When the Japanese attacked on 7 December 1941, the U.S. Army possessed only a small number of sled dogs for use in arctic regions. Drawing on the lessons of the past, a group of civilians came together in the belief that dogs could serve the Army in a variety of other functions. These dog fanciers formed a coalition called Dogs for Defense, Inc. (DFD). This organization encouraged dog owners across the country to donate their dogs for training as sentry dogs that would be used to patrol borders, beaches, and industrial facilities in order to prevent sabotage. With the endorsement of the American Kennel Club, DFD quickly began procuring dogs for experiments in training the animals for guard duty under the nominal oversight of the Plant Protection Branch of the Office of the Quartermaster General. In short order, some 100 dogs were procured by DFD and an ad hoc training program was initiated.
At the outset of the program, DFD and the Remount Branch accepted many different breeds of dogs as long as the dogs were healthy and showed the proper disposition. It was soon discovered, however, that certain breeds were superior to others in performing the types of duties the Army desired, and by 1944, the list of acceptable breeds had shrunk to just seven: German shepherd, Doberman pinscher, Belgian sheepdog, collie, Siberian husky, malamute, and Eskimo dog. These dogs all proved to be hearty in various conditions, eager to work, and capable of the tasks assigned them by the Army.
Once in theater, another obstacle revealed itself. While in the United States, both dogs and handlers were provided and trained by the QMC, so when they arrived at the front and were attached to infantry units, they often lacked the tactical expertise necessary to effectively carry out their duties. This brought on more changes, and by December 1944, the table of organization had changed once more, eliminating all messenger dogs. In addition, handlers were picked from AGF units so that they entered dog training already having the skills necessary for infantry operations.
The M-dog project was innovative but ultimately doomed to failure. It was determined that the dogs could not distinguish between the deliberately turned earth of mine placement and the rubble and debris caused by shells and bombs. In addition, testing was conducted assuming the dogs would be working behind the front lines, but in actual use, they often had to endure combat conditions which further degraded their efficacy. It was only after the war that it was discovered that the canine’s sense of smell is so acute that they can be trained to pick out the chemical components of explosives. As a result, dogs are currently used to detect bombs and mines with great success.
Another dog in Europe also had the distinction of being the only canine to receive decorations for action. “Chips” was a German shepherd-husky-collie mix who, along with handler Private John Rowell, was attached to the 30th Infantry, 3d Infantry Division. On 10 July 1943, the division landed on Sicily, and Chips and Rowell went to work. As they approached a grass-covered hut, a machine gun opened fire. The hut was, in fact, a camouflaged bunker. Chips quickly escaped Rowell’s control and made a beeline for the bunker. Within seconds, the machine gun fell silent and an Italian soldier tumbled out with Chips chomping at his throat and arms. In short order, three others exited the bunker with arms raised. Chips was lightly wounded in the incident, suffering powder burns and several cuts.
Renowned WWI American canine hero Sergeant Stubby once saved multiple soldiers when he roused them from their sleep after a German mustard gas attack. (Via History.com.)
Carrying messages was an important part of communicating during World War 1. Standard field communication was quite slow, and it was often too dangerous for people to pass messages along the battlefield due to their size and relatively slow movement. This is where dogs came in. Trained dogs could traverse many terrains not only with ease, but also a lot of speed. They were much harder targets to see and/or hit as well. Dogs were also very dependable and reliable, if they were trained well enough.
Many different dog breeds are well known for their tracking abilities. As you could imagine, these abilities were seen as very useful and important during World War 1. They could track a variety of things if trained, but one of the most common and useful roles they had in terms of tracking was detecting explosives. Tracking down soldiers for a variety of reasons was another thing that they were often used for.
External Web Site Notice: This article contains information directly presented from an external source. The terms and conditions of this page may not be the same as those of this website. Click here to read the full disclaimer notice for external web sites. Thank you.
However, dog’s aren’t always reserved for being a pet. They can be great guards, investigators and can play many other roles. In fact, back in World War 1, dogs had several roles that were instrumental in the success of various operations. Read on to learn about 6 of the roles that dogs performed in World War 1.
