage. There were a variety of details to attend to,such as the covering of floors to improve foothold, removal of manure andflushing of decks, adjustment of the ventilating system, use of chloride of limesaturated cloths to counteract the ammoniacal urine odors, special and reducedfeeding, and the care and treatment of sick and injured animals.
The actual losses of horsesand mules on board animal transports which were accompanied by the ArmyVeterinary Service during World War II were less than 0.3 percent of the 20,815animals involved; that is, only 60 animals
543
died or were destroyed onaccount of disease and injury (table 43). Anadditional 1,152 animals were lost in the sinking of three transports-the S.S. Jose Navarro, the S.S. Peter Silvester, and the USAT Tjinegara. Records and reports are not available to complete a study on specificdiseases and injuries which were encountered on all voyages of the animaltransports. At least 18 shipments were completed without any losses; in others,more difficulties were encountered. For example, of the 77 cases reported on the shipment of 648 mules and 6horses on the S.S. Mexican en route for 58 days from the New Orleans Port ofEmbarkation to Calcutta, India, during the fall of 1944, there were 57 cases (3terminating in death) of heat exhaustion, 19 cases (1 ending fatally) ofgastrointestinal disturbances, and 1 nonfatal case of tetanus. Then, in a28-day shipment of 640 former Australian Army animals to Calcutta, India, onthe S.S. Virginian, the U.S. transport veterinarian reported
Destination of transport | Number of shipments | Number of animals | ||
Embarked | Veterinary losses | Lost by enemy section | ||
From Zone of Interior to: |
|
|
|
|
| Central Pacific | 2 | 916 | --- | --- |
| South Pacific | 1 and a partial | 400 | --- | --- |
| Southwest Pacific | 3 | 1,523 | 2 | --- |
| Mediterranean | 7 | 2,885 | 4 | --- |
| China-Burma-India | 20 and a partial | 27,679 | 17 | 675 |
From South Pacific to: |
|
|
|
|
| China-Burma-India | 5 and a partial | 2,334 | 21 | --- |
From Southwest Pacific to: |
|
|
|
|
| China-Burma-India | 9 | 33,364 | 15 | --- |
| South Pacific | 1 | 4477 | --- | 477 |
From Panama Canal to: |
|
|
|
|
| South Pacific | A partial | 381 | --- | --- |
| Zone of Interior | 2 | 265 | 1 | --- |
From European to: |
|
|
|
|
| Zone of Interior | 1 | 152 | --- | --- |
Unknown | 2 | 439 | --- | --- |
| Total | 55 | 20,815 | 60 | 1,152 |
1Involves only the intertheater overwater movement of both the U.S. and Allied military animals. Thetotal 20,815 animals, which were embarked, included 5,420 horses and15,395 mules; losses on account of disease and injury (that is, veterinarylosses) totaled 38 for horses and 22 for mules.
2Includes 5 shipments,totaling 2,227 mules, which were procured by the India Supply Mission under theU.S. lend?lease program of supply to the United Kingdom.
3Includes 6 shipments and 2partial shipments, totaling 2,336 horses, which had been procured originally(by purchase and reverse lend-lease) and then transferred from the U.S. Army tothe Australian Army which then transshipped them from Australia to the U.S. Army in the China-Burma-India theater.
4Excludes 9 shipments,totaling 2,048 horses, which were procured in Australia and shipped on anAustralian transport accompanied by Australian personnel to the U.S. Army onNew Caledonia.
544
53 cases of disease andinjury, including 9 cases of strangles and 24 contused and lacerated wounds; inaddition, 1 mare foaled.
In a report on 438 cases forthe 4-year period, 1942-45, of the diseases and injuries of Army horses andmules on animal transports, the animal strength involved in the appearance ofthese cases is unknown, but the case mortality rate was more than 5 percent.These 438 cases of disease and injury, by species of animal, included 116horses, of which number 16 cases were terminated by the death or destructionof the animal, and 322 mules, including 7 fatal cases. No one disease or injuryconstituted an entity that could not be expected among animals which wereclosely confined for long periods of time (up to 65 days) in an environment ofextreme heat (up to 110? F.) and humidity. The more common ailments were heatexhaustion, gastrointestinal disturbances, abnormal conditions of the feet andlegs due to long-continued standing on wet floors (urine and salt water), andmany kinds of injuries caused by biting, equipment, or slipping. The shippingfever complex was not observed among animals on transports loading out of theZone of Interior, and no serious animal disease was reported.
