REGRESSING FORWARD: ARMY ADAPTABILITY AND ANIMAL POWER DURING WORLD WAR II by JASON C. MARTIN B.A., Trinity University, 1988 M.A., University of Central Arkansas, 1995 AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2012 Abstract America forged a successful way of war that relied on adaptation, and this trait was not simply an adjunct to industrial might as a reason why the Allies won World War II. An American penchant for organization and corporate management allowed for mass production of war material, which clearly contributed to Axis defeat. However, to claim that the Axis Powers were merely overwhelmed by an avalanche of weapons and supply is reductionist. This dissertation contends that adaptability was as much an American way of war as mass production and overwhelming firepower. The particular nature of American adaptability and its contribution to Allied victory are exhibited in the Army’s use of animal power during a conflict synonymous with mechanized warfare and advanced technology. The application of pre-modern technology in a modern, machine-driven war was not archaic. On the contrary, the nature of American adaptability allowed the Army to move forward by retreating down a culturally constructed hierarchy of modernity and employing the traditional mode of animal transportation. The Army’s technological regression from motors to mules in North Africa, the Mediterranean, and China-Burma-India during World War II is the focus of this work. Americans possessed material abundance in campaigns across Western Europe and the Central Pacific in 1944 and 1945, as German and Japanese prisoners attested. Mountains of artillery shells, fuel, and food, however, did not exist in the backwater “sideshows.” American military success on the periphery was not due to material abundance, nor to a greater sense of determination. America won the backwater campaigns because the nature of American adaptability was cultivated over the centuries and converted from a way of life to an American way of war. REGRESSING FORWARD: ARMY ADAPTABILITY AND ANIMAL POWER DURING WORLD WAR II by JASON C. MARTIN B.A., Trinity University, 1988 M.A., University of Central Arkansas, 1995 A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2012 Approved by: Major Professor Dr. Mark Parillo Copyright JASON C. MARTIN 2012 Abstract America forged a successful way of war that relied on adaptation, and this trait was not simply an adjunct to industrial might as a reason why the Allies won World War II. An American penchant for organization and corporate management allowed for mass production of war material, which clearly contributed to Axis defeat. However, to claim that the Axis Powers were merely overwhelmed by an avalanche of weapons and supply is reductionist. This dissertation contends that adaptability was as much an American way of war as mass production and overwhelming firepower. The particular nature of American adaptability and its contribution to Allied victory are exhibited in the Army’s use of animal power during a conflict synonymous with mechanized warfare and advanced technology. The application of pre-modern technology in a modern, machine-driven war was not archaic. On the contrary, the nature of American adaptability allowed the Army to move forward by retreating down a culturally constructed hierarchy of modernity and employing the traditional mode of animal transportation. The Army’s technological regression from mechanization and motors to mules in North Africa, the Mediterranean, and China-Burma-India during World War II is the focus of this work. Americans possessed material abundance in campaigns across Western Europe and the Central Pacific in 1944 and 1945, as German and Japanese prisoners attested. Mountains of artillery shells, fuel, and food, however, did not exist in the backwater “sideshows.” American military success on the periphery was not due to material abundance, nor to a greater sense of determination. America won the backwater campaigns because the nature of American adaptability was cultivated over the centuries and converted from a way of life to an American way of war. Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii Aknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………viii Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….1 Chapter 1: Of Mules and Men…………………………………………………………………...23 Chapter 2: Shifting Gears………………….