A HISTORY OF WARTIME RESEARCH AJMD DEVELOH.IEKT 
t 
OF 
MEDICAL FIELD EQUIPMENT 
by 
John B. Johnson, Jr. 
1st Lt., M.A.G. 
and 
Graves H. Wilson 
1st Lt., L.A.C. 
(This is not the final form in which the subject 
of research and development of medical field 
equipment will be covered in THE HISTORY OF THE 
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT DURING WORLD WAR II. This 
monograph has not been reviewed by the Historical 
Division, War Department Special Staff.) 
WAR DEPARTMENT 
OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL 
30 June 19A6 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Preface ......... iii 
List of Abbreviations Used in Footnotes ... ix 
List of Tables and Illustrations .... xi 
PaRT I - MEDICAL DEPARTMENT LITTER PROGRAM 
Chapter I Introduction ..... 1 
Chapter II The Straight Pole Litter ... 11 
Chapter III The Folding Pole Litter ... 98 
Chapter IV Miscellaneous Litters and 
Litter Adapters .... 174- 
Section 1 Litter, Ski ..... 174- 
Section 2 Ambulance, Snow and Ice . . 219 
Section 3 Litter Stop Attachment for 
Amphibian Truck .... 260 PREFACE 
I, Authority, 
This monograph is submitted in compliance mrith Army 
Service Forces Memorandum, dated 31 July 1944-, (see Appendix Q) 
directing each Chief of Service to prepare an illustrated and 
documented history of wartime research and development, 
■ On 12 December 194-5, by 1st Indorsement from Control 
Division, Array Service Forces' to The Surgeon General, a 
completion'date;of 30 June 194-6,was authorized for this under- 
taking. : .7 ■ ' 
II. Scope and Method. 
A. Selection of. Projects. 
During World War II, Army medical research and 
development was carried on at seven specialized Medical Depart- 
ment laboratories, at numerous other military installations 
including general and station hospitals, and at civilian 
laboratories under Array control. Experimentation was also 
conducted in collaboration with other Technical Services, 
with the United States Navy, with certain federal agencies 
such as the Office of Scientific Research-and Development, 
and with private industry, ' . • > 
• * , • 
Although a careful sampling of all of these various 
projects-would.-.have been highly desirable, it was necessary 
to reject this method of approach because of the particular 
circumstances under which the present Monograph was prepared. 
Uncertainty as to the amount of time which would be available 
for the study, limitations both as to funds and personnel, 
and the evident lack of adequate secondary, source material 
dictated the adoption of a plan which would restrict the 
scope of the inquiry to much more manageable limits. 
It was subsequently decided, therefore, that 
research efforts should be limited to an investigation of 
a single broad field of experimentation. All major research 
programs were then surveyed on these four bases: (l) rela- 
tive importance, as measured by battle utility of the items 
developed, time and funds expended, number of personnel 
involvedj (2) amount and availability of primary source 
data; (3) accessibility of laboratories concerned! and 
(4-) extent :o£■technical as well as administrative partici- 
pation-by the-Medica.1, Department, As a result of this analysis, the development of medical field equipment was 
selected as the subject of this monograph. 
After consultation with officers of the Technical 
Division of The Surgeon General’s Office and representatives 
of the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory at Carlisle 
Barracks, Pennsylvania, it was further decided (l) to eliminate 
from consideration all ’'informal” field equipment projects, 
! .inasmuch as these ordinarily involved only slight modification 
of existing commercial items, and (2) to select as the first 
major topic of study the Medical Department Litter Program, 
It was felt that this program was'Of primary importance 
because of its basic connection with'the entire process of 
■casualty evacuation, - 
Responsibility for the selection of specific litter 
projects rests solely Yfith the author of this portion of the 
monograph. Separate chapters have: been devoted to the straight 
pole and folding pole litters because of their all-purpose 
character, their procurement importance, and the extensiveness 
of their use overseas. Out of a total of seven projects deal- 
ing with miscellaneous or special-purpose litters and litter 
- adapters, three were chosen for inclusion in the final chapter 
of'.this section. Here the attempt was made to include unsuc- 
cessful as well as successful projects, and to include at 
• least one project involving extensive collaboration with 
. agencies outside the Medical Department, 
In order to make the most efficient use of the 
time remaining, after completing the history of the Medical 
Department Litter Program the authors requested the Director 
of the Technical Division and the Director of the Medical 
■ Department Equipment Laboratory to prepare a selective list 
of additional projects1 which,'from the standpoint of signifi- 
cance and representativeness/ especially merited inclusion in 
this, history; Upon receipt of these independent selections, 
a' consolidated list Was prepared from-which Six projects, 
designated in the monograph as the- Medical Department Vehicle 
Program, were chosen. These six projects were all closely 
related, formed a complete series, and, it was estimated, 
could be completed by 30 June 194-6, 
B. Collection of Data. 
The documentary material employed in the preparation 
•of this monograph has been drawn primarily, though not 
exclusively, from Medical Department sources. Within The 
Surgeon General*s’ Office, pertinent files of the Historical 
■’Division; all branches of the Technical Division, including 
the Office of the Division Director; and both the classified 
' and unclassified sections of the Record Room-were extensively examined for every project investigated. 
The files of other Surgeon General’s Office agencies, 
such as the Dental Division and the Optical and Artificial 
Eyes Section of the Distribution Division, were carefully 
surveyed whenever a project in which these agencies had 
participated was under consideration. The Publications Branch 
of the Administrative Service was regularly consulted for 
information regarding Array Regulations, War Department and 
■Army Service Forces Circulars and Memoranda, and Tables of 
Organization and Equipment, Military periodicals and 
‘ reference books were obtained, when needed, from The Surgeon 
General’s Reference Library, 
Two other Medical Department agencies were 
especially valuable sources of information: the Army Medical 
Purchasing Office in New York City and the Medical Department 
Equipment Laboratory at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. 
Through correspondence with the former, essential facts 
regarding production contracts and delivery schedules were 
obtained. From the latter, complete technical data relating 
to the substantive aspects of research, development, and 
field testing were secured. During the first half of the 
study, individual project files were obtained intact from 
the Equipment Laboratory on a temporary loan arrangement. 
During the second half of the study, the Laboratory actively 
assisted in the undertaking by preparing, under the guidance 
of the Historical Division, individual project histories 
based on the material in its files. 
While agencies outside the Medical Department were 
not consulted as a matter of routine, such.sources were 
investigated whenever a serious gap existed in the material. 
During the -course of the study special record searches of 
this type were made of the files of the Assistant Chief of 
Staff, G-A; Headquarters, Array Service Forces; the Research 
and Development Division of Ordnance Department| the Office 
of Scientific Research and Development; the National 
Inventors Council; and the National Archives, 
Although principal research emphasis has been 
placed on the collection and examination of recorded data, 
considerable additional information was obtained through 
personal interview. Whenever necessary, either for purposes 
of general orientation or for answers to specific questions, 
interviews were held with key -personnel—sparticularly with 
the officials.of the Technical Division of The Surgeon 
General’s ..Office and members ’of the staff of the Medical 
• Department Equipment 'Laboratory, 
Finally, the authors have made a special attempt 
to familiarize themselves with the physical details of the field items discussed. All available photographs and many 
draftings v/ere carefully studied, and, in addition, first- 
hand inspections were made of the field items on display both 
in the Sample Room of The Surgeon General’s Office and in the 
Museum of the Medical1 Department Equipment Laboratory, 
C. Limitations of Data. 
,<.:■../ While,a . conscientious effort has, been made to obtain, 
within,the time allotted,., the. maximum, amount of relevant data, 
both written and unwritten, the factual evidence upon which 
this study is based has, nevertheless, a number of limitations. 
In the first place, as indicated above, sources outside the 
Medical Department have been examined only partially, not 
exhaustively. Secondly, as a result of frequent office 
reorganizations, turnover of personnel, and other causes, 
even those files which have been carefully examined have been 
found to be not altogether complete. 
In the third place, many events occurred during 
the war years of which no written record was ever made. 
Actions taken as a result of telephone conversations, 
informal meetings, and conferences are among those that 
fall within this category. Although efforts were made to 
fill these gaps by means of interviews, reconstruction of 
these unrecorded happenings was not always possible. In 
several instances the officers concerned had already been 
transferred to other posts, had died, or had been separated 
from the service, > In others, conflicting interpretations 
were sometimes received which, in the absence of other data, 
could not be satisfactorily resolved. 
Finally, it is recognized by the authors, that 
certain of the events which have been described in this 
monograph are fully explainable only in terms of larger 
events which could not, in more than a few instances, be 
adequately studied. War plans, troop movements, shortages 
of strategic materials, organizational changes, and budget 
and personnel allotments, to mention a few, have all affected 
the course of medical research and development* Comprehen- 
sive coverage of all of these external factors was manifestly 
impossible. 
Despite these several limitations, however, it is 
believed by the authors that the data upon which this 
historical account has been based is sufficiently representa- 
tive and -complete ,tp warrant,the formulation of certain 
tentative conclusions regarding the conduct of Medical Depart- 
ment research and development, these generalizations, direct- 
ly induced from all the material at hand and arrived at after 
approximately, eighteen months of study, are presented in the final chapter of this monograph. 
D. Treatment of Material. 
The individual project histories that follow are 
not exclusively technical in content. Instead, with the 
approval, of Control Division, Army Service, Forces, the attempt 
has been made to describe as accurately and as comprehensively 
as possible all major.aspects of the research and development 
process. Typically, this method of approach has yielded the 
following subject matter headings for each item or program ;• 
discussed;’ (1) historical background; (2.) project initiation;.. 
(3) development phase; (A) standardization phase; (5) procure- 
ment phase; and (6) project evaluation. The complete project 
outline employed in this study is presented as Appendix R. 
It will be noted that each of the development 
projects included in this monograph has been discussed in 
considerable detail, A detailed rather than general treat- 
ment of the material was necessary for two reasons. In the 
first place, the basic directive stipulated that a "source 
book" type of history be prepared. Consequently, except for 
reports which were too lengthy to be conveniently incorporated 
into the body of the narrative and which, therefore, have been 
included as separate appendices, many essential documents have 
been extensive!}' quoted or paraphrased in the text of the 
history. Secondly, the particular nature of the source material 
itself was such as to preclude satisfactory generalized treat- 
ment. Individual committee reports, correspondence with manu- 
facturers, specifications, drawings, equipment lists, and the 
like were often of sufficient importance to warrant inclusion 
in the monograph but were too highly technical to be presented 
other than in detail, 
E. Documentat ion. 
The documentation of this monograph follows 
conventional practices. Statements of fact not commonly 
known and all direct quotations are cited in footnotes Y/hich 
have been placed at the end of each chapter. The source or 
location of the document concerned is given in parentheses. 
When copies of the same document are to be found in the files 
of different organizations, an attempt has been made to give 
the location of the more central and, presumably, more perma- 
nent file. In instances where units of The Surgeon General’s 
Office have undergone reorganization since the original record 
search was made, the name of the organization at present having 
custody of the files in question has been cited. F, Authorship. 
Except for the Preface and Conclusion, which 
represent a joint effort, all other chapters of this monograph 
have been individually written. All chapters of Part I and 
Chapters 6, 7, and 9 of Part II were prepared by Lieutenant 
Johnson. Chapters 5, 8, and 10 of Part II were prepared by 
Lieutenant Wilson, LIST OF’ABBREVIATIONS USED IN FOOTNOTES 
A. G. (or T, A. G.) The Adjutant General 
A. G. F. Army Ground Forces 
A. G. 0. Office of The Adjutant General 
A. M. C* Army Medical Center 
A. M. P. 0. Army Medical Purchasing Office 
A, M. R. & D, Bd. nrmy Medical Research and 
Development Board 
A. S. F. Army Service Forces 
CBI China-Burma-India Theater of 
Operations, United States Army 
G. G. (or T. C. G.) The Commanding General 
ETO (or ETOUSa) European Theater of Operations, 
United States Army 
FM Field Manual 
« 
m, D. E. L. Medical Department Equipment 
Laboratory 
M. D. T. G. Medical Department Technical 
Committee 
M, F. S. S. Medical Field Service School 
NaTOUSA North African Theater of Opera- 
tions, United States Army 
0. Q. M. G. Office of The Quartermaster 
General POA Pacific Ocean Area 
P. 0. E. Port of Embarkation 
S. G. (or T. S. G.) The Surgeon General 
S. G. 0. Office, of The Surgeon General 
S. 0. S. Services of Supply 
SWPA Southwest Pacific Area 
T/O & E Table of Organization, and 
Equipment 
¥• D. G*.S* War Department General Staff 
W. P. B. War Production Board LIST OF Tables and illustrations 
Part I - Medical Department Litter Program 
Table 
Following Page 
I Comparative Litter Data (1860-1919) . . 16 
II Evolution of the Straight Pole 
- Litter (1916-1943) . . . . .80 
Figure* 
1 The Revolutionary War Handbarrow . . .12 
2 The Satterlee Litter . , , . .12 
3 The Halstead Litter . . * . ,14 
4 The Ash Pole Litter . . . . .14 
5 The Straight Aluminum Litter . . .18 
6 The Straight Steel Litter . , . .40 
7 The Straight Wood Litter (ii—1943) • » 62 
8 The Stokes Litter . . , , 100 
9 The Metal Litter ...... 103 
10 The Folding Aluminum Litter 
(Pull-Apart Type) ..... 107 Figure 
Following Page 
11 The Folding Aluminum Litter 
(Link-Hinge Type) . . . . 121 
12 The Gran Litter ..... 127 
13 The Double-Folding Laminated 
Wood Litter . . . , • * .■ ■ • ■ 145 
14 Arctic Rescue Unit 
. . , (Experimental) ...... 175 
15 The American Pressboard 
"Stretcher-Kpt" . . . . .185 
16 The Standard Ski Litter .adapter . ■ 199 
17 The Toboggan Litter Adapter , . . 232 
18 The Snow and Ice Ambulance (Type I) . 238 
19 The Snow and Ice Ambulance (Type II) . 238 
20 ' The Amphibian Litter Stop . . , 277 PART I 
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT LITTER PROGRAM CHARTER I 
INTRODUCTION 
The design and development of a satisfactory military 
litter is a far more complex task than is generally supposed• 
For this reason a brief introduction, surveying the problem 
as a whole, is presented hero. It is hoped that future 
research and development personnel, confronting for the first 
time the specialized problem of litter construction, may find 
the following discussion helpful. 
I. Difficulties Common to World War I and 7orld War II« 
The difficulties facing the Medical Department in April, 
1941, when the present litter program was initiated,-*- can be 
conveniently grouped into two major categories. First of all, 
there are those factors which have shaped and to a certain 
extent inhibited litter research and development throughout 
our military history. 
A. Interdependence of Parts. 
The Army litter is not a simple one-piece mechanism. 
Although decidedly less complicated in construction than the 
old ash pole litter of World War I, the standard litter of 
today consists of a canvas cover, two litter poles, four 
handles, drive-pins to secure the handles, tv/o spreader bars, 
four sets of stirrups, stirrup bolts, stirrup base blocks and 
swivel blocks, cap screws for the swivel blocks, and litter 
securing straps,^ 
Each of these components is intimately related in 
its functioning to one or more of the others. Decrease the 
length of the litter poles without altering the position of 
the running gear and the knees of the litter bearers will be 
striking against the undercarriage. Reduce the diameter of 
the poles and the saddle which holds the stirrup in place 
will have to be redesigned. Increase the diameter of the 
poles and the width of the canvas will be affected. Reduce 
the width of the canvas and the spreader bar will fail to 
lock. 
For those charged with the responsibility for 
litter research and development the principle of the inter- 
dependence of parts is basic, A proposal to alter, however 
slightly, even one component of the litter must be weighed 
most carefully and an exhaustive effort made to discover the 
effect of this single change upon all the other directly and indirectly related parts, 
B• Critical Shortages of Material. 
In wartime the existence of critical shortages of 
material is inevitable. Enemy invasion of neutral or Allied 
territory may result in the sharp reduction or, at times, 
the complete curtailment of certain basic sources of supply. 
Unusual demand for a particular raw material, labor diffi- 
culties, transportation tie-ups, and a thousand other fac- 
tors contribute to make critical shortages a common occur- 
rence in times of national emergency. 
The most common effect of a shortage in material 
is, of course, simply to force abandonment or avoidance of 
that particular material in manufacture. Unless an ade- 
quate priority is obtained, the only recourse for the Medi- 
cal Department or any other agency is to develop as rapidly 
as possible satisfactory substitutes. The time element in 
this instance is crucial. Even when the shortage is fore- 
seen by as much as two years, research and development 
personnel are likely to find themselves in a desperate race 
against time. 
The aluminum shortage of 1942 was foreseen by the 
Medical Department at least as early as 1940, and in April 
of the following year a litter project was initiated-to de- 
velop substitutes for that material.2 Nevertheless, despite 
intensive and continuous investigation, it was not until 
January, 1942—the same month which witnessed the official 
announcement of major restrictions governing aluminum pro- 
curement^—that a satisfactory substitute for the aluminum 
litter pole and undercarriage had been found.5 Moreover, 
it was not until June, 1942, that the depots began to re- 
ceive even small quantity shipments of the new steel 
litter 
A somewhat less common but equally restrictive 
effect of shortages is involuntary "freezing" of an item. 
Where the shortage is potential rather than actual, and 
current market conditions arc favorable, foresightedness 
may dictate over-purchase of the component affected in 
order to build up a stock-pile reserve. This action, how- 
ever, has the immediate effect of fixing for a relatively 
extended period of time the specifications of the item in 
question. Recalling our discussion of the interdependence 
of parts, it is not difficult to perceive the effect this 
stabilizing of one component may have oh modification of 
litter design as a whole. 
Canvas furnishes a striking illustration of this principle. Even in the early years of the war, canvas was a 
potentially critical item and the Medical Department, 
anticipating that its future requirements would be heavy, 
purchased large quantities of canvas litter covers. Speci- 
fications, of course, were drawn to fit the standard litter 
in use at that time. These quantity orders, however, 
resulted not only in fixing for some years to come the shape 
and size of litter covers, but also had the further effect 
of fixing just as unalterably the dimensions of the litter 
poles. For with canvas of a specified width and length with 
side hems of a certain depth, only a pole of a specific size 
will fit snugly into the folds. 
Obviously such a combination of factors may, at 
least temporarily, seriously larrow the field of research 
and development possibilities. In 1942 experiments were 
being conducted with resin bonded plytube poles. It was 
found necessary to increase their diameter beyond that of 
the standard litter pole in order to secure a strength equal 
to that of the aluminum which was to be replaced. In answer 
to the manufacturer’s telegraphic request that specifications 
regarding litter pole dimensions be liberalized to permit 
procurement of a slightly larger tube,*? the Surgeon General’s 
Office was forced to reply: 
Fittings arc not the only reason why the dimen- 
sions of the pole are set. A number of ether 
factors enter into the size and dimensions of 
the poles, one of which is the size of the loop 
in the canvas which cannot be changed since we 
have millions of pieces of this canvas already 
procured.® 
C. Patient Comfort and Litter Bearer Fatigue. 
The human factors of patient comfort and litter 
bearer fatigue are essential considerations in every litter 
development project. The shape, angle, and texture of the 
pole handles may spell the difference for the litter bearer 
between a comfortable normal carry and one that blisters the 
hands and knots the back muscles. The shape and position of 
the spreader bar—its proximity to the surface of the canvas, 
whether it is straight or curved—will affect the comfort and, 
in certain fracture cases, even the future recovery of the 
patient. Litter poles which are too rigid give the casualty 
load a kind of dead weight heaviness which is tiring for the 
litter bearers, and make the ride an exceedingly bumpy and 
often acutely painful one for the patient. Litter poles 
which arc too resilient tend to bounce the patient as well 
as to maximize bhe weight strain on the bearers. Wot infrequently, of course, the criteria of patient 
comfort and litter bearer fatigue stand in opposition to one 
another and the only satisfactory solution is a compromise. 
If, for example, the weight of the litter poles is excessive 
the litter bearers suffer, personnel replacements in the field 
become an acute problem, and 1ong litter hauls are cut of the 
question. If, on the ether hand, the poles arc too light they 
are likely to take a permanent bow or set, or oven to snap 
under a normal casualty load thereby endangering the life of 
the patient. Obviously in such eases the answer lies in the 
direction of some feasible intermediate position. 
D, Adaptability to Hass Production. 
In supplying an army of eight million men, fabri- 
cation by hand is out of the question. Not infrequently pilot 
models representing definite structural advantages must be 
rejected because of their inadaptability to mass production. 
In many instances stretchers which are entirely suitable for 
small-scale civilian use cannot be considered by the Army 
because of their intricate designs or their use of costly 
or scarce materials. 
An item must not only be adaptable to mass pro- 
duction, but the length of time required before actual pro- 
duction can begin is a further qualifying factor, Whatever 
the intrinsic value of the improvements involved, a litter 
design which requires substantial retooling on the part of 
the manufacturer before actual fabrication can begin will be 
of little use in a war of short duration. The realistic 
evaluation of litter ideas is premised always on careful 
weighing of the time factor. 
In AR 830-25. the basic regulation governing 
wartime research and development, the War Department states 
its position in this respect as followss 
It is most essential in all states of develop- 
ment work that adaptability of the item to 
quantity production bo considered as cno of 
the most important requirements of the design. 
For this reason the adoption of commercial 
items or their adaptation with the fewest 
practicable modifications, whenever such 
procedure will satisfy military reauiroments, 
is a policy of the War Department.' 
E. Ruggodness and Sirrplicity of Construction. 
Although as we have seen, litter development in- volves the careful weighing of a multiplicity of complex 
factors, the end result must above all be simple. Enlisted 
men working in depots and warehouses, serving in the field 
as litter bearers and maintenance men, are seldom expert 
mechanics. Therefore, to be thoroughly effective for their 
use, a litter must bo simple to operate, simple to take apart 
and repair, simple to reassemble, and simple to collapse and 
secure for shipping and storage. 
By the same token a litter must be sufficiently 
rugged to withstand the roughest treatment under field 
conditions. An empty litter nay not receive gentle handling 
in the excitement of battle. It may often be thrown, not 
carefully loaded into cargo trucks and ambulances. It may 
be carelessly dropped on rocky ground and on concrete high- 
ways. It may be left in the field, exposed to wind, rain, 
and snow. Consequently the litter must be sturdy. Mud and 
sand must have little or no effect on the hinge and stirrup 
bearings. Finally, the occupied litter must be strong enough 
to withstand the shock and weight of casualty loading and un- 
loading, as well as long ambulance hauls over rough terrain. 
II. Difficulties Unique to World War II. 
The problems which have just been enumerated arc not 
peculiarly characteristic of the present war but applied 
with equal force to litter development during World War I. 
There arc, however, two major factors which nay be described 
as the special products of the; uniquely mechanistic and 
global nature of the war we arc now waging, 
A, Interchangeability of Parts. 
The global nature of the present war has raised 
problems of variety and quantity unknovn in 191B, In the 
closing months of World War I, when research and development 
activities had reached their peak, only two types of litters 
were being purchased in quantity by the United States Army— 
(l) The Regulation Canvas, a heavy, 22 pound ash polo litter 
with tacked-on canvas and cast iron running gear, and (2) The 
Stokes, developed by the United States Navy, a basket-type 
litter supported by soft steel rods and braces, and lined with 
chicken wirc.-^ 
In the present war nine litters are listed in the 
Medical Supply Catalogue. 
784400 Litter (World War I model; now 
, Limited Standard) 9934-700 Litter, ambulance cots Bomgardner typo 
9935000 Litter, straight, aluminum 
9936000 Litter, canvas, semi-rigid 
9936200 Litter, folding, wood 
9936600 Litter, straight, wood, M-194.3 
9937600 Litter, straight, steel 
9937000 Litter, folding, aluminum 
9938500 Litter, metal, Stokess airplane 
(modified World War I model) 
In addition to the foregoing items, two mere litters 
hav9 been very recently developed, one of which has already 
been standardized for procurement,-^ 
1. Litter, mountains basket type with ?;ocd base 
2. Litter, polcless nylon, M-l 
Some conception of uhc magnitude of the Medical De- 
partment's current litter program can be obtained from the 
following statistics covering the first nine months of 194-3, 
and relating to the four litter items under the heaviest 
procurement at that time. ■* 
Deliveries 
Contracts 
net 
1 Jan, 4.3 to 
delivered 
Total 
30 Sep. 4.3 
30 Sep. 
43 
30 Sep. 43 
Litter, folding, weed 25,485 
47,773 
73,258 
Litter, straight, steel 334?233 
89,786 
424,009 
Litter, folding, aluminum 12,604 
13,088 
Litter, metal 68,420 
258.731 
327.151 
Total 440,732 
396,774 
837,506 
As of 25 January 1945, considering only those lit- 
ters which had been developed and placed under procurement 
since the outbreak of World War II, actual deliveries alone 
amounted to 555,900.^ 
Teta 
1 deliveries 
25 
Jan. 1945 
9936000 
Litter, 
canvas, semi-rigid 
10,000 
9936200 
Litter, 
folding, wood 
69,220 
9936600 
Litter, 
straight, wood, 11-1943 
5,363 
9937600 
Litter, 
straight, steel 
471o317 
Total 
555,900 
The mere existence of such a wide variety of litters, 
procured in such quantity, has posed problems unicuo to this 
war. Under the system of property exchange as employed over- 
seas, the litter typically servos as a bed on which the casu- 
alty may rest from the time he is taken from the field by the 
front-line litter bearers until he reaches his terminal point in the chain of evacuation, in order to replace the litter, 
thus removed, each echelon sends forward a litter in exchange- 
Consider /hat effect a variety of litter types has 
upon such a system. At any point in the process .and at any 
time, steel litters nay be received in exchange for aluminum, 
or aluminum for wood, and sc on. Clearly, without a high 
degree of interchangeability of parts, the entire evacuation 
process is likely to break down. Field maintenance becomes 
impossible, for no forward installation can conceivably keep 
on hand replacement parts sufficient to service even four 
(the number of straight litters alone which are now in field 
use), much loss ten- completely different typos. 
It has,boon necessary, therefore, to consider each 
new litter proposal in the light of its conformity or non- 
conformity with litter components already in use. Fherc pro- 
curement requirements arc light and whore the using agency is 
performing a rather highly specialized function, considerable, 
deviation has boon permitted. But from tine to tine it has 
been compcllingly necessary to design universal undercarriages 
which will permit complete interchangeability of parts between 
all, or nearly all, of the litters in use at overseas instal- 
lations. Several such undercarriages have been constructed 
during this war and plans arc currently going forward to con- 
struct a new one. 
B. Adaptability to Land, Sea, and Air Transportation, 
Not only the global but also the mechanistic 
character of the present war has given rise to difficulties 
which were largely non-existent in our earlier wars. In tho 
days when litter patients wore evacuated solely by hand- 
carry, adaptability to ntransportation factors" could be 
achieved merely by designing a more comfortable handle or 
perhaps an adjustable sling strap for the litter bearers. 
Curing the whole of -lorld VJar I, one change only was required 
in the ash pole litter| a change in the location of the braces 
to a point 7 inches nearer tho pole ends to adapt the litter 
to the new wheeled litter carrier which was then being pur- 
chased in Fi ance.15 
Today, casualties are net only being evacuated by 
hand-carry, but by pack animals, skis, toboggans, re-ton jeeps, 
cargo trucks, cross-country ambulances, hospital trains, air- 
planes, raid soacraft. Furthermore, completely equipped notor- 
ized aid airborne hospitals are new in operation in forward 
positions near the combat zone. The litter of today must be 
so designed that it will conform to the individual fittings 
of each of those widely varying forms of transportation as 
well as each of the steadily increasing number of mobile 
7 operating units. The adaptability factor is c. constant 
complication that has taxed the resourcefulness of litter 
development personnel to the utmost, 
COFOLUSION 
Seven major factors, involved in the over-all problem 
of litter construction, have been emphasized in this 
preliminary discussions (1) Interdependence of Parts, ?;’' 
(2} Critical Shortages of -Material, (3) Patient Comfort and 
Litter Bearer Fatigue, (i) Adaptability to Mass production, 
(5) Ruggedness and Simplicity of Construction, (6) Inter- 
changeability of Parts, and (7). Adaptability to Land, Sea, 
and Air Transportation. 
The foregoing list is by no moans exhaustive, but it is 
hoped that it will provide a helpful frame of reference for 
the more detailed studios which arc to follow. The develop- 
ment of a satisfactory military litter, in view of the many 
variables involved, constitutes a highly specialized task of 
research and engineering. The manner in which the Medical 
Department has met this challenge will be the subject of 
the chapters to follow. 
8 FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER I 
Medical Department Rescarch Program, fiscal Year 1941, 
3 Apr, 1941, CONFIDENTIAL, p. 39 (Record Room, S.G.O. 
700.2-1). Extracted in clear. File reference hereafter 
cited as Roe, Rn,, S.G.O, 
2 
medical Supply Catalog:, Army Service Forces Catalog MED 3? 
1 Mar, 194-4? pp. 30-32. 
3 
Medical Department Research Program. Fiscal Year 1941t 3 Ann. 
19415 CONFIDENTIAL, pT 39 (Roc.Rm., S.G.O. 700.2-1). 
Extracted in clear. 
4 
Conservation Directive No. 14. "Conservation of Aluminum", 
Office of Under Secy, of V/ar, 12 Jan, 1942. 
5 
See Chap. II. 
1st ind. to Historical Division, S.G.O. (hereafter cited as 
Hist, Div., S.G.O.) fr, A.II.P.0., 25 Jan. 1945; basics Itr. 
to A.M.P.C., fr. S.G.O., 22 Jan. 1945 (Hist. Div., S.G.O,). 
7 
Telegram to S.G.O., fr. PlymoId Gorp., Laurence, Mass., 
30 Sep. 1942 (A.ii.R. & D. Bd.). 
g 
Ltr. to Flymold Corn., Laurence, Mass., fr. S.G.O., 
17 Nov. 1942 (a.M.R'. & D. Bd.). 
9AR 850-25. -See. 11-b, 30 Jun. 1943. 
10 
Hcflebower, Roy C., Major, M.C., U.S.A., "Evolution of the 
Litter11, Part I, Theoretical Training Program, Army Munitions 
Battalion, 18 Oct. 1927, pp, 4-9 (Hist, Div,, S.G.O, 353•*•!)• 
11 
' "Medical Supply Catalog, Army Service Forces Catalog MED 3, 
1 Mar, 1944? pp. 30-32, 
12 
Monthly Status Report on Research and Development Projects 
for the period 1-30 Nov.. 1944, S.G.O., SECRET, 21 Dee. 
1944? p. 9. Extracted in clear. This report hereafter cited 
as Monthly Status Report, S.G.O. 
9 1 1 
Cited in Supply FJr-n -Litter11 by Paul I. Robinson, Col*, 
I-/L.C•, U*S .A■ 20 Oct, 194-3 (Hist. Div,, S.G.O. 353.-1) * 
Indo to Hist.. Div,., S.G.O*, fr, A.LI.P.O., 25 Jan, 194-5, 
basics Itr, to fr, S.G.O,, 22 Jan. 194-5 (Hist. 
D Iv. -, 5 . G. J,). 
1^ 
Hof1slower, op. ci'G.,, p, oe 
10 CHAPTER II 
THE STRAIGHT POLE LITTER 
I. Historical Background• 
The straight pole litter of the United States Army has 
been the backbone of our system of medical evacuation for 
more than 85 years. However, throughout this period, both 
in terms of construction and design the litter has been in 
an almost constant state of evolution. In order, therefore, 
to evaluate properly the many physical changes that have 
taken place in the straight pole litter since the outbreak 
of the present war, it is necessary to view this most recent 
period of development in its larger historical perspective. 
A • The Period from 1860-1918 • 
Prior to i860, our knowledge of the type of device 
•employed in removing casualties from the field of battle is 
fragmentary. There appears to be some evidence that during 
the Revolutionary VIar wheel barrows and hand barrows Csee 
Fig, l) were used. However, the precise date of the adoption 
of the present litter-type of conveyance is still a matter of 
speculation. General Roy C, Heflebowcr, who investigated 
this subject extensively in 1927, was unable to find any 
descriptions of the carrying devices employed in the War of 
1812, the various Indian campaigns which followed, or the 
Mexican War.2 
1• The Sattorlcc Litter (i860), 
It is with the Sattcrlce litter, used during 
the early months of the Civil War, that recorded and detailed 
history of the Army straight pole litter begins. The Sattcr- 
loe litter (see Fig. 2) weighed 2A~l/2 pounds and was 27 
inches wide. Its seasoned red ash poles were round, measur- 
ing l-l/2 inches in diameter, and were 8 feet 9 inches in 
length. The cover, which was 5 feet 10 inches long, consisted 
of two pieces of canvas sewed in the center with a flat seam. 
Hems, 7-l/2 inches wide, were provided on each side of the 
canvas for the poles to pass through. At each end, the cover 
was laecd to a wooden cross bow by means of tarred rope loops 
which fit over three small pins. The cross bars, made of 
seasoned white oak, were fitted against tiny wrought iron 
hands which were riveted to the poles as shoulders for the 
cross bars to strike against. The undercarriage was composed of two pieces of wrought iron, 6 feet long, so curved as to 
form legs for the litter to rest upon as well as sockets for 
the poles. 
Compared to the primitive hand barrow, the 
Satterlee litter represented an enormous improvement both in 
structural design and field effectiveness. It was more com- 
fortable for the patient, was considerably less bulky and 
cumbersome for the litter bearers to handle, occupied far less 
storage and shipping space, and required for its construction 
only a fraction of the material needed for the hand barrow. 
However, under actual war conditions, the Satterlee litter 
exhibited certain defects which were to be largely eliminated 
in the course of subsequent litter development. 
In the first place, the extremely long poles 
of the Satterlee model made the litter awkward to handle and 
tended to maximize the weight strain on the bearers. Simi- 
larly the huge looping feet, raising the surface of the lit- 
ter much higher off the ground than was necessary for patient 
protection, added considerably to the over-all weight. 
Because of the rigid cross bars, before the litter could be 
collapsed it had to be taken apart and reassembled, an oper- 
ation that was time consuming in the extreme. Finally, the 
use of two-piece canvas for the litter cover, with its com- 
plicated lacing arrangement, posed maintenance problems of 
a particularly troublesome nature. 
The Satterlee design, however, made one notable 
contribution to subsequent litter evolution, although nearly 
75 years were to elapse before this idea was to be incorporated 
again into Medical Department specifications. This was the 
”slip-on” arrangement for attaching the canvas cover to the 
side polos, using hem loops in the canvas instead of tacks 
or bolted metal strips. In 1934- this feature was revived, 
and it continues in use down to the present day. 
2, The Halstead Litter (c. l36l). 
In view of the disadvantages cited above, it 
is not surprising to learn that a thoroughgoing modification 
of the Satterlee litter was soon forthcoming. 
In actual war conditions the Satterlee 
litter did not prove satisfactory....It was * 
soon superseded by a folding type known as 
the Halstead litter. This.litter was a great 
improvement over its predecessor and about 
40,000, or 80 per cent of the litters purchased 
during the Civil War were cf this type,3 
12 The Halstead litter (see Fig, 3) weighed 
23-3/4 pounds, and was 23-l/2 inches wide. Its poles, v/hich 
were of seasoned white ash, were B feet long, and were square 
in shape. The side poles were roughed off at the ends to 
provide handles. The canvas cover was a one-piece fabric, 
5 feet 11 inches long, and was attached to the side poles by 
a large number of 6-ounce tacks. Lateral folding of the 
litter was made possible by the use of two pieces of wrought 
iron which were fastened to the under side of the assembly 
at each end of the canvas, and were hinged in the center. 
These two sets of braces were fastened to the poles with 
heavy screws, with pieces of common hoop iron underneath them 
to protect the wood. The feet or legs of the litter consisted 
of ordinary white ash sticks, 14-1/2 inches long, which were 
attached to the side poles with screw bolts riveted through 
the upper end to prevent splitting. The stick supports were 
set diagonally, facing outward toward the pole ends. 
The outstanding contribution of the Halstead 
design to future litter development was the introduction of 
the hinged brace, a precursor of our modern spreader bar. 
In place of the rigid wooden cross bars of the Satterlce 
model which fitted between the side poles and wore level with 
the top surface of the litter, folding metal bars inserted 
beneath the canvas cover were now substituted. The creation 
of this primitive type of spreader ban necessitated a related 
change in the feet or legs of the litter, but in this instance 
the improvisation was less successful. The slanting stick 
supports disappeared from litter specifications after 1892, 
Taken all in all, the number of basic changes 
in Army litter construction which were introduced in the 
Halstead design was remarkable. Over-all weight and width 
of the litter were reduced, side poles were shortened, handles 
began to emerge as an individual component, hinged metal 
braces replaced the rigid cross bars of the Satterlce model, 
one-piece canvas was substituted for the two-piece cover, 
and tacking superseded the use of hem loops as the means of 
attaching the litter cover to the poles. All of these 
modifications, with the exception of the last, established 
directions and trends in litter design which have continued 
down to the present day. The substitution of tacked-on 
canvas for the Satterlce hem arrangement, though destined 
to be preserved in litter specifications for the next 70 
years, was finally discarded in 1934 and has not been 
reverted to since that time, 
3. The Medical Board Litter (1B92). 
Few modifications were made in the Halstead 
litt er until 1891, when a board of medical officers was 
13 convened in New York City to examine and improve the means 
of transportation of the sick and wounded. The litter which 
this board developed was adopted as standard the following 
year. The side poles were 7 feet 7-l/2 inches long., were 
square in shape, and ?/ere rounded for 9 inches at the ends 
to form handles. The tacked-on cover was a one-piece linen 
duck, 7 feet in length. The feet of the litter consisted 
of four metal stirrups made of steel or wrought iron. Each 
stirrup was formed by two metal strips which were first 
crossed and welded at the intersection, after which the 
opposite ends were brought together and welded, thus form- 
ing two loops. The smaller loop was squared to receive the 
side pole, while the larger loop constituted the stirrup. 
The transverse braces, each consisting of two pieces of steel 
or wrought iron, were joined as before in the center, but 
with a somewhat improved hinge arrangement. 
The most significant contribution of this now 
design was the invention of metal stirrups to replace the 
slanting wood legs of the Halstead litter. The idea had been 
perhaps hinted at in the large unclosed bar loops of the 
Satterloe model, but now for the first time the definite 
stirrup shape was visualized and developed. This innovation 
was to have a lasting effect on subsequent litter construction. 
Aside from this one feature, the Medical Board litter repre- 
sented in the main a logical continuation of the trends which 
had been established in 1861. Litter bulk was further reduced, 
polos wore shortened, handles were more carefully rounded, the 
hinged braces were improved slightly and strengthened. The 
linen duck cover, which had been slightly increased in length 
in the Halstead model, was now further lengthened by a full 
13 inches. Tacking continued to replace hem loops for 
fastening the cover to the side poles. 
Specifications for this litter -/ere later 
modified in only one particular. Shortly before the Spanish- 
American Mar, wrought iron was made mandatory for the stirrups 
and braces, the latter being tinned or galvanized to prevent 
rust and attached to the bottom of the side poles with heavy 
screws. 
The Ash Pole Litter (1916). 
The 1916 litter (sec Fig. 4.) weighed 22 pounds 
And was 22 inches wide. Its side poles were constructed of 
straight grained ash, were 7 feet 6 inches in length, were 
rectangular in shape, and the ends were rounded off for 9 
inches to form handles. The one-piece canvas cover was 6 
feet 2 inches long and ¥/as tacked to the upper surface of 
the poles which were shaved away so that the top surface of 
the cover was flush with the unshaved portions of the poles. The braces, or spreader bars, were of cast iron construction 
and were so designed that, when closed, they extended length- 
wise toward the center of the litter immediately between the 
two side poles. The cast iron stirrups consisted of one 
■metal loop and an attached metal plate which was bolted to 
the pole. The litter was so constructed that it was able 
to support a live weight of 200 pounds applied at the mid- 
point of each pole. 
This litter, which was purchased during World 
War I, was unique in several respects. In the first place, 
the scale of the war with Germany had created an unprece- 
dented demand for quantity litter production. Consequently, 
while the total production of Army litters during the entire 
four years of the Civil War had been only 50,000, between 
15 May 1917 and 16 October 1918, approximately 375,000 of 
the new ash pole litters were purchased, and at a total cost 
of more than $2, In the second place, the 1916 
litter represented the culmination of a long, 56-year period 
of experimentation. It was by far the sturdiest and the most 
compact litter yet developed. 
Probably the most outstanding feature of the 
new ash pole litter was its stirrup design. Instead of con- 
sisting of two metal loops, one of which encircled the pole, 
the stirrup proper was now a single metal loop which was 
secured to the pole by a flat metal plate. This facilitated 
mass production of the item, reduced the cost, and constituted 
on the v/hole a much more serviceable support for the loaded 
litter. In other respects the 1916 litter represented, like 
the Medical Board litter of 1892, a continuation of trends 
already established. Weight was decreased, poles were again 
shortened, handles remained unchanged, the canvas cover was 
shortened but was otherwise unchanged, spreader bar hinges 
were improved, and cast iron was substituted for wrought iron 
in the complete undercarriage assembly. 
There was only one subsequent alteration of 
design of the ash pole litter and that one was minor in 
nature. In 1917, the location of the spreader bars was 
changed from 2A inches to 17 inches from the ends of the 
poles to adapt the litter to the fittings on the wheeled 
litter carrier which was then being purchased in France,5 
5. Conclusion. 
Examination of the comparative data regarding 
the straight polo litters which have been used by the United 
States Army from i860 to 1918 may serve to clarify and 
emphasize the Various major trends in litter construction and 
design which have been referred to at various points in the 
preceding discussion,^ a• Litter weight and width, 
Litter weight was reduced steadily through- 
out the 58-year period, but the total decrease in weight from 
i860 to 1918 was very slight, amounting to only 2-l/2 pounds. 
Width was also reduced with each successive model, totalling 
a 5 inch decrease for the entire period. 
b. Side poles and handles. 
While the construction of the side poles 
differed only with respect to the type of ash wood employed, 
important modifications were made in other characteristics. 
Pole length was decreased drastically from 8 feet 9 inches 
in i860 to 7 feet 6 inches in 1916, Foie shape changed fre- 
quently, but according to no apparent pattern, while pole 
thickness was increased slightly during the period. Handle 
formation was developed from a crude roughing off at the 
pole ends to a careful rounding, but the handle had not yet 
emerged as an entirely separate component, 
c. Litter cover. 
Except for a single instance where linen 
duck was used, canvas was the material of choice for the 
litter cover. The i860 design, which specified two-piece 
canvas sewed at the center, was abandoned in all subsequent 
models which employed simply a one-piece fabric. Generally 
speaking, the length of the cover was increased somewhat, 
although the 1892 specification of 7 feet was considered 
excessive and was reduced by 10 inches in the ash pole lit- 
ter. Although, in the i860 model, the canvas cover was 
attached to the side poles by passing the poles through hem 
loops in the canvas, this method was not followed in any of 
the succeeding litters. Instead a tacking arrangement was 
substituted. It may be observed parenthetically that future 
litter designs were to return to the hem loop method as 
being the most practicable for military use, especially with 
round poles. With the elimination of the cross bars of the 
Sattcrlec litter, no end attachments were necessary, so the 
lacing device appeared only in the i860 model, 
d. Stirrups- and spreader bars. 
The greatest number of changes occurred 
in undercarriage design. The material used in the construc- 
tion of the feet or stirrups varied widely, but indicated in 
general a preference for metal (iron) as against wood, Steel 
appeared as an optional material in 1892, but was subsequently 
16 TABLE I 
COMPARATIVE LITTER DATA (1850-1919) 
Explanation of Symbols. 
I. The Satterlee Litter (i860) 
II. The Halstead Litter (c. 1861) 
III. The Medical Board Litter (1892) 
IV. The Ash Pole Litter (1916) 
1. Litter Weight and Width. 
T 
24.50 lbs. 
27.00 in. 
II. 
23.75 lbs. 
23.50 in. 
III. 
Not given 
22,00 in. 
IV. 
22.00 lbs. 
22.00 in. 
2. Side Poles, 
Construction 
Length 
Shape and Thickness 
Handles 
I. 
Seasoned red ash 
8* 
9.0” 
1.50” in diameter; 
circular 
Round; no taper- 
ing at pole ends 
II. 
Seasoned white 
ash 
8’ 
0.0” 
1.83” square 
Roughed off at 
pole ends 
III. 
Hot given 
7' 
7.5” 
2.00” square 
Rounded for 3” 
at pole ends 
IV, 
Straight-grained 
ash 
7’ 
6,0” 
2.00r x 1.50”; 
rectangular 
Rounded for 9” 
at pole ends 
3. Litter Cover. 
Construction 
Lea 
pth 
Side Attachment 
End Attachment 
I. 
2-piece 
canvas 
5’ 
10” 
Hem loops 
Laced to cross 
bars 
II. 
1-piece 
canvas 
5’ 
11” 
Tacks 
Hone 
III. 
1-piece 
linen duck 
7' 
0” 
Tacks 
None 
IV. 
1-piece 
canvas 
6f 
2” 
Tacks 
None 
4. Undercarriage. 
Stirrups 
Construction 
Shape 
Spreader 
Construction 
bars 
Shape 
I. 
Wrought iron 
Unclosed loops 
White oak 
Rigid cross bars 
II, 
White ash 
Slanting sticks 
Wrought iron 
Hinged braces 
III. 
iron 
Two closed loops 
iron 
Hinged braces 
IV, 
Cast iron 
One closed loop 
and pole plate 
Cast iron 
Hinged braces 
steel or wrought iron; later wrought iron specified 
exclusively. discarded for wrought iron. The shape of the feet, however, 
aside from the one departure presented by the slanting stick 
arrangement of the Halstead litter, underwent a highly logical 
cycle of development. From the crudely curved iron bar of the 
Satterlee litter, with its large unclosed loops raising the 
body of the litter nearly 12 inches off the ground, the 1892 
design progressed to a much smaller, closed, double-loop 
device. The evolution was culminated in the trim single-loop 
stirrup and pole plate of the ash pole litter, which elevated 
the canvas surface only U inches above the ground. 
In the i860 litter, with its rigid cross 
bars holding the poles apart, lateral folding of the litter 
was impossible without fairly complete disassembly. The 
factor of lateral collapsibility, hov/ever, was attained in 
the Halstead model of the following year by the introduction 
of crudely hinged wrought iron braces. Thereafter, it was a 
relatively simple operation to bring the poles of the litter 
together and tie them, thus reducing both size and bulk and 
affording much easier handling and stacking. In later models 
improvement was made in the hinge mechanism and, in the 1916 
design, cast iron replaced wrought iron in the spreader bar 
construction. 
B. The Period from 1918-19/^1. 
Compared with its predecessors, the 1916 ash pole 
litter was manifestly a great improvement. It had stood up 
well in the war and, while some maintenance difficulties 
were experienced, the litter had been procured in sufficient 
quantity to insure adequate replacement of the complete item 
if necessary. Consequently, with the advent of peace and the 
subsequent sharp reduction of public expenditure for the 
military establishment, litter research activities in the 
Medical Department were continued on a much more limited 
scale and at a greatly relaxed tempo. 
On 26 February 1925, for example, the Chief of the 
Organization Division of The Surgeon General’s Office wrote 
as follows to the Commandant, Medical Field Service School, 
Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. 
* In the Equipment Laboratory please list for investi- 
gation and possible experimentation in the future 
the item of ’’Litters” now used in the service. Our 
standard litter seems to be fairly satisfactory but 
perhaps it can be improved by reducing its weight, 
changing the type of stirrup, omitting litter straps, 
etc. 
This is forwarded merely as food for thought. There 
is no urgent heed for a change at this time.^ Throughout tho ’twenties, as is abundantly indicated 
in tho official correspondence that passed during this period, 
the attitude of the Medical Department was largely one of 
satisfaction with the ash pole litter as the ideal litter for 
general military use. Typical of this viewpoint was the 
following appraisal written in 1927 by General (then Major) 
Roy C, Heflebower: 
It /the ash pole litter/ combines all the best 
principles of the multitude of litters which have 
preceded it both in our own country and abroad. 
It is light, compact, comfortable, rigid, durable 
and easily carried, whether by hand, by ambulance, 
litter carrier or other type of conveyance,^ 
Nevertheless, just four years after the above state- 
ment was written, development was begun on a new and revo- 
lutionary type of straight pole litter which was destined to 
surpass in virtually every respect the ash pole litter of 
World War I. 
1• The Standard Aluminum Litter (1935). 
In 1931 the Medical Department roused itself 
from its long period of research inactivity in the litter 
field to investigate the possibilities of aluminum as a 
substitute for the straight grain ash poles and cast iron 
undercarriage of the 1916 litter. After much experimentation, 
both independently and in collaboration with private industry, 
early in 1932 the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory 
brought forth a new and promising pilot model, equipped with 
duraluminum tubing and cast aluminum running gear. A number 
of the new litters were soon sent to field units for test and 
report and, aside from minor objections regarding hand grips 
and spreader, bar design, the reaction was extremely favorable. 
Before the close :of 1934-j, all indicated changes had been made. 
Detachable hard wood handles had been provided, and spreader 
bars had been redesigned with a greater downward curving to 
insure a maximum of patient protection. With the completion 
of this construction work, in the spring of 1935 sixty-nine 
of the modified litters were manufactured and distributed to 
outlying Army stations for service testing. Tho reports 
subsequently received gave every indication that the new lit- 
ter would prove to be the best that the Medical Department 
had yet produced,9 
The now standard aluminum pole litter (see 
Fig. 5) was indeed a streamlined invention. It weighed only 
15-l/2 pounds. Its poles were of aluminum tubing, 1,54- inches 
outside diameter, 0,109 inch wall thickness, and 77 inches 
long. The litter handles were separate components of wood 
construction, 9-l/2 inches long, and projected 6-l/2 inches from the pole ends. The stirrups and spreader bars were of 
cast aluminum and weighed 4-*56 pounds per litter. Holding 
the stirrups to the poles were cadmium plated steel bolts 
with heads which were oval-shaped to fit the pole and canvas. 
The canvas cover was attached to the side poles by a hem 
arrangement not dissimilar to the one employed in the Satter- 
lec litter. The cover was secured to the poles at each end 
by a single bolt,10 
With the development of the aluminum litter, 
the old ash pole litter of World War I suddenly seemed almost 
anachronistic. The iicdical Department Equipment Laboratory 
summarized its comparative findings as follows: 
The weight of this litter /19l6 model/ presents 
its most serious objections. Other objectives 
are: the handles arc more often broken than any 
other part of the litter; when the canvas splits, 
tacks have to be removed and replaced. If a 
handle is broken, 9 screws, 2 rings, 2 studs and 
71 tacks all have to be removed and replaced, if 
and when the litter is salvaged 
In the round pole /aluminum/ litter (weigh- 
ing 15-1/2 pounds) if the canvas splits, only U 
bolts need be removed and replaced. If one pole 
is broken only two bolts arc removed. If a 
handle breaks, it can be replaced by another, 
very easily.-d 
The now aluminum pole litter incorporated the 
best features of all the litters which had preceded it. In 
the circular shape of the poles and the use of hem loops 
instead of tacks for attaching the canvas cover, the new design 
bore considerable resemblance to the Satterlce litter. The 
stirrup arrangement, on the other hand, constituted simply a 
natural culmination of a long trend of development. The 1916 
litter had substituted a metal plate for the squared wrought 
iron loop of the 1B92 model as a means of securing the stir- 
rup to the side pole. Now this metal plate was in turn super- 
seded by a small oval-headed bolt which was shaped to fit the 
curvature of the poles* 
The new design, however, introduced several 
radical departures from conventional litter construction of 
the past. The most notable innovations, perhaps, were the 
substitution of aluminum for iron in the undercarriage, and 
the use of metal tubing in place of solid ash wood for the 
side poles. These two improvements alone resulted in a 
weight reduction of 6-l/2 pounds, a formidable accomplishment 
in view of the fact that from i860 to 1935 over-all litter 
weight had been decreased by only 2-l/2pounds. Only slightly less significant was the 
emergence of the litter handle as a separate component| as 
an Insert rather than an integral part of the side pole. 
This not only permitted a reduction in pole length to 77 
inches with a corresponding decrease in weight, but it 
served to eliminate one of the most troublesome and costly 
problems of field maintenance. Handle breakage, a frequent 
cause of failure of the ash pole litter, no longer necessi- 
tated complete replacement of the side pole. From this time 
forward it involved merely a replacement of inserts. 
All in all, the new aluminum straight pole 
litter was an outstanding achievement. The ash pole litter 
of World War I had been clearly surpassed, and before the 
close of 1941 procurement of that item was discontinued 
completely,Furthermore, the structural features and 
design of the new litter were to exert a profound influence 
on subsequent development activities. In the search for 
aluminum substitutes, the period which is next to be con- 
sidered, the standard aluminum litter was explicitly adopted 
as a model to be approximated as closely as•possible,13 
2• The Aluminum Shortage, 
The straight aluminum litter was duly standard- 
ized, assigned an item number of 9935000 in the Medical Supply 
Catalog, and procurement was initiated. However, as early as 
April, 1941? the Medical Department v;as required to justify 
before the Office of Production Management the production of 
aluminum litters then going forward,14- The ancient danger of 
a critical shortage was beginning to show itself. 
Before the close of 1941? the tremendously 
increased United States aircraft program had made it impera- 
tive that aluminum, especially of aircraft grades, bo sharply 
curtailed or eliminated from the production programs in other 
fields. On 12 January 1942, a comprehensive directive, call- 
ing for drastic reduction in the use o.f aluminum, was issued 
by the War Department.By Memorandum from the Office of 
the Under-Secretary of War to The Surgeon General, dated 
3 March 1942, the general policy of aluminum conservation was 
applied specifically to the "Field Litter", making the elimi- 
nation of the aluminum specifications for this item mandatory. 
It is only with these facts clearly in mind 
that the psychological as well as the material difficulties 
confronting Medical Department research and development can 
be properly appreciated. Staff planners and coordinators, 
research engineers, specification writers, and procurement 
officers were to have just cloven months to solve in all its 
complex phases a problem of the most crucial importance to the entire process of medical evacuation. In less than a 
year a new standard litter, as yet undesigned, had to be 
moving from the assembly lines into Army supply depots. 
How well the Medical Department discharged that obligation 
may be judged from the account that follows. 
II, Initiation of Development Project. F-ll. 
In 194-1, the Army Regulations which governed adminis- 
trative prodecure for the initiation of development projects 
required: (l) formulation and approval of military character- 
istics by the using Arm or Service; (2) coordination through 
the Technical Committee of the Service charged with develop- 
ment and procurement of the item; (3) preparation of a develop- 
ment program by the appropriate Service; (4-) forwarding of this 
project data by the Technical Service concerned to The Adju- 
tant General for final approval by the Secretary of War.l* 
To what extent was this prescribed procedure followed in 
initiating the project under discussion? 
A. Formulation of Military Characteristics, 
Extensive examination of the available source 
material discloses three documents of a primary nature 
relating to this and other procedural steps. The first, a 
report entitled, Medical Department Research Program. Fiscal 
Year 194-1. was submitted to The Adjutant General on 3 April 
194-1 by The Surgeon General’s Office, This document contains 
the following statement with regard to military character- 
istics: 
Military Characteristics. 
(l) To provide for procurement of suitable 
substitute materials to replace materials 
now used in manufacture of the standard 
litter, in the event the latter materials. 
* T n 
become unobtainable in war time.-1' 
Since what was here being proposed was simply a 
possible change in materials and not in basic design of the 
standard litter, it would appear that the foregoing was an 
adequate statement of military characteristics within the 
meaning of AR 850-25. That regulation stated: 
The term ’’military characteristics” is used to 
denote the characteristics of any type or,arti- 
cle of equipment that have a definite bearing 
on its tactical use.l^ B, Coordination of Proposal through Technical.Committee. 
It does not appear that Development Project. F-ll 
was cleared through the Medical Department Technical Commit- 
tee, which agency represented the Service (the Medical Depart- 
ment) which was to be charged with the development and pro- 
curement of the new item. Recorded evidence was found of 
only two meetings of this committee during the period in 
question; one on 28 November 194-0, and a second on 17 March 
1941.-: The, published minutes of these meetings contain no 
•reference to the project under discussion.^-9 
C• Preparation of a Development Program by the 
• Appropriate Service, 
The report, Medical Department Research Program, 
Fiscal Year 1941 contains a brief description of the develop- 
ment program which was to be undertaken in connection with 
the subject project. While this statement was neither as 
precise nor as comprehensive as some of the program outlines 
which were to be submitted in later years, it nevertheless 
represented a sufficient compliance with Army Regulations, 
It is hoped to obtain some stool and iron litter 
poles this fall so that litters can be made and 
poles tested in the field. The Equipment Labora- 
tory feels that many materials such as plastic, 
round wood, and steel might all be experimented 
with as well as many other materials for polos, 
stirrups, and spreader bars,2° 
D, Clearance of Project Proposal with Higher Authority. 
Compliance with this last procedural step required 
by Army Regulations for project initiation is clearly indi- 
cated. On 3 April 1941, the initiation request was prepared 
in final form and submitted to The Adjutant General.21 On 
9 April 1941«» formal approval of the proposed research pro- 
gram was obtained from the Secretary of War,22 
E. Conclusion. 
In conclusion it may be stated that: (l) a set of 
military characteristics wore prepared by the Medical Depart- 
ment which can bo considered adequate within the meaning of 
AR 850-25; (2) a satisfactory general outline of the proposed 
development program was formulated by The Surgeon General's 
Office; and (3) the final project proposal was submitted 
through the correct channels and was properly approved. Apparently, however, Development Project, F-ll was not pro- 
cessed as required through the Medical Department Technical 
Committee, 
This latter omission, although it did represent a 
lost opportunity for formal Consultation and coordination 
with other interested Arms and Services, did not in the 
present instance have serious consequences. There were, 
perhaps, several reasons for this. In the first place, 
although changes in battle tactics had occurred, these had 
not altered materially the role of the straight pole lit- 
ter in the evacuation process. Secondly, since a continu- 
ing need for the standard litter was beyond question, it 
was perfectly clear that a firm military requirement for a 
new litter development project existed.. The alarming 
scarcity of aluminum, as pointed out in the Medical Depart- 
ment report, was sufficient reason in itself. 
Aluminum is now a critical item and.it is.antici- 
pated that aluminum pole orders will be greatly 
delayed so that this type of litter may bo almost 
unprocurable. It is, therefore, highly desirable 
to find suitable and as light as possible substi- 
tutes.^ 
Finally, it will be seen that the straight steel litter, as 
eventually developed, v/as sufficiently similar to the 1935 
standard aluminum pole litter that no new difficulties were 
experienced in adapting it to the various types of land 
transportation, 
III.■Development Phase (l) (The Steel Litter), 
A. Preliminary Stage. 
Project F-ll. "Development.of New Materials for 
Standard Litters," (title subsequently changed to "Litter, 
Standard, New Materials For"), was formally initiated 9 April 
1941. Fortunately, laboratory activities had been begun much 
earlier, having been undertaken on an informal basis since 
September of the preceding ycar.24 Consequently, by the 
middle of July, 19419 the Medical Department Ecuipment 
Laboratory had already subjected nine newly developed litters 
to engineering and service tests, and the knowledge gained 
from this preliminary experimentation did much to guide and 
focus the research activities that wore to follow. 
Foreign litters were carefully investigated at the 
outset. Through the cooperation of the American Rod Gross, 
a Czechoslovakian litter was forwarded to Carlisle Barracks •early in the fall of Extensive correspondence was 
carried on with the American Embassy in London with regard 
to the British litter and, before the outbreak of war between 
the United States and the Axis powers, our Military Attache 
in Berlin secured a German litter which was subsequently 
shipped to the Experimental Laboratory Museum at Carlisle.26 
Furthermore, in May of 1941, through the efforts of the United 
States Military Attache? at Ottawa, a Canadian all-metal litter 
was sent to The Surgeon General’s Office for examination and 
study,27 jn addition, through correspondence, descriptive 
literature, blueprints, and photographs, information was 
obtained about a number of other foreign litters, notably 
the Swiss and Austrian.28. 
As a result of its own past experience, the Medical 
Department Equipment Laboratory was, of course, fully aware 
of the many yariables that would have to be carefully con- 
sidered in the development program that was about to be under- 
taken, Recalling the introductory comments in Chapter I, it 
will be readily seen that these numerous requirements nar- 
rowed substantially the possible scope of the investigation. 
In searching for substitutes for the standard 
litter, the following have been given considerations 
a. Is the material available? 
b. Can it be obtained in quantity? 
c. Is it durable and sufficiently rugged for field 
service? 
d. Weight of all materials; what weight will the 
completed litter be? Can it be made with the 
minimum weight? 
e. Can. the; litter be made simple, yet strong and 
foolproof? Gan it be made so that repairs can" 
be made readily anywhere? 
f. Will the polos produce excess whip; or will 
they be too rigid? " ' 
g. Standard in size; length and width? Height 
from the ground? . 
h. Suitable handles for the litter bearers?^9 
Inasmuch as the standard’aluminum pole litter was 
considered by far the best in terms.of weight, ruggedness, 
flexibility, and ease of maintenance, it was taken as the 
working model,30 It was also believed that a round pole 
litter would be better than a square or rectangular one. 
Round polos produced less wear on the canvas and facilitated 
repairs and maintenance, since the poles could be easily 
removed from the bolted hem loops of the cover,31 This, then, was the background against which the 
search for aluminum substitutes was to proceed. There were 
BO years of litter research experience to draw from, con- 
temporary foreign litters had been extensively studied, and 
the complex engineering requirements for militarily satis- 
factory litter construction had been carefully outlined in 
advance. There now remained the enormously difficult job 
of speedily developing a single physical model which would 
meet all specifications, 
B. Republic Steel Corporation. Steel & Tube Division: 
Cleveland. Ohio. 
By September, 194-0, correspondence had already been 
initiated between the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory 
and the Steel & Tube Division of Republic Steel Corporation, 
Cleveland, Ohio, relative to the possibility of substituting 
steel tubing for aluminum,32 Before the close of the year, a 
sample shipment of four sets of litter poles, two of stainless 
steel and two of cold rolled steel, were received by the 
Laboratory.33 
The four sets of steel poles which were submitted 
for testing were as follows: (l) Enduro, 20 gauge, l-l/2 
inches in diameter, unannealed; y/eight of litter complete, 
16 pounds; (2) Enduro, IB gauge, l-l/2 inches in diameter, 
unannealed; weight of litter, IB pounds; (3) Cold rolled, 20 
gauge, 1-1/2 inches in diameter; y/eight of litter, 15 pounds; 
(4-) Cold rolled, 18 gauge, l-l/2 inches in diameter; y/eight 
of litter, 17-1/2 pounds. 
Upon receipt, these poles wore forthy/ith inserted 
into the framey/ork of the standard straight pole litter with 
its regulation canvas and cast aluminum running gear, and 
were forwarded to the 32nd Medical Battalion, Carlisle Bar- 
racks, Pennsylvania for field testing. The follov/ing 
instructions v/ere given by the Laboratory: 
Testing: It is requested that these four 
litters be comparatively tested y/ith litters 
having other typo poles, as follows: 
a. In ordinary litter work, are those steel 
poles sufficiently rigid for comfort of 
the patient? 
b. Do the poles bend excessively y/ith heavy 
patients? 
c. Do the poles bend -excessively when carry- 
ing a heavy Medical Department chest? 
d. Do the poles set in a bent position after 
carrying a heavy patient for -a consider- 
able distance? A heavy M,D, chest or 
such other Medical Department equipment 
that might be -carried on a litter in the 
field? 34- Three separate tests were performed by the 32nd 
Medical Battalion. In the first test the litters were 
subjected to ordinary patient carries over normal terrain, 
Poles 2 and 4 were sufficiently free of swing and the 
patient was comfortable, while poles 1 and 3 bounced to 
such an extent that the patient immediately noticed the 
whipping motion, and the litter bearers felt an appreciable 
increase in the weight of the load. 
In the second tost the litters were placed with 
their stirrups on the floor of a truck, and patients of 
approximately the same weight were placed on each litter. 
Poles 1 and 3 whipped up and down somewhat during the trip 
and, at the completion of 40 miles, were found to have bent 
and set. The two heavier poles had not whipped noticeably 
during the trip, and were straight at the termination. 
In the final test, each litter was suspended 
between two empty Medical Department chests. A Medical 
Department chest, weighing 150 pounds, was then placed on 
each litter, removed, and replaced. This operation was 
repeated twenty times for each litter. Poles 1 and 3 again 
bent and set noticeably after several applications, as did 
pole 4. Pole 2 sagged slightly after the twentieth appli- 
cation. The standard aluminum pole litter, by way of con- 
trast, retained perfect alignment throughout the tost.35 
In view of the foregoing results none of the steel 
poles could bo recommended for Medical Department use, but 
the lessons which had been learned in this initial experi- 
ment were extremely valuable. In a letter to the manu- 
facturer of the steel tubes, the Director of the Laboratory 
summed up the field test findings and their significance as 
follows; 
Service test using litters fabricated from 
these poles indicated that all steel tubes tested 
would take a permanent set after a short period 
of use. Also, due to the low section modulus of 
the steel poles, an undesirable whipping action 
was encountered in carrying patients on the litter. 
As a result of these tests, it was established 
that steel poles would not be a satisfactory sub- 
stitute for aluminum poles without appreciable 
increase in weight.36 
C, Medical Department Equipment Laboratory: Carlisle 
Barracks. Pennsylvania. 
Having completed its preliminary canvass of steel 
possibilities, the Laboratory next turned its attention to wooden poles as a substitute for aluminum. In its own work- 
shop at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania the Laboratory con- 
structed two sets of round ash poles of differing diameters 
and then made each of these sets into a litter, using the 
standard cast aluminum spreader bar assemblies and stirrups, 
and the regulation canvas. The two experimental litters are 
described as follows: (l) straight grain ash poles,. 1-3/4 
inches in diameter; litter weight, 15-1/2 pounds; (2) straight 
grain ash poles, l-l/2 inches in diameter; litter weight, 
13-3A pounds,3v 
The litters were apparently subjected to only one 
field test, an ordinary casualty carry. According to the 
Laboratory report, the l-l/2 inch poles developed a decided 
whipping action in transporting a patient, while the 1-3/4 
inch poles proved sufficiently resilient and had but little 
whip. However, the diameter of the latter pole v;as considered 
too large to be suitable, and plans were made to construct two 
new sets of poles with a diameter of 1-5/8 Details 
are lacking regarding the date of completion of these new side 
poles, or of the specific tests to which they were subsequent- 
ly subjected. On 3 January 1942, however, the Medical Depart- 
ment Equipment Laboratory reported that ash poles, 1-5/8 
inches in diameter, had been previously tested and had been 
found unsatisfactory,39 
While the field test data cited above docs not 
appear to be altogether conclusive, the unsuitability of 
solid wooden poles for Medical Department use was definitely 
established by the next scries of tests which were performed 
on experimental models submitted by the Zimmer Splint Company. 
Moreover, further experimentation in this field was soon to 
bo abandoned for additional reasons. Information was shortly 
to be received by the Laboratory indicating that it was 
extremely unlikely that straight grain ash poles would be 
available to the Medical Department in the quantities 
necessary ,4-0 
D, Zimmer Splint Company; New York, New York. 
In June, 1941 > three wooden polo litters were 
received by the Laboratory from the Zimmer Splint Company of 
New York City. Two of these litters had round wooden poles, 
l-l/2 inches in diameter. The third had square poles, 1-5/8 
by 1-5/8 inches, the canvas cover being held on by means of 
a strip of aluminum, 71 inches in length, which was held to 
the under surface of the poles by 9 screws.41 Thinking back 
to the ash pole litter of World War I with its 142 tacks to 
secure the canvas, this new device was an interesting modi- 
fication. It was still, however, clearly inferior from a 
repair and maintenance standpoint to the convenient slip-on 
cover of the standard aluminum 1-itt.nr*. The most significant feature of the new litters, 
although it contributed nothing toward the solution of the 
immediate problem at hand, was the undercarriage with which 
each litter was equipped. Both the stirrups and spreader 
bars had been fabricated of extruded instead of cast aluminum. 
According to the Laboratory, these extruded parts were found 
to possess the following advantages over the standard cast 
aluminum undercarriage: 
a. Lower cost of manufacture. 
b. More rapid procurement, as all parts are 
formed from extruded bars. The present standard 
litter is composed of several aluminum castings. 
At the present time extrusions can be obtained 
much more quickly than castings. 
c. Greater durability, in so far as breakage of 
parts is concerned, as the extruded parts have 
a greater resistance to shock loading than 
castings.42 
Using extruded aluminum, the weight of a complete 
stirrup and spreader bar assembly was 2,08 pounds per litter. 
This represented a reduction in weight over the standard cast 
aluminum undercarriage of 0.A0 pounds per litter. Any Y/cight 
reduction, however slight, which involved no loss in other 
qualities such as durability, could be regarded as a genuine 
gain. 
The change from cast to extruded aluminum in 
Medical Department litter specifications was effected Y/ithout 
delay and resulted, until the production of aluminum litters 
was prohibited in March, 1942, in more rapid procurement of a 
greatly improved straight pole litter,4-3 VicY/ed historically, 
this innovation was of real significance as it represented 
another one of the major steps in litter evolution. 
As for the experimental wood poles of the Zimmer 
litter, the follov/ing tost instructions Y/ere issued by the 
Laboratory to the 32nd Medical Battalion: 
Carries up to l/2 mile loaded with patient 
Y/cighing 175 pounds or more. Particular 
attention should be given to the whip of the 
polos if this is excessive. 
Loading and unloading from ambulances and 
cargo trucks to determine the effect of shock 
and v/cight on the stirrup assembly and on 
the Y/ood poles. 
Would you recommend that wooden poles (straight 
grain ash) be adopted to replace the present aluminum poles, and, if so, is the square or the 
round polo recommended 
Thc test results this time left no doubt as to the 
unsuitability of solid wooden polos as a substitute for 
aluminum. While all three litters satisfactorily withstood 
the shock and weight of loading and unloading from ambu- 
lances and cargo trucks, the patient carry produced markedly 
unfavorable results. The whip of the poles in all three 
litters was so excessive that it was believed that an actual 
casualty would have been subject to further injury from shock 
as well as the danger of literally falling off the litter. 
One round polo broke under, the whip that was produced, while 
the second set of round poles exhibited a bow of 2 inches 
and 3-3/U inches, respectively. In the litter equipped with 
square poles, bows of 1 inch and 1-3/8 inches, respectively, 
were recorded.4-5 
The 32nd Medical Battalion consequently recommended 
that the straight grain ash poles be rejected as a replace- 
ment for the standard aluminum poles, and this report was 
subsequently concurred in, without reservation, by the 
Medical Department Equipment Laboratory,4-6 Evidently the 
search for aluminum substitutes had been rewarding thus far 
only in the elimination of certain construction materials 
from further consideration. 
Small dimension stainless and cold rolled steel 
had now been tested. Both round and square straight grain 
ash poles of varying dimensions had also been subjected to 
complete engineering and service tests. In each instance 
the results had’ been negative. Furthermore, a number of 
other substances had been investigated, but as yet no 
tangible.evidence of their utility had been found. 
Numerous firms and their representatives have 
been contacted re substitutes 5 but so far the 
search may be considered still unsettled. So 
far, no manufacturer of plastic or hard rub- 
ber has been able to produce a satisfactory 
substitute for the metal parts of the litter, 
regardless of many claims by individuals. It 
is possible that polos of an alloy steel with 
pressed steel spreader-bar assemblies, may 
have to be resorted to, if and when aluminum 
is not available.4? 
E. Revere Products Corporation; Phoenix, Now York. 
The idea of using pressed steel for the litter 
undercarriage, as mentioned above, had already been incorporated in an actual model submitted to the Laboratory 
by Revere Products Corporation of Phoenix, New York. The 
pair of pressed steel stirrups and spreader bars which this 
concern had produced were considered both sturdy and well- 
designed, and weighed 2.B2 pounds per assembly, or 5.64. per 
litter. This latter figure may be compared with the 10.00 
pound litter weight of the new extruded aluminum, and .the 
4.16 pound weight of the new extruded aluminum undercarriage. 4-8 
The Revere assembly, however, had been designed 
for the old rectangular litter pole. Since only the round 
pole was now being considered, redesigning of the assembly 
was necessary before field testing could be initiated. 
Consequently the Equipment Laboratory, working directly 
from the Revere design, prepared a new set of drawings and 
specifications, adapting the pressed steel undercarriage to 
the standard round polo litter.49 Final blueprints were 
then forwarded to Revere Products Corporation for fabri- 
cation of several actual assemblies,5c 
It is not clear, from the data at hand, whether 
the Laboratory ever received delivery of these pressed 
steel assemblies. There is no record of a separate field 
test being made of the modified Revere undercarriage. 
However, the essential features of the original Revere 
design were incorporated into subsequent litter models and, 
although the basic design underwent substantial modification 
as a result of field trials, this initial idea was a contri- 
bution of genuine value, 
F. Zimmer Splint Company; New York, New York, 
As we have seen, it was no longer certain that 
straight grain ash wood could be procured in sufficient 
quantity for Medical Department needs. The sudden appearance 
of another critical shortage now narrowed research possibili- 
ties still further. Alloy steel, the Laboratory was now 
informed, was rapidly becoming as strategic as aluminum,51 
To surmount this difficulty, carbon or rail steel was next 
resorted to. In September, 1941, the first litter to be 
constructed of this new material was submitted by the Zim- 
mer Splint Company of New York City. The new model was also 
equipped with a pressed steel undercarriage. 
The poles were formed from 0.45 per cent carbon 
steel, and were I-1/4 inches outside diameter, with a 15 
BW gauge wall. This size tubing was found to have approxi- 
mately the same strength as the 1.54 inch aluminum pole with 
a 0.109 inch wall. The use of l-l/4 inch outside diameter 
steel poles had been necessary since such high carbon tubing 
could not be rolled with any smaller wall thickness. Con- 
versely it was fioles would be stronger 
30 than necessary and would add considerably to the weight of 
the litter. The undercarriage of the new litter was con- 
structed of pressed while the wooden litter handles 
were circular and grooved,52 
The standard instructions were given to the 32nd 
Medical Battalion regarding testing procedures, with the 
additional stipulation that the stirrup and spreader bar 
assembly be thoroughly tested in mud and sand to determine 
the effect on the hinges and stirrup bearings. As in the 
past, the experimental litter was to be tested in direct 
comparison with the standard aluminum model. 
Hand carries up to l/2 mile were made with a 
patient load of more than 175 pounds, and the litter was 
loaded and unloaded from ambulance and cargo truck. It 
was determined that the steel tube poles had approximately 
a lA inch whip, slightly more than the negligible whip of 
the aluminum pole but not sufficient to be harmful. The 
poles exhibited no discernible bow or set. On the other 
hand, the stirrups cut and scarred the floor of the ambu- 
lance and truck, the spreader bars tended to collapse when 
in use, and the circular grooved handles produced blisters 
on the hands of some of the bearers even in short carries. 
In conclusion, the 32nd Medical Battalion recom- 
mended that the small diameter carbon poles be adopted to 
replace the standard aluminum poles, that the grooved 
handles be redesigned, and that the undercarriage be 
rejected as not rugged enough for field use, Significant- 
ly, for the first time, the testing agency submitted a list 
of suggestions, four in number, by which the mechanical 
defects noted might, be overcome. This, it is evident, gave 
the manufacturer something concrete to work on, and undoubt- 
edly shortened the time required for experimentation,^ 
In less than two weeks, three new experimental 
litters were submitted by the Zimmer Splint Company. 
Since the side poles of the first Zimmer litter had been 
found to be satisfactory, this component was unchanged in 
the new models. The heavily ridged hand grips of the 
earlier model had, however, been eliminated in favor of 
the smoother wooden handle inserts of the regulation 
aluminum litter. In addition, undercarriage construction 
had been materially altered. Each of the three experi- 
mental models now submitted represented a slightly dif- 
ferent application of an entirely new basic design. 
The tests conducted by the 32hd Medical 
Battalion were the most severe to date, as can be seen from the follo?/ing enumeration: 
1, The three steel pole litters were tested in 
comparison with the present standard aluminum 
pole litter, 
2, Numerous carries up to l/2 mile on each of 
the litters, loaded with patients weighing 
175, 185, and 200 pounds, ?/cre made, 
3, Loading and unloading patients from ambu- 
lances was practiced. Cargo trucks of l/2 
Ton and l-l/2 Ton yrere loaded. Both wooden 
sides and scats, as well as the floor, were 
used as the supports of loaded litters. The 
latter were loaded to a capacity load of ten 
litters per l-l/2 Ton truck, and four lit- 
ters per l/2 Ton pickup truck. Cross-country 
drives over extremely rough terrain were made 
with all loaded vehicles. 
J+, A thorough testing in six inches of mud in 
the stream of Letort Spring Run, with open 
and closed litters, was made to determine the 
effect of mud upon the stirrup bearings and 
hinges. The effect of the mud was noted upon 
the bearings both immediately, and after dry- 
. ing for twenty-four hours. The litters were 
then cleaned and dried. The effect of com- 
mercial building sand upon the stirrup bear- 
ings and hinges was tested. 
5. One end, including the handles and spreader 
bar assembly, of each of litters Number 2 
and 3 was submerged in water twenty-four 
hours to determine the effect of water, upon 
the plain and varnished handles. 