On arrival at destination,the transport veterinarian's responsibilities terminated with the debarkationof the animals. Routinely, the debarkation procedures were jointly observed byhim and by the veterinary officer of the receiving port or other overseacommand. Quite frequently, civil quarantine officials observed the debarkations tosatisfy themselves that the Army was not "landing" a disease. However,there was no report of such introduction of new diseases into any area where theArmy Veterinary Service alone technically supervised the overwater movementsfrom and including the port of embarkation to the point of destination. The unloadings were made in a variety of ways as follows: By ramps, byflying box stall, by sling, by rope nets, in the Mediterranean theater (fig. 51)(8), or by transfer to intermediary barges or boats which operated between theship and shore in the South Pacific Area.
Another method of unloadingfrom transports was by swimming the animals to shore. However, due to thehazards of such an undertaking, this was seldom considered except in trainingfor amphibious assaults. It was tried during the joint Army-Navy maneuvers inthe Hawaiian Islands during the early thirties (9), and again in the CentralPacific Area during World War II, in connection with a plan, later discontinued,that called for landing pack mule troops during an amphibious assault on aJapanese enemy-held shore (fig. 52). A combat landing procedure that was usedsuccessfully by the 36th Infantry Division in the Mediterranean theater, atAnzio, Italy, 20 May 1944, involved the loading of animals into trucks, thesetrucks then moving into and out of LST's (landing ship, tank) (8).
The overwater transportationof animals was described in the terms of intertheater movements. However,intratheater movements, including the combat amphibious methods of unloading,were conducted under much the same degree of technical supervision by the ArmyVeterinary Service. Ob-
545
FIGURE 51.-Loading mules byrope net at Naples, Italy, September 1944.
viously, because of theshorter travel periods and distances covered, the intratheater movements weremade ordinarily without animal losses or without evoking problems of foreignquarantine. In the Central Pacific Area, a few animals were moved from Oahu toHawaii and Kauai, and livestock were moved to establish "living-foodreserves" or animal farms on Canton and Christmas Islands. In the SouthPacific Area, the Veterinary Detachment, 97th Field Artillery Pack Battalion,assisted in the movement of the battalion's 753 mules and 194 horses from NewCaledonia to Guadalcanal-this being made in three shipments leaving on 16January, 4 March, and 6 April 1943 (10, 11). After V-J Day, in the Chinatheater, the Army Veterinary Service cooperated with the Navy in themodification of LST's (each with a carrying capacity for 220 but not exceeding285 animals) and in the movement of several thousand Chinese military animalsalong the China coastline (12, 13). An even greater activity in the movements ofanimals occurred within the North African and Mediterranean theater. Aside fromthe aforementioned movement of the U.S. 36th Infantry Division's pack trainfrom Salerno to Anzio, thousands of Allied military horses and mules, and sheepfor feeding British and French colonial troops, were unloaded under thetechnical supervision of the Army Veterinary Service in the port at Naples,
546
FIGURE 52.-Training foramphibious landing.
Italy (14). In the periodfrom February through April 1944, ship arrivals numbered 23, and 1,261 horses,5,760 mules, 310 sheep, and a few cattle and dogs were disembarked (15). TheU.S. 8th Port, replacing the U.S. 6th Port at Naples, in mid-1944 processed 31animal transports during the last 6 months of that year; 13,650 animals wereembarked, and 10,118 animals were disembarked (14,16).
TRANSPORTATION BY RAILROAD
The transportation of horsesand mules by railroad-"at best* * * a wrecking ordeal" (17)-was accomplished in World WarII with a minimal
547
amount of animal losses. Ina series of all veterinary reports covering 135 shipments during 1945 in theZone of Interior, 9,500 Army horses and mules were moved by railroad4 withthe loss of only 5 animals (or 0.05 percent) (18). In another series ofreports, covering the entire war period, on 48 shipments5 that wereselected because each involved more than 200 animals or a travel period of morethan 3 days and were accompanied by a Veterinary Corps officer, the lossesnumbered 64 horses and mules or 0.25 percent of the 25,072 animalswhich were involved (18). Inthis series of 48 railroad shipments, 39 were completed without a loss, and 1shipment alone accounted for 51 animal losses. These successes reflected theefficacy of animal care and management in rail transport.
The later successes in thetransportation of animals by railroad evolved about the application of the sameprinciples of animal care and management that were perfected on the overwatermovements; namely, the preshipment examinations of animals, technicalsupervision over the transportation methods and facilities, and the dutyassignment of personnel to accompany shipments in transit.