……………………………………………………..35 Chapter 3: Everything Old was New Again: Mules in North Africa and Sicily…………………72 Chapter 4: Mule Mobilization: From the Farm to the Front……………………………………101 Chapter 5: Mules on the Boot: Operations in Italy……………………………………………..128 Chapter 6: Mules on the Riviera: The Campaign Across South France and the Vosges……….161 Chapter 7: Jungle Mules Part I: The Southwest Pacific…………………………………… ….182 Chapter 8: Jungle Mules Part II: China-Burma-India…………………………………………..194 Conclusion: Constants, Regressive Adaptability, and the American Way of War …………….250 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………264 vi List of Figures Figure 1-1 Gun mule with Phillips cargo pack saddle…………………………………………...34 Figure 2-1 Motorized company pass cavalry during the Punitive Expedition, 1916.....................70 Figure 2-2 Tractor-trailers portee cavalry during Army maneuvers in Louisiana, 1940………...71 Figure 3-1 African burro impressed into service by 60th Infantry in Tunisia, April 1943……….98 Figure 3-2 3rd Infantry lead native donkeys ashore at Licata, Sicily, July 1943…………………99 Figure 4-1 Mules unloaded by crane and cargo net, Naples, Italy, September 1944…………..126 Figure 5-1 Loading plasma and medical supplies on Italian donkey…………………………...158 Figure 5-2 Mule skinners improvise shoes from German landing obstacles…………………..159 Figure 5-3 Mule train passes overturned Army truck on Italian mountainside………………...160 Figure 6-1 513th QMPC packing mules for operations in Alsace, France, February 1945…….179 Figure 6-2 Pvt. Lather Moon and mule deliver supplies in Alsace, France, February 1945…...180 Figure 6-3 Hauling mules by truck, Saarebourg, France, March 1945………………………....181 Figure 8-1 Merrill's Marauders and mules crossing Burma stream…………………………….246 Figure 8-2 Mules cross Irrawaddy River on pontoon ferry…………………………………….247 Figure 8-3 Loading mules on C-47 for flight over the Himalaya "Hump"……………………..248 Figure 8-4 Mars Task Force nearing the Burma Road, January 1945………………………….249 Figure C.1 Twenty-first century military technology…………………………….……….……263 vii Acknowledgements The number of Americans holding a PhD is around one to three percent of the population. The small number is no surprise to anyone enrolling in a PhD program, much less to the fraction who eventually earns the degree. They are painfully aware that it is a grueling, solitary process. One reaches the PhD milestone on their own, yet the load is often shared and those who bore the burden during my academic odyssey deserve recognition and thanks. I earned my M.A. from the University of Central Arkansas. I taught night classes at this fine institution for nearly a decade, during which time I explored enrollment opportunities in doctoral programs. My professors and colleagues provided plenty of advice. Don Jones, Gene Corcoran, and Ken Barnes were encouraging. Harry Readnour was more reserved and sometimes disheartening as he portrayed realistic expectations, but tireless in his support once I committed to a program. I am also grateful to my employers at Pulaski Technical College for granting me a one year leave of absence while I fulfilled my residency requirement at Kansas State University. It was a load off of my mind to have job security while I was gone. Words cannot express my gratitude to the History Department at Kansas State University. I compressed two years of doctoral coursework into less than a calendar year. Running, or perhaps sprinting, this academic marathon was possible largely because of support and cooperation from my professors. Michael Ramsay brainstormed dissertation ideas. Jim Coffman came out of retirement to teach a special course in veterinary medicine for my outside field requirement. David Stone and Sue Zschoche worked with me during the summer to see that I finished up coursework before returning home to Arkansas. Louise Breen and Charles Sanders provided calming advice regarding preliminary exams, and Heather McCrea kindly joined my viii dissertation committee late in the process. My dissertation committee included David Stone, Sue Zschoche, Jim Coffman, and Heather McCrea, and I owe them a great debt of gratitude. I met all deadlines, graduated on schedule, and produced a respectable manuscript because of their diligence and hard work. I am particularly grateful to my major professor, Mark Parillo. One of the more memorable conversations with Dr. Parillo was the last thing he told me during our first meeting. We discussed the difficulty of taking so many courses in such a short amount of time. I was hardly overconfident but he assured me, “If you come out here, I will do all I can to see you get through it in a year.” Dr. Parillo was true to his word. The year passed, I completed all of the coursework, and returned