6, Numerous carries of Number 1 Chest and 
Lantern sots were made. ' 
,7. Litters were handled roughly, in loading and 
unloading of empty litters in trucks and 
ambulances, 54- 
Tcst results again indicated that the poles were 
entirely satisfactory. It was observed, however, that on one 
litter which had each, of its stirrup and spreader bar assem- 
blies placed 3 inches; closer to the center of the litter, the 
whip of the poles wfas cut to approximately one-half that of 
the other two litters. The spreader bars, during these tests, 
showed no tendency.to bend or to collapse. However, in all 
instances, the bearing surfaces of the stirrups showed marked 
tendencies to weakness. Every stirrup bent at this same point 
in a moderate or severe degree, indicating far too much fra- 
gility for prolonged usage. The testing agency this time recommended the 
adoption not only of the steel poles to replace aluminum 
but also approved the new pressed steel spreader bars in 
place of the cast or extruded aluminum bars of the standard 
litter. Thus, only one component remained to be redesigned; 
the stirrups with their stirrup-spreader bar bearing. Cnee 
again technical suggestions for the improvement of this item 
were volunteered by the 32nd Medical Battalion.55 
Reviewing briefly the progress that had been made 
during September and October of 1941 with the Zimmer all- 
steel litter, it will be recalled that only the steel litter 
poles were found acceptable at the conclusion of the first 
series of service tests. The handles, the spreader bars, 
and the stirrups were all found to be defective but the 
testing agency, the 32nd Medical Battalion, offered specific 
recommendations for the improvement of these items. In the 
modified litter model which was presented early in October, 
the handle difficulty had been solved by simply duplicating 
the smoother handle of the standard aluminum litter. In 
addition, the spreader bars were strengthened and their 
hinge mechanism perfected, with the result that this com- 
ponent also was found to be satisfactory. This left for 
further modification only the stirrup assembly, which had 
again been rejected. For that task, technical advice ?;as 
once more tendered by the testing authorities. In short, 
close coordination betv/een Medical Department personnel and 
private industry appeared to be yielding gratifying results, 
G. Superior Sleeprite Corporation; Chicago. Illinois. 
In rather marked contrast to the highly efficient 
coordination of civilian and military effort referred to above, 
the story of the participation of Superior Sleeprite Corpo- 
ration in this development program is, in the largo, a story 
of willing but misspent effort. This misdirection can be 
attributed, at least in part, to a breakdown in communication 
between the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory and The 
Surgeon General’s Office, 
On 6 August 1941, two chrome-molybdenum steel lit- 
ters were shipped by The Surgeon General’s Office to Fort 
Bcnning, Georgia for service test by the Infantry School. 
One of these litters was made of 16 gauge tubing, had 
extruded aluminum stirrups and spreader bars, and weighed 
20-l/2 pounds. The second litter was made of IB gauge tubing, 
had standard cast aluminum running gear, and weighed 17-3/4 
pounds. Both-litters had been manufactured by the Superior 
Sleeprite Corporation of Chicago, Illinois,^ On 14. October 194.1, the General Contracts Manager 
of Superior Sleeprite Corporation sent the following air mail, 
special delivery letter to The Surgeon General’s Offices 
Early last week I called upon Mr. Peters 
of the Revere Products Company, Phoenix, New 
York, and carefully covered the matter of the 
metal spreader arras for the litter, 
I saw all the correspondence he had with 
Carlisle, It appears that Carlisle thinks enough 
of his ideas to make a drawing of their own, 
embodying all the features of his sample. 
He has agreed to make another set of samples 
for me, which I, in turn, will forward to you, to 
be attached to the steel pole litter you now have 
at Fort Penning, This should be ready in about 
10 days. If you will have the litters returned 
from Fort Penning to your office, where a pair of 
spreader bars can be attached to one of them, we 
v/ill reimburse you for any transportation or other 
costs involved,,., 
Mr. Peters tells me he can make only one pair 
of spreader arms, as these are very difficult to 
construct by hand, I presume the one litter 
should be sufficient for Carlisle's test,,,.57 
It will be recalled that by 4- October 194-1, the 
following had transpired at the Laboratory at Carlisle, 
Pennsylvania! (l) alloy steels, which were rapidly becoming 
as strategic as aluminum,, had been definitely eliminated from 
consideration, (2) carbon stool poles had already been 
approved as satisfactory substitutes for aluminum, (3) experi- 
mentation with pressed steel undercarriages adapted from the 
original design of the Revere Products Company had reached an 
advanced stage; certain lessons had been learned; certain 
specific directions for further research had been outlined.58 
In other words the Superior Sleeprite Corporation 
was already virtually out of the picture. The poles of that 
company's litter were constructed of chrome-molybdenum, which 
v/as an alloy steel. Alloy steels wore no longer being con- 
sidered by the Laboratory at Carlisle because of their 
increasing scarcity. Furthermore, as a result of recent field 
tests at Carlisle, the modified Revere pressed steel under- 
carriage had already undergone considerable modification. 
Consequently, there was nothing to be gained by resubmitting 
a facsimile of the original undercarriage design. Unless, 
therefore, the Superior Sleeprite Corporation was put in 
immediate contact with the Laboratory, informed of the pro- 
gress that had been made, and permitted to assist in solving 
the advanced developmental problems that remained, it is 
difficult to pcrceira be of value. 
34 The evidence at hand, however, does not indicate 
that such coordinating action was taken by The Surgeon General’s 
Office. On 5 November 1941, approximately three weeks after 
receipt of the communication from the Superior Sleeprite 
Corporation, request was made of the Infantry School at Fort 
Denning for the return of one of the litters which had been 
forwarded in August for test,59 Ten days later, on 15 
November 1941, the litter arrived, and The Surgeon General's 
Office thereupon telegraphed the manufacturer, inquiring as 
to the status of the Revere assembly which was to be shipped 
to Washington,60 
By this time, however, a third Zimmer model had been 
submitted to the Laboratory at Carlisle, had been field tested 
by the 32nd Medical Battalion, and had been recommended by 
that agency for adoption as a satisfactory substitute for the 
standard aluminum pole litter,Seemingly unaware of this 
development, The Surgeon General’s Office, after waiting 
several weeks for the pressed steel assembly to arrive, 
finally'forwarded the Superior Sleeprite litter with its 
chrome-molybdenum poles and its cast aluminum undercarriage 
to the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory for formal 
test,^ 
In a comprehensive test report, dated 3 January 
1942, recommending the adoption of the new Zimmer all-steel 
litter, the Laboratory at Carlisle made the following comments 
with regard to the model supplied by the Superior Sleeprite 
Corporation; , . -v 
Recently a litter made of chrome-molybdenum 
steel, aircraft tubing was received from 
The Surgeon General's Office for testing,' 
Chrome-molybdenum steel as a substitute for 
aluminum was rejected by the Equipment 
Laboratory long ago for the following 
reasons: 
(1) All light weight alloy steels are as 
strategic as aluminum, 
(2) Their cost is exceedingly high, even 
compared to aluminum, averaging about 
BO cents per foot for l-l/2 inch by 
20 gauge tubing; the cost of the poles ; 
alone would be over $10,00 per litter. 
The validity of the above statements is 
borne out by data received from the 
Superior Sleeprite Corporation, manu- 
facturers of the chrome-molybdenum lit- 
ters submitted by The Surgeon General's 
Office for test. This company states 
that delivery of chrome-molybdenum aircraft tubing will take from five to six months; 
no mention is made of quantities that could 
be supplied, but it is assumed that' they 
would be very small in proportion to the 
quantities required for the mass production 
of litters 
No mention was made of the cast aluminum under- 
carriage of the Superior Sleeprite litter. As early as July, 
194-1 j it will be recalled, extruded aluminum had replaced 
cast aluminum as the material of choice in the construction 
of stirrup and spreader bar assembly. By September, 194-1 > 
experimentation had begun on the pressed steel assembly 
which, by the time the above litter was received by the 
Laboratory, had already been perfected. Consequently, the 
undercarriage of the Superior Sleeprite litter had no?/ been 
as definitely superseded as the chrome-molybdenum poles. 
In this particular instance the damage caused by 
the lack of coordination bet?/ecn The Surgeon General’s Cffice 
and the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory was slight, 
A private concern had sacrificed a modest amount of its time 
and money. The Medical Department had devoted a small portion 
of its facilities and personnel to continuing a predictably 
fruitless investigation. Tov/cring above these considerations 
v/as the major fact that a successful substitute for the alumi- 
num litter had been found, and within the required time. 
Whether, however, a similar lack of coordination bet?/cen 
these two key agencies was to produce, in other situations, 
more serious and costly delays, it will be our purpose to 
investigate as we proceed, 
H. Ho?/e Folding Furniture. Incorporated: New York, 
New York. 
On the very day ?/hen the first model of the Zimmer 
carbon steel litter-was being forwarded to the 32nd Medical 
Battalion for test, Ho?/e Folding Furniture, Incorporated 
wrote to The Surgeon General’s Office to learn the require- 
ments for the new straight pole litter ?/hich was under devel- 
The reply indicates not only the degree to ?/hich 
the standard aluminum litter was then being followed as a 
model, but illustrates once more, the highly circumscribed 
character of ?/artime litter research. 
In making up any model, it is requested 
that you remain exactly to.the specifications 
of our aluminum polo litter, especially in 
the following points: Length of litter, width 
of canvas, outside diameter of litter polos, 
v/ooden handles, method of, attaching canvas. and general construction of the stirrup and 
spreader-bar assembly. 
Weight should not be greater than 20 
pounds, preferably less. As to the matter 
of angle or tube for litter side rail, I am 
unable to give you a definite answer. We 
naturally prefer tubing. However, if your 
design calls for an angle side rail, and it 
is a more efficient model than any-we have, 
we arc not bound by tradition to accept only 
tube. The decision in this matter is one 
.which ,will rest solely with you, based on 
.... „ your design,65 
. It is interesting to observe that the Zimmer model 
then undergoing test at Carlisle violated several of the 
above specifications. The poles were l-l/4 inches outside 
diameter, instead of 1.54 inches as in the aluminum litter. 
Total litter weight was 22-3/4 pounds, as compared with the 
20 pound limit cited above. Whether these restrictions were 
placed on Howe Folding Furniture, Incorporated for purposes 
of controlled experimentation, or whether they resulted from 
a lack of close understanding with Laboratory personnel at 
Carlisle, is not evident from the data. 
On 31 October 1941, the same day that the third 
model of the Zimmer litter was submitted, . a Ho?/e all-steel 
litter was -sent to the 32nd Medical Battalion by the Medical 
Department Equipment:Laboratory for test,66 The. Howe litter, 
of course, closely, paralleled the Standard aluminum litter 
in many respects: length,-, width, and size of poles, type of 
handles, canvas covering, and method of folding. The weight 
of the litter was 17-l/2 pounds, and both tubing and spread- 
er bars were made of pressed steel. The poles were of v/elded, 
mild steel tubing, 20 gauge, and were protected against rust, 
as were all other metal parts of the litter, by a coating of 
zinc, applied by the hot. dip. process, Rounded grooved maple 
handles were fitted into the ends of the.tubing and held in 
place by crimping the end of the poles. The steel stirrups 
were fastened to the side poles by eight, instead of the 
usual four, oval headed bolts, .. The spreader assembly was 
made of two straight sections of channel-shaped, 16 gauge 
steel, 67 . . 
An extremely rugged field test-was given bath the 
Howe and Improved Zimmer litters: 
1, Cross country carries with patients weighing 
approximately 200 pounds were made, 
2. Loading and unloading patients from ambu- 
lances was carried out, as well as short 
drives over rough terrain. 
37 3. Tests v/ere conducted during a steady rain 
and all movable parts of both litters were 
immersed in and covered with mud. 
4., Both litters were dropped from a height of 
approximately two feet with a 200 pound 
patient. Handles of the litters were sub- 
jected to rough treatment and dropped on a 
concrete road from a distance of approxi- > 
mately two feet, 
5. Short hauls were made carrying two patients 
weighing approximately 200 pounds each, a 
total of - 4-00 pounds .68 
The shov/ing of the Howe litter under these conditions 
Y/as not favorable. Whipping action of the poles was excessive, 
estimated at about l-l/2 inches, and appreciably added to the 
strain of the litter bearers. The patient complained,of the 
spreader bar protruding into his back and causing discomfort. 
The grooved surfaces of the handles left deep imprints on the 
hands of the litter bearers v/hich were painful even on short 
hauls. The stirrups shov/ed outward displacement and scored 
the floor of the ambulance during loading and unloading. 
Under loads in excess of 200 pounds, there was a definite 
and permanent bov/ing of the steel frames ,69 
On the basis of these tests, the Medical Equipment 
Laboratory recommended rejection of the Hov/e litter, listing 
the disadvantages as follows: (l) weight exceeded that of the 
aluminum litter by 2-*l/2 pounds; (2) the steel poles v/ere not 
sufficiently rigid; (3) the stirrups did not retain their 
original shape under heavy loads; (4-) the spreader bars Y/ere 
weak, as well as uncomfortable; (5) the four additional holes 
required in the poles and canvas for attaching the stirrups 
Y/eakened both the canvas and the poles; (6) in sum, the Hop/e 
litter Y/as not sufficiently rugged for field use,^6 
Informed of the adverse decision of the ’Laboratory\ 
at Carlisle, Hop/e Folding Furniture, Incorporated replied 
that it had submitted a rough, experimental litter model 
merely for inspection purposes; that it had wished to have.’ i 
the principle of construction employed therein commented upon, 
prior to making up a finished unit for extensive field test- • 
ing,?l If this was true, it simply meant that the company 
had entered the picture too late to compete successfully, with 
other concerns that had been v/orking on the problem for many 
months. Before Howe Folding Furniture, Incorporated could 
possibly have submitted their "finished unit", a satisfactory 
substitute for the standard aluminum litter had already been 
found. 
38 I, Zimmer-Thomson Corporation; New York, New York• 
Now that development of the, Zimmer all-steel litter 
had reached an advanced stage, Medical Department negotiations 
were transferred from the Zimmer Splint Company to its manu- 
facturing affiliate, Zimmer-Thomson Corporation, also of New 
York City, It will be recalled that, after the second series 
of tests on this litter, only the stirrup assembly remained 
to be perfected. Litter poles, handles, and spreader bars 
had already been approved by the testing agency. In the 
latter part of October, 194-1, a third Zimmer model was sub- 
mitted to the Laboratory at Carlisle, embodying a new stir- 
rup construction. On 31 October 194-1, the improved Zimmer 
litter was sent to the 32nd Medical Battalion, along with 
the Howe litter, for final test. 
The new stirrups of this litter were formed from 
13 BY/ gauge, cold rolled steel, 1-5/8 -inches wide. The spac- 
ing of the stirrups was 4-9-1/2 inches overall, to conform to 
the standard adopted by the Navy, All non-movable parts of 
the undercarriage were spot welded, and all parts were cadmi- 
um plated. The entire assembly was described by the Labo- 
ratory as durable, rugged, and engineered for mass produc- 
tion at low cost. Each stirrup-spreader bar assembly 
weighed 3-l/2 pounds.72 
The field tests vjere identical with those to which 
the Howe litter-.was subjected, and have already been described 
in detail,73 The 32nd Medical Battalion reported the results 
of these tests as follows: (l) the.poles of the Zimmer litter 
set up little whipping action, bending only about l/2 inch 
which did not interfere with the carrying of the patient; 
there was no permanent bending of the poles under excessive 
weight, nor there excess stretching of the canvas; (2) 
the stirrups showed neither outward or inward displacement 
in loading and unloading operations, and the spreader bars 
held their positions and showed no tendency to bend or col- 
lapse during ambulance hauls over rough terrain; (3) rain 
and mud did not interfere with the operation of the spreader 
bars; after 2A hours the dried and caked mud did not inter- 
fere with the opening and closing of the bars.74- 
In presenting its. report of recommendation to the 
Medical Department Board, the Equipment Laboratory pointed 
out that already the Office of Production Management had 
advised The Surgeon General, that aluminum would no longer 
be authorized for straight pole litters, and that consequently 
procurement of the standard litter had now ceased. The Labo- • 
ratory added that the field of plastic materials had been 
thoroughly investigated, and that it could be definitely 
stated that there was no plastic then on the market, regard- 
less of price or availability, that would be satisfactory for a field litter. Summary of the tests of other wood or 
steel litters'.was given. After describing the Zimmer all- 
steel litter (see Fig, 6) and the latest test results, the 
Laboratory concluded by observing that the stool used in the 
construction was available for almost immediate delivery in 
unlimited quantities, and that the complete litter could be 
supplied at a cost-of less than $8.00, if ordered in reason- 
ably large quantity,75 
;'r|- The Medical Department Board, in its formal report 
to The Surgeon General’s Office, concluded as follows: 
Conclusions- of the Medical Department Board: • 
The litter under consideration whose structural ■ '’ryz 
parts are made entirely of plain carbon steel, 
and which has undergone extensive laboratory and1 
field tests, shows itself to be in every respect 
equal to the standard aluminum pole litter, 
except for its weighty and without exception 
superior to the wooden pole litter. 
Recommendations: It is recommended that the 
steel pole litter with pressed steel stirrup 
spreader bar assembly, as developed by the Medi- 
cal Department Equipment Laboratory, be adopted 
as standard in the Medical Department of the 
United States Army.76 
v-'M : -• 
J. Simmons Company; -Mew York, how York. 
Pending final action on the Zimmer litter, two more 
litter models were tb’rbe' tested before the first phase of 
Development Project, F-ll1 Sarnie1 to an end. The first model 
was submitted by the Siramoh^-Company of New York City (fac- 
tory at Kenosha, Wisconsin)^’:after their engineers had visited 
the Laboratory at Carlisle in the early part of January, 1942, 
•and obtained the latest information regarding the progress of 
the development project.77 
On 3 February 1942, two Simmons •for- 
warded to the 32nd Medical Battalion for field'testing.Both 
were made almost entirely of carbon steel, with stirrup and 
spreader5-bar assemblies fabricated from pressed steel, (0ne 
of the litters was provided with wooden handies, the•other 
with-steel handles. Standard tests-, similar to those applied 
to the Zimmer and Howe litters, were requested by the Labo- 
ratory. 78 '■* V4 
, , ' ■ *i*5 , 
♦ In its report, dated 10 February 1942, the 32nd 7 
Medical Battalion presented the following findings: (l) dur- 
ing cross-country carries there was little whipping action- of 
the poles of cither litter, but some sag developed in both cases5 (2) in hauling over rough terrain with a patient load, 
the side poles bent into an arc of 2.feet in the wooden- 
handled litter and 3A inch in the metal-handled littery 
(3) the hinges of the stirrup and spreader bar assembly became 
loose on both litters, after they had been opened and closed 
several times. In conclusion, the testing agency recommended 
rejection of both Simmons litters as unsuitable for military 
use, and this recommendation was sustained by the Medical 
Department Equipment Laboratory.?9 
K. Ellwood Products Corporation: Ellwood City. 
Pennsylvania.. 
On 15 April 1942, a litter manufactured by Ellwood 
Products Corporation of Ellwood City, Pennsylvania was received 
by The Surgeon General's Office. Three days later this model 
was duly forwarded to the Medical Department Equipment Labo- 
ratory at Carlisle for full field test.80 On 8 May 1942, the 
Laboratory rendered the following report of service test resultss 
The weight of this litter is approximately 
17 pounds. This light weight was obtained by 
the use of alloy steel (apparently chrome- 
molybdenum) for the construction of all com- 
ponent parts. Alloy steel, being equally as 
strategic as aluminum, will not be available 
for Medical Department litters. If the design 
of the subject litter were duplicated in carbon 
steel to provide equal strength it is estimated 
that its weight would be increased about 7 
pounds, (the present standard steel pole litter, 
weight 22 pounds, is constructed entirely of 
carbon steel). 
The subject litter possesses two serious 
inherent defects! 
a. Spreader bar cuts the canvas when 
folded, 
b. Folding stirrups are too fragile to 
withstand field service. 
Recommendations; It is recommended that 
subject litter not be adopted by the Medical 
Department.81 
The foregoing information was summarized, on 11 .May 
1942, in a letter from The Surgeon General's Office to the 
manufacturer. On 21 May 1942, the Ellwood Products Corporation 
replied as follows; 
In the sheets of explanation which wo 
attached and sent with our litter we felt that 
we had not only explained, but made perfectly clear that the model that.we were presenting 
was a hand made item and that it was to show 
functional design rather than how strong it 
could be possibly made. Notation was made in 
• ‘the last paragraph of our explanatory notes 
that Army requirements might call for greater 
massiveness of the parts to withstand extreme- 
ly harsh tests. 
In making our litter we have been in an 
unfortunate position in as much that definite 
testing procedures have not been available to 
us and that definite requirements as to weight 
tests, as well as rigidity tests, was not 
available,,,.^ 
The foregoing letter, addressed to The Surgeon 
General’s Office, was immediately forwarded to the Medical 
Department Equipment Laboratory for answer. In its reply, on 
28 May 194-2, the Laboratory carefully elaborated on the service 
test results, and explained in detail why the Ellwood litter 
had been rejected. At the conclusion of this report, however, 
the following recommendations were stated; - 
Recommendations: It is recommended that 
a. The folding feet not be adopted.for the 
straight pole litter for the reasons cited 
in Paragraph A above, 
b. The Ellwood Products Corporation be 
advised that their folding stirrup 
assembly may have possibilities for 
use on tho folding pole litter. 
c. That if the Ellwood Products Corporation 
are interested in the dovolopmcnv if 
their folding foot-feature that they 
submit to the Equipment Laboratory a 
stirrup-spreader bar assembly conform- 
ing in general to the design shown on 
our Drawing'No, D-330 and D-2c9?, incor- 
porating their folding stirrup.^? 
Before discussing the various aspects of this case, 
it is first pertinent to inquire whether the Ellwood Products 
Corporation had simply submitted a sample litter on its own 
initiative, or whether it had been requested to do so by one 
of the agencies of the Medical Department. In its Monthly 
Progress Report for May, 194-2, the Medical Department Equip- 
ment Laboratory stated that, the Ellwood Products Corporation 
had been contacted by The Surgeon General’s Office with 
regard to developing a litter of this If such was 
the case, it is apparent that this action worked considerable 
hardship on the manufacturer, PTPQTRTm' KF) 
42 In the first place, the poles of the Ellwood 
Products litter were constructed of alloy steel (apparently 
chrome-molybdenum), Alloy steels generally had been formally 
rejected by the Laboratory at Carlisle fully seven months 
before, and there appears to be no evidence that a change in 
the status of this critical material had occurred in the 
meantime which would have warranted resubmission of litter 
poles made of such metal. 
Secondly, as in the case of the Howe Folding Furni- 
ture, Incorporated, the manufacturer seems to have been 
laboring under a misapprehension both as to the extreme 
importance of the time element in this search for aluminum 
substitutes, and also with regard to the advanced stage that 
had already been reached in the development of a new straight 
polo litter. It will bo recalled that on 3 January 194-2* three 
months before the Ellwood Products litter had been submitted to 
The Surgeon General’s Office, the Zimmer all-steel litter had 
been formally approved by the Medical Department Board. More- 
over, on 5 June 1942, less than ten days after the reply; to 
the manufacturer cited above, actual procurement of the Zimmer 
litter was initiated by the Medical Department. 
Finally, the inability of the company to obtain 
necessary information regarding testing procedures and strength 
and rigidity requirements, would seem to indicate that working 
through The Surgeon General’s Office, rather than directly with 
the Laboratory at Carlisle, had been a handicap. This conclu- 
sion is further supported by the fact that only after an 
energetic follow-up by the company was the information forth- 
coming that the folding feet feature of its model, while 
unsuitable for the straight pole litter, was thought to have 
possibilities for use on the folding pole litter. 
This case once again raises questions as to the 
most effective division of function between The Surgeon 
General's Office and the Medical Department Equipment Labo- 
ratory on matters of manufacturer relationship. It also 
emphasizes in rather pointed fashion the continual need for 
the closest coordination between these two Medical Department 
agencies if the maximum contribution of private industry to 
medical research and development is to be obtained, 
IV, Standardization and Procurement Phase (l) (The Steel Litter), 
A. 6 tandardization. 
On 3 January 194-2, the proceedings of the Medical 
Department Board, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, recommending 
adoption of the Zimmer all-stool straight pole litter as a standard Medical Department supply item, were forwarded to 
The Surgeon General’s Office. On the same day, drawings and 
specifications for the new litter were prepared by the Medical 
Department Equipment Laboratory and sent to The Surgeon 
General’s Office for approval. 
From this point on, Medical Department action was 
subject to the standardization procedures stipulated in AR 
B50-25. These regulations prescribed: (l) preparation of 
military characteristics, specifications, basis of issue, and 
procurement statistics by the technical service charged with 
the development and procurement of the item; (2) formal 
coordination of this data, through the technical committee of- 
the service concerned for concurrence by other arms and serv- 
ices; (3) approval by the chief of the appropriate technical 
service; (4) forwarding of standardization data to the.Adju- 
tant General for final approval by the Secretary of War, 
‘For the entire period in question, careful exami- 
nation was made of the Minutes of the Medical Department 
Technical Committee, Monthly Status Reports submitted by 
research and development subdivisions of The Surgeon General’s 
Office, and, finally, Record Room (Surgeon General’s Office) 
files of official correspondence dealing with litter develop- 
ment, No evidence was found which would indicate that the 
Zimmer steel pole litter was ever formally processed for 
standardization through the Medical Department Technical Com- 
mittee. There is an equal lack of positive evidence, in the 
sources consulted, that complete standardization data were 
either prepared by the Medical Department or processed through 
the higher channels of authority, as required by regulations. 
t 
B. Procurement. 
Although the straight steel litter was not added to 
the Medical Supply Catalog until 3 November 1942,°® the initial 
order for procurement of this item was placed 5 June 1942M 
This award v/as split between two contractors, one receiving an 
order for the delivery of 10,000 steel litters at $7.51 each, 
F.O.B. destination, while the other was awarded a contract to 
supply 20,000 steel litters at $7.59 each, also F.O.B. desti- 
nation. Deliveries throughout the month of June, 1942, total- 
led 6,030, During July, 1942, an additional 12,962 litters 
were shipped to supply depots, and the undelivered balance of 
the original order was received by 19 August 1942. ° 
In other words, 30,000 straight steel litters had 
been manufactured and■delivered at relatively low cost to 
Array supply installations within two and a half months after 
the placing of the initial-contracts, As we shall see subse- 
quently, compared to the procurement history of certain other newly developed litters, this was a remarkable record* More- 
over, the production cost of the new steel litters was to 
decrease with the passage of time. Since August, 1942, unit 
cost has dropped from $6,30 to $4*B7, F.O.B. point of 
origin,90 This price reduction has been due in large part 
to the greatly increased requirements for steel litters 
since 1942. 
Upon the outbreak of World War II, the only straight 
pole litter which the Medical Department had in stock in any 
quantity was the ash pole litter. At this time only about 
3,000 of the aluminum pole litters with cast aluminum under- 
carriages had been purchased, and the new extruded aluminum 
running gear was just getting into procurement.91 The follow- 
ing table will indicate the radical changes that had taken 
place in the procurement picture by 30 September 1943*92 
Net Stock Deliveries 
1 J an• 43 1 Jan• 43 
to 
30 Sep. 4-3 
Issues 
1 Jan. 43 
to 
30 Sep. 43 
Net Stock 
30 Sep. 43 
78440 Litter (ash pole) 
8,984 
9,396 
7,830 
99350 Littep, straight, 
aluminum 
7,802 
4,335 
6,657 
99376 Litter, straight, 
steel 
11,384 
334,223 
125,097 
147,599 
As of 25 January 1945, total deliveries of the straight 
steel litter amounted to 471,317, balance undelivered—none. At 
present time there 'is a negotiation in process to procure 15,000 
more of these litters,93 From this data it is clear that the 
standard steel litter has, in reality, been the backbone of the 
system of medical evacuation in World War II. 
V• Evaluation (l) (The Steel Litter), 
A, The Race Against Time. 
On 3 January-.1942, the Medical Department Board 
officially recommended adpption of the Zimmer all-steel litter 
as a standard catalog item to be used in place of the straight 
pole aluminum litter if and when that item became unavailable 
to the Medical Department, On the same day, drawings and speci- 
fications were forwarded to The Surgeon General's Office by the 
Medical Department Equipment Laboratory.94 In other words a 
satisfactory substitute litter had now been fully developed* 
and, except for the fulfillment of procedural requirements in 
connection with formal standardization, was ready for immediate 
procurement* - 
45 On 3 March 194-2, exactly two months later, the Office 
of the Under-Secretary of War issued its official order forbid- 
ding further use of aluminum in the manufacture of the straight 
pole litter,95 The race against time, then, had unquestionably 
been won. In this respect it is evident that development activ- 
ities were, completely successful. What may be said, however, 
of the quality of the 'substitute litter that was produced? Was 
it actually serviceable in the field? How did.it compare with 
the ash pole litter of World War I? How did it compare with 
the standard aluminum litter? Is it today the litter of choice 
in the Medical Department? 
B• The Steel Litter versus The Ash Pole Litter, 
There is no real question as to the. field service- 
ability of the steel litter. With total procurement up to the 
present time approximating the half-million mark, it is obvi- 
ous that the new litter has found wide acceptance by medical 
field personnel. The question remains, however, as to the 
comparative quality of the steel litter, since neither the ash 
pole nor the aluminum litters were procurable during this period 
due to shortages in construction material. First we shall com- 
pare the nevj steel litter with the World War I ash pole litter. 
In January, after reviewing the reports of 
comparative field tests of both the steel and ash pole litters, 
the Medical Department Board gave its conclusions as follows: 
The litter under construction whose structural 
parts arc made entirely of plain carbon steel, 
and. which has undergone extensive laboratory 
and field tests, shows itself' to be... without 
exception superior to the wooden pole litter,9° , .* 
Comparing the two litters, component for component, 
the above evaluation would seem relatively noncontroversial 
except in one respect. It would seem evident that the pressed 
steel undercarriage of the Zimmer litter was a decided improve- 
ment over the cast iron running gear of the ash pole model. It 
weighed three pounds less, it was subsequently found to be 
exceptionally serviceable, and it involved the use of no criti- 
cal materials. Similarly, as was pointed out in the case of 
the standard aluminum litter, the smooth wooden handle inserts 
?/orc demonstrably more comfortable and vastly more efficient 
from a maintenance standpoint than were the improvised handles 
of the ash pole litter which remained an integral part of the 
side poles. 
So far as over-all weight was concerned, there was 
little difference between the two litters. Both weighed 
approximately 22 pounds. However, the carbon steel tubing of the Zimmer litter weighed nearly five pounds more than the 
wooden side poles of the World War I litter. This, clearly, 
was a decided disadvantage. There were, of course, compen- 
sations for the weight factor. In the summer of 1942, one 
manufacturer who had supplied both types of litter for the 
Medical Department explained his preference for steel tubing 
as against ash poles as follows: 
steel poles are much cheaper, more readily 
available (both goodly supply and rapid deliv- 
ery) , less deflection (patient bounce), more 
durable (not subject to dry rot or termites), 
require less canvas, said canvas more quickly 
replaceable,,,,97 
Recalling the discussion of the aluminum pole litter, 
it will be remembered that the slip-on method of attaching the 
canvas cover to the side poles was found greatly superior, in 
terms of cost, ease of maintenance, and salvageability, to the 
system of employing 142 tacks, 9 screws, 2 rings and 2 studs. 
Thus far, slip-on canvas had been found practicable only with 
round side poles, so this factor constituted an important 
counterbalance to the weight disadvantage of the steel poles. 
By and large, therefore, while it would be difficult 
to agree that the new steel litter was "without exception 
superior to the wooden pole litter", it did appear to be 
superior on most counts. The most cogent fact of all, perhaps, 
was this. Procurement of the ash pole litter was discontinued 
entirely by December, 194-1, was never resumed, and the item was 
formally reclassified to Limited Standard in July, 194-3. These 
actions indicated rather conclusively that the wooden litter 
had been definitely supplanted by the steel and aluminum lit- 
ters, regardless of the future availability of straight grain 
ash wood, 
C, The Stool Litter versus The Aluminum Litter, 
Again quoting the Medical Department Board in its 
official report of 3 January 194-2, the following conclusion 
was given with respect to the relative merits of the steel 
and aluminum litters: . 
Extensive tests indicate that this litter 
/steel/ is superior in every respect to the 
standard aluminum litter except for the 
weight.98 
As in the case of the ash pole litter, the Board's 
estimate would appear to bo somewhat over-optimistic. In many respects the. two litters.were identical. The same 
dimension canvas was-used, .the,same slip-on method of attach- 
ing the coyer to the side poles was employed, and the same 
wooden handle inserts were specified. On the other hand, the 
greater weight of the steel litter was, due to two factors; 
its carbon steel poles and its pressed steel undercarriage, 
each in turn weighing more than the corresponding component 
of the aluminum litter. 
As for the side poles, it would be difficult to 
find a sound basis for preferring the steel tubing to the 
aluminum. Both have withstood the most rugged field service, 
were equally easy to maintain in the field, and the aluminum 
poles had the added virtue of being appreciably lighter. 
Regarding the two undercarriages, however, the added weight 
of the pressed steel running gear was amply compensated by 
its greatly superior durability. 
The stirrup spreader bar assembly of this 
litter /steel/ is considerably more rugged 
and durable than the cast aluminum stirrup 
spreader bar assembly of the standard 
/aluminum/ litter.99 
How, though, did the pressed steel undercarriage 
compare with the extruded aluminum gear developed in the sum- 
mer of 194-1? The extruded assembly, it will be recalled, 
weighed nearly l/2 pound less than the cast aluminum. Cnee 
again, as we shall sec in a moment, the Medical Department 
felt that the markedly superior durability in the field of 
the pressed steel stirrup and spreader bar assembly amply 
justified the weight increase. 
It is, therefore, not easy to establish a valid 
preference for either the steel or the aluminum litter as a 
complete unit. The pressed steel undercarriage of the steel 
litter was preferable, in the judgment of both research and 
procurement officials, to cither the cast or extruded alumi- 
num assemblies of the aluminum litter. On the other hand, 
there was an equally emphatic preference’ for aluminum over 
carbon steel for litter polos, 
D, The Litter of Choice of the Medical Department, 
The litter of choice of the Medical Department, 
toward the close of 194-3, was neither the standard aluminum 
polo litter nor the straight steel litter, but a combination 
of the two. On 20 October 194-3, Colonel Paul I. Robinson 
described what was then, in the view of the Medical Depart- 
ment, the ideal straight pole litterj The straight pole aluminum litter with pressed 
steel stirrups and spreader bars, which... 
have proved more durable in the field, is con- 
sidered the most desirable of the straight pole 
litters and it is believed that aluminum can be 
obtained in sufficient quantities to take care 
of requirements.1 
With the removal of duraluminum tubing from the War 
Department list of scarce materials, and with the development 
in 1945 of a universal pressed steel undercarriage designed to 
fit all of the various straight pole litter types then under 
procurement, the desired changeover from carbon steel to 
aluminum side poles was at last possible. Accordingly in 
June, 1945, the straight steel litter was officially reclassi- 
fied to Limited Standard, thus leaving the straight aluminum 
litter (with new universal undercarriage) in undisputed top 
position,^ 
E. Conclusion. 
In 1941, the growing threat of an acute aluminum 
shortage had presented a serious challenge to the Medical 
Department and to the whole system of medical evacuation. 
Not only was this immediate challenge effectively met by 
Medical Department research and development personnel, but 
in the process highly significant technical contributions 
were made which advanced our knowledge of litter construction 
far beyond the level which had obtained prior to the outbreak 
of World War II. 
First, an extruded aluminum undercarriage was 
designed and adopted in 1941 which proved to be greatly 
superior, both in terms of weight and durability, to the 
cast aluminum assembly which had previously been procured. 
Second, a satisfactory substitute for the aluminum pole 
litter was developed—and in time to maintain an uninter- 
rupted flow of litters to supply depots both in this country 
and abroad in spite of the aluminum shortage of 1942. 
Finally, a pressed steel undercarriage was designed and 
adopted in 1942 which was ultimately to become the component 
of choice in the Medical Department, to be procured in prefer- 
ence to the cast and extruded aluminum assemblies. 
Thus, despite the failure on the part of Medical 
Department research and development personnel to adhere 
strictly to the procedures prescribed in AR 850-25 for 
project initiation and item standardization, and despite 
certain violations of established principles of adminis- 
trative coordination, the results attained in this first 
phase of Development Project. F-ll were definitely impressive. 
49 There can be little doubt that the Medical Department had, 
thus far, given an excellent account of itself, 
VI. Development Phase (2) (The Laminated Wood Litter). 
A. Introduction, 
Having forwarded to The Surgeon General’s Office, 
on 3 January 194.2, final drawings end specifications for the 
Zimmer all-steel litter, the Equipment Laboratory shifted 
its attention from the straight pole litter program to other 
fields of Medical Department research. In its Monthly 
Progress Report for April, 19A2, the Laboratory listed 
Development Project, F-ll as completed, and estimated that 
no funds either for civilian personnel or for supplies would 
be required for fiscal years 194-3 or 19A4-* unless The Surgeon 
General's Office should desire to have the investigation 
reopened,3 
For the next three months, aside from two compara- 
tively minor activities, nothing of a formal nature was 
undertaken in the field of straight pole litter development. 
In May, 194-2, as mentioned earlier, a chrome-molybdenum lit- 
ter manufactured by Ellwood Products Corporation was tested 
and reported upon,4 During the following month, at the 
request of the New York Medical Depot, the Laboratory 
adapted the design of the pressed steel stirrup and spreader 
bar assembly for use with the ash pole litter which was 
still, technically, a standard item although it had not 
been under procurement since -the latter part of 194-1. Draw- 
ings and specifications covering this adaptation were 
forwarded to the Medical Depot on 4- July 194-2.3 
By the early part of August, 194-2, however, the 
litter picture had begun to change. Several disturbing 
signs of a possible shortage in steel were beginning to 
appear. For several weeks the facts were inconclusive but, 
by the end of the month, action was taken by the Federal 
Government which left little doubt as to the proximity of 
the danger, 
It is the opinion of this office that the 
Research and Development Section of The 
Surgeon General’s Office should encourage 
work in the substitute for steel in the 
straight pole litter. Your information 
that steel is plentiful is in error. 
Stool is getting tighter every day, and 
this office has had to appear before the WPB and defend all usage of steel. It is 
not our desire to change to the wooden 
substitute, but ?;e should be ready should 
steel be denied.6 
In view of these developments, in September, 194-2, 
The Surgeon General's Office reopened the investigation of 
substitute materials for the straight pole litter,? It had 
been implied in the above communication that at least a 
stop-gap solution could be found by merely shifting procure- 
ment from steel to ash pole litters. It was immediately 
evident to the Medical Department, however, that the situ- 
ation could not be met in that way. For one thing, the 
marked inferiority of the World War I litter was a serious 
drawback to such a plan. Furthermore, due to the increasing 
scarcity of canvas, it was impossible to discard the great 
quantities of this material v/hich had been manufactured 
according to the slip-on specifications of the aluminum and 
steel pole litters. 
Finally, and this was the decisive point, it had 
been a grave question for nearly a year whether straight grain 
ash could be procured in sufficient quantity for Medical 
Department needs, and there was as yet no indication that this 
situation had improved. In short, it was going to be neces- 
sary to discover and develop a new substitute material which 
could be used satisfactorily for litter construction. 
However, as we have already seen, research possi- 
bilities had now been narrowed almost to the vanishing point. 
Aluminum was already on the critical list, as were the alloy 
steels like chrome-molybdenum. Plastics and hard rubber had 
been thoroughly investigated, and had been found wholly 
impracticable. It was evident that the task of finding an 
adequate substitute for carbon steel was not going to be an 
easy one. Moreover, under the pressure of the impending 
shortage, speed was again essential. Thus, though the 
obstacles had been multiplied, Medical Department research 
and development personnel were to be engaged in another 
crucial race against time. 
B. William A. Savage; Randolph. Vermont. 
On A September 1942, The Surgeon General's Office 
forwarded to the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory a 
wooden pole litter, built and designed by William A. Savage 
of Randolph, Vermont. It was requested that the new litter 
be given a field test to determine its suitability as a 
replacement for the standard steel and ash pole litters,^ 
51 The solid ash side poles of the Savage litter were of 
the conventional wooden type with nailed-on canvas, similar to 
the World War I design except that the poles were grooved on 
two lateral sides to accomodate a sliding steel plate, which in 
turn was connected to the spreader bar. The spreader bar was a 
single, instead of double, assembly and consisted of two pieces 
of hard wood crossed in the center and forming an "X”, so riv- 
eted that relatively free movement was possible. Two ends of 
the "X” were riveted to the under-sides of the polos, while the 
other two ends were fastened to the two small steel plates which 
fit into grooves in the poles. When the litter was opened, the 
"X" expanded and, by means of small set screws in the sliding 
steel plates, could be fixed in that position. The stirrups, 
which were entirely separate from the spreader bars, were sim- 
ply small hard wood blocks mortised in the under-sides of the 
litter poles, where they were glued and nailed.9 
Since this experimental model had been constructed 
largely of straight grain ash and steel, both potentially scarce 
materials, it offered no solution whatever to the immediate 
problem confronting the Medical Department, However, in his 
design the inventor had introduced several interesting inno- 
vations which, if found practicable, could influence materially 
the course of subsequent litter research. The Savage model was, 
therefore, subjected to the regular field tests, and in a few 
weeks the results were announced.10 
(l) A 200-pound patient was carried by litter bearers 
and hauled by ambulance without producing cither excessive 
whipping or bowing of the poles, (2) The litter was dropped on 
the pavement so that it landed on its stirrups, and efforts 
were made to twist the side poles. Upon completion of these 
tests, the metal slides appeared slightly bent, and operated 
thereafter with difficulty, (3) The effect of mud on the slides 
was tested by dropping the litter in mud holes, and it was found 
that mud did impair the opening and closing of the litter. When 
dried and cleaned, the slides functioned smoothly,' but each suc- 
cessive test made the spreader bar operation more difficult, 
(4.) The open litter was then immersed in water for a few hours 
and allowed to dry. It was found that the tight canvas turned 
the poles out to such a degree that the spreader bar could not 
bo opened or closed except by pounding. In addition, water 
apparently entered the mortise in the poles where the wooden 
stirrups were inserted, and the swelling which resulted split 
the poles for a distance of 5 to 6 inches.H 
In a formal report, dated 16 September 194-2, the 
Medical Department Equipment Laboratory rejected the Savage 
litter as a replacement for the standard steel or wood pole 
litters with the following comment: 
52 (1) Metal slides in stretcher bar assembly and 
the principle of their operation depend 
upon the litter poles remaining perfectly 
straight. Wot canvas or twisting of poles 
cause slides to bend and impair operation. 
(2) Mortises of the wooden stirrups in the lit- 
ter poles weaken the poles and when water 
pp moisture enter, cause swelling and split- 
ting pf poles* 
(3) The set screw assembly to hold the slides 
to the poles when the litter is opened are 
too fragile, will rust, and if broken off, 
render the litter useless unless replaced. 
Replacement leaves an unpeaned screw which 
will shake out and become lost. To repoan 
requires complete disassembling of the 
spreader bar; a difficult job requiring 
filing off the heads of the rivets.12 
While the results of this investigation were negative, 
the mere fact that field tests had been conducted at all indi- 
cated the willingness of Medical Department personnel to explore 
all possibilities. Since no further modifications of the World 
War I design were presented, this'was the last instance of 
experimentation involving solid ash, poles. 
C. Lawrence Woodworking Company; Lawrence. Kansas. 
On 28 September 194-2, eight plywood litter poles, 
manufactured by the Lawrence Woodworking Company of Lawrence, 
Kansas, were received by the Medical Department Equipment 
Laboratory,13 This company, which had been in contact with 
The Surgeon General’s Office since the early part of September, 
had followed very closely the dimensions of the straight alumi- 
num pole. The plywood tubing had an outside diameter of 1.54- 
inches and was 90 inches long. These poles, which had been 
procured under an Ml priority, were furnished to the Medical 
Department at $1.00 each, which was decidedly less than the 
cost of either aluminum or carbon steel tubing.14- 
Upon receipt cf the eight plywood tubes, the Labo- 
ratory had them inserted into standard frames, and the four 
completed litters were then subjected to field tests. It is 
not evident from the data at hand whether these experimental 
poles were tested by the 32nd Medical Battalion or by the Labo- 
ratory itself, but on 1 October 1942, the following report was 
submitted to The Surgeon General’s Office by the Medical Depart- 
ment Equipment Laboratory: 
53 In comparing the plywood tubes to various 
types of standard litter poles now used by 
the Medical Department, /the following objection- 
able features in the plywood tubes wore disclosed: 
a. Flexibility of the plywood tube is excessive, 
causing the litter assembled with this type 
of litter pole to develop a whipping action 
which is not compatible with the degree of 
comfort required in the transport of casual- 
ties, 
b. The strength of the plywood pole in regard to 
their ability to support the given weight is 
about half of that of standard litter poles. 
The maximum weight that the plywood pole is 
capable of supporting is 160 pounds, whereas, 
the standard litter pole is capable of sup- 
porting up to 300 pounds, 
c. In addition to having too great flexibility 
and too little strength, the plywood poles 
were found to be quite easily broken when 
sudden stress is applied.15 
While the test results described above afforded 
considerable evidence of the unsuitability of plywood for 
the construction of litter poles, the Equipment Laboratory 
preferred to engage in further experimentation before 
arriving at a final decision. It \7as announced that other 
plywood tubes were to be received in the near future, and 
that these would be service tested and reported upon as 
soon as possible.^ 
D. Hcrmsdorf Fixture Manufacturing Company: Manchester. 
New Hampshire. 
The second venture with plywood tubes was initiated, 
oddly enough, not by a Medical Department agency, but by the 
War Production Board. On 5 November 1942, the Hermsdorf Fixture 
Manufacturing Company of Manchester, Now Hampshire wrote as fol- 
lows to the Conservation Division of the War Production Board, 
This will acknowledge receipt of the experiment- 
al order placed with us today for 4- plywood tubes 90 
inches long, diameter l-l/2 to 1-5/8 inches, totalling 
$10,00, These tubes are to be shipped to Col. E.D, 
Quinnell, Director, Medical Department Equipment Labo- 
ratory, Carlisle Barracks, Carlisle, Pa, 
It is our understanding that wo will receive from 
Lt. Col, Klopp, Surgeon General's Office, U.S. Army a 
formal confirmation *o£»*this order ,W On 16 November 194-2, the Hermsdorf Fixture Manu- 
facturing Company was given official confirmation of the experi- 
mental order by The Surgeon General’s Office, which had already 
notified the Laboratory at Carlisle of the expected shipment of 
plywood tubes and had authorized payment out. of regular research 
funds.18 
Before shipping the pples, the manufacturer subjected 
them to a series of deflection tests. These tests indicated: 
(l) Under a weight of 34- pounds, distributed near the ends of 
the poles, raid-point deflection ranged from l/l6 to 3/l6 of an 
inch in the four tubes tested; (2) Under a weight of 58 pounds, 
distributed throughout the length of the poles with the excep- 
tion of the center, mid-point deflection ranged from 9/32 to 
l/2 inch; (3) Under a weight of 108 pounds, distributed through- 
out the length of the poles and including the center, mid-point 
deflection ranged from 7/8 to 1-1/32 inches,19 
Rigidity tests had, of course, been performed in the 
past on aluminum and carbon steel litter poles. On these 
occasions, although weights of 300 to 4-00 pounds were applied, 
mid-point deflection averaged only a fraction of an inch.20 
Consequently, the results in the present instance, where only 
trifling weights were involved, appeared to be altogether dis- 
couraging. However, on 23 November 194-2, the above test data 
was forwarded to the War Production Board with these rather 
remarkable comments; 
In all cases the weight of each pole is approxi- 
mately 4- pounds, as the pole is very rigid. This 
rigidity may be more than required, in which case 
this extra stiffness will be reflected in a high- 
er cost, and should less stiffness be required, 
the polo would be less expensive and also of less 
weight. 
It is probable that if the above test results had 
been submitted to the Equipment Laboratory instead of the War 
Production Board, drastic modification if not complete refabri- 
cation of the poles would have been requested. If a dead weight 
of 108 pounds produced a center deflection of more than 1 inch, 
what would happen to the poles under a 200-pound casualty load? 
The answer was too obvious to require field test confirmation. 
The evidence at hand does not indicate that the War 
Production Board advanced this basic criticism of the plywood 
poles in its correspondence with the Hermsdorf Fixture Manu- 
facturing Company, Instead, certain questions were raised by 
that agency with regard to the durability of the tubes in 
other respects. These matters were dealt with by the manu- 
facturer in a letter dated 28 November 1942. In regard to the climatic conditions we 
furnished only the raw pole without any 
finish. However, this pole can be weather- 
proofed by a dipping process and also made 
resistant to gas and oils. It is bonded 
with Plaskon #250-2 process which we under- 
stand to be termite-proof,22 
On 5 December 1942, the Medical Department Equipment 
Laboratory issued its formal report on the Hermsdorf litter 
poles. 
These poles have been received and 
inspected. They are composed of 5 or 6-ply 
birch, circular tubes, lap and spiral wound 
with solid cross core of plywood cemented by 
plaskon #250-2 process. All poles were found 
unsatisfactory for litter pole use for the 
following reasons: 
a. Poles too springy. 
b. No means of fastening on handles, 
c. Poles all warped on arrival; outer 
spiral coverings blistered and ends 
cracked. 
d. Solid cross core inserts, after little 
use, slide out readily. 
Two additional poles ¥/ere furnished by this 
company. One pole made similar to those mentioned 
above except made of A-ply walnut and 1-ply birch. 
This pole also warped and blistered. The other 
pole was a solid cross plywood pole; this had also 
warped and showed a crack all the way down one 
side where cementing had pulled apart,23 
The Medical Department Equipment Laboratory, it 
will be remembered, had been anxious to perform at least one 
more series of tests on plywood poles before arriving at a 
final decision as to their suitability for Medical Department 
use. However, the condition of the Hermsdorf poles upon 
arrival at Carlisle was such that field testing was impossible. 
Since time was pressing, although the data was hardly more 
complete than it had been before, the Laboratory ventured its 
opinion: 
From our inspection of these and previous 
plywood, round, tube poles, we believe that 
this method of pole making for litters will 
not be successful,24- 
Because of the peculiarly unsatisfactory results 
that were obtained in this instance, the case of the Hermsdorf Fixture Manufacturing Company warrants careful examination. 
It has already been observed, in tracing the history of the 
steel litter, how a lack of proper coordination between Medi- 
cal Department agencies served on several occasions to*reduce 
the efficiency and increase the cost of research and develop- 
ment activities. The Hermsdorf case, by way of contrast, 
presents a unique situation, for here the breakdown in coordi- 
nation was due to a more or less independent exercise of 
research authority by an agency wholly outside the Medical 
Department, in fact even outside the War Department, 
Whether power was delegated or usurped in this 
instance is not evident from the data, but the fruits of the 
arrangement are perfectly clear. The failure of the Herms- 
dorf polos, due to insufficient strength and an excess of 
residency, was predictable from the moment the rigidity tests 
were conducted. Yet the manufacturer was under the impression 
that the tests indicated, if anything, that the poles were 
perhaps more rigid than necessary. This is direct evidence 
of a lack of proper research guidance, the function which the 
War Production Board had on this occasion assumed. Had the 
manufacturer been given adequate information as to the strength 
and rigidity requirements for Army litter construction, such an 
interpretation of the deflection tost results would have be*en 
impossible, 
, i .; 
The results speak for themselves. Upon arrival at 
Carlisle, the Hermsdorf poles were' so badly warped, blistered, 
and cracked that it was impossible to insert them into standard 
litter frames for field testing. By way of contrast it may be 
remembered that the Lawrence Woodworking Company, working sole- 
ly through Medical Department agencies, had been able to pro- 
duce plywood poles which, while ultimately judged to be unsatis- 
factory., did at least retain their original shape during ship- 
ment, reached Carlisle in good condition, and were thereafter 
fully tested in the field. It is, of course, possible that the 
Hermsdorf Fixture Manufacturing Company might have done equally 
as well had it been working under similar close supervision of 
Medical Department research- and development personnel. 
This, unfortunately, was not to bo the only instance 
of intervention by the War Production Board in Medical Depart- 
ment research activities. Eventually, the difficulties which 
arose from this continued overlapping of function forced the 
Medical Department to take decisive action. We shall sec 
presently how the elimination of this administrative overlap- 
ping r/as finally accomplished,-. 
57 JS. Weaver Piano Company, Incorporatedj York. 
Pennsylvania, 
Now that plywood had been temporarily abandoned,' 
the direction which the search for carbon steel substitutes 
was next to take was indicated in the Laboratory's conclud- 
ing remarks in its test report on the Hermsdorf poles, ' 
It is our opinion that a solid, laminated pole 
with turned integral handles and rpundpd edges 
is the better approach to the problem, Poles 
of this type on hand appear to have good pros- 
pects,25 
Nearly three weeks before, on 13 November 194-2, 
the efforts of the Weaver Piano Company, Incorporated of York, 
Pennsylvania had been enlisted in the attempt to find a suit- 
able substitute for steel and aluminum. In this instance, 
however, in contrast to the Hermsdorf case, the manufacturer 
sought and obtained full information from the Medical Depart- 
ment regarding litter specifications. There were, of course, 
the usual delays arising from the fact that manufacturing 
relationships continued to be directly handled by two Medical 
Department agencies instead of one. On' 13 November the 
Weaver Piano Company, Incorporated learned through The.Surgeon 
General's Office of the need for a new straight pole litter, 
and was infprmed of certain of the requirements which would 
have to be met. On the following day the company wrote to 
the’Laboratory at Carlisle for additional information. 
Col, Klopp did tell us that these poles are 90" 
long; that the maximum diameter is 1-5/8"; that 
they should not weigh more than B-l/2 pounds each 
and that the maximum deflection may be 1". We 
are not sure, however, of the, amount of the load 
nor whether it is a distributed load to be car- 
ried by these Litter Poles in pairs or if it 
applies to each individual pole. 
Will you please send us complete data regard- 
ing these Litter Poles so that we may go to work 
on it and submit ideas if we arc able to develop 
practical ones,28 
The Laboratory replied by inviting the company to 
send one of its representatives to Carlisle to go into the 
matter in detail. A .letter,' dated 27 November 194-2, from the 
manufacturer to The Surgeon General's Office, gives a clear 
picture of what was decidpd upon at the conference which was 
subsequently held at Carlisle, 
After much discussion it was decided that we 
should make 4- sample poles of three-ply, with 
plies 1 and 3 running longitudinally and the center ply at right angles to plies 1 and 3. 
This would then be machined down to size with 
two of the samples machined octagonal in shape 
and two of the samples with corners rounded to 
a 3/Bn radius. These would then be fored for 
the fittings*2? 
;Within three weeks, four of these crossbandcd, 
laminated wood poles were fabricated by the Weaver Company, 
Incorporated and were forwarded to the Equipment Laboratory 
for field testing. On 23 December 1942, the Laboratory issued 
its formal report on the performance of the experimental poles. 
Two types of laminated litter poles have 
been given thorough test by this Laboratory 
and the 32nd Medical Battalion. 
Pole "A" was manufactured by Weaver Piano 
Company, York, Pennsylvania. This pole was 
furnished in two typos; one square with round- 
ed edges and the other octagonal. Both poles 
were 1-5/B inches in diameter. These poles 
were constructed of short pieces of alternat- 
ing grain maple built between two full length 
side pieces. 
This arrangement failed because poles 
fractured through the places where the grain 
was at right angles to the long dimension. 
It is believed that if these maple poles 
had been made of continuous long pieces with 
grain running the long way as in Pole ”B" 
that they would have stood up.^B 
The foregoing report was not, it can be readily seen, 
altogether satisfactory. Once again, as in the case of the 
Lawrence Woodworking Company, there was no itemization of the 
field tests conducted by the 32nd Medical Battalion, no care- 
ful tabulation of the results of those individual tests. Like- 
wise, there was no precise summary of findings, a feature which 
had been characteristic of all the earlier reports. In short, 
while the failure, of the laminated poles was definitely stated 
and an explanation offered, little factual basis was afforded 
The Surgeon General’s Office in writing for intelligent review 
of the Laboratory’s actions and recommendations. 
As for the Weaver Piano Company, Incorporated, 
although the test results had been negative, its efforts had 
been of genuine value, as the Laboratory readily acknowl- 
By devoting its attention to a particular type of 
pole construction which the Equipment Laboratory was anxious 
to have investigated, the company had definitely contributed 
to the* solution of the over-all problem. The experiment had 
eliminated as a possibility the cross-banded type of laminated 
59 pole, thus enabling research and development personnel to 
concentrate their efforts on the one remaining alternative. 
The nature of that alternative was suggested in the conclud- 
ing paragraph of the above test report; a laminated pole with 
the grain in all plies running longitudinally, 
F. Specialties Company; Baltimore, Maryland. 
The successful development of a laminated straight 
pole litter was finally achieved by Mikar Specialities Company 
(Division of National Store Fixture Company) Baltimore, Mary- 
land, The Surgeon General's Office first contacted this 
organization through one of its representatives on 31 October 
194-2,30 Approximately one month later, one of the Medical 
Department's standard steel pole litters was shipped to the 
Mikar Specialties Company for its examination and study, and 
within several weeks a complete set of experimental laminated 
wood poles were forwarded to the Laboratory at Carlisle for 
field test,31 
The new laminated poles were inserted into a standard 
litter frame, and the assembled litter was then tested by the 
32nd Medical Battalion in comparison with the original ash pole 
litter. The tests conducted and the results which were obtained, 
Y/ere as follov/s? 
a. Litter supported 600 pounds in center with- 
out breaking, 
b. Carried patient, as in litter drill, no 
defects found. 
c. Litter tested in all berths of l/2 ton 
ambulance, fitted properly. 
d. 200 pound patient carried in litter, slung 
in upper left berth of ambulance over rough 
terrain. Patient stayed in litter more 
comfortably than in standard litter.32 
The Commanding Officer of the testing battalion then 
presented his comparative findings. 
Experimental litter is in my opinion equally 
as satisfactory as standard wooden pole lit- 
ter, as shown in the above short tests, with 
the added advantage of being 5 pounds lighter,33 
Why these "short tests" were conducted, instead of 
the extensive and rugged field trials to which both the aluminum 
and steel pole litters had been subjected, was not explained. 
In view of the fact that the laminated wood model, if adopted, 
vjould presumably undergo just as rough treatment overseas as 
the standard litters then in use, the comparatively mild character of the present tests was, indeed, curious. It was 
true, however, that, in contrast to the cases of the Lawrence 
Woodworking Company and the Herrasdorf Manufacturing Company, 
in this instance a reasonably detailed test report had been 
submitted. If either the Laboratory or The.Surgeon General's 
Office had been dissatisfied with the testing procedures 
employed, additional field trails could have been requested. 
No criticism of the foregoing tests, however, was 
forthcoming. On 23 December 194-2, the Medical Department 
Equipment Laboratory issued the following final report to 
The Surgeon General’s Office; 
This pole is square with rounded edges and 
is l-l/2 inches in diameter. It is con- 
structed of six ply laminated birch con- 
tinuous pieces. These v/ithstood testing 
very satisfactorily both in ambulance and ' 
manual carry. It showed no excessive 
resiliency under full load. A litter using 
this pole and the standard steel stirrup 
assembly weighed approximately 17 pounds 
and is in our opinion a satisfactory substi- . , 
tute for the standard wooden pole litter. 
While all wooden poles are subject to 
defects and the strength and resiliency 
varies, a certain amount of breakage is 
expected as compared to metal poles. It 
is our opinion that,,,if made of selected 
■1st class woodland carefully glued /the * * , 
laminated pole/ would compare favorably as 
to breakage with the standard solid wood 
pole. 34- 
A few months later, the new laminated pole was 
subjected to a scries of static weight tests by the Static 
Test Branch of the Aircraft Laboratory at Wright Field, 
Dayton, Ohio. Loads up to 1700 pounds were applied,. No 
failure was noted in any part of the pole, and the permanent 
downward deflection which was produced was only 9/16 of an 
inch. It was concluded by the testing agency that the lami- 
nated v/ood litter was quite satisfactory for use in airplane 
ambulances,35 Aip.Force Headquarters added its official 
approval of the new litter on 16 March 194-3. . ■ 
It is recommended that this litter be * 
substituted for the steel pole litter • •• 
for the Air Forces due to the lightness 
of the litter,36 . 
61 Having received the approval both of the Medical 
Department Equipment Laboratory and Army Air Forces, the new 
laminated wood litter (see Fig* 7) was subsequently adopted 
as a standard item, listed in the Medical Supply Catalog, 
and placed under procurement. Two additional litter models, 
however, we re to be tested before Development Fro.iect* F-ll 
was finally brought to a close, 
G. Plymold Corporation; Lawrence. Massachusetts, 
On 12 September 194-2, just two weeks before the 
Lawrence Woodworking Company had completed its sample set of 
plytube poles, the Plymold Corporation of Lawrence, Massachu- 
setts, at the suggestion of The Surgeon General’s Office, 
undertook a parallel investigation of plywood tubing in order 
to hasten the final decision as to the suitability of this 
material for use as litter poles. Almost at the outset a 
controversy arose between Plymold Corporation and The Surgeon 
General’s Office over the question of the size of tubing to be 
used in the construction of the experimental poles. Recalling 
our discussion of the principles of litter construction in 
Chapter I, it will be remembered that, due to the great number 
of variables involved, any attempt to redesign even a single 
litter component was beset with a surprising number of compli- 
cations, As a practical illustration of the operation of 
these construction principles in actual development work, the 
arguments presented below are of special significance. 
In a telegram to The Surgeon General's Office, dated 
30 September 194-2, Plymold Corporation maintained that, since 
an increase in pole size was necessary to produce aluminum 
tubing with the approximate strength of the standard steel 
tube, a corresponding increase in outside diameter was needed 
to produce plywood tubing of a strength sufficient for Medi- 
cal Department needs,37 -phe Surgeon General’s Office replied 
by telegram, 1 October 194-2, rejecting the proposed increase 
in polo size, but on the same day sent a letter to the Plymold 
Corporation explaining its decision. 
Due to the number of factors involved, 
it is impossible to allow material increase 
in the diameter of the litter pole. Thou- 
sands of canvas covers are being produced 
and in order to use a larger pole, a change 
of specifications of the canvas cover would 
be necessary. Furthermore, the saddle which 
is arranged to fit either the.l-l/4." or 
l-l/2" pole would have to be changed. This 
we cannot allow to be done because of the 
difficulty in using parts which would not 
be interchangeable with each other. It would probably mean-that the canvas for one 
size litter pole would be shipped to one place 
and the pole or stirrups to another place. 
You see it is necessary for us to have our 
parts completely interchangeable so that if 
one part is destroyed, a replacement does 
not become difficult,^ 
Agreeing that the rigidity normally possessed by 
l-l/2 inch plywood tubing would be insufficient, The Surgeon 
General's Office offered this suggestion for increasing the 
strength of the pole; 
••.we see no reason why an inside plug would 
not only assist in lowering the amount of 
deflection, but would provide additional 
strength for the pole, I would suggest a 
plug of smaller diameter running midway 
through the center of the pole for about 
2 feet.39 
Thus, the issue was settled, at least temporarily. 
No material increase in the diameter of the litter poles could 
be allowed for the reasons given. However, no sooner had this 
question been resolved than legal difficulties arose to delay 
further the experimental work. Plymold Corporation became the 
successor and assign of Lawrence Woodworking Company, and, in 
the course of that transfer, certain violations were alleged 
by the War Department which resulted in the issuance of a 
Suspension Order against the successor company ,4-0 Obviously, 
relief from the terms of this order was necessary before 
development work could proceed, as both delivery ratings and 
allocation priorities were- affected. Consequently, at the 
request of the Conservation Division of the War Production 
Board, The Surgeon General's Office, and the Office of the , 
Quartermaster General, temporary relief from Suspension Order 
S-98 was sought, and this was obtained 23 October 194.2,4-1 
It would have been supposed that no further question 
remained as to the impossibility of altering materially the 
outside diameter of the litter poles. Nevertheless, on 2 
November 194-2, the Plymold Corporation wrote The Surgeon 
General's Office, requesting drawings of the fittings in the 
ambulances and planes in which the standard litter was used. 
The reasons given for the request were as follows: 
It is our understanding that the major limit- 
ing factor in the dimensions of the pole are 
set by the fittings used. In the event that 
we have these drawings available, we shall 
bo in a position to determine what possible 
adjustments may be made in design in our poles 
to achieve maximum efficiency,4-2 
63 The request was repeated on 12 November 19-42, and 
five days later The Surgeon General's Office replied: 
In response to your letters of November 
2nd and November 12th, drawings of fittings 
of the ambulance and airplane cannot be fur- 
nished since they are classified documents. 
Fittings are not the only reason why the 
dimensions of the poles are set, A number of 
other factors enter into the size and dimen-? 
sions of the pole, one of which is the pize 
of the loop in the canvas which cannot be 
changed since wo have millions of pieces of 
this canvas already procured. Another is 
the saddle which holds the stirrup in place. 
It is absolutely necessary that dimen- 
sions and specifications as previously given 
to you be complied with. If this cannot be 
done, it is requested that further develop- 
ment of this pole be discontinued,43 
No additional setbacks seem to have been encountered 
after this, and, in the early part of January, 194-3* a set of 
experimental plytube poles were at last completed and shipped 
to the Laboratory for field test.44 From the data at hand it 
does not appear that a written service test report was pre- 
pared by the 32nd Medical Battalion on the Plymold poles, nor 
that the customary formal report was submitted to The Surgeon 
General's Office by the Medical Department Equipment Labo- 
ratory. The only record that was found which described the 
performance of the plytube poles under field conditions was a 
letter from the Director of the Equipment Laboratory, dated 
26 January 1942, and addressed to Paul R. Goldman, President, 
Plymold Corporation, 
With reference to your telegram of 
January 25, I wish to advise that tests of 
your plytube litter poles show them to be 
unsatisfactory for the following reasons: 
a. Poles broke in the center when 
attempts were made to carry a 200 
pound i/eight suspended. 
b, Poles exhibited too much resiliency 
and under load took a permanent sot, 
making it necessary to strap a patient 
to a litter in order to carry same in 
our ambulance upper berth. 
r c. Handle insert is too weak, cither 
breaks off or splits end of pole,45 
Had there been any lingering doubt as to the unsuit- 
ability of plywood tubing for use in standard litters, they were surely dispelled now. 
It appears that all attempts to make a 
circular plywood pole of multiple laminations 
will fail because of the nature of the load 
and the required methods of suspension. We 
have apparently solved the problem by use of 
solid laminated poles using six l/4- inch 
thick laminations properly glued with water- 
proof resin glue.46 
H, White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corporation: Brooklyn. 
New York. 
Zimmer-Thomson Corporation; New York. New York. 
On 10 September 194-2* investigation of magnesium 
alloy, a metal which the Medical Department had not experi- 
mented with for some years, was reopened. The Equipment Labo- 
ratory, in response to a request for information from The 
Surgeon General’s Office, forwarded this data concerning past 
tests of magnesium. 
Reference your telephonic inquiry, this 
date, concerning the use of magnesium alloy 
for litters, I find that a couple of years 
ago we experimented with Dowmetal which is 
composed of magnesium which is alloyed with 
small quantities of aluminum, manganese and 
other metals. 
Tubes of this metal, l-l/2 inches in 
diameter by l/8 inch thickness, as well as 
some solid polos were tested and found they 
lacked in stiffness and resiliency. They •'•r 
bent easily and took a permanent set. 
Correspondence with the Dow Chemical 
Company, at that time, in which they were 
asked for suggestions as to what size Dow* 
metal would have to be used, they stated 
at least 1-3/4- inches by l/8 inch or 2 inches 
by .095 inch wall. As the diameters sug- 
gested were considered too big, and the weight 
then would be the equal of the aluminum pole, 
no further research with this metal was made. 
The above letter did not paint a particularly bright 
picture of the possibilities of magnesium alloy, but the White 
Metal Rolling & Stamping Corporation of Brooklyn, New York, 
which had been engaged in correspondence with The Surgeon 
General's Office regarding this metal, still contended the: 
experiment was worth trying. In the first place, the company 
65 pointed out, there was a good chance that the tests made at 
Carlisle were conducted with a softer magnesium alloy than 
the one now proposed. The J-l alloy currently suggested had, 
according to the company, a high tensile strength, and its 
yield strength could be increased by incorporating some cold 
working into the tube. Furthermore, by adopting a greater 
wall thickness, pole strength could be increased without 
enlarging outside diameter more than a fraction beyond the 
specified dimensions. The concern’s final point was 
especially cogent. 
We have had word that you are converting the 
litter production from aluminum to steel, 
which means that one less man can be carried 
per airplane with steel litters compared to 
magnesium litters with a normal complement 
of 18 litters per plane. Under this circum- 
stance we would believe that it would be 
very important to save this lost payload..,.4$ 
It v/as decided, therefore, by The Surgeon General’s 
Office that the experiment would be carried out as originally 
planned. By the middle of November, 1942, an official request 
was made through the Aluminum and Magnesium Branch of the War 
Production Board for approval of an experimental order of 10 
tubes of magnesium alloy from the White Metal Rolling & 
Stamping Corporation.49 Meanwhile, the Zimmer-Thomson Com- 
pany of New York City had made arrangements with the tube 
manufacturer to assemble the new poles when completed into 
standard aluminum frames. By 19 October 194-2, as a result 
of consultation between the two companies, a final decision 
was reached as to the size of the die from which the tubing 
samples were to be made,50 
Formal authorization from the War Production Board 
did not come through until December, 194-2. Nevertheless, by 
the middle of January of the following year, fabrication of 
the magnesium alloy tubing had been completed, the new poles 
had been inserted into aluminum frames, and the experimental 
litters shipped to the Laboratory at Carlisle for field test,51 
Four days after their arrival, on 19 January 194-3, the Medical 
Department Equipment Laboratory submitted its formal test 
report to The Surgeon General’s Office. Considering allo- 
cation difficulties, which had held up production for nearly 
two months, the development work cooperatively handled between 
the two manufacturers had been completed in a remarkably short 
time. 
The magnesium pole litters were identical in design 
to the old standard aluminum litters, with the following 
exceptions: (l) outside diameter of the magnesium poles v/as 
1-5/8 inches, as compared with l-l/2 inches for the aluminum; (2) wall thickness of the new tubing v/as 10/64- inch, as 
against 7/64- inch for the aluminum tubes; (3) the magnesium 
litter, fully assembled, weighed IB pounds, one pound more 
than the complete aluminum litter. In all other respects the 
two litters were the same. Both types of poles were equipped 
with standard wooden handle inserts, and the undercarriages 
of both litters consisted of the old-style aluminum stirrup 
and spreader bar assembly,52 
Tests of the magnesium pole litter in comparison 
with the aluminum pole litter yielded the following results: 
(l) With the litters placed on a hard floor and 150-pound 
weights applied to each at a central point over the hinges, 
the magnesium pole showed moderate sag, the aluminum pole 
showed none; (2) With a 185-pound man standing on the poles 
over the hinges, the magnesium pole again sagged more than 
the aluminum; (3) With a nan jumping up and down on the lit- 
ters, the aluminum pole remained straight while the magnesi- 
um showed a slight permanent bend; (4-) A 215*pound man was 
placed on each litter, the litters were loaded into the 
upper berths of an ambulance which proceeded at a speed of 
from 5 to B miles per hour over moderately rough terrain. 
When supported by slings, the magnesium pole showed a 
definite bend in the half next to the head while no bend 
was observed in the aluminum pole. With the poles supported 
by brackets, there was very little bend in the magnesium 
pole, none in the aluminum, Sindian tests, using a 170- 
pound man, produced a slight bowing in the magnesium pole 
but none in the aluminum; (5) In testing the litters on the 
floor, there was no bonding in either case under the weight 
of a lB5-pound man; (6) Testing with a four-man carry, with 
a 215-pound patient, and using litter straps to prevent 
bouncing, no permanent bonding was noted in either pole; 
(7) A similar test performed without the use of litter straps 
produced some bowing in the magnesium pole, but no permanent 
bending resulted except when the patient was bounced,53 
Generalizing from the above tests, the Laboratory 
presented these findings: 
The magnesium polo is rather soft and the 
exposed ends are easily damaged, also, frequent 
bending of .the hinge and lateral tv/isting 
because of this softness caused the joint to 
become very loose.,.. 
The magnesium pole litter is heavier, and 
larger than the aluminum pole litter, and will 
not support over 1B0 pounds without strapping 
of the patient to prevent bouncing. 
The metal is softer than aluminum and 
erodes more readily at the joint from frequent 
67 bending and side twisting leaving a wobbly joint.54- 
In conclusion, it was recommended by the Laboratory that the 
magnesium alloy poles be rejected as a substitute item for 
use in the standard litter.55 
The new magnesium poles were subjected to one addi- 
tional series of tests before the investigation was formally 
abandoned. On 2 February 194-3, The Surgeon General’s Office 
received from the Static Test Branch of the Aircraft Labo- 
ratory at Ylright Field a static test report on four of the 
new Zimmer-Thomson magnesium pole models. Loads up to 1,000 
pounds had been applied with the following results; (l) Under 
a 400-pound load, center deflection amounted to 13/l6 inch; 
(2) An additional deflection of approximately 1-3/4 inches 
was obtained for each 200 pounds over and above the 400-pound 
load; (3) Total center deflection under the full 1,000-pound 
load was 6-3/4 inches; (4) The poles did not resume their 
original shape after completion of the tests,56 
I, Conclusion. 
With both plywood and magnesium tubing now elimi- 
nated from further consideration, the tentatively approved 
laminated ?jood pole seemed ready to be processed for stan- 
dardization and procurement. It will be recalled, however, 
that the laminated pole measured l-l/2 inches in diameter, 
as compared with l-l/4 inches for the carbon steel tubing. 
Since, as already pointed out in the Plyraold case, large 
quantities of canvas had been procured according to the stoei 
pole specifications, it was desirable to reduce the diameter" 
size of the new laminated polo to l-l/4 inches if at all 
possible. Therefore, in mid-February, 1943, a last attempt 
was made both to lighten the contemplated Y/ood pole litter 
and also to make it adaptable -to the existing stock of lit- 
ter covers, by decreasing pole size. A 5-ply pole, l-l/4 
inches in diameter, and consisting of l/4 inch birch strips 
was constructed by the National Store Fixture Company, 
Details as to the field tests to which it was subjected are 
lacking. However, the Laboratory reported that the new, 
smaller-dimonsion poles were found to lack the necessary 
rigidity,57 
The failure of this experiment established the 
l-l/2 inch pole designed by the Mikar Specialties Company as 
the wooden pole of choice for the Laboratory at Carlisle, 
and within two months the new laminated poles wove placed 
under procurement by the Medical Department, Since carbon 
steel was, even by this time, still available in adequate 
quantity, it was evident that Medical Department research 
68 and development personnel had won by a comfortable margin 
their second race against time. Ironically, the race had 
been won almost too handily, for a new problem now unex- 
pectedly arose. What v/as to be done with the new laminated 
wood litter? Was it to supersede the standard steel model 
which was still readily procurable, or was it to be held in 
reserve? As we shall see presently, the procurement deci- 
sion that was finally reached was more the product of events 
than of deliberation. 
VII. Standardization and Procurement Phases (2) (The Straight 
Wood Litter: 194,3 Model). 
A. Standardization, 
On 23 December 194-2, the Medical Department Equip- 
ment Laboratory forwarded to The Surgeon General’s Office 
its recommendation that the laminated wood pole be adopted 
as a substitute item for use in the standard litter,5% Dra?/- 
ings and specifications for the new polo were submitted by 
the Laboratory on 8 January 194-3*59 From this point on, 
Medical Department action was once again subject to the stan- 
dardization procedures stipulated in AH 850-25. These regu- 
lations, it will be recalled, specified that complete stan- 
dardization data was to bo prepared by research and develop- 
ment personnel in The Surgeon General's Office, coordinated 
through the Medical Department Technical Committee, and 
forwarded to higher authority for final approval. 
All standardization data, it should be remembered, 
was to include certain specific information relating to pro- 
curement. Of the various procurement factors which, accord- 
ing to regulations, were to be carefully reported upon, two 
are of special interest here. First, detailed information 
was required as to sources of supply for the proposed item. 
The responsible arm or service was to states 
Whether, for the item to be procured for war, 
sources of supply have been investigated and 
the conclusion regarding sufficiency reached 
as a result thereof. 
Whether, if to bo procured from commercial 
sources, the characteristics of the item are 
such as to restrict the procurement to one 
source of supply.^0 
Secondly, careful investigation was to be made of 
production costs. Unit costs were to be listed, with respect 
69 to (a) most recent procurement experience, and (b) estimated 
future requirements.^! 
♦Careful examination of the data at hand does not 
indicate that the laminated straight pole litter was proc- 
essed through any of steps outlined above. As in the ‘ 
case of the straight litter, non-observance of these 
Army Regulations did not produce any noticeable difficulties. 
However, it will presently be seen that, except for a fortui- 
tous circumstance, failure to follow standardization proce- 
dures as specified in AR S50-25. especially the omission of a 
formal and recorded investigation of supply sources and pro- 
duction costs, might well have had a serious effect on subse- 
quent procurement history, 
B. Procurement. 
Although apparently never formally processed for 
standardization, the new straight wood litter was added to 
the Medical Supply Catalog on 15 May 194-3 as a standard item,62 
The initial order for procurement had been placed about three 
weeks earlier, on 2J+ April 194-3? at which time a contract had 
been awarded for the production of 5?363 laminated v/ood lit- 
ters, at a cost of $6,39 each. Delivery of the first 2,000 
litters was remarkably prompt, as shipment was made before 
the close of May, 194-3. Delivery of the remaining 3,363 lit- 
ters, however, was delayed considerably, the litters finally 
arriving 13 September 194-3. Procurement of the straight wood 
litter was thereafter discontinued, and up to the present 
time no further orders have been placed for this item,63 
The immediate cause of this extraordinarily light 
procurement of the laminated wood litter was the restoration 
of aluminum to the War Department list of available production 
materials. On 16 August 194-3, the following Memorandum was 
issued to all Technical Services of the Army by Headquarters, 
Army Service Forces, . 