In rail transport, thehealth of the animals was given primary consideration. Thus, veterinarytechnical supervision over such transportation began at the point of origin ofthe shipment. This included the physical examination of animals prior toshipment and certification as to their health, the inspection of thetransport methods and facilities, the assignment and training of veterinarypersonnel who accompanied the shipment to destination, and the review of thetrain schedule and routing. By the regulations of the Army, a minimal 48-hour period was given to the Veterinary Corps officer at the point oforigin. The professional examination of the animals was made to withdrawthose which were sick or infected with a serious contagion (such as glanders),and as a prelude to the rendition of the veterinary health certificate. Thiscertificate was normally accepted by the railroads and by the various Stateor other disease regulatory agencies as proof that precautions had been takenwithin the Army to minimize or prevent the dissemination of animaldiseases. Of course, the Army Veterinary Service inspected the railroad cars as to their suitability, state ofrepair, and sanitary condition before the loading operations were started. The railroadwas responsible for the cars being kept in good condition, cleaned and disinfected, and bedded with afloor cov?
4The average shipmentapproximated 70 animals, but 14 shipments comprised more than a hundred animals(including two of 700 animals each, and others with 696, 588, 468, and 440animals). The smaller shipments were unaccompanied by veterinary personnel.
5The salient features ofthe 48 shipments were averaged as comprising a 90-hour shipment of 522 animals.The largest shipment included 1,258 horses departing on 14 June 1942, from FortRiley, Kansas. Two 8-day shipments included one departing on 9 February 1944,from Fort Robinson, Nebr., for Los Angeles, Calif., and another departing on 25December 1944, from Fort Reno, Okla., for Jersey City, N.J. A long-distancemovement involved the 99th Field Artillery Pack Battalion, departing on 22July 1942, from Fort Bragg, N.C., for Camp Carson, Colo. This series includedthe shipment of those mules, accompanied by Veterinary Corps officers, that wereprocured by the Indian Supply Mission under the U.S. lend-lease program ofsupply to the United Kingdom.
548
FIGURE 53.-Unloading ofhorses by Troop B, 252d Quartermaster Remount Squadron, Camp Polk, La., forThird U.S. Army maneuvers in the fall of 1942.
ering of sand or straw; onrequest, the carrier covered the cars with paper or other material to protectthe animals in transit from exposure to cold.
The loading of the railroadcars was conducted in an orderly manner. Whenever obtainable and justified,Arms-Yager horse cars were used;6however, most shipments were made in open(or slatted) stock cars of the kind which were used in the normal civiliantraffic of livestock (fig. 53). Usually, 22 riding-type horses or pack-type mules were loaded onto a36-foot stock car, and 25 animals onto a 40-foot stock car. These car loadingswere reduced in hot weather and where heavier weight animals were loaded. The interchange of car sizes in a trainled to difficulties in the "spotting" of the car doors at unloadingramps of certain rest stations and terminals (19). The train length (or number of cars) was regulated by the capacity of thefeeding, watering, and rest stations and the unloading facilities along theroute of travel and, before World War II, was expressly limited to 30 cars pertrain. However, during the war, the train length was not limited, but aproportionally greater number of injuries was observed in animals of the longertrains when routed through mountainous areas (20).
6The Arms-Yager PalaceHorse Car was equipped with 18 stalls, feed mangers, and water tanks; the Arms-Yager Commercial Horse Car was divided into three large compartmentswithout stalls.