Thousands of dogs were killed or injured during the war, including those rejected for military roles. One British trainer quoted by Pearson said, “I much regret to say that it was my experience to find occasionally the canine ‘conscientious objector’ among the recruits.” Unlike human conscientious objectors, dogs that didn’t “respond to British army training methods were destroyed.”
Pearson’s larger argument is about agency—“the ability to think and act independently and follow free will.” He writes that agency, long presumed to be a strictly human characteristic, is actually “shared unevenly among humans and nonhumans.” The border between nonhuman and human is a porous one; in the case of these trench-war dogs, there was a mixture of both human and dog capabilities working together.
Pearson writes that although dogs helped “sustain the trench system of combat,” they were neither automatons nor humanlike soldiers. “Dogs acted with a degree of purpose and intentionality in nonhuman ways, which their trainers and handlers mobilized in an attempt to support the war effort.”
One 1916 German publication estimated that 600 dogs saved more than 3,000 lives in the grim zone between opposing forces. The Belgians, meanwhile, used dog carts to move weapons and supplies. After the United States started fighting in Europe in 1917, American bloodhounds were used to locate corpses and land mines. In addition to all these official roles, dogs were also kept as pets and ratters in the trenches by soldiers in all armies.
Dogs have long been employed for guarding and hunting, but it took industrialized warfare to militarize them. In the decades before the First World War, the European powers began to consider how to incorporate dogs into their militaries, as auxiliaries. Then, during the war, all that strategizing, training, and breeding met in the crucible of the trenches.
Dogs in Warfare – A History of Military Dogs
Dogs have long been employed for guarding and hunting, but it took industrialized warfare to militarize them. In the decades before the First World War, the European powers began to consider how to incorporate dogs into their militaries, as auxiliaries. Then, during the war, all that strategizing, training, and breeding met in the crucible of the trenches.
Animaux-soldats played multiple roles in the Great War of 1914–1918. But while the history of pigeons and horses in the military is widely known, dogs have gotten less attention. Historian Chris Pearson helps correct this gap. One 1916 German publication estimated that 600 dogs saved over 3,000 lives in the grim zone between opposing forces.
“There were fewer dogs in the trenches, but they performed more varied roles than horses did due to their cognitive skills, physicality, and trainability,” Pearson writes. “Armies used them as guard dogs and messenger dogs, as well as deploying them to lay telegraph wires and locate injured soldiers in ‘no man’s land.’”
One 1916 German publication estimated that 600 dogs saved more than 3,000 lives in the grim zone between opposing forces. The Belgians, meanwhile, used dog carts to move weapons and supplies. After the United States started fighting in Europe in 1917, American bloodhounds were used to locate corpses and land mines. In addition to all these official roles, dogs were also kept as pets and ratters in the trenches by soldiers in all armies.
During the war, there was an increasing institutionalization of military dogs through training facilities and specialized units. The French Military Canine Service was formed in 1917; in that year and the next, France enlisted some 15,000 dogs. More than 5,000 of them died during the last two years of war.
Pearson writes that although dogs helped “sustain the trench system of combat,” they were neither automatons nor humanlike soldiers. “Dogs acted with a degree of purpose and intentionality in nonhuman ways, which their trainers and handlers mobilized in an attempt to support the war effort.”
Pearson’s larger argument is about agency—“the ability to think and act independently and follow free will.” He writes that agency, long presumed to be a strictly human characteristic, is actually “shared unevenly among humans and nonhumans.” The border between nonhuman and human is a porous one; in the case of these trench-war dogs, there was a mixture of both human and dog capabilities working together.
Dogs, after all, do seem to be capable of some “self-directed action” or intentionality—trainers trusted them to complete complicated, dangerous tasks under fire, when alternate routes back to safety, for instance, had to been sniffed out.
In the new animal history, according to Pearson, “conceptualizing animals as agents allows them to enter history as active beings rather than as static objects.”
Privacy Policy Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.
Thousands of dogs were killed or injured during the war, including those rejected for military roles. One British trainer quoted by Pearson said, “I much regret to say that it was my experience to find occasionally the canine ‘conscientious objector’ among the recruits.” Unlike human conscientious objectors, dogs that didn’t “respond to British army training methods were destroyed.”
If war dogs are honored, then it seems only fitting that all dogs be as well.