Paragraph 3. This improvement in the 
availability of aluminum precludes the need 
for further conservation. Items which now 
specify aluminum need not be changed to 
other materials. The Technical Services 
may plan to reinstate aluminum "castings and 
powder from medium and low grade metal where 
less desirable substitutes arc being used. 
To a limited extent such wrought products 
as tubing and sheet, strip, plate, -and foil 
may be used. New uses with these same prod- 
ucts and grades of aluminum may also be 
considered, 64- With aluminum again available, there was little 
question as to the preference of the Medical Department. 
The standard aluminum litter was lighter than the laminated 
wood model, it made use of the standard wooden handle inserts, 
and the aluminum tubing possessed a strength and rigidity- 
clear ly surpassing that of the laminated poles. Thus it was 
that events rather than deliberation decided the fate of the 
straight wood litter. 
However, since the release of aluminum from the 
list of critical materials was largely an unforeseen coinci- 
dence, it is pertinent to any final appraisal of Development 
Project, F-ll to examine a bit further the procurement possi- 
bilities of the straight wood litter. Had aluminum not been 
available at precisely this moment, the question of procur- 
ability of the laminated wood model would have been of the 
utmost importance. The new litter, it will be remembered, 
had been requested by Array Air Forces in place of the 
straight steel. 
In order to understand the rather unusual situation 
which existed in April, 194-3, when the first procurement order 
for the straight wood litter was placed, it is necessary to 
digress for a moment and examine certain changes that had 
taken place since the outbreak of war in Medical Department 
policy with regard to litter development costs. These changes, 
it will be seen presently, had an extremely important effect 
on the competitive bidding which took place in the case now 
under discussion. 
A study of Medical Department correspondence as far 
back as 1939 indicates that, prior to United States entry 
into the war, it was not customary for the Medical Department 
to make monetary payment for litter development work performed 
by private industry. Throughout this period, letters from 
The Surgeon General’s Office to individual manufacturers 
routinely contained the statement that it was to bo under- 
stood that any experimental work undertaken would be at the 
expense of the manufacturer, and without any cost or obli- 
gation whatever on the part of the’ Government. 
As we have already Seen in •''preceding portions of 
this study, during the, latter part of 194-1 and the whole of 
1942 that policy was modified slightly to permit Medical 
Department requisition of sample poles-' or litters at a 
nominal price. In these instances, payment to any one manu- 
facturer seldom' exceeded £10.00 or some comparably modest 
figure. In 1943, however, a more drastic change in devel- 
opment cost policy was initiated. The- new approach was 
set forth with clarity in Procurement Regulation Number 2, 
dated 26 March 1943# , • = 1 ■ 
71 In placing contracts for new articles devel- 
z oped by a manufacturer for War Department use, 
the following principles will be observed: 
1. In general a substantial proportion of the 
initial orders for a new article should be 
placed with the manufacturer who developed 
it, Enough of the volume should be placed 
With other qualified producers, however, 
to develop at least one other experience 
source; except in unusual cases this should 
be a growing production order and not a 
limited quantity educational order, ' 
2, When the originating manufacturer demands 
a price for the item substantially higher 
than the price for which it can be secured 
elsewhere, or will require substantially 
more facilities than some other producer 
in order to get into production, or is 
already heavily loaded with orders, and 
the article can be readily made by one 
or more other producers, the contracts 
for the article shall be placed with such 
producers. In such cases the originating 
manufacturer should be fairly paid for 
his development work as such.6* 
With the above facts in Blind, we may now proceed 
to an examination of the somewhat unusual procurement situ- 
ation which developed with regard to the straight wood lit- 
ter, In a letter to The Surgeon General's Office, dated 
12 January 194-3, Mikar Specialties Company (Division of 
National Store Fixture Company; Baltimore, Maryland), 
designer and originating manufacturer of the new laminated 
litter, stated its position regarding production costs as 
follows; 
In order to price these litters in 
line with your present procurement figures, 
we wish to emphasize the fact that this can 
only be done when the poles themselves are 
manufactured on a mass production basis, 
and a complete litter assembled on the same 
premises, thus eliminating unnecessary bulk 
material shipments and their costs. 
According to specifications as completed, 
or about to be completed, under the direction 
of Col, Quinnell at Carlisle Barracks, we are 
ready to offer production on a contract for 
150,000 litters at the rate of 1,000 per day, 
and on a contract for 250,000 litters, 2,000 
per day.66 nrnfTOTrtTrn 
72 In short, unless an over-all procurement order was 
placed, calling for an extremely large quantity of complete 
litters, this company could not be considered a bidder at 
the price range desired by the Medical Department. That 
‘development expenditures would be added to normal operating 
overhead in arriving at estimated production cost of the 
new litter was indicated in a later communication, dated 30 
march 1943* In reply to a request from the New York Medical 
Depot that the company fill in the negotiation form pertain- 
ing to the experimental litters which it had supplied to the 
Medical Department, Mikar Specialties Company offered this 
explanation: 
We have been holding open this negotiation 
with the thought in mind that our development 
costs could be included in a negotiated con- 
tract with the Medical Department as was pro- 
posed some time ago, and we would be glad to 
follow that procedure. 
In the event that the negotiation for 
quantity procurement of litters involving our 
laminated wood pole cannot be effected, we 
propose to and will be glad to fill in the 
subject negotiation form to correspond to 
our full development costs,67 
The procurement order which was finally placed by 
the Medical Department was, in terms of the above expec- 
tations, disappointingly small. Only 5,363 litters were 
involved in the contract negotiations which took place in 
April, 194-3. As a consequence, Mikar Specialties Company 
was decisively underbid, and the contract for the initial 
production of the nev straight pole litter was, therefore, 
awarded to another manufacturer.68 Mikar Specialties Com- 
pany had, of course, included development as well as pro- 
duction costs in its final estimate. The extent to which 
the former item had inflated the company’s bid can be 
readily seen ¥/hen we examine the itemized bill for devel- 
opment costs alone, which the company submitted to The 
Surgeon General's Office on 6 June 194-3. Costs were 
segregated into two chronological periods, corresponding 
to the periods during which the company had developed: 
(l) the straight wood pole; and (2) a folding wood pole 
(discussed in Chapter III). Development costs from 2 No- 
vember 194-2 to 2 January 194-3, the period which most con- 
cerns us here, were listed at $9,838,52. Total claims, 
covering both litter items, amounted to $34-,9A7.10.69 
These were remarkable figures compared to the sums hither- 
to spent by the Medical Department for experimental work 
by private industry. 
73 Although considerable controversy ensued between the 
Procurement Division of The Surgeon General's Office and Mikar 
Specialties Company over the above claims, a settlement was 
finally reached,70 Under the circumstances these discussions 
might conceivably have resulted in the withdrawal of this key 
manufacturer from the field of litter production, thus serious- 
ly endangering future procurement of the laminated wood litter. 
This, however, did not occur. The company was not only subse- 
quently invited to bid on other litter production, but through 
its own representatives the company continued to solicit invi- 
tations from the Medical Department on all items it was equip- 
ped to manufacture,71 
We now come to our final question. Had neither 
aluminum nor carbon steel been available in 19-43, were the 
sources of supply of the laminated straight polo litter (even 
assuming Mikar Specialties Company remained in the field as 
an active bidder) adequate from a mass production standpoint? 
On this issue, opinion within the Medical Department was at 
the time sharply divided. Research engineers in the Techni- 
cal Division of The Surgeon General's Office contended that 
sources of supply, though limited, were sufficient for large 
scale procurement,72 On the other hand, authorities in the 
Supply Service of The Surgeon General's Office, who had 
supervised negotiations for the initial procurement of the 
item, considered available sources of supply to be so inade- 
quate that, in June 19-44, a definite attempt was made to dis- 
courage further procurement of the item in any quantity. 
In view of the fact that Item 99366 Litter, 
Straight, Wood, M-194-3, Pole, (a component of 
Item 99366 Litter, Straight, Wood, M-194-3) is 
difficult and complicated to manufacture, 
requiring a very high quality of wood, and 
lamination of that wood in long length, pro- 
curement is next to impossible...In view of 
the above, it is recommended that item 99368 
and all indented items thereunder be classi- 
fied limited standard.73 
The above recommendation, it should be noted, was 
never enacted by the Medical Department. Instead, with the 
return of aluminum to the active list, the laminated wood 
straight pole litter was subsequently reclassified in June, 
19-45, to Substitute Standard, This action was taken by the 
Medical Department Technical Committee, with two representa- 
tives of the Supply Service present.74- Apparently at this 
later date, whether through entry of other manufacturers 
into the field or due to some other cause, the question of 
sufficiency of supply sources was no longer a serious point 
of contention. Parenthetically it may bo observed that the 
straight wood litter was never again placed under procure- ment after the initial production order of 24- April 194-3. 
C, Conclusion. 
Had the carbon steel shortage developed as antici- 
pated, and had aluminum not immediately become available in 
so timely a fashion, it can be seen from the above discussion 
that there is still some lingering question as to v/hether, in 
194-3 and 19A4-, the new straight wood litter would have effect 
tively filled the breach. Such a situation, it is evident, 
was fraught with considerable danger, not only for the Medical 
Department, but for the whole system of casualty evacuation 
as well. 
With these possibilities in mind, it is apparent 
that the administrative procedures outlined in AH 850-25 had 
practical value. That regulation had prescribed that, prior 
to formal standardization, detailed information relative to 
sources of supply and production costs be prepared by the 
technical service concerned and forwarded to higher authori- 
ty for review and final approval. Had this been done in the 
present instance, it would have been necessary to obtain 
production cost figures in advance from Mikar Specialties 
Company. Then, had these costs been considered excessive, 
the question of the adequacy of the remaining sources of 
supply would have immediately presented itself. In short, 
any official disagreement regarding the procurability of 
the straight wood litter would have necessarily been 
resolved before standardization could have taken place. 
There is no indication from the data at hand that 
the straight wood litter was processed according to these 
particular provisions of AK B50-25. Instead, the new lit- 
ter appears to have been simply added directly to the Medi- 
cal Supply Catalog as a standard item. In view of subse- 
quent developments (including the hypothetical dangers con- 
sidered above), the wisdom of standardizing Medical Depart- 
ment equipment items merely by publication of supply cata- 
log change notices would seem to be open to question. 
VIII, Evaluation. 
A, The Race Against Time, 
The race against time, as it turned out, was 
illusory. Not only did the anticipated shortage in carbon 
steel fail to develop, but, on 16 August 194-3, aluminum was 
again made available in quantity to the Medical Department. 
75 However, at least in certain respects, research and develop- 
ment personnel had made a good showing. Less than four 
months after this second phase of Development Project. F-ll 
had been initiated, a laminated wood pole had been designed 
and fabricated which was sturdy enough to withstand exten- 
sive field testing, and which had been officially approved 
by the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory as a satis- 
factory substitute for the carbon steel pole. However, the 
procurement side of the picture, especially from a time 
standpoint, was less favorable. The initial production con- 
tract was not awarded until 24- April 194-3, nearly four months 
after final specifications had been prepared and, although 
only a small quantity order was involved, delivery was not 
completed until 13 September In short, from the time 
development work was instituted until the initial procurement 
order was received in full bjr supply depots, an entire calen- 
dar year had elapsed, 
B. The Straight Wood Litter versus The Ash Pole Litter, 
Compared, component for component, the straight wood 
litter was clearly superior to the ash pole litter of World 
War I. To begin with, the new litter was equipped with the 
standard pressed steel undercarriage which, as we have already 
seen in a previous section, had long since supplanted the cast 
iron running gear of the World War I model. Secondly, the 
194-3 litter was equipped with the slip-on type of canvas cover 
which had been preferred over tackcd-on canvas ever since its 
introduction in 1935. Thirdly, the laminated wood poles of 
the new litter, which had carefully been designed for use both 
with the pressed steel undercarriage and the slip-on canvas 
cover, were not only sufficiently rigid and sturdy for field 
use, but were lighter in weight than the solid straight grain 
ash poles. Finally, and this fact conclusively indicates 
Medical Department preference, on 31 July 1943, the ash pole 
litter was formally reclassified to Limited Standard,^ 
C. The Straight Wood Litter versus The Straight Steel 
Litter, 
The straight wood litter and the straight steel 
litter had several points of similarity. Both were equipped 
with pressed steel undercarriages, and both made use of the 
slip-on type of litter cover. To this extent the new lami- 
nated model was merely an imitation of the earlier design. 
The chief difference between the two litters lay in the design 
and construction of the side poles. Here, in terms of strength, 
rigidity, durability, and ease of maintenance, the-carbon steel 
poles with their special ?/ooden handle inserts were regarded by 
the Medical Department as preferable to the laminated wood poles with their turned, integral 
For these reasons, together with the fact that the anticipated 
shortage in carbon steel had not materialized, the straight 
steel litter continued under heavy procurement even after the 
development of the new straight wood litter. 
In terms of weight, however, the wood poles did 
possess a decided advantage. It was this factor which had 
led the Army Air Forces to request that the laminated wood 
litter be substituted for the steel litter as standard equip- 
ment for air evacuation. And it was this factor that ulti- 
mately led to a shift in preference on the part of the Medical 
Department itself. After two years of wartime service, the 
steel litter was no longer regarded as superior to the wood 
litter. Its heaviness was too great a disadvantage so far 
as ground force evacuation was concerned. Accordingly, when 
a general reclassification of Army litters took place on 25 
June the steel litter was dropped to Limited Standard 
while the laminated wood model was given the preferable list- 
ing of Substitute Standard,78 
D. The Straight Hood Litter versus The Straight 
Aluminum Litter. 
As in the case of the steel litter, in many respects 
the wood and aluminum litters were identical. Both were equip- 
ped with the standard pressed steel undercarriage and the slip- 
on canvas cover. Both sets of polos were of approximately the 
same dimension:. The chief difference lay in the construction 
of those side poles, and here the superiority of the straight 
aluminum litter was immediately evident. The aluminum tubes 
were stronger, more rigid, more durable and, because of their 
removable handle inserts, easier to maintain in the field. 
Finally, in contrast to carbon steel, aluminum was as light 
as laminated wood. Both litters weighed approximately 17 
pounds, so the straight wood model no longer possessed a pay- 
load advantage in airplane evacuation. It is not surprising 
to learn, therefore, that with the removal of aluminum from 
the critical list, no further procurement of the new laminated 
litter was attempted. In the general revision of litter 
classifications in June, 194-5, the aluminum model was the only 
straight polo litter to receive the top listing of Standard,79 
E, Procurability of The Straight Wood Litter. 
No final evaluation of the straight wood litter would 
be complete without some reference to the factor of procur- 
ability. While the Medical Department in 1945 reclassified 
this item to Substitute Standard rather than Limited Standard, 
indicating that at this later date production sources wore 
77 considered adequate, the fact remains that in, 194-3 and 1944 
the question of procurability was a subject of genuine con- 
troversy within the Medical Department. Consequently any 
Judgment as to the probable value of the straight wood lit- 
ter in these earlier years—when it might have been urgent- 
ly needed as a substitute for both the aluminum and steel 
litters—depends entirely upon which of two conflicting 
official views was the correct one. 
If, in the summer of 1943, the straight wood litter 
was really procurable in quantity and without excessive cost 
to the Medical Department, then the experimental result of 
this second phase of Development Project, F-ll can be very 
favorably regarded. If, on the other hand, supply sources 
were in fact incapable of meeting the production demands that 
would have been created by a critical shortage of both carbon 
steel and aluminum, then the immediate military value of the 
product of this second investigation is open to question. 
IX, Termination of Development Project. F-ll. 
With carbon steel still available in quantity, and with 
aluminum now removed from the War Department list of critical 
materials, further experimentation in substitute materials 
for the straight pole litter was unnecessary. Consequently, 
on 26 October 1943, the Medical Department Equipment Labo- 
ratory forwarded to The Surgeon General's Office a formal 
statement of satisfactory completion of Development Project. 
F-ll.Less than a week later, on 1 November 1943, recom- 
mendation for discontinuance of this project was concurred 
in by the subcommittee of the Medical Department Technical 
Committee.0! On the following day, official notice was 
given by The Surgeon General's Office that Development 
Project, F-ll should henceforth bo dropped from the monthly 
progress reports of the Equipment Laboratory.82 
X. Conclusion. 
Nov; that the history of Development Project. 
F-ll has boon completed, what general conclusions can bo 
drawn from the data that has been presented? For example, 
what major advances were made in litter design and construc- 
tion? How did these contributions compare with the struc- 
tural modifications introduced in 1916 and 1935? What 
difficulties were encountered in this investigation of 
substitute materials? Were these difficulties recognized by 
the Medical Department? What action, if any, was ultimately 
taken to prevent their. rQcurrprip.p.? 
78 A. Contributions to Straight Pole Litter Development. 
Table II, shown on the following page, indicates 
certain of the major changes that took place in litter design 
and construction from 1916 to 194-3. By glancing through the 
various sections of the table, it will be seen that the year 
1935 was outstanding in number of changes introduced. Com- 
paring the new straight aluminum litter, which was developed 
in that year, with its 1916 predecessor, it will be noted 
that thoroughgoing modifications were made in every important 
litter feature. 
Weight was reduced by 5o- pounds, aluminum was substi- 
tuted for straight grained ash wood in the construction of the 
side poles, pole length was shortened by 13 inches to accomo- 
date the new removable wooden handle inserts which replaced 
the old integral wooden handles of the World War I model. 
Smaller dimension aluminum tubing replaced the relatively 
thick, rectangular-shaped ash pole. Improved design, and the 
substitution of cast aluminum for cast iron, reduced under- 
carriage weight by more than 5 pounds. In place of the cum- 
bersome tacked-on canvas cover of the 1916 litter, hem loops 
were devised to produce a readily adjustable slip-on cover. 
Many of the foregoing improvements, moreover, can be 
regarded as lasting contributions to straight pole litter 
development. The duraluminum side pole, wooden handle inserts, 
slip-on canvas, and basic undercarriage design of the 1935 
model strongly influenced all subsequent litter research and 
remain today, with only minor alteration, important elements 
in Medical Department litter specifications. Because of the 
magnitude of 1935 accomplishments, the advances made under 
Development Project. F-ll may at first glance appear somewhat 
meager. However, on closer examination it will bo scon that 
the long-term results of these later years of research 
activity wore far from negligible. 
In the first place, a carbon steel pole was devel- 
oped in 194-2 which proved to be a remarkably satisfactory 
expedient for use during periods when aluminum was not avail- 
able, From 194-2 to 194-5, this steel pole was procured in 
greater quantity than any polo in American litter history. 
Secondly, in 194-3, a laminated wood pole was developed which 
was especially useful in air evacuation where lightness of 
weight was essential. While never procured in quantity, 
this pole stood up well under combat conditions and, by its 
demonstration of laminated wood possibilities, had a direct 
influence on the later successful development of a double 
folding laminated wood pole which is today an outstanding 
Medical Department item, Although, after its return >vto the ”available” list 
in August, 194-3, aluminum once again became the material of 
choice for straight pole litter construction, the two devel- 
opments mentioned above had, nevertheless, genuine long-term 
significance. With carbon steel and laminated wood as well 
as aluminum to choose from, never again would an unexpected 
critical shortage find the Medical Department as unprepared 
as it was in 1941. 
Perhaps, however, the most outstanding contribution 
of Development Project, F-ll was in the field of undercarriage 
construction. A new stirrup and spreader bar assembly v/as 
produced in 1941 which, although similar in design to the 
1935 model, was constructed of extruded instead of cast 
aluminum. This new assembly.was lighter in weight, sturdier, 
and much more readily procurable than the cast aluminum unit. 
Because of the impending aluminum shortage, however, research 
investigation was continued. 
As a result, in 1942 a pressed steel undercarriage 
was evolved which was scon regarded as superior to both the 
cast end extruded aluminum assemblies. Some time later, a 
universal undercarriage was designed, adapting this pressed 
steel unit to all straight pole litters used by the Medical 
Department. Parenthetically it may be observed that, since 
the termination of Development Project, F-ll, a new and 
improved type of extruded aluminum assembly has been produced 
which is expected eventually to replace pressed stool. Even 
this new development, however, owed much to the experimen- 
tation with extruded aluminum that was initiated in 1941. 
B• The Development of Testing Iroccdurcs. 
According to the provisions of All 550-25. newly 
developed items of equipment should ordinarily bo subjected 
to both engineering and service tests before being accepted 
for standardization. How well did the Medical Department 
discharge these obligations during ho course of Development 
Project, F-ll? What trends, if any, can bo discerned? To 
what extent has current Medical Department practice been 
directed toward remedying the defects noted in those earlier 
years? 
The evolution of field testing procedures falls 
roughly into two periods. During tho first period, which 
coincides with tho development of the straight stool lit- 
ter, reporting policies were fairly elaborate. As the pre- 
ceding historical account has shown, the typical reporting 
procedure during 1941 and the early part of 1942 was: 
(l) issuance of a formal, written request from the Medical 
Department Equipment Laboratory to the 32nd Medical Bat- TABLE II 
EVOLUTION CF THE STRAIGHT POLE LITTER (1916-1943) 
Explanation of Symbols. 
I. The Ash Pole Litter (1916) 
II. The Straight Aluminum Litter (1935) 
III. The Straight Aluminum Litter (194-1) 
IV, The Straight Steel Litter (194-2) 
V, The Straight Uood Litter (194-3) 
VI, The Straight Aluminum Litter (1943) 
1. Litter T£eight. 
le 
22.00 
lbs. 
II. 
15 o 50 
ibs. 
III. 
15.10 
lbs. 
IV. 
22.00 
lbs, 
V. 
17 o 00 
lbs. 
VI. 
lo 
lO 
55 
i 
lbs.. 
2- Litter Poles. 
Construction 
Length 
Shape and Thickness Handles 
I. 
Straight-grained ash 
90 in„ 
rectangular; 2 x integral; Y/ood, 
1-1/2 in. 
II. 
Duraluminum tubing 
77 in. 
circular; 1.54. CD* inserts; Y/ood., 
III. 
Duraluminum tubing 
77 in. 
circular; 1.54- CD inserts; Y/ood. 
IV. 
Carbon steel tubing 
77 in. 
circular; 1.25 0D inserts; Y/oodD 
V. 
6-ply laminated birch 
90 in. 
square; rounded integral; v/ood, 
edges; l-l/2 diameter 
VI. 
Duraluminum tubing 
77 in. 
circular; 1.54- CD inserts, wood. 
3. Undercarriage 
Construction 
V/eight (per litter) 
I. 
Cast iron 
10,00 lbs. 
II, 
Cast aluminum 
4,56 lbs. 
III, 
Extruded aluminum 
4.16 lbs. 
IV, 
Pressed steel 
7.00 lbs. 
V. 
Pressed steel 
7,00 lbs. 
VI, 
Pressed steel 
7.00 lbs. 
4. Li' ter Cover, 
I. 
Tacked-on canvas 
II. 
Siin-on canvas 
III. 
Slip-on canvas 
IV. 
Slip-on canvas 
V. 
Slip-on canvas 
VI. 
Slip-on canvas 
*0utside diameter. talien to subject a given item to certain specified field 
tests; (2) submission of a detailed test report by the 32nd 
Medical Battalion to the Medical Department Equipment Labo- 
ratory; (3) forwarding of a final, comprehensive report by 
either the Medical Department Board or the 1 cdical Depart- 
ment Equipment Laboratory to The Surgeon General's Office 
for review and final action. 
There were three main advantages to this somewhat 
complex system of formal reporting. First, these detailed 
reports provided an adequate basis for intelligent review 
by The Surgeon General's Office, as well as a check on the 
performance of the 32nd Medical Battalion and the Medical 
Department Equipment Laboratory. Secondly, in those 
instances where, in addition to formal recommendations, 
specific suggestions were included in these reports for the 
improvement of an item, manufacturers were given something 
tangible to work on, and were thus able to focus their 
efforts more efficiently on the problem at hand. Finally, 
these reports afford us today our only recorded information 
as to the individual tests employed, the manner in which they 
were executed, and the changes in testing procedure that were 
introduced in these early years of the war. 
In contrast to the highly organized procedures 
described above, reporting policy during the second period 
covered by this study, which extended from September, 194-2, 
through February, 1943, exhibits no clear or uniform pat- 
tern. Judging from the data at hand, the Medical Depart- 
ment Equipment Laboratory abandoned altogether its practice 
of issuing detailed testing instructions to the 32nd Medi- 
cal Battalion during this latter period. Furthermore, in 
only one instance is there evidence of the preparation by 
the testing agency of a comprehensive written report of 
field test results. As would be expected, these omissions 
resulted in a decided lowering of quality of the final 
Laboratory reports to The Surgeon General's Office, In 
many of these reports it can only bo assumed that extensive 
field tests were conducted. In others, the recorded test 
results were too imprecisely expressed to permit a sound 
technical appraisal and review of the recommendations made. 
In one instance it appears that no formal report was submit- 
ted to The Surgeon General's Office, field tost results 
having been instead conveyed directly to the manufacturer 
by letter. 
\ 
Since our knowledge of testing procedures is so 
closely related to methods of reporting, it is not surpris- 
ing that the trend in actual field testing resembles to a 
marked degree the pattern described above. Beginning in 
the summer of 194-1, experimental straight pole litters were subjected simply to a short series of very mild, more 
or less improvised service tests. With the passage of time, 
however, these field tests became progressively more compre- 
hensive and more rugged. By the close of 1941, a highly 
systematized and’standardized testing procedure had been 
evolved, simulating with remarkable fidelity actual combat 
handling of the litter. The year, 1942, on the other hand, 
witnessed a downward trend in scientific field testing. In 
the light of recorded data, comprehensive testing procedures 
seem to have been only sporadically and partially applied 
and, in some cases, completely omitted. Under such condi- 
tions, it is evident that there could be less real assur- 
ance as, to the future serviceability of any newly developed 
item,. ■ ■ 
As for engineering tests there appears to have; been, 
during the period covered by this account, scarcely any regu- 
larized procedure. Judging from the formal reports submitted 
to The Surgeon General’s Office, separate engineering tests 
were not conducted by the Equipment Laboratory. Occasionally, 
as in the cases of Republic Steel Corporation and Hcrmsdorf 
Fixture Manufacturing Company, certain rigidity tests were 
independently and voluntarily performed by contributing manu- 
facturers, At times those results were incorporated into 
final Medical Department reports; often they were omitted. 
In the latter part of 1942, however, a new procedural prac- 
tice was introduced. Newly developed plywood and laminated 
wood litter poles were forwarded to the Static Test Labo- 
ratory at Wright Field for engineering test. These tost 
reports were then reviewed before a final decision as to 
standardization was reached by The Surgeon General's Office. 
That the Medical Department has cone to recognize 
more and more the importance of engineering tests, and has 
sought to continue the trend which was initiated toward the 
close of 1942, is indicated by the altogether new approach 
that has been adopted in currant litter projects. The 1945 
investigations of the straight pole litter have included a 
genuine attempt to tost and analyze the physical properties 
of the metal under consideration. Since it is felt that the 
Equipment Laboratory at present lacks the facilities needed 
for thoroughgoing engineering tests, the cooperation of 
large manufacturers adequately equipped for the task has 
been enlisted, 
C, Problems of Administrative Coordination, 
It has already been noted how, on several occasions, 
the War Production Board extended its jurisdiction over Medi- 
cal Department research and development well beyond the usual 
limits of conservation of critical materials and the issuance of priorities for experimental purposes. In one instance, 
the War Production Board in effect initiated an actual limi- 
ted production contract, and then proceeded to exercise 
supervisory control over' the development work that followed. 
This problem, as we shall see in a subsequent chapter, 
largely disappeared after the establishment, in the Commerce 
Department, of the National Inventor’s Council, Originally 
designed to serve as a clearing house for unsolicited ideas, 
blueprints, and pilot models submitted by individuals to the 
Federal Government, this organization eventually came to be 
used also as a means of discouraging the assumption of 
research and development functions by such independent 
agencies as the War Production Board, By referring these 
agencies to the National Inventors Council as the proper 
channel for clearance of their research ideas, the Medical 
Department was able to eliminate much jurisdictional over- 
lapping with its consequent breakdown in administrative 
coordination. 
It has been observed on numerous occasions how a 
lack of proper coordination between The Surgeon General’s 
Office and the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory 
resulted in considerable duplication of effort and unneces- 
sary added expense to the private manufacturer. This defici- 
ency was subsequently recognized by the Medical Department 
and, in the latter part of 194-4-, a system of liaison visits 
between these two agencies was established on a bi-wockly 
basis.86 On 3 February 194-5? the visits were put on a 
weekly basis, and representatives were required to prepare 
itemized reports of conferences held and agreements reached, 
This new procedure has served to eliminate to a large extent 
the parallel action which characterized so many of the joint 
activities of these agencies during 194d and 194-2. 
Finally, it has been pointed out throughout the ! 
preceding sections how the failure to conform to the pro- 
cedures outlined in AR 850-25 could affect research and 
development results. In the case of Mikar Specialties 
Company wo have seen, for example, how potentially serious pro- 
duction problems may result simply from a faulty adminis- 
tration of standardization procedures. These procedural 
weaknesses were likewise recognized and dealt with effec- 
tively by the Medical Department in later years. Before 
the close of 194-3, as a result of concrete proposals made 
by research and development officials in The Surgeon 
General’s Office, steps had been taken to insure conformance 
with the provisions of AR 850-25. 17ith the establishment, . 
in February, 194-4-, of the Technical Division it can be said 
that the initiation and termination of Medical Department 
development proj.octs, as well as the standardization of 
Medical Department items, were thereafter carried out in 
close conformance with Army Regulations, D. The Evolution of Development Cost Policy• 
From 1939 until the latter part of 194-1, the 
Medical Department followed the policy of allowing no mone- 
tary payment for litter development work performed by private 
industry. This attitude was subsequently modified to permit 
the requisitioning, at a nominal figure, of sample experi- 
mental items. By the early part of 1943, however, Medical 
Department policy was further liberalized to conform to the 
latest Procurement Regulations, 
Under this new system, the manufacturer credited 
with successful development of an item was permitted to add 
development cost to production cost in arriving at a final 
bid for initial production of the item. Unless this bid was 
"substantially higher" than competing bids, the contract for 
the major portion of this initial production was to be 
awarded to the "originating" manufacturer. If, on the other 
hand, this bid was substantially higher than other bids, the 
production contract would be awarded elsewhere, and the 
originating manufacturer would be "fairly paid" for his 
development work as such.^8 
Some of the practical difficulties which could 
arise from application of this procurement regulation were 
vividly illustrated in the case of Mikar.Specialties Com- 
pany. The lessons learned from this experience wore at 
least two in number: (l) The inflation of bids for initial 
production contracts by the inclusion of development costs, 
tended to eliminate the originating manufacturer from 
effective bidding competition unless development costs were 
very conservatively estimated. Thus, not only might the 
manufacturer most familiar with an item be, in effect, bar- 
red from its production, but by the elimination of this 
manufacturer sources of supply could be seriously narrowed, 
(2) Negotiation regarding development cost would not begin 
until the manufacturer had actually failed to obtain an 
initial production contract. Then the disgruntled manu- 
facturer would be asked to submit a bill covering his 
development expenses. This, it will be appreciated, was 
scarcely the ideal atmosphere for compromise. 
These two problems, both of which were of a recur- 
ring nature, were eventually solved by the Medical Depart- 
ment in the early part of 1944. At that time a policy of 
advance negotiation of development contracts was Instituted, 
Under this new system, development work was carefully out- 
lined in advance, and a specific cost figure agreed upon. 
Since development costs v/ere thus determined before the 
project had even begun, and were separated by contract from 
later production questions, inflated production bids were 
no longer necessary. Thus, not only might development costs 
be kept within a more manageable limit, but the competitive 
clement could be restorqjL jyv industrial bidding for Medical 
Department requirements JciEol 1x101 iiJL> FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER II 
Heflebower, pp. cit., pp. 1-10. The detailed litter 
descriptions which follow were obtained from this 
historical account, * " 
p. 2. 
3 
Heflebower, op, cit.g p, 3. 
' U 
Heflebower, pp, cit., p. 6, * 
5 
Ibid., p, 6, 
6 
See Table I, following p. 16, 
7 
Ltr, to The Commandant, M.F.S.S., fr, S.G.O.,, 26 Feb. 
1923 (M.D.E.L.). 
i 
3 
Heflebower, pp. pit., p, 6, 
McKinney, G, L., Col,, M.C., U.S.A., "Some Recent Activities 
and Developments at the Medical Department Equipment Labo- 
ratory, n The Army Medical Bulletin No. 3?, Oct. 1936, p,. 4-5. 
10 
Ltr. to S.G.O,, fr. M.D.E.Lc, 17 Jul. 194-1? subject: 
'‘Litter, Substitute for Standard" (M.D.E.L.). 
. p. 2, 
I 
12 
4-th Ind. to N.Y. Medical Depot, fr, S.G.O., 19 Dec. 194-15 
basic: Ltr, to CG, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., fr. N.Y. Medical 
Depot, 10 Nov, 194-11 subject: "Medical Dept, Tentative 
Specification No, L416-A" (A.M.R, & D. Bd.), 
13 
Ltr. to S,G,0,; fr, M.DWELL-., 17 Jul, 194-11 subjects 
"Litter, Substitute for Standard," p, 2 (M.D.E.L.), 
. to Offace of Production Management, fr, S.G.O., 8 
Apr, 194-11 fobjects "Zimmer Mfg. Co," (A.M.R. & D. Bd,). 
15 
Conservation Directive No, 34-, "Conservation of Aluminum," 
Office of Under Secy, of War, 12 Jan. 19-42• l6AR 850-25. Sec. 10-d, 23 Jul. 1936. 
17 
Medical Department Research Program. Fiscal Year 194.1* 3 Apr. 
1941, CONFIDENTIAL, p. A3 (Rec. Rm., S.G.O. 700.2-1). 
Extracted in clear. 
18 
AR 850-25. Sec, 5, 23 Jul.,1936. 
19 
Minutes of Meeting of Medical Department Technical Commit4: ee 
(hereafter cited as Min, of M.D.T.C.). 28 Nov. 194-0 and 17 
Mar. 194-1, respectively (Hist. Div,, S.G.O.). 
20 
Medical Department Research Program. Fiscal Year 1941» 3 Apr. 
1941, CONFIDENTIAL, p. A3 (Rec. Rm., S.G.O. 700.2-1). 
Extracted in clear. 
21 
Ltr, of transmittal to T.A.G., fr. S.G.O,, 3 Apr. 1941; 
subject: "Medical Department Research Program" (Rec. Rm., 
S.G.O. 700.2-1). 
oo 
A 
1st Ind. to S.G.O,, fr. A.G.O., 9 Apr. 1941; basic: see n. 
21 (Rec. Rm., S.G.O. 700.2-1), 
23 
Medical Department Research Program, Fiscal Year 19A1, 
3 Apr. 1941, .CONFIDENTIAL, p, A3 (Rec, Rm.,' S.G.O. 700.2-1). 
Extracted in clear, 
2A 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L,, 17 Jul, 1941; subject; "Litter 
Substitute for Standard," p, 1 (M.D.E.L.), ■ : 
2$ . 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr, American Red Cross, Natl. Hq,,' V/afeh., 
D.C., 16 Aug, 1939 (Rec. Rm., S.G.O, 44-2.-7 Carlisle Bks.-N). 
26 
Ltr, to Asst. Chf. of Staff, G-2, Wash., D.C., fr. American 
Embassy, Office of Military Berlin, Germany, A Mar. 
1941 (Rec, Rm., S.G.O. 442.-7). 
27 
1st Ind, to Asst. Chf, of Staff, G-2, Wash., D.C., fr. Office 
of Military Attache', Ottawa, Canada, 6 May 19411 basic| Ltr. 
to Military Ctna.va, Canada, fr. W.D.G.S., Military 
Intelligence Div,, (V2, 23 Apr, 194-1; subject: "Metal 
Litter" (A.MAI, &'d. Ed.). 
2S 
Memo, to Capt. A„ H. Jackman, G-3, Wash,, D.C., fr, S.G.O,, 
22 Oct, 1941; subject: "Comment on the Stiglcr Stretcher" 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). REbTRiCIjAJ 
86 29 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 17 Jul, 19415 subject: 
’'Litter, Substitute for Standard," p. 2 (M.D.E.L.). 
p, 2. 
p, 2. 
32 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L., fr. N.Y. Medical Depot, 29 Aug. 1940; 
subject: "Formed Steel Tube Institute" (M.D.E.L,), 
to Republic Steel Corp,, fr. M.D.E.L., 31 Oct. 1940 
(M.D,E,L.)• 
to 32nd Medical Bn., fr. M.D.E.L,, 19 Feb. 19415 
subject: "Test of Steel Litter Poles" (M.D.E.L.), 
3*5 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L., fr. William L. Vogt, Capt., M.C., U.S.A., 
undatodj subject: "Test of Steel Litter Poles" (M.D.E.L,), 
to Republic Steel Corp., fr, M.D.E.L., 10 Jun.’ 1941 
(M.D.E.L,). 
to S.G.O., fr, M.D.E.L., 17 Jul. 1941; subject; 
"Litter, Substitute for Standard," p. 3 (M.D.E.L.)* 
38Ibid.. p. 3. 
39 
Report of the Medical Department Board, M.F.S.S., 3 Jan. 
1942, p. 3 (M.D.E.L.). This report hereafter cited as 
Rpt. of M.D. Bd. 
to CO, 32nd Medical Bn,, fr, M.D.E.L., 4 Oct. 1941? 
subject: "Test of Zimmer Litter as Substitute for Standard" 
(M.D.E.L.). 
to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L,, 17 Jul. 1941; subject: 
"Litter, Substitute for Standard," p, 3 (A.M.R. & D. Bd,), 
to CO, 32nd Medical Bn.,‘fr. M.D.E.L,, 26 Jun, 1941; 
subject: "Test of New Type (Zimmer) Litter as Substitute 
for Standard, Straight Pole," p. 1 (M.D.E.L.). 
43 
Robinson, op, cit.. p, 5.  to CO, 32nd Medical Bn., fr. M.D.E.L., 26 Jun. 1941; 
subject: "Test of New Type (Zimmer) Litter as Substitute 
for Standard, Straight Pole," p. 2 (M.D.E.L.). 
to M.D.E.L., fr. 32nd Medical Bn., 11 Jul. 1941; 
subject: "Testing of Zimmer Litter" (M.D.E.L.). 
/ 
~^Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 17 Jul. 1911; subject: 
"Litter, Substitute for Standard," pp. 3-5 (M.D.E.L.). 
47Ibid.. p. 5. 
8Ibid.. p. 5. 
9Ibid., p,. 5. 
50 
Ltr, to Revere Products Corp,, Phoenix, N. Y., fr. M.D.E.L., 
19 Jul. 1941 (M.D.E.L.). 
to CO, 32nd Medical Bn,, fr. M.D.E.L,, 4 Oct. 1941; 
subject: "Test of Zimmer Litter as Substitute for Standard," 
p. 1 (M.D.E.L.). 
52Ryt. of M. D. Bd., M.F.S.S., 3 Jan. 1942, p. 4 (M.D.E.L.). 
53 
Report: Test of Litter. Substitute for Standard, 32nd 
Medical Bn., 19 Sep. 1941 (M.D.E.L.). 
Test of Litter, Substitute for Standard, 32nd Medical 
Bn., 23 Oct. 1941 (M.D.E.L.). 
r £ 
supplemental Report. 32nd Medical Bn., 27 Oct, 1941 (M.D.E.L.). 
56 
Ltr, to Maj, Crawford F. Sams, M.D., Ft, Benning Ga,, fr, 
S.G.O., 6 Aug, 1941; subject: "Test of Experimental Litters" 
(A.M.R. & D, Bd.). ■; 
57 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. Superior Sleeprite Corp., Chicago, 111., 
14 Oct. 1941 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
Ltr. to CO, 32nd Medical Bn., fr. M.D.E.L,, 4 Oct. 1941; 
subject: "Test of Zimmer Litter as Substitute for Standard," 
p. 1 (M.D.E.L. ) • rM-i.^nmr\Y/^nnT7r 
88 59 
Ltr. to Academic Dept., Infantry School, Ft. Benning, Ga., 
fr. S.G.O., 5 Nov. 194-1 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
to Superior Sleeprite Corp., Chicago, 111., fr, 
S.G.O., 15 Nov. 194-1 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
Test of Litters. Substitute for Standard. 32nd 
Medical Bn., 7 Nov. 194-1 (M.D.E.L.). 
S2 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 17 Dec, 194-1; subject: 
"Litter Poles, Metal" (M.D.E.L.). 
of M.D. Bd.. M.F.S.S., 3 Jan. 194-2, p. 3 (M.D.E.L.). 
to S.G.O., fr. Howe Folding Furniture Inc., N.Y.C., 
B Sep. 194-1 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
65 
Ltr. to Howe Folding Furniture Inc., fr, S.G.C., 10 Sep, 
1941 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
to CO., 32nd Medical Bn., fr. M.D.E.L., 31 Oct, 1911; 
subject: "Test of Litters, Substitute for Standard" (M.D.E.L.), 
to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 24- Nov.. 194-1; subject: "Howe 
Litter" (A.M.R, & D. Bd.). 
68 
Report: Test of Litters. Substitute for Standard. 32nd 
Medical Bn,, 7 Nov. 1941? p. 1 (M.D.E.L.). 
69Ibid., p. 2. 
70 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 24- Nov. 194-1; subject: "Howe 
Litter," pp. 2-3 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
to S.G.O., fr. Howe Folding Furniture Inc., N.Y.C., 
5 Dec. 194-1 (A.M.R. & D. Bd,). 
of M.D. Bd., M.F.S.S., 3 Jan. 194-2, p. 1 (M.D.E.L.). 
n, 6B. . . 
Test of Litters. Substitute for Standard, 32nd 
Medical Bn., 7 Nov. 194-1* pp. 1-2 (M.D.E.L.), 
89  to The President, M.D. Bd., fr. M.D.E.L., 30 Dec, 194-1; 
subject: "Litter, Substitute for Standard" (M.D.E.L,)• 
76Rpt. of M.D. Bd.. M.P.S.S., 3 Jan. 1942, p. 8 (M.D.E.L.). 
77Ltr, to M.D.E.L,, fr. Simmons Co., N.Y.C., 30 Jan. 1942 
(M.D.E.L.). 
no 
Ltr, to CO, 32nd Medical Bn., fr. M.D.E.L,, 3 Fob, 1942; 
subject: "Test of Simmons Litters" (M.D.E.L.). 
79Report: Test of Simmons Litter. 32nd Medical Bn., (M.D.E.L.), 
80Ltr. to M.D.E.L,, fr, S.G.C,, 18 Apr. 1942; subject: "Litter" 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
5>-i 
x2d Ind, to S.G.O,, fr, M.D.E.L,, 8 May 1942; basic: see 
n. 80 (M.D.E.L,). 
82 
Ltr. to S.G.O,, fr, Ellwood Products Gorp,, Ellwood City, 
P., 21 May 1942 (A.M.R, & D. Bd.). 
83 
2d Ind, to S.G.O,, fr, M.D.E.L., 28 May 1942; basic: see n 82 
(A.M.R. & D. 3d.). 
Progress Report, M.D.E.L., 1 May 1942 to 9 Jun. 
1942, p. 8 (M.D.E.L.). 
85lst Ind. to Hist, Div., S.G.O., fr. A.M.P.O., 25 Jan, 1945; 
basic: Ltr, to A.M.P.O., fr. Hist, Div,, 22 Jan. 1945 
(Hist, Div., S.G.O.), 
Monthly Progress Report. M.D.E.L., Dec, 1941,' p. 11 (M.D.E.L.). 
87AR 850-25. Secs, 4, 8, and 13, 23 Jul. 1936. 
Op 
° S.G.O, Circular Letter 143, 3 Nov, 1942, 
89 
Mist Ind. to Hist, Div., S.G.O., fr. A.M.F.O., 25 Jan, 1945; 
basic: Ltr. to A.M.P.O., fr. Hist. Div,, S.G.O., 22 Jan, 
1945 (Hist. Div., S.G.O.). 
9°Ibid.. p. 2. 
90 91 
Robinson, op. cit,, p, 6. 
92 
Procurement Status Report. 30' Sep. 194-3; cited in Robinson, 
op. cit. 
93 
1st Ind. to Hist, Div,, S.G.O., fr, A.M.P.O., 25 Jan, 1945; 
basic: Ltr. to A.M.P.C., fr. Hist, Div., S.G.O., 22 Jan, 
1945 (Hist. Div., S.G.O.). 
Progress Report, M.D.E.L., Doc, 1941, p. 11 
(i.i• D,E,L.). 
95 
Memo, to S.G.C., fr. Office of Under Secy, of T/ar, 3 liar. 
1942; subject; "Conservation of Aluminum" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
96Rpt. of M.D. Bd.. M.F.S.S., 3 Jan. 1942, p. 8 (M.D.E.L.). 
97 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. Zimmer-Thomson Corp,, N.Y.C., 8 Jun, 
1942 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
of M.D. Bd.. M.F.S.S., 3 Jan. 1942, pp. 3-4 (M.D.E.L.). 
99 
Ibid., p, 4. 
op. cit., p, 6. 
of M.D.T.C., 25 Jun. 1945, SECRET (Hist. Div., S.G.O.). 
Extracted in clear. 
3 
Monthly Progress Report, M.D.E.L., Apr. 1942, p. 10 (M.D.E.L.). 
Ind, to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 8 May 1942; basic: Ltr. to 
M.D.E.L., fr. S.G.O., 18 Apr. 1942; subject: "Litter" 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
Monthly Progress Report. M.D.E.L., 10 Jun. to 9 Jul. 1942, 
p. 8 (M.D.E.L.). 
. to Col, Page, 3.G.O., fr, C. F, Shook, Col., M.C., 
U.S.A., 26 Aug. 1942 (Roc. Rm., S.G.O. 442.-7). 
Progress Report, M.D.E.L.. 10 Sep. to 9 Oct. 1942, 
p. 6 (M.D.E.L.)•  to M.D.E.L., fr. S.G.O., 4 Sep. 1942; subject: ’’Litter, 
New Model” (M.D.E.L.). 
Ind. to S.G.O,, fr. M.D.E.L., 16 Sep, 1942; basic: see 
n. 8 (M.D.E.L.). 
10T,., 
Ibid. 
1:lIbld.. pp. 2-3. 
12Ibid., p. 3. 
— 
to S.G.C., fr. M.D.E.L., 28 Sep. 1942; subject: 
"F-ll, Plywood Litter Pole, Lawrence Boodworking Co." 
(M.D.E.L.). 
to Lt, Col. M. E. Griffin, fr. S.G.O,, undated . 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
Ltr, to S.G.O,, fr. M.D.E.L., 1 Oct. 1942; subject: ’’Litter 
Poles, Plywood” (M.D.E.L.). 
l6_-, . 
Ibid., p. 1. 
17 
Ltr. to Conservation Div., W.I.B., Hash., D.C., fr. Herms- 
dorf Fixture Mfg. Co., Manchester, N.H., 5 Nov. 1942 
(A.M.R, & D, Bd.). 
18 
Ltr. to Hermsdorf Fixture Mfg. Co., Manchester, N.H., fr, 
S.G.O., 16 Nov. 1942 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
’ l • 
19 
Test Sheet Enclosures to ltr, to Conservation Div., W.F.B., 
Waph., D.G,, fr. Hermsdorf Fixture' Mfg. Co., Manchester, 
N.H., 23 Nov. 1942 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
20 
Test Shoet Enclosure to ltr. to Zimmer Mfg, Co., Warsaw, 
Ind., fr. Republic Steel Coro., Cleveland, Ohio, 13 Dec. 
1940 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
21 ’ '■ 
Ltr. to Conservation Div., W.P.B., Hash., D.C., fr, Hermsdorf 
Fixture Mfg. Co,, Manchester, N.H., 23 Nov, 1942 (A.L.R. 
& D. Bd.). 
92 22 
Ltr. to Conservation Div,, W.P.B., Wash., D.C., fr, 
Hermsdorf Fixture Mfg. Co,, Manchester, N.H., 28 Nov, 
194-2 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
23Ltr. to S.G.O,, fr. M.D.E.L., 5 Dec. 1942; subject: "Ply- 
wood Litter loles" (M.D.E.L,), 
2^Ibid. 
23Ibid. 
26 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L., fr. Weaver Piano Co. Inc., York, Pa., 
14 Nov, 1942 (M.D.E.L.). 
27 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr. Weaver Piano Co. Inc., York, Pa., 27 
Nov, 1942 (A.M.R, & D. Bd.). 
"'Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L,, 23 Dec. 1942; subject: 
"Laminated Litter Poles," p. 1 (M.D.E.L.), 
29 
"Ltr, to Weaver Piano Co, Inc., York, Pa., fr. M.D.E.L., 
30 Dec. 1942 (M.D.E.L.). 
30 
Ltr. to Lex Bruzaud, Wash., D.C., fr, S.G.O., 31 Oct. 
1942 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
31 
Ltr, to M.D.E.L,, fr. CO, 32nd Medical Bn., 22 Dec. 1942; 
subject: "Test of Experimental Plywood Litter" (M.D.E.L.). 
32Ibid. 
33Ibid. 
3^Ltr..to ,S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 23 Dec. 1942; subject: 
"Laminated Litter Poles," p. 1 (M.D.E.L,), 
35 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr, A.A.F., Hq., Material Command, !Jash., 
D.C., B Mar. 1943; subject: "Litter, Straight, Laminated 
. Wood Pole" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.)* 
86 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr. Hq., A.A.F., Wash., D.C., 16 Mar, 1943; 
subject: "Litter, Straight Pole Laminated Wood" (A.M.R, 
& D. Bd.). 
93 37 
Telegram to S.G.O., fr. Plymold Corp., Lawrence, Mass., 
30 Sep. 1942 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
38 
Ltr, to Plymold Corp,, Lawrence, Lass., fr. S.G.C., 1 Oct, 
1942 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
39 
Ltr, to Plymold Corp., Lawrence, Mass., fr, S.G.O., 1 Oct, 
1942 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
of ltr, to Plymold Corp., Lawrence, Mass., fr. Ernest 
Kanzler, Dir, Gen, for Operations, 23 Oct. 1942 (A.M.R. & 
D. Bd.). 
42 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr, Plymold Corp., Lawrence, Mass., 2 Nov, 
1942 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
43 
Ltr. to Plymold Corp., Lawrence, Lass., fr, S.G.O., 17 Nov, 
1942 (A.M.R, & D. Bd.). 
44 
Telegram to Concervation Div., W.P.B., Mash., D.C., fr. 
Plymold Corp., Lawrence, Mass,, 25 Jan. 1943 (A.M.R, & 
D. Bd.). 
45 
Ltr. to Plymold Corp., Lawrence, Mass., fr. Dir., M.D.E.L., 
26 Jan. 1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
6Ibid. 
47 
Ltr. to S.G.C., fr, M.D.E.L., 10 Sep. 1942; subjects 
"Litter, New Materials for” (M.D.E.L.). 
48 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr. White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp,, 
Brooklyn, N. Y.r 17 Sep. 1942 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
49 
Ltr. to Aluminum & Magnesium Branch, W.P.B., Wash., D.C., 
fr. S.G.O., 14 Nov. 1942; subjects "Tubes of Magnesium 
or Magnesium Alloys” (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
50 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp., 
Brooklyn, N. Y., 19 Oct. 1942 (A.M.R, & D. Bd.). 51 
Ltr. to CG, Middletown Air Depot, Middletown, Pa., fr, 
M.D.E.L., 15 Jan; 1943; subject: ’’Experimental Litters’1 
(M.D.E.L.) • 
52 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 19 Jan, 1943; subject: 
’’Report on Magnesium Pole Litter" (M.D.E.L,). 
53 
Ibid., pp, 1-2. 
p. 2. 
55 
Ibid., p. 2. 
56 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. A.A.F., Kq,, Materiel Command, Wash., 
D.C., undated (received by S.G.O. on 2 Feb. 1943); subject: 
"Magnesium Pole Litters" (A.M.R. & D. B,d.)« 
57 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L.. 10 Feb, to 28 Feb. 1943, 
p. 5 (U.D.E.L.). 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 23 Dec. 1942; subject: 
"Laminated Litter Poles" (M.D.E.L.). 
59 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L.. 10 Dec. to 9 Jan. 
1943, p. 6 (M.D.E.L.). 
60AR 850-25. Sec. 17, 23 Jul. 1936. 
-Ibid., Sec. 17. 
Circular Letter 103, 15 May 1943. 
63 
1st Ind. to Hist. Div., S.G.O., fr. A.M.P.O., 25 Jan. 1945; 
basic: Ltr, to A.M.P.0,, fr. Hist. Div., S.G.O,, 22 Jan, 
1945 (Hist, Div., S.G.O,). 
64 
Memo, to S.G.O,, fr. Production Div., Hq., A.S.F., 16 Aug. 
1943; subject: "Use of Aluminum by Army (excluding A.A.F.) 
for Balance of 1943 and 1944,” paragraph 3 (A.M.R & D. Bd,)* 
65 
Procurement Regulation No. 2, 26 liar, 1943, Sec. II, Contract 
Placement; paragraph 224, Contracts for Newly Developed 
Articles, 66 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr, Mikar Specialties Co., National Store 
Fixture Co., Baltimore, lud., 12 Jan, 194-3 (A.U.R. & D. Bd,), 
67 
ltr, to N. Y, Medical Dept. Procurement District, 
N.Y.C., fr. Mikar. Specialties Co., Baltimore, lid., 30 liar, 
1943 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
68 
1st Ind, to S.G.O., fr, N. Y, Medical Dept. Procurement 
District, N.Y.C., B Jul. 194-3; basic: Ltr, to N, Y, Medical 
Dept. Procurement District, N.Y.C., 1 Jul, 194-3; subject; 
"Development Cost for Laminated Wood Pole Litter," paragraph 
2 (A.M.R. & D, Bd.). 
69 
Registered ltr. to S.G.O., fr. Mikar Specialties Co., Balti- 
more, Md., 16 Jun, 1943 (A*M.R, & D. Bd.), 
70 
1st Ind, to S.GiO,, fr, N, Y, Medical Dept. Procurement 
District, N.Y.C., 8 Jul. 194-3; basic: Ltr. to K, Y. Medical 
Dept, Procurement District, N.Y.C., fr. S.G.O., 1 Jul. 1943; 
subject: "Development Cost) for Laminated Wood pole Litter," 
paragraph 2 (A.M.R. & D. Bd,), 
Hst Ind. to Hist. Div., S.G.O., fr. A.M.P.C., 28 Mar. 194-5; 
basic: Ltr, to A.M.P.O., fr. Hist. Div., S.G.O., 23 Mar, 
1945 (Hist. Div., S.G.O.). 
72 
Interview with Capt. H. A. Bliss, Sn. Corps, U.S.A., 
Development Branch, Technical Div,, S.G.O., 21 Mar. 1945. 
73 
Memo, to Dir., Technical Div., S.G.O., fr. Acting Dir., 
Distribution and Requirements Div., Supply Service, S.G.O., 
3 Jun, 1944; subject: "Litters" (A.M.R, & D. Bd.). 
74 
Min, of M.D.T.C.. 2$ Jun. 1945, pp. 14-15 (Hist. Div., 
S.G.O.). 
75 
1st Ind. to Hist. Div., S.G.C., fr. A.M.P.O., 25 Jan. 1945; 
basic: Ltr. to A.M.P.C., fr. Hist. Div,, S.G.O., 22 Jan. 
1945 (Hist. Div., S.G.O.). 
76 ' 
1st Ind. to S.G.O., fr. Hq., A.S.F., 31 Jul. 1943; basic; 
Ltr. to CG, A.S.F., fr. S.G.O., 22 Jul. 1943; subject: 
"Reclassification from Standard to Limited Standard" 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
96 77 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 23 Dec. 194-2; subjects 
"Laminated Litter Poles," paragraph 3 (M.D.E.L.). 
of M.D.T.C.. 25 Jun. 194-5, pp. 14-15 (Hist. Div., 
S.G.O.). 
pp. 14-15. 
GO 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L.. 1 Oct. to 31 Oct. 
1943, p. 5 (M.D.E.L.). 
81 
2d Memo. Ind, to Chf., Field Equipment Development Plans 
Div., S.G.C., fr. Research Coordination Plans Div., S.G.O., 
2 Nov. 1943. 
82 
Ibid. 
83 
Development Project. F-7. "Litter, Folding." See Chapter III. 
84 
Project. M.D.E.L.-50. "Litter, Straight, Alumi- 
num (Item 9935000b) and Litter, Folding, Aluminum (Item 
99380000)," 
85c 
Supra, p. 64, 
88 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L., fr. Acting Chf., Operations Service, S.G.O., 
3 Feb. 1945; subject; "Liaison Visits between representative, 
Technical Div., S.G.C., and M.D.E.L." (A.M.R. & D. Bd,), 
87 
Ibid.. paragraph 2. 
88 
Procurement Regulation No. 2, 26 Mar. 1943, Sec. II, Contract 
Placement; paragraph 224, Contracts for Newly Developed 
Articles, 
97 CHAPTER III 
THE FOLDING POLE LITTER 
I. Introduction. " L .. j;7 
A. The Aerial"Evacuation of Casualties.! 
The evacuation of sick and wounded by ground'-troops, 
in which the Army straight pole litter has played such a key 
role, dates back :to the earliest weeks of the Revolutionary 
War, Air evacuation, on the.other hand, is virtually a con- 
temporary development. Even during World War I, the possi- 
bilities of adapting aviation to the needs of the medical 
service were largely unexplored. With the transport and 
cargo plane still in the blueprint stage, only small, light 
aircraft were available, and these were used almost exclu- 
sively for combat and reconnaissance missions. 
During the years 191A-1918, therefore, the possi- 
bility of large-scale medical evacuation by air seemed so 
remote as to border on the visionary. It was not, in fact, 
Until 12 February 1918, that even the elementary need for 
•some sort of medication to be carried in airplanes for 
emergency treatment•was dealt with officially. Gn that date, 
a first aid pouch for airplanes was sent to the Chief Surgeon, 
Aviation Section, from the Surgeon at Rockwell Field| . an 
action which led eventually to the development and perfection 
of the Kit, First Aid, Aeronautic, 
• Airplanes had, of course, been used on occasion to 
carry Army doctors to the scene of air accidents, especially 
in the continental United States. From this modest beginning 
as a kind of high-speed taxi for the medical officer, there 
gradually evolved the far-reaching concept of the airplane as 
a flying ambulance.V One of .the earliest instances of .an actual 
adaptation of this kind occurred in February, 1918, when Major 
Wilson.E.' Driver, Medical Corps,: obtained.permission from the 
Commanding officer of the airfield at which he was stationed 
to convert a small JNA plane into* an airplane ambulance. Three 
years later, in 1921, the first standard American air ambu- 
lance,: called; the Cox-Kremlin type A-l, especially designed and 
constructed for; practical ambulance service, was delivered and 
tested betir/cch'Washington and New York with imprbssiver.-results, 
: Even at this comparatively .late; date:, the: use of the 
airplane as a normal method of casualty evacuation had not yet 
received top military sanction. Aerial evacuation was still 
98 regarded officially as a last resort, to be used only in 
cases of life and death emergency where speed was essential. 
In a memorandum, dated 11 Hay 1921, and addressed to the 
Chief Surgeon, the bar Department expressed the following 
opinion regarding evacuation by air; an opinion which typi- 
fied the attitude during this period not only of military 
authorities, but of the general public as well. 
Referring to recommendation from this 
office of April 23 that authority be granted 
for the transfer of patients from the hospi- 
tal at Mitchel Field, Long Island, New York 
to the baiter Reed Hospital, Washington, D.C. 
■ .by airplane, please be advised.as follows; 
■ In case of accident, the use of air- 
planes for the transportation of sick and 
wounded soldiers, when other safer means of 
transportation is available, could not be 
•justified.. The above recommendation there- 
fore is not favorably considered,^ 
Rapid expansion of the aircraft industry and a 
great increase"in civilian air travel did much, however, to 
change public opinion with regard to the safety of air 
transportation, and this in turn had its effect on War Depart- 
ment policy,. In 1923, a striking demonstration of air.evacu- 
ation was staged by the Army for the Shrine convention of that 
year. Before the;close of 1924, far-reaching improvements had 
been instituted to insure both a safer and more comfortable 
ride for the patient. The years that followed likewise wit- 
nessed steady progress in air ambulance.construction and in ' • 
the techniques of air evacuation, 'and with these changes 
military authorities came to adopt a more and more charitable 
view of the possibilities of this new evacuation method. 
With the outbreak of World War,II, air evacuation 
received its first large-scale test under combat conditions. 
The results speak for themselves. In 1943, according to War 
Department figures, more than 173,000 sick, and wounded patients 
of United States and Allied forces Y/crc evacuated by American 
military airqraft. In the Mediterranean area, where patients 
wepc flqwn a total of 16,491,266 miles and 131,762 hours, the 
average flight was 2B2 miles and the average flying time 2.2 
hours.; The,, evacuation route from Guadalcanal in the Solomon 
Islands was' more than 1,000 miles, and - the flying time ranged 
from• 4a to 7-|- hours. The number of deaths during flight in 
1943, according to statistics prepared by the School of Air 
Evacuation,, was , only 11, a rate of ,006 per cent, or 6 per 
100,000 patient trips,3 
99 Commenting on this record, Major General David N.W, 
Grant, the Air Surgeon, concludes: 
On the basis of the A.A.F.'s first full -r 
year of experience in the air evacuation of ' 
war casualties, -we’conclude that this is the . 
method of choice for the quick, safe, and 
comfortable transportation of virtually all 
types of- sick and’wounded patients. Air 
evacuation in troop and cargo■carriers has 
solved the logistical problem of casualty 
evacuation without any addition of vehicular 
equipment to Medical Corps units, and has 
contributed considerably to the tactical 
success of every major land offensive involv- 
ing American forces,. It has reduced the need 
for hospitalization in forward areas. Its ■ 
swift and comfortable delivery of the patient 
to a hospital equipped for definitive medical 
care places air evacuation in a group with 
sulfa drugs and blood plasma as one of the 
three greatest life-saving measures of modern 
■ military medicine, 
B• The Evolution of the Airplane Litter,5 
The growth of the air service during the years 
immediately following the first World War, and particularly 
the development in the early ' twenties of the airplane' ambu- 
lance, created an urgent demand for a special type of air- 
plane litter* Accordingly, in 1921, a research invest!- 
tation was initiated by the Medical Department Equipment 
Laboratory in collaboration with the medical officers at 
lieCook Aviation Field. In order -to standardize components 
and thereby facilitate use of the now litter by all the 
services, a working liaison Was also established with the 
United States Navy,- M 
1. The Stokes Litter .(1917) -. .■■■•■ 
At the conclusion of World; War 1, three dif- 
ferent types of litters were in; use by the Medical Depart- 
ment! the Ash Pole, the Trench, and the Stokes,” 'Of these 
three the Stokes’, (see Fig. B) which had been developed by 
the United’ States Navy and.-was designed especially for use 
on troop and hospital ships, was selected by the Equipment 
Laboratory as the most promising working model for the new 
airplane.-.litter. ■ *• he • •. 
100 The Stokes litter was, essentially, simply a 
metal basket shaped to fit the contours of the'human body.' 
The upper rail was made.of soft steel tubes, welded together 
and so curved as to form*a closed circuit, roughly octagonal 
in shape. This tubing was held in position by riveted-semi- 
circular steel braces. The entire metal”frame was lined with 
chicken wire, the patient being, held securely in the basket 
thus formed by straps which passed over his chest, hips, and 
legs. The lining contained a flap opening designed to permit 
use of a bedpan. . 
On each side of the septum, which divided the 
lower end of the basket into two, main furrows for the legs 
of the patient, a movable foot rest was provided. In place 
of the conventional Stirrup assembly, the litter was sup- 
ported by a kind of rack arrangement. Three straight rods 
were fitted against,the under-part of the.semi-circular steel 
braces, and were hold in position on either side' of the lit- 
ter by a transverse rod to Which the three protruding ends 
were fastened. The litter was also equipped with chains for 
the attachment of splinting material, finally, around the 
metal frame several hand grips were 'provided, which could be 
used either for manual carry or could*be attached to hoist- 
ing apparatus, 
■ The -Stokes litter possessed-several distinct 
advantages.. In the. first place, since it v/as constructed in 
large ..part of Mire mesh, it' was both non-inflammable and 
easily disinfected.. Secondly, by virtue of its hand grips, 
the litter could be attached by means of a bridle to hoist- 
ing apparatus and could' thus be loaded.or unloaded mechani- 
cally, even on small scacraft,’ With the patient strapped 
into the basket,,he could be hoisted to a vertical position 
and then raised perpendicularly. Because of this feature 
the' Stokes litter was, at the time,' without equal for the 
evacuation of patients from ship to shore,‘or for the 
transportation by rail of fracture cases. 
Viewed, however, in the light of its adap- 
tability to air evacuation, the Stokes litter had ..several 
serious defects. If Was,- to begin• with, - extremely heavy. 
Over-all weight was 29 pounds, as.compared with 22 pounds 
for the standard straight pole litter. Also, because of 
the different sized'tubing and the numerous welded -joints 
used in its cdns'truction, the litter, was difficult' to manu- 
facture, and the production cost of the item, even when 
ordered .in quantity, was unprecedentedly high. Furthermore, 
the Stokes model proved to be structurally weak in certain 
respects. It was found after extended usage that the rivet 
attachment of the transverse braces to the me'tal rail at the 
top of the frame occasionally gave way, so that in using 
hoisting machinery the litter had to be bridled with particular care. Finally, when the litter was supported only 
at its ends, under a heavy casualty load the sides tended to 
bow outward and in some instances to buckle. 
2. The Metal Litter (1922). 
In spite of the above disadvantages, when 
research work was begun in 1921 to develop, the first Army 
airplane litter, the Stokes design-was selected by the Medi- 
cal Department as offering a more practical starting point 
'than the designs of either the Trench or Ash Polo litters.. 
To understand this decision, it must be remembered that, in 
terms of riding quality, the small cabin planes-which were, 
in use in the early ’twenties were hardly the equal of the 
huge cargo and transport planes.of today.- There were: 
definite advantages, therefore, in h basket-type of litter 
Which, by affording additional protection both on the sides 
and the ends, would keep the jostling of the patients at a 
"minimum, '.thus insuring a safer and more comfortable ride. 
Moreover, airport facilities for horizontal loading and 
unloading of litter casualties were far less elaborate in 
1921 than they are today. Consequently, it was considered 
of prime■importance that the new litter be so designed that 
it could be carried at almost any angle with a minimum of 
discomfort or danger to the patient, - 
In view of these factors, it is easy to- 
understand why’the Medical Department visualized a modi- 
fied type of basket litter as the most practicable for use 
in military aircraft. General Roy C. HefleboY/er, in his 
historical account of this period, sums up the official 
attitude as follows; v ’ 
The need was for a litter somewhat similar to 
the Stokes, but of lighter weight, greater 
strength, some?/hat shallov/er in depth, and 
with the side walls so flared that several 
litters could be nested in a small space.6 
Work''along theses lilies ..was initiated at the Equipment Labo- 
ratory in 1921, with the result that,a new.litter was devel- 
oped which met with the approval of the Air Corps and the 
Medical Department, and which•it was- felt would be equally 
acceptable to the Navy with a few modifications,. - 
"The.new airplane'litter, called.-the Metal 
litter, (see Fig. 9) weighed 19-3/4 pounds, -complete with 
attachment straps.- Several’features of. the Stokes design 
had•been eliminated entirely;1 The -sanitary opening, the 
rack-like stirrups, and the chain for attaching splinting material did not appear in the new model. Other components 
of the Stokes litter were heavily modified. The chicken wire 
lining was fastened to a new secondary metal rail and was 
dropped two inches below the top rail, so that the entire 
upper rail would be available for the attachment of bridle 
slings, ropes, supporting hooks, or any other devices which 
the Air Corps might wish to use to load, unload, and trans- 
port the new litter,'" • ■ • 
Instead of the cumbersome stirrup assembly of 
the Stokes model, the Metal litter was supported by two 
longitudinal rods.which were integral parts of the litter 
frame, serving on the under-side as runners and, at the ends, 
as braces for the.two upper rails. In the bottom of the Tit- 
ter, where 'the upper portions of the patient's body rested, 
ash slats were inserted to provide added’.support and to make 
the litter mope comfortable, A septum divided the Tower half 
of the litter into.two furrows for the patient's legs to rest 
in* .substantially as .in the Stokes design. ,,In addition, five 
sets of sling straps, were provided which were so placed as to 
hold the patient securely in.the litter, especially when be- 
ing transported in positions other .than.the horizontal, 
■ ,. . , . Svery -effort had been made to simplify the' 
construction of the litter as much as possible without sacri- 
ficing strength and rigidity. The tubing had been standard- 
ized and the number of sizes and bends reduced to a minimum. 
Even so, there was still a large number of welded joints, and 
as a result the cost of manufacture was still comparatively 
high. , ..This objection .-was ..partially .offset, however, by the 
fact.that the hewrlitter, in addition to being.suitable’for 
use in airplanes, was also considered suitable for use in 
trench warfare and thus could replace not only the Stokes 
but the Trench litter as well. This substitution did in 
fact occur, and before the end of 1920 the Army had only 
two standard types of litters: (l) the Metal, .especially 
adapted for use in airplanes, trench warfare, and on ship- 
board; and (2) the Ash Polo, which was expected to fill 
all other needs. 
. .. ,3* The Straight Pole Litter versus The Airplane 
- 1 ' ' .1,,' /. Litter. Mr 
. ... .. • ■Before proceeding to . a discussion of the . 
deficiencies of the Metal litter, and the efforts of the Medi- 
cal Department to develop a new and more satisfactory item 
for use in air evacuation, it will be well to pause a moment 
to consider, a, .factor not heretofore discussed but, which, in 
the case of the hirplane litter.Mwas to* exert a profound 
influence, on both the’ substanceland diroction of all future 
103 research. This was the factor of Research Priority, which 
had not until now been a serious concern 6f litter research 
and development personnel. 
The establishment of certain, broad research 
priorities■;had been, of.course, a practical necessity for 
the Medical -Department .Equipment Laboratory since its incep- 
tion, Faced with the task of developing, improving, and 
testing all types of medical field equipment, yet having 
only a small staff and limited research facilities’-at its- 
disposal, the Laboratory had been forced from.the outset to 
evaluate, in terms of relative urgency, the various projects 
with which it was confronted, . 
Until the development and standardization of 
the Metal litter, however, the establishment of priorities 
within the litter program itself had not been necessary. 
From i860 to 1917, Army litter research had been devoted 
exclusively to the development of a satisfactory straight 
pole litter. Nov/, in 1928, the Medical Department had two 
standard litters, each of which had been designed to fulfill 
certain long-term needs. Since it would be possible only 
under exceptional circumstances for the Equipment Laboratory 
to work on several different litter projects concurrently 
and with equal intensity, the question of developmental 
priorities was of■immediate importance. 
There was much to be said for granting straight 
pole litter projects a priority over projects relating solely 
to the airplane litter. The straight pole litter had been a 
standard equipment item since 1861. It had been used exclus- 
ively for the next 55 years and, even during World War I, it 
had been procured in far greater quantity than any other Army- 
litter. While it was evident that the airplane was destined 
to become an increasingly important factor in medical evacu- 
ation, it was at the same time-difficult to conceive of a 
type of warfare in which the simple hand carry would not 
continue to play a major role. In any event, this was the 
decision of the Medical Department, The straight pole litter 
was to receive an ”AU research priority, while the airplane 
litter was to be given a MB’1 As might: be- 
expected, the effect of this priority policy on subsequent 
airplane litter development was far-reaching, 
-The immediate result was, ox course,, simply to 
produce a time lag in the development of the airplane litter 
as compared with the straight pole litter. The extent and 
consistency of this time lag, in -the years following 1928, 
can bo illustrated simply by listing chronologically those 
litters in each of the above categories which were eventually 
standardized by the Medical Department, The straight aluminum 
litter was developed in the spring of 1935, while the folding 
104 aluminum airplane, litterwas not ■‘perfected until December of 
that The straight steel1litter was approved by the 
Equipment Laboratory in 1942,9 but no comparable item was 
standardized for use..-in airplanes. In December, 1942, the 
.'straight wood litter was.tested, and approved by the Labora- 
The folding wood, litter., however, was not similarly 
accepted' until March,, ’ 
,• - v-*!5'-’ • ' Mn the and early * thirties this 
=• time factor was of relatively little importance. So long 
as;the Medical Department's two'standard litter types were 
as completely dissimilar as the Ash Pole and Metal litters, 
independence of investigation and experimentation was assured 
regardless of the order in -which these research projects were 
undertaken,- However,, with the introduction in 1935 of an 
entirely hew type, of straight pole litter, and with the devel- 
opment later in the same year of ah ’ airplane, litter based 
directly on this new design, the time lag described in the 
preceding paragraph soon became a factor of'the utmost 
importance, ; > : .. ; . ,■. ■ ■ ■■ , r” . 
With,a high■degree of similarity now existing 
between the straight pole and airplane litters,, it was inevi- 
table that the litter with research priority would henceforth 
become the governing model for development work in both fields. 
Since straight pole litter projects already had this priority, 
the scope of airplane litter-research was, . from this time 
forward, heavily circumscribed, .After 1935, straight pole 
litter development predetermined not ohly the over-all design 
of the airplane litter.and the materials to bo used in its 
construction, but even the specific dimensions of its compon- 
ents.. . 
- ... Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to assume 
that.,- in the years following 1935, • airplane litter research 
was confined solely to. imitative processes. There v/as still 
full1 opportunity for originality in developing those features 
of the airplane litter which were.unique to its type. It was 
simply that the research work which was conducted in these 
latter: years was of a more .highly specialized character than 
it had,boon in-the past. Energies were now focussed on a 
single .task; the careful'exploration of all aspects of the 
folding/principle,’ from the soctionalizing of side poles to 
the perfection of hinge arrangements, ... 
- - ■ •’ ’ The results of this unusual concentration of 
effort were,;as we shall,sec, impressive. Not only was a 
folding aluminum litter developed which v/as a marked improve- 
ment over- the 1935 model, .but in 1943 a double-folding, lami- 
nated wood- litter was produced, which.is still'considered to 
bo the most satisfactory folding, type litter in use by the 
Medical Department.Thus, while it is true that the most 
105 dramatic airplane litter developments occurred in 1935, the 
years that followed were in no sense,barren ones. The achieve- 
ments of this latter period even compare favorably with those 
realized from. 1935 to 1943 in straight pole litter research, 
. t* '• s’ •• • t ,. . ' I 
II. Development-Phase- (l) (The Folding Aluminum Litter). 
A, Initiation of Development Project,: F-7/ 
Although, as we have seen, the Metal litter was 
much more suitable for Air Corps use than the Stokes Navy 
litter, it still possessed a number of definite disadvantages. 
Attention has already been called to the structural weaknesses 
of the litter and to its intricate design and. consequent high 
cost of There were,;in-addition, other defi- 
ciencies which proved to be equally troublesome; For example, 
the Metal.litter weighed 19*4*. pounds and, even though it could 
be nested, was still an extremely bulky item. In terms of air- 
plane capacity, this excessive weight and. bulk meant that only 
a comparatively- small payload' could;- be accommodatedi: 
Furthermore, because of ..the -complete dissimilarity 
between the Metal and Ash Pole litters, no interchangeability 
of parts was possible. This not only posed difficult main- 
tenance problems but also threatened the smooth functioning 
of the system of property exchange. Either a patient evacu- 
ation by air would have to be transferred to a straight pole 
litter to be further evacuated through ground force facili- 
ties, or special arrangements would, have■to be made for the 
return of the airplane litter to air force installations. 
Finally, the Metal litter was not easy to hand-carry. This, 
of course, made it awkward to use in Air Corps dispensaries 
and aid stations, to say nothing, of ground force installations. 
These disadvantages.of the Metal litter became all 
the more glaring as the conditions, which had .originally neces- 
sitated, the use of such a litter for airplane evacuation 
gradually disappeared. For example, one of .the chief advan- 
tages of the Metal litter had been that it made possible the 
transporting of a casualty in almost any position, including 
the This-feature, however, became increasingly 
less important as airport facilities expanded and horizontal 
loading and unloading of casualties became more and more the 
standard practice. Similarly, the additional protection 
afforded by the. Metal litter during actual air transit dimin- 
ished in importance as, with the increase, in size raid weight 
of military aircraft, riding quality, of ambulance planes was 
steadily improved-. In short, by 1932 the time was ripe for a reinvesti- 
gation of the whole problem of airplane litter construction 
and design. More specifically, with research and development 
activity no longer limited by military requirements to the 
basket type of l.ibter, it' Was now possible to consider the 
feasibility of adapting the straight pole litter to airplane 
use. Unfortunately, the Ash Pole litter, because of its 
extreme weight and bulk, offered little promise. However, as 
we have already seen in the previous chapter, several years 
prior to 1932, a research, project had been established to 
develop a new straight pole litter .to replace the outmoded 
Ash Pole model*Moreover, by 1932 this project had been 
virtually completed'and,.except for minor changes, a new 
straight aluminum litter was ready, for standardization,1 
With the appearance of this promising alternative, 
the Medical Department decided' to launch its attempt at con- 
version from the. basket type of;airplane litter, . In January, 
1932, Development Project:, F-7 was formally initiated to 
explore the possibilities of adapting the new straight1 pole 
aluminum litter for Air Corps The experimentation 
that followed was highly productive, ■By’1935, a folding 
aluminum litter had' been developed Which was destined to 
serve as: a model for airplane litter research for more than 
a decade. ‘ / ■ - 
B, The Folding Aluminum Litter, 
The folding aluminum litter • (see Fig, 10) was the 
first of the airplane litters to evolve as a direct by-, 
product of straight pole litter research. 'Developed by the 
Medical Department Equipment Laboratory in 1935, • the new 
design was patterned in many respects on the'specifications 
•of the straight aluminum litter-. The, folding-model measured 
90 inches in over-all length, was 22-7/8 inches wide, and 
weighed only 15-3/4 pounds. : The'aluminum alloy side poles 
were 1.54 inches in outside diameter, and were 77 inches long. 
