Montana War Dogs
The History
Winners of the Race to the Sky, Montana and other dog sled races. Montana
war dogs also had their training camp located here near Helena Montana. Montana
war dogs were trained at Camp Rimini Montana.
Montana War Dogs
Montana Sled Dog Winners
| Governor’s Cup 500 Mile Sled Dog Race |
|
|
|
| 1986 |
Linwood Fiedler |
formerly of Montana, now Alaska |
|
| 1987 |
Mark Nordman |
formerly of Minnesota, now Alaska |
|
| 1988 |
Linwood Fiedler |
formerly of Montana, now Alaska |
|
|
|
|
|
| Centennial Sled Dog Race |
|
|
|
| 1989 |
Greg Swingley |
Montana |
|
|
|
|
|
| Race to the Sky 500 Mile |
|
|
|
| 1990 |
Dean Osmar |
Alaska |
|
|
|
|
|
| Race to the Sky 500 & 250 Mile |
|
|
|
| 1991 |
Doug Swingley |
Montana (500) |
|
|
Kenny Hess |
Montana (250) |
|
| 1992 |
Greg Swingley |
Montana (500) |
|
|
Ray Gordon |
Wyoming (250) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Race to the Sky 500 & 300 Mile |
|
|
|
| 1993 |
Robin Jacobson |
formerly of Minnesota, now Montana (500) |
|
|
Frank Teasley |
Wyoming (300) |
|
| 1994 |
Jessie Royer |
formerly of Montana, now Alaska (500) |
|
|
Frank Teasley |
Wyoming (300) |
|
| 1995 |
Maria Hayashida |
Wyoming (500) |
|
|
Rusty Rise |
|
Washington (300) |
| 1996 |
Cliff Roberson |
Washington (500) |
|
|
Butch Parr |
|
Montana (300) |
|
|
|
|
| Race to the Sky 350 Mile |
|
|
|
| 1997 |
Cliff Roberson |
Washington |
|
| 1998 |
Christian Clerc |
Washington |
|
| 1999 |
Jean LaCroix |
France, then Alaska |
|
| 2000 |
Butch Parr |
|
Montana |
| 2001 |
Sarah Spinola |
Colorado |
|
| 2002 |
Harmony Kanavle |
Montana |
|
| 2003 |
Jason Barron |
Montana |
|
| 2004 |
John Barron |
Montana |
|
| 2005 |
Cancelled |
|
Due to icy trail conditions |
| 2006 |
John Barron |
Montana |
|
| 2007 |
Mark Stamm |
Washington |
|
| 2008 |
Tom Thurston |
Colorado |
|
| 2009 |
Mark Stamm |
Washington |
|
| 2009 |
Rick Larson |
Montana (we had a 200 mile race as well) |
|
| 2010 |
Rick Larson |
Montana |
|
History of Military Use of Dogs
While the horse and mule were rapidly passing from the military scene the
Army during World War II, ventured into a new and comparatively untried
field of activity - the use of dogs for military purposes. Even though it
had utilized a few dogs in minor roles earlier, it was not until World War
II that they were used to any significant extent as auxiliaries to our
fighting men when trained for sentry, messenger, scout, sled and pack
duties. However the use of dogs for such purposes was by no means new to the
world.
The extraordinary characteristics of the dog - acuteness of his senses, his
docility, his affection for man, his watchfulness, and his speed enable him
to be of great value for military purposes. This fact was recognized
centuries ago. As methods of warfare changed through the ages, so did the
military use of dogs change.
Prior to the introduction of gunpowder, dogs usually took an active part in
combat. The early Greek and Roman soldiers made use of large dogs by
equipping them with spike collars and sending them forward to attack the
enemy. During the Middle Ages, war dogs were outfitted with armor and
frequently were used to defend caravans. The North American Indians
developed the dog for pack and draft work as well as for sentry duty. By the
early part of the twentieth century most European countries were utilizing
dogs in their armies. Russia used ambulance dogs during the Russo-Japanese
War. The Bulgarians and Italians employed dogs as sentries in the Balkans
and in Tripoli, as did the British on the Arbor Expedition in the Himalayas.
During the long drawn-out Spanish-Morocco War the Riffs camouflaged the
animals in garments to make them indistinguishable from their owners in the
hazy desert visibility and trained them to run along the front lines and
draw the fire of the Spaniards, thus revealing gun positions.
Dogs were used in sizable numbers in World War I, particularly by the
Germans, French, and Belgians, and proved of considerable value under
advantageous conditions for certain types of auxiliary duties. The German
Army is reported to have utilized approximately 30,000 of the animals for
messenger and ambulance service, The French and Belgian Armies employed them
on a smaller scale for messenger, ambulance, and draft work.
In the Spring of 1918, during World War I, a recommendation
was made by G-5. General Headquarters, American
Expeditionary Forces that dogs be used as sentries,
messengers, patrol aids and for special supply
missions. It was proposed to procure 500 dogs
from French training centers every three months
to equip American Divisions with 228 each; training
to extend to the United States, five kennels with
200 dog capacity each. However, the project was
disapproved by G-3, General Headquarter, and the
matter dropped.
