Chapter 2 MILITARY WORKING DOG HISTORY
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Military Working Dog History Chapter 2 MILITARY WORKING DOG HISTORY NOLAN A. WATSON, MLA* INTRODUCTION COLONIAL AMERICA AND THE CIVIL WAR WORLD WAR I WORLD WAR II KOREAN WAR AND THE EARLY COLD WAR VIETNAM WAR THE MILITARY WORKING DOG CONCLUSION *Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Regimental Historian; AMEDD Center of History and Heritage, Medical Command, 2748 Worth Road, Suite 28, Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, Texas 78234; formerly, Branch Historian, Military Police Corps, US Army Military Police School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 83 Military Veterinary Services INTRODUCTION History books recount stories of dogs accompany- which grew and changed with subsequent US wars. ing ancient armies, serving as sources of companion- Currently, US forces utilize military working dogs ship and performing valuable sentry duties. Dogs also (MWDs) in a variety of professions such as security, fought in battle alongside their owners. Over time, law enforcement, combat tracking, and detection (ie, however, the role of canines as war dogs diminished, for explosives and narcotics). Considered an essential especially after firearms became part of commanders’ team member, an MWD was even included in the arsenals. By the 1800s and up until the early 1900s, the successful raid against Osama Bin Laden in 2011.1 (See horse rose to prominence as the most important mili- also Chapter 3, Military Working Dog Procurement, tary animal; at this time, barring some guard duties, Veterinary Care, and Behavioral Services for more dogs were relegated mostly to the role of mascots. It information about the historic transformation of the was not until World War II that the US Army adopted MWD program and the military services available broader roles for its canine service members—uses for canines.) COLONIAL AMERICA AND THE CIVIL WAR Early American Army dogs were privately owned tary continued throughout the next century and into at first; there was neither a procurement system to the American Civil War. With the advent of field secure canines for the military, nor a great desire to (mobile) artillery and these weapons’ transportation increase their numbers. Even though George Washing- requirements, horses far exceeded dogs in terms of ton adored dogs, he did not see a need to use them in military importance. In fact, because of their signifi- battle.2 Still, dogs infrequently followed their owners to cance to the 19th century premechanized Army, horses war during the American Revolution and other frontier and mules were the only US government-owned conflicts.3 On the rare occasions when dogs accom- animals. Horse and mule procurement programs panied their owners’ units, these animals sometimes also were developed, and new soldier specialties and performed sentry duty; however, standardization for tasks were created to provide care and maintenance training, care, or use in performing military-related for military working horses and mules (eg, cavalry tasks did not exist. Instead, these dogs were mostly duties). (None of these newly developed soldier tasks kept as personal pets or unit mascots. (The practice were conducted by licensed animal doctors, however. of soldiers and units maintaining mascots or keep- At this time, there were no accredited veterinary col- ing animals on the battlefields extended throughout leges in America. See Chapter 1, Military Veterinary America’s early conflicts [Figure 2-1] and, to a small Support Before and After 1916, for more information degree, continues today; see also Chapter 12, Rabies about the development of the US Veterinary Corps and and Continued Military Concerns.) the growth of its groups of specially trained animal The minor role of canines working in the US mili- care providers.) WORLD WAR I When the United States entered World War I in deemed of such importance that canine gas masks and April 1917, the American army still had no official chemical protective suits were developed by both the military dog program, even though other armies had Allies and Central Powers (Figure 2-2).4(p950) organized canine programs in place before the war Studying the British and French army models, leaders began in 1914. Germany, in particular, devoted a fair of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF; the name amount of resources to its canine war efforts, initially given to the US armed forces sent to Europe to aid the bringing 6,000 dogs with its army as it advanced on the Allies in World War I) also saw some potential for us- Western Front. Britain, France, and Italy followed suit, ing canines, but recommended plans, including placing gathering thousands of dogs for their armies, looking these animals under the control of the Army Medical De- for similar advantages on the battlefield.4(p949) partment, were not employed.5(pp22–24) Unofficially, local As years of war in Europe depleted the continent’s commanders and soldiers procured a few dogs from local horses, dogs also were used to move