Pole handles consisted of standard wooden inserts, 6-1/2 
inches'-in length. The-stirrups, which were held stationary 
to the poles by 4 bolts, were 4-l/2 inches high, 4 inches 
Y/ide, and had bearing- surfaces which were l-l/2 by 3-l/2 
inches, ■■ In the upper part of each stirrup Was a square 
box or housing into'which one end of the spreader bar was 
fitted,' The spreader bars Were equipped with the standard 
hinge, and were curved downward to fit body contour. 
The most unique feature of the now airplane litter 
Yjas that it had been designed to pull apart longitudinally. 
Each side pole was divided, into two-, sections -which, were hold 
together, at the center by a slip joint. The female half of 
the pole measured 46 inches (including the handle insert), 
107 while the male half was 44 inches long with a 2-3/l6 inch 
insert. The slip-on canvas, forming the bed of the litter, 
was held in place by the 4=stirrup bolts. At the center, 
the canvas had -cut-outs, bound with tape. In folding the 
•litter, the stationary stirrups protruded outward on each 
side, , Increasing the lateral-width of the collapsed litter 
by 4-l/2 inches. Even so,, the litter could be folded into 
a package measuring 46KL/4, by 13 .by 3-3/4 inches.^ 
After having successfully withstood extensive 
field testing, the new- aluminum litter was next subjected 
to a series of engineering tests. The results of these 
were equally favorable. Loaded at the .center with a 175- 
pound patient, the litter bowed only 5/l6 of an inch. 
Under a 340-pound load, similarly placed, deflection 
amounted to only 12/16 of an inch. Finally, loaded with 
a 175-pound patient, on old canvas, it was found that the 
litter still provided sufficient clearance between the 
patient and the ground,19 At the conclusion of these tests, 
standardization of the folding aluminum litter was recom- 
mended by the Equipment Laboratory and, on 23 March 1937, 
the new litter was formally added'to the-Ledical Supply 
Catalog as a standard item,20 Procurement was initiated 
13 May 1937 and was continued under the original specifi- 
cations until" October, 1940.^ 
As is apparent from the description which has 
preceded, the new folding aluminum .litter was not, strictly 
speaking, a folding litter at. all. The two sections of its 
side poles did -not swing on a hinge, but were simply tele- 
scoped in such a way that they could be pulled apart at the 
center, thus allowing the.litter to,bo collapsed into nearly the 
same cubic space as if it had been folded on the long axis. 
This arrangement had certain disadvantages. It was subse- 
quently found, as we shall sec shortly, that the slip joint 
tended to become clogged when used extensively in mud, 
gravel, or dirt. Moreover, in order to fold or unfold the 
litter, it was each time to connect or disconnect 
the pole sections. This.was not only an awkward operation, 
but,one that required the efforts of two men. One other 
disadvantage of the new litter, was its stationary stirrup 
assembly. Since the.stirrups wore bolted in fixed position 
to the poles they protruded outside, the canvas cover when 
the litter was folded, *.This left the1stirrups relatively 
unprotected, and also increased the cubic space needed to 
store the collapsed litter. ; 
'■ The ■ advantages of the new folding aluminum litter 
over the old Metal litter, however, were both numerous and 
decisive,. To begin .with, since the aluminum side poles were 
constructed of straight tubing of a single dimension, instead 
of differont-sized tubing with many bends and'welded joints, the new model was much easier to, manufacture, and had a lov/er 
production cost. * Secondly, because of the high .interchange- 
ability of parts between the straight and folding aluminum 
litters, problems of maintenance and property exchange were 
greatly simplified.- Thirdly, the new litter weighed only 
15-3A pounds as against 19-3A pounds for the Metal litter. 
In terms of airplane payload, this was a consideration of the 
first importance« Fourthly, the folding litter occupied much 
less space when collapsed, and thus could be stored in air 
ambulances and other planes in much greater quantity then the 
Metal litter. Finally, since .the new airplane litter could 
be as easily hand-carried as the straight pole litter, it 
could be used without difficulty at,any point in the. chain of 
evacuation and, by the same token, was entirely suitable for 
ground use by Air Corps dispensaries and aid stations. 
C, The Gran Portable Litter. 
■ 'While the 1935 aluminum litter was the only folding 
model which was, standardized during this first phase of 
Development Project. F-7. four other folding litters were 
submitted to the Medical Department during this period,which 
merit at least brief: consideration. The first of these, the 
Gran Portable Litter, is of interest here because it repre- 
sented an entirely new type of folding litter design. The 
rejection of this model, however, led to a lengthy and time- 
consuming controversy- between the inventor of the new litter, 
Doctor Albert G. Gran, and the Medical Department. In a 
later section wo will have occasion to examine this rather 
tempestuous controversy in some detail, as it involved 
certain-policy questions intimately affecting the conduct .of 
Medical Department research,22 
On 29 March 1939, Doctor Gran demonstrated his 
portable litter before a group of officers of The Surgeon 
General’s Office and, on the following day, gave a similar 
demonstration for members, of the Medical Department Board 
at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania,23 It was decided that 
the possibilities of the litter wore such as to justify 
thorough test, to determine its practicability and, in accord- 
ance with this, the inventor agreed to make and deliver with- 
out cost to-the Government two sample litters, for laboratory 
and field testing,A Upon receipt, the new litters were 
service tested by the 1st Medical Regiment at Carlisle Bar- 
racks, Pennsj^ivania, both individually-and in-comparison 
with the new standard aluminum pole litters, folding and 
straight,25 Qn 24- July 1939, the Medical Department Board 
rendered its formal report on the test results,26 
The Gran litter was ”Vn-shapcd, and consisted of 
four pieces of iron tubing, held together by four slip joints. 
109 and so constructed as to form a double incline sloping toward 
the center. Slip-on canvas covered each incline, and was 
fastened at the bottom with 2-inch straps fitted with buckles. 
Iron foot rests were welded at the bottom of the incline. 
Handles of aluminum' were provided, which were ridged longi- 
tudinally and moved inward, toward the center. They sloped 
downward and were only 17 inches apart. The litter had a 
total of eight different weldings, 
In summarizing its findings, the Medical Department 
Board listed the following advantages and disadvantages: 
Advantages: Without the foot rests and *- - -• 
handles, and for certain types of cases, this , ... 
litter can be used to great advantage, e.g,, 
up and down steep, narrow, winding stairways, 
loading patients on ordinary transportation 
and airplanes, 
Disadvantages: Are many for use in the 
military service. Its ”V" shape precludes; ; : . ' 
its use for shocked patients as well as for , 
fractures of the legs. 
Its weldings are expensive, cannot be 
repaired in the field, and the litter is 
patented. ' ; • •• r 
Due to the sag, the patient sits on 
the cold damp ground or on the bottom of 
an ambulance. 
It can be loaded only in the bottom • 
berths of the field ambulance and requires, 
considerable effort to dress. 
The handles are made of metal heavily 
ridged, therefore are hard on the hands, 
causing blisters, and in very hot or cold 
weather will be uncomfortable. They slant' 
downward, are hard to hold, and the slings 
will Inevitably work back against the 
bearers1 hands,- Being only seventeen (17) 
inches apart, the handles arc too Close 
for use by a two man litter squad. The . - 
handles hit the bearers’ hips, and there 
is not sufficient room for his medical I 
pouches. Since .the handles arc hinged ; ■ ,. 
inward only, the loaded litter increases 
this inward motion—-which increases mark- 
edly the bearer’s burden by requiring a ", \ 
firm constant grip. 
The litter is very flexible, and duo 
to its shape (double incline or ”V” shape) 
there is a decided drag or downward pull 
on the leading bearer. 
110 Altogether this litter loaded is a most 
burdensome, fatigue-‘producing method of litter 
bearing.28 . . . 
’ 7 In conclusion, the Medical Department Board recom- 
mended that the Gran litter be rejected for use in the mili- 
tary service, and this recommendation was- concurred in by 
higher authority.29 
D. The Schwichtenberg Litter. 
On 6 May 1939, the Surgeon .at 'Wright Field, Dayton, 
Ohio, forwarded to the Surgeon;General’s Office a folding 
steel litter which .had been designed and constructed by 
Captain A. H. of the Station Dispensary at 
Wright Field. It was stated in the accompanying communica- 
tion that the litter, which had been built in the officer’s 
spare, time, had undergone preliminary service tests and 
appeared to-be superior in all respects to the standard type 
litters then available.30 After inspection by The Surgeon 
General’s Office, the new litter was sent to Carlisle Barracks 
where, from 2 June to 20 June 1939, it was, subjected to a 
thorough field test by the 1st Medical Regiment.31 On 24 
June 1939, a formal report of test findings was made by the 
Medical Department Board.32 
The poles of the Schwichtenberg litter were con- 
structed of tubular steel, 1.25 inches in diameter. The 
slip-on canvas cover was a one-piece fabric, and was designed 
with leather bound cut-outs for each of the four stirrups. 
The cover was supported underneath by two web straps running 
diagonally, like an elongated MXM, from one stirrup to the 
opposite stirrup at the other end. The Stirrups were flat 
iron, staggered to allow for folding of the side poles, and 
each end was fastened to the sseel tubes,. One end was held 
in a 1-inch slot, the other by a .bolt Welded to the pole. 
The spreader bars were castings and were fastened 
to the side poles by the same welded bolts as were the 
stirrups. They curved downward to allow for canvas stretch- 
ing, and folded in opposite directions to avoid overlapping. 
The handles of the poles were covered with - synthetic rubber 
which had been cemented on with neoprene cement, 'Tilth this 
extra -covering, the handles., were 1,6 inches in, diameter. 
Instead of a. slip joint to hold the two sections in each 
pole together, the litter was equipped with hinges which 
were welded to the center of the poles. Folded, the litter 
formed a comnact bundle, 48 x 6 x 7 inches and weighing only 
15.5 pounds.33 The Schwichtenberg litter, as the. final report of 
the Medical Department Board indicated, offered’ several ad- 
vantages over the standard folding aluminum litter. It could 
be folded and unfolded easily by one .man, whereas the standard 
litter required more effort and, in some instances, additional 
assistance. Since the stirrups, and spreader bars folded in- 
ward, the steel litter made a smoother,, more compact bundle, 
which was easier to handle than the folded aluminum model. 
Furthermore, the hinges of the new litter worked satisfac- 
torily in mud, cinders, and dirt, while the slip joint of the 
aluminum litter tended to become clogged,, 
In the view of the Medical Department Board, how- 
ever, the advantages of the new steel litter were over- 
balanced by its disadvantages. To begin with, the litter 
had fourteen weldings which were not only expensive, but 
could not be repaired in the field, , Likewise, the ten 
leather bindings were expensive and increased production 
costs. The "XM shaped web sqpport under the canvas appeared 
to serve no useful purpose, and it was possible for these 
exposed loops to catch on other equipment or on brush or 
foliage. Unless handled very carefully, the sharp flange 
edges of the hinges cut the canvas and, in any case, were a 
potential danger to litter bearers. 
The stirrups, which were shorter-and narrower than . , 
the standard'stirrup, had a tendency to sink into the ground, 
thus leaving no clearance for the patient. Moreover, due to 
their lack of a broad, and rounded bearing surface, the stirrups 
had cut into the linoleum covering the floor of the ambulance. 
The spreader bars' bung down lower than standard bars, and 
were bolted to the stirrups instead of being in a bearing. 
Consequently, they tended to spread at .the bottom, thus 
placing an increased strain on the entire,assembly. The• 
handles of the litter were too large to permit a firm grip 
under a normal casualty load, and the .synthetic rubb€?r cover- 
ing blistered the bearers’ hands, rubbed off, and, it was • 
felt, wou1d wear unevenly'and probably crack with age when 
stored.^ 
Although, as a result of the recommendations of the 
Medical Department Board, the Schwichtenberg litter was finally 
rejected, the inventor had nevertheless introduced certain 
innovations in folding litter design which were destined to 
be of long range importance. The first of these was the 
folding stirrup, which, in contrast to the stationary type, 
could be rotated inward when the litter was folded. Because 
of this folding feature, the litter could bo collapsed into 
a more compact and easily handled bundle and, at the same 
time, the stirrups themselves were better protected since 
they did not protrude outside the package:. Even more important was the development of a folding 
hinge as a substitute for the slip joint of the standard 
aluminum model. Not only had the new hinge proved to be less 
subject to clogging than the slip joint assembly, but, as the 
Medical Department Board pointed out, it greatly' simplified 
the task of folding and unfolding the litter. In'Order, to 
fold the standard litter, virtual disassembly of the side 
poles was necessary. Conversely, preparing the collapsed 
litter for service involved the equally awkward and time- 
consuming task of connecting- the four separated pole sections. 
With hinged instead of detachable sections, both of these 
operations were much easier to perform, and, under favorable 
‘ conditions, required- the use of only a single bearer, 
' Neither of the above innovations, however, was to 
be- immediately adopted. In fact, as we shall see presently, 
even their•eventual incorporation into■ Medical Department 
specifications was accomplished only after the most extended 
discussion. Ironically, the most vigorous opposition came 
from the Medical Department'Equipment Laboratory; the very 
agency which had been the first to cfell attention to the 
possibilities of both the folding stirrup and the folding 
hinge„ 
E. The Gold Medal Folding Litter. 
The experimental importance of the Gran and Schwichten- 
berg' litters was not confined to the interesting variations in 
folding litter design which they represented. Equally signifi- 
cant were the materials which had been used in the construction 
of these new models. In the Gran litter iron tubing had been 
used* instead of aluminum in the construction of the side poles, 
whereas in the Schwichtenterg model tubular steel had been 
employed. While, under field testing,- neither metal proved 
to be the equal of aluminum, this in itself was a sufficiently 
important discovery to indicate the practical value of the 
comparative examination. Now the Medical Department Equip- 
ment Laboratory was to have an opportunity to consider the 
suitability of an entirely different substance as a possible 
substitute for aluminum. Like the straight pole litter of 
1916, the Gold Medal folding litter had side poles which were 
constructed of solid straight grain ash wood. 
This new folding litter, which had been developed 
by the Gold Medal Folding Furniture Company of Racine, Wis- 
consin,- was submitted to the Equipment Laboratory in'September, 
1939.35 jts rectangular ash poles were 90 inches long, and 
were l-l/2 by 1-3/4 inches in width and thickness. Each side 
pole folded at the center on hinges which were riveted from 
the underneath side of the separate pole sections to over- 
hanging channels on top. Small pins were driven through the 
113 flanges of the channels and through each of-the pole sections 
about 5/8 inches from the top of the pole. A small chain was 
fastened to the two pins protruding on each side, these chains 
stretching taut when the poles were unfolded for casualty 
carry, thus holding the litter open. The canvas cover, which 
had a bound cut-cut around each hinge, was attached by tacking 
to the outer side of each pole. ‘ '■ 
The spreader bard were‘straight, instead of being 
curved downward as in'the aluminum model, ’and Were fastened 
to the side poles by rivets which also held the stirrups ■ in 
place. As in the case of the Schwichtenberg litter, the 
stirrups, which were 2-l/2 inches high and had bearing sur- 
faces measuring 1-3/8 by 3 inches, rotated inward when the 
litter was folded. This decreased lateral width of the 
collapsed litter considerably, so that the Gold, Ifeda.1-litter, 
when folded, measured 48-5/8 by 7 by 3-l/2 inches. Due to 
their folding feature,.however, the stirrups had no box con- 
nection vath the spreader bars, arid thus had a tendency- to 
weakness and .internal rptation under the normal casualty load. 
Over-all weight of the new litter was 21 pounds as against 
15-3/4 .pounds for'the standard aluminum mo del,36 
. The litter was subjected to routine engineering- 
tests with the following results. Under a 175-pound patient 
load, .placed at the center of the litter, a mid-point de- 
flection of I5/l6 of an inch was recorded. Under a patient 
load of 340 pounds, similarly placed, center deflection 
amounted to l-l/l6 of an inch. Due to the shortness of the 
stirrups and ,to 'the' new;unstretched canvas mth^Vrhich‘the 
litter was equipped,' insufficient clearance was provided • 
between the bed of the litter and the ground. Loaded with a 
175-pound patient, the litter allowed the patient1s"buttocks 
to rest on the dry ground. It was felt that, had the test 
been performed in soft ground or mud", the patient wduld have 
been even more exposed to cold and dampness.3? 
After field testing, the Laboratory listed'taro ad- 
vantages of the Gold Metal folding'litter over the standard 
aluminum model: (1) the new litter made a more compact 
bundle when folded, (2) the poles were made of ash wood which 
was not a critical item. On the other side of the ledger, 
the disadvantages noted Were numerous. The new'litter was 
5-1/4 pounds heavier than the standard model, the five holes 
drilled in the center of eachr side polo tended'’to‘'weaken the 
litter where, the weight.1 v/as ■greatest, the stirrups1 were too 
short to afford clearance above the ground for the patient, 
and the straight spreader bars were unc6mfbrtablcJ since thdy 
did not fit the contours of the patient’t body as it rested 
on the, litter. 
114 Major criticism was focussed on the hinge and stir- 
rup arrangements. It was found that the canvas cover and the 
chains and pins that served to hold the litter straight 
tended to catch in the hinges and under the channels. This 
not only interfered with opening the litter but, unless con- 
siderable care was taken, caused tears in the canvas. As for 
the stirrups, since they rotated with the movement of the 
spreader bar in opening, closing, and folding the litter, it- 
was felt that their rotation would cause wearing and eventu- 
ally weakness in the poles near their ends. It was concluded 
by the Laboratory that, the Gold Medal folding litter in no 
way met the requirements of the military service as well as 
the standard folding aluminum litter,38 
F, Zimmer Folding Litter, 
On 3 April 194-0, The Surgeon General’s Office in- 
formed the Commandant at the Medical Field Service-School, 
Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania that a representative of the 
Zimmer Manufacturing Company of Warsaw, Indiana would soon 
deliver to the Equipment Laboratory a modification of the Army’s 
standard folding aluminum litter. It was requested that the 
new litter bo subjected to a full field test and that a formal 
report be rendered covering test results,39 Two days later, 
the new litter was received by the Laboratory at Carlisle, 
inspected, and then turned over to the 1st Medical Regiment 
for extensive testing. 4-0 
One month later, in a follow-up communication from 
The Surgeon General’s- Office, there appeared the first official 
indication that the Army’s standard folding aluminum litter 
was not holding up as well as had been expected. 
This office on 3 April 194-0 requested an 
extensive field test of a modification of our fold- 
ing aluminum litter as manufactured by the Zimmer 
Mfg. Co. 
There is now under process a purchase of 750 
folding litters. Our New' York General Depot re- 
ports that the standard aluminum folding litter 
now used'at that depot for a sample and demonstra- 
■ - tion item has not stood up as it shduld. The 
personnel at that depot believe we should not pur- 
chase more of the present type. 
It is desired that a preliminary report on 
the subject item be forwarded to this office, in 
order that a decision may bo made referable pur- 
chase of this itern.44- 
In view of the fact that the standard folding alumi- 
num litter (1935 model) was no longer regarded as satisfactory 
115 by Army purchasing officials, the Supply Division v/as instructed 
by The Surgeon General’s Office to purchase no hew lots for the 
time being. ' , ; : : 
The present standard folding (telescoping) alumi- 
num litter has not proved entirely satisfactory.- " For 
example, -folding or opening it when the1 canvas is wet 
is extremely difficult and maybe impossible. Further, 
the actual necessity for a folding type litter is very 
limited, and in fact it can nearly always, if not in 
all cases, be replaced by the standard litter. 
For these reasons it is believed by the Planning 
and Training Division to be inadvisable to purchase 
any new lots of folding litters (aluminum) for the 
time being. 
' If the folding litter now being tested at 
Carlisle Barracks proves- to be unsatisfactory it will 
not be adopted.42- 
It will be recalled that, because of its heavy cast- 
ings, the original straight aluminum litter had not been pro- 
cured in great quantitjr. 43 Because of this short supply, to- 
gether ■with the fact that the extruded aluminum undercarriage 
had not yet been perfected, if a straight pole litter were■to 
be substituted for the folding pole-model' it would have to be 
the old Ash Pole litter of 1916. This information was conveyed 
to the Air Corps on 10 June 1940 by the- Supply Division of 
the Surgeon General’s Office. " ■■ v;; , 
■ Your-attention is invited to basic memorandum 
which cancels present purchase of subject item (fold* 
ing aluminum litter). "- - "• " 
The folding litter is a component of the crash- 
splint set, and since our stock is now depleted, it 
will:be necessary to substitute a wooden” pole litter 
pending development by Carlisle of a satisfactory 
folding litter. ■ 
; Your- comment referable this substitution is ’■ 
requested.44 , . 1 • • 
' On 19 June 1940, the Chief of the Medical Division 
of the'Air Corps replied’to the- above communication as follows; 
■ -It is considered extremely necessary that the • 
Air Corps be” furnished a'folding litter, because of 
the difficulties involved in transportation. The 
litter in question has, as far as known been extremely 
- ' satisfactory in all Air Corps' maneuvers, etc. on 
■ which it has been used. If the- litter, for reasons’ 
unknown to the undersigned,' is'not-considered 
- satisfactory, it is requested that immediate steps 
:be taken toward the■doveiopmont of a Suitable fold- 
ing litter for use in the Air Corps,45 ■■ In view of this recommendation by the agency which 
was the principal user of the folding litter, it was decided 
by the Medical Department to continue procurement of the 
standard folding aluminum litter, pending the development of 
a more generally satisfactory model.The controversy was, 
therefore, temporarily ended, but, as we shall see in a later 
section, two years later the Air Corps was to reverse its 
stand regarding the suitability of the slip joint and station- 
ary hinge type of folding litter.^ 
Meanwhile, tests had been going forward on the Zimmer 
modification of the standard folding litter, and on 1 July 1940, 
the Medical Department Board submitted its formal report on the 
new litter to The Surgeon General’s The Zimmer 
litter’s most important feature was its unique hinge arrange- 
ment for folding the side poles. In other respects, it 
closely resembled the standard Army design. The new hinge 
consisted of three main parts: (l) the pole sections them- 
selves , which wore, the regular aluminum tubing, 1,54 inches 
in outside diameter, and 0.109 inches in wall thickness;. (2) 
two- short pieces, of solid aluminum which fit inside the pole 
sections near their point of juncture, and the ends of which 
contained a milled slot designed to receive a hinge link; 
(3) a hinge link, l-l/4 Inches wide, l/2-inch thick, and 
about 3. inches long,, which fit into the milled slot to which 
it was fastened by 3/8-inch pins, one for each pole: section. 
The pole sections could, therefore, be revolved (folded) on 
this hinge link through a 180-degree arc. 
In preparing the litter for service, however, it 
was necessary to unfold the poles and then give them a one- 
quarter turn before opening the spreader bars ——in order to 
place the flat side of the link hinge parallel to the ground 
so that.it, could best support the weight of the loaded litter. 
This feature proved, under test, td be the-most serious draw- 
back to the new litter. If the spreader bars were accidentally 
opened before giving the quarter-turn to the side pole, the 
litter was likely to collapse. This, in fact, occurred during 
the field test, although the litter was being handled by ex- 
perienced personnel. The broken spreader bar was replaced by 
a forged steel one, and the litter was packed on a truck for 
shipment to. Texas where the 1st Medical Regiment was to hold 
maneuvers. Though,, according to the Regiment’s Commanding 
Officer, the fitter had been most carefully packed, on arrival 
both, braces were found to be broken and further testing was 
impossible. 
The litter was returned to the Equipment Laboratory, 
where, two new spreader bars were made, and the Zimmer litter 
was onee more, .subjected to careful study and laboratory test- 
ing. As a result of this examination and the field experience 
described above, the Medical Department Board submitted its 
formal' findings as follows ; a. The subject litter is complicated in con- 
struction and, therefore, expensive.to build. 
b. Certain parts are too fragile and too 
easily damaged for field use, or parts may be lost. 
For example, the limiting pins and spreader bars. 
c. 'Mud, sand, snow or ice in the hinge, the 
■ stirrup sleeves, or in slots for the limiting pins 
in'all probability would seriously interfere with - 
" !’ the operation of the litter at times. 
d. If the litter is'not properly opened and 
'made ready for extending the spreader bars (that 
is, the quarter-turn of the poles so as to place 
the limiting pins in the exact position), one 
pole is apt to collap'se with the patient on it. 
This is particularly true when the canvas has 
stretched. To open properly this litter for 
patient bearing would be difficult under battle 
- conditions especially at night even with trained 
personnel, 
e. The subject litter is more‘than two (2) 
pounds heavier than the present folding litter. 
' • ‘• f. Its only advantage over the present 
folding litter is that it can be opened and 
closed by one person provided it is in gpod 
; working condition and none of its parts stick, 
bend, or are caked with mud, snow or ice.49 
The Medical Department Board, therefore, recommended 
the rejection of the Zimmer folding litter, and this recommen- 
dation was approved, 10 July 1940., by The Surgeon General’s 
Office .99 • 'w. ■ ■ . , ’ _ # 
- G. Summary of Development Phase. I. 
Beginning in 1932, the Medical Department turned its 
attention to the development of a satisfactory subtitute for 
the Metal litter which had been in use,by the Air,. Corps since 
the termination of World War I, but had,now become largely-un- 
suitable for that service’s needs. Taking as its model the 
recently developed straight pole aluminum litter, the Medical 
Department Equipment Laboratory produced before the. close of 
1935 a new folding type of airplane litter which was subse- 
•quantly approved both by the ’Medical Department .and the-Air 
Corps.;1 This litter, which was equipped with standard , 
duraluminum poles and cast aluminum undercarriage, had one 
outstanding -new feature. Its side poles had been section- 
al! zed and attached at the center by means' of slip joints, 
.so that the litter could be collapsed into ,a compact bundle 
measuring 1380 cubic inches. 
While the new folding aluminum litter became a 
standard catalog item in' 1937, the Equipment Laboratory continued to seek ways in which the model could be improved. 
First of all, careful examination was made of various materials 
other than aluminum which could be used in the construction 
of the side poles. Iron tubing, tubular steel, and straight 
grain ash wood were tested sucessively, and, while none of 
these materials proved to be the equal of aluminum, valuable 
information was gained regarding their differing physical 
properties and their actual performance under field condi- 
tions, Secondly, a wide variety of stirrup assemblies, de- 
signed to replace the stationary stirrup- of the standard 
litter, was inspected and tested extensively in the field. 
It was found that a rotating stirrup decreased the lateral 
width of the litter when folded, .thus reducing the cubic 
space required for storage and shipment. The problem which 
remained was to develop a folding stirrup which did not also 
rotate inward under a full.casualty load and which did not 
tend to weaken the side poles at the point of juncture. 
■■Finally, a comprehensive investigation was made of 
a number of possible alternatives to the slip joint arrange- 
ment of the standard folding litter. Welded hinges, riveted 
hinges with chain reinforcements,- and link hinges were all 
subjected.to complete laboratory and field tests. Of these 
various alternate devices, the link hinge appeared to be the 
most promising. In its present form, however, this hinge was 
still unsatisfactory.. In order to bring the metal link into 
proper position to support the full weight of the casualty, 
it ’was necessary .to give.the side poles a.one-quarter turn 
before opening the spreader bars. This procedure was not 
only avdeward but, unless it was followed exactly, the litter 
could be seriously damaged and might collapse under the patient. 
Consequently, additional research was required before,the 
link hinge could be accepted as a'substitut'o’for the slip 
joint type of connection. 
By the middle of 1940, a new element of urgency had 
entered the picture. As a result of criticism by the New 
York General Depot and the Planning and Training Division of 
The Surgeon. General’s. Office, procurement of the standard 
folding aluminum litter was suspended. While, upon the in- 
sistence .of the Medical Division of the Air Corps, authority 
to purchase this item was soon restored, the Medical Depart- 
ment made it clear that the restoration would only be tempo- 
rary—"pending'the development of a more perfect folding 
litter.,'1151 It was, therefore, encumbent upon research and 
development personnel to produce either an entirely new type 
of airplane litter or a satisfactory modification of the 
standard folding model as quickly as possible. Accordingly, 
the Medical Department provided for formal continuance of 
Development Project, F-7 during the; Fiscal Year, 1941.52 
119 III. Development Phase (2) (The Folding Wood Litt-er). 
A. Introduction. 
Now that the historical background of this project 
has been traced, we are in a position to consider in some- 
what greater detail the current developments with which this 
study is chiefly concerned. The account Which has just pre- 
ceded, however, affords a convenient yardstick by which’the. 
folding litter developments which occurred after 1 July 1940, 
can be measured. 'With the earlier information in mind, it is 
now possible to determine to what extent World War II research 
in this field was mainly a logical'extension of prior experi- 
mentation, and in what respects it represented totally new 
departures„■ . 
Before- beginning our examination of this second 
period:of.Medical Department research, attention should be 
called to the rather remarkable cycle through which the 
folding.litter passed during these later years. Prior to 
1940,. it wi.ll.' be .remembe-re-d, the. folding litter had been an 
almost exclusively Air Corps item. . .It had been a component 
of crash splint sets.and had been used extensively in air 
evacuation in place of the 1921 Metal. litter, but its use " 
by,, ground force troops had been .negligible . Before, the,, close 
of 1940, however, the folding litter was being viewed as 
haying:: somewhat wider possibilities. This, first mild broaden- 
ing of scope is suggested in.the Medical Department’s research 
prospectus for the Fiscal. Year, 19.41., where the aims of 
Development Project, F-7 were set .forth as fellows; 
To provide an adequate folding litter, for use 
; ' in transporting military patients.,, which, when not 
occupied, may be folded for more advantageous and 
a economical,carriage under certain conditions, such 
as in airplanes or on pack animals, or in other 
places requiring shorter length than the-standard 
90” litter.53 . .. - '' 
' By the 'early part of 1942, marked changes in mili- 
tary tactics had occurred which soon opened the way for new 
uses of the folding litter which had been;scarcely dreamed 
of a few years before. In its- Monthly Progress .Report for 
February,- 1942, the Medical- Dep a rtmeht Equipment' Labo r a to r y 
listed its current ob jectives as follows; 
■; ’ Work has been initiated in. an effort to de- 
vnlop a folding litter designed to provide more ■ 
compact folding- features and Tighter weight-. • 
This litter is- being designed primarily for use 
with parachute troops, air-borne Infantry, moun- 
tain troops, and other specialized units of the 
Medical Department of the II. Ss Armyo5^ In short, what had originally been 'designed as an airplane 
litter, a practically single-function item, had now become a 
special all-purpose litter, used extensively by ground force 
troops as well as Air Corps personnel. 
By 194-5, the cycle had run its full course, Air 
ambulances were now being so constructed that large doors 
Y/ere provided in the rear of the planes, thus making the 
operation of loading and unloading casualties virtually as 
easy as with a motor car ambulance,55 As a result of this 
development, the Army Air Forces formally requested a 
shift in litter procure,ment--frora the folding pole litter 
to the standard straight pole litter.5-6 This recommendation 
was approved and, thus, the Service which had originally been 
the principal user of the folding litter had now Y/ithdraY/n 
from the field completely, 
B, Zimmer Manufacturing .Company,. Warsaw, Indiana. = 
Returning now to our main narrative, it will be re- 
membered that the first Zimmer folding litter had been rejected 
by the Medical Department Board on 1 July 194-0, .and that these 
findings had been concurred in by The Surgeon General’s Office 
nine days later,5V The manufacturer was informed of this 
decision, and the principal defects of the litter were pointed 
out. Officials of the Zimmer Manufacturing Company stated that 
they believed these deficiencies could be corrected and, approxi- 
mately one month later, a nev/ and improved model (see Fig, 11) 
Y/as brought to The Surgeon General’s Office for inspection. This 
litter Y/as found to be definitely superior to the first Zimmer 
model, and it was thought that it might prove to be even a more 
satisfactory type of folding litter than the one'then in use by 
the Army, Consequently, on 20 August 194-0, The Surgeon General’s 
Office requested the Medical Department Board to have the new 
model subjected to thorough and extensive’-field—testing and to 
submit a formal report of its findings as soon as possible, 
Four days later, the Zimmer modified litter was 
forwarded by the Equipment Laboratory to one' of*the post’s 
medical battalions for field testing. The following 
instructions were issued'? 
a. The litter should be tested in comparison 
with the present standard aluminum pole litter and 
the present folding litter, 
■ ■; b. Carries up to l/2 mile, loaded with patient • 
: weighing 175 pounds or more. Particular attention 
■i should be given to note if there is any tendency for 
the"hinge'' joint”'to1 open end eloselwhen. the -litter* - 
bearers are in step during the carry, and the effeOt1 
of wear on the hinge joint, as well as damage to the 
inner edge of the poles at the joint, 
c* Loading and carrying the litter in the 
standard ambulances. Does the litter tend to bend 
at the middle Y/hen loading ambulances or when pass- 
ing over obstacles. do A thorough testing in the mud and sand to 
determine their effect on the hinges and stirrup 
bearings of the litter. 
Before proceeding to a discussion of the field test 
results, it should be noted that the new Zimmer litter differed 
from the'original model in several important respects, To 
begin with, the handles of the new type no longer required a 
one-quarter turn'before the spreader bars could be safely' 
opened. As a result,- the limiting pins which had formerly 
been an essential part of the mechanism had now been eliminated 
entirely. This removed the old danger of shearing off the.' 
pins or breaking.the spreader bar in forcing the litter open. 
It further eliminated the possibility of not engaging one or 
more'of the pins,- thereby causing the litter to collapse on 
one side when loaded. Secondly, the new litter had a different 
stirrup and spreader bar assembly. Although the rotating 
stirrup principle had been retained, changes had been made 
both in the design of the stirrup and in the manner in which 
it was fastened to the side pole. Certain features of the 
spreader bar were also new,. The weight of the entire assembly, 
however, was 5.44 pounds as against 4.34 pounds for the- 
standard undercarriage.60 
On 4 October 1940 the Commanding Officer of the test- 
ing battalion submitted his findings to the-Equipment Labora- 
tory. On the positive side of the' ledger it was reported that 
in ambulance loading and unloading, the performance- of both 
the'Zimmer and the standard folding litter had been, identical. 
It was also found,that the new litter did not buckle at the 
middle during loading or unloading operations, or. when passing 
obstacles. Moreover, the link hinge did not bend to open or 
close when* the .litter bearers were in step. .While it was 
found that the ease of assembly and disassembly of the two 
litters was about the same when two persons over© "employed, it 
was conceded bhat the-standard folding libber was more diffi- 
cult for one person bo disassemble. Finally, no acbual break- 
down of any par.b of bho new libber was reported,. 
On the other hand, in comparison with the standard 
folding litter the Zimmer model was found to possess a number 
of disadvantages.- The Zimmer .litter was 4-l/Z pounds heavier, 
and occupied 1359 cubic.inches as compared with 1155 cubic 
inches' -for the standard model. The new litter was regarded 
as having too many moving parts and exposed bearing; surfaces 
which, it Was believed, would not stand up under rough field 
usage. The Zimmer design called for 12 bolts as against 4 
bolts for the regulation model. Furthermore, the stirrups, 
it was:stated, cut into the canvas bed when folded, and also 
tended to become loose- and to wobble with use, 
122 As for the link hinge, its surfaces were found to 
be very inaccessible for cleaning and to be exposed when the 
litter was folded. Constructed of soft aluminum alloy, these 
surfaces were easily damaged in loading and unloading oper- 
ations, When open, the litter was awkward for one man to 
carry as it tended to buckle in the middle. Also-, because the 
cover was designed with square instead of rounded corners 
around the hinge, the canvas had been torn in two places be- 
fore the completion of the tests. It was next pointed out 
that, since the pole sections were hinged together in the 
Zimmer model, the failure of one section would require re- 
placement of the entire side pole involved. In contrast, 
the pole sections of the' standard litter, being attached by 
a slip joint, could be individually replaced without diffi- 
culty. Finally, it was estimated that the Zimmer litter, be- 
■ cause of its many movable- parts, would be more expensive to 
manufacture than the standard model.61 
'This information, together with a formal recommend- 
ation that the now Zimmer litter be rejected, was forwarded 
by the Equipment Laboratory to the Medical Department Board 
on' 2 May 
Qn 4 June 1941, this recommendation was 
sustained by the Board in its official report to The Surgeon 
General’s No documentary evidence has been found, 
however, to indicate that this decision was ever formally 
concurred in by The Surgeon General’s Office, Instead, the 
records show that new specifications were drawn up, based 
directly on the new Zimmer design with its folding stirrup 
and link hinge, and that before- the close of August, 1941, 
these specifications received official Army designation^ 
In addition, procurement records indicate that tne hinge type 
of folding litter was soon being purchased in preference to- 
the npull-apart” ■ d ■?. 
When, however, as a result of straight pole litter 
research, a hew pressed steel stirrup and spreader bar assembly 
was developed in the latter part- of 1941, the Zimmer design 
was officially superseded! After this date. Medical Depart- 
ment specifications for the collapsible aluminum litter called 
for the original slip joint model with fixed stirrup and the 
new steel undercarriage,66 The matter might have rested there 
had it not been for the fact that in May, 1942 certain events 
occurred which led the Air Corps to reopen the case. Cn 25 
• March 1942, a request was received by The Surgeon General's 
Office from Headquarters, Air Service Command, that 75,000 
litters (-Medical Department Catalog No, 99380) be purchased 
for the Fiscal Year 1943. Presumably the specifications then 
in force, which called for the slip joint, fixed stirrup type 
of folding litter, were to apply.67 On 22 -May 1942, however. 
Medical Department procurement officials received the follow- 
ing communication from the Supply Division of the Air Corps. 
123 On May 18th, a representative of the Zimmer 
Manufacturing Company was in this office and de- 
monstrated two types of folding litters. The. 
litter recommended is the aluminum litter of the. 
Zimmer type which has a folding joint instead of 
a slip'joint'. The reasons for this recommendation 
, are that with a slip joint litter, considerable 
difficulty will be encountered when the corrosion-, 
of these joints begins due to the salt air and 
moisture, where these litters will be used; also, 
when .the. canvas becomes damp,., and this litter is. 
open, considerable difficulty will be had in 
breaking the litter for packing.6^ 
This request for purchase of the Zimmer type of 
folding litter instead of, the currently-standard Carlisle 
type brought a vigorous reply from the Medical Department 
Equipment Laboratory. 
• The Equipment Laboratory does not recommend 
: the procurement of any Zimmer type folding-stir- 
rup collapsible pole litters for the following 
, , reasons.; - . : . • • 
. . 1. This Zimmer litter was previously tested 
by the Equipment Laboratory and found not suit- 
able for field.service; the Medical Department _ . ■ 
Board concurred in this recommendation. 
2, The Zimmer type litter is made almost 
...entirely of aluminum, which is highly strategic, 
3. The Zimmer type litter is considerably 
more expensive to manufacture than the present 
standard collapsible pole litter. 
4. . The present collapsible litter is more 
durable.and rugged than the Zimmer type litter, 
5, The present standard litter is lighter 
in weight than the Zimmer type litter,^ 
The Air Corps, however, stood firm in its demand 
and at length a compromise was reached. The Zimmer litter 
would not replace ..the Carlisle folding-litter as a standard 
catalog item, but.would be regarded merely as a supplemental 
litter to bo procured only for the. Air, Corps,70 In addition, 
the original purchase .order for 75.,000 folding litters was 
cut down to 25,000, the remainder to bo standard straight 
pole litters. 
This., of course, was an anomalous situation. In 
many respects, the Air Corps had-merely echoed-objections 
which had been made fully three years, before by procurement 
authorities*, within- the Medical Department as well as by 
officials of thp Planning and Training-- Division of-, The -Surgeon 
General’s However, due to the opposition of the 
Equipment Laboratory, the slip joint, fixed stirrup type of 
124 litter remained the standard catalog item, while the litter 
which was actually being procured by'the chief user of this 
item was accorded only ”supplementary” status. This case 
affords one more illustration of the kind of predicament 
that could result from failure to make full use of the instru- 
mentalities and procedures proscribed in AR 850-25. 
■The Medical Department Technical Committee, as 
described in this Army Regulation, had'been designed to pre- 
vent Just such difficulties. Differences'of opinion between 
representatives of divisions and branches within the Medical 
Department could be aired in sub-committee meetings and, if 
still unresolved, could be referred to. The Surgeon General for 
final decision. In meetings of the full committee, on which 
all interested arms and technical services were represented, 
difficulties at higher levels of authority could be discussed. 
In the event of continued nonconcurrence of a member, the 
question could then be referred to the Secretary of Gar.7'3 
Careful examination of Medical Department Technical 
Committee Minutes from 1941 .through 1942 does not indicate 
that the changes in components of the folding aluminum litter 
were processed through that body. Neither whs evidence found 
which would indicate that formal coordination of some other 
type was, effected with the Air Corps'when these changes were 
made. As a- result, during the latter part of 1942', the 
Medical Department had two' sets of specifications covering 
the folding, litter. Furthermore, even as late as-August, 1943, 
when the Zimmer type of folding litter, had at last become 
the standard, catalog item-., the fo 1 lowing communication from 
the Equipment Laboratory makes' it clear that the initial con- 
troversy had not even yet been resolved. 
, - Attention is. again invited to the fact that 
this Laboratory has never approved the foldihg stir- 
rup type- of spreader bar as same is entirely inade- 
quate and will not stand up under'field’conditions. 
• ■: It was accepted for use on the folding type litter. 
Item :No. 99380, as the Air Corps desired this light 
, ■ folding litter and the litter as constructed would 
;. not fold unless the folding type stirrup was used. 
A ':. This was also accepted in spite of our-report that 
w >-; , this folding stirrup and spreader bar combination 
j- - was not approved'by. this Laboratory.' There cAn be 
expected considerable replacement of*this item.,1,74 
In conclusion, then, it may be said that neither 
of the two ;typ.es of folding aluminum litters'-which were 
developed. undler. Medical Department supervision between 1935 
and 1941, was found.to be completeiy satisfactory. The 
Carlisle mode-1 was not favored by the New York General Depot, 
•the Planning and .Training Division of The Surgeon General’s Office, and the Air Corps. The Zimmer design, which was 
acceptable to all the critics of the slip joint litter, was 
vigorously and persistently opposed by the Equipment Labora- 
tory. Fortunately, in the spring of 194-3, a new folding wood 
litter was developed which met with the approval of all con- 
cerned,' As we shall see, however, considerable.-experimentation 
over a rather broad field was necessary before the desired end 
result was achieved, ■ - . • 
C, 'Gran Laboratories,. Storm Lake, Iowa. 
The Gran litter is reintroduced at this point in 
our chronological narrative, because of -certain new develop- 
ments which were to cause considerable difficulty for re- 
search and development personnel. The factual background 
of this case may.bo. .summarized somewhat as follows. After . 
demonstrations, in March, 1939, before officials of the 
Surgeon General’•-s Office and members of The Medical Depart- 
ment Board, Dr,' Gran shipped one of his v-shaped litters , 
(see Fig, 12) to the Equipment Laboratory for a field-test. 
On 24 July 1939, the Medical Department Board recommended, 
as a. result of field test findings, that -the litter be re- 
This information was conveyed,to the inventor of 
the litter, who also operated under the name "Gfran Laboratories”, 
on"31 July 1939 by The Surgeon General’s Office.7® 
On 7 July 1940, Dr. Gran appeared at The Surgeon 
General’s Office and requested that the -Army indorse his 
stretcher for civilian use. This request was refused.77 
Then-on 5 May 1941, Dr. Gran again visited The-Surgeon 
General’s Office, seeking to.have his litter reconsidered 
for use by the Army. -At that time a new type of unit was 
contemplated for which, it was felt, the Gran stretcher 
might be of use as specialized equipment. The,inventor was 
told that In the event such an organization were activated,, 
his litter would be ,re-tested. However, the proposed .-unit 
was not formed, so no further action-regarding the Gran litter 
was taken.7® This would seem to have put an end to the matter, 
but such was not the case. 
On 12 September 1941, a communication was received 
from the Honorable Clyde L. Herring, United States Senate, 
addressed to The Surgeon General’s Office, and stating that 
Dr. Gran wished; to- demonstrate his stretcher to officials of 
the Defense Program, The Senator added that he- would appre- 
ciate . consideration of Gran’s request together with-any 
suggestions which might be made as to the practicability of 
the device,7® The reply to the Senator, dated 15 September 
1941, stated that any information which had been*furnished 
The Surgeon General’s Office by Dr, :Gran and whioh he needed 
in demonstrating his- litter before other agencies, would be 
made available to him at his request. The letter then sum- 
marized briefly the information given in the above paragraph.®® On—15 September 1941, a letter from the Honorable.-. 
Guy M. Gillette, addressed to Major General James C. Magee,. 
The Surgeon General, was received. The concluding para- 
graph of-this letter was as follows: 1' , v 
May I earnestly request that thei most careful, - .0 
consideration be given., to Dr. Graji'Js' s;tretpher; and . ■ 
that, if possible, arrangements be ma.de for,him: to 
give a demonstration and present the matter to you 
or to those whom you may designate to represent 
you. I shall be very glad to receive”any suggestions 
or' to have an opportunity to discuss- the-matter with 
■ : you or your representatives- : • : 
In the absence of General Magee, the Acting Surgeon General 
replac’d, on 18 September 1941, by recounting in some detail 
the history of the Gran litter .and the:-Medical .Department’s 
position. -It was stated that, if certain proposed new units 
were activated at some future date, another test of the Gran 
litter would be conductedM 
On 14 October 1941, Dr. iGran wrote The Surgeon 
General’s Office and, citing Senator Herring’s letter, re- 
quested permission to demonstrate his stretcher before the 
Civilian Defense The General’s Office 
replied that the Commission was not"under the jurisdiction 
of the""far Department, and that, therefore, his letter was 
being forwarded to that agency.84 On 22 November-1941, ■ 
another - communication was received, from Dr. Gran- requesting-: 
Surgeon- General’sCOffico approval-of the Gran stretcher for 
those governmental agencies requiring such -approval, or a 
statement-of the reasons why such approval could not be 
given.85 jn reply, it was stated that,the. Gran litter had 
been reconsidered but that the disadvantages -that were : 
noted in the original test were still found to preclude 
adoption of the litter for military use, The 1939 tost 
findings were then quoted in detail,3$ ; . . 
In a letter addressed to The:Surgeon.General, dated 
11 December 1941, subject: "Removal of the Ban of the Surgeon 
General’s Office against the demonstration of the.Gran Port- 
ab le Li tter (Civili an: Mo del) "■ -,- the i nve nt or. s tat e d t ha t the. 
litter referred to in the above: letter was a military model, 
not the' civilian model-,, and thus was resubmitting his request 
for The Surgeon General's endorsement.87 After, acknowledging 
receipt of this latest communication. The Surgeon General’s 
Office -replied:---v; -M : :l- 
■ - f v ft has-' never been the intention of- the Medical 
•" • Department to place a ban against use by civilian 
agencies upon any equipment s-ubmitted to this depart- 
• menti a - : ’ ■ f . C:; • « % ;■ ■ • . If civilian agencies require that equipment 
be approved by the Medical Department before they 
will accept it, that is a matter beyond our control.^ 
The case, however, was not yet concluded. On 31 
March 1942, The Surgeon General’s Office forv/arded on request 
certain portions of its files on the Gran litter to the 
Inspector General’s Department,39 Then, on 7 April,,1942, The 
Surgeon General's Office sent to the Office of Civilian De- 
fense a statement signed by an officer in the Surgery Divi- 
sion, to the. effect that he felt the Gran litter could be 
profitably used in civilian defense. It was stated in the 
communication that the inclosed statement was simply a 
personal opinion,90 
No further developments appear to have taken place 
until 7 January 1944? when a communication was received in 
the Office "of the Secretary of liar from Senator Guy M. 
Gillette. The Senator referred to a letter recently received 
from Dr. Gran in which the latter stated that the War Depart- 
ment was planning to build box cars for the transportation 
of the sick and wounded, presumably because the regulation 
Army litter could not be used in Pullman cars.91 In reply, 
the Administrative -Assistant- to the Secretary of War stated 
that the report that the War Department was constructing box 
cars for the transportation of wounded soldiers was erroneous. 
In addition the Senator was informed of the two Medical De- 
partment rejections of the Gran litter,92 
On 29 June 1944? Senator Gillette enclosed another 
letter from Dr. Gran, dated 26 Juno 194-4? and asked for comment 
from the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of War. The 
first paragraph of Dr. Gran’s letter was as follows* 
■ 'I am resubmitting the litter to the War Depart- 
ment because the stretcher referred to was not the 
model referred to by the Medical Department- Board 
in 1939. This stretcher would not go into a stand- 
ard pullman car. The stretcher referred to in my 
letter was accepted by the Surgeon General in April, 
1942. This stretcher has never previously to 1942 
been submitted to the Surgeon General.93 
The letter drafted in reply to the above marks the 
concluding chapter in this voluminous correspondence, The 
War Department, after again tracing in detail the complete 
administrative history of the Gran litter, concluded its 
letter to Senator Gillette with this paragraph: 
Reference is made to the‘statement that the 
stretcher referred to was accepted by The Surgeon 
General in April,'’1942. The only record in the 
Office of The Surgeon General which indicates an 
approval is one made by the Surgery Division of 
that office on 6 April 1942, which is an opinion 
128 and states "that this stretcher can profitably be 
used in Civilian Defense". As previously stated 
this stretcher does not meet the requirements of 
the Medical Department Service of the Army as well 
as litters now standardized and in use today,^ 
This somewhat detailed chronical of events relating 
to the Gran litter has been presented because it illustrates 
so forcibly what heavy inroads can be made against the time 
of Medical Department research and development personnel by 
a persistent individual who is not averse'to seeking Con- 
gressional intervention to press his claims. The tangible 
gains achieved by Dr. Gran were, of course, negligible. 
Neither of the two Senators involved demanded anything more 
than reconsideration of the case, and The Surgeon General’s 
Office stood firm in continuing to sustain the original 
findings of the Medical.Department Board.' However, the case 
lasted from March, 1939 through June, 1944, and the time and 
effort involved in handling this voluminous correspondence 
was a decided burden to Medical Department officials. 
•' ' D. The Brumor Corporation, Hew York, M. Y. 
On 19 May 1941, arrangements were made" by The Surgeon 
General’s Office to turn over to the Brumor Corporation of Now York 
City, four standard aluminum pole litters to be used for experi- 
mental purposes in developing a new type of stirrup and spreader 
bar Several months before, the company had discus- 
sed the possibility of producing a folding litter with plastic 
side poles and moulded plastic parts, but this idea had now 
been abandoned in favor of a steel pole litter with an extruded 
aluminum undercarriage.Qn 20’May 1941, preliminary specifi- 
cations covering, the new Brumor stirrup and spreader bar 
assembly were presented to The Surgeon General’s Office, and, 
a week later, the company was authorized to make, up three 
experimental litters embodying.this design to be field tested 
at Carlisle . ■■ 
V Upon receipt of the pew litters, the Equipment 
Laboratory issued .the standard test instructions to the 32nd 
Medical Battalion. The Brumor litter was to be tested in com- 
parison with the regulation folding aluminum litter. Carries 
up to 1/2-pilp were, to be made,, .using a patient weighing 175 
pounds or more.,. . The, litters were, to be loaded from ambulance 
and cargo trucks, and the stirrup and spreader bar assemblies 
were to be tested...thoroughly in mud and .sand. In addition, 
certain specific questions were to be answered regarding the 
new model. During hand carry, was the whip of the poles ex- 
cessive? Did whipping action of the poles cause the side 
hinges to open 4n $uch a way as to .pinch the arm- of the 
patient? Did the hinge fastening the spreader.bar to the 
129 side pole catch the hands or fingers of the litter bearer 
when opening the litter? Did the overlapping portion of the 
wooden handle chip or break?^® 
The Brumor folding litter weighed 20-l/4 pounds and 
was equipped with steel side poles, 1-3/4 inches outside dia- 
meter, 0.046-inch wall thickness, 77 inches long, and hinged 
at the center by means of a cast aluminum hinge somewhat similar 
to the Zimmer device. At the, ends of the poles were wooden 
handles, '6-3/8 inches long tapering in size to l-l/s inches, 
at their smallest section. The usual slip-on canvas cover 
was provided which had, however, six. cut-outs-; one at each' 
hinge'and one at each of the spreader bar attachments to the 
poles. The cover was held taut by tie strings at the four 
corners of the canvas which were fastened to the side poles. 
The stirrup and spreader bar assembly was the most 
novel part of the new litter. The entire assembly was made 
of extruded aluminum straps, weighed 6.14 pounds per litter, 
and.required 30 welds. The stirrups were.welded to the 
spreader bars and were at right angles to the side poles when 
the litter was open. The spreader bars, which opened in the 
same direction, were attached to the side poles by 5/l6-inch 
bolts which passed through the ends of semicircular shaped 
straps and through the poles. In closing and opening the 
litter, the semicircles left the inner side of the poles for 
about one inch and then smapped back on the poles. The usual 
hinge arrangement had been employed in the bar sections at 
the center. 
> After extensive. field-trials, the only component of 
the new litter which was favorably.reported by the testing 
battalion was the steel tubing used for the side poles. These 
poles, it was found, developed no observable whipping action 
or bowing during casualty carries, and, except for the fact 
that they were heavier than the aluminum pole,, were regarded 
as a satisfactory substitute. The aluminum hinge, however, 
was not considered rugged enough for field service. The 
sample' litter broke at this, point when a 175-pound patient 
"was suddenly lifted. Also, the hinge v/as. complicated in 
construction and, because of its millod parts, expensive. 
Finally, the litter handles were found to be uncomfortable. 
The bevel of these handles;did not conform to the natural 
grip of litter bearers’ hands, and thus threw the greatest 
strain on the thumbs and. index fingers instead of the last 
three fingers. 
As for the canvas-cover, in,addition to being.ex- 
pensive due to "the. -six bound cut-outs, t>ie tie strings failed 
to hold the canvas taut so that the:cover- tended to slip ■ 
toward the center. This increasing sag ultimately left the 
patient resting directly on the ground. The stirrup and 
130 spreader bar assembly was found to be altogether unsatisfactory. 
Sudden stops and starts- of the ambulance or truck caused the 
spreader bar to unlock and collapsed the litter. Similarly, 
striking the rear edge of the floor, the assembly collapsed. 
When kicked back into position the spreader bar frequently 
pinched the patient* s -arms and legs because;:pf its snap hinge.^ 
In conclusion, the. 32nd Medical Battalion recommended 
rejectionjof the Bruraer litter, and this recommendation was 
sustained by- the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory, in 
its final report of The Surgeon General’s Off The steel 
side polos of the hew litter were its. only promising feature. 
If the Air Corps would allow the .added weight, these poles 
could be'used in place of aluminum,, should a serious scarcity 
of that metal'develop. In: all other respects the Brumor litter*s 
performance had been markedly inferior to that of the standard 
folding litter. • "••• : •; ■ • 
E* ';The -United: Metal Box Company, .-Brooklyn, -New York• 
■In June', 1942, a modification ,of the- slip joint type 
of Jcc;hnection for the -folding litter was -developed by the United 
Metal Box Corfipany. The device, consisted essentially, of a shorter 
sleeve than was used in the standard, litter, which was rein- 
forced by a snap lock "to keep the polo ;sections. from pulling 
apart-when the litter was-open. A sample stretcher, incorpo- 
rating this device p and equipped with steel side poles was 
demonstrated at the Equipment Laboratory on 5 June 1942. Re- 
garded by Laboratory personnel as too weak for field use, the 
lock arrangement was-redesigned by the manufacturer and, in 
the'; following'month, resubmitted for examination and field 
4 
test Inasmuch as only'one component of the new litter was 
under observation, the Equipment Laboratory departed from its 
usual procedure in issuing test instructions to the 32nd Medi- 
cal Battalion. 
:: - Request that your organization have carried 
out such tests as you may deem necessary to deter- 
mine the suitability of the. lock of the • all-steel 
- collapsible'-pole litter, and that the. findings and 
any recommendations you may wish to make be report- 
ed to this:office informally. ® 
About the middle of July, 1942, tests were made-with 
the litter loaded with a 180-pound patient, ajid-. with- the litter 
empty. The stretcher was next folded and tested for handling 
under field conditions.® . In a report.to. the manufacturer, 
dated 28 July 1942, the Equipment Laboratory listed the field 
trial results as; follows;. -. • ■ . , 
131 Snap lock of one pole became depressed and 
joint lost regidity, The sleeve end of the side 
pole'section concerned became enlarged when the 
weight of the patient forced the joint below the 
horixontal, resulting in a more elliptical than 
round sleeve end, and lock was ineffective after 
this occurred. 
Litter joints showed definite signs of damage 
when litter was dropped into soft shale fill from 
a height of three feet. Sleeve end of joint fil- 
led with mud and foreign material but without 
• apparent effect on the serviceability of the lock- 
ing device.7 -i ''' • 
■; On the basis of the above findings, the Laboratory 
stated that it was apparent that' a longer'and stronger sleeve, 
such-as the one used on the standard slip joint folding litter, 
was necessary.- In the event this change was made, however, 
the locking device would no longer be needed. There would be 
no problem in holding the pole sections together, so a lock 
would simply create an additional operation in getting the 
pole sections apart. The new device was, therefore, rejected. 
It could only be improved by duplicating the standard slip 
joint.® 
F. Metallbau Eoller, A. G. , Basle, Switzerland. 
. On. 5 November 1941, a packet of documents and photo- 
graphs relating; to two new types of folding litters was forwarded 
by the United States Military Attache at"Bern, Switzerland to 
the assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Washington, D.'C. Accord- 
ing to the enclosed literature these■litters, which had been 
developed by Metallbau Roller at Basle,- Switzerland, had been 
adopted' by the Swiss Army as peculiarly suitable to the evacu- 
ation of wounded over rugged, mountainous territory.9 Upon 
receipt of this descriptive material The Surgeon General's 
Office requested that efforts be made to obtain a full-sized 
model of each of the Eoller designs for examinations and test. 
The Medical Department was•especially interested'in these 
Swiss litters as it v/as expected that mountain divisions would 
be activated at some time in the near future.10 
. Accordingly two pilot models were shipped to this 
country by the manufacturer , ■ the-ir transportation to the Equip- 
ment Laboratory was arranged through the Swiss Legation which 
agreed to pay the charges, and, on 2 June 1942, The Surgeon 
General’s .Office directed: the Laboratory to subject the new 
litters, as, soon-,as received to'thorough field tests arid to 
render a formal report of findings i H -Before the close, of . 
June, 1942, a two-man, collapsible litter and pack-carry lit- 
ter had arrived at Carlisle. As usual, testing instruqtions 
132 were thereupon issued by the Laboratory to the 32nd Medical 
Battalion. In this instance, however, the instructions were 
highly general in nature. 
It is requested that your organization carry 
out such tests as are deemed necessary to deter- 
mine the strength, practicability; and usefulness 
of the subject litters.12 
.. Both litters were basically similar in design. In 
certain respects they resembled the old Trench Litter in 
World War Their metal framework was oval in shape and 
consisted of two horseshoe-shaped sections whose open ends 
were hinged together. A rounded canvas cover was fastened 
to this continuous outer rail, which was constructed of 
steel tubing, by means of hooks placed:along the ends and for 
p. short distance down the sides of the metal rail. Four pieces 
of’ short tubing welded, to the frame served as feet for the 
litter, and to these were attached four'rods with downward 
curving handles'. By means of a: special''cap and butterfly 
screw, thes'e‘ elongated handle bars would be turned hori- 
zontally or vertically, the size of the arc being controlled 
by a; series of groo've openihgs, or could be held rigidly in 
extended' position. ‘ :" -’ : ■••• .■ • •• ; 
These movable handle bars afforded a wide opportunity 
for converting the Koller litter to a variety of uses. By turn- 
ing the-handl-e.-ha.-rs:..Fe-r-tiaa'lLy,:Jbhhl.^trafe’.her;jdouid be used as 
an emergency bandaging or field operating table, or to prevent 
the patient' from becoming wet when the litter was put down in 
.swampy/country. By turning the handle bars upward and roofing 
with one. tent cloth,’protection*was afforded against5 raih,v 
wind, snow, and insects. By lowering one- set of bars and keep- 
ing the' other set fixed in the horizontal, the litter could 
be' converted into a crude sledge for use in snow,' on hills, 
or over sand. Tilth additional equipment, such as wheels or 
skis, numerous other conversions were possible. For ordinary 
hand carry, however, the front handle bars were generally • 
fixed, while the rear bars were adjusted to turn horizontally. 
The collapsible litter was a one-piece assembly and 
weighed 22 pounds. It measured 24 by 73 inches when open and 
24 by 38 inches when folded. This model folded in the middle. 
In contrast, the pack-carry litter could be separated into two 
parts, each of which weighed 14.5 pounds. These sections were 
identical so'that the connection of any two of them would form 
a' complete, litter. Opened, ‘the littdr measured 24 by 73 inches — 
exactly the Same as the'first’model, ‘Folded into separate sec- 
tions, each of which :measured 24 by 39 inches-, the dismantled 
litter could be readily carried asva marching pack. Aside 
from thdse one-piece and two-piece; features, the two litters 
Were virtually,identical. Both were equipped With the-movable 
handle bars, the oval shaped frame , : arid the hooked-on canvas.-1-4 
133 The field test report of the S2nd Medical Battalion 
was completed on 7 July 1942, and forwarded to the Equipment 
Laboratory. The two litters, designated as the Koller Litter 
and the Koller Pack Litter, had been tested in comparison 
with the standard ash pole and aluminum pole litters, .and 
also in comparison with manual saddleback carry,- Test results 
were as follows: (1) Loaded with a 180-pound patient and 
hauled in an ambulance over a macadam road and- then across 
open fields, the Koller Litter developed a whip of 3.5 inches, 
rendering it difficult for a patient to stay on the litter. 
The empty litter when folded could not be secured to the 
sides of the ambulance and so it interfered with -movement 
within the ambulance, (2) Hand carried under simulated combat 
conditions, it was found that the empty litter was difficult 
to handle when the bearers deployed as. it did not fold into 
a compact mass. Moreover, the time required to unfold or to 
assemble the litter for use was regarded as excessive.- 
The second type, the Koller Pack- Litter, was loaded 
with a 153-pound patient and hand carried over a course 1.2 
miles long. It was found that the framework cut and rubbed 
the bearer at contact points, was difficult to adjust for pro- 
per balance, and was extremely awkward to carry when empty. 
Bearers covered the course twice; once using the pack litter 
and once carrying the same patient by saddle back manual 
carry, nil bearers expressed a preference for the latter type 
of carry. The only advantage found for this type of litter 
was in mountainous terrain or heavily wooded areas, where it 
permitted the bearer the use of his hands in climbing or 
descending steep grades and in going through dense forests.-^ 
In its final report to The Surgeon General’s Office, 
the Equipment Laboratory presented its conclusions as follows: 
The disadvantages of the subject items found 
by the 32nd Medical Battalion during their test were 
in comparison to the standard field equipment, under 
ordinary field conditions. It is believed that in 
such places as the standard litter could be used 
and the back carry would not be too long or over 
rough terrain, that the standard litter and the 
manual carry would make it unnecessary for special 
equipment. However, in such places as there may 
be scarcity of personnel, no reason for deployment, 
and terrain so rough that equipment must be carried 
bn the back leaving free use of the hands, the Koller 
adjustable pole litter and the Koller back carry 
litter would prove valuable. 
Thus it was recommended that where special conditions warranted, 
the Swiss litters could be used to advantage. 
134 This was not, however, the end of the matter. On 
8 June 19-42, the agent in this country for Metallbau holier 
informed The Surgeon General's Office that his principals 
in Basle had shipped a new and improved stretcher by air ex- 
press on 21 May and that this model would also be available 
for test as soon as received. In a subsequent communication 
it was explained that the new design provided for complete 
swinging round of the handle bars and for a more satisfactory 
stretching of the canvas cover.1? However, due to a shortage 
of the light steel, the metal framework had. been constructed 
from relatively heavy material which possessed a lower degree 
of elongation and tensile strength than the steel tubing used 
in the earlier models, 
On 15 August 1942, The Surgeon General's Office, 
having authorized the shipment of the new Roller litter to 
Carlisle, requested the Equipment Laboratory to submit a 
test report of findings as soon as Only an 
"examination", and not a complete field test was requested, 
so the Laboratory apparently did not submit the new litter 
to the 32nd Medical Battalion for extensive testing. On 
24 October 1942,•a final report was rendered. It was reported 
that the improved Roller litter was essentially the same as 
the one previously tested by the Laboratory except for 
certain minor changes. The new method of attaching' the carry- 
ing handles to the litter was regarded as an improvement as 
the points of stress were now reinforced at the points of 
application. An additional catch placed at the middle'hinge 
was also considered superior to the earlier design. 
It was found, however, that the new litter set up the 
same whipping motion when carrying a patient in a cross country 
ambulance, and it was felt that this would ultimately result 
in a permanent set in the metal framework. It was also noted 
that the spring catch of the handle connection was defective 
and would not only fail after prolonged use but would also 
eventually break the wire' cable holding the canvas to the 
frame, against which it repeatedly struck. In summary the 
Laboratory acknowledged that certain features had been impro- 
ved, but felt that its findings regarding the earlier models 
still applied; namely that the Roller litter was not a suit- 
able substitute for any of the standard Medical Department 
litters but that it would be valuable for use under special 
conditions,*^ 
Since standardization of the Roller litter would have 
to await activation of mountain divisions or similar specialized 
units, no procurement action was initiated at this The 
further question may be raised, however, as to whether the Roller 
litter actually merited even the limited recommendation it had 
been given. A letter dated 12 March 1943, from the Director 
of the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory to the Command- 
ant of the Medical Field Service School at Carlisle, suggests 
135 that the above recommendation may have been really intended 
as a polite form of rejection. 
....we had this litter here in both the old 
and more recent models, and....we find that they 
will not serve to replace our standard litter and 
arc, therefore, only a special piece of equipment 
of limited value and therefore not considered for 
adoption. Further, it is a complicated affair 
and we would expect many mechanical difficulties.^ 
It will be remembered also that the litter had not 
been extensively tested in genuinely mountainous country. In 
Great Britain, however, such tests were conducted, and with 
the following results: 
Exhaustive trials have been made with the 
Roller Stretcher over most difficult country. 
It is considered that this Stretcher, which is 
of a most ingenious design, is too complicated, 
too fragile, and definitely would not stand up 
to the stress and strain of mountain warfare.23 
Later, when a special development project was initiated by the 
Medical Department to produce a satisfactory mountain litter, 
it was significant that, the holier litter was not recommended 
for adoption.24 
G. Charles J, Williams, Saco, Maine. 
In the preceding chapter it was pointed out how 
serious administrative difficulties were created by the ex- 
tension of War Production Board activities into the rninutia 
of Army litter research.25 The Williams case, which is of 
little or no importance so far as development of the folding 
litter is concerned, is included here simply because it pro- 
vides some of the earliest evidence of a gradual stiffening 
in attitude on the part of the Medical Department, The case 
also furnishes the first instance thus far encountered in 
which it was suggested by the Medical Department that a con- 
venient solution of this problem of overlapping jurisdiction 
between it and the War Production Board ’would to be make use 
of the governmental agency which had been specifically estab- 
lished to perform just such coordination. 
On 8 December 1942, the Technical Development 
Section of the War Production Board forwarded to The Surgeon 
General's Office a description and drawing of a combination 
stretcher and Army cot invented by Charles J. Williams of 
Saco, Maine, While it was not indicated whether or not the 
inventor had constructed a physical model as yet, the War 
Production Board appended this request: 
136 Will you please,have your committee study 
this idea, and if found impractical or unsound 
then suggest some alternate or modification 
which will satisfactorily solve the problem. 1° 
Needless to say The Surgeon General's Office ignored 
the latter portion of this request. In reply it was stated 
that the williams litter in no way conformed to standard 
sizes and specifications and consequently could not be inter- 
changed with other litter equipment then in use, nor could 
it be adapted to the fittings in the: various Medical Depart- 
ment vehicles in which it would presumably be used. It was 
recommended, therefore,: that no .further- consideration be 
given the item of equipment in question. In concluding, The 
Surgeon General's Office made the following' terse comment: 
' Equipment of this type has previously been 
sent to this office through the National Inventors' 
Council where it has undergone a sifting process 
and if it is not in-line with our usual require- 
ments, it is not given further consideration,27 
The reply was apparently effective. The records do 
not show that any further correspondence on this matter was 
received. 
H. Zimmer Splint Company. New York. Now York• 
As we have seen in'the previous’ chapter, the use of 
aluminum in the manufacture of Medical Department straight 
pole litters was discontinued shortly after the issuance of 
Conservation Directive No. If on 12 January 1942. Inasmuch 
as the folding pole litter was, used- principally in airplanes 
and tanks and was consequently procured in only relatively 
small quantity, the aluminum restriction was not immediately 
extended to this field. ” The effects of the shortage, how- 
ever, were nonetheless serious so far as this branch of litter 
research and development was concerned. The side poles of 
the new straight steel litter were smaller in outside diameter 
than those of the straight aluminum litter which was being 
temporarily replaced. If the.customary-interchangeability of 
parts was to be maintained, this meant that either a smaller 
dimension tubing would have to be used in the folding aluminum 
litter or, if this was incompatible with tensile strength re- 
quirements, a substitute material would have to be found. 
Accordingly, on .21 February 1942, the Equipment 
Laboratory addressed an inquiry to the Aluminum. Company of 
America to find out the possibility of constructing aluminum 
tubing with an outside diameter of l-l/4 inches instead of 
the now standard 1-1/2 inches,: which would still-possess 
137 relatively the same regidity characteristics of the old 
The same day the Laboratory wrote to the Zimmer Splint Company 
in New York City, requesting that a folding steel litter be 
constructed following the design of the aluminum pull-apart 
model.3d The entire problem became considerably more crucial 
when, on 25 February 1942, the aluminum Company of America 
replied that a reduction of 1/2-inch in outside diameter of 
the aluminum collapsible pole would necessitate a correspond- 
ing increase in wall thickness, thus materially increasing 
the weight per foot and rendering the pole much less satis- 
factory from an engineering standpoint. The company concluded 
by recommending that no reduction in outside diameter be made.-^ 
as for the proposed folding steel litter, objections 
were immediately raised by the simmer organisation regarding 
the slip joinu specification suggested by the Laboratory. It 
was pointed out that the danger of corrosion made this device 
less desirable than certain other methods of connecting the 
pole sections. Unless protected in some manner, the sleeve 
of carbon steel would be likely to rust heavily, it was under- 
stood to be virtually impossible to lay down plating on the 
inside of the tube, and dipping in paint was not regarded as 
affording much hope of durability. • The precision fit which 
was necessary with the slip joint type of construction was 
also cited as a disadvantage,32 In reply the Laboratory 
minimised the problems which had been .raised, 
I do believe, however, that-the rusting of the 
sliding ends of our proposed steel folding litter 
has been greatly over emphasized, I cannot con- 
ceive how the ends could rust so badly (under the 
most adverse conditions) that the poles could 
not be slipped together. It is true that in time 
severe rusting would weaken the joint due to the' 
wasting’away of the metal but this would certainly 
be a matter of years of exposure under adverse ■ 
conditions ,33 
It was suggested, therefore, that construction of 
the new litter proceed along the lines originally prescribed 
with the single modification of cadmium plating the male sec- 
tion of the sliding sleeve. On 2 March 1942,- the manufacturer 
replied that production had been started and that the new 
model would be available in the near future.34 The records 
do not indicate the exact date on which the finished litter 
was received by the Laboratory, nor is there’ any evidence 
that this experimental model was formally field tested'and 
reported upon to The Surgeon General’s Office. In fact, the 
only other reference to this particular litter that was found 
is contained in the communication referred' to much earlier 
in the chapter,33 in which the Air Corps expressed its decided 
preference for a folding joint (hinged) type of folding litter 
138 instead of the slip joint variety. After stating this pre- 
ference so far as the .aluminum litter ms concerned, the Air 
Corps then made the following comments regarding the steel 
litter.: 
The steel litter weighs about 8 pounds more than 
the aluminum litter. With aluminum litters, this 
means a saving of from 80 to 264 pounds, depend- 
ing upon the type of airplane, in which they are 
used. The bulk of the steel litter is greater 
than that of the aluminum folding litter due to 
the fact that the foot rests do not fold in. 
This will also make considerable difference in 
transporting litters in large number by air.OD 
I. Simmer-Thomson Corporation, Long Island City,New York, 
after this final rejection by t he Air Corps, nothing 
more was heard of the slip joins type of steel folding litter. 
Experimentation with steel tubing was not, however, immediately 
abandoned. The Zimmer-Thomson Corporation of Long Island City,New 
York, a manufacturing affiliate of the Zimmer Splint Company, 
continued the research work that had been initiated by the 
latter company and, before the close of 1942, had developed 
a wholly new type Pf folding litter which w as demonstrated 
before officers of Tho Surgeon General’s Office in the early 
part of 1943,°7 
The new litter was double-folding, being constructed 
in three sections which were connected by means of folding 
hinges rather than slip joints. The standard steel under- 
carriage had been used but, in order to keep the assemblies 
from overlapping when the litter was folded, the two spreader 
bars had been staggered at different relative positions on 
the side rails. Thus, the distance between the feet or stir- 
rups of the litter, which were attached to the spreader bars, 
was less,then the amount required by Medical Department speci- 
• . 
This discrepancy vras detected by The Surgeon General’s 
Office when the new litter was first inspected and it was sug- 
gested that tho difficulty might be overcome by having the 
spreader bars fold in opposite directions. This change was 
attempted by the company but there was still some overlapping 
of the assemblies when the litter was folded. It was then 
decided to employ one straight spreader bar and one curved 
bar, the patient to be placed on tho canvas with his head 
toward the curved end. Using this method it was found that 
the litter could be folded compactly and also that tho stand- 
ard foot distance could be maintained.39 
139 The modified design was completed before the end of 
February, 1943, and a pilot model submitted to the Equipment 
Laboratory at that time. It was pointed out by tho manufacturer 
that the new litter could be collapsed and fitted into a car- 
ton or box, 7 inches square by 30 inches long. This was 
stated to be a 33-l/3 per cent reduction in the volume occupied 
by folding litters previously built by the company for the 
Medical Department. As previously mentioned, the new litter 
was equipped with folding hinges in place of the slip joints 
or earlier models. Inasmuch as the merits of these two types 
of joints had been the subject of considerable controversy in 
connection with the old folding aluminum litter, the opinion 
of this key manufacturer of Army litters may be of interest 
at this point, 
A second feature of this litter is that the type 
of hinge which is employed does not depend on a 
close fit precision joint. Since stainless steel 
is too critical to be used for this purpose, it 
has been my personal feeling that all the folding 
litters which we have yet seen which utilized close 
fit sliding or pull-apart joints are very unde- 
sirable in that the plating or protective coating 
will wear off in very short time and consequently 
the parts will rust and render the litter useless. 
The hinge on the litter wo plan to submit to you 
could endure considerable rusting without its 
operation being impaired. 
As the poles of this new design litter are 
positively linked together we avoid the diffi- 
culty of handling whi ch is encountered with 
the pull-apart type when it is taken apart, 
allowing the four poles to shift around more 
or less indiscriminately.^ 
Two other factors were also alluded to by the manu- 
facturer in submitting the new litter to the Laboratory for 
test. In the first place, tho new model was a direct adapta- 
tion of the standard straight steel litter with the exception 
of one special spreader bar, and was consequently almost en- 
tirely interchangeable with the regulation item. The main- 
tenance advantages of this feature were obvious. Secondly, 
the new litter was constructed of the. same rail carbon steel 
tubing used in the production of the straight pole model. 
This material, which was a reclaimed steel, -was stated to be 
not only tough and durable, but readily available in any 
quantity desired.^ 
On 5 March 1943, in company with seven other experi- 
mental litters of different types, the new Zimmer steal model 
was forwarded to the 32nd Medical Battalion for service test. 
140 In view of the subsequent decisiveness of this particular mass 
tost, the instructions given by the Equipment Laboratory were 
surprising.!y cursory. The earlier custom of sending detailed 
written instructions along with the request for a formal re- 
port of test findings was clearly not adhered to in this 
instance. The Laboratory merely stated; 
It is requested that your organization have 
carried out such tests as you may deem necessary 
to compare and determine the suitability of the 
folding litters listed in Paragraph 2 below, and 
that the findings and any recommendations vou may 
U A p 
wish to make be reported to this office informally.'^ 
The reply from the 32nd Medical Battalion, made on 
10 March 1943 upon completion of the field tests, was one of 
the least detailed reports yet received from that agency. It 
was stated that the following tests were conducted: (l) the 
litters were opened and closed; (2) a two-hundred pound patient 
was carried at quick time and at double time; (3) the litters 
were subjected to rough treatment; (4) the litters, while 
open, were twisted and forced as much as possible by two 
corpsmen; (5) attempts were made to open and close the litters 
after mud and snow had been applied to their joints; (6) the 
litters were used in.all berths of the standard ambulance; 
(7) the litters were assembled by men in blind-fold.43 
The performance of each of the various litters under 
the tests enumerated above was not described. The balance of 
the report consisted simply of one-paragraph evaluations of 
the eight litters tested. Comment on the Zimmer-Thomson model, 
which was listed as second choice, was as follows: 
This litter was equally well liked for its 
ease of opening and folding. However, it is 
heavier than the No, 8. The. hinges are less 
rigid when the litter is open and hero again the 
< canvas is too loose allowing the patient to rest, 
on the spreader bars. Otherwise this litter is 
well liked, very stable and withstands all types 
of treatment very well. It is thought that if 
some, device could be arranged to stabilize the 
hinges when this litter is open it would be a 
great improvement.44 
The amount of formal interchange of information 
between the Equipment Laboratory and the 32nd Medical Bat- 
talion had been, as we have just seen, extremely scant. The 
effects of this deficiency in reporting were shortly to be 
seen at the next higher echelon -of command. No separate 
report of test results regarding the new Zimmer litter appears 
to have been made in writing to The'Surgeon General’s Office. The only further mention of the litter that was found was 
the mere statement that it had been tested—included in a 
brief report, dated 16 March 194-3, in which a double-folding 
laminated' wood litter was recommended for adoption by the 
Medical Department,4-5 While it is probable that impending 
new aluminum restrictions, which were soon to deny the use 
of this material even for folding litter construction, were 
the primary cause of this unusually hasty examination and 
report, the fact remains that little or no opportunity was 
given either The Surgeon General’s Office, or.for.that mat- 
ter the Equipment laboratory, to make a careful and.independ- 
ent evaluation of the Zimmer litter on the basis of adequate 
and precise recorded data. 