549
Following the departure ofthe train from the point of origin, the accompanying veterinary personnelbecame responsible to the train commander for the conduct of the professionaland supervisory veterinary service to the animals in transit. In the movement ofmounted units to maneuver areas or ports of embarkation, this service wasrendered by the relevant veterinary detachments; sometimes, movements from theremount depots were accompanied by separate veterinary detachments whichproceeded with such horses and mules to their final oversea destination. In theinstance of shipments of casual animals, the assignment of these personnel wasthe responsibility of the point?of-origin veterinarian; however, after August1943, the Quartermaster General's Office required that casual shipments of ahundred or more animals originating from the remount depots would be accompaniedby a Veterinary Corps officer, and by a veterinary enlisted man7 when theshipments comprised a lesser number of animals (21). Their principal activitieswere centered at the feeding, watering, and resting stations, or stockpens,along the route of travel. In thisconnection, it must be remembered that the routing and schedule for theshipments were developed at the point of origin, with special consideration ofthe adequacies of the railroad stockpens along the route as enabled a stopoverat intervals of 20 hours of train travel but not exceeding 28 hours. Suchscheduling was mandatory by the so-called 28-hour law. From the records whichwere available, violations of this law were exceptional during World War II.In fact, no violations were reported in 1941; in 1942, only one8 was reported(22). At the stopover points, preparatory to the unloading, the accompanyingVeterinary Corps officers conducted a sanitary inspection of the pens, chutes,yards, feed racks and mangers, and water troughs, and examined the feed andwater supplies (figs. 54 and 55). The carrier was normally responsible for thecleanliness and disinfection of these facilities and for providing the necessaryfeed and water.9 Whenever possible, priorarrangements were made with theBureau of Animal Industry, U.S. Department of Agriculture, to supervise thiscleaning and disinfecting by the railroads, but where that agency's inspectorswere unavailable, the Army Veterinary Service alone was responsible forobtaining corrective action, if indicated, by the railroad before the animalswere detrained. As the war progressed, the standards of stockpen cleaning anddisinfection were lowered when the general manager of a railroad indicated thecarrier's inability to meet the military requirements because the facilitiesalong the route were actually owned by private companies which could not orwould not clean and disinfect (23, 24). In arecommendation to the Chief of Transportation, and approved byhim, the Veteri?
7Before August 1943, itseems to have been a policy or practice to detail a veterinary enlisted man toaccompany shipments of officers' private mounts and Army remount stallions.
8This involved the shipmentof animals from the Fort Robinson, Nebr., remount depot to the San Francisco,Calif., port, during December 1942. The train was sidetracked by higher prioritytraffic; what was a normal 27-hour trip became one lasting 40 hours.
9The railroad carrierprovided all feed and forage to the animals while en route, except in cases ofless-than-carload shipments and in the movement of mounted units with their own animals.
550
FIGURE 54.-Unloading stockcars at Puente, Calif.
nary Division, SurgeonGeneral's Office, on 17 August 1943, suggested that in these cases the railroadneed only maintain the stopovers in a "satisfactory state ofsanitation."
1n a summary of the specificcauses of animal losses encountered in the transportation of animals by railroadduring World War II, the statistical data are limited necessarily to 9 of theaforementioned 48 shipments, wherein 64 animals died or were destroyed, and toan additional 3 shipments which were unaccompanied by Veterinary Corps officers.The losses among these 12 shipments totaled 96 animals-including 9 found dead inthe railroad cars, 6 left at or dying in stopover stations, and 81 dying afterarrival at destination. Of the total losses, 86 were attributed to exhaustionfrom overexposure and equine influenza; 4 to gastroenteric disturbances; and 1each for pneumonia, hemorrhagic septicemia, suffocation, wound, fracture ofcervical vertebrae, and unknown causes. Actually, the greater proportion ofthese losses was encountered in but 3 of these 12 shipments; 15 were lost in ashipment of 540
551
horses, 16 were lost in ashipment of 551 horses, and 51 were lost in a shipment of 370 mules.10
The transportation of horsesand mules by railroad in the oversea theaters was all entirely different matter.In World War II, this method of transporting animals was used in theIndia-Burma and the China theaters and in Australia where newly procured horseswere shipped into the remount depot at Townsville. The latter rail shipmentswere made frequently with little regard for the proper handling of these horsesin transit-thus contributing to theunusually high rates of incidence andanimal losses from equine influenza that were experienced in the remount depotduring the early part of 1943 (25, 26). The situation in India was withoutcomparison-after8 to 10 days' continuous travel, the animals could not bereconditioned within 30 days (27, 28). In India, dependent upon the railroadgage, 6 to 10 animals were loaded on a single freight car or so-called animalwagon. Within each car, the animals were placed in both ends and faced towardthe car's center where they
10The two horse shipmentswere made from the Fort Robinson, Nebr., remount depot to Camp Lockett, Calif.,in the early spring of 1943; the mule shipment was made from the same depot toJersey City, N.J., in the winter of 1944-45. Veterinary Corps investigations ofthe shipments determined that the losses were caused by exhaustion fromoverexposure or equine influenza as the result of long periods of train travel(6 to 7 days) and exposure to subfreezing weather.