At the time of Pearl Harbor, the sled dog was the only working type
to be found in the Army. About fifty of these animals were assigned to
military stations in Alaska, where they-were employed when snow and ice
precluded the use of horses mules or motorized transportation. Apart from
the animals in Alaska, the only other sled dogs were the forty obtained from
the Byrd Antarctic Expedition on its return early in 1941. They were used by
the Air Corps Ferrying Command in rescuing airmen forced down in snowbound
and desolate parts of Newfoundland, Greenland, and Iceland.
Origin of the Montana War Dog Program
The Army still had no plans for training dogs when the United States entered
World War II. -That such a program eventually was adopted was due partly to
the enthusiastic support given the idea by the major organizations of dog
owners and breeders and partly to the vision of a few military men who
foresaw various ways in which dogs could be used to excellent advantage. As
soon as it became apparent that the United States might become actively
involved in the new global conflict fanciers of dogs pointed out the
possible value of the animals to the Armed Forces, and leaders of several
prominent dog organizations turned their attention to developing training
techniques that might be militarily useful, particularly for sentry and
casualty work.
The attack upon Pearl Harbor and the sudden entry of the United States into
the war greatly stimulated interest in the use of dogs for sentry duty, With
the rapid expansion of industrial plants and Army installations, the
potential damage that might be done by saboteurs enemy aliens, and
fascist-minded groups was constantly mounting, and precautionary measures
were required. The necessity for such measures was further emphasized early
in 1942 when German submarines began to operate in large numbers near the
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, and landing of expert saboteurs loomed as a
distinct possibility. Dog fanciers were not slow to point out that the
animals might be extremely valuable auxiliaries if they were attached to
Coast Guard beach patrols then being organized to prevent such landings and
if they were used as guards at industrial plants and Army installations.
Role of Dogs for Defense Inc. as Procurement Agency
Meanwhile -steps were being taken to establish a national organization to
guide the patriotic purpose of dog owners along constructive lines,
Outstanding among the leaders of this movement were Mrs. Milton Erlanger,
prominent dog breeder and exhibitor Arthur, who for years had written
articles about dogs for the New York Sun and other publications under the
pseudonyms, Arthur Roland and Roland Harry I. Caesar, who was elected
President of the newly formed organization, Dogs for Defense and Len head
of the Professional Dog Handlers Association,, The result was
the establishment of Dogs for Defense, Inc.,*
*See Appendix I for List of Board of Directive,
Dogs for Defense Inc. (Not included in this Document)
which was designed to serve as a clearing house for coordinating the various
attempts to develop interest in sentry dogs. This new group obtained the
cooperation of the American Kennel Club, which as the registration body for
all pure-bred dogs, wielded a strong influence among owners and fanciers.
The most powerful professional and amateur influences thus were mobilized to
assist in launching Dogs for Defense in January 1942. Funds to finance the
operation of Dogs for Defense were to be obtained through member clubs of
the American Kennel Club and by donation from individual financiers. The
animals were to be acquired by donation trained at kennels under the
supervision of Dogs for Defense, and distributed for use where they were
most needed, Regional offices were to conduct most of the work actually
required in connection with procurement and training.**
Shortly after the establishment of Dogs for Defense, the American Theatre
Wing War Service made a formal offer to donate dogs to the Quartermaster
Corps for defense purposes. In view of the mounting interest in sentry dogs
and the fact that the Army had no regular means of obtaining them. The
Quartermaster General asked permission of the Secretary of War to accept the
dogs without cost to the Government. The authority was granted in February.
Inasmuch as the organization of the Theatre Wing group did not lend itself
readily to the actual procurement and training of dogs, officials of Dogs
for Defense agreed to assume these responsibilities.
The program embarked upon was experimental because canine supply and
training, except in connection with sled dogs were entirely new tasks for
the Army. It was designed primarily to provide a test of the usefulness of
dogs at Quartermaster Installations. Supervision of the new program was
assigned initially to the Plant Protection Branch, Inspection Division
(Office of The Quartermaster General) on the theory that dogs would be used
chiefly with guards at civilian war plants and Quartermaster depots.
Original estimates listed requirements at only 200 animals.
To fill this order, Dogs for Defense asked qualified trainers to volunteer
their services without pay and called for the donation of animals and the
use of-private kennels for instructional purposes. Donations of 100
acceptable dogs were soon obtained but none of the kennels offered was
sufficiently large to carry on the training of so many animals- so it was
necessary to maintain a dozen small training centers in various parts of the
country. This meant that standardization of instruction was impossible.
Moreover, few animals were actually delivered to using agencies. An Army
inspection made in June, three months after the program began, revealed that
the dogs in training had made little progress. This was due largely to the
fact that available instructors generally were inexperienced in teaching
sentry dogs and unfamiliar with military conditions most of them having
specialized in preparing animals for routine obedience tests or for field
trail work. Another striking weakness of the program was the failure to
teach men to handle the dogs. This defect however, was due primarily to the
fact that the Army did not make enlisted personnel available for this
purpose.