While the procedures by which rejection of the 
Zimmer litter had been accomplished would seem to bo open 
to some question, no exception could be taken to the end 
results achieved by the Medical Department, The folding 
litter which was eventually selected by The Surgeon General’s 
Office in preference to the stool and other models was soon 
to bo regarded as the best folding litter over developed for 
th6 United States Army, However, as wc shall see in a moment, 
the Zimmer double-folding, hinged litter played an important 
part in this final development, 
J. Carlisle Models I and II (Medical Department 
Equipment Laboratory), 
• While the Zimmer folding (stqcl litter was considered 
too heavy for optimum field use, one feature of its design had 
from the first strongly impressed Equipment Laboratory offi- 
cials.’ The novel idea of se.ctionalizing the side poles into 
three, instead of two, hinged sections, thereby producing a 
double-folding litter of unusual compactness, opened up possi- 
bilities which Y/crc immediately seized upon by the Laboratory, 
Early in 194-3, research and development personnel at Carlisle 
Barracks sot to work on the construction of a double-folding 
litter using laminated wood (as in the latest straight pole- 
model) and using a hinge similar to the Zimmer type but 
designed to fit a square-shaped pole, A way was also devised 
to employ the standard undercarriage instead, of the somewhat 
unorthodox running gear used in the Zimmer assembly,4-6 
Within several weeks two of these experimental 
wood litters had. been cons truc ted Carlisle Model Number I 
(which had a square! sleeve 'type, joint.) and Carlisle- Model Num- 
ber II (which had ah insert typo joint),', :In, the view ef. the 
Director of the Equipment Laboratory both of these litters, 
which had been tested informally by the. Laboratory, were equal 
to the Zimmer steel type in'sturdiness., had the,--advantage of 
being lighter in weight, wore not so apt to rust, arid, by making use of laminated wood,' eliminated the need for carbon 
steel poles which were then in danger of being declared as 
critical as aluminum. However, the. hinges with,which the 
litters had been equipped were admittedly weak. They had 
been constructed of scrap materials and it was no surprise to 
the Laboratory when subsequently this component was found 
defective by the 32nd Medical Battalion,4-V 
On 10 March 194-3? the two Carlisle litters were 
transferred to the 32nd Medical Battalion and tested along 
with the Zimmer steel model and five other double-folding 
laminated wood models which had since been manufactured for 
the Laboratory by an outside manufacturer. As might have 
been expected, out of the eight litters tested, the Carlisle 
models were listed seventh and eighth, respectively. It will 
be noted, however, that weakness of the hinges was the princi- 
pal.defect cited. The testing agency’s comment follows? 
Carlisle Model No. I. This litter was 
found to be too unstable at the joint. It was 
likewise found to be too short and too hard to 
connect and disconnect with dirt and ice present. 
Carlisle Model No. II, This litter was 
thought to be the poorest of the lot because of 
the weakness at the welded joint and because of 
the difficulty in keeping the joint in place 
once they were together,^ 
As in the case of the Zimmer litter, no separate 
report on these two Carlisle Models was made to The Surgeon 
General’s Office by the Equipment Laboratory, Simply a 
brief reference to the fact that they were tested was included 
in a subsequent communication, dated 16 March The 
same comments as to the adequacy of these procedures as were 
given in the case of the Zimmer folding steel litter would 
seem to apply with equal force hero, 
K. Mikar Specialties Company. Baltimore, Maryland. 
It will be recalled that the Mikar Specialties 
Company (division of National Store Fixture Company, Balti- 
more, 'Maryland) had, in December,- 194-2, successfully developed 
a laminated wood straight pole litter which was subsequently 
adopted as standard by the Medical Department, This company 
was now invited to assist in the production of a new folding 
wood litter. The. nature and extent of its contricution to 
this latter undertaking, however, is still a matter of con- 
siderable controversy. 
According to the Director of the Equipment Labo- 
ratory, Mikar Specialties Company did not make any important creative contribution to the development of the folding wood 
litter, but simply performed a largely routine.manufacturing 
task. The unique double-folding arrangement (accomplished 
by a triple-sectionalizing of each side pole) was originated, 
it is stated by this officer, by the Zimmer-Thomson Corpo- , 
ration and was embodied in the double-folding steel .litter 
which was submitted by that company early in 1943. As for 
the hinge design which was ultimately adopted by the Medical 
Department, this, it is contended, also originated with the 
Zimmer-Thomson Corporation, but was later modified by the 
Equipment Laboratory to fit the laminated'wood pole. All 
that Mikar Specialties Company had done, therefore, apart 
from simple fabrication, had been to "remedy a few defects 
chiefly in hinge materials used" in the original Carlisle 
Models.50 
An opposing viewpoint on this question was held 
by Mikar Specialties Company, and its position was sustained 
to a considerable extent by the Chief of the Field Equipment 
Branch of the Plans Division, Cfficc of The Surgeon General, 
who had also been active in this phase of the- development 
work. According to this version the contribution of Mikar 
Specialties-Company had been considerable. The problem of 
developing a folding type litter with satisfactory hinges 
had by no means been solved by the time Mikar Specialties 
Company entered the picture. In the words of the Chief of 
the Field Equipment Branchs 
. . • This had been attempted by a number of 
organizations for about 4 or 5 months prior 
to this request with unsatisfactory results. 
The Mikar Specialties Company was successful 
in developing litters of this type which 
passed the test of our Laboratory at Carlisle 
Barracks and the Laboratory of the Air Corps 
at Wright Field.51 
Whatever the proper apportionment of credit may 
have been in this case, in the early part of March, 1943? a 
double-folding laminated wood litter (which was subsequently 
to meet with the approval of all Medical Department officers 
concerned) was shipped by Mikar Specialties Company to the 
Equipment Laboratory for final field test,52 
The new litter (see Fig, 13) was 90 inches in 
over-all length, was 22 inches wide, and weighed 20 pounds. 
Slip-on'canvas, 72 by 22-7/8 inches, served as the cover or 
bed of the litter, and was designed with two semi-circular 
cut-outs on. each side where the pole, hinges were located. 
The material from which the side poles had been constructed 
was identical with that which had been used in the case of 
the new straight wood litter| laminated wood, 6-ply, l-l/2 by l-l/2 inches, with corners rounded. Each pole, however, 
was divided into three sections so that the litter could be 
double-folded on its longitudinal axis. Like the straight 
pole litter, handles had been formed merely by tapering the 
poles for 6 inches at the ends, 
‘The stirrups of the nevir litter of steel con- 
struction and were 3-l/8 inches wide and U inches high with 
braces. They vfere bolted to the poles 22 inches from the 
pole ends. As in the case of the straight wood litter, the 
spreader -bars extended crosswise at the stirrups. The hinge 
¥/ith which the new litter had been equipped consisted of a 
steel channel to which the ends of adjoining pole sections 
were attached. In opening the litter these pole sections 
swung in toward one another until the ends formed a snug 
fit. The bottom of the metal channel supported and held 
the sections in position during casualty carry. Finally, 
the litter was equipped with two web straps, attached to 
the polos at the stirrup bolts, which could be used in 
strapping the collapsed litter for easier handling and 
storage.53 
In addition to the above model, four more litters, 
incorporating minor variations in design, were also shipped 
to the Equipment Laboratory for test.54 Inasmuch as the test- 
ing instructions issued by the Laboratory as well as the 
description of the tests conducted by the 32nd Medical Bat- 
talion have already been quoted in connection with the Zim- 
mer folding steel litter, they will be not repeated here. 
Out of the 8 litters tested, the model described in the 
above paragraph vms rated as first choice, while the miscel- 
laneous designs were all rated as inferior to the Zimmer steel 
litter, though superior to the two models constructed by the 
Laboratory itself.55 The comment on the preferred nMikarn 
litter was as follows: 
Litter No. 8 is very stable, easily opened 
and closed. It was chosen over the Zimmcr- 
Thomson because of its lightness and the fact 
that it remained more rigid at the hinges. How- 
ever, this litter withstood all tests very well, 
hut the canvas was too loose allowing the 
patient to sag and rest on the spreader bars 
while traversing rough terrain. Men handling 
this litter liked it very much.56 
In a final report-to The Surgeon General’s Office, 
the Equipment Laboratory gave its recommendation, on the 
basis of the mass field trials that had been conducted. 
Accelerated service tests and Laboratory 
tests performed in this Laboratory, and by the 
32nd Medical Battalion, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., 
145 revealed that the litter in question was undoubt- 
edly superior in all respects to any of the 
others tested. It is easy to handle when either 
open or closed. It is compact, sturdy, and com- 
fortable, The litter when closed is 31 inches 
long, 8 inches wide, and 7 inches high. Its 
Weight is 20-l/2 pounds. In all respects it 
compares favorably with the standard aluminum 
folding litter,54 
It was then recommended by the Laboratory that the new double- 
folding laminated wood litter be considered a suitable folding 
litter for use by the helical Department,58 
On 2 April 194-3 a series of static loading tests 
were performed on* the new folding wood litter by the Aero 
Medical Research Laboratory.59 The results were satisfactory. 
The detailed report, which was forwarded to The Surgeon 
General’s Office on 22 April 194-3* showed that center section 
deflection had ranged from 1 inch, under a weight load of 200 
pounds, to 7-l/8 inches under a load of 1200 pounds. Only 
when the litter was.being made free with 1300 pounds did one 
of the poles break at the sleeve,60 
With the results of all tests now in, there was no 
longer any doubt that the Medical Department would approve of 
the new double-folding wood litter as a standard equipment 
item, A controversy now arose between the Medical Department 
and Mikar Specialties Company regarding development costs. 
As the general aspects of this particular issue were discus- 
sed at some length in the preceding chapter,6l only a few 
additional comments will be made here. As for the specific 
estimate of costs presented by the manufacturer for this 
second development period (the first period covered devel- 
opment of the straight wood litter), the bill was not a small 
one. Mikar Specialties Company listed as the cost of its 
research and manufacturing efforts from 2 January 194-3 to 
1 April 194-3 the sum of $25*108.58. This amount included a 
direct labor charge of $3*550.20, factory overhead $4-*6l5.26, 
general and administrative overhead $2,130,12, materials 
$313.00, executive salaries $6,500,00, and finally $8,000,00 
for "Development Fee for Period".62 
The inflation of this company’s bid for the 
initial production of the new laminated wood folding litter 
by the inclusion of its development costs was instrumental 
in its failure to receive this opening contract. Unlike 
the case of the straight wood litter, however, this temporary 
elimination of the key manufacturer did not produce serious 
production difficulties. Since the laminations for the fold- 
ing pole could be produced in relatively small sections, the 
large presses needed for the manufacture of the straight polo 
were not necessary. Consequently, as we shall see, the Medical 
Department experienced no difficulty in finding adequate out- 
146 side sources of supply. The failure of Mikar Specialties 
Company to obtain a substantial portion of the initial prod- 
uction did, however, lead to prolonged negotiations with the 
Medical Department over the question of development costs. 
As was mentioned in the preceding chapter, it is hoped that 
such difficulties may be eliminated in the future by the new 
system of advance development contracts, 
L, The Aluminum Shortage, 
In looking back over this second phase of Development 
Project, F-7, one aspect stands out with particular sharpness? 
the haste, leading at times to an extremely cursory handling of 
formal procedures, with which experimental work was carried out. 
The need for haste was by no means illusory. Since the begin- 
ning of the project there had been a constant tightening of 
aluminum restrictions. In March, 194-2, the use of aluminum for 
the production of straight pole litters had been denied, and 
early in February, 1943? The Surgeon General's Cffico was called 
upon to justify even the relatively small amount of aluminum 
which was still being a].located for the manufacture of folding 
pole litters. In a memorandum to the Under-Secretary of War, 
dated 4 February 1943? The Surgeon General’s Office stated that 
while the production of folding aluminum polos would have to 
continue through February and March, progress was being made 
in the development of a bonded wood folding litter and it was 
hoped that within the next sixty days the remaining structural 
problems affecting that litter would be solved.63 
There was, therefore, the greatest pressure on the 
Medical Department to produce a substitute folding litter in 
the shortest possible time. To a considerable extent, no 
doubt, many of the procedural lapses which have boon noted 
in the preceding section could be attributed to this unremit- 
ting outside pressure. It is noteworthy that, despite this 
haste and the administrative short-cuts it necessitated, a 
satisfactory litter was developed and placed under procurement 
by the Medical Department in time to meet, the anticipated 
deadline, 
IV, Standardization and Procurement Phases. 
A, , Standardization Phase. 
The double-folding, laminated wood litter was. 
apparently never formally processed for standardization through 
the Medical Department Technical,Committee. A careful exami- 
nation of the minutes of all meetings <pf this committee from 
1 January 1943 until formal suspension of Development Project, F-7 on 24 Julyf1943 disclosed no reference to this equipment 
item. The now litter did;have, of course, the recommendation 
of the Equipment Laboratory. Moreover, in a letter dated 16 
March 194-3, Army Air Forces had informed The Surgeon General’s 
Office that if a satisfactory folding wood litter could be 
developed it would be preferable to the new straight -wood lit- 
ter as a 'substitute for the standard aluminum model.&4 While 
These actions were in no sense equivalent to formal compliance 
with the provisions of AR #50-26. they at least furnished some 
basis for the step which was next taken, .On 15 May 194-3, by 
Surgeon General’s Office Circular Letter, the double folding 
laminated wood letter was added to the.Medical Supply Catalog 
as,a standard item.^5 
B, Procurement Phase. • _ 
At first glance it would seem that research and 
development personnel-had, in their search for a substitute 
for the folding aluminum litter, .a much more leisurely dead- 
line to meet than had' been the case of the straight litter 
project. In terms of the time factor alone, that was true. 
Both development projects had been initiated at about the 
same time, yet the aluminum restriction was applied to straight 
■pole litter production on 3 March 1942, whereas the manufacture 
of-folding aluminum litters was allowed to continue through the 
spring of The time gain-in the latter instance, how- 
ever, was largely illusory. Since the straight pole litter 
project carried an ”A” priority, the-attention of the Equipment 
Laboratory was centered on this field of activity, and in 
numerous instances experimentation with a new construction 
material was not even begun with respect to the folding pole 
litter until the substance had been found acceptable for use 
with the straight litter. 
As we have seen, modest allocations of aluminum were 
obtained for the months of February and March of 1943. Further- 
more, it is evident that deliveries on uncompleted contracts for 
folding aluminum litter production wore permitted after March, 
The critical shortage, therefore, was not to become 
fully operative in this field until the summer of that year. 
Against this background of developments it can be readily seen 
that the race against time had again been won by the Medical 
Department, Approved by the Equipment Laboratory on 16 March 
1943, the new laminated wood folding litter was placed under 
procurement the following month, bn 10 April 1943, an order 
was placed by the Medical Department for- the manufacture of 
38,554 of-the new litters at a unit cost of §8,65. The firsb 
delivery under the contract was made on 21 May 1943, when 
1,1-00 folding wood litters were-received by Medical Supply 
Depots. By the end of June, 1943, 11,000 of the now models 
had been delivered and, by the 4th of December, 1943 the entire 
148 38,554- litters had been received,^. 
An understanding of the procurement picture.as -it - 
existed during this period can be obtained from an inspection 
of the folloY/ing table.V 
Litter. 
Folding. Aluminum 
Littor. Folding, 
Wood 
Not Stock 
LlJon. 1943) 
10.948 
. 0 
Issues 
(1 Jan. 1943 to 30 Son. 194,3) 
4.078 
4.199 
Deliveries 
il Jan. 1943 to 30 Sec. 1943) 
12,604- 
25.485 
Not Stock 
(sc sop. m3) L . 
2,696 . 
- 13.741 
Contracts 
(.?o see. 1943) 
JSA- 
47.773 
The procurement history of the folding wood litter, 
in view of the relatively limited uses, for which the' item had 
been designed* is impressive.' After the initial, production 
order of 10 April ; 194-3 had been'fulfilled, a. second contract 
was awarded for the manufacture of 30,666 additional folding ■. 
wood litters, unit cost being reduced to .,'As ;pf -25 
January 194-5, all of these new litters had been delivered, 
making a total of 69,220 folding wood litters available for 
combat service,Comparing this procurement record with that 
of the straight wood litter, where total production was only 
5,363, it will be seen that the folding litter was the item 
in which laminated wood performed its greatest service for 
the Medical Department. 
V, Evaluation of the Folding Wood Litter. . 
A, The Folding Wood Litter versus the Folding Aluminum 
Litter. ‘ 
The fact that the? side poles of the folding wood- 
litter were constructed of triple-ply laminated wood -instead 
of duraluminum, that the poles were“square with rounded corners 
instead of tubular, and that the handles were of the integral . 
rather, than the insert type, v/cre not among the reasons general- 
ly advanced in asserting the- superiority - of the folding viood 
litter over thealuminum model.1 The , straight v/cod litter had 
possessed all of these distinguishing characteristics and yet 
as soon as aluminum was again available the laminated wood 
item had been immediately superseded. The superiority of the folding wood litter lay 
rather in certain other unique structural features. One of “ 
these was the special channel hinge of the laminated wood 
design which.had been readily accepted by all interested 
agencies. Such acceptance was in marked contrast to the' 
almost bitter controversies which took place, first when 
the slip joint was initially presented for standardization, 
and later when the question arose as to whether the slip joint 
or the newly developed link hinge was to be adopted as a 
standard component for the folding aluminum litter.. Even . 
today, it may.be observed parenthetically, this, latter dis- 
agreement does net appear to have been successfully resolved. 
Secondly, the double-folding feature of the new 
v7ood litter offered decided advantages over the single, fold 
of the;‘‘aluminum design. Because of the sharp decrease, in. 
the length dimension’, the new litter could be. collapsed into 
a smaller cubic*'space, thereby simplifying greatly problems 
of both storage and handling. Where-storage quarters were 
cramped as in the-rase of tanks, or- where loading and unload- 
ing of empty litter had to be performed through small door 
openings as in the case of many of the early ambulance and 
cargo'planes, the advantages of the double-folding, model 
were Self-evident, Furthermore, since the wood side poles 
were divided into three sections instead of two,, it was no 
longer difficult to find a sufficient number of manufacturers 
who were, .equipped with presses large enough to turn out the : 
specified laminations. . 
Finally, from the standpoint of .durability and . 1 
serviceability -in the field,- the Medical - Department was out- 
spoken in its preference for the folding wood litter. On 
20 October 194-3, Colonel Paul I, Robinson, Director of the 
Procurement Division of The- Surgeon General’s Office, summed 
up this matter as follows: 
The double-folding laminated wood litter is . 
'r considered the most•satisfactory by the Plans - 
Division of all the folding litters. The .. ■ 
folding steel and aluminum litters . • • . ■ , 
n.ri Have‘not stood up as -well under field condi- ’ ' 
tions as the wooden litter.: \ ’ ’ 
4s conclusive evidence- of -Medical Department prefer- 
ence, on 5 April 1944-, The Surgeon General’s Office, submitted 
the' proposal that the folding wood litter be adopted as the 
only -standard licdical-iDepartmcnt folding- litter, The folding 
aluminum litter was to-be reduced, as soon aa.practicabXc to 
the classification of lamitcd--standard;, vissued' models to be 
repaired'simply; by cannibalization after stocks of repair parts 
had-'been exhausted.*-72 Although more than a ygaf..’ s, delay wak7 
encountered, this. proposal received-Army Service Forces ■ sanction in July, 1945.73 
B. The Folding Wood Litter versus the Straight Wood 
Litter, 
In .terms of actual usefulness to the Medical Depart- 
ment y the folding wood litter was a decidedly more profitable 
development than the straight wood litter. Procurement data . 
indicates this fact clearly. As of 25 January 194-5, more than 
69,000 of the folding type wood litters had been procured. 
against 5,363., for the straight wood pole models-*74 Further- 
more, from the standpoint of ease of manufacture, the folding 
wood litter was superior to its straight pole counterpart,.-.. . 
No unusual problems- were encountered in the manufacture of 
the former,whereas, as was pointed out at some length in the 
preceding -chapter,..because of the large presses needed -to : 
produce laminations of the length specified for the latter 
model there was a question at the start as to whether this 
litter could have been produced in quantity had the Seedsion. 
demanded;”? .. 
Again, perhaps the most convincing evidence was the 
action taken,by the Medical Department itself. On 4- April 
194-4-, The Surgeon General’s Office recommended that- the fold- 
ing wood litter be,continued as a standard catalog Item, but 
that the straight, wood litter be replaced by the straight v 
aluminum model and reclassified to limited standard.76 ' While 
this proposal was subsequently tabled, in July, 194-5, the 
straight wood litter was reduced, with ‘Army Service Forces 
approval,. to the status of. substitute standard.77 
C, The Folding Wood Litter versus"the’Straight Aluminum 
Litter. 4 « 
Apparently the only operational complaint registered 
against the folding wood litter was.concerned with its use with 
the collapsible field carrier,’ It was found during amphibious 
training that when the occupied litter ?;as placed on the field 
carrier the center section of the litter would hot remain rigid but 
tilted upward,.-thus* tending to. make the feet and head of the 
patient hang down,76 A thorough study of this defect was made 
by the Equipment Laboratory during the early-part of 1944-, and 
a: large, number of hinge locks designed to remedy the difficulty 
were tested., '; It was concluded, however, that* this undesirable 
collapsing -of the ends of thp, litter under the ’conditions noted 
cduld not be corrected unless, major changes in design'were 
accomplished *79 # Accordingly *. The Surgeon General’s Office:, on 
25 April 1944-, recommended that units issued the collapsible 
field-carrier-.ifo# .use ;in me.dic.4l .evacuation !of -personnel in 
amphibious operations, would honeqforth!Receive the straight aluminum litter instead of the folding wood litter. 
• The role of the folding wood litter in the evacuation 
process was, of course, not greatly diminished by the above 
decision. Much more serious, however, was a policy change 
that had occurred several months earlier with respect to the 
equipment to be used in aerial evacuation. Qn U February.1944* 
the.-Air Corps submitted the following recommendation to The , 
Surgeon General’s Office; ' • . 
: This Headquarters has been informed by the 
.Conservation Section of the Uar Production Board 
that aluminum is available for litter poles. ’ . 
It is recommended that straight aluminum pole’ 
litters be secured for the Army Air Forces, for 
the remainder of 19A4- and 19A5.^ 
This decision, which was subsequently approved and 
forwarded through procurement channels, was of far-reaching 
importance so far as the folding litter was concerned. It 
signified that the litter which had been originally designed 
almost exclusively for airplane use had now been supplanted, 
in Air Corps procurement, by the standard,ground force litter. 
There is no documentary indication, however, that this unusual 
turn of events was the result of inferior performance of the 
folding wood litter in air evacuation. The data at hand dis- 
close no criticisms of this sort by the Air Corps. It appears 
instead that this late shift in preference came-as a result of 
certain basic changes in aircraft design which rendered, unneces- 
sary the further exclusive use of special folding litters. 
By the early part of 19AA, airplane doors had been 
greatly -enlarged so that, in the loading and unloading of empty 
lifters,- cubic size of the collapsed litter was no longer a 
crucial factor.82 Furthermore, the.interior of cargo and 
transport planes had been so greatly enlarged that some were 
now capable of accommodating as many as 36 patients at a 
These changes virtually eliminated the unique storage problems 
that had previously existed. The not result of these and other 
developments was that the-folding litter, as such, was no 
longer an indispcnsiblc item in aerial evacuation. - 
VI. Project Termination. .. ■ - . • • 
‘ The suspension of Development project, F-7, Litter. . 
Folding was carried out in complete accordance, with the. 
requirements of AR 850-25. Noting that no progress had been• 
reported on the above project,: The Surgeon General's Xffice, 
in the,-early part of July, 1943 formally requested advice from 
the Equipment Laboratory as to whether it should be dropped 
152 or suspended.84 On 8 July 1943, the Laboratory replied with 
the recommendation that the project be suspended as a reopen- 
ing would be warranted as soon as the material situation 
improved*85 
At its meeting 19 July 1943, the Medical Department 
Technical Committee approved the above recommendation and, 
three days later, this decision was submitted by The Surgeon 
General's Office to. the Commanding General, Army Service 
Forces for final approval,86 This request was granted and, 
before the close of the month, the Equipment -Laboratory was 
officially notified to suspend work on the subject project,8? 
It will be noted.that conformance with the provisions of 
AR 850-25 regarding research and development activities dates 
roughly from this period in 1943*. ■ ■ ■< ,; IV: 
VII. Conclusion. 'r" 
A* Testing and. Eenorting Procedures. . 
* Considering first the conduct ..and reporting of 
engineering tests, much the. same comments can be made with 
regard, to Development Project. F-7 as were made -in the pre- 
ceding chapter relative to straight pole litter development. 
From a study of the available documents it would appear that 
with one exception, the engineering-tests to which the various 
experimental folding litters were subjected were extremely- : 
rudimentary in nature. Official reports include no mention of 
the use by the Equipment Laboratory, -of mechanical testing 
devices,, and analytical.data regarding structural features of 
the litter -were rarely expressed in quantitative terms. 
Typically such information took the form of deductive 
ing, based largely on visual observation and past experience* 
In one instance only, standard static load tests were performed 
and.statistically reported by the Aero Medical Research Labo- 
ratory at Wright Field.$8 ■ ." ■ • • : . .. 
The trend in field tests and field test reporting 
likewise follows much the same pattern that was noted in the 
preceding chapter. Throughout 1941, and during the early 
part of 1942, detailed testing instructions -were issued by 
the Equipment Laboratory for the guidance of the 32nd Medical 
Battalion5 carefully prepared, itemized test reports .were 
forv/ardod“lnrtdiTi*;’..’tosting agency; the final reports 
and recommendations which, were sent to The Surgeon General’s 
Office were sufficiciently detailed and comprehensive to 
afford full opportunity for an independent review of the 
performance record of the item in question. This policy of 
extensive field testing and careful reporting was, however, 
153 reversed during the later half of 194-2 and, by the close of 
the first quarter of 194-3, the above procedures had, in 
substance, been largely abandoned. 
The case of the laminated wood folding litter, which 
was to be tested comparatively with seven other experimental 
litters, furnishes a vivid illustration of the changes in 
practice that had occurred during this latter period. Instruc- 
tions to the- 32nd Medical Battalion merely stated that whatever 
tests that were deemed, necessary should be conducted. The 
formal test report subsequently submitted to the Equipment Labo- 
ratory,., covering the performance of the eight litters in ques- 
was slightly over one page in length. No account of 
individual test results was given. The litters were listed 
in order of preference, and in each instance a brief statement 
of the reasons for the rating was appended. The final report 
to The Surgeon General's Office contained nothing in the way 
of test data.- Aside, from certain general remarks about the 
new litter, the report simply stated that the litter had been 
tested.in comparison .with seven other models, had demonstrated 
its superiority-, and was therefore recommended for adoption by 
the Medical Department. 
From, the above description it can be seen that 
independent and thoroughgoing review of action taken by lower 
echelons of command and based on written records, was no 
longer possible. What had been retained were simply the 
outward forms of compliance with this procedure, 
B. Development Cost Policy. 
The adoption of the folding wood litter led to a 
controversy between the Mikar Specialties Company and the 
Medical Department over the question of development costs 
which soon became part of a larger controversy involving both 
the straight and folding laminated wood litters. Inasmuch as 
this subject was dealt with at considerable length in the pre- 
ceding .chapter, no effort will be made here to elaborate on 
that analysis. It should be repeated, however, that the 
policy of waiting until development work had been completed 
before attempting to reach an understanding regarding the 
costs involved, was soon.to be superseded. In February, 
194-4-,..a system of pre-negotiated Development Contracts was 
instituted which, from all present indications, should effec- 
tively solve .such problems in the future, 
G. Problems- of Administrative Coordination. 
.." Except; for the procedures followed in formally 
suspending Development Project, F-7, the provisions of ' AR B50-25 do not appear to have been more closely followed than 
in the case of the straight pole litter project. There seem to 
be no written indications that the various important modifi- 
cations which were made in the folding aluminum litter were 
ever officially cleared with all interested arms and services, 
as required by' regulations, or that the folding-wood litter 
was ever formally processed for standardization through the 
Medical Department Technical. CommitteeV/hile, generally 
speaking, this lack:of conformance with Army Regulations 
does not appear to have led to serious difficulties, in one 
instance it did produce an extremely anomalous situation, 
j ; : In the latter part of 1.941, existing specifications 
for the folding aluminum litter were amended to. provide for the 
adoption of the new pressed steel stirrup and, spreader bar 
assembly in place of the old, extruded aluminum undercarriage. . 
In: the new specifications, however/not only was this change 
made but,- in addition, the* Zimmer -.link hinge was replaced by 
ah earlier slip joint design. While both of these modifi- 
cations in components could have been processed through 
the Medical Department Technical Committee, thereby achieving 
complete and immediate coordination with all interested 
agencies', the records show that• this was not done. Instead, 
it was not until May, 1942, when the differences between the 
old and now litter designs were brought to the attention of 
Air Corps authorities by the Zimmer Manufacturing Company, 
that Air Corps opposition to the slip joint substitution was 
conveyed to the Medical Department, 
As a result, although the new specifications were 
temporarily continued in force-, the Medical Department agreed 
to purchase as; a supplementary litter the link hinge, model 
desired by the Air Corps. In short, months after specifi- 
cations had boon drawn up and approved, it was forcibly cal- 
led to the attention of the Medical Department that they were 
not acceptable to'the one-agency which was at that time the 
principal user of the item in question. That such awkward 
situatiohs could have been prevented by a closer adherence 
to the administrative principles laid down in AR 850-25 was 
a thesis that a number of Medical Department officers were 
to support In the months that followed. The need for closer 
coordination of research and development,activities, especial- 
ly: with respect to final adoption or modification of Medical 
Department items, was. increasingly recognized during the - 
latter part of 1943, and certain reforms wore instituted. 
By February, 1944, as a culmination of several reorganizations 
within The Surgeon:.General ts-...Office and a gradual standard- 
ization of administrative procedures, the'desired degree of 
conformance with the provisions of - AR 350-25 was finally 
achieve d*^9;n As wg^shall srce , these new .policies have con- 
tinued in operation up to the present date. 
155 : ; In addition to the-above* several: minor problems,. .. 
of' administrative coordination ••wore presented in.."this -chapter. 
In case of the Gran Laboratories of Storm Lake* . Jov/a> the r 
inherent responsibilities of' the Medical Department to,-i t ,f 
Congress here highlighted for the first time. In this, con- . 
hOct'ion it; Was shown how, in the absence of special'personnel 
'to handle Congressional inquiries,, a heavy additional work 
'load was placed oh the shoulders of research and development 
officials changed with the preparation of replies to these ... 
inquiries. 'In view of the fact that correspondence between . 
the Medical Department and various United States-Senators ■ 
on the subject of the Gran litter extended from 1941 through 
1944, it can bo seen that the time and effort expended by 
these key research officials was considerable. 
The problem of overlapping jurisdiction between the 
Nar Production Board and the Medical Department on questions 
of research and development was discussed at some length in 
“Connection with'the development of the straight pole litter. 
Reference to the'Williams litter was.included in the present 
chapter because the policies fallowed by the■Medical Departs 
ment in that case pointed the way toward.a solution of the 
problem, in place of direct communication with the Medical 
Department, it was suggested'that the War Production Board 
should forward all research ideas and suggestions received 
by it'to the National Inventors‘Council, an agency which had 
been specifically established tc serve as. a clearing house 
for such information. In the instance in question, this 
method of approach- successfully closed the. easel-: 
The relationship-' between The Surgeon.-,General’s- : 
Office end the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory during 
the development of the folding' pole litter had both its 
harmonious and discordant aspects. In the latter category 
was the prolonged controversy which:ensued over.; the question 
of whether the slip joint or the link hinge was to be prefer- 
red for use with the folding aluminum litter. Although,, from 
an organizational standpoint, the Equipment Laboratory was -a 
subordinate instrumentality of The Surgeon General’s Office, 
the former'agency .held out to the very end in opposing 
adoption of the folding hinge. Even though the New York ■ ,;- 
General Depot,' the Air Corps, and the manufacturer who had 
produced both types of litter were allied nwith the Planning 
and Training Division of The Surgeon General-’s Office in 
f avoring ac ceptahc e Ofr the link hinge, this is sue was -; ' , -a 
apparently hover completely resolved.- h ; 
J ', In all other respects, however, unusually close 
coordination -was-maintained between The Surgeon General’s 
Office and the Equipment Laboratory during this period. This 
policy of joint action was particularly noticeable in the 
handling of manufacturing relationships. It is, of course, true that fewer manufacturers were engaged in the development 
of the folding pole litter than with the straight pole litter, 
and that the problem of over-all coordination was thus somewhat 
simplified. Nevertheless, in every important instance during 
the course of Development Project. F-7, manufacturers had the 
benefit of consistent and informed guidance from both of these 
Medical Department agencies,90 As a result, and in conspicuous 
contrast,to the quality of industrial supervision described .in 
the preceding chapter, folding pole litter research was carried 
on at a near maximum of managerial unity, and hence with a 
minimum of unnecessary expense and delay for the manufacturers 
themselves, 
D, Contributions of Development Project, F-7. 
The amazingly rapid emergence of the airplane and the 
tank as key weapons of modern warfare necessitated almost 
revolutionary changes in the procedures of medical evacuation. 
That these changes would, in turn,, create corresponding demands 
in the field of litter research and development was, of course, 
inevitable. The increasing use of cargo, transport, and hospi- 
tal planes, for example, created an urgent need for the devel- 
opment of a special airplane litter. Secondly, the growth of 
air power led to the activation of parachute troop and airborne 
infantry units. A litter was. therefore needed which not only 
could be transported :in considerable quantity by plane but 
which, if possible, could be carried pack-fashion on the back 
of the individual soldier. Finally, With the large-scale 
organization of armored divisions, it was necessary for the 
Medical Department to produce a litter which could bo collapsed 
into a package small enough to be conveniently stored in the 
cramped quarters of tanks and’ other mechanized vehicles. 
None of the Medical Department litters developed 
prior to 193,2 was capable of fulfilling these manifold require- 
ments, It was' evident that the Regulation Canvas litter, with 
its rigid side poles, was in no way adaptable. The Metal lit- 
ter, which had been developed in 1922 as a modification of an 
earlier Stokes Navy design had, it is true, served satisfac- 
torily for a time as an airplane as well as naval litter. 
However, as the riding quality of airplanes was improved and 
as airport facilities for the horizontal'loading and unloading 
of casualties were expanded, the advantages of this heavy, 
basket-type of litter were sooh outweighed' by disadvantages, 
This, then, was the situation in 1932, when Development 
Project. F-7 was initiated. T/hat was urgently needed was a’ 
wholly new type of litter which would successfully meet not 
merely one;but all of the specialized demands' that had been 
so.recently created. 
157 The first phase of the new project, extending roughly 
from 1932 to 1940? resulted in the development- of'a folding ■ 
aluminum litter Which did, by and large, fulfill all require- 
ments. Except for three unique features, the new litter was 
virtually a duplicate of the straight pole aluminum litter, 
the development of which had been practically completed by 
1932. As in the straight pole model, the side poles were of 
duraluminum tubing with insert handles, the undercarriage was 
constructed of cast aluminum, and the litter cover was of the 
slip-on canvas type. However, unlike the standard model, the 
new design called for sectionalized side poles, a slip-joint 
connection, and staggered undercarriage assemblies. The 
result was a single-folding, pull-apart litter which possessed 
the two prime requisites of lightness and compactness. While 
the material used in the construction of the undercarriage 
went through a cycle of changes from cast aluminum to extruded 
aluminum to pressed steel, these improvements were the by- 
products of straight pole rather than folding pole litter 
research. The only other unique contribution of Development 
Project, F-7. during the first phase, was the development of 
a link hinge which made possible the folding of the pole 
sections, in place of the previous and more rudimentary pull- 
apart arrangement. 
The second phase of this project extended from 
1940 to 1943? and has been the one with which this study has 
been chiefly concerned. In this instance, the new straight 
pole laminated wood litter served as the governing research 
model. Like its straight polo counterpart the new folding 
pole litter, as ultimately perfected, was equipped with lami- 
nated wood side poles, integral polo handles, and standard 
slip-on canvas. Unique in the new design was a triple- 
sectionalizing of the side poles to produce a double instead 
of a single fold. Because of these double-folding poles which 
were channel-hinged, the now litter soon came to bo universal- 
ly regarded as the best of the Medical Department folding 
litters. Collapsible into a much smaller cubic space than 
its predecessor, the new folding wood model was regarded as 
ideal, not only for Air Corps needs but even more particularly 
for use in tanks and for pack carry. 
In summary, despite administrative difficulties 
and a certain amount of misdirection, the achievements of 
the Medical Department through Development Project, F-7, 
were considerable. The folding aluminum litter not only 
filled the need for a suitable airplane litter at a time when 
existing models had become seriously outmoded, but it also 
first introduced the folding principle into litter construc- 
tion, The folding wood litter was likewise a development of 
the first importance. Not only was it produced in time to be 
of service during the aluminum shortage, but, even with the 
reappearance of aluminum, continued to bo issued in prefer- 
158 once to its predecessor. The double-folding feature of this 
new litter, moreover, appears to have been a contribution of 
fundamental significance. It continues to serve today as a 
model for the latest Medical Department research efforts in 
this field.91 
159 FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER III , 
-David, N. W*, Maj• Gen,, U.S.A,, Air Surgeon, A.A.F., 
"Air Evacuation," The Military Surgeon. Feb,, 1944> Vol. 94-, 
No. 2, pp. BO-82, * The factual material in this introductory 
section has been drawn largely from General Grant's article. 
2Ibid., p. 80, • 
3 ‘ ' . 
"Patients Evacuated by Aircraft," The Bulletiri of the U. S. 
Medical Department, No. 77, Juri., 1944* p. 9. ,., . 
p, 9. . 
5 
Heflebower, op.; cjt... pp, 1-10, The litter descriptions/ 
and other historical data contained in this section are 
based on Gen, Heflebower's 1928 monograph, 
p, 9. 
■* • • •• 
7 - 
Monthly Progress Report. M.D.E.L., Oct,, 194-1 * pp. 5, 9 
(M.D.E.L.), 
8 '■ 
G.L. McKinney, Col,, M,G,, U.S .A',,'Dir,, Equipment Laboratory, 
"Some Recent Activities and Developments at the Medical 
Department Equipment,Laboratory, Carlisle Barracks, Pa,," 
The Army. Medical Bulletin, No,.' 37, Oct. , 1936, pp v 4-5, 50-51. 
9. 
J p. 40. • : . /.! . / . . 
I0Supra., p. 61. 
to S.G.O., fr. M.D,E.L.,< 16 Mar,- 1943f Subject; "Litter, 
Double-Fold, Laminated, Wooden Pole" (M.D.E.L.). 
op. cit.. p, 6, Also sec Min, of M.D.T.C., 
25 Jun. 1945 (Hist. Div., S.G.O. 
13„ 
oupra.« p. 103, 
1'4SuErs,, p. 103. 
~^Supra.« *p. 18. 
160  op. cit,, p. 45. 
1 7 
Medical Department Research Program. Fiscal Year 1941» 
3 Apr. 1941, CONFIDENTIAL, p; 39 (Hec. Rm., 3.G.O. 700.2-1). 
Extracted in clear. ■ Inasmuch as our interest in adminis- 
trative procedure relating to project initiation.does not 
extend to the period prior to 1940, no attempt will be made 
to discuss the question of Medical Department conformance 
in this instance with AR 850-25. 
1^Memo. to M.D, Bd., fr, M.D.E.L., 11 Oct, 1939| subjects 
"Gold Medal Folding Litter," pp. 1-2 (Rec. Rm,, S.GiO. 
442,-7 Carlisle Bks#„jj)# - - - • . . 
19 O 
Ibid., p. 2, *'1 '--A 
20 ‘ •• ; ' l . : r - , , 
S.G.0. Circular Letter No-,- 3,,.,23 Mar • M937. ■ ■ 5 
2.1 ■■■■■’ 
Litter Procurement Records (Supply S ervice, S.G.C,). 
22 * ; • 
Infra., pp. 126-129. 
to COs Carlisle Barracks, Pa,, fr. S.G.0.,, 29 Mar,. ) 
1939? subject: "Gran Portable Stretcher" (Rec, Rm., S.G.0, 
442.-7 Carlisle Bks.**N). ... . . _ . ; 
24«• i .. 
•1st Ind, to S.G.0., fr. Eq., M.F.S.S., 4 Apr,- 19395 basics 
see n, 23 (Rec. Rm., S.'G.O, 442*. -7 Car lisle ;,Bks.-N),, 
2;>Ltr. to M.D, Bd., fr. M.D.E.L,, 19 Jul, 1939?. subjects 
"Tests of the Gran and Schwichtenberg Litters" (M.D.E.L,), 
26 • ■ • .. .. . . 
Rot, of M.D. Bd.. M.F.S.S,, 24 Jul, 1939? subjects "Litter, 
portable, Gran" '(M.D.E.L.). ; - . . . < : 
2^Ibid.. pp. 1-2, 
28Ibid.. p. 2. ' ‘ * 'V - ■' • ■' ; 
29 
Ltr, to Dr. A.G. Gran, Storm Lake, Iowa, 'fr, S.G.0;, 31 
Jul. 1939 (Rec. Rm., S.G.0. 442.-7 Carlisle Bks.-N). 
30 ' 
1st Ind, to S.G.C., fr. The Surgeon General, Wright Field, 
Dayton, Ohio, 6 May 1939? basics ltr, to.S.G.0,, fr, A.H, 
Schwichtenberg, Capt., M.C., Station Dispensary, Wright Field, Office of the Flight Surgeon,■, 5-May 1939; subject: 
"New Type Steel Tube bitter" (M.D.E.L.).v. 
31 • 
See n. 25, p. l6l. ‘ 
. of MyPBd. .1 M.F.S;S.. 24. Jul, 1939; subject:- "Litter, 
Steel Tube, New Type" (Capt. Schwichtenberg) (M.D.E.L.). 
33 , • ■ V 
Ibid,, pp. 1-2, 
p. 2. 
35 ',:- 
Ltr. to Medical Section, War Dept,, fr. Gold Medal Folding 
Furniture, Racine, Wise., 20 Sep. 1939 (Rec. Era., S.G.O* 
442.-7 Carlisle Bks.-N). 
* 
36 
Ltr, to The Commandant, M.F.S.S., fr. M.D.E.L.,-?ll Get. 
1939; subject: "Gold Medal Folding Litter" (Hecv.RmR,- 
S.G.O, 442.-7 Carlisle Bks.-N). *•* , 
37 • 
Ibid., p. 1. ■ ■ : • 
* ♦ / ♦ 
Ibid., p. 2, f 
ao ■ .v • ’ 
Ltr, to The Commandant, M.F.S.S., fr. S.G.O;, 3 Apr. 1940; 
subject: "Folding Litter: modification of Army type" (Rec. 
Rm., S.G.O. 442*-7 Carlisle Bks.-N). 
Ind. to S.G.O,, fr. The Commandant, M.F.S.S., 9 May 
194-0; basic: ltr, to CO, M.F.S.S., fr.-S.G.O,, 4 May 194-0; 
subject: "Folding Litter: modification of Army .Type" (Rec. 
Rm,, S.G.O. 442.-7 Carlisle Bks.-7), 
to The Commandant, M.F.S.S., fr. S.G.O,, 4 May 1940; 
subject: "Folding Litter: modification of Army Type" (Rec, 
Rm., S.G.Q, 44-2,-7 Carlisle Bks.-N), 
to Chf,, Finance'& Supply Div,, S. G ;0., fr,-Planning 
& Training Div,, S.G.O,, 6 Jdn.'-.1940; subject: "Folding 
Litters" (AlM.R,-& D. Bd.). 
U3! -• •■■■ '• /" 
Supra.. p, 20.  Ind, to Office of Chf* of Air Corps, f>, S, G,0 10, Jun. 
1940; basics see ri. 42 (A.M.R, & D, Bd,), 
45 
2d Ind. to S.G.O., fr, Chf., Medical Div., Air Corps, 19 
Jim, 1940; basic: see n, 42 (A.M.R. & D, Bd.), 
46 - 
1st Ind, to Finance & Supply Div,, S.G.O., fr. Planning 
& Training Div., S,G,0,, 28 Jun, 1940; basic: memo, to 
Planning & Training Div., S.G.O,, fr* Finance & Supply Div,, 
S.G.O., 24 Jun, 1940; subject: "Folding Litters" 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
Infra., p, 121, 
/<> 1 > 
Rnt. of M.D. Bd.. 1 Jul. 1940 (Rec. Rm., S.G.O. 442.-7 
Carlisle Bks,-N), The Description of the Zimmer litter 
and the experience of•the 1st Medical Regimnent are also taken 
from the above report, ■ ' 
49 ■ . • • ' 
Ibid., pp. 3-4. 
r0 
J Ltr, to President, M.D. Bd,, fr, S.G.O,, 10 Jul. 1940; 
subject; "Folding Litter, Zimmer Type" (Rec, Rm., S.G.O. 
442.-7 Carlisle Bks.-N). 
51 ‘ • - - • 
1st Ind. to Finance & Supply-Div., 3.G.O., fr. Planning 
& Training Div,, S .G.,0,,. 28 Jun. 1940; .basic; memo, to 
Planning & Training Div., S.G.O,, fr. Finance & Supply Div., 
S.G.O,, 24 Jun. 1940; subject; "Folding Litters" 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). ' * ‘ 
52 
Medical Department Research Program. Fiscal Year 1941. 3 Apr, 
1941, CONFIDENTIAL, p. 39 (Rec. Rm., S.G.O. 700.2-1). 
Extracted in clear, . , ? ■ 
53Ibid.. p, 39. . J . ,, - , 
Progress Report. H.D.E.L.. Feb., 1942, p. 6. 
(H.D.E.L.) . 
55 
FM-35, Transportation of the Sick and Wounded. Feb,, 1945, 
pp. 1B8-206, , 
56 
Ltr. to S.G.O,, fr, Chf,, Supply Div,, Air Surgeon’s Office, 
Ha,. A.A.F.. 4 Feb. & D._J3d.). 
163 57 
Supra.. p. 118* _ " /:* 1 
v -rv** >' ■ '■ ’ " v • •'■■■ 
58 v....... .. . • ■* . 
lit’r,. 6o The .Commandant, M, F*,S * S,, fr.- £*G*0,, 18 Sep. 194-0; 
subject; ’’Retest of Zimmer Folding Litter, new model” (Rec, 
Rm,, S.G.C. 442.-7 Carlisle Bks.-N). r 
59 ' 
Ltr. to CO, Provisional Medical Battalion, Carlisle Barracks, 
Pa., fr. M.D.E.L., 24 S4ep. 1940; subject: ’ "Test of Zimmer 
Manufacturing Company Folding Litter (New 'Type)” (M.D.E.L,). 
.to The President,'&.D. Bd,, fr, M*D,El.L., 2 May 194-1; 
subject; "Zimmer Folding Litter, Nev/ Model,” pp. 1-3 
(M.D.E.L.). •• 
< • %«• 
\ ■ ■ •; 
to M.D.E.L., fr, 32d Medical Bn. (Separate), 4, Oct, 
194-0; subject; ;"Report of Test of Zimmer panufactuning 
Company Folding Litter (Nev/ Type)”, pp. 1-3 (M.D.E.L.). 
62 
See n. 60, above, *• ‘ . 
63 
Rpt. of M.D. Bd.. 4- Jun. 194-1; subject; "Project No, 192, 
Zimmer Folding Litter, New Model" (M.D.E.L.). 
6Vs . Array Specification No. 10-2994, 28 Aug, 194-1 (Supply 
, Service,- S.G.O.). .. , 
65 
"Litter Procurement Records (Supply SerVice, S.G.0.). 
* I . * ' 
66. 
r/Iedical Department Tentative Specification No. 389-E 
(Supply Service, S.G.O,). ’ "i ;,’ , 
67 *• * - 
ntr, to'S.G.O,, fr. Air Service Command, 25 .Map, 194-2; 
subject; "Litters" (Rec. Rm., Si'G.O. 442«*7)* 
: i » '■ ' 
68 • • * 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr, Chf,, Supply Div., Air Corps, 22 May 
1942; subject; “Litters, Aluminum Folding, IvIeSicai,Depart- 
ment: Catalog Nop 99380” (Req,..:Rnu,-S.GLO. 442.-7 Carlisle 
Bks.-N). 
69 ... 
4th Ind. to S.G.O,, fr., M.D.E.L., 23 Jun. 1942; basic; 
memo, to Procurement Div., S.G.O,, fr. Hq., Air Service 
Command, 29 May 1942; subject; "Litters" (Rec. Rm., S’.G.O, 
442.-7). 
164 70 
3rd Ind, to M.D.E.L., fr, S.G.C,, 17 Jun. 1942; basic: 
memo, to Procurement Div., S.G.O., fr. Hq., Air Service 
Command, 29 May 194-2; subject: "Litters" (Rec, Rm., S.G.C, 
442,-7)• ' . . 
71 * ! ■ * 
9th Ind. to Medical Supply Div,, A.A.F., fr. S.G.C,, 24 Jul, 
basic: memo, to Procurement Div,, S.G.C,, fr, Hq., 
Air Service Command, 29 May 1942; subject: "Litters" (Rec. 
Rm., S.G.C, 442,-7). • ’ ‘ 
pp, 115-116* •. 
73 ' * ■ ;*, * 
AR 850-25. Sec. 4, 23 Jul. 1936. -M. , ;- 
74- - ' ' ‘ - V 
1st Ind* to S.G.C., fr. M.D.E.L., 16 Aug. 194-3; basic: * 
(not on.file) (A..M.R. & D. Bd.). * t... 
. p. Ill, • - 
76 * 
Ltr, to Dr. A.G, Gran, Storm Lake, la., fr. S.G.C., 31 Jul. 
1939 (Rec. Rm., S.G.C. 442.-7). , , 
77 ‘ ' * • • " ' • 
Ltr,. to Honorable Guy M, Gillette, U.S.,Senate, fr. S.G.C,, 
18 Sep. 194-1 (Rec. Rm., S.G.C, 442,-7)-.. 
78 • / 
Ibid. 
79 . '• * * . ’ 
Ltr.,to S.G.C,, fr. Honorable Clyde L, Herring, U.S* Senate, 
12 Sep. 194-1 (Rec. Rm., S.G.C. 442.-7). , . 
■ ’ ’ , , i 
80 
Ltr,; to Honorable Clyde L,-Herring, U.S, Senate, fr. S.G.C,, 
15 Sep. 1941 (Rec. Rm., S.G.C. 442,-7). 
81 
Ltr. to The Surgeon General, fr. Honorable Guy M. Gillette, 
U.S. Senate,v 15 Sep. 1941 (Rec. Rm., SiG.O, 442.-7). 
82 ‘ 4 ' ‘' , 
Ltr. to Honorable Guy M* Gillette, U.S, Senate, fr, S.G.C,, 
IB Sep. 1941 (Rec. Rm., S’.G.O, 442;.-7). ~ 
83 *1 ■' - • • - , i 
Ltr,4 to £ ,0.0,,* fr, Gran Laboratories, Dr.-A.G, Gran, Storm 
Lake, :Ia.;,.14‘ Oct.. 1941' (Rec., Rm,, S.G.C, 442.-7). 
165 £>/ 
TLtr, to Dr. A.G. Gran, Storm Lake, la., fr, S.G.O,, 
20 Cot. 1941 (Rec. Km., S.G.C. 442.-7). " " — 
85 - , •' .■ 
Ltr. to The Surgeon General, fr. Dr. Albert G. Gran, Storm 
Lake, la,, 22 Nov, 1941 (Kec. Rm,,,S.G.C. 442.-7), ’ 
86 ■’ ■ ’ 
Ltr. to Dr, A.G. Gran, Gran Laboratories, Storm Lake, la., 
fr, S.G.O., 28 Nov, 1941 (Rec, Rra,, S.G.C.*442,-7). 
87 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr. Gran Laboratories,- Dr, Albert G, Gran, 
Storm Lake, la,, 11 Dec, 1941 *(1160,, Rm.S.G.O,,442.-7). 
88 ' I- ;*, 
Ltr. to Dr, Albert G. Gran, Gran Laboratories, Storm Lake, 
la,, fr, S.G.O,, 19 Dec, 1941 (Rec, Rm,, S.G.O, 442.-7), 
< • * 
89 ... 
Memo, to Inspector General's Dept,, fr, S<G,0,,;31 Mar. 
1942 (Rec. Rm., S.G.O, 442.-7). ■" . 
90 
Ltr. to Office of Civilian Defense, fr,-S.G.O., 7 Apr, 1942| 
subject; "Gran Portable Litter for Civilian Defense"? (Rec. 
Rm., S.G.O. 442,-7), 
91 
Ltr, to War Dept., fr. Honorable Guy M, Gillette, U.S. 
Senate, 7 Jan, 1944 (Rec.Rm,, S.G.Q, 442.-7). 
92 ' ’ • •• • 
Ltr. to Honorable Guy M.-Gillette, U.S. Senate, fr. • 
administrative Asst, to Sedy. of War,. 24 Jan, 1944 
(Rec, Rm., S.G.O. 442,-7). - • .. : 
93 ‘ ‘ 
Ltr. to Senator Guy M, Gillette, fr. Gran Laboratories,- 
Albert G. Gran,/M,D., Storm Lake, la,, 26 Jun, 1944 (Rec. 
Rm,, S.G.O,- 442,-7). 
94Draft of ltr, to Honorable Guy M, Gillette, U.S* Senate,• 
fr. Administrative Asst, to Secy, of War, undated ■ 
(A.M.R. & D; Bd.).- . 
Ltr* to Finance & Supply Div.',’S.G.C,, fr. Planning & 
Training Div., S,G,0., 19 May 19411 subject;- -"Experimental 
Litter" (Rec, Rm., S.G.C. 442,-7). 
96 ’ • 
Ltr, to The Brumpr,Corp,, N.Y.C., fr. S.G.O,, 19 Feb. 1941 
(Rec, Rm., S,G,0... 442,-7)•* ' • 
166 97 . i:>. , . ‘ 
Memo, to Brumor Corp., fr. S.G.O,,’ 27 May 194-1 (Rec, 
Rm., S.G.O. 44^•-‘7). 
98 . 1 iM-‘ • * 
Ltr. to CO, 32d Medical,Bn., ifr;'M,.Di,E.L., 1 Aug. 1941; 
• subject: "Test of the Brumor Folding Litter as a Substi- 
tute for Standard Folding Litter" (M.D.E^L.- • 
QQ v-* fc •’ ■ . • * * 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. M.D;E.L.', 2 Sep. 1941? subject: "Test 
• of the ’Brumor Folding Litter" (M.D.E.L.),. . ' 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L., fr.-32'd’Medical Bn,, 18 Aug. 1941; -subject: 
"Testing of Brumor Folding Litter" (M.D,E;L,)v 
2 ■. ■ ” . ’v. . j • ' • • 
.See n, 99,,above. "' ’ , •*.•••> ' 
3 . '• -i 
Ltr, to M.D.E.L., fr. United,. MeIjal Box Co., Brooklyn, N.Y., 
8 Jun, 1942 (M.D.E.L.). ’ \ V .. ’* ■ • 
to CO, 32d Medical Bn., fir. M.D.E.L., 9 Jul. 1942; 
subject: "Test-of Folding Litter" .(M.D.E.L.). 
5Ibid. 
6 - . 
Ltr, to M.D,E.L., fr. 32d Medical Bn.,■ .24. JuL. -1942; subject: 
"Test,-Steel Pole Collapsible Litter"' (M.D.E.L.). 
7 ; 
Ltr. to United Metal Box Co*, Brooklyn, N.Y,>, fry M.D.E.L., 
28 Jul. 1942 (M.D.E.L.). ' 
. • * 
9 ‘ • 1 v ... ‘ ’ .... ' 
Ltr. to Asst. Chf. of Staff,( G-2, fr. Military Attache, 
American Legation, Bern, Switzerland, 5 Nov, 1941; subject: 
"The Roller 1-man and 2-man metal rod stretchers" (Rec. Rm,, 
S.G.O. 442.-7). • ; . .. -vv' , t.:. • • * 
* • # * '• . 
I* ‘ . 
102d Ind. to Asst. Chf, of Staff, G-2, fr, S.G.C., 4 Dec, 1941; 
basic; see n. 9 (Rec, Rm., S.G.O. 442.-7). 
to M.D.-E.L.,. fr„ S.G.O,, 2 Jun,. 1942; subject: "Stretcher" 
(M.D.E.L.). 
l2Ltr. to CO, 32d Medical Bn., fr. M.D.E.L., 20 Jun, 1942; 
subject: "Stretcher (Roller Litter and Roller Pack Litter)" 
(M.D.E.L.). 
167 13 • 
Heflebower, op. cit.; p. 8,(,. 
' - • * 
to Army Ordance Dept,, fr, Alfred Sender, New York, N.Y., 
6 Apr. 1942 (Rec, Rm,, S.G.O, 442.-7) 
15 . •• '' ’ . * - 
Ltr, to M.D.E.L,, fr. 32d Medical Bn., 7 Jul. 1942; subject: 
"Report of Test, Roller Litter & Roller Pack Litter" (M.D.E.L.), 
16 , ' ! 1 * 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr, M.D.E.L., 3 Aug. 1942; subject: "Stretcher 
(Roller Litter and Roller Pack Litter)" (M.D.E.L.), 
17 - ... - • ' 
Ltr.. to S.G.O., fr, Alfred Sender, New York, N.Y., 11 Aug, 
* 1942 (M.D.E.L,). , 
18 . 
Ltr, to S.G.O,. fr. Alfred Sender, Ne?/ York, N.Y., 5 Aug. 
. 194-2 (M.D.E.L,). 
19 • s • ’' f 
Ltr* to M,D.E;L., fr, S.G.O,, 15 iiUg. 1942; subject: "Test 
of Improved Model Stretcher" (M.D.E.L.), 
20 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 24 Oct, 1942; subject: "Roller 
Stretcher" (M.D.E.L.), 
21 •. . 
Ltr, to Alfred Bonder, New York, N.Y., fr, S.G.O,, 18 Sep. 
1942 (Reg. Rm., S.G.O, 442.-7). 
to Gen. Addison D. Davis, Post Hq,, Ca lisle Barracks, ' 
Pa., fr. Dir, M.D.E.L., 12 Mar, 1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
■r 
23 
Memo, by J. H. Bailey, Col,, A.D.M.S., 52d Div., Great 
Britain, 24 Oct, 1942’(A.M.R, & D. Bd,). ■ 
24 
See Development Project. F-34 "Litter, Mountain" (A.M.R, & D, 
Bd.). 
. pp. 54.-57. . , 
25 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. Tech, Dev, Sec,, W.P.B., 111,, 
8 Dec, 1942; subject: "Stretcher-Array Cot" (Rec, Rm,, 
S.G.O. 442.-7), 
27 
Ltr, to Tech, Dev. Sec., .W.F.-B,, Chicago, 111., fr. S.G.O,, 
15 Dec, 1942; subject: "Stretcher-Army Cot" (Rec. Rm., 
S.G.O. 442.-7). 
168 28 
Memo, to Office of Under Secy, of War, Materials Div., 
Resources Br,, fr, S.G.O., 6 Mar, 1942; subject; "Con- 
servation of Aluminum" (A.M.R, & D, Bd,), Also see Itr. 
to Aluminum Co, of America, Phila,, Pa,, fr, M.D.E.L., 
21 Feb. 1942 (M.D.E.L,)/: ; . V i.j-** 
29 . . * •• • •"} 
Ltr, to Aluminum Co. of America,* -Phila, ■, Pa:;., fr.- .M.D.E.L., ■ 
21 Feb. 1942 (M.D.E.L.-)',** v" .. •.. i; ' . - . ' 
30 . ••• r. r -- . - • 
Ltr, to Zlmmei1 Splint 'C'b., ‘if.Y.C,,. ft. if.D.E.L.j',21 'Feb. ■ 
1942 (H.C.SvE.■' ■■■ 
Ltr, to M.D.'k.L'.,- Sfr* Altimihum*Gol'of America, >Phila.Pa.,, 
25 Feb. 1942 ‘(M.D.E.L.). *>.>•’•.{:/• ,;u; / 
32 .v v .• ..... v .. . 
Ltr, to M.D.E.L., fr*. Zimmer‘S pi lilt Co. *SN.Y.C.y, 25 :-Feh, , ‘ 
1942 (M.D.E.L.), . (-AML’I. •> vfr 
33 ■»* 
Ltr. to Zimmer Splint ’Co; 'N.Y .C/,’ fr* tuD.ELL./. 28 Feb* ■,/ ■ 
1942 (M.D.E.L.), •(.- -LCLl 
3/ . ... .. 
Ltr, to M.D.E.L.,‘fr.* ZJmmer Splint Od-L, N.,Y..C..,, 2 Mar,, 
1942 (M.D.E.L,). R.l#-; I..--, • ; 
35 “ •• • - ‘ •• ... . 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr. Supply Div, / Air Corps, -22 May 1942/ ’ 
subject; "Litters, Aluminum, Folding,- Medioal Dept, Gat. 
No. 993B0" (Rec. Rm., S.0.0. 442.-7). 
36Ibid. .. . 1; ’• 
■37 ; ’ . . 
Ltr, to S.(G,(0., fr. Zimmer-Thoms on Corp., Long Island >City, 
N.Y., 15 Feb, 1943 (Rec. lih,, S.G.O, 442.-7)* v*’-*- 
38 . . ' 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L., fr, Zimmer-Thomson Corp.,-Long Island City, 
N.Y., 15 Feb. 1943 (M.D,E.,L.), * • ■r } " 
39 ; • » • ’ *Ai ... . 
Ibid.. p, 2, 
40 
Ibid, p. 1, 
aibld.. p. 1,. 
. » .* ;* \ • I1' ' 
Ltr. to CO, 32d Medical Bn., fr. M.D.E.L.5> .5 .Mar, 1943; 
subject; "Test of Folding Litters" (M.D.E.L.), 
169 43 • 
Ltr, to M.D.E.L,, fr, 32d Medical Bn., IQ. Mar. 194-35 subject; 
"Test of Experimental Litters" (M.D.E.L.), 
p. 1. 
A5 ’ • ’ V, 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., .16 .Mar, 1943, subject; ,jLitter, 
Double-Fold, Laminated, Wooden Pole" (M.D.E.L,), 
4.6 * 
Signed statement by E.D, Quinnell, Col,, M.C., Ddr,, M.D.E.L,, 
rec’d by Hist. Div., S.G.O., 1 Oct. 194-5 (Hist. Div;-, S.G.O,).. 
47Ibid. V : • ' • •■ ■ ■ • ■ 
n. 42, p. 169. 
4-9 
See n. 4-5? above. 
See n, 4-6, above. ■ .» , . 
51 
Ltr. to CO, N.Y, Medical Dept, Procurement District: 
(Attn; Production Control Officer), fr. Chf., Field Equip- 
ment Br., Flans Div,, S.G.O,, 1 Jul, 194-3; subject: "Devel- 
opment Cost for Laminated Wood Pole Litter" (A.M.R. & D. Bd,), 
n. A2, p. 169. t - - 
53 
FM 8-35, Transportation■ jof. the Sick and Wounded, Feb•, 194-5, 
pp. 42-4-3. • .. ■ . • 
54 . '' ■ ' ' • ' 
Ibid. . 
55r ' ’ ' t • 
See n, 43, above. ' ' 
• * H N # . 
56Ibid., p. 1. ■ ‘ ’ , ' ' „• ' 7 ■ 
57 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 16 Mar, 1943; subject: "Litter 
Double Fold, Laminated, Wooden Pole" (M.D.E.L.), 
58 ’ ’ ‘ ' . : . 
Ibid. • 
59 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. Distribution Sec., Hq,, A.A.F., 6 Apr, 
1943; subject: "Double Fold, Fly Wood Pole Litters" 
(A.M.R, & D. Bd,), 
170 1st Ind. to S.G.C,, fr,.Material Div., A.A.F., 22 Apr. 1943; 
badic: ’ltr, to Aero''Medical Research Lab., bright Field, 
* fr. Distribution Sec., A.'A.F,, 6’Apr. 194-3; subject: "Double 
Fold, Ply Wood Pole Litters" (A.M.R, & D, Bd,), 
61 
Supra., pp, 70-74. 
62 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr, Mikar Specialties Co., Baltimore, Md., 
16 Jun. 194-3 (Rec, Rm., S.G.C, A42.-7). , , . 
63 / 
Memo. to Under Secy• of War, fr. S.G.C,, 4-.Feb, 1943 (Fee• 
Rm,, S.G.C, 4-4-2,-7). 
64, ‘ ’: ;; ■ • ; , 
Ltr. to S.G.C.T fr.-Hq,, A.A.F.,'16 Mar. 1943; subject; 
"Litter, Straight Pole, Laminated V/ood" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
65 
S.G.C, Circular Letter 103, 15 May 194-3. 
66 
Supra.. p, 14-7. 
7lst Ind, to Hist. Div,, S.G.C,, fr, A.M.P.O,, 25 Jan, 1945; 
basic: ltr. to A.M.P.O., fr. Hist, Div., S.G.C., 22 Jan. 
1945 (Hist. Div., S.G.C,). 
68 
Ibid. . ... 
69 
Procurement Status Report of 30 Sep, 194-3. prepared by C.E. 
Graham Reeves (A.M.R. & D, Bd.), 
70 • . ' 
1st Ind, to-Hist, -Div.', S.G.C,, fr. n.M.p.O,, .25 Jan. 1945; 
basic: ltr, to A.M.P.O,, fr. Hist, Div,, S.G.C,, 22 Jan, 
194-5 (Hist. Div., S.G.C.). 
op. cit., p. 6. 
72 - ■' A- : ■ • - ' ’■ ’ . 
Ltr. to Army Ground Forces| (Attn: Ground Surgeon),fr, S.G.C,, 5 Apr 
1944; subject: "Litters" (Rec, Rm., S.G.C. 442.-7). 
73Min. of M.D.T.C.. 23 Jul. 1945, p. 3 (Hist. Div., S.G.C.). 
74 
1st Ind, to Hist. Div., S.G.C,, fr. A.M.P.O., 25 Jan. 1945; 
basic: ltr. to A.M.P.O,, fr. Hist. Div., 22 Jan. 1945 
(Hist, Div., S.G.C.), 
171 75c 
Supra.. p. 74, 
VS 
Ltr, to Army Ground Forces; (Attn; Ground Surgeon), fr, 
S.G.O., 5 Apr. 1944; subject; ’’Litters” (Rec, Rm., S.G.O. 
442.-7) 
77 
See n, 73. 
7B 
Ltr. to CG, Army Ground Forces, fr. Amphibious Training 
Command, U.S, Atlantic Fleet, Naval Operating Base,. Norfolk, 
Va., 2 Feb, 1944; subject: "Use of the Folding Wood Litter 
with the Collapsible Field Carrier" (M.D.E.L.).. 
79 ' : ; ' ' ‘ ; 
1st Ind, to -S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L,, 19 Apr. 1944; basic; 
demo, to M.D.E.L., fr. S.G.O,, 23 Feb, 1944; subject; 
"Litter, Folding Wood" (HiD.E.L.)*- 
BO 
2d Ind. to CG, Army Service Forces, fr, S.G.O., 25 Apr. 
194-4-5 basic; nemo, to M.D.E.L,, fr, S.G.O., 23 Feb. 1944; 
subject; "Litter, Folding Wood" (A.M.R. & D, Bd.). 
8l 
Ltr, to S.G.O,, fr. Hq., A.A.F., 4- Feb. 1944; subject; "Item 
No. 99350, Litter, Straight, Aluminum" (Rec. Rm..,, S.G.O. 
442.-7). 
FM 8-35. Transportation of the Sick and. Wounded. Feb,, 194-5, 
pp. 192-204,. 
83 
Ibid., p. 201. 
to Field Equipment, Dev. Br., S.G.O,, fr. Research 
Coordination Br., S.G.C., 5 Jul, 194-3 (A.M.R, & D, Bd.), 
pc 
1st Ind, to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 8 Jul, 1943; basic: 
memo to Field Equipment Dev, Br., S.G.O., fr. Research 
Coordination Br,, S.G.O,, 5 Jul. 194-3 (A.M.R, & D, Br.). 
B6Min. of M.D.T.C.. Meeting No. 8, RESTRICTED, 19 Jul. 1943. 
Extracted in clear, 
87 
Memo, to Field Equipment Dev. Br., Plans Div,, S.G.O., fr. 
Research Coordination Br,, Plans Div., S.G.O., 26 Jul, 1943; 
subject; "Folding Litter - Suspension of Development Project 
on" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
172 gg: " • * 
See n, 60, p. 171, 
89 
Report on Medical Pcesearch and the Development and Classifi- 
cation of Medical Department Items of Supply and Equipment, 
K Dec, 1943# Document appended to Annual Report of Research 
Coordination Branch. Technical Division. S.G.O., for Fiscal 
Year ending 30 lun. 19LL (Hist,' Div,, S.G.O,), 
90 ■ 
.At first glance it might seem that the relationship with 
Mikar Specialties "'Company;, could be cited as an exception 
to this statement1. It will be recalled, however, that the 
difficulties encountered here'arose after development work 
had been completed. Such disagreement as existed between 
the Equipment Laboratory and the Field Equipment Branch of 
the Plans Division, SiG.0,, grew out of■their differing 
evaluations of the services performed, by this manufacturer, 
91 ’ 
Ltr. to CG, A.S.F., fr. S.G.O,, 18 Aug* 19L4; subject: 
"Item 9935000, Litter, .Straight, Aluminum and Item 993B000, 
Litter, Folding Aluminum" (Rec, Em,, S,,G.-G. 
173 CHAPTER IV 
MISCELLANEOUS LITTERS AND LITTER ADAPTERS 
Section 1 
Development Project. F-2B 
Litter. Ski 
I. Introduction. N, 
In Alpine, low mountain, and other cold weather zones 
where casualties must be transported over icy trails and 
through deep snow, the evacuation of litter patients from 
forward areas by conventional hand carry methods is a pre.- 
carious and awkward operation. To begin with, there are 
certain mechanical difficulties. Since neither of the 
standard Medical Department litters, the straight or folding 
pole, was specifically designed for use under severe winter 
conditions, certain structural changes are unavoidably neces- 
sary. Yet, once instituted, these changes give rise to a 
series of new problems. For example, two-man carry is-virtu- 
ally impossible over ice-covered terrain unless litter poles 
are so lengthened that the rear man can see far enough ahead 
to keep his balance.1 Increasing the length of the poles, 
however, adds to the over-all weight of the litter, and this 
in turn increases the burden on the bearers. Furthermore, 
unless the material from which the side poles are constructed ¥ 
possesses a high degree of rigidity, adding to pole length wQi 
tend to increase the amount of "patient bounce", with perhaps 
serious effect upon the casualty 
i 
Though these mechanical difficulties are reduced by the 
substitution of four-man litter teams, they are by no means 
eliminated. Moreover, and this is an even more serious dis- 
advantage, regardless of whether two or four-man teams arc 
used, a litter haul over slippery, snow-packed terrain can be 
effectively accomplished only if all bearers are equipped with 
snow shoes. The point docs not need elaboration that manual 
icarry under,these conditions is fatiguing in the extreme, and 
cannot be performed at all without frequent and adequate rest 
periods.3 Net only, therefore, is the rate of bearer-replace- 
ment excessive, but the entire front-line evacuation procedure 
becomes dangerously time-consuming. It is, in short, this 
latter factor—the excessive slowness of the hand carry method— 
which definitely precludes- its routine employment in winter war- 
fare | for in cold weather operations, one of the cardinal obli- 
gations of the Medical Department is the speedy evacuation of the wounded to places where they can be kept warm and 
sheltered,4 
A. The Emergency Ski-Sled. 
One of the earliest field improvisations to be 
designed as a substitute for the hand carry method of evacu- 
ation was the emergency ski-sled. Instructions for the assem- 
bly of this item were as follows. Two skis were placed on the 
snow, parallel to each other and one rucksack width'apart. 
Contraction bands were slipped under each ski, approximately 
IB inches from the tip and heel respectively. Two rucksack 
frames were then removed from their carriers and placed on 
the skis in such a manner that the bases of the frames rested 
on the upper surface of the skis just above the contraction 
bands,. The upper parts of the frames, which nearly met above 
the ski bindings; were lashed together and reinforced with ski 
poles or sticks* Small metal adapters held the frames securely 
to the contraction bands, and, on the upper surface of the 
frames, a second pair of skis were lashed, face-downward, to 
form a carrying platform,5 
While this improvised ski-sled had the advantages 
of speed and ease of movement, it also possessed a number of 
disadvantages,6 In order to use the sled for evacuation, it 
was necessary to lash the casualty tightly to the carrying 
platform. It was difficult to accomplish this without, at 
the same time, cutting off the patient’s flow of circulation. 
Moreover, as a protection against the rough surface of the 
platform and against the cold coming up from below, especial- 
ly heavy padding had to be placed under the patient. Further- 
more, a considerable amount of equipment v/as needed for the 
improvisation, the complete unit consisting of 4 pairs of 
adapters, 4 contraction bands, 2 pairs of skis, and 2 ruck- 
sack frames. Finally, since the ski-sled was not adaptable 
to the fittings in ground and air ambulances, the casualty 
had to bo moved to a standard Medical Department litter 
before he could be transported through the rear echelons of 
the chain of evacuation. * . 
B. The 1935 Ski Litter Adaptation. ' 
In 1935 the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory 
assembled for the Air Corps, for examination ahd field' trial 
by its Winter Test Group, an ’’Artie Rescue-Unit, Experimental," 
Included in this unit was a new type of ski litter.adaptation. 
The assembly (sec Fig, 14.) consisted of a Carlisle model fold- 
ing litter and standard Quartermaster skis fitted with perma- 
nent ski attachments which fastened onto the stirrups of the 
The adapter was essentially a metal clamp which was bolted to the upper surface of the skis. While this experi- 
mental device was never formally adopted as a standard Medical 
Department it had a practical as well as historical 
importance in that it pointed the way to an entirely new 
principle of construction. In subsequent years this design 
was to furnish the starting point for Development Project, 
F-2B, 
Compared with the emergency ski sled, the new ski 
litter possessed a number of decided advantages. It was an 
equally speedy means of evacuation and, at the same time, 
afforded a safer and much more comfortable ride. Standard 
litter securing 'straps, without impeding the free flow of 
circulation, held the patient firmly on the bed of the litter. 
Moreover, once placed on the regulation folding litter, which 
had been adapted to the.interior fittings of all Medical Depart- 
ment vehicles, the casualty■could be carried uninterruptedly 
through the entire chain of evacuation. Finally, one special 
set of skis with built-in adapters was the only additional 
equipment required,- in contrast to the 12 assorted items 
required to assemble the emergency ski sled. 
In one respect, however, the earlier ski sled design 
suggested a way in which the new ski litter could be materially 
improved.. In the sled assembly, it will be recalled, the con- 
traction bands and metal adapters which held the rucksack frames 
to the surface of the skis were detachable. If, therefore, 
instead of permanent attachments a one-piece detachable clamp 
could be devised which would hold the litter and skis together, 
special sets of prepared skis would no longer be necessary. In 
that event, aside from the litter itself, all the medical 
corpsman would have to carry would bo several sets of small 
metal clamps. The pair of skis needed for the conversion could 
be obtained, quite simply, from the casualty. 