552
were fed and watered. Theinterior heat of the cars, which were constructed of steel and without adequateventilation fixtures, and the irregular and limited availability of wateralong the route of travel caused the development of gastroenteric disturbancesin many animals. In the northeastward movement from Calcutta, India, of thoseAmerican horses and mules which came from the Zone of Interior and the SouthPacific and the Southwest Pacific Areas, the animals were unloaded from the carsonly to change to a railroad of another gage track and at certain rivercrossings. However, to complete their 1,450 mile travel into Burma, the sameanimals also were herded or trucked. In China, the 19th Veterinary EvacuationHospital assisted in the technical supervision over the tactical movement byrail of 5,000 Chinese military animals eastward from K'un-ming to Chan-i during the latesummer of 1945. (29).
TRANSPORTATION BY TRUCK
During World War II, a largenumber of horses and mules were transported by truck in the Zone of Interiorand overseas in the Mediterranean and the China-Burma-India theaters. Regulatorycontrols, such as those which governed the transportation of animals by ship andrailroad, were not placed over this shipping. However, where this shipping wasaccomplished with proper regard for the health of the animals, no seriousdifficulties were experienced. In the Zone of Interior, for example,veterinary reports covering 87 separate shipments during 1945 indicated that 724horses and mules were trucked from purchase points, remount depots, and Armycamps without any animal losses (18). In the Mediterranean theater, animals ofthe provisional pack trains and U. S.-supervised Italian pack mule companieswere moved successfully in the Fifth U.S. Army area on standard trucks whichwere specially equipped with stock racks. Later, the veterinary evacuation planfor that Army's 10th Mountain Division operated to send replacement animalsforward on the same trucks that were used to collect and evacuate animalcasualties (30) (figs. 56 and 57).
Truck transport was usedalso in the India-Burma theater and in China. In the China theater, a specialplan was developed to move the animals of the American-sponsored Chinese armiesand divisions by a "block" or convoy system (29, 31). Though it wasinvaluable for moving equipment and supplies, the convoy system proved sodisastrous to horses and mules that the Army Veterinary Service recommendeddiscontinuance almost as soon as it was started (in April 1945). No imaginationis required to understand that the careless and rapid handling by inexperienceddrivers of the trucks in such convoys, which stopped only at scheduled relaypoints along the way, would cause animal losses. On the curving dirt roads, thetrucks turned over, or, on arrival at their destination, some of the animalswere dead or in a comatose condition. Such losses approximated 10 percent of theanimals in a single shipment by truck convoy.
553
TRANSPORTATION BY AIRPLANE
An innovation in themilitary transportation of horses and mules during World War II was the use ofthe airplane. In three separate situations, more than 7,000 animals whichbelonged to the Allied-sponsored Chinese military forces were transported byairplane in the China-Burma-India theater (27, 29, 32, 33). Previously, thismeans of moving mounted units and animals was seldom studied. In 1932, however,the veterinary officer instructor at the Cavalry School, Fort Riley, Kans.,expressed the thought-"it is notunreasonable to assume that in arelatively few years we may expect to witness the practical rapid movement oflimited numbers of horses by airplane or dirigible" (34). Many yearslater, during May 1943, an original actual test on the movement of a mountedunit was conducted on New Guinea (in the Southwest Pacific Area) by the 98thField Artillery Pack Battalion and the 374th Troop Carrier Group (35) (fig. 58).
A year and a half later,the Army Veterinary Service in the India-Burma theater assisted in the planningfor an "over the Himalayan Hump" movement
554
of animals which belonged tothe U.S.-trained Chinese New Sixth Army.11 This Allied Force, then in Burma,was urgently needed in the operations that led to the clearing of portions ofthe China side of the Burma Road which had been held by the Japanese enemy. TheU.S. 7th Veterinary Company (Separate) and a detachment of the 19th VeterinaryEvacuation Hospital supervised the original shipments and actually loaded theairplanes at the Shamaw and Nansin fields in Burma (fig. 59). In two series ofshipments completed by February 1945, the animals which had been airlifted intoChina totaled 2,213 horses and mules. The same group of animals, then numbering2,154, were airlifted during April and May 1945 within China, from Chan-i toChih-chiang, in the operations to stem the Japanese advances on the bases ofthe Fourteenth Air Force. In the third airlift, or the second one over theHimalayan Hump, 2,751 animals of the Chinese 38th and 50th Divisions (of theChinese New First Army) and a regiment were moved during July and
11The Allied Britishmilitary forces originally used the airplane to transport animals in a tacticalsituation. In the spring of 1944, an airlift of 1,350 animals was made duringWingate's second expedition in Central Burma.