Partly because of the discouraging conditions, war dogs will always
have distinguished honor.
**See Appendix 11 for List of 'Regional Directors, Dogs for Defenses, Inc.
(Not included in this Document)
Defense conducted its activities and partly because the demand for sentry
dogs was beginning to outstrip the original limited conception of the number
required, a new training program was developed in the summer of 1942, The
first step toward formulating such a program was the transfer of the
responsibility for procuring, handling, and training dogs from the Plant
Protection Branch to the Remount Branch. The extensive and specialized
organization of the Remount Branch its long experience in dealing with
animals and its strategically located depots made it the logical agency to
handle an enlarged program. Inasmuch as it was still intended to use only
sentry dogs and these largely at civilian plants the responsibility for the
issue was retained for the time being in the Plant Protection Branch but
this function too was shifted to the Remount Branch in September. This
realignment of functions meant that while Dogs for Defense lost its training
function, it retained the procurement function by delegation from the
Remount Branch.
Evidence that military interest was developing in the potentialities of war
dogs for tactical purposes was demonstrated early in July 1942 when
Headquarters, Army Ground Forces announced plans to utilize 100 messenger
and scout dogs and 100 sled dogs in the proposed Mountain Division, and
submitted a request for eleven of these dogs in November for use in a test
at Camp Hale in Colorado. Another token of interest in tactical dogs was the
request made by Army Ground Forces a short time later for specially selected
animals for experimental training in message carrying wire-laying,
pack-carrying, first-aid, scout., attack., and trail work.
Formal recognition of the possible military value of dogs came on 16 July
1942., when the Secretary of War directed The Quartermaster General to
broaden the scope of the War Dog Program to include training for roving
patrol messenger and sled work in addition to fixed sentry duty. Instruction
in this latter category it was pointed out, should be modified to meet the
needs of the Army Air Force in guarding air fields, and possible uses by
other agencies. This directive also ordered the Army Ground Forces, the Army
Air Force and the theaters of operations "to explore the possibilities of
using dogs advantageously in the various activities under their control."
Pending the determination of military needs, The Quartermaster General was
ordered not only to conduct training of dogs in the four categories but also
to teach handlers, develop training techniques, and establish schools
capable of rapid expansion. Thus the program originally based on the
assumption that dogs would be employed only in small numbers and only for
fixed sentry duty at industrial plants and Quartermaster installations
became one based on the supposition that these animals might be utilized
generally for a wide variety of tactical purposes by other arms and
services.
The functions of the Quartermaster Corps expanded still further in the fall
of 1942 when the Corps was made responsible for procuring and training dogs
for the Navy and the Coast Guard. This was an out- growth of the steady
increase in demand for dogs among the Armed Forces.
The Coast Guard required dogs in mounting numbers for its beach patrols and
the Navy needed them for sentry duty at its yards, air stations ordnance
plants,, and ammunition depots.
At this time Mrs. Milton Erlanger, mentioned earlier as having been one of
the most enthusiastic leaders in organizing Dogs for Defense Inc. entered on
duty as Expert Consultant to The Quartermaster General in setting up the War
Dog Program, unofficially known as the "K-9 Corps". While this title was
never officially adopted, it became the popular title of the Program,
obviously due to its phonetic association with the words "canine corps".
Mrs. Erlanger worked directly with the then Chief of Remount Branch Colonel
E. M. Daniels, in formulating plans for the procurement of "suitable dogs
and for their training as well as the recruitment of personnel for the
latter function. By reason of her many years’ experience as a dog fancier
breeder exhibitor and judge of shows she was eminently fitted for this
position. She authored the Training Manual known as TM 10-396-WAR DOGS,
technical bulletins, training films, etc…
Montana War Dogs Procurement and Training
To implement the greatly expanded program, The Quartermaster General ordered
the establishment of war dog reception and training centers. Their function
was to receive animals procured by Dogs for Defense, give them a rigid
physical examination classify them accordingly to the type of work for which
they seemed best fitted, and provide the training necessary to make them
useful to the Army. In addition the centers had the task of training
enlisted men to serve as dog handlers in order that there might always be
available personnel capable of caring for the animals and supervising their
work.
Location of Training Centers
The first of these centers was established in August 1942 at the Front Royal
Virginia Quartermaster Remount Depot, Three others were opened late in l942
.- Fort Robinson Nebraska, Camp Rimini Montana, and San Carlos, California
-- and a fourth in April 1943 at Cat Island, Gulfport, Mississippi. Small
temporary training centers were set up at Beltsville, Maryland, and Fort
Belvoir, Virginia, when it was decided to train mine detection dogs. This
highly specialized training was later transferred to the San Carlos War Dog
Reception and Training Center, California.