This logical next step, the development of a detach- 
able ski clamp, was, as we shall see, the specific purpose of 
the formal research project, nF-28n, which was initiated by 
the Medical Department in 1943# 
II• Preliminary Phase, 
A. Project Initiation, 
Tables of Organization, establishing' the Medical 
Battalion (Mountain Division)., were published by the War Depart- 
ment on 1 April. 1942.9 Howcvei_ the initial Tables of Equipment 
for the new organization contained little in the way of special- 
ized evacuation aids. Accordingly, on 21 May 1942, in a communi- 
cation addressed, to The Surgeon General’.s Office, the. Medical Department Equipment Laboratory requested authorization to 
establish a group of development projects designed to provide 
more adequate means for the emergency evacuation of wounded 
in mountain and winter warfare. Among the research projects 
which were proposed was one entitled, ’’Medical Equipment for 
Ski Troops1', for which a $3,000 allocation of funds was 
requested, for the Fiscal Years 1943 and 1944.1® This action, 
it appears from the evidence at hand, marked the beginning of 
the World War II history of the ski litter, 
' ■ While it is not clear whether its action was taken 
independently or in response to the recommendations made by 
the Equipment Laboratory, in June 1942, the Hospital and Evacu- 
ation Division of Army Ground Forces wrote to The Surgeon 
General's Office, asking for detailed information regarding 
the immediate availability or, lacking that, the development 
status of certain specified items pertaining to the medical 
evacuation of mountain troops. The mountain litter was one 
of five items on vrhich this information was requested.il The 
inquiry was forwarded to the Equipment Laboratory which replied 
on 22 June 1942 that no standard items of equipment correspond- 
ing to those listed in the basic communication vjere then avail- 
able, but that it was the opinion of the Laboratory that these 
items could be successfully developed. After mention of various 
improvisations that had been attempted, attention was called to 
the project recommendations which had recently been submitted by 
the Laboratory on the subject of mountain equipment for medical 
units,12 
This reply was forwarded to Army Ground Forces on 
30 June 1942, but no further action appears to have been taken 
until shortly before the close of the year. On B December 
1942, Army Ground Forces notified The Surgeon General's Office 
informally that a military requirement for a mountain litter 
now existed, and suggested that a development project to 
produce such an item be initiated,13 Inasmuch as no specifi- 
cation was made as to the type of mountain litter desired, the 
Director of the Research and Development Division, Surgeon 
General’s Office, in a letter to the Plans Division, prescribed 
that the development be initiated by one of the following two 
methods i 
a. Request Headquarters, Army Ground Forces, to 
. designate appropriate unit for service test 
• -of pilot model of Carlisle "Arctic Rescue Unit, 
Air Corps (experimental) Model December 1935". 
b. Request Medical Department Equipment Laboratory, 
Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, to initiate new 
project F-2B "Medical Equipment for Mountain 
Troons".14 It was further recommended that the Plans Division designate 
a representative to visit the Mountain and Winter Warfare 
Board and the Mountain Training Center at Gamp Hale, Colorado, 
with the view of determining more exactly the needs of the 
units for which this special evacuation equipment was to be 
designed.15 
Apparently, however, this latter recommendation was 
not followed. Instead, a conference was held at The Surgeon 
General’s Office on 22 February 194-3, to achieve the needed 
clarification of research objectives. On this occasion the 
Director of the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory was 
present to discuss, "Cold Weather Operations and Application 
of Medical Equipment to Such Operations," and presented a 
detailed study of the problems of medical evacuation under 
snow and ice conditions generally, and also with respect to 
the special needs of light Alpine divisions. In the course 
of this discussion, ski clamps were declared to be essential 
equipment for mountain divisions, and the specific situations 
requiring their use were described at some length.16 
Five days after the conclusion of the above con- 
ference, the Equipment laboratory submitted a formal request 
for project initiation. The complete text of the document 
follows, 
1. It is believed desirable to set up a project 
on development of sleds and other means of 
transport for winter warfare, 
2. The funds necessary should bo approximately 
$1,000.17 
Apparently it was the Laboratory’s idea to combine several of 
the items of mountain equipment proposed for development into 
a single research project. In any event, in view of the 
extensive provisions of AR 850-25 on the subject of project 
initiation, the information given v/as inadequate. Accordingly, 
the Research and Development Division replied by requestings 
(l) a clear segregation of all the various items to be devel- 
opod| (2) a more specific and complete statement on each indi-. 
vidual item proposed| (3) reconsideration as to the sufficiency 
of the funds requested,18 
In accordance with the above instructions the 
original project request was expanded and rewritten, and a now 
draft was submitted by the Equipment Laboratory on 8 March 
194-3. This time Development Project. F-28, "The Ski Litter", 
was completely segregated from other research activities. 
Its purpose was carefully defined as follows; 
178 . To determine the feasibility of the conversion or 
adaptation of standard litters to standard skis 
for use as a sled for the evacuation of wounded 
over terrain covered with ice and snow,19 
In addition, a complete list of military characteristics was 
presented. Inasmuch as this statement of military character- 
istics was subsequently adopted without change by higher 
authority, it will be quoted here ih full. 
(1) That the ski litter be an adaptation or 
conversion of the standard litter and the 
standard ski by means of an attachment. 
(2) That the attachment for this conversion or 
adaptation be so designed that it will pro- 
vide the following: 
(a'1 A positive means of securing the 
litter stirrups to the skis. 
(b) Construction and design to provide 
for ease of assembling and disas- 
sembling. 
(c) To be of light weight and of 
sturdy construction, 
(d) To be inexpensive and easy to 
procure,20 
Finally, it was requested that the sum of $200 be authorized 
to cover development costs,21 
On the basis of the above data, informal approval of 
Army Service Forces for initiation of the ski litter project 
was obtained 13 March 194-3, The only change made in the Labo- 
ratory’s proposals was an increase in research funds from $200 
to $1,000,22 on 19 March 194-35* the Laboratory was notified 
that preliminary Army Service Forces approval had been secured 
and, since only routine processing procedures remained to be 
accomplished, authority was given to initiate' work on the 
project immediately,23 
Formal processing of the initiation request was 
completed in approximately two months. In contrast to the 
administrative omissions previously noted in connection with 
the establishment of the straight and folding pole litter 
projects, in the present instance all procedural steps required 
by Army Regulations were scrupulously followed. On 14- April 
194-35 the Subcommittee of the Medical Department Technical 
Committee recommended that a research project to develop a 
ski litter for use in snow and ice country be established, 
and that the military characteristics of the proposed item 
as outlined in the report of the Equipment Laboratory be approved.2-4 The Medical Department Technical Committee, with 
six representatives of Army Ground Forces present and voting, 
concurred unanimously in the Subcommittee recommendations on 
10 May 1943.25 Final official approval „was obtained from 
Headquarters, Army Service Forces, on 21 May 1943?26 and ten 
days later all interested agencies within The Surgeon General’s 
Office were formally notified of the initiation of the new 
development project.27 
Exactly one year had elapsed from the time the 
project had first been proposed by the Medical Department 
Equipment Laboratory to its final acceptance by Headquarters, 
Army Service Forces. Actually, however, only a fraction of 
the total delay could be ascribed directly to the Medical 
Department, Almost.-.six months had been spent in waiting for 
Array Ground Forces to submit the statement that a definite 
military requirement- existed for the proposed item. When 
this statement was finally received by The Surgeon General’s 
Office, it was still necessary to translate the general request 
for a ’’mountain litter” into a specific project proposal 
acceptable to the approving authorities,.. This, it will be 
recalled, was accomplished by the Medical Department in less 
than three months. It.,should also be added that', authorization 
to begin development work had boon granted to the Equipment • 
Laboratory fully sixty days before the expiration of the full 
twelve-month period. 
As we shall see presently, coordination difficulties 
with Army Ground Forces were not to bo confined solely to ...the 
preliminary stages of this project. Nor were delays, at times 
as lengthy as those described above, successfully avoided in 
the later stages of research activity. For, although the 
estimated completion date for Development ‘Project..F-28 was 
originally set for 1 September 1943j, the project was not 
actually terminated until 15 January 1945.29 The extent to 
which faulty coordination between the Medical Department and 
Army Ground Force installations was responsible for this . 
situation may be judged from the account that follows. 
B• Pre-Development Activity, 
A groat deal more was accomplished by Medical Depart- 
ment research and development personnel during the period, 21 
May, 1942 to 21 May 1943? than mere routine conformance with the 
procedural requirements of AR 850-25. .Scientific background 
material was collected and classifieds other litter models, 
developed in■connection with such projects as F-7 and F-ll. 
were carefully;studied to discover possible applications for 
the new research undertakings correspondence was initiated 
with key officers at mountain training installations and with 
commercial firmss Quartermaster ski equipment was requisitioned; 
180 small-scale'laboratory investigation was begun. In short, 
despite the fact that formal project initiation was to take 
nearly a year, no time was being lost in getting research 
preliminaries well under way. 
Early in May, 194-2—before, in fact, the first 
request for establishment of a ski litter project had been 
submitted by the Equipment Laboratory—The Surgeon General’s 
Office had entered into correspondence with Dr, Whitman 
Mead Reynolds, a Connecticut physician who had devoted con- 
siderable time to the study of the medical aspects of mountain 
warfare,30 As an outgrowth of this correspondence, on 15 June 
1942 Reynolds submitted to the Medical Department a specially 
prepared monograph on the subject, Medical Problems of 
Mountain Troops.31 Included in this careful scientific study 
was a detailed discussion of the problems of ski evacuation, 
descriptions of military practices in various parts of the 
world, and photographs of a wide variety of French, German, 
and Swiss ski litters. Such material was of great value in 
helping to focus and direct the research efforts that were 
to follow. 
• Meanwhile, a current experimental phase of Devel- 
opment Project, F-7, "Litter, Folding", was discovered to 
have a special relevance to the ski litter project no?/ being 
established. Two models of a Swiss military litter, which 
the manufacturers claimed could be used in snow and ice 
conditions without resorting to skis, were being subjected 
to extensive field tests by the Equipment Laboratory.32 Test 
results, however, as we have seen in the preceding chapter, 
were disappointing. Tho Roller litters, deck-chair in shape, 
were not only unadaptable to the fittings in ambulances and 
planes, with components which were not interchangeable with 
standard litter parts, but they were too intricate in design 
and too fragile, despite their heavy weight, to bo service- 
able for field use.33 This opinion was confirmed by British 
authorities who had already tested the Swiss litters exten- 
sively in rugged, mountainous country.34- It may be observed 
parenthetically that, in the Polar Bear Exercise staged in 
Canada during the winter of 1944, Medical Department appraisal 
of the litter was once more sustained. The reporting board, 
composed of both Canadian and American officers, found the 
litter to be "too heavy to bo used where powered transport 
is lacking."35 
The above information played an important part in 
the evolution of a final research plan for the new ski litter 
project. :Xt will be recalled that the idea of an all-ski 
improvisation had been applied in the, case' of the Emergency 
Ski-Sled, mentioned earlier in this chapter.36 The dis- 
advantages of that method had been such that further experi- 
mentation along the same lines was not anticipated. The Roller litter, although tested under Development Project. 
F-7, afforded an equally useful illustration of the limi- 
tations of the all-litter type of winter evacuation aid. 
Thus, , the alternatives of dispensing with the litter by 
using additional skis, or of dispensing with skis by adopt- 
ing a special, multi-purpose litter, had been examined and 
discarded at a relatively early date. 
This narrowing of research possibilities was clearly 
reflected in the re-formulation of project objectives and 
military characteristics submitted by the Equipment Laboratory 
8 March 1943# The proposed item was to be "an adaptation or 
conversion of the standard litter and the standard ski by 
means of an attachment,"3V jn other words, from this time 
forward research activity was to be concentrated solely on a 
search for a suitable attachment or clamp to fulfill the above 
purpose. Within the newly restricted sphere of investigation, 
however, there were still, theoretically at least, two possi- 
bilities. Skis r'ould be specially prepared with built-in 
clamps, as in the 1935 Air Corps assembly, or detachable 
clamps could be devised. As we shall see presently, however, 
Medical Department preference Y7as, from the outset, heavily 
weighted in favor of the latter alternative. 
With project objectives now clearly defined, the 
Equipment Laboratory took immediate steps to obtain practical 
advice from as many key military and industrial sources as 
possible. Army War College was contacted for 
as was the Mountain Training Center at Camp Hale, Colorado,39 
and a winter training unit stationed at Camp McCoy, Wiscon- 
sin, AO In addition, a number of commercial firms were, canvas- 
sed for their ideas on the subjcct.Al Finally, in order that 
preliminary laboratory experimentation - could be begun without 
delay, the Equipment Laboratory obtained from the Office of 
the Quartermaster General copies of all ski drawings and 
specifications then available.4-2 Shortly thereafter, requisi- 
tions were forwarded to The Surgeon General's Office for one 
set of laminated skis, one set of solid hickory skis, four 
ski adapters, and four contraction bands.A3 With the receipt 
of this equipment on 26 April 194-3, the development phase of 
Project, F-28"was ready to begin, 
III.-Development Phase. 
A, Unsolicited Models. 
While actual development -work, conducted directly 
by the. Laboratory or under contract■with commercial .firms-, 
was -not, initiated''until the .summer’-.of 19A3, during the earlier 
part of:, that year several unsolicited ski litter designs were received by The Surgeon General's Office. It is at this 
point that wfe find the first evidence of a crystallizing of 
Medical: Department attitude in favor of the detachable, as 
against the built-in, type of ski clamp.' Fortunately, the 
decision was reached soon enough to enable research and 
development personnel to begin work with a highly specific 
objective before them. 
1• The Lineman Improvisation. 
The 1935 Arctic Rescue Unit had consisted of a 
set of Specially prepared skis with permanent attachments which 
fastened onto the stirrups of a standard Medical Department 
litter. On 9 February 194-3 a new design, representing a 
further extension of this "permanent attachment" principle, 
was submitted to The Surgeon General's Office by Lieutenant 
Richard W, I-'-ppnr.n, Medical Corps, an assistant battalion 
surgeon serving overseas. 
1. Conditions in this region required improvi- 
sation of a method for transporting litter- 
borne casualties over deep ice and snow. 
2. A litter vms mounted on skis by the following 
simple method; 1 inch hole vms drilled in 
the center of each stirrup, and matching holes 
bored in a pair of 7jr ft. skis. The litter 
vms bolted in place on the skis, and the bolt 
heads were set in the grooves, so that there 
would be little interference with the running 
surface. No materials were necessary beyond 
litter, skis, four bolts and nuts, drill, and 
some lengths of ■§- inch rope. 
3. It vms found that a litter So mounted proved 
very satisfactory in transporting actual 
injuries to dispensary from skiing grounds. 
It' vms easily handled by tv/o litter bearers, 
by means of ropes attached fore and aft. If 
rocky or bare ground is encountered, the skis 
do not interfere with carriage of the litter 
in the conventional manner. The moun*t is 
easily and quickly assembled and disassembled, 
and the necessary holes do not impair the 
normal function of either or skis,44 
The above suggestion was duly forwarded to the 
Director of the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory who 
replied, on 12 March 194-3, with the following evaluation; This method works all right but requires the 
preparation of ski and litter and they have to 
be carried together. The litter and ski in this 
case become a sleigh and the patient would have 
,• to be transferred to another litter. The holes 
v;eaken the skis. It is believed that a form of 
clamp that can be removed from the litter and ski 
will be more practicable,4-5 
It is clear from the above reply that, wholly apart, from 
the specific objections mentioned in connection with the Lipp- 
man model, the Equipment Laboratory had already developed a 
decided preference for the detachable type of ski clamp as 
against the permanent or built-in type. However, not only 
the. Lippman suggestion, but two other alternative designs in 
the same general category were to be at least cursorily 
examined before this particular construction principle was 
definitely and finally discarded. 
2. The American Pressboard "Strctcher-Kot”. 
This unique item, designed and manufacture d""by 
American Pressboard Company, Incorporated, New York City, was 
first called to the attention of Medical Department officials 
in April, 194-3.4-6 The "Stretcher-Kbt”, it was claimed, com- 
bined the light weight‘and adaptability of a regulation ambu- 
lance ■ stretcher with the added comfort and greater daily 
usability of a sleeping cot. Equipped with a dismountable ski 
adjustment (see Fig..15) and with canvas straps to hold the 
wounded safely in place during transportation, the model was 
described by the manufacturer as an ideal instrument for 
removing casualties from front-line battlefields ,4-7 
After several weeks of correspondence, on 5 
May 194-3 The Surgeon General’s Office authorized American 
Pressboard Company to ship a sample stretcher cot with ski 
attachment to the Equipment Laboratory at Carlisle for field 
test,4-8 it was agreed that shipping costs would bo mot by 
the manufacturer and that the Government would not be liable 
for any damage to the item incurred as a result of testing 
procedures,4-9 Receipt of the experimental ski litter was 
acknowledged by the Equipment Laboratory on IB May 19L3 
and two weeks later a formal report of test results was 
forwarded to The Surgeon General's Office. . . 
The American Pressboard model consisted of an 
oval-shaped frame of seasoned bend wood, approximately 7B 
inches long by 25 inches in width, to which was bolted four 
B-inch 1’U”-shaped Y/ooden legs. To this frame there was 
attached by rope lacing a sheet of medium heavy duck. The stretcher was fastened to a pair of regulation sized skis 
by means of winged bolts, attached to wooden blocks that 
were bolted on the skis to form a ski stretcher. The bolt 
arrangement made it possible to attach or detach the skis 
as the occasion required,51 
In a formal ‘report to The Surgeon. General’s 
Office, dated 31 May 194-3, the Equipment Laboratory stated 
that the stretcher cot had been examined and tested, enumer- 
ated certain advantages and disadvantages of the item, and 
concluded by recommending that the American Pressboard model 
be rejected. In view of the nature of the disadvantages 
which were listed, it was evident that elaborate field test- 
ing had been unnecessary. 
Advantages; 
(1) The subject item uses practically no 
critical materials. It is light in 
weight and quite sturdy in construction, 
(2) CouS when removed from skis will quite 
readily support the average litter load. 
The.canvas top is replaceable when soiled 
or worn out. 
, Disadvantages: 
(1) Subject item stretcher cot is a special 
item of equipment not interchangeable 
with standard litters and will require 
transfer of patients to the standard 
litter to transport in present field 
ambulance. 
(2) The present litter bar and other acces- 
• series for transporting cases will not 
fit subject stretcher and its use will 
require additional new type accessories. 
(3) Method of attaching subject item to ski 
requires a specially prepared ski. 
Recommendations: The subject stretcher cot with 
ski attachment has no advantage over the standard 
litter with ski clamps and would be an additional 
item of equipment. Its adoption as standard item 
of Medical Department equipment is not recommended.52 
On 3 June 194-3? the above findings were reported 
to the manufacturer, by The Surgeon General’s Office,53 and on 
14- June 194-3 the company’s experimental model was re turned, 54- 3• The Davisson Ski Ambulance. 
Cn 3 September 194-3? the National Inventors 
Council of the Commerce Department submitted to The Surgeon 
General’s Office for its consideration and comment a design 
for a "ski ambulance", prepared by one Henry L. Davisson.55 
The suggested assembly consisted of four specially prepared 
skis which were placed parallel to one another and an equal 
distance apart so that total width, measuring from the outer 
edges' of '.the two outside skis, approximated the width of a 
regulation litter. Two crosspieces vi/ere fastened laterally 
to the-skis near their ends, giving the unit a toboggan-like 
appearance. A heavy canvas covering was fitted against this 
Yjooden frame and secured to the skis by a series of snap 
fasteners,56 bike the Emergency Ski Sled, mentioned earlier 
in this section, the Medical Department litter was not used 
in the assembly. 
The above design ?;as forwarded to the Equip- 
ment Laboratory on 7 September 1943 for evaluation,57 and 
four days later the following comments were submitted to The 
Surgeon General’s Office by the Laboratory director. 
1. The attached NIC file on Henry L. Davisson 
patent for ski ambulance has been examined 
with reference to our Project F-2B, Ski 
Clamp.. The.following comments are submitted: 
a. The subject invention would require the. 
Medical Soldier to be.equipped with four 
special skis, due to the invention not 
being applicable to the standard ski 
without prepared alteration. 
• b. The patient would be lying on a piece,,, of 
canvas right down on the skis. Addi- 
tional- construction would be necessary,to 
support a litter or to raise and hold the 
canvas up from the hard ski, 
f ■ c. Sharp rocks and snags -are very apt to 
■ extend up between the skis, anci gouge 
the patient, 
- 2, Because of the above conditions it is believed 
that a better ski clamp can bo developed using 
■ the patient ’ s skis and the ordinary litter and 
. no special skis will,be required.5° 
• ' : 4 'This was tije last of the unsolicited models. As 
in the past, research:-suggestions submitted independently, with- 
out prior consultation as to Medical Department needs and without complete information as to the latest developments in the field 
in question, had contributed little toward a solution of the 
immediate problem at hand. However, at least one point was now 
clear. The Equipment Laboratory intended henceforth to focus 
its entire attention on the development of 'a detachable ski 
clamp. That specific objective had been affirmed in each of 
the Laboratory reports cited in the foregoing pages. With 
possible research alternatives thus reduced to a single well- 
formed plan, optimum conditions had been created for the rapid 
development of a suitable item and, consequently, for an early 
termination of the project. It was little wonder, therefore, 
that The Surgeon General’s Office now established, as an 
estimated completion date for Development Project. F-28. the 
deadline of 1 September 194-3.5T 
B. The Lightweight Ski Clamp. 
By'mid-March, 1943, it will be recalled, the Equip- 
ment Laboratory at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, had been authorized 
by The Surgeon General's Office to begin development work 
immediately,, without waiting for completion of all the remain- 
ing formalities involved in securing final Army Service Forces 
approval of the.project.60 Accordingly, during the remainder 
of March, and throughout the whole of April and May, the Labo- 
ratory was busy designing and constructing various experi- 
mental models of ski litter By June, 1943, 
the variety of designs had been reduced to three and a num- 
ber of hand-made models of each type had been constructed in 
the Laboratory's workshop.^2 
In answer to a request from one of the officers 
stationed at the Mountain Training Center, Camp Hale, Colo- 
the Laboratory arranged to send one of its sets of 
experimental ski clamps for examination and brief field 
trial. It was explained that the samples v/erc being sent 
mainly to show how the clamp worked, Due to a lack of more 
suitable material, the attachments had been made of galva- 
nized metal and, consequently, were considerably less rigid 
than would be the case with future factory models.&4 The 
reply subsequently received from Camp Hale, to the effect 
that preliminary field trials indicated that a somewhat 
stronger clamp would be necessary, was’ not, therefore, sur- 
prising, The more significant fact was that no adverse 
comment had been made as to the item's basic design, 
'W. Meanwhile, contract negotiation's had been initiated 
by the■Laboratory with the Jerald Sulky Company of Waterloo, 
Iowa, for the production of a small number of the new ski 
clamps, using a light gauge carbon steel,66 Negotiations 
were proceeding satisfactorily when it was suddenly learned 
that, even for this small experimental order, competitive bids would be required by the Purchasing Division of The 
Surgeon General’s Additional commercial firms 
were thereupon circularized and, after considerable delay, 
a purchase order was finally placed with the Reading Sheet 
Metal Products Company,'Reading, Pennsylvania. Three different 
types, of litter attachments'were ordered, and it was anticipated 
that delivery would be made by the latter part of August or the 
early part of September, In view of these unexpected 
developments, the estimated completion date for project F-2B 
v/as extended from 1 September 1943 to 1 January 1944.^9 
About the middle of September, 1943, three sets of 
ski litter attachments were received from the Reading Sheet 
Metal Products Company, and were forwarded to the Commanding 
General, Mountain Training Center, Camp Hale, Colorado, for 
extensive field testing.90 Three weeks later, the Laboratory 
was notified by The Surgeon General's Office that a cold 
weather maneuver> to be held from 1 December 1943 to 15 Janu- 
ary 1944, had been scheduled for the Alaskan Defense Command. 
Some three hundred men were to make a cross-country move over 
various terrain in temperatures down to minus forty degrees 
Farenheit, On the maneuver, all types of medical field equip- 
ment were to be given a thorough evaluation as to cold weather 
efficiency and suitability. It was therefore suggested by 
The Surgeon General's Office that this would be an excellent 
opportunity for the Laboratory to test any of its v/inter 
equipment which had been recently developed or was now nearing • 
completion,91 
Having no extra ski clamps on hand, and judging 
apparently that too much time would elapse before receipt of 
the additional sets which had been ordered, the Laboratory 
stated that it did not anticipate sending any equipment for 
the test.92 However, on 22 November 1943, a shipment of 
forty-eight, sets of the ski litter attachments v/as received 
from the Reading Sheet Metal Products Company,93 so, on the 
following day, three sets of these clamps were hastily for- 
warded to the Alaskan Defense Command with this notation: 
Remarks and recommendations from the Equipment 
Board, Alaskan Defense Command, are requested 
in regard to the feasibility of using the ski 
clamp for the conversion of the standard litter 
and skis to a ski litter. In addition, any 
suggestions in regard to the improvement of the 
ski clamp will be appreciatively received by 
this office,94 
The Equipment Laboratory, it should be noted, was 
still contemplating that its project would be completed by 1 
January 1944.95 A favorable test report was expected momently 
from Camp Hale, to which sample sets of the new ski attachment 
188 had been sent in mid-September, 194-3. Upon receipt of this 
report, standardization proceedings could be initiated while 
awaiting further confirmation from the Alaskan Defense Command. 
Yet January arrived and still there was no word from this 
quarter. Impatient at the continued delay, and favored by 
good winter conditions in the Appalachian Mountains surround- 
ing Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Laboratory personnel decided to 
perform their own field tests of the new ski clamp without 
waiting any longer for replies from Colorado and Alaska, 
No detailed reports of these Laboratory-conducted 
field tests were submitted to The Surgeon General’s Office. 
It was simply stated that all three types of ski litter 
attachments were locally tested, and that one type was found 
to be suitable for the purpose intended, with the exception 
that the material of which it was constructed was not suffici- 
ently heavy nor of high enough carbon content to withstand 
the mechanical stress to which it would be subjected,76 
Accordingly, the beginning of February having arrived, with 
still no report received from either Camp Hale or the Alaskan 
Defense Command, the Laboratory immediately set about ordering 
clamps of the selected design, to be constructed of a heavier 
gauge and higher carbon content steel,77 
It was indeed fortunate that the Equipment Labo- 
ratory on its own initiative thus undertook to speed up the 
project as much as possible. So far as can be discovered no 
test report on the lightweight ski clamp was ever submitted 
'either to the .Laboratory or to The Surgeon General’s Office 
by the Mountain Training Center at Camp Hale.78 As for the 
Experimental Board of the Alaskan Defense Command, to which 
three experimental ski clamp sets had been shipped on 19 
November 194-3, a formal report,of test findings was finally 
forwarded to the Laboratory on 16 May 194-4-* Since the clamps 
were apparently received too late to bo used on the December 
•and, January maneuvers, tests had been conducted instead at 
McKinley Park during February and March, 1944-. These were 
described as follows; 
. a-. Tests were conducted in snow conditions with 
various hard and soft surfaces, depths rang- 
ing from one (l) to five (5) feet, over broken 
and unbroken trails, and terrain conditions of 
open level or rough unbroken topography thick 
with brush and undergrowth, 
b. Patient evacuations were made from front line 
areas rearward to simulated battalion aid 
stations and collecting stations, timing 
actual operations, fatigue of personnel, 
comfort of patient, and action of ski-litter 
in varying situations,79 The specific results of these various tests were 
reported as follows: 
a. When assembled, this combination formed a very- 
light and practicable means of patient evacua- 
tion for open, relatively smooth, hard surfaces. 
Under such conditions a two hundred (200) pound 
casualty was easily moved by one person. • 
b. Traversing soft snow surfaces, areas of rough 
timber, burnt-over territory, or brushy ter- 
rain, however, evacuation was found difficult 
to the point of having been nearly impossible. 
Insufficient' ski flotation permitted the lit- 
ter bed to "belly up" on obstacles and scoop 
snow like a plow, under some conditions los- 
ing all sled action. 
c. Extending free ends of litter poles gathered 
small brush and trees between them and caused 
continuous fouling. 
d. Stumps and brush obstructions concealed by 
snow collided with the spreader bar, aburptly 
jarring the patient and sometimes jerking the 
aid man in harness off his feet, 
e. The combination followed snowshoe trails very 
poorly because of its tendency to "wander" 
from one side to the other, making pulling 
quite difficult.80 
Summarizing the above test findings, the Experimental 
Board concluded that: -■(l) The ski attachments were satisfac- 
tory only on hard surfaced, open, level snow; (2) They were 
not satisfactory for arctic or sub-arctic medical operations. 
It was recommended that, instead of continuing the attempt to 
accomodate the rcgulatioh litter to skis, a Stokes type of 
litter constructed of plywood be developed for use with 
toboggan type sleds.8l In short, what was here being ques- 
tioned- was not merely the suitability of the design and con- 
struction of the specific ski clamp which had been submitted 
for test, but the basic-practicability of any type of ski 
litter adaptation. 
The Board’s contention that the general usefulness 
of a ski litter was too slight to warrant further consideration 
was not sustained by the Medical Department, The evidence to 
the contrary was, in fact, considerable. In the first place, 
communications received from overseas units indicated not only 
that there was a definite need for a ski litter but also that even crude improvisations, involving the use of prepared 
skis, were being utilized successfully over mountainous as 
well as level In the second place, the existence 
of a definite military requirement for a ski litter had been 
officially confirmed by Army Ground Forces which had likewise 
approved the initiation of a formal research project to devel- 
op such an item. Finally, the development of a toboggan lit- 
ter, as suggested by the Experimental Board, was already in 
progress under a separate research project,Inasmuch as 
the toboggan and ski litters were being designed for different 
but equally essential purposes,' there appeared to be no good 
reason why either item should supplant the other. 
Significantly, no further ski litter models were 
sent to the Alaskan Defense Command by the Equipment Labo- 
ratory at Carlisle* The Experimental Board had taken six 
months to submit a report of its findings, and, while the 
test results themselves were of value, no suggestions for 
improvement of the clamp had been offered although this 
information had been specifically requested. In brief, 
the report had done little to hasten a practical solution of 
the research problem facing the Medical Department. As for 
the Mountain Training Center at Camp Hale, as mentioned 
earlier no report at all appears to have been received. The 
acutal decision, therefore, to abandon further work on the 
lightweight ski attachment and to shift attention to a more 
rugged type of construction had to be made exclusively by 
the Laboratory at Carlisle, on the basis of such field tests 
as it had been able to perform locally, 
C. The Heavy Gauge Ski Clamp. 
In January 19A4-* four months before the Alaskan 
Defense Command report had been received, the Equipment Labo- 
ratory began negotiations for the commercial production of a 
limited number of ski clamps of a heavier construction than 
those which it had just tested and found too fragile for field 
use. The competitive bidding requirements which had been 
encountered six months earlier had apparently now been res- 
cinded, for the Laboratory was able this time to confine its 
negotiations to a single company. The advantages of this 
latter arrangement were considerable. Instead of having to 
produce in final form a complete set of drawings and specifi- 
cations, to be turned over routinely by purchasing authorities 
to the lowest responsible bidder, the Laboratory was now able 
to select an interested manufacturer and, through a free and 
extensive exchange of ideas, work out improvements in its 
original blueprints before actual factory production was 
scheduled to begin'. 
191 It was in precisely this fashion that several useful 
changes in spiecifications were evolved in the present instance. 
On 17 January 1944? the Equipment Laboratory wrote to the 
Jerald Sulky Company, Waterloo, Iowa:, requesting quotations on 
twelve ski clamps to be made of 11 gauge 1045 S.A.E. steel.84- 
In its reply, the Jerald Sulky Company pointed out that it 
would be impossible to obtain the type of steel specified 
unless a special mill run were obtained, which would be very 
difficult in view of the wartime shortage of the metal. More- 
over, the company stated, it was the opinion of a number of 
expert metallurgists who had been consulted that no practical 
method had yet been found for yielding steel higher than 1030 
grade. It was therefore proposed that 14 gauge, 1020 steel 
be used in the construction of the clamp components, the parts 
then to be hardened with cyanide. The additional cost of this 
method,, it was explained, would amount to approximately 2$<£ 
per item, bringing total unit cost to $4.10 per clamp.85 
This alternate method of manufacture was approved 
by the Laboratory,86 whereupon the company made one further 
suggestion for improvement of specifications. It was stated 
that a much neater appearing ski attachment could be produced 
if, instead of using nuts with separate welded y/ings, one- 
piece y/ing screy/s were substituted. Inasmuch as the Laboratory 
already had the necessary number of these, y/ing screv/s on hand, 
the company suggested that they be•fory/arded, their cost to be 
deducted from the final bill,87 This proposal y/as likey/ise 
accepted, the Jerald Sulky Company was granted an' M-l priority, 
and within two y/eeks 12 fabricated heavy, gauge, clamps were 
delivered to the Laboratory,88 The new. attachments had been 
manufactured at a total cost of less than $50. Evidently in 
this instance competitive bidding had not been necessary to 
bring prices down to a reasonable level. 
On 24 February 1944? one set of the improved ski 
clamps, y/hich y/ere similar in design to earlier models but 
were noy; constructed of stronger material, y/ere shipped to the 
Mountain and Winter Warfare Board, Camp Hale, Colorado, for 
field test.89 This time the Laboratory was determined to 
make its own investigation immediately y/ithout waiting for 
reports from the field. Accordingly, before the close of 
the month, the new attachments;, were locally tested and this 
time the results appeared wholly satisfactory,90 , n0 formal • 
report, however, was- submitted to The Surgeon General’s Office 
giving detailed test findings. In view of subsequent events, 
it will be observed 'that the absence of a complete statistical 
record of these,, local field, trials was a decided handicap to 
the Medical Department.' 
' On 5. May 1944? with no information as yet forthcom- 
ing from the Mountain and V/inter Warfare Board at Camp Hale, 
192 the Equipment Laboratory forwarded to The Surgeon General’s 
Office a’complete set of tentative specifications, drawings, 
and photographs.91 As this was customarily the final step 
in development activity, it is evident that the Laboratory 
now considered the project completed, confident that its own 
test findings would be confirmed by the Camp Hale board. 
After some delay, on 13 June 194-4- this data was sent by The 
Surgeon General's Office to the Research and Development 
Division, Army Ground Forces, with the request that the former 
office be advised if standardization of the subject item was 
recommended,92 in view of the favorable reaction which was 
expected, the reply which was received from Army Ground Forces 
several weeks later must have come as a distinct shock. 
1, The litter clamp described is similar to the 
standard adapter, ski, recently tested by the 
Mountain Board, and found to be unsatisfactory 
due to jnstability of the litter when so sup- 
ported and tendency of the ski runner to col- 
lapse in turns. This report of test of winter 
evacuation equipment is now being studied in 
this headquarters, 
2. It is recommended that no further consideration 
be given the subject litter ski-clamp, Type 
C.93 
The above statement was subsequently approved by the 
Research and Development Division, Army Service Forces. On 6 
July 194-4-> that office endorsed the Ground Force recommendation 
and directed that further work on the Carlisle model be discon- 
tinued, 94- Upon receipt of these two communications, the Chief 
of the Research Coordination Branch, Surgeon General's Office, 
immediately addressed a memorandum to the Chief of the Devel- 
opment Branch, directing the latter to discuss with Army Ground 
Forces as soon as possible the question of improvement of the 
Type C ski clamp and of continuation of the research project.95 
The test report of the Mountain and Winter Warfare 
Board, which had been forwarded to Army Ground Forces on 17 
Juno 194-4-, was a lengthy document covering test findings on a 
wide variety of v/inter evacuation equipment. Intensive field 
tests had been conducted at the Mountain Training Center from 
8 March 19/44- to 2 June 19-44-. Insofar as the ski litter was 
concerned, a special winter evacuation course, one mile in 
length, had been established for the testing of these adap- 
tations in ovor-the-snow movement. This course, according to 
the report, included the common types of terrain and conditions 
usually encountered during evacuation by sled or ski. It was 
stated, however, that due to the lateness of the season, only 
limited conditions of powder snow were encountered. Instead 
a heavy spring pack and snow of high water content had predominated.96 
Two types of ski adapters were tested during the 
above maneuver: the Carlisle Model (Type C), developed by 
the Equipment Laboratory | and the Hal-e Model (Type D), devel- 
oped by the Mountain and Winter Warfare. Board. While both 
items operated on an essentially similar compression princi- 
ple, there were certain .important differences, in design and 
construction. The Carlisle Model consisted of a steel clamp 
with grooves on each end, one end fastening around the edges 
of the ski runner* the other end .closing around the litter 
stirrup. The clamp was fashioned with a single ring-nut 
tightening adjustment.97 The.Kale Model clamp was also of 
steel construction, was grooved at both ends, but was longer 
than the Carlisle Model so that the upper end fastened onto 
the base of the stirrup block instead of the lower end of the 
stirrup itself. Because of this additional length, two ring 
nuts were required instead of one for the tightening mechan- 
ism, 9B For both models, four clamps constituted a complete 
set, 
While detailed tost findings were not quoted in 
the Board report, photographs were appended showing the failure 
of the Carlisle adapters in two general instances, . Used with 
standard skis and a folding aluminum litter, stirrups and 
runner had collapsed due to lack of support provided by the 
clamps. Used with standard skis and the mountain litter, 
Carlisle Model, one ski runner had collapsed due to inse- 
cure grip provided by the Carlisle adapters. The conclusions 
of the Mountain and Winter Warfare Board, on the basis of all 
field tests cenducted, were as follows: 
The Carlisle Ski Adapters provided for use with the 
standard canvas bed litter were , . . unsatisfac-. 
tory in that they would fit only a limited number 
of skis, and in -their lack of provision,of a much 
needed support to the stirrups of the Litter, 
Folding,' Aluminum. The Adapters, All-Purpose, 
Camp Plale Model, on the other hand, were found 
to accomplish the tri-purpose function of fit- 
ting onto any size-of ski, providing an effici- 
ent' means-of attaching saplings to the stirrups 
of the-litter, and of providing support to the 
■ stirrup'mechanism. Without these adapters, or 
■ an adapter-which accomplishes the same results, 
efficient evacuation dn the. mountains when 
using the Litter, Folding, Aluminum,is diffi- 
cult, if not impossible.99t . 
The Board thereupon recommended■that the Camp Halo, or Type 
D, ski adapter be adopted as a standard item, and that the Carlisle adapter, Type C, be rejected for over-the-snow 
evacuation,^ 
It will be seen from the foregoing Board report 
that, explicitly or by implication, three major criticisms 
had been made of the Equipment Laboratory’s ski litter 
adaptation. In the first place it had been charged that 
the Carlisle adapter had failed to furnish a stable conver- 
sion for the mountain litter. It could be argued, of course, 
that the mountain litter was not yet a standard item and that 
the Laboratory was not obliged to accommodate its design to 
purely developmental litters. However, the Laboratory was 
aware of the existence of such a litter, having developed it 
in its own workshop, and in the'event that the mountain lit- 
ter was accepted for standardization the problem of adapting 
the new item for use with the standard ski would have immedi- 
ately .presented itself . To have anticipated this possibility 
vifould seem to have been a reasonable precaution against costly 
alterations at some future date. 
In the second place the Board had charged that the 
Carlisle adapter had not been designed to fit all types of 
Quartermaster skis. Vie have seen how the Laboratory, at the 
start of the ski litter project, had carefully studied Quarter' 
master ski specifications and had obtained actual samples of 
each type then in existence in order to insure complete 
adaptability of the proposed ski clamp. Nevertheless, as we 
shall see presently, the Board's finding in this regard was 
valid. The Laboratory had not continued to keep itself 
informed as to changes and additions in the Quartermaster 
supply listings. New skis had been standardized, apparently 
without the Equipment Laboratory’s knowledge, to which the 
Carlisle clamps were clearly not adaptable. 
In the third place it was charged that the Carlisle 
adapters had not-been designed to fit the folding aluminum. 
This finding, as we shall see, was also valid. It will be 
recalled from an earlier chapter that, with the growing 
scarcity of aluminum, a double-folding laminated wood litter 
had been developed by the Laboratory as a procurement substi- 
It will also-be recalled.that the Laboratory was 
strongly opposed to the continued distribution of those fold- 
ing aluminum litters still in stock which v;ere designed with 
folding, instead of stationary, stirrups.3 Neither of these 
facts, however, eliminated the necessity of making the Car- 
lisle clamps adaptable to all litters which were still being 
used in the field, whatever their individual merits. Neither 
the stationary or folding stirrup type of folding aluminum 
litter had been declared obsolete and, until such a reclassi- 
fication had been officially ordered, there was always the 
possibility that a medical corpsraan would bo faced with the 
practical necessity of converting such a litter to ski use. The present clamp would' be qf little service in this situation. 
In its first-indorsement to the Camp Hale communi- 
cation inclosing the above test report. Army War College, 
speaking for Army Ground Forces, entered the following offi- 
cial RecommendationsjW . 
It is recommended that the present Adapter, Ski be 
reclassified limited standard, and the Adapter, 
All-Purpose, be adopted as a standard article 
under the nomenclature "Adapter, Ski, M-19AA, Set 
of A", There is no objection on the part of this 
headquarters if the above changes can be accom- 
plished by change of specifications only. It is 
recommended that the folloY/ing military charac- 
teristics be adopted? 
(1) Shall consist of A clamps suitable for 
attachment to all standard skis and 
litters for improvising an over-snow, 
hand-drawn vehicle. 
(2) Shall provide a secure connection be- 
tween the litter and the skis and shall 
not collapse in normal use on slopes and 
turns, 
(3) Shall be as light in weight as possible 
consistent with the durability required 
under subdivision (2) ,4- 
The indorsement concluded YJith the recommendation that a basis 
of issue for the new item be set up under the provisions of Table 
Allowance 20-2. and that distribution be specified'for Alpine and 
Cold Zone units at the rate of one sot of four clamps for 
every four litters (other than mountain). It was added that 
this proposed basis of issue should be revised raid broadened 
if new Tables of Organization raid Equipment were adopted for 
mountain and winter troops,5 
It will be noted that Army War College apparently 
had the impression that the Carlisle clamp had already been 
adopted as a standard Medical Department item. This, of 
course, was not true. The Carlisle and Hale models were both 
developmental items only, and no catalog changes would be 
necessary in the event the latter was selected. Aside from 
this minor error, however, the above recommendations follov/ed 
closely the test findings of the"Mountain and Winter Warfare 
Board, Moreover, on 22 August 19AA? the Research and Devel- 
opment Division of Army Service Forces concurred in the Army 
War College recommendations and directed that the Hale, or 
Type D, clamp be processed through the Medical Department 
Technical Committee at the earliest practicable date.^ While the negative findings of the Mountain and 
Winter Warfare Board with respect to"the Carlisle adapter 
had been largely valid, it was soon discovered that the 
positive recommendations regarding the Hale adapter had 
been somewhat hasty. During September, 1944, the Equipment 
Laboratory received several samples of the Type D clamp and, 
upon inspection, found that this ski clamp had been designed 
to fit only one litter, Item No, 993B000, Litter, Folding, 
Aluminum,-, which was provided with folding stirrups. 
Inasmuch as the Carlisle Model already fit all but 
one type of Medical Department litter, while the Hale Model 
had been, designed to fit only one of six standard litter types, 
the superiority of the former now seemed quite evident. In its 
reply, however, the Equipment Laboratory carried the matter one 
step further. 
It is the opinion of this office that Type C, ski 
clamp is the preferred type ski clamp inasmuch as 
it will operate with all Medical Department lit- 
ters with exception of Item No. 9938000, Litter, 
Folding, Aluminum, 
It is further the opinion of this office that the 
folding stirrups on Item No. 9938000 should be 
replaced by a non-folding type stirrup, if its 
use is contemplated as a ski litter,7 
The Equipment Laboratory had campaigned long and 
hard against the adoption of the folding stirrup type of 
aluminum litter,8 and it is quite understandable that it did 
not wish to overlook this opportunity to re-emphasize the 
defects of that particular litter design. However, as has 
been pointed out, so long as folding stirrup litters were in 
use in the field, complete adaptability of the new ski clamp 
would not be attained until the item had been redesigned to 
fit this litter also. In short, preference for the Carlisle 
adapter over the Hale adapter did not preclude some modifi- 
cation of the former item, . , 
On 16 September 19AA> The Surgeon General's Office, 
in its reply to Army Ground Forces, began by considering the 
main point at issue—the Carlisle versus the Hale ..adapter. 
Unfortunately, not all of the evidence here introduced to 
back the claim of the Carlisle item was of a noneontroversial 
sort. 
It is noted that the ski litter adapter was tested- 
on a nonstandard folding aluminum pole litter. 
This ski litter adapter when used on a standard 
litter was found satisfactory by the Alaskan Board 
in their winter report,9 
197 The above statements were open to some question. 
In the first place, the folding aluminum litter ?;as not a 
nonstandard item, but was still listed as standard in the 
Medical Supply Catalog.10 While it was true that official 
specifications called for non-folding feet,' it will bo recal- 
led that the folding feet feature had been specially prescribed 
for all litters procured for Army Air Forces. As for the reac- 
tion of the Afaskan Board, if reference to its May l6th report 
was intended, it would be difficult to construe those findings 
as being more positive than negative.H 
In any event, after presenting the above viewpoint 
The Surgeon General's Office went on to make the constructive 
suggestion that, since no actual requirements existed for the 
item, a further test be conducted without delay at a place 
suitable to Headquarters, Army Ground Forces. At this time 
all available models of ski litter adapters, as ¥/ell as other 
winter evacuation equipment items, could be tested comparatively 
and the results c arefully examined. It was estimated that such 
test could bo concluded in approximately two or three weeks, 
and that the results would assure that the most satisfactory 
item available for the purpose intended ?;ould be submitted for 
standardization.12 
In answer to the above comments and suggestions, 
Army Ground Forces replied as follows* 
1. This headquarters does not concur with the con- 
clusions contained in paragraph 5 of 3rd 
Indorsement. A present requirement exists for 
the subject equipment and additional require- 
ments are anticipated. 
2. In reference to recommendation in paragraph 5 
of 3rd Indorsement that further comparative 
test be conducted without delay, this head- 
quarters would have no objection to further 
tests in advance of standardization but no 
units or personnel are available to carry 
out such expedited tests .... 
3. Because of replacement of Litter, Folding, 
Aluminum by other litters it is recommended 
that development of the Ski be con- 
tinued to produce an adapter suitable for 
use with the Litter, Straight, Steel, or a 
new folding aluminum litter,13 
According to the nomenclature used in the previous 
Ground Force communication, the term, "Adapter, Ski", referred 
.to;.the Carlisle clamp, while the terra "Adapter, All-lurposc", 
referred .to the Hale model. Therefore, it can be seen that in the above indorsement Army Ground Forces was indicating 
its willingness to accept the Carlisle design, provided that 
it was altered to fit all existing Medical Department litters. 
The Hale model was no longer being considered as a practicable 
alternative. 
The above Army Ground Force recommendations were 
soon concurred in by Headquarters, Army Service and 
the Equipment Laboratory was charged with the task of suitably 
modifying its original drawings of the heavy gauge clamp. By 
the end of October, 19AA? the Laboratory submitted the follow- 
ing report of its progress. 
a. In order that the ski clamp could accommodate 
the stirrup of the aluminum folding litter, it 
was redesigned and revised drawings covering 
the changes were forwarded to The Surgeon 
General ow 17 October 19A4• 
b. Inasmuch as the type ski now provided by the 
Quartermaster Corps is of a different type 
than that which was used in the development 
of the ski litter clamp, further changes in 
its design may have to be made. With this in 
mind, standard type skis and cross-country 
skis of the latest type will be made available 
to this office.15 
On 27 November 19AAy the Laboratory received from the 
Boston Quartermaster Depot two of the new type’ Quartermaster 
skis| one, standard type; the other, cross-country type.l& 
Redesign of the ski clamp was'initiated immediately to accom- 
modate the adapter to’both types of skis (see Fig. 16) and, on 
A December 19AA> the final modified drawings were forwarded to 
The Surgeon General’s All that now remained to be 
accomplished was formal processing of the item for standard- 
ization.' As.we shall see, even this final procedural phase 
was not without its.complications. From now on, however, the 
delays were brief in comparison with what had gone before. 
IV, Standardization Phase. 
Immediately upon receipt of the Army Ground Force communi- 
cation, stating that a suitably modified Carlisle, or Type C, 
ski clamp would be acceptable to that, office, the Technical 
Division of The Surgeon General’s Office set about preparing 
final standardization data. On.5 October 19A4> standardiza- 
tion forms, photographs, drawings, tentative specifications, 
and Army Ground Force recommendations regarding basis of 
issue and. military-characteristics were forwarded to all 
Technical Division branches for preliminary action,YTith 
199 one exception,"611 necessary standardization information had 
been collected, revised, and arranged in final form by the 
Division before 13 October 1944? the date of the next scheduled 
meeting of- the Subcommittee of the Medical Department Technical 
Committee, Total quantity requirements and replacement rates 
for the new ski clamp were the only matters on which specific 
data was still not available. 
What was ultimately to develop into a requirements 
controversy began innocently enough. On 6 October 1944? the 
Supply Coordination Branch of the Technical Division forwarded 
to the Requirements Branch of the Supply Service a copy of the 
proposed basis of issue for the ski adapter, and requested that 
total requirements and replacement rates be calculated as soon 
as possible.19 Supply Service replied that they were unable to 
compute any requirements at that time due to the pressure of 
other work having top priority,20 There the matter was allowed 
to rest, at least for the time being. Since no basic disagree- 
ment had as yet come to the surface, it was assumed that the 
information would be available at a later date. As time went 
on, however, it became increasingly evident that this problem 
had its ramifications. It was, in fact, destined to plague 
both the Medical Department and Army Ground Forces for a period 
of nearly five months. 
On 13 October 1944? the Subcommittee of the Medical 
Department Technical Committee met to consider .standardization 
of the new ski clamp. Among the actions which were then taken 
was a revision of military characteristics to .include, as an 
additional paragraph',, the following condensation of Army Ground 
Force proposals:; 
G, Shall not collapse in normal use on slopes and 
turns cither due to structural failure -or 
design when properly adjusted.21 
The Subcommittee also followed closely Ground Force recommenda- 
tions regarding basis of issue. Army War College, it will be 
recalled, had proposed that one set of the ski clamps be issued 
for every four litters (other than mountain) used in Alpine and 
Cold Zones. This proposal was now adopted with but a single 
minor change. The Litter, Semi-rigid, as well as the Litter, 
Mountain, was to be excepted in computing the issue rate,22 
Meeting on 16 October 1944? the Medical Department 
Technical Committee approved in substance the report of its 
subcommittee. Only two minor changes were made. Nomenclature 
of the nci; item was changed from "Adapter, Ski, Litter,’1 to 
’’Adapter, Litter, Ski," and to the above statement of basis of 
distribution were prefaced the words, "To be included in 
T/A 20-2, equipment for training purposcs.”23 Since these 
processing actions had taken place with full Army Ground Force approval, registered through its representatives on the afore- 
mentioned committees, all standardization data vias no?* for- 
warded to Headquarters, Army Service Forces, for final official 
approval.24- On 3 November 1944, Army Service Forces approval 
was formally granted, and it was requested that changes in the 
Army Supply Program resulting from this action be processed 
immediately in accordance with established procedure.2$ 
Thus the issue of requirements and replacement rates 
was once again forced into the foreground. On 6 November 1944, 
the Research Coordination Branch of the Technical Division for- 
warded all pertinent information regarding the newly standard- 
ized, ski adapters to the Chief of Supply Service,'with the 
request that Army Service Forces be notified at the earliest 
moment concerning production schedules.26 Approximately two . 
weeks later, Supply Service, announced' that Item 990167$, 
Adapter, Litter, Ski, would be available for distribution dur- 
ing -the First Quarter of 1945.2? As yet, it will be observed, 
nothing had been done toward computing the quantity to be manu- 
factured. Under the circumstances the production estimate was 
somewhat optimistic. Actually it was June, 194$, before the ■ 
first factory order was finally placed. 
The completion of other last-minute details seemed, 
however, to be progressing satisfactorily. On 4 December 
1944, the Equipment Laboratory at Carlisle forwarded to The 
Surgeon General’s Office final drawings and specifications 
for the ski clamp, incorporating all structural changes that 
had been made in adapting the item to the folding aluminum 
litter and the new Quartermaster skis.26 Except for require- 
ments data, it now appeared that the item was virtually ready, 
to be processed for procurement. At this point, however, it 
was suddenly discovered that the Catalog Branch of Supply 
Service, through a misunderstanding as to what was to consti- 
tute a ’’unit” of the item, had set up an incorrect listing of 
the unit price of the ski. attachment. Instead of indicating 
that the unit price of $7.50 covered the cost of a complete 
set of four adapters, the price was shown as applying to only 
a single adapter.29 
Although the Technical Division had carefully 
included in the nomenclature of the item the sentence: ’’Four 
are required-per litter when skis are used,” it was now found 
desirable to spell out the unit definition■more1 explicitly. 
Accordingly, by action of the Subcommittee of the Medical 
Department Technical Committee on 1 January 1945, nomenclature 
was once, again revised. . ' • 
AdapterJ Litter, Ski, Set of 4*' For Fastening 
Standard Ski to Provide for Transportation of . . 
Wounded, 1 set required, per litter when skis 
are used. Unit --Set,30 
201 At the same Subcommittee meeting one other change 
was introduced and approved which was somewhat less under- 
standable, In place of the basis of issue previously described, 
the following new basis of distribution was substituted? 
1 Set per A litters when authorized by Army com- 
mander; outside continental United States when 
authorized by T.O. commander,31 
Concurrence with, both of the above recommended changes was 
given by Headquarters, Army Service Forces on 22 January 194-5.32 
-• * f . .. — ‘ ‘ 
All loose ends had now been securely tied with one 
major exception. No determination of the quantity of adapters 
to be ‘procured was yet forthcoming. On 10 February 1945, Supply 
Service broke its long silence. It appeared that Supply Service 
was not without its own grievances. Upon publication of the 
original basis of issue on 6 November 1944-, supply officials had 
immediately contacted the Ground Surgeon* s Office where they were 
advised that there was but one Mountain Division in training at 
that time. Requirements, the communication stated, were there- 
upon computed on that basis.33 With the adoption, in January, 
194-5, of a wholly new basis of issue, the problem had now become 
exceedingly awkward. 
The Technical Division was contacted and could: give 
no definite information as to the quantity that 
would be needed. Major Brookshire was also Con- 
tacted and in turn contacted Array Ground Forces 
G-3, G-4, and Requirements, none of v/hom could 
make any estimate as to the quantity needed, 
■ Major Brookshire suggested a recommended purchase 
of (500) to supply two divisions with initial 
issues and replacements,34 
The concluding recommendations of Supply Service 
were as follows: 
In view of the fact that it is impossible for 
Requirements Branch to compute or justify require- 
ments on this basis one of the two following 
recommendations is suggested, 
a. That the office which initially submitted 
the item for standardization make a written 
recommendation of the desired quantity to 
purchase or, 
b. vtfithdraw the item entirely. 
Formal action by Requirements Branch is being 
withheld until the above requested information 
is received.35 The indecision on the part of Army Ground Forces, 
as indicated above, was somewhat surprising. When, back in 
September 1944, The Surgeon General's Office had suggested 
that since no actual requirement existed for the item, 
standardization of the ski clamp be deferred until further 
comparative tests were performed, Array Ground Forces had 
replied; 
This headquarters does not concur with the 
conclusions contained in paragraph 5 of 3rd 
Indorsement. A present requirement exists for 
the subject equipment and additional require- 
ments are anticipated. 
« 
Now the shoe was on the other foot. Although Ground Forces 
was-not denying that a requirement still existed, it was 
apparently unable to express its needs in definite quanti- 
tative termsc 
The vigorous approach adopted by Supply Service 
proved,1 however, to be effective. On 19 February 194-5, the 
Executive Officer of The Surgeon General's Office addressed 
a communication to Army Ground Forces, quoting verbatim the 
recommendations of Supply Service.37 -A month later a reply 
from Army Ground Forces was received, the pertinent sections 
of which are given below. 
2, This headquarters has no•information upon 
which to recommend'procurement of the'sub- 
ject item since information is not available 
as to contemplated deployment of troops 
requiring this equipment. Inclusion in 
Tables of Organization and Equipment is not 
feasible. * 
3. There is no present requirement for the 
subject item for training purposes in this 
country for the next six (6) months. How- 
' ever, this does not at all mean that there 
may be no overseas requirements now or in 
the'coming vtfinter. Information of this 
nature can be 'obtained only from the 
theaters. 
4« In order that more specific data may be 
available this headquarters will initiate 
action to notify the theater commanders 
of the standardization of the subject item 
with a request to submit tentative'require- 
ments. Pending receipt of theater require- 
ments it is recommended that initial pro- 
curement be made of one thousand (1,000) 
sets of the subject itciri.^,,;, The Medical Department now had a definite procure- 
ment figure to work with, even though it had been arrived at 
.by rather subjective methods.; On 28 March 1945,.-the recom- 
mendation of Array Ground Forces.that 1,000 sdts of the ski 
adapters be procured was approved by the Director of Plans 
and Operations, Army Service Forces,39 and, on 30 Larch 
1945, copies of all indorsements were forwarded for procure- 
ment action to the Supply Service of The Surgeon General’s 
Office*. 4-0 
V. Conclusion. 
A. Procurement History. 
The first production order for the new ski adapters 
was not placed until 27 June 1945. A total of 1050 sets ¥/ere 
ordered at that time, at a unit cost of $7.16, somewhat under 
the earlier estimates. As of 26 July 1945, no deliveries had 
as yet been made on this original contract, and no new con- 
tracts had been negotiated.41 
B. Recently Submitted Improvisations. 
The need for a more effective information service, 
informing overseas units of the,.latest developments of the 
Medical Department Equipment Laboratory, was emphasized by a 
number of communications which were received by The Surgeon 
General’s Office long after the standardization of the Adapter, 
Litter, Ski. One of the first was a letter from the Office of 
the Chief Surgeon, European Theater of Operations. The remarks 
indicate that even at this high echelon, nothing was known of 
the recent, ski clamp development. 
Reports received by this headquarters indicate 
that many forward medical units, are successfully 
utilizing improvised ski litters in transporting 
patients. A photographic report on the effici- 
ency of this method of transporting casualties 
is contained in combat film sequence LIB 2243, 
which has been forwarded to Army Pictorial 
Service, your headquarters. 
Recommend that development of a standard ski 
for attachment to litters be considered. It 
is suggested that a ski be developed with a 
clamp attachment to be secured to the litter 
stirrup. The attachments should be movable to 
accommodate litters with varying interstirrup 
distances.42 Of the other communications received after this date, 
only one will be cited here. This was a letter from, the Seattle 
Port of Embarkation and contained a description of'a new type 
ski litter which had been developed on the Pacific Coast. The 
case affords not only further evidence of the fact that insuffi- 
cient publicity had been given to the ski clamp developed by the 
Equipment Laboratory, but also indicates, on the positive side, 
that the item just standardized still represented a more practi- 
cable design than any of those which had been submitted from 
outside sources. Pertinent portions of the Seattle letter are 
given below: . • L. 
On 6 March 194-5 an inspection was made of a type of 
litter mounted on skis which was designed by Mr. 
Erickson, Associate in Physical Education at the 
University of Washington, This litter mounted on 
skis Was designed as a result of Mr. Erickson’s 
participation in numerous expeditions to remove 
injured persons from the nearby snow-covered Cas- 
cade Mountains .4-3 
The new litter was described as follows; 
There is a distance of eighteen inches between 
the litter and the 'skis. The addition of skis 
and braces does not greatly increase the weight 
of the litter. As shown in the photographs, 
the skis are attached to the litter by oval 
bands of metal which are secondarily supported 
by means of cross struts, These struts can be 
fastened in place by means of wing nuts, and 
when thejr are removed, the litter can be folded 
flat in the usual manner. This litter possesses 
the advantages of; 
a. The patient is kept about eighteen 
inches off the surface of the snow, 
b. The litter can be easily handled and • 
controlled by two men on skis.4-4- ' 
The above information was duly forwarded to the ' 
Equipment Laboratory at Carlisle for recommendations, On 
5 April 194-5, the Laboratory replied as follows,; 
1, The inclosed correspondence and photo- 
graphs have been studied by this office v. 
and following comments submitted, • . u ■ 
a. Apparatus will serve for the purpose 
of transporting patients over snow, 
b. It has the advantage over present ski ! , 
adapters in th~+ —— 
off the snow. c. It has the disadvantage of size and weight 
and of fact that ski has to be prepared* 
Holes have to be made in them and shoe 
' attachments taken off. This precludes use 
of patient’s skis and requires that a pair 
of prepared skis be carried. 
d. The added height tends to make the unit 
more wobbly. 
2, In view of par 1 c, above this apparatus is 
not recommended for Medical Department pro- 
curement and use. It is the opinion of this 
office that our present standard litter ski 
clamps better serve our purpose,4-5 
C. Evaluation of Development Project, F-28, Litter, Ski, 
Whatever might be said critically of the development 
activities which have been described in previous chapters of 
this study, the net results had been impressive. New straight 
and folding pole litters had been developed in time to be of 
material assistance to overseas troops, and these items had 
stood up well under combat conditions. The contributions 
of Development Project, F-28, however, were much less tan- 
gible. The end product had not reached supply depots until 
after World War II hostilities had ceased and, consequently, 
no extended opportunity was available for testing the new ski 
clamp under actual combat conditions. 
In fiew of the relative simplicity of the clamp 
which was eventually standardized, it is difficult to realize 
that three years were required for its development and pro- 
curement, While the causes v/ere various and are not easy to 
assess, an enumeration of some of the major delays encountered 
during the course of the project may serve as at least a 
partial explanation. 
The immediate responsibility for the length of time 
taken to complete Development Project. F-28 did not rest 
solely with the Medical Department and its research facility 
at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Other installations, as well as 
other components of the Army, had also contributed to the 
total delay that had occurred. Army Ground Forces had taken 
six months to submit the necessary statement that a military 
requirement existed for a ski litter attachment. Six months 
had elapsed before the Alaskan Defense Command had submitted 
its test findings on the lightweight ski clamp. The Mountain 
and Winter Warfare Board had taken nearly four months to 
report the results of its field trials of the heavy gauge 
clamp. Considerable time had, of course, been consumed in 
carrying out purely Medical Department activities. The Surgeon 
General’s Office had taken five months to fulfill procedural 
requirements incident to project initiation. Processing the 
finished item for standardization and procurement had taken 
another five months. The Equipment Laboratory, by neglecting 
to design its adapters to fit all types of Quartermaster skis 
and all types of straight and folding pole litters then in 
use by the Medical Department, had caused further delays. 
Project termination had likewise been impeded by Supply Service 
delays in computing total requirements and replacement rates 
for the new item. 
It is entirely possible, however, that most of the 
above factors were in reality symptoms rather than basic 
causes. The ski litter adapter, it should be remembered, was 
a minor equipment item and, while a potential military require- 
ment existed from the start of the undertaking, this potential 
demand never became actual and urgent at any time during the 
course of the war. From its inception, therefore. Develop- 
ment Project. F-28 was a low priority project, and this simple 
lack of pressure may well have accounted for many, if not most, 
of the delays just mentioned. 
In any event, there were no .serious consequences. 
And, constructively regarded, ah end item had been produced 
and standardized which, from all accounts, was greatly superior 
not only to all previous standardized attachments but to all 
later field improvisations as well. 
207 FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IV, SECTION I 
Quinnell, E,D,, Col., M,C,, U ,S, A., Problems of Evacuation - 
Snow and Ice. IB Feb. 1943. Paper‘prepared1for conference on 
Cold .Weather Operations and Application of Medical Equipment 
, to Such Operations,■ held- at S.G.O,.,, 22 Feb.. 194-3 (M.D.E.L.). 
2 ... .. . 
Supra. / Chan. 1,. p. 3, 
; 3 . . = ; ... : . , ' ‘ • ' 
Quinnell, op. eltc • . . 
4 
FM 31-15.' Operations in‘Snow and Extreme Cold. 18 Sep, 194-1, 
pp, 46-4-7o 
$ 
War Departsant draining Circular No. 36. Mountain and Cold 
. Weather Equipment; 19 Mar. 194-3, pp. 10-11. 
6 
Ibid.. p, 11. 
7 
Ltr. to S.G.O,, fr, M.D.E.L., 8 Mar, 194-3; subject: "Addi- 
tional Research Projects for Fiscal Year 194-3" (Rec. Rm., 
S.G.O. 451.9-1 Carlisle Bks.-N.) 
g 
Monthly Status Report. S.G.O., 12 Oct, 194-3, SECRET (Hist. 
Div,, S.G.O,), Extracted in clear. 
9 
Table of Organization 8-135. Medical Battalion. Mountain 
Division. 1 Apr, 1942. 
to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 21 May 1942I subject: "Recom- 
mendation for Funds for the Medical Department Equipment 
Laboratory for Fiscal Years 1943 and 1944" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
to S.G.O., fr. A.G.F., Jun., 1942; subject: "Devel- 
opment of Equipment for Mountain Divisions." Cited in ltr, 
to M.D.E.L., fr, S.G.O., 15 Jun. 1942; subject: "A.G.F. 
Memorandum" (A.M.R. & D. Ed.). 
12 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr, M.D.E.L., 22 Jun. 1942 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
13 
Ltr, to Chf., Field Equipment Br., Plans Div,, fr. Dir,, 
Research and Development Div., S.G.O,, 10 Dec, 1942; subject: 
"Medical Equipment for Mountain Troops" (A.M.R. & D, Bd,), u 
Ibid,, p. 1,. 
15 
Ibid.« p, 2. .... 
16 • . 
Ltr. to Dir,, M.D.E.L., fr. S.G.O., 18 Feb, 194-3; subject: 
"Cold Weather Operations and Application of Medical Equip- 
ment to Such Operations" (M.D.E.L.). 
Mss., Problems of Evacuation - Snow and Ice. IB Feb, 194-3 
(M.D.E.L.). 
Mss., Problems of Evacuation - Light Alpine Division, 19 Feb, 
1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
17 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L,, 27 Feb. 1943; subject: "Recom- 
mendation for New Project" (Rec. Rm., S.G.O. 4-51.9-1 Carlisle 
Bks.-N,)• 
18 
1st Ind, to M.D.E.L., fr. S.G.O,, 3 Mar. 194-3; basic: see 
n, 17, above (Rec. Rm,, S.G.O, 4-51.9-1 Carlisle Bks,-N), 
19 
See n. 7, p. 20B, 
.,' pp. 1-2, -x' . 
2! ' ’ ' ”■■■■ : • 
Ibid.., p,. 2. 
22 . • • ”••• . A. :; .; 
Memo, to Chf,, Field Equipment Br., Plans Div. ,■ .S.’G.p,, fr. 
Dir. Research and Development Div,, 5.G.C., 13 Mar. 194-3; 
subject: "Ski Litter - Project, F-2B".(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
23 * - x-";* ' 
1st Ind, to M.D.E.L,, fr. S.G.O., 19 Mar, 194-3; basic: see 
n, 7, p. 208 (M.D.E.L.). 
24. 
jLtr. to M.D.T.C., fr. Subcommittee, M.D.T.C., S.G.O., 14 Apr, 
1943; subject: "Ski Litter" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
25 ' ' 
Min, of M.D.T.C.. Meeting No. 4S 10 May 1943 (Hist, Div., 
S.G.O.), ' 
26 
1st Ind, to S.G.O., fr. Hq., A.S.F., 21 May 1943; basic: 
ltr, to CG, Hq., A.S.F., fr, S.G.O.-, -13 May .1943; subject: 
"Ski Litter" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
27 
•.•Memo, to Chf., Supply Service, Dir., Fiscal Div., and Chf., 
Field Equipment Br,, Plans Div., fr. Research & Development Div,, S.G.O., 31 May 194-3; subject: "Ski Litter" 
(A.M.R* & D. Bd.). 
28 s 
Monthly Progress Report to The Surgeon General, from the 
Research and Development Division. 1$ Apr. 1943, SECRET 
(Hist. Div,, S.G.O.). Extracted in clear. This report 
hereafter cited as Monthly Progress Report-, S.G.O, 
29 
1st Ind, to S.G.O,, fr. CG, A.S.F., 15 Jan. 19-45; basic: 
r ltr, to CG,,A.S'.F., fr, S.G.O.,' 11 Jan. 194-5; subject: 
"Item 9901675, Litter, Ski, Set of 4-” (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
30 , N 
Reynolds correspondence (A.M.R, & D. Bd.), 
31 r ‘ ' : ; 
Reynolds, Whitman Mead, M.D., Medical Problems of Mountain 
Troops, Greenwich, Conn., 194-2. Attached as inclosure to 
Itr, to S.G.O., fr. Reynolds, 15 Jun. 194-2 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
32 
Supra.. Chap. Ill, pp, 132-136. 
33 
Ibid. 
34 
Ibid. 
35 
Interim Report, Exercise Polar Bear, 15 Feb, to 30 Apr. 
194-5, SECRET (Training Div,, S.G.Oi), Extracted in clear. 
36 . 
Supra., p, 175. - ■ 
37 
Supra., p. 179. 
38 - . / n 
Ltr. to Army War College, fr. M.D.E.L,, 23 Feb. 194-3 (M.D.E.L.)* 
39 
Ltr, to Brig, Gen, Onslow V. Rolfe, Camp Hale, Colo., fr, 
M.D.E.L., 8 Apr. 1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
40 
Ltr, to Lt, Col. Henry Daine, M.C., Camp McCoy, Wisconsin, 
fr. M.D.E.L., 16 Apr. 1943 (M.D.E.L,). 
41 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L.. 1 Apr, to 30 Apr, 1943 
(A.M.R, & D. Bd.). 42 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L,, fr. O.Q.M.G., 27 Mar. 194-3; subjects 
’’Toboggans, Sleds, and Skis” (M.D.E.L.). 
43 ‘ 
Ltr* to S.G.C., fr. M.D.E.L., 30 Mar. 1943; subject: 
"Procurement of Skis and Toboggans" (M.D.E.L.). 
44 • ■ 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. Asst. Bn. Surg,, Med. Det,,. 1st Bn., ■ 
3rd Inf., APO 86'3, 9 Feb. 1943; subject: "Mounting Litter 
on Skis" (Rec. Rm.‘, S.G.O. 442.-7). 
45 \ . 
5th Ind. to S.G.O., fr, M.D.E.L., 12 Mar. 1943; basic: see 
n, 44, above; ’’Mounting:‘Litter @n Skisl1' (Reo. Rra,; 
S.G.O. 442.-7). 
46 - , 
Ltr* to S.G.O;, fr. J.L. Schilling Sales Co,, New York, N.Y., 
19 Apr. 1943 (Rec. Rm., S.G.O. 442.-7). 
47 
Ibid. 
48 
Ltr. to American Pressboaid Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., fr. 
S.G.O., 5 May 1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
49 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L., fr. American Pressboaid Co., Inc. ,-New 
York, N.Y., 13 May 1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
50 
Ltr, to American Pressboaid Co., Inc., New York,-N.Y.j fr. 
M.D.E.L., 18 May 1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
51 
1st Ind, to S.G.O,, fr. M.D.E.L,, 31 May 1943; basic: ltr. 
to M.D.E.L,, fr. S.G.O,, 5 May 1943; subject: "Stretcher- 
Cot as Developed by American Pressboard Company, For Use in 
' Snow and Ice areas’’ (M.D.E.L,), 
52 - . 
Ibid. 
53 . . 
Ltr, to,American Pressboard Co,, N.Y*C., fr. S.G.O,, 3 Jun, 
1943 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
54 
Ltr, to American.Pressboard Coy, N.Y.C,,, ,fr. M.D.E.L,, 14 
Jun. 1943 (M.D.E.L.), • v • ■ 
55 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. National Inventors Council, 3 Sep, 1943; 
subjects "Ski Ambulance (by Henry L. Davisson)" (A.M.R. & D. Bd,). 56 . . ••••••- 
Ski Ambulance, Henry L, Davisson,(National Inventors Council 
File, CommerOe Dept., Classification No, 216.3 E). 
57 . ■ .. . •. : ■' 
Memo, to M.D.EvL,, ‘fr, S.G.C.,. 7 Sep. 194-3|- subject: "Ski 
Ambulance" (M.D.E.L.). 
58 . v ’ ‘ 
1st Ind. to S.G.C,, fr, M.D.E.L., 11 Sep. 194-3| basic: see 
n. 57, above (M'.D.E'.L.) .’ 
59 . 
■ Monthly Progress Report, S.G.C., 15 Apr. 194-3, SECRET (Hist. 
Div,, S.G.C.). Extracted in clear, 
60 
Supra., p. 179. 
61 * 
Monthly Narrative Report, M.D.E.L., 1- Mar-, to 31 Mar, 194-3 
(A.M.R. & D, BcLJT • *• 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L., 1 Apr. to 30 Apr. 194-3 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L., 1 May to 30 May 194-3 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
62 
Ltr. to Whitman Reynolds, Capt., M.C., Camp Hale, Colo,, 
fr, M.D.E.L,, 29 Jun, 19A3 (M.D.E.L.), 
63 
Ltr, to Col., E.D, Quinnell, M.D.E.L., fr, Capt, Whitman 
Reynolds, Camp Hale, Colo., 22 Jun. 194-3 (M.D.E.L.), 
64- 
Ltr. to Capt, Whitman Reynolds, Camp Hale, Colo., fr. Col, 
E.D. Quinnell, M.D.E.L., 29 Jun, 194-3 (M.D.E.L.). 
65 
Ltr, to Col. E.D, Quinnell, M.D.E.L., fr. Capt. Whitman 
N. Reynolds, Hq., 6th Service Command, Chicago, 111., 20 
Sep. 194-3 (M.D.E.L.). 
66 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L., fr, Jerald Sulky Co., Waterloo, Iowa, 6 
Jul. 19A3 (M.D.E.L.). 
67 
Ltr. to Jerald Sulky Co., Waterloo, Iowa, fr. M.D.E.L., 
B Jul. 194-3 (M.D.E.L.), 
68 
Monthly Narrative Report, M.D.E.L.. 1 Jul. to 31 Jul. 194-3 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
212 69 
Monthly Progress Report, S.G.O.. 13 Aug, 1943, SECRET (Hist. 
Div., S.G.O.). Extracted in clear, 
70 ’ — 
Monthly Narrative Report, M.D.E.L., 1 Sep, to 30 Sep. 1943 
; (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
to Col. A.B, Welsh, fr. Chf,, Research Coordination 
Br., 6 Oct. 1943 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
72 
Memo. to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 14 Oct. 1943 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
73 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L., 1 Nov, to 30 Nov. 1943 
(A.M.R. & D, Bd,), 
74 
Ltr, to CG, Alaskan. Defense Command (Attn: Experimental Board), 
fr, M.D.E.L., 19 Nov. 19431 subject: • "Ski Litter Attachments” 
(M.D.E.L.). V ■■ • ’ * 
75 • ' 
Monthly Narrative.. Report. M.D.E.L., 1 Nov, to 30 Nov, 1943 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). ” 
76' ‘ 
Monthly Narrative Report.. M.D.E.L.. 1 Jan, to 31 Jan, 1944 
(A.M.R. & D, Bd.), ' 
77 
Ibid. . . . 
78' * •, 
This conclusion was reached after examination of Monthly 
Narrative Reports, M.D.E.L.; Monthly Status Reports. S.G.0.; 
S.G.O. Record Room files; M.D.E.L, files for Project F-*28; 
and Technical Division, S.rG,G,, files for Project F-28, 
79 ‘ 
1st Ind, to M.D.E.L,* fr, Hq., Alaskan Dept., 16 May 1944; 
basic: ltr, to CG, Alaskan Defense Command, fr. M.D.E.L.; 
subject: ”Ski Litter Attachments,” 19 Nov, 1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
80 
Ibid. • • .... 
81 
Ibid. ■ 
82 • 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr. Asst, Bn. Surg,-, Med. Det., 1st Bn., 
3rd Inf., AP0 863, 9 Feb. 1943; subject: ’’Mounting Litter 
on Skis” (Rec, Rm., S.G.O, 442.“*7). See also Annual Reports 
from overseas medical units on file in the Historical Division. 
213 83^ 
Development Project. F-29. "Ambulance, Snow and Ice,” See 
Section 2, this Chapter, for detailed .account, 
BA ' - 
Ltr, to Jerald Sulky Co., Waterloo, Iowa, fr. M.D.E.L., 17 
Jan. 1944 (M.D.E.L.), 
85 • - * 
Ltr, to M.D.E.L., fr. Jerald Sulky Co., Waterloo, la., 22 Jan. 
1944 (M.D.E.L.). ’ 
86 
Ltr. to Jerald Sulky Co., Waterloo, la., fr. M.D.E.L., 25 Jan. 
1944 (m.D.E.L.)0 ’ * 
87 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L,, fr. Jerald Sulky Co,., Waterloo, la., 29 Jan. 
1944 (M.D.E.L.), ‘ 
88 
Monthly Narrative Report, M.D.E.L., 1 Feb. .to 29 Feb. 1944 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). • . : 
89 
Memo, sheet, "Development Project, F-28,” 24 Feb, 1944 
(M.D.E.L.). 
90 , 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L., 1 Feb. to 29 Feb, 1944 
(A.M.R, & D. Bd.). 
91 ■ . * : • 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr, M.D.E.L., 5 May 1944; subjects "Ski 
Litter Clamp”j 3 Incls,': (A.M.R, & D. Bd,). 
92 ’ ‘Wv ; ” 
Ltr. to Research & Development Div,, A.G.F., fr, S.G.C., 
,13 Jun. 1944; subject'; "Litter, Ski Clamp, Type C"; 3 
.Incls, (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), * 
93 * 
2d Ind, to CG, A.S.F., fr, Hq., A'.G.F, ,■ Army. War College, 
2 Jul, 1944; basic: see n, 92, above (A.M.R. & D. Bd,). 
94 
3rd Ind. to S.G.O., fr, Hq., A.S.F., 6 Jul. 1944; basic: see 
n. 92, above (A.M.R, & D. Bd.), 
95 
Memo, to Chf., Development Br,, S.G.G., fr, Chf,, Research 
Coordination Br,, S.G.O., 14 Jul. 1944- (A.M.R, & D. Bd.), 
96 
Report of Test of Mountain Litters (Six Types). Test No, 60, 
The Mountain and Winter Warfare Board, Camp Hale, Colo,, 15 
Jun. 1944> RESTRICTED (A.M.R, & D. Bd.), Extracted in clear. 97 
Ibid.5 Exhibit F. 
98 
Ibid.. Exhibit F. 
.99 
Ibid*,, pp. 21-22, . 
1 • 
Ibid. ’ . • 
2 
See Chap., III,p. 158. 
3 • 
Ibid., pp. 123-126. 
4 
1st Ind. to CG, A.S.F., fr. Army War College, A.G.F., 19 Aug, 
1944* basic: Itr. to Army Ytfar College, A.G.F., fr. Camp 
Hale, Colo,, 17 Jun. 1944; subject: ’’Mountain Litters (six 
types)”, RESTRICTED (Rec, Rm,, S.G.O. 442.-7),. Extracted in 
clear, , , • • 
5Ibid. 