555
August 1945 from Burma intoNan-ning, China. Losses incident to these airlifts numbered two animals; onewas fatally injured during loading and the other was destroyed en route when itendangered the safety of the airplane and its crew.
The type of airplane used inthese operations was the Douglas C-47, each carrying four to six animalstogether with attendants, equipment, and a 5-day forage supply, but notexceeding 6,500 pounds per load. The floor of the airplane was covered with plywood sheets, over whichwas placed a waterproof paulin and a matting of straw. The animals were loadedtwo at a time and faced forward; as the loading progressed each two animals werefitted into a temporary stall, complete with front, rear, and top crossbars,made by tying or wiring bamboo poles together (fig. 60). An 18-inch space wasallowed in the front of each pair of animals to provide headroom and space forthe attendants. Loading was accomplished in 10 to 20 minutes and was madedirectly over the tailgates of trucks which were backed to the door of theairplane or by ramp. Prior to loading, the animals were newly shod, malleintested for glanders, and their blood samples were examined for trypanosomiasisand piroplasmosis. Those animals which were unserviceable, sick or injured, ornervous in temperament were withdrawn from shipment. Once airborne, the
556
animals became quiet, dozedat altitudes of 14,000 to 20,000 feet, were unmindful of rough travel, andpushed forward instead of bracing themselves to the rear when the airplane lostaltitude.
ROAD MARCHThe road march was one ofthe several methods used to move animals from one place to another. One of themost notable experiences of the Army Veterinary Service during World War II washad by the group of Veterinary Corps officers who accompanied the march of 5,397horses and mules over the famous Burma Road and Stilwell Road from Central andNorth Burma into K'un-ming, China (29, 36). These animals belonged to the Chinese22d and 30th Divisions, an animal transport regiment, and two engineerregiments, sand to the following U.S. units: The Artillery Detachment of the5332d MARS Brigade (including the 612th and 613th Field Artillery PackBattalions)and the 31st, 33d, 35th, 37th, 252d, and 253d Quartermaster Pack Troops. Theunits were accompanied by their veterinary detachments and separate veterinaryanimal service detachments or by casual personnel totaling 15 Veteri-
557
nary Corps officers, whowith the Chinese mounted units comprised the only members of the U.S. liaisonteams that accompanied them during this march. The departures from Burma of themarch column-made up of about 20 serials (or groups ofanimals)-started on 2 May1945, with the Chinese 30th Division out of Lashio and continued until 4 July 1945, when the ChineseAnimal Transport Regiment cleared Myitkyina;animals began to arrive in K'un-ming after 22 June 1945. At one time, more than80 percent of these animals were actually on the road.
Preliminary planning coveredthe survey of the animal feed and forage resources along the routes of march andin areas of planned deployment of the animals, the increase in the ChineseArmy's animal ration to subsist the larger American mule and Australian horse,the reduction in the number of animals which carried pack loads to 50 to 75percent of unit animal strength, the establishment of a rate of march at 15 to20 miles per day, and the location
558
of overnight bivouacs alongthe road, including feed depots, first aid stations, and 1-day campsites forfeeding, resting, and, if needed, reshoeing after every 3 days of travel (29,37, 38). Much of the planning necessarily was made by the Army VeterinaryService against the original beliefs that the animals, each with a pay load of250 pounds, should be marched at the rate of 25 miles per day until thedestination had been reached. Preparatoryto their moving out, the animals were examined for infectious disease, werenewly shod, and grouped into serials of 200 to 300 animals each. Screening for unserviceability removed an estimated 10 percent of theanimals from the units before they started the march. Whenever possible, animalsshowing a temporary disability were relieved of their pack loads or were movedby truck transport to the next bivouacs; others becoming actually sick orwounded were evacuated to a veterinary unit which accompanied the march or toone located at a terminus of the route (39, 40, 41). Such units included the 2dPlatoon, 7th Separate Veterinary Company; the Veterinary Company E, 13thMountain Medical Battalion; the 18th and 19th Veterinary Evacuation Hospitals;and the U.S. veterinary liaison group with the Chinese 2d Army at Pao-shan.Animals which were evacuated numbered 178 in the Chinese 30th Division (with1,679 animals) and 98 from the U.S. field artillery and quartermaster pack units(with approximately 2,300 mules and horses). Many of these were returned totheir units during the march, but others were transported by truck for theremainderof the distance.