The centers at Front Royal and Fort Robinson were located at permanent
remount installations while the others were independent establishments Camp
Rimini Montana, situated in a region in the Rocky, Mountains where the snow lay on
the ground for many months of the year, was utilized exclusively for the
training of sled and pack dogs. Near Helena, Montana, camp Rimini trained sled war dogs.
Cat Island was used for tactical training
because its semi- tropical climate and dense vegetation made it a suitable
place to prepare dogs for use in jungle warfare.
All of these centers, except the one at Fort Robinson, were discontinued during the latter half of 1944, By the summer of that year the
Allied military situation had improved to the extent that the need for dogs
to assist in guarding United States coast lines and zone of interior
installations had virtually disappeared, As a result the number of sentry
dogs returned began to exceed by far the number issued. Training activities
which were then being devoted increasingly to the instruction of scout dogs,
'Were concentrated thereafter at the Nebraska post.
In 1942 and 1943, when practically all of the dogs were trained to perform
the comparatively simple tasks involved in sentry duty more than thirty
breeds of both sexes were considered suitable for military service.
Experience revealed, however, that even for sentry duty some breeds were
unsatisfactory. Among these were Great Danes, whose large size made them
difficult to train, and hunting breeds in general because they were too
easily diverted by animal scents. By the fail of 1944 the number of
preferred breeds had been reduced to seven, German Shepherds, Belgian sheep
dogs,, Doberman-Pinschers, farm collies, Siberian huskies, Malamutes and
Eskimo dogs. Crosses of these breeds also were acceptable. "
At the beginning of the program dogs of acceptable breeds from one to five
years old were taken. It was soon found that dogs of five years were too old
to begin their training so the maximum procurement age was lowered first to
three and one half years and then to two in the fall of 1944 when most of
the dogs were being trained for tactical service. Requirements called for
animals of neutral color such as gray, tan, or salt and pepper. Those with
extensive white or buff markings were unacceptable as too conspicuous.
Specifications as to size and weight varied over the years, but by the fall
of 1944 the acceptance height range was from 20 to 26 inches at, the
shoulder and the weight from 40 to 80 pounds, except for Montana sled and pack dogs
which could weigh more.
The elaborate regional organization of Dogs for Defense, its many
enthusiastic volunteer workers, and the fact that widespread publicity had
acquainted virtually all dog owners with its objectives made it an ideal
agency for obtaining the donation of animals, On receiving an offer of a
dog, the nearest regional office sent out a questionnaire to ascertain
whether the animal met the specifications for military service. If such
appeared to be the case, the dog was inspected and given a preliminary
physical examination. Only about 40 percent of the animals passed this test.
These were forwarded to the war dog reception and training centers for a
more thorough inspection, classification, and training, In general, Dogs for
Defense was able to maintain a fairly even flow of animals, On some
occasions, however there were more student handlers at the centers than
could be provides with dogs, and it was suggested that the animals be
obtained before the men.
Dogs for Defense served as the procurement agency for the Corps until March
1945, when its officials asked to be relieved of this responsibility.
At that time the Quartermaster Corps set up its own
organization for dog procurement. During its 3 years of operation, Dogs for
Defense obtained approximately 18 000 dogs through donations. Purchases of
sled and pack dogs had been made earlier by the Quartermaster Corps. Thus a
total of approximately 20,000 dogs were procured during the war. Of these
only slightly more than 10,000 finished training for some form of war work,
the others being disqualified for one reason or another. Undersize, disease,
temperamental defects, inferior scenting powers, and extreme excitability
under the influence of noise or gunfire were the principal causes for
rejection.
A highly specialized program for training both dogs and their handlers was
set up by the Remount Branch through the cooperation of technical experts of
the Military Training Division Office of The Quartermaster General, and
leading dog trainers in the country. Of basic significance was the
development of a comprehensive plan whereby dogs and handlers could be
trained together as a team for sentry or tactical work for the effectiveness
with which the animals performed their duties depended not only upon the
thoroughness of their own training but upon that of their masters as well.
Student handlers were drawn not only from the Quartermaster Corps but also
from civilian plants, the Coast Guard, the Navy and other sources
requisitioning dogs. When their instruction had been completed, the
students, then full-fledged handlers accompanied their dogs to using units
or agencies and were responsible for their care, housing and feeding as well
as their handling. Inasmuch as a dog worked best with the man recognized as
master the policy was to keep the dog and his handler together if feasible
throughout their military, careers. Moreover, no one but the master was
authorized to feed, pet, or handle the dog on the theory that the animal
otherwise would soon regard all persons as friends and become a mere mascot.
Originally, training activities were conducted in the ratio of one man per
eight sentry dogs. It soon became evident however, that man and dogs would
both be better instructed if the ratio was one man to four dogs and this
change was made early in December 1942. A few months later when the Coast
Guard expressed a wish for attack dogs provision was made for teaching two
and even only one guardsman to one dog, As a result more handlers were
trained for the Coast Guard than for the Army, 2,662 men being instructed
for the former and 2,169 for the latter.
Attempts were made to standardize training methods insofar as possible.