6 
2d Ind. to S.G.O., fr. Research & Development Div,, Hq,, A.S.F., 
22 Aug. 19441 basic: see n, A, above (Rec. Rm., S.G.O, 442.-7), 
7 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L., 1 Sep. to 30 Sep. 1944 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
8 
See Chap. Ill, pp. 123-126, 
9 
3rd Ind. to CG, A.G.F., fr. S.G.O., 16 Sep. 1944s basic: 
see n, 4s above (Rec, Rm., S.G.O. 442.-7), 
10 
See Chap. Ill, p, 150, 
11 * 
Supra,, pp. 189-191. 
12 . 
3rd Ind. to CG, A.G.F., fr, S.G.O., 16 Sep, 1944| basic: see 
n, 4s above (Rec. Rm., S.G.O, 442.-7), 
13 
5th Ind, to CG, A.S.F., fr. Army War College, A.G.F. (undated)j 
basic: see n, 4? above (Rec. Rm., S.G.O, 442.-7)*' 14 ‘ ■ 
• 6thIpd. to S.G.O., fr. Hq,, A.S.F, (undated); basic; see 
n, 4>p. 215 (Red. Rm., S.G.O. 442.-7), 
15 
Monthly Narrative Report, M.D.E.L.. 1 Oct. to 31 Oct, 1944 
(A.M.R. & D. Ed.)‘. • , • 
16 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L.. 1;Nov,, to.30 Nov. 1944 
, (A.M.R, & D. Bd,), . • ■ 
17 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 4 Pec. 19441 subject; "Litter, 
Ski Clamp; Type C" (M.D.E.L.). 
18 
Memo, to Chfs. of Supply Service, S.G.O,, Organization & 
Equipment Allowance Br., and Research Coordination Br., 5 Oct. 
1944; subject; "'Litter Ski, Clamp Adapter, Set of 4"; 6 Incls 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd,). ■ 
19 . . - 
Memo, to Stock Control Div., Supply Service, S.G.O., 6 Oct. 
1944I subject: "Adapter, Ski, Litter" (Rec. Rm., S.G.O. 
442.-7). _ .. : 
20 
Memo, to Chf., Research Coordination Br,, Technical Div,, 
9 Oct, 1944; subject: "Proposed Standardization, Adapter, 
Ski, Litter" (A.M.R. & D, Bd,), . ; ‘ 
21 ‘ ‘ 
Medical Department Technical Subcommittee Report on; 
Adapter. Ski. Litter. 13 Oct. 1944, CONFIDENTIAL (A.M.R. 
& D, Bd,), Extracted in clear, 
22 
Ibid. 
23 
Concurrence Report on Adapter, Litter. Ski. M.D.T.G., 16 
Oct. 1944, CONFIDENTIAL (A.M.R, & D. Bd.), Extracted in clear, 
24 
Ltr. to CG, A.S.F., fr. S.G.O., 20 Oct, 1944; subject: 
"Adapter, Litter, Ski," CONFIDENTIAL (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
Extracted in clear. 
25 
2d Ind, to S.G.O,, fr, Hq., A.S.F., 3 Nov. 1944; basic: see 
n. 24, above; CONFIDENTIAL (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), Extracted in 
clear. 
216 26 
Memo, to Chf., Supply Service, S.G.O., fr. Research 
Coordination Br., Technical Div., 6 Nov, 1944; subject: 
’’Change in Status of Supply Table Item 9901675 • « 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). • 
27 
Ltr, to Hq., A.S.F., fr. Chf., Supply Service, 23 Nov. 1944; 
subject; ’’Production Schedule” (Rec, Rm., S.G.O. 442.-7). 
28 • 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 4 Dec. 1944; subject; ’’Litter, 
Ski Clamp, Type G.",(M.D.E.L.). 
29 
Memo, to Lt, Col. Leon H. Warren, fr. George H. Davis, Capt,, 
M.A.C., 29 Nov, 1944; subject; ’’Adapter, Litter, Ski” 
, (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). ' • ; 
30 
Ltr, to CG, A.S.F., fr. S.G.O., 11 Jan. 1945; subject: 
’’Item 9901675, Adapter, Litter, Ski, Set of 4" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.) 
31 ’ 
Ibid. 
32 ■ . 
2d Ind, to S.G.O., fr. Hq., A.S.F., 22 Jan. 1944; basic; 
see n. 30, above (A.M.R. & D, Bd,), 
33 ' . 
Memo, to Dir,, Technical.Div., fr. Stock Control Div., Supply 
Service, 10 Feb. 1945; subject; ’’Item 9901675, Adapter, 
Litter, Ski, Set of 4” (A.M.R, & D, Bd,). 
"^Ibid. 
35T1 ., 
Ibid. 
36' 
Supra., p. iqq.0 
37 
Ltr. to Chf,, Ground Requirements Sec., A.G.F,, fr, S.G.C., 
19 Feb, 1945; subject: "Medical Department Item No, 9901675, 
Adapter, Litter, Ski, Set of 4" (A.M.R., & D. Bd.). 
38 _ • 
1st Ind. to Research & Development Div,, A.S.F., fr. Army 
War College, Hq., A.G.F., 23 Mar, 1945; basic; see n. 37, 
above (A.M.R. & D, Bd.). 
39 
2d Ind. to S.G.O., fr, GG, A.S.F., 28 har, 1945; basic; see 
n. 37. above (A.M.R. A LL Bd -) 4.0 
1st Ind. to Chf., Supply Service, S.G.O., fr. Dir,, Technical 
Division, 30 Mar. 1945s basics see n. 33, p. 217 
(AiM.R, & D. Bd.). 
4! 
Ltr, to Hist. Div., S.G.O., fr. A.M.i.C,, 26 Jul. 1945 
(Hist. Div., S.G.O.). 
42 
Ltr, to S.G.O., fr. Office of Chf. Surgeon, Hq., ETC, 13 Feb, 
1945s subject: n£ki Litters” (A.M.R, & D. Bd.). 
43 
Ltr. to S.G.C., fr, Seattle Port of Embarkation, Seattle, 
Wash,, 13 Mar. 1945s subject; "Inspection of New Type 
Ski Litter” (A.M.R. & D. Bd,), 
44 
Ibid. 
45 
1st Ind. to S.G.O., fr, M.D.E.L., 5 Apr, 1945s basic; see 
n, 42, above (A.M.R, & D, Bd.), 
218 CHAPTER IV 
MISCELLANEOUS LITTERS AND LITTER ADAPTERS 
Section 2 
Development Project, F-29 
Ambulance, Snow & Ice 
I. Introduction, 
The impracticability of the hand-carry method in over- 
the-snow evacuation provided the stimulus not only for ex- 
tensive experimentation with various types of ski-litter con- 
versions, but also with a wide variety of sleds, toboggans, 
and snow trailers. No doubt such improvisations were re- 
sorted to at a relatively early date in American military 
history. The tendency, however, to think in terms of a 
specialized winter conveyance designed expressly for Medical 
Department use, appears to have been of comparatively recent 
origin. It was not, in fact, until 1943 that a formal de- 
velopment project was established by The Surgeon General's 
Office to produce such an item. 
In the years immediately preceding the initiation of 
Development Project* F-29. five different kinds of over-the- 
snow devices ¥;ere considered by medical research and develop- 
ment personnel. Brief mention will be made of each of these 
experimental items, inasmuch as certain of the decisions 
reached in their connection had a definite effect on the more 
formal research activities that followed. 
A, The Pico Rescue Sled. 
On IB March 1941, the Experimental Board of the 
Alaskan Defense Command submitted a formal test report on the 
Pico Rescue Sled, manufactured by Harvey N. Smith, North 
Clarendon, The sled was of wood construction, 22 
inches wide and Bl inches long, with wooden runners which 
were turned up at both ends. The runners were 3 inches wide, 
with a flat surface 54 inches long, giving a total bearing 
surface on level ground of 162 square Inches per runner. The 
4-inch sides of the sled could be lowered to the bed, which 
was 9 inches above: the ground and removable. Along each side 
of the sled a 7-foot bamboo pole was inserted in rings in the 
framework. It was contemplated that these poles could be 
used as handles, permitting the sled to be carried as a 
litter, or that one pole could be removed and used as a G-pole for steering. The sled alone weighed 2pounds, the special 
litter which had been provided for it weighed 11-g- pounds, 
making a combined unit weight of 4-0 pounds. Cost of the sled 
was $100,00. 
The bulk of the testing was performed at Lac6.d Field 
under temperatures ranging from 0 degrees Fahrenheit to 15 
degrees Fahrenheit. Snow was from 12 to 24. inches in depth, 
and was dry and firmly packed. The sled was tested over 
roads, trails, unbroken snow, and ice-covered rivers. It was 
pulled by men on foot, on snowshoos, and on skis, and was also 
towed by motor transportation. These comprehensive tests 
disclosed a number of defects in the Pico Rescue Sled, as well 
as a number of disadvantage§ inherent in the use of sleds 
generally for evacuation purposes. The Board, however, ex- 
pressed the belief that a sled similar in construction to the 
one under examination, but with certain important modifi- 
cations, would be both desirable and practical as a supple- 
mentary evacuation item. 
In general, the recommendations for re-design of 
the Pico model were aimed at adapting the sled for use with 
the standard aluminum litter in place of the non-regulation 
wood litter which had been furnished by the manufacturer. 
On the assumption that this conversion could; be satisfacto- 
rily accomplished, it was further recommended that an 
appropriate number of the new sleds be routinely provided 
for all medical detachments of infantry regiments operat- 
ing in ice and snow. On the negative side it was pointed out 
that, while the proposed modified sled could be easily pulled 
by hand, it was not suitable for towing by motor transpor- 
tation. It was also noted that the sled-type of conveyance 
still left unsolved the problem of providing suitable pro- 
tective covering for patients being evacuated during sleet, 
hail, or snow storms, and in cold, driving rain. 
B. The Commerical Type Toboggan. 
At the same time that the Pico Rescue Sled was 
being tested, the Alaskan Experimental Board also subjected 
to tost a standard, commerical type The frame, 
which was made of hardwood strips turned up at the front, 
followed the conventional design. It was 16 inches wide, 8 
feet long, and weighed 26 pounds,' empty. No litter was 
provided and there were no special fittings for litter adap- 
tation. The cost was $12.00. 
The field tests which wore performed were identical 
with those which had been employed in testing the rescue 
sled. The results obtained in the present instance, however, 
were strikingly negative. In the first place, the toboggan 
was found to bo unsatisfactory for carrying casualties over soft snow. The snow not only piled up and came over the 
front of the toboggan, but came in the sides also and worked 
up under the patient. On a hard-packed snow trail, on the 
other hand, the toboggan proved to be very rough riding 
because of its continual flexing along the longitudinal 
axis. Finally, although lighter than the rescue sled (26 
pounds as against 4-0 pounds), the toboggan did not pull 
easier and, as procured, was also too narrow to accommodate 
an average sized man, adequately covered. 
Accordingly it was recommended that the commcrical 
type toboggan, used alone and unequipped with litter fittings, 
bo rejected as a means for the over-the snow transportation of 
Army wounded0 
C, The Snocraft Folding Sled. 
In 194-1 a variation on the Pico Rescue Sled design, 
a folding sled manufactured by Snocraft, Incorporated, Norway, 
Maine, was tested by the 5th Division stationed at Camp McCoy, 
The folding feature made it possible to trans- 
port the sled by horse or mule when not required for medical 
service. The original model, however, was found to be too 
short to be practicable for general use in casualty evacu- 
ation. The logical next step, a lengthening of the folding 
sled, was taken during 194-2, The Mountain and Winter Warfare 
Board, Camp Hale, Colorado, one of whose members had seen the 
Snocraft sled in operation at Camp McCoy, arranged with the 
manufacturer to have the same collapsible sled produced in an 
eight-foot Upon completion this modified model was 
requisitioned on an experimental basis for use by the 87th 
Infantry Division Mountain, Inasmuch as this unit was 
supplied entirely by pack animals, all of its equipment had to 
be adaptable to that type of transportation,5 The folding sled, 
therefore, appeared to be a satisfactory expedient. 
D, Cargo Carrier. Light. U, S» T-15. 
An evaluation of the weasel-type tractor, both as an 
evacuation vehicle and as a towing device, was made by the 
Planning Division of The Surgeon Generalfs Office on 1 January 
194-3# Because of the subsequent importance of the tractor type 
of vehicle in winter evacuation, the relevant portions of that 
report are quoted below. 
The Cargo Carrier, Light, U, S, T-15, OSRD 
designation ’’Weasel” has been examined and 
inspected by this division and is not believed 
suitable for use as a small ambulance for the 
following reasons s 
221 a. There is insufficient room for patients in the 
vehicle, it being not much larger than a jeep. If pa- 
tients were placed,on toboggans towed by this vehicle, 
they would be subjected to increased hazards and cold. 
b. Cases of shock and fracture would be aggravated 
due to the pitch fore and aft of this vehicle making it 
• rough riding, it being necessary to fasten the dri- 
ver and passenger in with belts similar to an airplane 
belt. 
; c. Studies are being made by the Ground Forces and 
■‘"Equipment Laboratory to develop a satisfactory snow am- 
bulance. 
As we shall see presently, in 194/- extensive field 
examination was made of the M29 Cargo Carrier, a much larger 
type; of tractor, and, as a result, adoption of this vehicle 
for over-the-sncw evacuation was recommended by Army Ground 
Force authorities. Whether, therefore, sufficient explora- 
tory study of the tracked type vehicle was made by the 
Medical Department prior to the initiation of Development 
Project, F-29. is a question which may well be pondered in 
attempting any final evaluation of this projeqt as a whole, 
E. The Franklin Toboggan. 
On 3 February 194-3, the Quartermaster Corps 
forwarded to The Surgeon General's Office an emergency 
rescue toboggan which had been submitted by 0. M. Franklin 
of Wenatchee, The toboggan was duly trans- 
ferred to the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory at 
Carlisle, Pennsylvania for field testing, and a formal re- 
port of findings- was-rendered by that installation on 8 
March 194-3. The Franklin toboggan consisted of a series of 
plywood sections, inch in thickness, which were hinged to- 
gether by means of two 2-:p inch web straps. The rear edges 
of the plywood strips overlapped slightly and were covered 
with light metal. The front of the toboggan was a curved 
piece of sheet metal. Straps on the front and rear served to 
hold a pair of skis, which had been added to give rigidity. 
When opened the toboggan measured 20 inches by 6 feet 9 
inches, but could be folded up into a space approximately 16 
by 20 by 8 inches. Total weight, without skis, was 14--1/3 
pounds, 
The Laboratory's report, which contained general 
conclusions rather than detailed test results, was as 
follows! readily and can be transported on pack rack or back. 
' • • , ' ' ■ 
b, Disadvantages; It requires the use of a 
pair of skis to give it the necessary support. The 
materials used and construction are too weak for 
service. It rides too low in the snow causing the 
patient and coverings to become wot. 
While a toboggan can be used to transport 
patients in snow, it is necessary to have a basket type 
"or else have means of attaching a litter so as to keep 
the patient out of the snow. Toboggans are hard to 
pull in soft snow and hard to keep on the trail, es- 
pecially if down hill without being hold from the rear. 
Some typo of sleigh or litter on skis is preferable. 
The adoption of the subject collapsible 
toboggan as standard Medical Equipment is not recom- 
mended. 9 
F,' ,, Summary. 
The conclusions which were reached by the Medical 
Department, as a result of the aforementioned field tests 
and laboratory.examinations of.various types of winter 
evacuation equipment, are listed below in summary form. As 
we shall see presently, these findings played an important 
part in the establishment of Development Project. F-29l in 
the formulation of project objectives, and in the selection 
of appropriate military characteristics for the proposed new* 
item, 
1• Sleds (straight and folding) 
Straight and folding sleds could be readily 
designed to accommodate the standard aluminum litter. So 
designed, they could be satisfactorily employed in over-the- 
snow evacuation by-.medical corpsmen equipped with skis or’ 
snowshoes, or proceeding on foot. The disadvantages of the 
method were; (l) The patient was exposed to the elements| 
(2) considerable personnel was required to carry out the 
operation; (3) sleds were not well adapted to alternative 
means of evacuation, such as tov/ing by motor transport or by 
pack animal. In any event, so far- as the sleds themselves 
were concerned, further development work did not appear to be 
necessary. So long as future Quartermaster models were 
adaptable to the standard Medical Department litters, no ad- 
ditional fittings or adjustments were needed. 
223 2, Toboggans (straight and folding). 
All of the disadvantages listed above applied 
with equal force-to the use of toboggans in winter evacuation. 
In this instance, however, an even more basic difficulty had 
been encountered. In its present form the toboggan was of 
little or no value to the Medical Department, To bring this 
item of equipment to a point of medical usefulness equal to 
that of the sled, it would be necessary to devise adapters 
which.would not only accommodate the .toboggan to the standard 
litter, but would at the same time raise the litter suf- 
ficiently high off the ground to prevent snow from packing 
in around the patient and,to insure a reasonably comfortable 
ride. Significantly, although this was not one of the an- 
nounced purposed of Development Pro.iect. F-29. the design and 
construction of a suitable toboggan adapter was one of the 
project’s earliest tangible accomplishments, 
3C Motor Transport (The T-15 Weasel), 
Because of the desirability, in cold weather 
operations, of greater patient protection and more speedy 
evacuation than could be afforded by either the hand-drawn 
sled or toboggan, the Medical Department had turned its at- 
tention briefly to motor transport. The T-15 Weasel, one of 
several powered vehicles capable of functioning efficiently 
in deep snow and over frozen mountainous terrain, was ex- 
amined and found unsuitable for carrying litter patients. 
No further consideration was given to the possibility of 
rigging this so-called ’’prime mover” type of vehicle for casu- 
alty evacuation. It was suggested, however, that, since snow 
tractors were not themselves adaptable to safe and comfort- 
able patient carry, some type of all-purpose trailer might 
offer a promising research alternative. 
U. The. Snow and Ice Ambulance (Development 
Project. F-29). 
The evolution of Medical Department thinking, 
from a one-litter sled type of evacuation device to a two or 
three-litter cart or sleigh, is wholly understandable from 
the data which has just been examined. Gradually it had ap- 
peared that what was needed, either to supplement or supplant 
the conventional sled or toboggan, was an item which would? 
(l) be large enough to accommodate more than one litter 
patient, thus speeding up the evacuation process yet con- 
serving personnel; (2) be light enough to be hand drawn when 
necessary, and so be available for use in forward areas; (3) 
be, at the same time, sufficiently heavy and stable to permit 
towing by pack animal or powered transport; (4-) provide 
maximum cover and warmth for the patient. 
The above criteria were, as we shall see, soon 
adopted without serious modification as basic military characteristics of the proposed snow and ice ambulance. 
As in the case of the ski litter adapter, however, this 
concept of a lightweight cart or sleigh had not developed 
overnight but had grown gradually over a period of years. 
Whether or not the idea thus evolved was to be as practi- 
cable as it was logical will be seen from the account that 
follows. 
II. Project Initiation. 
On 22 February 194-3, as mentioned in the previous 
chapter, a conference was held at The Surgeon General’s 
Office on the subject; Cold Weather Operations and 
Application for Medical Equipment to Such Operations,At 
this meeting the Director of the Equipment Laboratory dis- 
cussed, among other things, the need for a lightweight sleigh 
not only for snow and ice conditions generally but also as a 
specialized item of equipment for light Alpine divisions. 
The various ways in which the proposed sleigh could be used 
to supplement existing evacuation devices were described in 
some detail, ~ 
Less than a week later the Equipment Laboratory sub- 
mitted The Surgeon General's Office the following written 
recommendation for the’ initiation of a new winter equipment 
project; 
1, It is believed desirable to set up a project on 
development, of sleds and other means of transport 
for winter warfare. 
2. The funds necessary should be approximately 
$1,000.0012 
The above information, in view of the highly specific 
requirements of AR 850-25 governing project initiation, was 
scarecely adequate. On 3 March 1943, The Surgeon General*s 
Office replied as follows; 
' 1, The Research and Development Division requests 
a more specific and complete statement on the 
items to be developed with reference to para- 
graph 1, basic communication, be furnished 
this office, 
2, They also raised the question as to whether 
.funds requested will be sufficient for this 
project, 
This letter produced the desired results for, on B 
March 1943, the Equipment Laboratory re-submitted its proposal, this time giving complete and detailed information. 
Two separate projects were now recommended! one to develop a 
ski litter, and the other to develop a snow and ice ambu- 
lance. With respect to the latter, the following data were 
presented? 
a. Purpose of initiating this project. To de- 
termine the feasibility of some type of sled, 
sleigh, toboggan or similar device for the 
emergency transportation of at least tv/o 
casualties over terrain covered with ice and 
snow, 
b* History. Preliminary investigation has re- 
vealed that no such project has been con- 
ducted by this laboratory. 
c. Plan for Fiscal Year 1913a To develop an 
ambulance which will be light in weight, 
easily transported, capable of carrying at 
least two recumbent patients over terrain 
covered with ice and snow. This ambulance 
to be on the order or of a type similar to 
a sleigh, sled and/or toboggan. Final 
type to be determined after experimentation, 
d. Military characteristics (tentative). 
(1) To provide for the carrying of at 
least two litter patients, 
(2) To be of light weight and easily 
transported, 
(3) To be inexpensive and easily pro- 
cured, 
(4.) To be so designed that it can be 
pulled by a mount, small tractor, or 
if necessary by human hand, 14- 
It was further recommended that $800,00 be made available 
from current funds to finance the project, 
Informal approval of Headquarters, Army Service Forces, 
to initiate Development Project. F-29. ”Ambulance, Snow and 
Ice,11 was received by The Surgeon General*s Office on 13 
March Since only routine processing procedures re- 
mained to be completed, the Equipment Laboratory was noti- 
fied that work on the project could begin immediately. At 
the same time it was recommended that the Laboratory*s esti- 
mate of the funds needed to conduct the experimentation be 
increased from $800,00 to $2,000.00.-^ Formal processing of the project proposal was handled 
quite expeditiously in this instance. On Li April 1943, the 
Subcommittee of the Medical Department Technical Committee 
approved the military characteristics which had been sub- 
mitted by the Equipment Laboratory, and recommended that the 
project be These recommendations were con- 
curred in by the Medical Department Technical Committee on 
10. May 1943,throe days later the project request was 
forwarded to Headquarters, Army Service and on 20 
May 1943 final Army Service Forces approval was granted,21 
By the early part of June, all installations concerned had 
been officially notified’of the establishment of the new 
project,22 
In short, in the subject instance only three and a half 
months had elapsed from the time of the first Laboratory re- 
quest for project initiation and final Army Service Forces, 
In the case of the Ski Litter, nine months had been required 
for the same procedural operations, 
HI. Development Phase. 
A, Preliminary Research Activities. 
While official notification of Army Service Forces 
action did not reach the Equipment Laboratory until the 
middle of June, 1943, it will be recalled that on 13 March 
1943 the Laboratory had been authorized to begin develop- 
ment work on the strength of informal assurances.received 
from The Surgeon General’s Office, In view of the fact 
that 1 September 1943 had been set as the estimated com- 
pletion date for Development Project, F-29. it was im- 
perative that preliminary research activities be begun 
immediately. Accordingly, on 20 March 1943, the Equipment 
Laboratory wrote to the Office of the Quartermaster General, 
requesting drawings and specifications of all toboggans and 
sleds currently being used by the Army,24 Upon receipt of 
this information a week later,25 the Laboratory prepared a 
formal requisition for one Military Toboggan, Type I 
(freight toboggan), one Military Toboggan, Type II (standard 
toboggan), and all related accessories. 
While awaiting the arrival of the Quartermaster 
toboggans, the Laboratory established contact with several 
likely commercial manufactureifs and at the same time began 
work on drafting pilot models of the new snow and ice ambu- 
lance. 27 During this same period, the Mountain and Winter 
Warfare Board at Camp Halo, Colorado, and-the Commanding 
Officer of the 2nd Division, stationed at Camp McCoy, 
Wisconsin, wore contacted for technical information and 
suggestions, On 22 April 1943, the details of one ad- ditional toboggan type were made available to the Laboratory 
when The Surgeon General*s Office forwarded photographs of 
the Thadcn Sled Toboggan, which was currently in use at the 
Alaskan Defense Command,^9 
Upon the receipt of the two Quartermaster to* 
boggans in May, 1943,30 the Laboratory’s drafting room 
activities were greatly intensified. Within a month, ideas 
for the new snow and ice ambulance had so crystallized that 
the preliminary period of development work can be considered 
to have come to an end. From this point on, attention was 
focussed on the actual factory production of a suitable 
number of experimental models, 
Be Snow and Ice Ambulance (Phase l). 
On 12 June 1943, in an informal memorandum the 
Equipment Laboratory outlined the general physicial re- 
quirements of the new snow and ice ambulance as follows ; 
Snow and Ico Ambulance 
1, Dimensionsz . 
Inside - 91" x x 48". 
2, Construction* 
Wood with plywood or masonite interior 
and exterior panelling. Insulation 1 
inch thick between panels, 
3, Top to be bow type, removable construction 
covered with double thickness canvas with in- 
sulation between, 
4, Height of floor from grounds 
9 to 12 inches, 
5, Folding seats on each side, 
6, Type-1 
a. 2 runners, 4" in width, 
b. Folding top 
c. Bows and canvas, 
d. Trailed by jeep, horse, or tractor. 
Typo II 
a, 4 runners, front runners to be sled type; 
3 - 3'i" in width. 
228 b. Collapsible top, bows, and canvas, 
c. Trailed by jeep, horse, or tractor.31 
Before the close of June, negotiations for the 
construction of the aforementioned two typos of snow and 
ice ambulances (one with two runners and one with four_ 
runners) were initiated with the Jerald Sulky Company of 
Waterloo, Iowa, one of the commercial firms which had 
previously been contacted by the Laboratory.32 it was 
anticipated that delivery of the pilot models could be made 
by 15 August 194-3, after which tine they would be tested and 
reported upon to The Surgeon General.33 in view of the 
early completion date which had boon set for the project, 1 
September '194.3,34 it was already obvious that an extension 
of time would be necessary. It will bo recalled, from the 
preceding chapter, that field tbsts conducted by winter 
training installations like Camp Hale and the Alaskan 
Defense Command were often time-consuming in the extreme. 
During this experimental production stage, which 
extended from Juno, 194-3, through October, 194-3, an active 
correspondence was carried on between the Equipment 
Laboratory and the Jerald Sulky Company, This close work- 
ing relationship with a private industrial concern was a 
typical Medical Department research practice throughout the 
period of World War II, It was a process in which the 
Laboratory at Carlisle presented basic'engineering plans, 
while the manufacturer suggested improvements or modi- 
fications dictated by immediate practical considerations. 
A concrete illustration of this particular type of collabo- 
ration is furnished by the technical discussion and inter- 
change of ideas which occurred with reference to the snow 
and ice ambulancc,3 3 
In mid-Juno, for example, the Jerald Sulky 
Company suggested, in view of anticipated difficulties in 
securing plywood, that Hard Tempered 1/8 inch Masonite bo 
substituted for use on the inside and outside of the sides 
and- front wall of the ambulance. For the floor it was 
proposed that Insulito board over the sills, with l/9 inch 
Masonite on top of the Insulito, would not only insulate 
the floor but would add strength to it. After subsequent 
experimentation, however, the company reported that tests 
of the Masonite Hard Tempered board disclosed that it 
lacked the strength of the inch plywood, and would proba- 
bly not be satisfactory. Upon investigation it was also 
learned that, unless the snow and ice ambulance was to be 
procured in enormous quantities, there was probably suf- 
ficient plywood available on the market to satisfy normal 
demands. These latter findings proved to be essentially 
valid, 1 While completely waterproof plywood was at a 
premium before the close of the year, the company was able 
229 to secure an adequate amount of semi-waterproof material to 
construct all four pilot models of the snow and ice ambu- 
lance. 
A question was also raised in regard to the need 
for double wall canvas with insulation between the walls. 
The manufacturer pointed out to the Laboratory that, while 
either kapok or wool lining could be used effectively, 
insulation of the top of the ambulance represented one of the 
major items of cost of the ambulance. Several of the expert 
canvas workers in Waterloo had been consulted, and advised 
against the construction of such a top, although they were 
able to produce the item in quantity. The reply of the 
Laboratory in this instance was as follows; 
, o. New; agVfco top 'Insulation,..I realize that 
most canvas men do not like to do that sort of 
work, and it may not bo of any particular value 
but I have a Directive which requires insulation 
and so we will have to put in something, I 
believe ordinary blanket lining will bo satis- 
factory 5 Kapok would be"too hard to procure,36 
Most of the manufacture suggestions, of course, 
met with more success than the two described above. The 
company proposed that tubular steal axles, both front and 
rear, be used instead of wood on the grounds that steel was 
more readily procurable, construction problems would be 
simpler, the axles would be stronger, and there would be 
little difference in weight. The Laboratory concurred in 
this view, providing weight was not increased appreciably, 
and the tubular steel axles were incorporated into the 
tentative specifications. The company also redesigned the 
body sides,so that they would fold down, and made changes 
in the placing of the front runners (of the four-runner 
model) to provide adequate clearance for the shaft. Both 
of these modifications met with the approval of the 
Equipment Laboratory, as did the suggestions that sled 
clearance be increased to 15 inches, and that runner-width 
be reduced to provide a more easily towable trailer. One 
further suggestion that was rejected at this stage but was 
later adopted in modified form, was the proposal that the 
runners be constructed of pressed metal instead of hard 
wood. Months later, when the first factory models were 
being inspected, the Director of the Equipment Laboratory 
recommended that the bottoms of the wood runners be re- 
inforced by a covering of 16 gauge metal. 
What has been listed above does not represent an 
exhaustive enumeration of the changes proposed by the Jerald 
Sulky Company, However, sufficient detail has been included 
to indicate the very substantial role this collaborating manufacturer played, even after preliminary blueprints had 
been drawn up by Medical Department personnel. In this 
instance not all of the company's suggestions were ac- 
cepted, .bind certain of those which were approved subse- 
quently turned out to be faulty. However, enough of the 
manufacturer’s ideas were ultimately incorporated in the 
final test models of the snow and ice ambulance to justi- 
fy a description of this developmental work as a joint 
activity. 
Costs of manufacture were discussed and agreed 
upon early In the negotiation period. The Jerald Sulky 
Company, on'3~ July 1943, presented written estimates of 
$385*00 for .the four-runner ambulance, and $360,00 for 
the two-runner model. It was, of course, explained that 
on a full production run these vehicles could be manu- 
factured for a fraction of the above cost,37 These 
estimates were approved by the Laboratory,and on 16 
July 1943 the company received a purchase order for four 
sleighs, two of each type.39 Difficulties with priori- 
ties delayed production of the sleighs, however, several 
months beyond the originally anticipated date. It was 
not, in fact, until the project was re-rated with an 
AA-1 instead AA-3 listing that all necessary materials 
were procured and fabrication actually As a 
result of these delays, the estimated completion date 
for Development Project. F-29. was extended from 15 
August 1943 to 1 January Even this extension, as 
we shall see, was far from adequate. 
By the early part of October, 1943, one of the 
pilot models of the snow and ice ambulance was completed, 
and on 11 October the Director of the Equipment 
Laboratory inspected this vehicle at the manufacturer’s 
plant at rTatcrloo, This was the Type II, or 
four-runner, model and in the informal inspection report 
the folio1.:ing changes were recommended by the laboratory 
Directors 
1, Lengthen roar runners 46 to 48". 
2, Build the front of the runners 2 to 
2-2” higher, 
3, Make all runners 5” wide, 
4, Cover bottom of runners with 16 gauge 
metal. 
5, Hinge seats up instead of down. 
6, Insert 6x9 ventilator in front of 
231 • canvas. 
• While the above changes were being accomplished 
by the Jerald Sulky Company, and while construction was 
being continued on the Type I (two runner) snow and ice 
ambulance, a wholly different development suddenly took 
the center of the stage. Under the sponsorship of the 
Equipment Laboratory a new type of toboggan adapter was 
now submitted to The Surgeon General*s Office for its 
consideration, 
C, Adapter. Toboggan. Litter, 
On 23 October 1943, the Medical Department 
Equipment Laboratory forwarded to.The Surgeon General*s 
Office drawings, specifications, and photographs of a 
toboggan litter adapter (see Figure 17) which had been 
developed by the Laboratory, It was stated that the 
adapter made feasible the usage of the standard litter 
with the standard toboggan, thus providing an additional 
means for the transportation of wounded. It was the 
opinion of the Laboratory that the toboggan adapter might 
be of value in those units in which the aforementioned 
equipment items were available,44 The Surgeon General*s 
Office, after a brief study, concurred in the above 
views and, on 1 November 1943, forwarded all the rele- 
vant data to Army Ground Forces for its remarks and 
recommendations and for suggestion as to an appropriate 
basis of issue.4-5 
The reply from Army War College, Army Ground 
Forces, dated 13 December 1943, was as follows: 
1. Adapter, Toboggan, Litter, is believed 
to be an essential item of equipment for use 
of the standard litter in conjunction with the 
Standard toboggan as a means of transportation 
of casualties over snow, 
2. It is requested tliat action be initi- 
ated to standardize the adapter and a basis of 
issue established for troops engaged in winter 
training as follows s 
140 - *Per Division engaged in 
winter training. 
(*For use of medical units engaged in 
evacuation of sick or wounded patients 
over snow-covered terrain.) 3. While the total requirement for 
Adapters, Toboggan, Litter is 14-0 at the 
present time, any additional requirement 
predicated on organization issue of this 
item, will be furnished Army Service 
Forces at a later date, 
* 
4-* When the Adapter, toboggan, 
litter is standardized, an appropriate 
amendment will be published by this 
headquarters to letter, Headquarters, 
; Army Ground Forces, dated 30 September 4.3, 
file No, 4-20 (C) (30 Sep 43) -GNGDS-3A, 
subject; Winter Clothing and Equipment 
to the Commanding General, Second Army, 4-° 
Upon receipt of the above concurrence, the 
Plans Division of The Surgeon Generalfs Office im- 
mediately recommended to the Medical Department 
Technical Committee that the toboggan litter adapter be 
classified as. ’’required type, development typo. Service 
tost type,” and that 300 units be purchased for service 
test by two Light Divisions engaged in winter train- 
ing, 4-2 Since the military characteristics which had 
been established for the snow and ice ambulance, speci- 
fying among other things at least a two-casualty carry- 
ing capacity, cculd not be applied to the toboggan 
litter, a new set of military characteristics had to bo 
formulated for the subject development. Accordingly, 
the following statement f/as forwarded by the Plans 
Division to the Medical Department Technical 
Committee: 
It is recommended that tentative Military 
Characteristics for subject item (Adapter, 
Toboggan, Litter) be as follows; 
a. To provide a moans of fastening a 
standard litter to a standard toboggan in 
such a manner as to provide an adequate 
means for the transportation of wounded, 
These recommendations of the Plans Division 
were followed by the Subcommittee of the Medical 
Department Technical Committee, at a meeting held 21 
December 194-3, in all but two important respects. 
First, instead of approving the classification of the 
new adaptor as a development and service test typo, 
thus providing for extensive field trials before ac- 
ceptance as a standard equipment item, the Subcommittee 
proposed immediate classification as ’’required type, 
adopted type, standard article.” Apparently there was 
233 a more urgent need for the new adaptor than had been 
originally anticipated. Secondly, quantity re- 
quirements were increased from 14-0, as initially 
recommended by Army Ground Forces, to 4-84- adapters for 
1944t- and 185. for 194-5.' Under quantity procurement, 
unit cost (l adapter to constitute 1 unit; basis of 
issue to be 2 adapters per toboggan authorized for 
medical troops) was estimated at $1*75, making a total 
purchase cost for 1944- df $864-. 50, and for 194-5 
$323.75,49 Those latter estimates, it may bo observed, 
proved to be rather optimistic. Actual unit cost on 
the final purchase order, dated 15 March 1944-, amounted 
to $10c92 instead of $1,75. Consequently, even though 
quantity requirements -trerc subsequently reduced to 300, 
a total outlay of more than $3,200 was involved.50 
On 19 January 1944-, Subcommittee recommen- 
dations wore approved without change by the Medical 
Department Technical Committee.51 On the following day, 
all standardization data was forwarded to Headquarters, 
Army Service Forces, for final approval. The toboggan 
litter adapter was described as follows: 
This item consists of two pairs of shoes 
secured to opposite eyebolts at each end of 
a standard Quartermaster Department toboggan, 
supporting two cross bars upon-which rest the 
standard litter. The stirrups of the litter 
are secured by strap and buckle to each of 
the four shoos.52 
Little delay was encountered in obtaining 
final acceptance of the toboggan adapter. On 29 January 
1944-, Army Service Forces approved the Medical 
Departments request for standardization of the item,53 
and before the close of the month all officers con- 
cerned had been officially notified of this action and 
advised to begin processing the new article for pro- 
curement, 54 On 15 March 1944, a purchase order for 300 
of the toboggan adapters, at a unit cost of $10.92, was 
formally placed by the Army Medical Purchasing Office 
at Now York City, Although it had been originally esti- 
mated that over 1,000 adaptors would be needed during 
1944 and 1945, as of 26 July 1945 no further production 
orders had boon placed,55 
The foregoing development of a toboggan litter 
adapter is noteworthy in several respects. First of 
all, although the adaptor was officially listed as a 
product of Development Project. F-29.5& it was, judging 
from the records in the case, an unexpected by-product 
of that investigation. It is true, as wo have seen in our introductory section, that experimentation con- 
ducted between 194-1 and 1943 had indicated the need 
for some kind of attachment which would; (l) fit the 
standard Medical Department litter$ and (2) raise the 
patient* high enough above the toboggan surface to in- 
sure protection from the snow. However, when 
Development Project. F-29 was initiated, there was no 
indication in the military characteristics which were 
proposed at that time that a toboggan adapter for 
single casualty carry was contemplated. The demand, 
evidenced by the firm requirement subsequently cited by 
Army Ground Forces, had simply arisen suddenly and un- 
expectedly,, 
Because of the suddenness of the demand for a 
toboggm litter adapter, the time available for its 
development was necessarily short. This primary need 
for speed, tnereforo, serves to explain in largo part 
why no repore of field tests was prepared by the 
Equipment Laboratroy, and why the recommendation of the 
Plans Division of The Surgeon Generalfs Office that the 
new item be tentatively classified as a development type 
and subjected to service test before final adoption, 
was vetoed by the Medical Department Technical 
Committee in favor of immediate standardization. A 
further indication of the haste, with which the adaptor 
was processed is contained in the fact that Subcommittee 
estimates as to the probably unit cost of the item in 
quantity production turned out to bo less than onc- 
sixth of the cost figure subsequently arrived at in the 
final purchase order negotiated by procurement authori- 
ties. 
However, despite these shortcomings, which 
were themselves largely inherent in the situation, 
research and development personnel had done a rather 
remarkable job. The ski adapter, a considerably less 
complex mechanism, .had been under development for more 
than a year and a half before'it was ready for adoption. 
The toboggan adapter, on the other hand, had been de- 
signed, constructed, standardized, and procured in less 
than six months’ time, 
D, Snow and Ice Ambulance (Phase II). 
By the end of November, 1943, the Jerald 
Sulky Company had not only completed the rofabrication 
of snow and ice ambulance, Type II, according to the 
modified specifications drawn up by the Equipment 
Laboratory, but had also virtually finished production 
of the Typo I (two runner) ambulance.5? Accordingly, -on 25 .November 1943, the Equipment Laboratory sent the 
following communication to The Surgeon General*s Office; 
The ambulance sleighs now being manu- 
factured at Waterloo, Iowa, are about ready 
for testing. Information is desired as to 
where these should be sent* 
There has been built two of each type; 
two - twb-runner, and two-four-runner 
sleighs. 
No attempt has been made to heat these 
but both types are well insulated and may 
require a little. It’is believed, however, 
that a small blast heater could be added 
later, when available, to be used es- 
pecially when tractor-drawn. The heating 
unit also could be operated by our small 
500-waot light generator if necessary. 
The matter of heating can be arranged 
later-'1. • 
The above communication was duly forwarded to 
Army Ground Forces which replied, on 20 December 1943, 
that the experimental sleighs should be shipped to Gamp 
Hale, Colorado where they ¥/ould be tested by the 
Mountain and Winter Warfare Board, It was requested 
that test data and questionnaries be forwarded to Army 
War College by The Surgeon General*s Office so that 
suitable test directive could be issued to the Camp 
Hale board,59 Accordingly, on 29 December 1943, the 
Equipment Laboratory prepared a comprehensive test data 
sheet, the most important sections of which are quoted 
below. 
5. Basic reason for this nro.iect and 
objective of test; To develop a 
light convejrance to transport two 
litter cases under conditions of 
snow and ice, to be hauled by man, 
mule or light tractor which can be 
readily knocked down for storage or 
shipment! as light as possible in 
weight and which does not require 
critical materials, 
6, Suggested outline of test; 
a. Suitability as regards space, 
comfort and ease of loading and 
unloading for two litter cases or four sitting cases, 
b. Ruggedness of construction 
for ordinary usage, 
c. Suitability for; 
(1) Mountain and rough terrain. 
(2) Ordinary cross-country use 
on moderately level 
terrain. 
d. Suitability for use on; 
• (l) Ice and packed snow 
covered trails. 
(2) Loose powdery snow, 
(3) Moderately deep snow, 
moderately packed, 
e. Gan they be pulled short 
distances by ordinary litter 
squad on snow shoes or skis 
over various types of snow and 
ice, 
f. Sufficiency of runners with re- 
gards to height for clearance 
and width and length for road 
bearing surface, 
g. Sufficiency of cover for wind, 
, rain and snow resistance, 
h. Stability of vehiclcsi are they 
readily upset or not, 
i. Are' shafts for single animal 
suitable, 
j. Suitability of ventilation, 
k. Is adjustable feature of top 
desirable, . , 
On 18 January 1944-? The Surgeon General’s 
Office forwarded the above test data'to Headquarters, 
Army Ground Forces, stated that both types of snow and 
ice. ambulance had been shipped to Camp Hale, Colorado, 
and .requested that a report of the field trials be 
rendered as soon as possible, xL. Accordingly, two weeks 
l.ater a formal test directive, based largely on the 
recommendations of the Equipment Laboratory, was pre- 
pared by Array War College and sent to the President of 
the Mountain and Winter Warfare Board,’ Attention was 
called to*the fact that the test project had been as- 
signed an 11 A” priority, , so that a final decision re- 
garding the subject vehicles could be reached at any 
early Immediately upon receipt of this 
directive, the Mountain and Winter Warfare Board at 
Camp Hale initiated a comprehensive testing program, 
which was completed 34. April 19-44# 3n the early part 
of May,.1944, an official report of test findings was 
sent by the Board to Headquarters, Army Ground Forces. Tho two types of snow and ico ambulances 
(soe Figures 18 and 19) which had been shipped to 
Camp Hale by the Equipment Laboratory were identical in 
a number of respects* The bodies of each trailer were 
the same, measuring 94- inches in length, 50-# inches 
in width, and'-19“3/4 inches in depth, with a cubic 
carrying capacity of 4-5 cubic feet® Two 12-inch fold- 
ing seats running the length of the insulated body, 
were provided in each instance. Each trailer body was 
equipped with an adjustable padded canvas top which was 
supported by five bows which fit into 3/4- inch pipes 
spaced equidistantly along the sides of the frame. Ski 
runners were covered with l/l6 inch steel plate, and the 
stanchions supporting the sleigh body were constructed 
of 2 inch angle iron and inch bar stock. Indi- 
vidual drawbars wore constructed of one inch and 1-7/16 
inch iron pipe. No ke.els were provided* 4 
Tho Type I ambulance was distinguishable by 
its single continuous runners extending the full 
length of tho sleigh on each side, each runner being 
100 inches long, Tho Type II ambulance, on the other 
hand, was equipped with four separate ski runners 
attached individually to the sleigh in a manner which 
allowed each ski to pivot freely in a vertical plane. 
The two rear runners were 42 inches long, while front 
runners measured 36 inches in length. The front 
runners were, joined by an offset axle attached to the 
sleigh by moans of a king pin, so that the ambulance 
could be steered with greater facility. Both ambu- 
lance models wore designed to carry two litter cases 
or four sitting cases and were adaptable for towing 
either by manpower or by snow tractor, A set of shafts, 
128 inches in length, had been provided for use with 
the Type II ambulance so that animal power could be 
utilized in the towing, if desired. 
The above two types of snow and ico ambulance 
wore tested by tho Mountain and Winter Warfare Board in 
comparison with a third item—a 1-Ton Snow Trailer, IiQ.9, 
manufactured by the Allis Chalmers Manufactuning 
Company, The trailer body of this ambulance was 1 inch 
shorter, 2--J- inches narrower, and 6-3/4 inches shallower 
than the Equipment Laboratory models. Otherwise its 
most distinguishable feature was its interchangeable 
skis and wheels, and the manner in which the two ski 
runners were individually attached to the sleigh, 
allowing them to pivot freely in,a vertical plane. The 
M19 was not, however, equipped with scats, its padded 
canvas cover weighed approximately 60 pounds more than 
the Typo I and II ambulance covers, and over-all weight 
of tho vehicle was 650 pounds, as against 450 and 425 pounds respectively for the Laboratory models. 
The two-month field test of these three 
vehicles was divided into three phases! (l) study of 
the suitability of design; (2) analysis of the dura- 
bility of the vehicles; and (3) evaluation of the over- 
all comfort of the ambulances for the patient. During 
the period of the tests> all paved roads were free of 
snow a greater part', of the time, thereby necessitating 
the dragging of the sleighs over paved surfaces and 
bare ground on occasion. The minimum temperature re- 
corded during the test period was 15 degrees below zero 
Fahrenheit; the maximum temperature was 4.6 degrees 
above zero. Both the Cargo.Carriers M28 and M29 were 
employed as prime movers, and-each ambulance was towed 
distances varying between 70 and 120 miles. Cargo loads 
consisting of medical'equipment up to 1,500 pounds in 
weight were carried. Casualty loads consisting of as 
many as six sitting patients plus personal equipment 
were, also transported in the ambulances. 
The detailed findings of the Mountain and 
Winter Warfare Board, as a result of these extensive 
field trials, may be summarized as follows! 
1. Space and ease of loading and un- 
loading. 
It was found that all three 
models contained sufficient space 
for two litter cases or four sitting 
cases (seats were improvised for the 
M19 Snow Trailer), Ease of loading 
and unloading was satisfactory in 
all instances, 
2, Suitability for use on: (a) Mountain 
and rough terrain; (b) Cross-country 
and level terrain. 
The Type I ambulance was found 
to be the least suitable for use on 
any type of snow covered terrain. It 
was rough riding, broke down on sharp 
irregularities of terrain, and lacked 
sufficient maneuverability on turns 
and sharp corners. The method of ski 
suspension of the Type II ambulance 
provided for greater maneuverability 
on all types of terrain, but it was 
insufficiently durable to withstand 
constant use in mountainous country. 
239 Neither type could be backed up, 
due to lack of upbcnd at the rear of 
the runners. Neither.Type I or Type 
II was suitable for towing over bare 
ground or paved roads, since only 
skis were provided. The 1-Ton 
Snow Trailer was found to be the 
most suitable of all for use on 
various types of terrain. The 
shape and manner of suspending the 
skis made it highly maneuverable 
over cross-country terrain and 
rough trails alike, 
3.. Suitability for use on; (a) Loose, 
powder snow; (b) Moderately racked 
snows (c) Packed snow and ice- 
co ye red trails. 
Flotation and ground pressure 
provided by the runners of the three 
types of ambulances indicated that, 
while the greatest amount of flo- 
tation was provided by the Type I 
vehicle, use of a prime mover made 
a sufficiently packed trail for the 
effective operation of all types. 
Duo to excessive slewing caused by 
the lack of a keel, the Types I and 
II models had to be operated with 
extreme care on ice-covered and hard 
packed snow trails, 
4* Suitability for employing various 
power sources. 
It was found that the Types I 
and II ambulances could be manhandled 
for short distances if empty or carry 
ing not more than one patient. Hfen- 
handling these vehicles' for distances 
greater than a few yards, however, 
was not practicable. The Type II 
ambulance, which was equipped with 
shafts, could be dragged with ease 
by one animal, providing the snow 
surface was sufficiently hard packed 
to hold up the animal. The Cargo 
Carriers M28 and M29 served as satis- 
fory prime movers for the Laboratory 
models, and the M28 for the MX9 Snow 
Trailer*. The pintle of the RE9 was too high to be satisfactory for 
towing the ML9. 
5. Adequacy of runners as regards; (a) 
Slowing; HU Clearances (c) Flo- 
tation. 
The flotation and clearance of 
all three types of ambulance was found 
to bo satisfactory, although slewing 
was excessive with Types I and II due 
to their lack of keels. The runners 
of the M19 Snow Trailer were equipped 
with 3/4-inch keels which prevented 
side-slipping on hard packed snow and 
ice surfaces. 
6„ Durability of the sub.icct ambulances. 
It was found that the Types I 
and II ambulances were not sufficent- 
ly durable to withstand continued 
mountain use. The following failures 
and breakages occurred; (l) runners 
and stanchions were damaged and 
broken after being towed over rough 
snow-covered mountain trails5 (2) 
breakages in the drawbar and lunette 
occurred in most cases at the same 
time as those of the runners 5 (3) 
cover bows and cover bow supports 
were found to bo insufficiently dur- 
able! all wore bent, and several bow 
supports wore broken off completely. 
No breakages or failures of any 
part of the ML9 Snow Trailer occurred 
during the period of test, 
7. The comfort afforded the patient by 
the sub .loot ambulances. 
It was found that the difference 
in warmth, and comfort afforded the 
patient by moving the top of the Types 
I and II ambulances to the lower po- 
sition was negligible. Since no means 
of providing for heating, the warmth 
provided by. sleeping bags remained 
approximately the same regardless of 
the position of the top. 
It was found that the greatest 
• . riding comfort was afforded by the 
M19, while Type I was the least comfortable of. the throe, Tho 
models utilizing a pivoting ski 
runner provided the smoothest ride 
in that the skis could follow the 
countours and irregularities in 
the trail. The M19 equipped with 
but two ski runners, was superior 
to the type equipped with the four 
pivoting runners, as the runners 
of the former sleigh were of ne- 
cessity in contacts with the snow 
surface at all times. 
Ventilation was found to be 
adequate in most cases, although 
patients occasionally complained of 
the. odor of fumes from the exhaust 
of the prime mover. 
The covers for the Types I and 
II ambulances were found to be an 
adequate means of protection against 
wind and snow. While no means was 
provided for letting in light, tho 
exclusion of windows eliminated what 
would otherwise be a source of drafts. 
Tho cover for the ICL9 weighed ap- 
proximately 60 pounds in'excess ofvthe 
v/eight of the covers of the other two 
models. Not only was tho weight of 
this cover found to be excessive, but 
the method of attachment was awkward 
and insecure. The hook and cord 
arrangement (as against snap fasten- 
ers) was unsatisfactory, as many 
hooks broke off or bent, and the 
closure•around windows was not 
sufficient to keep out drafts. 
The provision for light and 
heat in the MQL9 Snow Trailer was 
found to .be a distinct advantage in 
contributing to the patient’s comfort, 
and was the incorporation of a small 
keel on the runners of this sleigh. 
The interchangeability of skis with 
wheels was a distinct gain for 
maneuverability. 
On the basis of the above findings, tho 
Mountain and Winter Warfare Board submitted its initial 
conclusions as follows 2 
a. The SnowT and Ice Ambulances, Types I 
and XI, are not'suitable for use due to their fragile construction and 
faulty design, 
b. The 1-Ton Snow Trailer, ML9, is the 
most suitable of the throe types of 
slod-ambulancos tested,^5 
It will bo noted however, that the M19 could 
not be manhandled and, therefore, did not fulfill the 
military characteristics as originally set forth for 
the snow and ice ambulance. On the other hand, while 
the Types I and II ambulances could bo towed by hand 
for a few yards, they were deemed too insubstantial 
for actual mountain usee This, of course, raised the 
question of the practicability of the military charac- 
teristics themselves. The Board*s judgment on that 
point was highly explicit. 
The basic reason for this project and the 
objective of tost v/ero nto develop a light 
conveyance to transport two litter cases 
under conditions of snow and ice, to be 
hauled by man, mule, or light tractor, and 
which can be readily knocked down for 
storage or shipment| as light as possible 
in weight and which docs not require criti- 
cal materials,” A vehicle light enough to 
be towed by men will lack durability when 
towed by a snow vehicle. The extent of 
snow covered terrain over which mules can 
operate is in general too limited to 
warrant the use of mules for the towing of 
an ambulance sled, 
The project purpose was, therefore, in the 
Board!s opinion, unattainable. More than that, the 
Board went on to declare that, even if practicable, 
there was little or no military, requirement for such 
an item. 
It is the opinion of the medical personnel 
at Camp Halo that no requirement exists for a 
towed snow and ice ambulance for use in 
mountainous terrain. The Board agrees with 
the medical authorities at this station in- 
sofar as use in mountainous terrain is con- 
■ corned, but will not go on record in making 
a positive statement that no requirement 
exists for a towed snow and ice ambulance 
for use on flat or rolling snow covered 
terrain,^ The reason for the Board’s negative recom- 
mendation with regard to the trailer type of snow and 
ice ambulance was its belief that the Cargo Carrier, 
M29, which had been usdd as one of the prime movers in 
the tests just completed, was itself entirely suitable 
as an evacuation vehicle. 
The Cargo Carrier, M29, can be successfully 
employed as an over-the-snow ambulance without 
modification to carry one litter case and 
leave two vacant seats for slightly wounded or 
medical personnel. By the use of special 
brackets the Cargo Carrier, M29, can be a- 
dapted to carry two litters, leaving space 
for one extra passenger. This vehicle, so 
. . , employed, is superior to the three types of 
sled ambulances tested in fulfilling the 
various military characteristics enumerated 
in paro 6 a above, and possess the additional 
advantage of providing its own power. If the 
prime mover is, in itself, a highly satis- 
factory ambulance, the towed vehicle cannot 
be tested without also giving serious con- 
sideration to the self-propelled ambulance, ° 
In short, a full-track type of vehicle was 
now being recommended by the Mountain and Winter Warfare 
Board as the ideal instrument for mountain evacuation. 
It was stated that the M29 was tactically capable of 
fulfilling virtually all needs for vehicular evacu- 
ation between collecting and clearing stations. In 
those abnormal circumstances where.'collecting stations 
were in a position to use an ambulance sled in ad- 
dition, to the M2°, it was pointed but that the ordi- 
nary means of evacuation could be supplemented by use 
of the'regulation cargo sled. Thus, no now develop- 
mental items were needed. 
The Board’s final recommendations were two in 
number: (L) That no further consideration be given the 
Snow and Ice Ambulances, Types I and II5 (2) That the 
Cargo Carrier, M29, supplemented when necessary by the 
regulation cargo sled, should satisfy all medical re- 
quirements for evacuation over mountainous and snow 
covered terrain. 
The above test report was forwarded to the 
Ground Requirements Section, Array Ground Forces, on 3 
May 1944. On 20 May 194-4, Army Ground Forces relayed 
two copies of the Board report to the Research and 
Development Division, Array Service Forces, with the 
following comments; 2. The Recommendations contained in 
paragraph B are approved, 
3. Inasmuch as the M29 Cargo Carrier i. 
is a satisfactory vehicle for evacuating 
sick and Wounded, no further consideration 
should be given to a special vehicle for 
this purpose. In a case of necessity the 
standard Cargo Sled can bo rigged for 
carrying litters and used over flat or 
rolling, snow-covered terrain,70 
Several days latar, Army Service Forces added 
its concurrence to that of the Ground Forces, ' The 
Mountain and Winter Warfare Board*s findings and con- 
clusions were encountering little opposition. It was, 
moreover, soon apparent that even The Surgeon General’s 
Office had no objections to offer. 
In consideration of previous indorse- 
ment (ASF), paragraph two and three of 
second indorsement, prepared by Ground 
Forces, this office will consider 
Development Project F-29 as discontinued. 
On 5 June 1944, the Equipment Laboratory it- 
self admitted the soundness of the Mountain and Winter 
Warfare Board’s recommendations. 
Discontinuance of this project is recom- 
mended inasmuch as a sled ambulance durable 
enough to meet mountain requirements would 
be too cumbersome and heavy to be of any 
general use,73 
E. Modification of Adapter. Toboggan. Litter, 
The toboggan litter adapter which, it will be 
recalled, had been standardized 29 January 1944* had 
been designed to fit only the regulation military 
toboggan. On 5 May 194-4, The Surgeon General’s Office, 
in a letter to the Equipment Laboratory, instituted 
action to the original drawings of the adapter so 
that it could be used with the "Convertible Toboggan 
Sled" as well as the military toboggan. 
The Office of the Quartermaster General 
advises that 3,000 of the Sled, Toboggan, 
Convertible have been procured. If your 
office concurs in a simple change which can 
be applied to those Adapters, Toboggan, Lit- tor now d,n the, field as well as those 
being procured, it is requested that the 
necessary action be taken to make this 
change in the drawings and a revised 
copy of such drawings be sent this 
office , 74- 
The simple change, as the Equipment Laboratory 
soon discovered, was much more complex than had been 
imagined. The standard litter could not be placed on 
the Sled, Toboggan, Convertible unless bulk-head, 
steering handles., and front steering pole were removed. 
It was first believed that the bulk-head 
could be notched to let the rear litter 
handles pass, but if wo do, wo would have to 
build the adapter up so that the front 
handles would clear the top of the curved 
front end of the Sled, Toboggan, 
The litter handles will not clear cither 
bulk-head or front curve, as they are not 
wide enough apart to clear 20 inches, being 
about 18-gr inches between their inner edges; 
and bulk-head and front curve arc 20 inches 
widc. It we set the litter forward, it 
will necessitate raising it so that the 
front handles will clear the top of the sled 
ambulance. Even if wo do not use bulk-head 
and steering handles, the litter will have 
to be set back so the front handles clear, 
leaving the litter extended back so as to 
preclude the use of the bpakc. 
If it is desired to use the litter on 
this sled, toboggan, it will be necessary 
to remove the rear steering handles and 
raise the litter to a height of 10 inches 
on adaptors, or else remove both rear 
steering handles and bulk-head and set 
litter back so front handles will clear 
front curve. 
It is the opinion of this office that 
neither of these would be satisfactory. 
In view of the above, information is 
requested as to whether it is desired for 
. us to try and modify the adaptor or not, 
and whether to raise the litter to clear 
front or to remove bulk-head and set 
litter back,75 
246 •After studing the above analysis of the 
problems involved in the adaptation'of the standard 
litter to the toboggan sled, The Surgeon General!s 
Office replied with the following constructive 
recommendation t 
In view of the fact that it is desired, 
if possible, to use the Adapter, Toboggan, 
Litter, with the Sled, Toboggan, Con- 
vertible, it is suggested that if the 
handles, bulk-head and front steering polo 
were removed, then by making a minor 
change in,the'Adapter, Toboggan, Litter, 
such as drilling additional holes, it can 
then be used for both the Sled, Toboggan, 
Convertible and the standard Toboggan*. 
This change will probably interfere 
with the use of the brake and it is recom- 
mended that in order to provide brake 
action in descending hills, a very ef- 
ficient method can be provided by dropping 
a heavy rope or chain attached to both 
sides of the sled over the front of the 
sled and allow it to drag under the 
runners. 
It is requested that your office study 
these remarks carefully and see if this is 
feasible. If your office concurs, it is 
requested that necessary changes be made in 
drawing of Adapter, Toboggan, Litter. 
These suggestions apparently opened the way 
for a of the problem for, on 31 
May 194A-, the Equipment Laboratory forwarded revisions 
of previous tentative specifications and drawings for 
the toboggan litter adapter, and announced that inter- 
changeability had been effected between the adapter 
and both the military toboggan and the convertible 
toboggan sled. The new specification changes were 
duly coordinated with the Army Medical Purchasing 
Office in New York and, by 15 July 19UU, the 
modification proceedings had been completed, 
IV, Conclusion. 
A. Project Termination. 
As we have seen, there was now virtually 
unanimous agreement that Development Project. F-29, be discontinued. There remained merely the formal 
processing of the recommendation. On 18 July 194-4* 
the Subcommittee of the Medical Department Technical 
Committee, citing the original tost report and 
findings of the Mountain and Winter Warfare Board and 
the concurrences filed by Army Ground Forces, Army 
Service Forces, The Surgeon General’s Office, and the 
Medical Department Equipment Laboratory, recommended 
that the subject project be discontinued for the 
reasons set forth in the aforementioned referencesc^O 
On 24 July 1944, this Subcommittee report was 
approved without modification by the Medical Department 
Technical and throe days later The Surgeon 
General’s Office sent a formal communication to 
Headquarters, Army Service Forces, requesting that 
cancellation of the development project on the snow and 
ice ambulance be approved, Army Service Forces 
approval of discontinuance request was granted on 
30 July and by 8 August 1944 the Equipment 
Laboratory at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania as well 
as all interested agencies within The Surgeon General’s 
Office had been notified of the Army Service Forces 
action and directed to take immediate steps to termi- 
nate all project activities,^ 
B, Evaluation of Development Project. F-29. 
1, The Adaptor. Toboggan. Litter. 
The standardization of a toboggan litter 
adapter, designed to accommodate the standard Medical 
Department litter to the Quartermaster military to- 
boggan, and the subsequent modification of this item to 
make possible its use with the convertible toboggan sled 
as well as the military toboggan, wore the only tangible 
accomplishments of Development Project. F-29. The to- 
boggan adapter had not, however, been included among- 
the original objectives of the project and, so far as 
documentary evidence is concerned, it is difficult to 
discover under what specific authority the actual 
developmental work was performed. As to an evaluation 
of the adapter itself, insufficient data is at present 
available to warrant a definite conclusion. Only a 
limited number of the now adapters wore procured 
during the and as yet Annual Reports submitted 
by medical installations in the field to The Surgeon 
General’s Office contain little or no*first hand 
information regarding the serviceability of the item in 
actual field operations. That the development work was 
accomplished very expeditiously, and that standard- 
248 ization proceedings were completed in a remarkably 
short time has already been noted. In this respect 
particularly, the history of the toboggan adaptor 
stands out in highly favorable contrast to that of the 
ski litter adapter which was discussed in the preceding 
chapter, 
2, The Snow and Ice -Ambulance, 
The evaluation of Development Project, 
F-29. with respect to its one professed objective—that 
of developing a satisfactory snow and ice ambulance for 
use in over-the-snow evacuation—can be drawn directly 
from the final tost report of the Mountain and Winter 
Warfare Board, It was found by the Board that the two- 
runner and four-runner ambulances designed by the 
Equipment Laboratory, while light enough to bo hand 
towed for a few yards, were too light and insubstantial 
to withstand the rigors of intensive operations in the 
field. Conversely, it swas found that the Allis 
Chalmers M19 Snow Trailer, while sufficiently sturdy 
t.o stand up under rough field usage, was much too heavy 
to bo hand towed. On the basis of these findings, the 
Board concluded that it was impossible to produce the 
typo of vehicle envisioned in the military character- 
istics established for the subject project. 
The facts developed thus far consti- 
tuted in no sense an indictment of Medical Department 
research and development personnel. That research and 
development projects, however carefully and competently 
conducted, do not invariably yield concrete and practi- 
cal end-products is a truism applicable to all types of 
scientific experimentation. However, the Mountain and 
Winter Warfare Board advanced one further conclusion 
that did amount to a criticism of the Medical Department, 
It was asserted by the Board that there was no military 
£Gquiromont for n .snow and ice ambulance of the trailer 
type for use in mountain evacuation. It was stated 
that by rigging the M29 Cargo Carrier to accommodate 
litter patients, and by using the regulation cargo sled 
as a supplementary item, all needs for vehicular evacu- 
ation between collecting and clearing stations would be 
met. This vie?/, it may be noted, was concurred in by 
Army Ground Forces and Headquarters, Army Service Forces. 
Why, then, were the possibilities of 
the M2 9 and the Cargo Sled not discovered at the outset 
instead of at the termination of development activity? 
Why, moreover, in conforming to the procedural re- 
quirements incident to project initiation, was this 
omission not detected by the headquarters offices of Army Service Forces or Army Ground Forces or by the 
Ordnance representative on the Medical Department 
Technical Committee? 
The latter inquiry is beyond the 
Scope of this paper to investigate. Insofar as 
Medical Department responsibilities were concerned, 
it would appear that the preliminary investigations 
undertaken by the Equipment Laboratory and The 
Surgeon General’s Office wore inadequate. While a 
new OSRD "Weasel" had been examined in January, 1943, 
by The Surgeon General’s Office, and found to be too 
small and too roughriding to be used for over-the- 
snow evacuation, there is no written indication that 
other larger types of full-track vehicles wore studied 
with equal care.. Similarly, while the Equipment 
Laboratory requested copies of all specifications and 
drawings of Quartermaster toboggans, no request ap- 
pears to have been made for a complete listing of 
Ordnance vehicles which might conceivably have been 
rigged to accommodate litter wounded, 
3, The Finnish Akjta (Snowboat). 
From 15 February 1945 to 8 April 1945, 
extensive cold weather maneuvers wore conducted by 
elements of the Canadian Array for the specific 
purpose of testing a wide variety of winter equipment. 
At the conclusion of these maneuvers, known as 
"Exercise, Polar Bear", an offical Observers Report 
was prepared by a commission composed of three officers 
of the Royal Canadian Army and two Majors, Medical 
Corps, representing the United States Army. Conceding 
the value of the M29 Cargo Carrier in over-the-snow 
evacuation, the commission wont on to observe that an 
even more effective transportation device was the 
Finnish Snowboat or Akja. 
The best all-around moans of 
wounded used on Polar Bear Exercises 
was the Snowboat or Akja, It had the 
following advantages'over other means; 
a. Travelled well In the deepest 
snow that could be negotiated 
by men on snowsiiocs. Sleds and 
litters on skis bogged down in 
loose snow more than 12" deep. 
b. Does not snag on brush, wind- 
falls and rocks blocking the 
trail. Many sleds and skis were 
broken in this manner. 
250 c. May be floated across small 
streams. . .. 
d. , Provides more all-round 
protection for the casualty 
against wind, protruding 
. brush, etc. 
e. Can be carried by four men 
around or over obstacles as 
easily as a litter. 
f. Much lighter in weight than 
sleds and its shorter length 
makes maneuvering around 
turns on tortuous trails 
easier. 
g. Can be used as a cargo carrier 
as well, 
h. Adaptable to roping casualties 
down cliffs, over ravines, etc. 
Its disadvantages were: 
a. The model supplied for the 
exercise was constructed of 
heavy wood which was not par- 
ticularly durable since it 
had no resilience. This could 
be corrected by construction 
of plywood, 
b. The akja docs not travel as 
well over established, well- 
packed and practically straight 
trails as the sled. Sleds 
should be included in the 
equipment for use in such places, 
but arc not absolutely necessary,^ 
The snowboat had also been tested 
during the winter of 194-4- by American Army troops. In 
maneuvers held in the vicinity of Camp McCoy, 
Wisconsin, the 76th Division had made extensive use of 
snowboats and had found them to possess many unique 
advantages. Recommendations were made at that time to 
substitute plywood for hardv/ood construction and to 
make other minor alterations in design so that the item 
could be more widely used,^ 
The Finnish Akja appears to have 
possessed all of the military characteristics which were 
established for Development Project. F-29, Moreover 
it was preferred by,a mixed military commission to the 
M29 Cargo Carrier for the transportation of wounded 
over snow and ice-covered terrain. It docs not appear, 
however, that this item was considered by research authorities during the course of the subject project. This 
apparent, omission, along with the previously mentioned 
oversight in connection with the M2 9 Cargo Carrier, would 
seem to indicate that shortening to a minimum the period 
of initial exploratory investigation had, in the present 
instance, involved more loss than gain. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IV, SECTION 2 
Ltr, to CG, Alaskan Defense Command, fr, Office of Experi- 
mental Board, Alaskan Defense Command, 18 mar. 1941; subjects 
"Test of Sled and Toboggan for Transportation of Wounded,” 
Test Directive No. 31 (Rec, Rm., S.G.O, 451.9-1). 
3 
Cited in ltrc to SrG.O,, fr, CO, 87th Inf, Mt., Camp Hale, 
Colo,, 17 Mar. 1942; subject: "Snow Sled (Folding)M . (Rec. 
Rm., S.G.O. 451.9-1). 
4 
Ltr. to Snocraft, Ind,, Norway, Maine, fr, Lt. Col. 0,S. 
Rolfe., 87th-Inf, Mountain Div,, Camp Hale, Colo., 17 Feb. 
1942. (Rec. Rnu, S.G.O. 451.9-1). 
n. ,3-. 
6 • 
Memo, to Medical Intelligence Br., Preventive Medicine Div., 
S.G.O., fr. Planning Div,, S.G.O., 1 Jan, 1943; subject; 
’’Report on Weasel Type Tractor” (A.M.R, & D, Bd,). 
7 
Ltr. to S.G.O,, fr. Quartermaster Corps, 3 Feb. 1943; 
subjects "Rescue’Toboggan” (M.D.E.L,), 
8 . 
2d Ind. to S.G.O,, fr. M.D,E,L,,;-’8 Mar. 1943; basic: see 
n. 7 (M.D.E.L,), 
9 
Ibid. 
10 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L,, A.G.F. and J.A.G.D., fr. S.G.O., 19 Feb. 
1943; subject; ’’Cold Weather Operations and Application of 
Medical Equipment to Such Operations” (A.M.R. & D, Bd,), 
12HaB. Problems of Evacuation - Snow and Tee. 18 Feb. 1943 
(A.M.R. '& D. Bd.). 
Mss, Problems' of Evacuation - Light Alpine Division. 19 Feb. 
1943 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
to S.G.O., fr, M.D.E.L,, 27 Feb. 1943; subjects 
’’Recommendation for new Project” (Rec. Rm,, S.G.O, 451.9-1 
Carlisle Bks,-N). 13 
1st Ind, to M.D.E.L., fr. S.G.O., 3 Mar. 194-3; basic: see 
n. 12 (Rec. Rm,, S.G.O, 4-51.9-1 Carlisle Bks,-N), 
14- • - 
Ltr, to S.G.O,', fr, M.D.E.L., 8 Mar, 194-3; subject: 
"Additional Research Projects for Fiscal Year 194-3” 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
15 
Ibid. 
16 
Ltr, to Flans Div,, S.G.O,, fr. Research L Development Div,, 
S.G.O., 13 Mar- 194-35 subject: "Snow, ahd Ice Ambulance - 
Project F-29” (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
17 4 
1st Ind. to M.D.EcL,, fr. S.G.O., 19 Mar. 194-3; basic: see 
n, 14- (A.M.R, & D, Bd,), 
18 
Ltr, to M.D.T.C,, fr. Subcommittee, M.D.T.C., 14- Apr. 194-3; 
.subject: "Snow and Ice Ambulance" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
19 “* ' 
Report of.the Medical Department Technical Committee. 10 
May 194-3; subject: "Snow and Ice .Ambulance" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
20 
Ltr. to CG, A.S.F., fr, S.G.O., 13 May 194-3; subject: "Snow 
and Ice Ambulance" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
21 ■ ’ 
1st Ind, to S.G.O,, fr. Requirements Div,, A.S.F,, 20 May 
194-3; basic: see n. 20 (A.M.R, & D, Bd.), 
22 
Memo, to Chf., Supply Service, Dir., Fiscal Div., Chf,, Field 
Equipment Br,, Plans Div., fr. Dir., Research Coordination 3r., 
S.G.O,, 10 Jun. 194-3; subject: "Snow and Ice Ambulance" 
'/ (A.M.R. & ‘D, • Bd,), 
23 ' * ; ‘ - 
■ Supra.. p, 226. 
24, 
Ltr, to Q.M.G., fr .M.D.E.L., 20 Mar. 194-3, subject: 
"Toboggans,...Sleds, and Skis" (M.D.E.L,),. 
25 
Ltr, to M.D.E.L., fr. O.Q.M.G., 27 Mar. 194-3; subject: 
"Procurement of Skis and Toboggans" (M.D.E.L.), 
26 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L,, 30 Mar. 194-3; subject: "Pro- 
curement of Skis and Toboggans" (M.D.E.L,), 27 
Monthly Narrative Report, M.D.E.L.. 1 Mar. .to 31 Mar. 1943 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
28 
Monthly -Narrative Report. M.D.E.L.. 1 Apr. to.30 Apr, 1943 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.)., 
29 • 
Memo, to M.D.E.L., fr. S.G.O., 22 Apr. 1943, CONFIDENTIAL 
(A.M.R, & D, Bd,), Extracted in clear, 
30 ‘ 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L.. 1 May to 31 May 1943 
(A.M.R. & D.~Bd,) „ . • • 
31 „ 
Office'memo., M.D.E.L., 12 Jim, 1943| subject? "Snow and 
Ice Ambulance” (A.M.R. & D, Bd.), 
32 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L.. 1 Jun. to 30 Jun, 1943 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). ’ 
33 
Ibid. 
34 ' 
Monthly Progress Report. S.G.O.. 15,Apr, 1943, SECRET (Hist. 
Div.,. S.G.O.). Extracted in clear, 
35 
The following illustrations were drawn from correspondence 
between the Equipment Laboratory and the Jerald Sulky Co.., * , 
extending from 19 Jun.- to 5 Oct. 1943 (M.D.E.L.). . 
36 
Ltr. to Jerald Sulky Co,, Waterloo, la., fr. Dir,, M.D.E.L., 
6 Jul. 1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
37 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L., fr. Jerald Sulky Co., Waterloo, la,, 3 
Jul. 1943 (M.D.E.L.). - ; , ' 
38 . - 
Ltr, to Jerald Sulky Co,, Waterloo,■la., fr. M.D.E.L., 
6 Jul. 1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
39 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L., fr. Jerald Sulky Co., Materloo, la., 20 
Jul. 1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
40 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L,, fr. Jerald Sulky Co., Waterloo, la., 26 
Aug, 1943, and notation thereon (M.D.E.L,). 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L.. 1 Aug, to 31 Aug. 1943 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
255 41 
Monthly Progress Report, S.G.O.. 13 Aug, 194-3, SECRET (Hist. 
Div,, S.G.O.), Extracted in clear. . ... 
42 
Monthly Narrative Report, M.D.E.L.. 1 Oct, to 31 Oct. 194-3 
(a.m.r. & d. Bd.). , ■. : ■ .*■; .. 
A3 
Memo, to Jerald Sulky- Co,, Waterloo, la.,,fr..Dir,, M.D.E.L., 
12 Oct. 1943 (M.D.E.L,)• . . 
44 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr, M.D.E.L., 23 Cct. 1943; subject? "Adapter, 
Toboggan Litter" (A.M.R. & D. Bd,), 
45 
1st Ind. to CG, A.G.F., ,fr.,S.G.O., 1 Nov, 1943; basic: see 
n. 44 (A.M.R* & D. Bd0). . 
£$2d Ind. to CG, A.S.F,, fr..Army War College, A.G.F., 13 Dec. 
1943; basic: see n, 44 (A.M.R, & D. Bd,),. 
47 
Memo, to Chairman, M.D.T.C., fr. Plans Div., S.G.C., 16 Dec, 
1943; subject: "Adapter, Toboggan, Litter" (A.M.R. & D, Bd,), 
Memo, to Chairman, M.D.T.C.,. fr,' Plans Div., .S.G.O,, 21 Dec, 
1943; subject: "Adapter, Toboggan, Litter" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
49 
Medical Denartment Technical Subcommittee Report: Adapter. 
Toboggan, Litter. 21 Dec. 1943 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
50 
Ltr. to Hist, Div., S.G.C., fr. A.M.P.O., 26 Jul. 1945 (Hist, 
Div., S.G.O.), 
51 
Min, of M.D.T.C., 19 Jan. 1944, RESTRICED (Hist. Div., S.G.O.). 
Extracted in clear, 
52 
Ind, 2 to ltr, to CG, A.S.F., fr, S.G.O., 20 Jan, 1944; 
subject: "Adapter, Toboggan, Litter" (A.M.R, & D. Bd.). 
53 
2d Ind. to S.G.O,, fr. Hq., A.S.F., 29 Jan. 1944; basic: 
see N, 52, above (A.M.R, & D. Bd,), 
54 
Memo, to Chf,, Supply Service, S.G.O,, Chf,, Field Equipment 
Development Br., Plans Div., S.G.O., Dir., Procurement 
Liaison Br,, A.M.P.O., Chf,, Organization and Equipment 
Allowance Br,, Plans Div,, S.G.O., fr. Plans Div., S.G.O,, 31 Jan, 1944; subject: "Adapter, Tobogganj Litter" 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
55 
Seen. 50. 
56 ■ 
Monthly Status Report, S.G.O.. SECRET, 15 Jan. 1944 (Hist. 
• Piv.,. S.G.O.), Extracted in clear. 
57 . 
Ltr, to M.D.E.L., fr, Jerald Sulky Co., Waterloo, la., 
19 ;Nov. .1943 (M.P.E.L,) • 
58 
Ltr, to S.G.O,, fr, M.D.E.L., 25 Nov, 1943; subject: "Snow 
and lee.Ambulance" (M.P.E.L.), 
* * • 
59 
3rd Ind. to CG, A.StF., fr. Army War College, A.G.F., 20 
■Nov. 1943; basic-; see n. 58 (A.M.R, & D. Bd.), 
60 * 
Incl, (Test Sheet Data) to 6th Ind. to S.G.C., fr, M.D.E.L., 
29 Dec, 1943; basic: see n. 58 (A.M.R, & D. Bd,), 
61 
Memo, to CG, A.S.F., fr. S.G.O., 18 Jan, 1944; subject: 
"Snow and Ice Ambulance" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
62 
Ltr. to Pres., Mountain & Winter Warfare Bd,, Camp Hale, 
Colo*, fr. Army War College, A.G.F., 5 Feb. 1944; subjects 
"Test of Snow and Ice Ambulance" RESTRICTED (A.M.R, A D. 