The march of the 5,397 mulesand horses in the moist, tropical heat of the jungles and mountains in southeastAsia proved as much a hardship on animals as it did on man. The American muleseemed to fare much better than the Australian horses and local tonga ponieswhich were in the same march column. Disabilities along the way included, forthe greater part, exhaustion, contact abrasions and wounds due to pack saddleequipment, and lameness and foot troubles due to improper shoeing. Of course,there were a number of losses caused by landslides, falling off cliffs, drowningat river crossings, and theft. From the information which was available, thelosses totaled 142 animals (or 2.6 percent) dying or destroyed on account ofdisease, as follows:
559
| Number of animals |
Infectious and parasitic diseases: |
|
| Anthrax suspect | 1 |
| Piroplasmosis | 1 |
General diseases: Laminitis | 5 |
Diseases of the nervous system: |
|
| Paraplegia | 4 |
| Spasms (diaphragm) | 1 |
Diseases of the circulatory system: Lymphangitis | 7 |
Diseases of the respiratory system: |
|
| Pneumonia, lobar | 2 |
| Pulmonary emphysema | 1 |
Diseases of the digestive system: |
|
| Choke | 2 |
| Colic | 6 |
| Impaction and torsion | 3 |
| Peritonitis | 2 |
Diseases of the skin and cellular tissues: Fistula | 1 |
Diseases of the bones and organs of locomotion: |
|
| Separations of frog and sole | 3 |
| Tendinitis | 1 |
Injuries (violent and accidental causes): |
|
| Dislocation | 1 |
| Drowning | 4 |
| Exhaustion (and emaciation) | 41 |
| Fracture of bone | 10 |
| Wounds | 6 |
| Miscellaneous | 4 |
Unclassified | 34 |
| Total | 142 |
This excluded the loss of anadditional hundred or more animals after mid?August 1945 as the latter elementsof the march column (composed of the U.S. field artillery and quartermaster packunits) approached their destination. In these animals, surra was uncovered,and an intense program of test and eradication against the disease wasundertaken.
References
1. Move Horses by Airplane.Army Vet. Bull. 22: 206-207, November 1928.
2. Hershberger, F. C.: WorldWar II History of the Army Veterinary Service, New York Port of Embarkation.[Official record.]
3. World War II HistoricalReport of the Army Veterinary Service, Second Service Command, Army ServiceForces. [Official record.]
4. The Medical Department ofthe U.S. Army in the World War. The Surgeon General's Office. Washington:Government Printing Office, 1923, vol. I.
5. Kunnecke, R. P.: WorldWar II History of the Army Veterinary Service, Los Angeles Port of Embarkation. [Official record.]
6. Smith, Edwin J., andCrawford, Andy W.: History of the Veterinary Service at the New Orleans Port ofEmbarkation, New Orleans, Louisiana. [Official record.]
7. Rife, C. J.: World War IIHistory of the Army Veterinary Service, San Francisco Port of Embarkation.[Official record.]
8. Annual Report, ArmyVeterinary Service in the Mediterranean Theater, 1943.
9. Nye, E. L.: VeterinaryService With Grand Joint Army and Navy Maneuvers in Hawaii. Army Vet. Bull. 27:32-41, January 1938.
10. History of the U.S. ArmyMedical Department, Veterinary Service. Headquarters, U.S. Army Forces,Pacific Ocean Areas. For the period 7 Dec. 1941 to 30 June 1945. [Officialrecord.]
11. Reports of Sick andWounded Animals, 97th Field Artillery Battalion, January and April 1943.
12. Personal letter, Lt.Col. E. W. Young, VC, Surgeon's Office, China Service Command, to Col. J. A.McCallam, VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, 9 May 1945.
560
13. Veterinary History ofthe China Theater, 1946. [Official record.]
14. Annual Report, ArmyVeterinary Service in the Mediterranean Theater, 1944.
15. Letters, Lt. Col. W. H.Shannon, VC, Port Surgeon's Office, 6th Port, to SGO, 1 March, 1 April, and May1944, subject: Report of Animal Transports.
16. Letters, Maj. J. W.Upchurch, VC, Port Surgeon's Office, 8th Port, to SGO, 1 Dec. 1944 and 5 Jan.1945, subject: Report of Animal Transports.
17. Merillat, L. A., andCampbell, D. M.: Veterinary Military History of the United States. Chicago:Veterinary Magazine Corporation, 1935.