Conditions varied considerably, however and adjustments had to be made in
accordance with the number and quality of men and dogs to be trained, the
number and quality of instructors, the availability of facilities, and the
time that could be allotted. Sentry dogs could be trained in about 8 week,
but other types usually required approximately 12 weeks.
Normally the first month was devoted to basic training intended to develop
patterns of behavior fundamental in all war dogs, and to determine their
classification for specialized service. They learned to obey verbal
commands and gestures and were accustomed to muzzle and gas mask, to riding
in cars and trucks, and to working under gunfire. Meanwhile, the student
handlers learned about grooming feeding, and kenneling, and about the
capabilities and limitations of dogs. They also learned the value of patience.
Upon completing basic training, each dog was given specialized instruction
to prepare him for his Specific mission. He was selected for a particular
type of training on the basis of his aptitudes and abilities. Although
experimentation was carried on early in the war for the use of dogs for
other purposes, only five types were actually trained and issued to using
agencies. These were sentry, sled and pack , messenger, mine detector, and
scout dogs.
Sentry dogs worked chiefly on leash and required less instruction than other
types but were required to be moderately intelligent, willing and
aggressive. Attack dogs, which were included in the category of sentry dogs,
were taught not merely to warn of the presence of a stranger by growling or
barking, but also to work off leash and attack on command or provocation. It
was necessary that they possess high intelligence, willingness energy, and
above all aggressiveness. Moreover, they had to be strong, courageous, and
large and heavy enough to throw a man to the ground. Attack dogs like all
sentry dogs were used mostly for interior guard work. The sentry dog was
taught to accompany a military or civilian guard on patrol in daylight or
darkness and give him warning of the approach or presence of strangers
within the area being protected. He worked on a short leash and was
restrained from actually attacking unless the intruder should threaten his
master. The animal at first was taught to become aggressive and pugnacious.
Later the handler assumed the role of a sentry to familiarize the animal
with the conditions under which he would work. During this phase of
instruction the dog was schooled to detect the presence of any stranger in
the neighborhood, The aggravator hid in ditches, behind fences or boxes, in
tall grass, and in trees.
Only those dogs exhibiting exceptional qualifications could be trained for
tactical use, scouting with combat Patrols and carrying messages.
The Scout dog, trained to work with combat units and give silent warning of
the presence of a strange individual or group was preferably a strong dog of
medium size and quiet disposition. He was required to have acute hearing,
highly developed sensitive powers, and ability to detect motion.
Loyalty was the quality most desired in the messenger dog since he was
motivated by the desire to please two masters between whom he carried
messages. He also had to possess great speed, stamina, strength, endurance,
ability to swim and superior powers of scenting and hearing. Unlike most
other types, messenger dogs were not required to look for trouble, and hence
it was desirable that they have a suspicious rather than an aggressive nature.
Experiments in the use of dogs for other military purposes were carried on,
but it was 1944 before other types were trained on any sizeable scale. Of
the 10,425 dogs trained at the war dog centers during World War II, nearly
9,300 were for sentry duty. The Coast Guard utilized approximately one-third
of these as shown in the following table.
Type and Number of Dogs Trained
Type of Dog Trained for Army Trained for
Coast Guard Total
Sentry 6,121 3,174 9,295
Scout 571 0 571
Montana Sled and pack 263 0 268
Messenger 151 0 151
Mine detection 140 0 140
Trained sentry dogs were issued by the Quartermaster Corps to hundreds of
military installations of various types, such as coastal fortifications.,
harbor defenses, arsenals, ammunition dumps, airfields, and depots as well
as to industrial plants. Although many civilian establishments which were
engaged in the production of military items employed one or more dogs to
help guard their plants, the bulk of the animals trained by the Corps were
utilized by the armed services. At the height of enemy submarine activities
the largest group of sentry dogs was, of course that attached to the Coast
Guard beach patrols guarding the long stretches of shoreline along the
Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific. The Coast Guard came to
prefer that type of sentry dog called the attack dog because he was more
fully trained. Animals of this type were assigned to the Coast Guard in the
summer of 1943 just before that agency initiated a large-scale training
program of its own.
Reports from military installations and civilian establishments using sentry
dogs were on the whole, favorable. The generally satisfactory nature of the
services the dogs performed was demonstrated by the small number of using
agencies which abandoned their employment and by the large number of
requisitions for additional animals. Failure to obtain satisfactory results
usually occurred when the dogs were handled by constantly changing or
inexperienced personnel. In many instances the use of dogs made it possible
to reduce the number of human sentries and at the same time increase the
efficiency of patrols, particularly when the post covered a large area. The
dogs enhanced the efficiency of protective work both by supplementing man's
limited powers of hearing and smelling with their own superior senses and by
enabling a more thorough search to be made for intruders in stacked
supplies, in holes, in ditches, and in other places not readily accessible
to man.
Shift in Emphasis to Tactical Dogs
By early 1944 the war dog program had begun to undergo extensive changes.