Bd,), Extracted in clear, 
63 
1st Ind, to Chf., Ground Requirements'Sec., A.G.F., Army War 
College, fr. Mountain & Winter Warfare Bd,, Camp Hale, Colo., 
3 May 1944, RESTRICTED; basic: see n, 62 (A.M.R. & D. Bd,). 
Extracted in clear, 
64 
Report of Test of Snow and Ice Ambulances. The Mountain and 
Winter Warfare Board, Camp Hale, Colo,, 2 May 1944? Test No. 
40, Directive MW-M-6-B, RESTRICTED (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
Extracted in clear. The testing data which is discussed in 
the succeeding pages is all drawn from the subject report. 
65 
See n. 64. 
66 
Ibid., p. 9, 
67^., 
Ibid., P. 11* 68 .. 
Ibid., p * 10 . 
69q Ao 
See n, 63. 
70 , 
2d Ind. to CG, A,S,F.| (Attn; Dir,, Research & Development 
Div,), 20 May 1944; basics see n, 62 (A.M.R, & D. Bd,). 
71 
3rd Ind, to S.G.O., fr. Hq., A.S.F., 22 May 1944; basic: see 
n. 62 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
72 
4th Ind, to M.D.E.L., fr. S.G.O., 30 May 1944; basic: see 
n. 62 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
73 
5th Ind. to S.G.O,, fr. M.D.E.L., 5 Jun. 1944; basic: see 
n. 62 (A.M.R. & D. Bd,). 
74 . - 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L., fr. S.G.O., 5 May 1944; subject; "Adapter, 
Toboggan, Litter" (A.M.R, & D, Bd,), 
75 
1st Ind. to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 9 May 1944; basic; see 
n. 74 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
76 
.2d Ind, to M.D.E.L., fr, S.G.O., 22 May 1944; basic; see 
n. 74 (A.M.R, & D. Bd.). 
77 
Ltr. to S.G.O.,, fr, M.D.E.L., 31 May 1944; subject; "Adapter, 
Toboggan, Litter" (A.M.R. & D. Ed,). 
* 
Ltr. to S.G.O., fr. A.M.P.O., 12 Jul. 1944 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
79 
Ltr. to Development Br., Technical Div., S.G.O,, fr. Chf., 
Supply Coordination Br., Technical Div., S.G.O., 15 Jul. 
1944; subject; "Medical Department Tentative Specifications 
No. 1700-A f/Adapter, Toboggan, Litter" (A.M.R, & D. Bd,), 
80 
Ltr, to M.D.T.C., fr, Med, Dept, Tech. Subcomm., 18 Jul. 
1944; subject; "Ambulance, Snow and Ice (F-29)" (A.M.R, 
& D. Bd.). 
81 
Concurrence Sheet, 24 Jul. 1944; subject; "Ambulance, Snow 
and Ice (F-29)", signed by Secy., M.D.T.C. (A.M.R. & D, Bd.), 82 
Ltr, to CG, A.S.F,, fr. S.G.O., 27 Jul, 1944; subjects 
"Ambulance, Snow and Ice (F-29)" (A.M.R. & D. Bd,). 
83 
1st Ind, to S.G.O., fr, Hq,, A.S.F,, 30 Jul. 1944; basic: 
see n. 82 (A.M.R. & D. Bd,), 
84 
Memo, to M.D.E.L., fr. S.G.O., 8 nug, 1944; subject: "Snow 
and Ice Ambulance" (A.M.R, & D, Bd,), Sec also - Memo, to 
Chf,, Development Er., S.G.O,, fr, Chf,, Research Coordination 
Br., S.G.O., 5 Aug. 1944; subject: "Ambulance, Snow and Ice 
(F-29)" (A.M.R, & D. Bd.). 
85 
Ltr. to Hist. Div., S.G.O., fr. A,M,P,0., 26 Jul. 1945 (Hist, 
Div., S.G.O.). 
86 
Observers Report on Exercise "Polar Bear," Canadian Army 
"Wet Cold" Exercise, 15 Feb. to 8 Apr. 1945, submitted by 
Thomas W. Deakin, Maj., M.C., U.S.A., 8 Jun. 1945, SECRET 
(Training Div,, S.G.O.). Extracted in clear, 
87 
Winter Training Report, 76th Div., Camp McCoy, Wis., 25 Mar, 
1944 (Hist, Div., S.G.O.), 
259 CHAPTER IV 
MISCELLANEOUS LITTERS AND LITTER ADAPTERS 
Section 3 
Development Project. F-30 
Litter Stop Attachment for Amphibian Truck \ 
I. Introduction. 
A, Shore-to-Shin Evacuation, 
Because of the extent and magnitude of joint 
amphibious operations in World War II, the development of 
new or improved techniques of shore-to-ship evacuation of 
casualties was a matter of genuine concern to both the Army 
and; Navy medical services. The project history which follows 
furnishes a good illustration of the way in which various 
agencies—in this case the Medical Department, the Office of 
Scientific Research and Development, Ordnance Department, the 
Engineer Amphibian Command, and private industry—cooperated 
to increase the efficiency of this particular phase of over- 
sea operations. 
In beginning this discussion.it should be pointed 
out that the basic plan of over-the-water evacuation employed 
by American forces during World War II was not something which 
had been suddenly and hastily contrived. Although detailed 
field manual instructions for the conduct of medical service 
in joint amphibious operations first appeared in March, 194-0— 
just six months after the outbreak of war in Europe—these 
instructions were in effect a concrete application of the 
provisions of numerous official agreements which had been 
built up between the Army and Navy over a long period of time.l 
The coordinated plan of joint medical service was 
not, in principle, greatly dissimilar from the plan conven- 
tionally followed in land warfare. The chain of evacuation 
through which a casualty passed was essentially the same 
whether he was being moved from a landing beach to a troop 
or hospital ship, or from' a battalion aid station backward 
through successive echelons of Army ground installations. 
In Medical Field Manual 8-25, ’’Medical Service in 
joint Oversea Operations," the close analogy between the two 
systems of evacuation was illustrated in this fashions 
260 Hospital ships at anchorage in the landing 
area are comparable to evacuation hospitals 
receiving patients from front-line divisions in 
normal land operations. Beach heads are compa- 
rable to division hospital stations; and the 
boats plying between shore and hospital ships 
correspond to the Army ambulance companies in 
the Army scheme of evacuation,^ 
The analogy between ground and amphibious evacuation 
was applicable, moreover, in one other important respect. 
Both systems had undergone far-reaching changes during World 
War II as a result of the impact of modern technology. This 
increased mechanization, involving among other things the 
introduction of larger and more complex motorized equipment, 
had stepped up markedly the speed of both land and sea 
evacuation* 
In amphibious operations, for example, casualty 
evacuation was greatly accelerated by the development and 
introduction*into the medical service of the 1ST and LCI 
types of vessel. These large, blunt-prowed craft with their 
unique ramp equipment could be used not only as 
personnel carriers during landing operations, but could be 
employed with equal effectiveness as naval "ambulances.’-’ on ■ 
their return trips. By virtue of their greater carrying 
capacity, ease of loading, and transportational safety, the 
new vessels represented a marked advance over the small 
launches, motorboats, and miscellaneous craft which had 
hitherto been employed in shore-to-ship evacuation.3 
•y 
With the appearance of the amphibian tractor or 
tank (LVT), the v/easel or tracked jeep (M29C), and the 
amphibian truck or "Duck” (DUKW), even more dramatic possi- 
bilities were opened up, for the improvement of shore-to-ship 
evacuation. Through increased use of those vehicles in 
amphibious warfare, not only was a closer coordination of 
military and naval combat operations made possible, but it 
vms soon evident that a number of previously necessary manual 
operations, which were both time-consuming and laborious, 
might now be eliminated completely from the evacuation pro- 
cess. 
The present study describes the ultimately 
successful attempt that was made to increase the efficiency 
of over-the-water evacuation procedures by adapting one of 
the above vehicles--the 2-g—ton, amphibian truck—to the 
demands of both land and sea transportation of wounded. 
261 B, Initiation of Development Project. F-30. 
The formal action which seems to have been mainly 
responsible for the establishment of a research project to 
convert the new DUKW into a dual purpose vehicle, capable of 
functioning as an amphibious ambulance as well as a cargo and 
personnel carrier, did not, judging from the records, originate 
with the Medical Department, The earliest evidence found of 
official intention in this regard is contained in a memorandum, 
dated 31 March 194-3, from The Assistant Chief of Staff, G-A, to 
the Requirements Division, Headquarters, Array Service Forces. 
This communication confirmed a telephone conversation between 
representatives of the above offices in which a request had 
been made (presumably by the Requirements Division) that The 
Surgeon General be directed to investigate the possibilities 
of using the 2^--ton amphibian truck as an ambulance where 
movement over water was involved,^ 
Upon receipt of this G-A memorandum, the Director 
of the Requirements Division addressed the following memorandum 
to The Surgeon Generals 
1, It has come to the attention of this Head- 
quarters that the truck, ton, 6x6, Amphibian may 
be equipped with some ten (10) litters for the 
transportation of wounded. It is proposed to use 
this vehicle as an ambulance between shore instal- 
lations and hospital ships.. It is believed that 
this method of evacuation would eliminate the need 
for transfer of the patients from a standard 3/A 
ton ambulance at the dock to a small boat and from 
the small boat to the hospital ship since the sub- 
ject amphibian could proceed directly to the ship 
and be raised to the ship’s deck by means of the 
ship’s davits without transferring the patients. 
It is believed that this method of transporting & 
wounded personnel is of sufficient premise to 
warrant consideration by your office, 
2. Your comments and recommendations are 
desired with reference to the employment of the 
truck, 2-y ton, 6x6, Amphibian as an ambulance 
for evacuation of wounded from shore instal- 
lations direct to hospital ships,5 n 
It was clear from a reading of the above document 
that the proposed development, if successful, would result in 
a substantial reduction in the number of loading and unloading 
operations hitherto required in over-the-water evacuation. 
Accordingly, a draft indorsement was promptly prepared by the 
Research and Development Division of The Surgeon General’s 
Office, requesting that two amphibian trucks be shipped to 
262 the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory at Carlisle Bar- 
racks, Pennsylvania, for the purpose of studying litter 
arrangements and conducting tests.6 This proposed indorse- 
ment was then cleared through the Hospital and Evacuation 
Division which gave its concurrence, merely adding the sug- 
gestion that a very thorough shore-to-ship evacuation test 
should be given to insure that action of small waves would 
not make the going too rough for badly wounded patients.? 
Having cleared the Army Service Forces recommendation 
with the two offices principally concerned, on 10 April 1943 
The Surgeon General sent his formal reply to the basic communi- 
cation. In addition to the request for two amphibian trucks to 
be used for experimental purposes, it was further recommended 
that authority be granted the Director of the Equipment Labo- 
ratory to arrange with the Engineer Amphibian Command, or other 
suitable organization, to assist in the conduct of the proposed 
testsThe requested authority was soon forthcoming. On 15 
April 1943, Headquarters Army Service Forces, replied that the 
Deputy Chief of Ordnance, Detroit, Michigan, had been directed 
by separate memorandum to divert two amphibian trucks to the 
Equipment Laboratory at Carlisle, and stated further that 
direct communication between the Medical Department and the 
Engineer Amphibian Command would be permitted in order to 
expedite completion of the project,9 Notification of the 
above action was sent to the Director of the Equipment Labo- 
ratory by The Surgeon General’s Office on 22 April 1943.-^ 
As we shall see, this notice was to have the same effect as 
the issuance of formal instructions to begin work on the 
project.il 
While a careful examination of the published minutes 
of all meetings of the Medical Department Technical Committee 
held during this period does not disclose that this project 
was ever officially processed by that body, a brief reference 
to it was. made a few months later by the Committee. At a meet- 
ing held 28 June 1943, it was read into the record by the Secre- 
tary that initiation of a development project to produce an 
amphibian ambulance had been approved by higher authority on 
17 April 1943, and that development of this item had been in 
progress since the date of approval.-^ 
Investigation of the files of Headquarters, Array 
Service Forces—presumably the higher authority whose approval 
was cited in the above statement—reveals only one document 
relating to this subject, bearing the date of 17 April 1943 and 
addressed to The Surgeon General, That communication, a first 
indorsement forwarding certain technical data recently received 
from G-4, reads as follows; 
Forwarded for your information in connection 
with approved development project on the use of 
263 the Truck, 2-|- ton, 6x6, Amphibian, for water- 
borne ,/sic/ evacuation of wounded,13 
If this was the document referred to, it would seem that it 
fell somewhat short of constituting full compliance with the 
project approval procedures described in AR 850-25.1^ 
While, as we have just seen, regularized procedures 
do not seem to have been followed too closely in the initiation 
of Development Project, F-30. it should be remembered that a 
considerable amount of coordination had been accomplished 
through routine administrative processes. Several interested 
agencies within The Surgeon General's Office, for example, 
had actively shared in the task of drafting a reply to the 
initial project proposal presented by Headquarters, Army 
Service Forces. Moreover, through ordinary correspondence 
channels authority was sought and obtained to establish 
direct liaison between the Medical Department and the Engineer 
Amphibian Command for the duration of the project. 
However, these independent actions, constructive 
though they were, did not compensate completely for the 
failure to make use of the procedural facilities of the 
Medical Department Technical Committee. In the first place, 
an opportunity had thereby been missed, at a time when project 
plans were still highly flexible, for direct consultation with 
representatives of all interested Arms and Services. Secondly, 
by omission of this particular procedural step, formulation of 
military characteristics was delayed by several months.15 
While it Y/ould be easy to exaggerate the gravity of this lat- 
ter postponement, it was nevertheless true that prompt prepa- 
ration of an acceptable statement of military characteristics 
was officially regarded as an integral part of the project 
initiation process.^ 
II* Development Phase. 
A, Preliminary Investigation, 
The earliest exploratory studies relating to 
Development Project. F-30 appear to have.been.made not. by 
the Equipment Laboratory or other Medical Department instru- 
mentality, but by the National Defense.Research Committee of 
the Office of Scientific Research and Development,- Washington, 
D.C. The Transportation Division (Division 12) of this latter 
agency, which had played a .leading role in the development of 
the original amphibian truck, had been investigating the 
possibilities of converting the vehicle into an amphibian 
ambulance for some time prior to the initiation of this 
project. There are, in fact, indications—though available, _ evidence on this point is not conclusive—that knowledge of the 
preliminary experimental activities being conducted by Division 
12 was an important factor in influencing the Requirements 
Division (Headquarters, Army Service Forces) to recommend 
establishment of a Medical Department research project to 
conduct further work on this problem. 
In an;/ event, early in April, 1943, studies were 
going forward at the Amphibian Vehicle Training School, 
Charleston, South Carolina, under the sponsorship of Division 
12 of the National Defense Research Committee, for the specific 
purpose of adopting the DUKW to meet the demands of bridgehead- 
to-hospital ship evacuation. By 4 April 1943, moreover, a plan 
had been worked out at this training center by one Dennis 
Puleston, subsequently listed as a Technical Aid in Division 
12, which not only included a mechanical solution to the prob- 
lem (litter arrangement, method of fastening litters to coam- 
ing, etc,), but also contained a detailed description of a 
recommended sequence of operations to be followed by aid men 
in casualty-loading and unloading. 
Because of its basic similarity to the solution 
which was ultimately adopted by the Medical Department, this 
preliminary plan is quoted here in fulls 
PROPOSED USE OF DUKWS IN EVACUATION OF CASUALTIES 
FROM BRIDGEHEAD TO SHIP’S DECK 
This plan will enable twelve standard Army 
Medical Corps stretchers, each with casualty, 
to be stowed in one DUKW together with two - 
attendants (exclusive of DUKW driver and assist- 
ant driver, both located in cab). . It is intend- 
ed that the casualties, once they are stowed in 
the DUKW, will not again be handled until after 
the DUKW has been picked up at ship’s side and 
deposited on deck. After that they can be .. . . 
transferred into the special litters used for 
conveyance into the sick bay. 
The sequence of operations follows: 
a. Stretcher with casualty having been passed 
up to the two attendants standing in DUKW 
cargo compartment, it is laid on the floor 
of the cargo compartment at 45 degrees 
angle to the fore and aft of the DUKW. It 
is then swung around until it is at right 
angles to the fore and aft line of the DUKW 
and slid all the way forward until one side 
is against the forward bulkhead of the car- 
go compartment. 
265 b. Second stretcher is handled in similar manner 
to (a)| when it is on floor of cargo compart- 
ment, it is slid forward until it is against 
stretcher (a). 
c. Third, fourth, fifth and sixth stretchers are. 
also laid on floor of cargo compartment, one 
by one, but they are placed in a fore and aft 
direction with one of their ends against the 
after end of the cargo compartment. It will 
be found that this will leave a space of 
approximately fifteen inches bety/een the 
second stretcher and the handles of the third, 
fourth, fifth and sixth stretchers. This 
space is used as standing room for the one or 
two attendants which will accompany the 
casualties to the ship. 
d. Seventh and eighth stretchers are then passed 
up and laid at right angles to the fore and 
aft line of the DUKW, with the handles rest- 
ing on the coamings on. either side of the 
DIM'. The stretchers are slid all the way 
forward to the forward end of the cargo com- 
partment. To prevent the stretchers handles 
from slipping off the coamings (there is an 
approximate tv;o inch overlap on each side), 
I would suggest (a) that, the stretcher 
handles be drilled so that small pins could 
be dropped in to set each side of the coam- 
ing, or (b) that a special metal clip be 
designed to be attached to the stretcher 
handles and to clip onto the coaming. 
e. Ninth, tenth, eleventh and ty/elfth 
stretchers are also laid on the coamings, 
at the after end of the cargo compartment, 
so that a fifteen inch space is left between 
the eighth and ninth stretchers, 
f. If casualties suffering from shock are being 
handled or there is a prospect of spray com- 
ing aboard on the passage to ship’s side the 
tarp bows are set in the bow pockets and the 
tarpaulin is put up in the usual manner, 
g. When the DUKW reaches ship’s side, the four 
part DUKW sling of 3/V' cable is lowered on 
the cargo boom and the hooks at the ends of 
the sling are made fast to the DUKW lifting 
eyes. The DUKW is then hoisted aboard and 
set on deck, the tarnaulin is removed and 
266 the casualties taken to the sick bay. The 
DUKW is loaded with cargo while on deck after 
which it is lowered overside, to proceed 
ashore in the usual manner, the two attendants 
to return to their shore station in the 
DUKW.18 
The foregoing description, together with a drawing 
showing schematically hot/ twelve litters could be stowed on 
board the DUKW, ?jere forwarded to The Assistant Chief of Staff, 
G—4, on 12 April 1943 by the Office of Scientific Research and 
Development, One paragraph from this transmittal letter is 
particularly noteworthy. 
You will note that if the Surgeon General 
is interested in reducing shock by recourse to 
this method, it would be desirable from our view- 
point and in fact necessary, if we are to meet the 
engineering requirements of various interested 
parties, to have a meeting of these parties. To 
date these v;ould seem to bes 
(a) Your office 
(b) The Surgeon General 
(c) The War Shipping Administration 
(d) The Transportation Corps 
(1) Arrangements with ship- 
masters 
(2) Inclusion in school 
(e) Amphibious Force of the Atlantic 
Fleet 
(f) National Defense Research Committee 
(1) Sparkman and Stephens 
architects/ 
(2) General Rotors Yellow Truck 
and Coachl9 
Apparently, judging from the above, the Office of 
Scientific Research and Development expected to take an active 
part in future research and development work in this field. 
This, however, was not to bo the case. On 14 April 1943, the 
above communication had its inclosures were forwarded without 
comment from G-4 to Headquarters, Array Service Forces,20 and 
three days later the entire file was passed on to The Surgeon 
General with the brief notations "Forwarded for your informa- 
tion in connection with approved development project,"21 By 
the time this correspondence had reached the Equipment Labo- 
ratory, 22 it was clear that the Medical Department was to have 
exclusive control over project management. 
It may be observed parenthetically that, while the 
Pulcston plan for conversion of the amphibian truck to a 
267 temporary ambulance was subsequently given careful consideration, 
the plan for immediate coordination proposed by the 
Office of Scientific Research and Development was not adopted. 
The General Rotors Corporation, one of whose subsidiaries 
appeared on the above list of "interested parties" with whom 
consultation was recommended, was not so consulted until nearly 
seven months later. As it happened, the particular amphibian 
litter stop which ultimately received official approval, was 
based on a modified design submitted by this corporation. 
B. Development and Testing, 
On 2A April 1913, the two amphibian trucks which had 
been requested from Ordnance Department arrived at the medical 
Department Equipment Laboratory at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsyl- 
vania ,23 As. a first step, the vehicles were loaded according 
to the Puleston plan with twelve litter patients and tested, 
without litter attachments of any kind, for both cross country 
and amphibious evacuation. These preliminary tests showed 
that some device was needed to prevent the top litters from 
shifting or falling through to the truck floor when the amphi- 
bian was travelling in surf or heavy seas.21- 
Several methods of securing the litters were then 
tried; tying with ropes, individual attachments, and manifold 
attachments. The best method of securing the litters on the 
cargo floor, insofar as simplicity, speed, and stability were 
concerned, was found to be the tying of these stretchers by 
ropes. It was felt, however, that this would be necessary 
only when rough roads or heavy surf were encountered. Cn 
such occasions, the use of a light rope to prevent slipping 
and shifting would be sufficient,25 
As for the securing of the upper tier litters, brief 
consideration was given to certain individual attachments,26 
One such plan had been suggested by Dennis iulestcn in his 
April communication. His idea had been either to drill holes 
in the stretcher handles so that pins could be dropped through 
to the coaming, or to design special metal clips to be attach- 
ed to each handle and then clipped onto the coaming. 
The objections to the first method can bo readily 
anticipated by those who have read the preceding chapters of 
this study. Because of the practice of "property exchange" 
in evacuation procedure, a high degree of interchangeability 
of litter parts was at all times necessary. This meant, in 
short, that changes in the construction of any one component 
of a given group of litters (in this case litter handles), 
would have to be duplicated for virtually every litter in 
field use. With hundreds of thousands of Army litters 
already issued, and with a similar number in various stages of procurement and production, the addition now of a 
specification calling for the drilling of holes in litter 
handles and for the issuance of special securing pins was 
obviously impracticable. 
The alternative Puleston suggestion—the pro- 
vision of special metal clips for each litter handle—was 
somewhat more feasible, but was nevertheless rejected. If 
twelve litters were to be accommodated in each amphibian 
vehicle, forty-eight clips Y/ould be needed to secure all the 
litters| twenty-four clips, if only the top tier litters were 
affected. In either case, the possibilities of loss of these 
small items in the repeated changeover of the DUK17 from an 
evacuation to a cargo or personnel carrier was extremely high. 
Moreover, the field issuance and adequate distribution of 
these small items would be an almost endlessly complicating 
task for supply officers at the various echelons.2' 
For these reasons, among others, the Equipment 
Laboratory concentrated its attention mainly on the ’'manifold" 
type of attachment. Within a short time a sectional litter 
stop had been designed which fastened to the coaming along 
each side of the amphibian truck, thus preventing the litters 
on the coaming from sliding across the vehicle and dropping 
into the cargo space below. In a heavy sea or on rough ter- 
rain, the employment of a light rope as a supplementary lit- 
ter securing device was recommended. This rope was to be 
vjouhd around the handles of those litters which, because of 
the spacing of uprights forming the cover-frame of the truck, 
might shift longitudinally on the coaming. 
As soon as the required number of new litter stops 
had been constructed, preliminary tests of the two DUKW’s 
equipped with these attachments were made by Equipment 
Laboratory officials on a lake in the vicinity of Carlisle 
The test results appear to have been satisfactory, 
for only one change of consequence was made thereafter. The 
Puleston loading plan called for a complete payload of twelve 
litters. This number.was now reduced to ten to permit more 
space for attendants, and the loading procedure originally 
outlined by Puleston was altered accordingly to conform to 
this change.30 
Since the tests at Carlisle had been too summary in 
nature to be considered final, arrangements were made in the 
latter part of May, 19L3, to have the Engineer Amphibian Com- 
mand at Camp Edwards, Massachusets, test the two experimental 
DUKW ambulances in actual shore-to-ship operations,31 The 
trucks were shipped to the new testing point before the close 
of the month, and on 2 June 1943 a representative of the 
Equipment Laboratory was present at Camp Edwards to observe 
and assist in litter loadings and other test operations. During this period, however, facilities for shore-to-ship 
evacuation tests we re not available, so it was decided that 
further testing activities would be continued by the Engineer 
Amphibian Command alone,32 
But one serious technical problem had already 
emerged. In attempting to install the litter stop attach- 
ments onvvarious amphibian trucks then on hand at Camp Edwards, 
it was found that they would not fit, due to a difference in 
construction of the coaming of these trucks as compared with 
the coaming of the two vehicles which had been^employed in the 
initial development work at Carlisle Barracks,33 The fact that 
this discovery had been made at a relatively early stage in the 
project was, of course, fortunate. We have seen in the previ- 
ous section on the Ski Litter the difficulties that Y;ere 
encountered when the Mountain and Winter Warfare Board at 
Camp Hale submitted for standardization a ski adapter which 
had been designed without prior study of the drawings and 
blueprints of all existing Medical Department litters.34 
Consequently, while the Equipment Laboratory had 
apparently made a similar error by failing to consider at the 
outset all existing variations of the item to which its new 
development was to be adapted, in the present instance 
immediate steps were taken to remedy this initial oversight. 
Request was promptly made of the Tank Automotive Center, 
Ordnance Department, Detroit, Michigan, that blueprints be 
furnished the Equipment Laboratory on all types of DUKW cargo 
bodies already manufactured or in process of manufacture,35 
Unfortunately this request was destined to have a rather 
prolonged history. As we shall see, the redesign of the 
amphibian litter stop was to be held'up for more than two 
months because of the difficulty in obtaining these neces- 
sary blueprints. 
One further question concerning the adaptability 
of the Carlisle-designed litter stop was raised during this 
period. Early in June, the British Joint Staff Mission made 
inquiries through the Chief of the United States Military 
Intelligence Service regarding the experimentation currently 
going forward at the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory 
in fitting out the DUKW with litter attachments. It was 
explained that the Combined Operations Command in London was 
about to attempt a similar conversion of this amphibious 
vehicle,3^ 
One of the results of this inquiry was to turn the 
attention of the Equipment Laboratory to the question of the 
adaptability of its newly devised litter stop to the British 
type of litter. On 9 June 1943, in a letter to the Engineer 
Amphibian Command at Camp Edwards, the Director of the Equip- 
ment Laboratory expressed his conclusions on this matter as 
270 follows; 
. . • The British Litter is longer than ours, 
and I believe that difficulty would he experienced 
in placing it on the cargo floor in the cross 
it would also interfere with the litter 
stop boards, I have made calculations to see if 
the stop boards could be extended to accommodate 
the British Litter, but to do this would sacrifice 
most of the effectiveness in holding our litters. 
The boards could be kept at the present dimensions 
to hold our litter and if the British Litters were 
used, the handles being longer, could be secured 
with pieces of rope„37 
With the problem of accommodating the British lit- 
ter thus disposed of, and while still awaiting truck blue- 
prints from the Tank Automotive Center, the Equipment Labo- 
ratory received early in July a final test report from Camp 
Edwards on the amphibian litter stops which had been shipped 
in June to that command. According to this report, the Medi-_ 
cal Battalion of the 4-th Engineer Special Brigade had used 
these attachments in loading tests, transportation of medical 
supplies, and in the transfer of wounded from the amphibian 
truck to landing craft in open water. Generally speaking, 
the results had been quite satisfactory,33 
The loading plan which had been submitted by the 
Equipment Laboratory was found to be entirely practicable, 
and no change was suggested.39 it should be noted in this 
connection that early in June the Laboratory had amended its 
loading plan a second time. Instead of limiting the maximum 
load to ten litters, five on the coaming and five in the hold 
(the arrangement adopted in May in preference to the puleston 
12-litter plan) it was decided subsequently that a sixth lit- 
ter would be so easy to place on the coaming that the surplus 
space should not be wasted,40 It ?jas, therefore, this latest 
11-litter plan to which the Engineer Amphibian Command refer 
red in the present instance. 
The test report went on to state that eleven simu- 
lated casualties had been easily and comfortably transported, 
even in the roughest water. The tarpaulin regularly supplied 
with the DUKW had, it was pointed out, offered good protection 
and, properly arranged, could be readily thrown off in case of 
accident or if there was danger of the amphibian sinking at 
sea.41 
While no large freight or passenger ships had been 
available for shore-to-ship evacuation tests, simulated 
casualties had been transferred by hand from the amphibian 
truck to. LCT and LCM types of landing craft. Wo difficulties were encountered during these operations, the litter guards or 
side bars supplied by the Equipment Laboratory holding up well 
in all instances. It was, however, recommended that, in view 
of the rougher usage which could be expected in actual combat 
evacuation, the litter stops should be of somewhat stronger 
construction. Aside from this suggested change and the recom- 
mendation that the attachment be redesigned to fit all types 
of DUXW coamings, the Engineering Amphibian Command expressed 
no further objection to adoption of the new device.42 
The suggestion that a somewhat more rugged litter 
stop be constructed, following the same basic design as that 
of the models just tested, does not appear to have been 
favorably considered by the Equipment Laboratory, Specifi- 
cations, insofar as strength characteristics were concerned, 
underwent no immediate modification. However, as for the other 
recommendation made by the Engineering Amphibian Command—that 
the litter be redesigned to fit all types of amphibian truck 
coamings—the Laboratory had already taken the initial step by 
requesting blueprints from the Tank Automotive Center showing 
all structural variations in DUKST design.43 No reply having 
as yet been received from that quarter, the Equipment Labo- 
ratory now turned to the Engineering Amphibian Command itself 
for this information: 
1, Reference is made to Paragraph A of 
basic communication referring to litter guards. 
This Laboratory has attempted to obtain plans 
of the different types of coaming on the 
amphibian trucks but have been unsuccessful to 
date. 
2, It is requested that sketches of the 
various type of coaming on the amphibians in 
your command be forwarded to this Laboratory 
to facilitate work on the litter guard.44 
A short time later, the following brief reply was 
received from the Engineering Amphibian Command 
Regret to inform you that the informa- 
tion requested in 1st Indorsement is unob- 
tainable, 45 
That this amount of difficulty would be encountered 
in attempting to obtain a set of standard blueprints was unex- 
pected to say the least. Unfortunately, moreover, the reply 
which was soon after received from the Ordnance Department 
likewise failed to settle the matter. 
On 21 July 1943—in reply to the Equipment Labo- 
ratory’s original request of 17 June 1943—the Engineering Branch of the Tank Automotive Center in Detroit, Michigan, 
forwarded a series of fifteen blueprints.4-6 Upon examination, 
however. Laboratory officials discovered that none of the 
drawings which had been inclosed covered the Amphibian Truck— 
the vehicle upon which information had been requested—but 
instead covered various other truck bodies. 
Accordingly, on 5 August 1943, the Equipment Labo- 
ratory sent a second request to the Tank Automotive Center; 
1. The Equipment Laboratory is in receipt 
of a number of drawings covering various truck 
bodies, received from your office. The details 
of the truck this office is particularly inter- 
ested in and which was not included is the 
Amphibian Truck, DUKIT, 2jr ton, CMC, 
20 A litter stop, to hold litters across 
the cargo space of the Amphibian truck, which 
was designed by this Laboratory will fit the 
upper edge or cowl of the cargo body on some 
of the Amphibian Trucks but will not fit others 
as the cowls vary in construction. It has been 
found that the construction of the sides near 
the cargo floor also vary in construction 
details. It is requested that drawings of the. 
above mentioned features of the various designs 
of the Amphibian trucks be forwarded this Labo- 
ratory in order that we may continue our work 
on these vehicles, 4-7 
The above letter produced results. On 26 August 
1943* the requested data was forwarded by the Tank Automo- 
tive Center to the Equipment Laboratory. 4-8 
On 20 September 1943s approximately five months 
after initiation of Development Project, F-30, a statement 
of approved military characteristics for the new amphibian 
litter stop was received by the Equipment Laboratory .4-9 With 
all relevant data now at hand (although it is apparent that 
the list of military characteristics had arrived too late to 
be of directional value), the Laboratory was at last in a 
position to give full attention to its re-designing task. 
That task now proved to be a great deal more complex than 
had originally been anticipated. 
Study of the blueprints lately received from the 
Tank Automotive Center revealed that, in order to be adapt- 
able to all 2-|--ton amphibian trucks currently being used by 
the Army, the new litter stop would have to be re-designed 
to fit three different types of coaming. Type I, which was 
the earliest of the coaming designs and was radically different from those subsequently adopted, had been used in 
the construction of 2Bl vehicles. Type II, a combination 
unit, had been used on the next 724. vehicles. Type III, the 
coaming for which the first litter stops had been expressly 
made, had been used on all succeeding vehicles, after the 
first 1,005.5°, 
Efforts to design a single litter stop which would 
fit all three types of coaming were unsuccessful, A revised 
litter stop was finally designed, however, which would fit 
both the Type II and Type III coaming. Inasmuch as a pre- 
ponderant majority of the amphibian trucks then in use had 
coamings of these latter types, there was much to recommend 
this partial solution of the problem as a reasonably satis- 
factory expedient. Some thought was given to the possibility 
of providing a second litter stop, to be used exclusively on 
those vehicles equipped with Type I coaming, but this idea 
Y/as subsequently discarded by the Laboratory as impracticable. 
Such a plan would have necessitated a separate stock of lit- 
ter attachments, non-interchangeable with the standard type— 
a situation which, it was felt, would be likely to cause an 
unwarranted amount of difficulty for those charged with pro- 
curement of the item.51 
The Laboratory decided, therefore, to abandon 
further experimental work on the project and to submit its 
revised litter stop design (adaptable to Types II and III 
coaming only) as the best practicable solution to the problem. 
Accordingly, on 14- October 1943, drawings, specifications, and 
a final written report on the new attachment were submitted to 
The Surgeon General's Office for its approval.52 
The Laboratory's report was an extremely informative 
one. 53 It began with a description of the preliminary exami- 
nation and tests conducted at Carlisle Barracks to determine 
the general suitability of the amphibian truck as a litter 
bearing vehicle and to study various alternative methods of 
litter arrangement and loading sequence. After indicating 
the results of these tests, the report described the differ- 
ent litter securing devices which were investigated, the 
eventual selection of the manifold type of attachment as 
offering the greatest promise, the subsequent development 
of a specially designed four-section litter stop, and the 
service tests of the nevj device Y/hich were conducted shortly 
thereafter at Camp Edwards by the Engineer Amphibian Command. 
These test findings, it was pointed out, were favorable; but 
it was discovered that the original litter stop would not fit 
all amphibian DUKW's because of a variation in coaming con- 
struction of many of these vehicles. The problems encoun- 
tered in the ensuing attempt to re-design litter stop so that 
this objection would be eliminated were discussed in some 
detail, and a careful explanation was given of the compromise solution finally decided upon. 
Then followed a brief description of the item 
which was being presented for approval. The re-designed 
litter stop, it was explained, consisted of four identical 
sections, each measuring 74—3/8 inches in length and weigh- 
ing 7.5 pounds. The device, which attached to the coaming 
of the DUKW and extended out from the sides to provide a 
stop for the litter handles, could be easily secured from 
either the outside or inside of the vehicle. When not in 
use, the four sections could be readily detached and stored 
under the cargo floor. Ropes, it was stated, would be 
needed only in movement over extremely rough water or ter- 
rain, As for protection against either rain or excessive 
surf spray, the middle bows on the amphibian truck (removed 
initially to provide head room in loading) could be left out 
of the vehicle and a canvas cover pulled forward on the 
longitudinal struts. The canvas, secured by the front ropes 
only, could quickly be thrown back to permit removal of lit- 
ter patients in the event of emergency. 
The loading plan recommended by the Laboratory for 
use with the above device bore a close resemblance to the 
plan proposed by Dennis Fuleston at the outset of the pro- 
According to the new diagram, the first step was to 
attach two litter stop boards to the coaming on the opposite 
side of the vehicle from which the loading operation was to 
be performed. Litters 1 and 2 v/ere then placed on the coam- 
ings, as far toward the front of the vehicle as possible, 
and pushed forward until their handles struck the litter 
stop. Next litters 3 and A were placed in.an, analogous 
position (at right angles to the sides of the vehicle and 
as far forward as possible) on the cargo floor. Litters 
5, 6, and 7 were placed side by side on the cargo floor, 
parallel to the sides of the vehicle, and as far to the rear 
as possible. The lower tier litters wore, now all in position. 
If considered necessary they could be secured with rope. Lit- 
ters 8, 9, 10, and 11 were then placed on the coaming behind 
litters 1 and 2, and the two litter stop boards on the loading 
side were pulled up and secured to the coaming. .As an added 
precaution, litters 10 and 11 could be tied with a light rope 
to prevent sliding. 
Essentially, the above plan differed from the 
Fuleston plan in only two important respects. In the first 
place, under the new method the number of litters to be car- 
ried on the cargo floor had been reduced from six to five, 
thus affording needed additional clearance between the lit- 
ters placed at the rear of this lower tier. In the second 
place, the loading sequence-had been changed so that the 
two litters farthest forward'on the coaming, or upper tier, 
were now moved into position first, instead of following 
275 the last of the lower tier litters as in the Fuleston 
sequence. By this change the bearers, if forced to load the 
vehicle at a point some distance from the front of the coam- 
ing, could walk the necessary distance forward on the cargo 
floor without having to pick their way over and around 
casualties already moved into position. 
In concluding its formal test report to The 
Surgeon General’s Office, the Equipment Laboratory presented 
the following specific recommendations; 
. . • It is recommended that the following 
be accepted for use by the Medical Department of 
the United States Array; 
a. Truck, 2-J- ton, 6x6 Amphibian for the 
Evacuation (Waterborne) of wounded, 
b. Litter loading arrangement as shown 
on Medical Department Equipment Labo- 
ratory Drawing No, 0-4-36, 
c. Litter stop for Truck, 2-g- ton, 6x6, 
Amphibian (Medical Department Equip- 
ment Laboratory Drawing No. C-506). 
Within a week the foregoing report and recom- 
mendations had received the approval of The Surgeon General!s 
Office.The neY1 amphibian litter stop (see Fig. 20) was 
now ready for standardization. 
III. Formulation of Military Characteristics. 
Attention has been called earlier in this section to the 
some¥/hat informal procedures by which Development Project, 
F-30 was initiated. Cnc of the results of this initial 
failure to conform strictly to the provisions of AR 850-25 
was a delay in formulating military characteristics beyond 
the date when such a formulation could have furnished any 
large measure of directional control over research and devel- 
opment personnel. 
Equipment Laboratory officials were not requested to 
prepare a tentative draft of military characteristics until 
2 August 1943and it was not until IB September 1943 that 
the final statement had received the approval of Headquarters, 
Army Service Forces,59 By this time, it will be recalled, 
design, construction, and service testing of the new litter 
stop had been virtually completed. 
Whatever may be said of the Medical Department’s tardi- 
ness in initiating this particular action, it was certainly 
true that, once processing action had begun, the pertinent 
provisions of AR 850-25 wore carefully adhered to in ail 
276 respects. On 2 August 1943, the Equipment Laboratory was 
directed by The Surgeon General’s Office to prepare a brief 
statement of tentative military characteristics for the 
amphibian litter stop, 0 and on 7 August 1943, the data was 
forwarded for processing. Inasmuch as this initial draft 
of military characteristics was subsequently approved without 
change, the text will be quoted here in full. 
The tentative military characteristics of this 
project are as follows: 
a. To provide an attachment for the comb- 
ing of the DUKW which will act as a litter stop 
thus affording for the proper carriage of litters, 
b. The litter stop attachment shall be light 
in weight preferably not exceeding 20 pounds com- 
plete, 
c. Provisions shall be made for the attach- 
ment to be placed on the combing of the DUKW 
quickly and with ease, 
d. The attachment shall be carried with 
the DUKW at all times. 
e. The attachment shall be simple in 
design and construction in order that it shall 
be inexpensive and easily procured, 
On 23 August 1943, the above statement of military 
characteristics was approved by the Medical Department Sub- 
and on 6 September 1943 the Subcommittee report 
was in turn approved by the Medical Department Technical Com- 
A week later, the foregoing data was forwarded by 
The Surgeon General’s Office to Headquarters, Army Service 
Forces,&4 and on 18 September 1943, final approval of mili- 
tary characteristics was granted by this author As 
previously indicated, the Equipment Laboratory was notified 
of Army Service Forces’ action on 21 September 1943,^ 
IV, Standardization Phase I. 
Upon receipt of the final test report from the Equipment 
Laboratory at Carlisle Barracks, recommending adoption of the 
new amphibian litter stop, action was promptly taken by The 
Surgeon General’s Office to begin processing the item for 
standardization. As a first step, instead of sending a 
standardization request directly to the Medical Department 
Technical Subcommittee, the additional precaution was taken 
of clearing the recently received Carlisle test report with 
277 Headquarters, Army Service Within a week, the 
following Reply was received from the Requirements Division 
of that offices 
1. The recommendations contained in the 
attached report of the Medical Department Equip- 
ment Laboratory on the Truck, 2-g--Ton, 6x6, 
Amphibian for Waterborne Evacuation of Wounded, 
are approved, 
2, It is desired that appropriate action 
be taken through the Medical Corps Technical 
Committee towards standardization of the sub- 
ject litter stop kit. 
With the way ahead thus cleared, on 6 November 194-3 the 
Medical Department Technical Subcommittee met and approved 
the following three recommendations: (l) that the new 
amphibian litter stop be adopted as a standard articlej 
(2) that the item be made an integral part of all 2^-ton, 
6x6, Amphibian Trucks now under procurement, and added to 
all such trucks currently in service| (3) that the litter 
stop be processed for standardization by the Ordnance Depart- 
ment Technical Committee,^9 
In view of the fact that the Equipment Laboratory had 
already stated in its final test report that the new litter 
stop, while designed to fit all amphibian trucks with Types 
II and III coaming, would not be adaptable to the 281 
vehicles equipped with Type I coaming, the Subcommittee’s 
second recommendation—that the new attachment be added to 
"all subject trucks currently in service"—requires an 
explanation. 
Since completing development work on the amphibian lit- 
ter stop, the Equipment Laboratory had been making a closer 
study of the amphibian truck designs themselves in an effort 
to discover some practicable way of eliminating the existing 
variations in coaming. As it had not been possible to design 
a litter stop which would fit all DUKW types, perhaps the 
trucks themselves could be modified in certain minor respects. 
This effort was successful. By November 194-3, a modifi- 
cation of Type I coaming design had been worked out by Equip- 
ment Laboratory draftsmen which would, it was felt, adequately 
solve the problem. Direct action vjas thereupon taken to 
obtain official approval of these suggested changes in 
Ordnance specifications. 
On 9 November 194-3, the following memorandum was sent 
by The Surgeon General’s Office to the Chairman of the 
Ordnance Technical Committee, 1. Reference is made to the proposed 
action on Automotive Equipment, dated 1 October 
1943, recommending approval of military character- 
istics for Truck, 2-g-Ton, 6x6, Amphibian. 
2. It is requested that a characteristic be 
added, to provide for uniform coaming on this 
vehicle, in order that its adaptation for the 
carrying of litters will not be jeopardized.70 
This communication vjas followed up, on 26 November 1943, 
when the Equipment Laboratory, at the request of The Surgeon 
General's Office, forwarded to the Technical Division, Office 
of the Chief of Ordnance, three sets of drawings, specifica- 
tions, and phototraphs covering the proposed modifications of 
truck coamings.71 
With this background in mind, the Subcommittee recom- 
mendation alluded to earlier—that the new litter stop attach- 
ment be added to all amphibian trucks currently in service— 
can be more readily understood. Moreover, in the light of the 
events just described, it was not surprising that the Medical 
Department Technical Committee, at a meeting held 22 November 
1943, approved all Subcommittee recommendations without modi- 
fication. 
On 27 November 1943, all pertinent standardization data 
was for?;arded by The Surgeon General's Office to Headquarters, 
Army Service Forces,73 and two days later these papers were 
sent to the Technical Division, Office of The Chief of Ord- 
nance, for appropriate action by the Ordnance Technical Com- 
mittee.^ 
V, Standardization Phase II, 
A. First Modification of the Amphibian Litter Stop. 
Thus far, Washington representatives of the Ordnance 
Department had been present at all Medical Department Techni- 
cal Committee meetings held in connection with the amphibian 
litter stop. They had given their concurrence both to the 
statement of military characteristics formulated in September 
and to the recommendation for standardization of the 
item which was approved by the Committee in November 1943. 
Apparently, however, liaison between the Washington office of 
the Chief of Ordnance and the Tank Automotive Center in 
Detroit, Michigan, had not been continuously and fully main- 
tained during this period. The reaction of the latter agency 
to the standardization request it now received resembled, as 
will be seen below, the reaction of an agency considering the subject for the first time. 
On 3 December 1943, Ordnance Department in Washington 
forwarded to the Chief of the Tank-Automotive Center, Detroit, 
all previous correspondence on the amphibian litter stop and 
requested a draft opinion as to the advisability of standard- 
izing the item,77 Upon receipt of this communication, the 
Tank-Automotive Center responded by first asking whether the 
Ordnance Department was to be responsible for procurement 
and distribution of the proposed litter stops, whether it 
was intended that such attachment be provided all amphibians, 
and, if so, what changes were contemplated in coaming con- 
struction to make this possible.7B To these questions, Ord- 
nance officials in Washington replied: (l) that the new lit- 
ter stop assembly was to be purchased by Ordnance rather than 
by the Medical Department; (2) that all amphibians, including 
those in use and those to be manufactured, were to be equipped 
with the new attachment; and (3) that data covering proposed 
changes in Type I coaming (prepared by the Equipment Labo- 
ratory) had already been forwarded,79 
With these preliminary questions now settled, on 
21 December 1943 the Tank-Automotive Center rendered its 
opinion regarding the new litter stops,Its objections to 
the item developed by the Medical Department were several. 
First, it was stated that, while an alteration of Type I 
coaming had been prescribed by a Field Service Modification 
Work Order, the Center'had been unable to determine the extent 
to which this order had been complied with by field units. It 
was believed that approximately 150 vehicles still included 
the original type coaming and, consequently, the Medical 
Department litter stop assemblies could not be used on any of 
these trucks. 
Secondly, a number of technical objections were 
offered. It was stated that the litter stop adjusting rivet 
was too light for the purpose intended; that the provision 
of litter stop assemblies would add about 75 pounds to the 
weight of the amphibian, at a time when efforts were being 
made to lighten the vehicle; that addition of the litter 
stops to the height of the coaming added to the difficulty 
of lifting the litter in place; that, if bolted permanently 
to the coaming, the stops would interfere with cargo loading 
from ship-side and would undoubtedly be damaged during cargo 
loading operations in rough waters; finally, that the litter 
stops submitted would not necessarily prevent the end of a 
litter from bouncing and sliding rearward—perhaps to such 
an angle that the- end of the litter might fall into the cargo 
compartment. 
While many of the above criticisms were ..severe, 
and a few seemed even to question the need or desirability of litter stops in any form, the Tank-Automotive Center did, 
nevertheless, append certain constructive suggestions. It 
recommended, for example, that if such assemblies ?/ere to be 
provided they should be in the bilge, between wheel 
housings, when the amphibian was being used as a cargo 
vehicle. This method, as contrasted with permanent instal- 
lation, would reduce the danger of damage to personnel and 
to the stops themselves during loading operations. 
As for the type of litter stop suitable for 
adoption, however, the Tank-Automotive Center proposed that 
the answer to that question be left open for further investi- 
gation, 
3. As this office will be required to 
furnish litter stops for the amphibians, it is 
investigating promptly optional designs which it 
is intended will obviate the deficiencies out- 
lined in paragraph 2, preceding. From a cursory 
study of the problem, one method has been sug- 
gested in the form of litter caps shoxvn on CMC 
layout MD-12658 inclosed. These caps could be 
stowed readily in new amphibians and furnished 
for all amphibians in the field. They would 
fit on all amphibians, except those early 
vehicles that have not yet had coamings altered, 
and a modified type could be produced to fit 
those amphibians. The x?eight of a set of 24- caps 
would not be over 10 pounds; a weight low enough 
to permit several spares being provided , , . . 
J+* To assist this office in this study,, 
it is requested that the Medical Department 
furnish promptly detailed data covering the 
size and shape of the handles on every type 
of litter it is expected will be carried on 
the amphibians. Further, the Medical Depart- 
ment might comment on the possibility that 
some form of handle caps might be adopted as 
a substitute for litter stops C-506,^- 
Wherever the responsibility lay for this anomalous 
situation, in which research proposals of a type normally 
presented at the beginning of a development project were 
instead being offered at a point near its termination, it 
was clear to the Medical Department, as soon as it had 
learned of the reaction of the Ordnance office at Detroit, 
that action must be taken quickly and that a solution would 
be hastened by a face-to-face meeting between all interested 
parties. Accordingly, on 21 January 1944- & teletype mes- 
sage x?as dispatched from The Surgeon General's Office to 
The Deputy Chief of Ordnance in Detroit, announcing that a representative of the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory 
would arrive in Detroit the first of the following week to 
attend a conference with Ordnance officials on the subject of 
do c 
the amphibian litter stops,0*" 
The above-mentioned meeting at Detroit took place 
on 24 January 1944- and was attended by representatives of 
the Medical Department, Ordnance Department, and officials of 
the General Motors Corporation, manufacturers of the amphibian 
truck. At this conference throe types of litter stops were 
discussed: (l) a new type, permanently welded to the coaming; 
(2) the litter-cap type of device as developed by General 
Motors Corporation; and (3) the litter stop developed by the 
Equipment Laboratory,^ 
The permanently welded type was secured to the outer 
surface of the coaming and, when not in use, the fastener swung 
down from the top of the coaming and was secured by a pin. The 
fastener extended out from the side of the coaming approximately 
!•§- inches in both the vertical and horizontal position. Inas- 
much as the side deck of the amphibian was only 5 inches wide, 
with the 1-|—inch projection of the litter fastener this space 
was reduced to 3•§■ inches at the fastener. Moreover, not only 
was the walking space thus reduced, but the projections along 
the side of the vehicle offered a constant source of injury to 
the men walking the side deck. Finally, it was observed that 
while this type of fastener could be readily secured to the 
amphibian at the factory, special equipment would be required 
to install the attachment in the field. 
The litter-cap type of assembly, designed by General 
Motors, has already been briefly Suffice it to 
say here that the item was now definitely rejected. As the 
Equipment Laboratory had discovered for itself some months 
before, the representatives present at length agreed that 
this typo of litter stop would have the serious dual disad- 
vantages of having to be removed by the litter bearers each 
time a litter was placed, and of being quite easily lost when 
the litter was removed from the coaming. 
By process of elimination, then, the Equipment 
Laboratory design was the only remaining alternative. It 
was pointed out by the Laboratory that this litter stop could 
be easily and securely attached to the coaming of the amphibian 
by three clamps per board, or six clamps per side of the vehicle. 
Moreover, the boards would give full protection along the whole 
side of the amphibian regardless of the position of the litter. 
Short enough to be easily handled, each section or board could, 
if desired, be stored when not in use under the cargo deck of 
the amphibian. As a result of the above comparison, it was stated 
to be the opinion of the group that the Equipment Laboratory 
model was the most practicable litter stop of the three types 
studied. However, several changes in the drawings were sug- 
gested by General Motors officials, and these were accepted 
and approved by the Medical Department representative. It 
was agreed, as suggested in the above paragraph, that the 
assembly would not be permanently attached to the coaming 
of the amphibian, but v/ould be removable so that it could be 
stored below deck during cargo transport and during cargo 
loading and unloading. Another valuable suggestion was a 
recommended alteration in bracket spacing to conform to a 
recent change in the position of the vehicle’s tarpaulin 
bows. The new amphibian trucks were being built with five 
cross bows instead of four, as was the case with certain of 
the older models. Finally, several changes in construction 
materials were suggested, such as the substitution of brass 
for steel in certain parts of the litter stop. 
All in all, the conference had been a most fruitful 
one. Not only had the main outstanding defferences been 
resolved, but the Medical Department litter stop itself had 
been improved in the process. Accordingly, on 19 February 
1944 a report of the conference was forvjarded by The Surgeon 
General’s Office to the Requirements Division, Army Service 
Forces, with the recommendation that the litter stop devel- 
oped by the Equipment Laboratory, as modified by the sug- 
gestion of General Motors Corporation, be accepted for 
This recommendation was approved and was 
promptly forwarded to the Office of The Chief of Ordnance in 
Meanwhile, on 17 February 1944? the Ordnance 
office in Detroit, in a letter to Ordnance headquarters, con- 
firmed the conference decisions as outlined above and inclosed 
advance copies of the revised litter stop drawings.^ 
All that now remained to be accomplished was the 
settlement of a few remaining procurement details. The 
Surgeon General’s Office had originally proposed that litter 
stops be purchased for all amphibians in use, in process of 
manufacture, and to be This request was now 
modified. All nc*w vehicles were to be provided with the lit- 
ter stops, but only fifty percent of those which had already 
left the factory were to be so equipped. No attempt was to 
be made to equip the estimated 150 vehicles still retaining 
the old Type I coaming.^ 
! 
Only a slight revision of this plan was suggested 
by the Ordnance Department. By the time the new litter stops 
could become a production item, it was estimated that over 
6,000 amphibians would have been delivered. It was now 
proposed that an initial order of only 2,500 kits, instead 
of 3,000, be placed to cover field requirements. Operating personnel would meanwhile be informed of the availability of 
the new attachments; and, if more than 2,500 kits were requested, 
requisitions could then be filled promptly. At the earliest 
possible moment the litter stop would be included as an "on- 
vehicle-material" item, in order to keep to a minimum the 
quantity of separate kits issued,90 
This counter-proposal was approved by The Surgeon 
General’s Office on 11 March and it now appeared that 
at last all development and standardization problems had been 
solved, 
B. Second Modification of the Amphibian Litter Stor, 
One final interchange of ideas between the General 
Motors Corporation and the Medical Department, however, was to 
take place before production of the new litter stops was 
initiated. Once again collaboration between these two agencies 
resulted in a further improvement of the item in question, 
although a delay of several months was occasioned by the action. 
Cn 2 March 1944> a representative of The Surgeon 
General's Office visited the Office of the Chief of Ordnance 
in Detroit and inspected the final drawings of the amphibian 
litter stop which had been prepared by General Motors Corpo- 
ration, 92 it was discovered that the new drawings not only 
incorporated the various changes previously agreed to, but 
that certain other structural modifications had been made 
which, although of a minor nature, represented a further 
improvement, over the original Carlisle model and would 
definitely increase the ease of manufacture. 
The General Motors drawings were duly forwarded to 
the Medical Department Equipment Laboratory for study and, on 
16 March 1944> that office expressed its approval of the 
amended design,93 Careful examination of the drawings, it was 
stated, showed the proposed attachment to be simpler in con- 
struction than the Laboratory model, and it was also felt that 
the item as now modified would be as durable'as its predeces- 
sor, It was agreed that the simplicity of the new model from 
a manufacturing standpoint was an advantage of sufficient 
importance to justify its adoption. 
Aside from a few minor suggestions of a technical 
nature, no objection to the General Motors revisions was made 
by the Laboratory, -Oh 22 April 1944- these suggested changes 
were forwarded by The Surgeon General's Office to the Office 
of The Chief of Ordnance in Detroit,94 and on 17 May 1944 a 
final revision of drawings on the basis of Equipment Labo- 
ratory recommendations was agreed to by General Motors Corpo- 
ration and the Ordnance- Department.95 VI. Evaluation,96 
Compared with the two projects previously discussed in 
this chapter,99 Development Project, F-30 was in a number of 
respects a much more satisfactory research performance. 
Except for the standardization phase, it had been more 
effectively administered| had been completed in a much shorter 
time; and, in addition, had yielded at least as satisfactory 
an end-product as either of the aforementioned undertakings. 
It is true, of course, that in the development of the 
amphibian litter stop certain serious lapses had occurred, 
both in the carrying out of substantive research and in the 
handling of'formal procedural matters. The initial project 
proposal, for example, had not been processed through the 
Medical Department Technical Committee, with the result that 
the project had been established before official concurrence 
of the other Technical Services had been obtained and before 
a definite statement of military characteristics had been 
formulated and approved. Project completion had been delayed 
several months by the failure to establish at an earlier 
date direct liaison relationships with the Ordnance Department 
(especially the Tank-Automotive Center in Detroit) and with 
General Motors Corporation. The responsibility for these 
particular omissions, however, was divided. It rested partly 
with the Medical Department which had neglected to include 
the above agencies in its original request to Headquarters, 
Army Service Forces, for direct liaison privileges, and partly 
with the Office of The Chief of Ordnance in Washington which 
had evidently failed to keep its Detroit offices fully informed 
regarding the progress of the experimentation. Finally, a 
delay had been caused by the failure on the part of Equipment 
Laboratory officials to familiarize themselves with the con- 
struction details of all amphibian trucks then in use by the 
Army, before beginning actual development work. 
Despite the above shortcomings, there was much to be 
added on the credit side of the ledger. While the initiation 
of Development Project. F-30 had not been carried out in com- 
plete conformance with the provisions 'of AR 850-25. consider- 
able coordination had nevertheless been accomplished outside 
the Medical Department Technical Committee. In the first 
place, the original initiation request had come to the Medical 
Department directly from the Requirements Division, Headquarters, 
Army Service Forces, which, in turn, had already cleared the 
proposal with the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-A. Furthermore, 
this last-named office had been in previous contact with the- 
Transportation Division of the Office of Scientific Research 
and Development, which had been (along with the Engineer 
Amphibian Command) largely instrumental in the development of 
the DUKW and was even then conducting preliminary experimental work aimed at adapting the amphibian truck to ambulance use. 
Finally, the initial project proposal had been carefully 
cleared through all interested agencies within The Surgeon 
General’s Office before formal establishment of the project 
was requested. 
As for other processing actions, all were carried out 
in strict accordance with Army Regulations, Both the formu- 
lation of military characteristics and the final processing 
of the item for standardization were cleared through the 
Medical Department Technical Committee and through all 
prescribed 'higher echelons of command. Moreover, at the 
specific request of the Medical Department and at the very 
outset of the project, a close working liaison was established 
with the Engineer Amphibian Command of Fort Edwards, Massa- 
chusetts. Through this joint arrangement, not only were test- 
ing activities completed in an unusually short period of time, 
but on-the-spot observation of these trials by an Equipment 
Laboratory representative led to an early discovery of the 
unsuspected .variation in truck coamings, and this, in turn, 
led to an earlier modification of the only major structural 
defect in the new litter stop. 
Finally, something should be said of the positive action 
taken by The Surgeon General’s Office as soon as it learned 
that standardization of the Carlisle model litter stop had 
been disapproved by the Tank-Automotive Center, Arrangements 
were immediately made for a conference to be held at Detroit 
between representatives of the Medical Department, Ordnance 
Department, and General Motors Corporation, By this action, 
agreement on a highly controversial issue was reached in a 
matter of days. In previous projects, months had often been 
required. Again, at the time of ,the suggested second modifi- 
cation of the amphibian litter stop, the presence of a Medi- 
cal Department representative at the Office of the Chief of 
Ordnance, Detroit, was a decided advantage. As a result of' 
this advance coordination, the proposed change in drawings 
was subsequently cleared through all necessary channels with 
a minimum of difficulty. 
As for the end-item itself, the amphibian lifter,stop 
appears to have satisfied the expectations of all concerned. 
The attachment has been listed by the Director of the Medical 
Department Equipment Laboratory and by the Director of the 
Technical Division of The Surgeon General’s Cfficc as one of 
the most successful litter adapters developed by the Medical 
Department during the World War II period;98 and it would 
appear, judging from the preceding account, that the new 
litter stop received the full approval of the Engineer 
Amphibian Command, Ordnance Department, and the prospective 
manufacturer, General Motors Corporation. FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IV, SECTION 3 
Medical Service in Joint Oversea Operations, 28 Mar, 
194-0, RESTRICTED. Extracted in clear. 
2 
Ibid., pp. 19-20. ! 
3 
Interview with Buell B. Whitehill, Jr,, 1st Lt,, M.A.G., 
Medical Historian, Central Pacific Area, 8 Apr. 194-6. 
4 
Memo, to CG, A.S.F, (Attention? Requirements Div,), fr, 
W.D.G.S., G-4, 31 Mar. 1943; subjects "Use of 2^-ton 
Amphibian as an Ambulance,” RESTRICTED (W.D.G.S, 3183, Office 
of G-4). Extracted in clear. 
5 
Memo, to T.S.G., fr. Dir,, Requirements Div,, A.S.F., 1 Apr. 
1943; subjects "Truck, 2-?;—Ton, 6x6, Amphibian for Water- 
borne Evacuation of Wounded" (Rec. Rm., S.G.C, 451.2-1 Car- 
lisle Bks.-N), 
6 
Draft copy of 1st Ind. to CG, Hq., A.S.F., fr. S.G.O., 8 
Apr. 1943; basics see n. $ (A.M.R. & D, Bd,). 
7 
Memo, to Gen. McAfee, Asst. Surg, Gen., fr, Eosp. & Evac, 
Div,, S.G.O., 9 Apr. 1943 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
8 
1st Ind. to CG, A.S.F., fr. S.G.C., 10 Apr. 1943; basics 
see n. 5 (Rec. Rm., S.G.C, 451.2-1 Carlisle Bks.-N), 
9 
2d. Ind. to T.S.G., fr. Dir,, Requirements Div,, A.S.F., 
15 Apr. 1943; basics see n. 5 (Rec. Rm., S.G.O. 451.2-1 
Carlisle Bks.-N), 
Ind, to M.D.E.L., fr, S.G.O., 22 Apr. 1943; basics see 
n. 5 (Rec. Rm., S.G.O. 451.2-1 Carlisle Bks.-N). 
11 
Min, of M.D.T.C., Meeting No, 7, 28 Jun. 1943, RESTRICTED, 
Extracted in clear. 
12 
Ibid.. 13 ’ * 
1st Ind, to T.S.G., fr, Chf., Development Br., Requirements 
Div., Hq,, A.S.F., 17 Apr. 19A3 (A.P.R.M.D. 33A.B Office of 
Research & Development Div,, A.S.F,); basic: Itr, to CG, 
A.S.F. (Attention: Requirements Div.), fr, W.D.G.S., G-A, 
1A Apr. 19A3| subject; "Use of the DUKW as an Ambulance,” 
RESTRICTED (W.D.G.S, 3361, Office of G-A). Extracted in clean. 
1A 
AR 850-2$. 23 Jul. 1936, This regulation was completely 
revised- on 30 Juno 19A3, but the role of the Technical Com- 
mittees remained essentially unchanged, 
15 
Military characteristics were not officially approved until 
18 Sep. 19A3. See 1st Ind, to T.S.G. (.attention; Research 
Coordination Br.), fr. Acting Dir., Requirements Div., Hq., 
A,S.F., 18 Sep. 19A3| basic; Itr. to CG, A.S.F. (Attention: 
Chf., Development Br., Requirements Div,), fr, Chf., 
Operations Service, S.G.C., 13 Sep. 19A3; subject; "Truck, 
2f-ton, 6x6, Amphibian, for Waterborne Evacuation of Hounded” 
(Rcc, Rm., S.G.O., A51.2). 
16_ 
See n, 1A. 
17 
Ltr. to W.D.G.S.,, fr. Office of Research & Development, . 
Washington, D.C., 12 Apr, 19A3 (M.D.E.L.). Note particularly 
the first paragraph which refers to previous conversations 
on the subject of converting the DUET to an amphibian 
ambulance, 
18 
Transmittal Sheet to Olin J, Stephens Ilx (Sparkman & Stephens, 
Boston, Mass.), fr. Dennis Fuleston, Amphibious Vehicle- Train- 
ing School,. Charleston, S.C., 5 Apr, 19A3 (Nat’l. Defense • 
Research Comm., Office of Scientific Research & Development). 
Incl, 1 to above communication, "Proposed Use of DUKWs in 
Evacuation of Casualties from Bridgehead to Ship's. Deck," A - 
Apr, 19A3, RESTRICTED (M.D.E.L.). Extracted in clear, 
• 19 • 
See n. 17. 
20 
Ltr. with Incls. to CG, A.S.F. (Attention; Requirements 
Div.), fr. W.D.G.S., G-A, 1A Apr. 19A3; subject; "Use of 
the DUKW as an Ambulance," RESTRICTED (W.D.G.S, 3361, Office 
of G-A). Extracted in clear. 
21 
1st Ind. to T.S.G., fr. Chf., Development Br,, Requirements 
Div., Hq,, A.S.F., 17 Apr, 19A3, RESTRICTED; basic; see n, 
20 (A.P.R.M.D. 33A.8 Hq., A.S.F.). Extracted in clear,. 22 
3rd Ind. with Incls. to M.D.E.L., fr. S.G.O., 22 Apr. 1943; 
basic: see n. 5 (M.D.E.L.), 
23 
Ltr, to Hist. Div,, S.G.O., fr, M.D.E.L., 13 Dec, 1945; 
subjects "Truck, 2-g- Ton, 6x6, .amphibian for Water Borne 
Evacuation of Wounded, Medical Department Equipment Labo- 
ratory Project F 30," Incl, 1 (Hist, Div., S.G.O.). 
24 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L.. 1-31 May 1943 (A.M.R, 
& D. Bd,), See, also, ltr. to S.G.O., fr. M.D.E.L., 14 Oct. 
1943; subject; "Truck 2-g- ton, 6x6, Amphibian for Waterborne 
Evacuation of Wounded" (M.D.E.L,), 
25 
Ibid, 
26 
Ibid. 
27 
For a brief discussion of the disadvantages of the clip or 
cap type of fastener, see 6th Ind. to CG, A.S.F. (Attention: 
Requirements Div.), fr. Operations Service, S.G.O., 19 Feb. 
1944; basic: ltr, to CG, A.S.F. (Attention: Chf., Develop- 
ment Br,, Requirements Div,), fr. Operations Service, S.G.O., 
27 Nov, 1943; subject: "Litter Stop Attachment for Truck, 
24*ton, 6x6, Amphibian (DUKW)" (Rec, Rm,, S.G.C. 451*2-1). 
28 
See n. 24. 
29 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L.. 1-31 May 1943 (A.M.R, 
& D, Bd.). 
30 
Ltr, to Engineering Amphibian Command, fr. M.D.E.L., 9 Jun. 
1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
31 
See n. 29. 
32 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L.. 1-30 Jun. 1943 (M.D.E.L,). 
33 
Ibid. 
34 
See Chapter IV, Sec. 1, this study, 
35 
Ltr, to Tank-Automotive Center, Detroit, Mich., fr. M.D.E.L,, 
ia T,,~ TO JO f T11T r» J? T \ 
289 36 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L., fr, British Joint Staff Mission, Offices 
of the Combined Chiefs of Staff, 4 Jun. 1943, CONFIDENTIAL 
(A.M.R. & D, Bd,). Extracted in clear, 
37 
Ltr, to Engineering Amphibian Command, Cp, Edwards, Mass., 
fr. M.D.E.L., 9 Jun. 1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
38 
Ltr. to M.D.E.L., fr. Engineering Amphibian Command, Cp. 
Edwards, Mass,, 5 Jul, 1943; subject; ’’Use of Amphibian, 
2-g- ton, 6x6, Trucks as Ambulances” (M.D.E.L.). 
39 
Ibid. 
40 
See n, 37. 
41 
See n, 38. 
42 
Ibid. 
43 
See n. 35. 
44 
1st Ind, to Hq., Engineering Amphibian Command, Camp Edwards, 
Mass., fr. M.D.E.L., 7 Jul. 1943; basics see n. 38 (M.D.E.L,), 
45 
2d Ind, to M.D.E.L., fr, Hq., Engineering Amphibian Command, 
Camp Edwards, Mass,, undated; basic; see n. 38 (M.D.E.L.). 
46 
1st Ind. to M.D.E.L., fr. Tank Automotive Center, Detroit,- 
Mich,, 21 Jul. 1943; basic; see n. 35 (M.D.E.L.). 
47 
Ltr, to Tank Automotive Center, Detroit, Mich,, fr, M.D.E.L., 
5 Aug. 1943; subject; ’’Amphibian Truck, 6x6, DUKE, 2-g- ton, 
GMC” (M.D.E.L.). .... 
48 
1st Ind, to M.D.E.L., fr. Tank Automotive Center, Detroit, 
Mich., 26 Aug. 1943; basic; see n. 47 (M.D.E.L,). 
49 ... 
Ltr. to Dir., M.D.E.L,, fr. S.G.O., 21 Sep. 1943; subject, 
"Truck, 2-jr-Ton, 6x6, Amphibian for Waterborne Evacuation of 
Wounded" (Rec, Rm., S.G.C. 451.2-1 Carlisle Barracks■ #). 
See incls. 50 
Ltr. to S.G.C., fr. M.D.E.L., 14 Oct. 1943; subject; "Truck, 
2-g- Ton, 6x6, Amphibian for Waterbourne Evacuation of Hounded" 
(A.M.R, & D. Bd.), 
51 
Ibid. 
52 
Ibid. 
53 
Ibid. The remarks which follow are drawn from this test 
report, 
54 
Supra., pp. 265-267. 
55 
See n, 50. 
56 
Ltr, to CG, A.S.F, (Att; Requirements Div.), fr. S.G.O,, 
23 Oct, 1943; subject: "Truck, 2“g--ton, 6x6, Amphibian, for 
Waterborne Evacuation of Wounded" (A.M.R. & D. Bd,), 
57 
§iiE£S*> pp. 262-26.4. 
58 
Ltr, to M.D.E.L., fr. i>.G.O., 2 Aug, 1943; subject; "Request 
for Military Characteristics" (A.M.R, & D. Bd.), 
59 
1st Ind, to T.S.G., fr. Reqts. Div,, Hqt, A.S.F,, 18 Sep, 
1943; basic; ltr, to CG, A.S.F, (Att; Chf,, Develop. Bf,, 
Reqts. Div,), fr, S.G.O,, 13 Sep, 1943; subject: "Truck, 
2-|-Ton, 6x6, Amphibian for Jatcrbcrne Evacuation of Wounded" 
(A.M.R. & D, Bd,), 
60 
See n, 58. 
61 
1st Ind, to T.S.G., fr. M.D.E.L., 7 Aug, 1943; basic: see 
n. 58 (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
62 , 
Ltr, to M.D.T.C., fr. Med, Dept, Tech. Subcomra,, 23 Aug, 1943; 
subject; "Truck, 2-g--Ton, 6x6, Amphibian for Waterborne of 
Wounded" (A.M.R, L D. Bd.). 
63 
Min, of M.D.T.C.. 6 Sep. 1943, RESTRICTED, pp. 7-8 (Hist. Div., 
S.G.O.). Extracted in clear. 
291 64 
Ltr. to CG, A.S.F, (Att: Chf,, Develop. Br., Reqts. Div.), 
fr, S.G.O., 13 Sop. 1943; subject: "Truck, 2^-Ton, 6x6, 
Araphibian for Waterborne Evacuation of Wounded" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
65 
See n. 59. 
66 
Homo, to Chf., Field Equip, Develop. Br., S.G.O., fr. Research 
Coord. Br,, Plans Div., S.G.O., 30 Sep. 1943; subject; "Truck, 
2^-Ton, 6x6,. Amphibian for Waterborne Evacuation of Wounded" 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
6v 
Memo. to CG, A.S.F, (Att: Reqts, Div.), fr. S.G.C., 23 Cct, 
1943; subject: "Truck, 2^--ton, 6x6, Amphibian, for Waterborne 
Evacuation of Wounded" (A.M.R. 8. D. Bd.), 
68 
1st Ind. to T.S.G, (Att; Research Coord, Br.), fr. Actg, Dir, 
Materiel, Hq,, A.S.F,, 28 Oct, 1943; basic: see n. 67 
(A.M.R. & D. Bd.), 
69 
Ltr. to M.D.T.C., fr. Med. Dept, Tech. Subcomm,, 6 Nov, 1943; 
subjects "Litter Stop Attachment for Truck, 2^7-Ton, 6x6, 
Araphibian (DUKW)" (A.M.R. & D. Bd.). 
70 • 
Memo, to Chairman, Ordnance Tech. Comm,, fr. S.G.O., 9 Nov, 
1943; RESTRICTED, subjects "Military Characteristics for 
Truck, 2-|--Ton, 6x6, Amphibian" (A.M.R. & D, Bd.). Extracted 
in clear. 
71 
1st Ind. to'S.G.O,, fr, M.D.E.L., 26 Nov, 1943; basics memo, 
to ’Dir., M.D.E.L., fr. S.G.O., 23 Nov, 1943; subject; "Request 
for Specifications, Drawings and Photographs, Truck, 2^-ten, 
6x6, Amphibian (DUKW)" (A.M.R. & D, Bd.), 
72 
Min, of M.D.T.C.. 22 Nov. 1943, RESTRICTED (Hist. Div., S.G.O.). 
Extracted in clear, 
73 
Ltr, to CG, A.S.F. (Att: Chf,, Develop, Br., Reqts. Div.), 
fr. S.G.O., 27 Nov, 1943; subject; "Litter Stop Attachment 
for Truck, 6x6, Amphibian (DUKW)" (Rec, Rm., S.G.O. 
451.2-1). 
74 
1st Ind. to Chf, Ordnance Dept, (iitt; Tech. Div,), 29 Nov, 
1943; basic: see n, 73 (Rec, Rm., S.G.O, 451.2-1), 75 
See n. 63. 
76 
See n, 72, 
77 ' 
2nd Ind, to Chf., Tank-Automotive Center, Detroit, Mich,, 
fr. Transport Develop. Liaison Br., Ordnance Dept,, 3 Dec. 
1943; basic: see n. 73 (Roc. Rm., S.G.O. 451.2-1), 
78 
1st Ind. to Chf,, Ordnance Dept,, Wash. D.C., fr. Tank- 
Automotive Center, Detroit, Mich,, 6 Dec. 1943; basic: Itr. 
to Tank-Automotive Center, Detroit, Mich., fr. Off. Chf. of 
Ordnance, Wash., D.C., 27 Nov. 1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
79 
2nd Ind, to Tank-Automotive Center, Detroit, Mich,, fr. Chf,, 
Ordnance Dept,, Wash., D.C., undated; basic: Itr. to Tank- 
Automotive Center, Detroit, Mich,, fr. Off, Chf, of Ordnance, 
Wash., D.C., 27 Nov. 1943 (M.D.E.L.). 
80 
3rd Ind, to Office, Chf. of Ordnance, Wash,, D.C., fr, Tank- 
Automotive Center, Detroit, Mich,, 21 Dec. 1943; basic: see 
n, 73 (Rec, Rm,, S.G.O, 451.2-1). The discussion Which 
follows is taken from this document.- 
81 
Ibid, 
82 
TWX to Off. of Dep, Chf. of Ordnance, Detroit, Mich,, fr. 
Plans Div,, S.G.O., 21 Jan, 1944 (A.M.R, & D, Bd,). 
83 
6th Ind. to CG, A.S.F. (Att; Reqts, Div,), fr. Operations 
Serv., S.G.O,, 19 Feb, 1944; basic: see n. 73 (Rec, Rm., 
S.G.O. 451.2-1). 
Monthly Narrative Report. M.D.E.L,. 1 Jan, 1944 “ 31 Jan. 1944 
(M.D.E.L,). The discussion which follows is drawn largely from 
these two documents. 
84 
Supra.. p. 281, 
85 ' 
6th Ind, to CG, A.S.F,(Att; Reqts. Div,), fr. Operations 
Serv,, S.G.O,, 19 Feb. 1944; basic: see n. 73 (Rec. Rm., 
S.G.O. 451.2-1). 
86 * , 
7th Ind. to Ordnance Dept,, Wash,, D.C., fr* CG, A.S.G., 
23 Feb, 1944; basic: see n. 73 (Rec. Rm., S.G.O. 451.2-l)% Memo, to Off., Chf, of Ordnance, Wash., ffc,} fr. Off., Chf, 
of Ordnance, Detroit, Mich., 17 Deb. 194-4; subjects "Litter 
Stop Assembly on 2jr Ten, 6x6 Amphibian" (Rec. Rra,, S.G.O, 
451.2- 
88 
Sec n. 73. 
89„ ** 
occ n, 85. 
9CR 
doc n. 87, 
91 
3d Ind. to CG, A.S.E, (Att: Reqts Div,), fr, Chf,, Operations 
Serv,, S.G.O,, 11 March 1944; basic: see n. 87 (Rec. Rm,, 
S.G.O. 451=2-1). 
92 
Ltr. to T.S.G,, fr. M.D.E.L., 16 Mar, 1944 (Rec. Rm., S.G.O. 
451.2- Carlisle Barracks-N), 
93 
Ibid* 
94 
Memo, to Off,, Chf. of Ordnance, Detroit, Mich,, fr. Operations 
Serv,, S.G.O,, 22 Apr, 1944; subject: "Litter Stop, Amphibian, 
Truck, 2’jp-ton, DUKW" (Rec. Rm., S.G.O. 451.2-1). 
95 
1st Ind. (Memo) to S.G.O., fr. Off,, Chf, of Ordnance, Detroit, 
Mich., 17 May 1944; basic*, see n. 94 (A.M.R. & D, Bd,), 
96 
The subjects of procurement and distribution are not discussed 
in this study, as these phases were handled by Ordnance Depart- 
ment as part of its Amphibian Truck program, 
97 
Development Project, F-28, "Litter, Ski," and Development 
Project. F-29. "Ambulance, Snow and Ice," 
9B 
See consolidated list of selected projects, prepared after 
individual interview with Colonel E.D. Quinnell, Dir,, M.D.E.L, 
and Lt, Col. John B, Klopp, Dir,, Tech, Div,, S.G.O, 
(Hist, Div,, S.G.O.), HANDBARROW FIG. 2. —SaTTEULKE or Regulation hand litter. Fig. 3 —Halstead’s litter.