18. Miller, E. B.: ACompilation of Veterinary Health Certificates and Memorandums. July 1950.
19. Letter, 1st Lt. R. L.Griffith, VC, 76th Field Artillery Battalion, to SGO, 1 Aug. 1942, subject:Report of Veterinarian Accompanying Shipment of Army Horses (AR 40-2035, par.35).
20. Letter, 1st Lt. W. L.Pinckard, VC, Veterinary Station Hospital, Fort Riley, Kans., to SGO, 4 July1942, subject: Report of Veterinary Officer Accompanying Shipment of PublicAnimals.
21. Letter, Col. E. M.Daniels, QMC, Office of the Quartermaster General, to commanding officers,quartermaster remount depots, 24 Aug. 1943, subject: Veterinary Personnel ToAccompany Shipments of Animals.
22. Letter, Headquarters,Western Defense Command and Fourth U.S. Army, Presidio of San Francisco, Calif.,to Chief, Transportation Corps, 9 Jan. 1943, subject: Transportation ofAnimals.
23. Letter, W. G.Templeton, General Manager, Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry.,Nashville, Tenn.,to SGO, 23 Mar. 1943.
24. 3d indorsement, Lt. Col.R. S. Mackellar, VC, Veterinary Division, SGO, to Office of Chief ofTransportation, 14 Oct. 1943; in reply to 2d indorsement, General Manager,Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry., 17 Aug. 1943.
25. Memorandum staff paper,Lt. Col. C. M. Cowherd, VC, Chief Surgeon's Office, U.S. Army Forces inAustralia, to Chief Quartermaster, U.S. Army Forces in Australia, 24 Feb. 1945,subject: Animals, Rail Shipment of.
26. Weisman, Louis G.:History of the Veterinary Service in the Southwest Pacific Area, 1942-45.[Official record.]
27. Mohri, Ralph W.: Historyof the United States Army Veterinary Service in the China-Burma-India Theater,World War II. [Official record.]
28. Woodward, H. C.: AnimalTransport Training in India. Cavalry Jour. 54: 23-25, July 1945.
29. The Veterinary Historyof the China Theater, 1945. [Official record.]
30. Monthly Sanitary Report,Surgeon's Office, 10th Mountain Division, April 1945.
31. Memorandum, Lt. Col.L. C. Tekse, VC, 19th Veterinary Evacuation Hospital, to Commanding Officer,Chan-i Area Command, U.S. Armed Forces, China Theater, 14 Apr. 1945, subject:Report on Condition of Animals.
32. Mohri, R. W.: FlyingAnimals Over the Burma "Hump." Cavalry Jour. 54: 42-45,September-October 1945.
33. La Veve, A.: Pegasus.Cavalry Jour. 54:48-49, November-December 1946.
34. Caldwell, G. L.: AnimalManagement-Transportation of Animals. Army Vet. Bull. 28:46-70, January 1934.
35. Smock, Stanley C., andBaker, Jack E.: History of the Veterinary Service in Southwest Pacific Area,1942-45. [Official record.]
36. Rand, J. A.: Mules forChina. Quartermaster Review 25: 25-26 and 91, January?February 1946.
37. Letter, Lt. Col. W. E.Jennings, VC, Headquarters, Chinese Combat Command, USFCT, to CommandingGeneral, Chinese Combat Command, 18 July 1945, subject: Inspection of AnimalsFrom Burma to China.
561
38. Letter, Lt. Col. W. E.Jennings, VC, Headquarters, Chinese Combat Command, USFCT, to CommandingGeneral, Chinese Combat Command, 25 Aug. 1945, subject: Movement of 30th Division(Chinese) Animals From Burma to China.
39. Letter, lst Lt. C. H.Burnham, VC, 612th Field Artillery Battalion, Chinese Training Command, USFCT,to Veterinarian, Chinese Combat Command, 13 Sept. 1945, subject: Animal MovementFrom India-Burma to China Theater.
40. Letter, Capt. W. R.Fetzer, VC, 613th Field Artillery Battalion, Chinese Training Command, USFCT, toVeterinarian, Chinese Combat Command, 13 Sept. 1945, subject: Animal MovementFrom India-Burma to China Theater.
41. Letter, Capt. C. L.Nowlin, VC, Headquarters, Quartermaster Pack Troops, Chinese Combat Command,USFCT, to Veterinarian, Chinese Combat Command, 21 Sept. 1945, subject: Reportof Movement of Quartermaster Pack Troops From Myitkyina, Burma, to Siakwan,China.