With the gradual abatement of the submarine menace after mid-1943
and the eventual lifting of the blackout, the need for guarding coast lines
and zone of interior installations steadily decreased. Consequently the
demand for sentry dogs became progressively smaller and more of these
animals were being returned to the training centers than were being issued.
A few of the sentry dogs were detrained and returned to their owners, some
were sent overseas for sentry- duty and others were -retained for tactical
service with units in the theaters where demand for dogs in combat became
more urgent, particularly in the Pacific. Eventually all dog-training
activities were centralized at Fort Robinson and more attention was devoted
to instruction of tactical war dogs and their handlers.
In the absence of any definite policy on the part of the Army Ground Forces
regarding their use the training of tactical dogs in 1942 and 1943 was
necessarily limited and experimental, Military officers generally were
unfamiliar with the possible utilization of these animals in combat and
rather skeptical of their value. There also was a widespread belief that
they could not be sent to tropical areas on account of the large variety of
diseases and parasites likely to attack them. The few animals that had been
trained for tactical work therefore were employed chiefly for tests or
demonstration purposes. The instruction of even these dogs was seriously
handicapped at first by the scarcity of trainers experienced in teaching
scout and messenger work; most of the men with foreign experience in
schooling war dogs were engaged in other essential work.
Moreover, preliminary reports on the use of scout and messenger dogs in
North Africa by the British in 1942 and 1943 had indicated that their work
was unsatisfactory. According to observers the animals were easily
frightened and confused by artillery fire those doing scout work losing
their sense of direction and neglecting to smell out the enemy. While
ordinarily giving good service on short patrols messenger dogs also were
affected adversely by heavy gunfire, It was suggested, however that, though
conditions in North Africa might preclude their successful employment in
that region in close country such as the islands of the South Pacific they
would have a very definite use in guarding lines of communication and
particularly in detecting infiltrating troops.
As a precautionary measure in the event the Army might find valuable uses
for tactical dogs, the Quartermaster Corps continued to train them in small
numbers, emphasis being placed upon scout and messenger dogs. The War
Department General Staff decided in the Spring of 1943 to send a detachment
of six scout and two messenger dogs overseas to operate with troops in the
Pacific as a test of their value under combat conditions.
When our Army decided to train dogs for tactical purposes, it was found
necessary to seek assistance in developing doctrine from our allies, since
there were no trainers in this country qualified to develop such doctrine.
The British sent over the Director of their War Dog Training School.,
Captain John B. Garle, together with two non-commissioned officers
(handlers) and four dogs., an a sort of "leash-lend basis".
The Captain arrived in the United States on I February 1943, He proceeded
with his entourage to the War Dog Reception and Training Center at
Beltsville, Maryland, where he demonstrated his messenger and scout dogs to
officers interested. So successful were these demonstrations that the Captain
was sent on a tour of all Quartermaster War Dog Reception and Training
Centers to indoctrinate our trainers in his methods.
Scout and Messenger War Dogs
Reports received from the Southwest Pacific on the experiments with scout
and messenger dogs were on the whole highly favorable. The observer with the
dogs in New Guinea reported that in the period between July and December
1943 the animals were used in the forward and combat areas and had given
"consistently excellent performances". This experience established the fact
that dogs could be employed effectively in tactical units. He found that
scout dogs used in reconnaissance work warned patrols of the presence of
Japanese within ranges varying up to I000 yards depending upon conditions of
open or closed terrain, wind direction, dampness of ground, and that they
could be employed effectively in amphibious operations to detect the enemy
on beaches and in undergrowth along the shore. He noted that the dogs had no
fear of water or travel by small boats, He reported that messenger dogs
demonstrated that they could cover distances of from 600 to 1,000 yards with
great speed over any kind of terrain and that their chances of getting
through were excellent as they presented small targets. The observer
reported that the animals worked more effectively when the dogs and their
handlers were thoroughly familiar with each other.
On the other hand the observer reported that combat experience revealed
certain weaknesses in the training of dogs, While the dogs had been
conditioned against firing of small arms, most of them had not been
conditioned to withstand the noise of heavy gunfire and as a consequence
their usefulness deteriorated rapidly when suddenly exposed to heavy
artillery action.
As a result of this and similar reports that came in later the program for
training tactical dogs was expanded in 1944 and efforts were made to
overcome the short-comings brought to light by combat experience, Particular
emphasis was placed upon training scout dogs, teaching the animals be silent
at all times and exposing them to simulated battle noises in the early
course of their instruction in order that they might learn to exhibit no
fear or reaction in the presence of heavy gunfire.
Since the function of scout war dogs was to give
silent warning of the approach of any enemy they
were trained for use principally with reconnaissance
and combat patrols at outposts. Their chief tasks
were to warn of ambushes or attempts at infiltration.
Though the distance at which they were able to
give warning depended upon a number of factors,
such as the ability of the master to understand
his dog, wind direction and velocity, volume or
concentration of human scent humidity, and denseness
or openness of country the dogs usually could
detect the presence of enemies long before the
men became aware of them. When operating with reconnaissance
or combat groups, the dog and his master
proceeded a short distance in advance of the patrol, following the general
direction indicated by the patrol leader., but moving so as to take
advantage of wind and other conditions favoring the dog's power of scenting.