small wagons, French sources for limited service.6 While some breeds carts, and supplies. Belgium, its horse population were better suited for their appointed duties than others, particularly ravaged by the war, used dogs in many at this time, breed was not as an important a criterion sectors of civilian life as well. At this time, dogs were for selection as intelligence and loyalty.7 84 Military Working Dog History Figure 2-1. American soldiers attempt to put one of their gas masks on Taps, their pet terrier (1918). Photo courtesy of the US Army Chemical Corps Museum, Ft Leonard Wood, Missouri. Some of the selected canines served as sentries to detect nighttime incursions in the trenches and as couriers for transporting messages. Though not of- ficially in the Army’s inventory, Red Cross dogs or “mercy dogs” assisted in locating the wounded.6 But the majority of AEF dogs still served mainly as mascots Figure 2-2. German-produced canine gas protection suit and pets; in fact, despite many stories of canine heroics and mask (1941). Photo courtesy of the US Army Chemical Corps Museum, (eg, fighting the enemy or delivering vital messages), Ft Leonard Wood, Missouri. overall dog use by the AEF was minimal and always unofficial.4(p949) At the close of the Great War, the state of animal Despite their small role during World War I, canines use by armies was in flux. As previously mentioned, received significant praise and attention after the war, horses were scarce in Europe; mule populations also garnering news releases on multiple occasions.8 Some were decimated. Although remount stations of the US dogs—such as Sergeant Stubby and, most notably, Veterinary Corps kept significant numbers of these Rin Tin Tin—also appeared in books and movies and animals in service during the last year of the war, their on radio programs and were considered war heroes. decline was inevitable and coincided with the grow- 5 (pp24–27),9 However, this increased public popularity did ing production of motorized transport. While pigeons not lead to heightened US military interest in dogs or remained in military inventories and would be used development of an organized canine program. The as messengers in the next war, these birds were being US Army of the 1920s and 1930s was still too small to outpaced by technology too. explore this option.10(p615) WORLD WAR II World War II marked the beginning of real change In the late 1930s, the Army increased its dog num- in the use of US military dogs. Since America was com- bers only slightly by expanding a sled dog program. mitted to total war on many fronts during this time, However, as the United States became more involved dogs gradually were viewed as more than just mascots in World War II, interest in military dogs accelerated. or pets; they began to be seen as another means to Overseas participation in the war and security con- save vital manpower. In the current Army lexicon, cerns within America’s borders precipitated the need they became “force multipliers.” for several rapid-succession dog program overhauls: 85 Military Veterinary Services (a) on March 13,1942, the secretary of war approved K-9 Corps had to be quickly implemented. The need the acceptance of 200 trained guard dogs offered by for standardized curriculum and guidelines for veteri- the American Theater Wing Incorporated program, nary caretakers also required immediate attention. In a civilian project consisting of volunteer dog owners response, the US Army Veterinary Corps conducted and trainers; (b) this program was soon replaced by thorough examinations and culled unhealthy animals the War Dog Program; (c) under this program, Dogs or those with limited potential, while the Quartermas- for Defense was named as the agency in charge of the ter Corps established training schools and published a procurement of non-sled dogs; and (d) finally, in July formal technical manual about war dog care.11 1942, the US Army Quartermaster Corps became the Unlike previous military dog guidance, the new sole agency providing trained dogs for the military standards contained strict breed and size require- and other federal agencies.10(p616) ments. At this time, only the following breeds of dog Americans were enthusiastic about the growing were generally accepted into military service: German need for military canines. An estimated 40,000 dogs shepherd, Belgian sheep dog, Doberman pinscher, farm were voluntarily donated to the Dogs for Defense collie, Siberian husky, Malamute, Eskimo, and crosses program (Figure 2-3). However, because this number of those breeds. Ideally, all dogs selected for military was so large, uniform standards to screen war dog can- service were to weigh between 40 and 80 pounds and didates for the newly formed (and colloquially named) be between 14 and 24 months old. Although some exceptions might be made for breed and size–usually dependent on the dog’s projected tasks–good health and dependability were continual requirements.10(pp618–619) Trainers and dog handlers also had to conform to new standards and received standardized training via a specialized program.