Upon the dog's warning of a hostile presence the master immediately signaled
the patrol leader, who in turn issued instructions as to the course of
action to be taken. At outposts the dog and his master remained at a fixed
position a short distance from the unit to which they were attached and the
animal was taught to be alert while stationary .
The initial stages of instruction were similar to those employed in training
sentry dogs, but the scout dog was taught not to bark or growl, and more
emphasis was placed upon accustoming the animal to heavy gunfire. Since the
dog was expected to discover an alien presence partly by his ability to
detect wind-blown scent and partly by his extraordinarily keen hearing,
instruction was aimed at stimulating him to employ these natural endowments.
The dog was trained to detect human scent as a bird dog is trained to detect
hidden birds. When he "winded the enemy" he signified his discovery by
"freezing" stiffening his body, raising his hackles, pricking his ears and
holding his tail rigid.
Messenger war dogs usually were used in connection
with scout dogs and were trained to deliver field
communications from a scouting patrol to the scouting
headquarters or from an advanced position to the
rear. In contrast to scout dogs, two handlers
were employed for the messenger dog, for, since
he had to run between two points, it was necessary
to place at each point a master to whom he was
loyal,, This feeling was fostered by having each
handler take equal turns at teaching and feeding
the animal. At first the training was carried
on in an enclosed area but later over rough terrain
and crossing streams. In the latter phase of his
instruction the dog was accustomed to the confusion
of moving troops and simulated battle noises.
The two masters alternated their positions and
frequently hid themselves, never using the same
place of concealment twice. The dog was taught
to locate them by body scent. When he was successful,
lavish praise was given him as his reward.
Mine Detection War Dogs
With Dog Names like Boomer. Or Dog names like smoke.
Its really no Joke these dog no matter what their names give their all
to help protect our military.
During the African Campaign, non-metallic land mines were first utilized by
the enemy. Mechanical mine detectors proving ineffective against them, it
became vitally important to discover a counter-measures. One of our answers
to the enemy's new weapon was the M-dog (mine detection dog).
Dogs had been employed for this purpose prior to the invention and use of
non-metallic mines; although armies of all nations (exception ours) were
aware of their value as sentries, messengers scouts and as aids to the
Medical Corps in finding wounded it was not until necessity arose for a
reliable method of detecting plastic and wooden mines that the suggestion
was made that dogs might be trained to use their instinct for finding buried
bones for finding buried objects of less innocence.
The first mine detection unit was ordered activated in November 1943. The
M-dog was taught to detect buried objects of all kinds in order that he
could be used in discovering metallic and more particularly non-metallic
mines, anti-tank and anti-tank personnel mines, trip wires and booby traps.
He was taught to indicate the position of a buried mine by sitting down from
one to four paces from the concealed objects. If he detected a trip wire or
booby trap he was trained to halt or refuse to advance. Properly trained
dogs, it was hoped, would not advance over any type of mine or trap. If this
objective could be achieved M-dogs could help men locate mines, determine
whether a mine field could be by-passed, and clear a path through a field if
it could not be skirted.
The training of an M-dog was based on arousing the emotion of fear and
instinct of self preservation. A light electric charge was concealed in the
trap and the dog was shocked when he came in contact with it. This was done
to teach him that there were objects in the ground which would hurt him.
When he had learned this, his fear of being injured made it possible to
teach him to shun objects foreign to the terrain and to rely on all his
senses in trying to detect them.
The enthusiasm with which this training began later turned to
disappointment. Only two war dog mine detection units were activated and
trained. Both were sent to North Africa, where the animals failed to prove
their proficiency in locating mines when used on typical German mine fields.
The dogs had been tested in the United States and pronounced excellent
detectors but when tried out in North Africa under battlefield conditions
they fell far short of attaining the standard of efficiency that had been
established by the Corps of Engineers. In two tests in September 1944 the
dogs located only 51 and 48% respectively of the mines planted. Inasmuch as
the discovery of at least 90% was considered essential to make a method of
mine detection practicable, it was decided not to employ the dogs. Both
units were deactivated and mine-dog training was discontinued.
Establishment of War Dog Platoons
Except for the two experimental Engineer mine dog detection units, the
initial issues of dogs and handlers trained for duty overseas were casual
detachments. It was not until March 1944 that the War Department authorized
the establishment of Quartermaster war dog platoons and issued special
Tables of Organization and Equipment (T/O & E) for that purpose. Originally
a platoon consisted of twelve scout dogs twelve messenger dogs, one mine
detection dog, one officer and twenty-six enlisted men. Three months later,
however, on the basis of early theater experience, the mine detection dog
was eliminated and the number of scout dogs was increased to eighteen, while
the number of messenger dogs was reduced to six and the number of enlisted
men to twenty. Fifteen Quartermaster war dog platoons were activated and
trained in 1944, and all were shipped overseas. Seven of them saw service in
Europe and eight in the Pacific.
These platoons were unique in that they served with infantry units and
engaged in tactical operations in the combat areas yet the Quartermaster
Corps supplied and trained not only the dogs but the handlers as well. The
men were expert in directing the work of the dogs but the fact that many of
the handlers were physically unfit for combat service and had had no
experience in infantry tactics, scouting, and patrolling proved to be a
serious defect. Another weakness of the early platoons was the failure to
give them advanced training with Army Ground Forces units of the kind with
which they were to be associated.
To correct these deficiencies the War Department transferred the
responsibility for the activation, training and preparation of the dog units
for overseas movement to the Amy Ground Forces later in 1944.
This meant that handlers were to be selected by the Army Ground Forces from
men who had been trained in infantry tactics and scouting and that the units
would be given advanced instruction with infantry organizations. The
Quartermaster General however, retained responsibility for the procurement,
basic training, and issue of dogs and handlers.
A concurrent development was the decision to revise the T/O & E and
eliminate all messenger dogs from the platoons "Since combat reports
indicate that this type dog has proved neither as desirable nor as essential
as the silent scout dogs." The new T/O & E, released in December 1944,
changed the name of the units to infantry scout dog platoons and provided
that each was to consist of 27 scout dogs.
Between December 1944 and the spring of 1945 the fifteen Quartermaster war
dog platoons were redesigned as infantry scout dog platoons and
reorganized to conform with the new T/O & E. During 1945 the Army Ground
Forces activated and trained six infantry scout dog platoons. Five of these
however, did not complete their training until shortly after V-J Day and
consequently were not sent overseas. Thus all but one of the war dog
platoons that saw service in the war were activated and trained by the
Quartermaster Corps.
At first the war dog program was conducted largely as an experiment to
determine which, if any, types of militarily trained dogs might be of value
to the Army in modern warfare. Numerous uses for the animals had been
envisioned by dog fanciers but after extensive tests the Quartermaster Corps
actually trained and issued dogs for only five types of duties. Of these,
pack and sled mine detection and messenger dogs proved of slight service
either because of superior facilities afforded by the latest mechanical
devices or because of limitations on the part of the animals themselves. The
training of mine detection dogs was discontinued completely after tests in
North Africa revealed they had no practical value. Opinion was divided
concerning the usefulness of messenger dogs. Some observers reported
excellent results under certain conditions but their use proved quite
limited and the War Department eventually eliminated them from war dog
platoons.
The two types of dogs for which a real need was demonstrated were sentry
dogs and silent scout dogs. The former proved of outstanding assistance in
guarding Army and Navy installations both in the zone of interior and in the
theaters of operations. But insofar as tactical service
was concerned, the silent scout dog alone survived the severe tests to which
the animals were put in World War II. Scout dog platoons which emerged in
the latter part of the war were found to be "a capable and valuable adjunct
when properly trained and used."
The experimental nature and limited success of the war dog program is
reflected in statistics. Although approximately 20,000 of the animals were
procured only about half of that number were trained and issued by the
Quartermaster Corps, and fewer than 1,900 of these were shipped overseas. It
was late in 1944 before scout dogs were being sent to the theaters in any
sizable numbers, and by the end of the war only 436 had been shipped abroad,
as shown in the following table:
Total Number of Dogs Issued in Z/I (Zone of Interior = US) - Total Number of
Dogs Shipped O/S
Type of Dog Total Trained Issued In Z/I Shipped Overseas
Sentry 9,295 8,396 899
Scout 571 135 436
Sled & Pack 268 0 268
Messenger 151 0 151
Mine Detection 140 0 140
Total 10,425 8,531 1,894
These figures fail to give an accurate representation of the comparative
military value of the various types of dogs, for, in contrast to all other
types, the demand for scout dogs was increasing in the closing months of the
war and plans were launched in the summer of 1945 to recruit at least 1,600
more of the animals for scout work in the Pacific.
Though requirements were relatively small, when a real need arose for scout
dogs there was no substitute for their particular capabilities. At the same
time, there were various conditions and circumstances under which the dogs
were unable to perform satisfactorily, and consequently it was of vital
importance that the handlers be acutely aware of the limitations of the
animals as well as their abilities. It was equally important that the dogs
be thoroughly schooled in their duties and their handlers be well trained in
scouting, patrolling, and minor tactics.
Reports received from overseas during and immediately following the war gave
ample evidence that while many satisfactory results were obtained from the
use of scout dogs in the war against Germany, these animals were employed
much more effectively in the islands of the Pacific. The dense tropical
vegetation and the semidarkness of the jungles even at midday afforded the
Japanese excellent opportunities to infiltrate behind the American lines and
conduct reconnaissance. Such hostile operations could not easily be detected
by ordinary patrols. When dogs accompanied these patrols they were able to
detect and give silent warning of the enemy long before the men became aware
of them. The dogs could also be used to good advantage in mountainous areas,
in river bottoms, and in heavily wooded terrain.
|
