[Mike Cecil]

I wrote an article for the MVPA "Army Motors" in 2010. This is the text and image captions, though I daresay it could do with some updating by now:

Title: Australia’s Mechanical Mules


Subtitle: The M274’s Short Time in the Australian Army


By Mike Cecil



The Australian Army first became interested in the M274 Mechanical Mule in the late 1950s as a possible replacement for a proportion of the ¼ ton 4x4 vehicles then in service. At that time, the new replacement for the Second World War vintage ‘Trucks, ¼ ton, 4x4, GS (USA)’ - the jeep – was all but decided. The Land Rover Series 2 was to be the new vehicle, with quantity acquisition commencing in 1959.

In parallel, Army began looking at a possible alternative for some limited applications, mainly as a forward area load carrier in infantry units and the Special Air Service Company. The M274 ‘Mechanical Mule’ seemed to be ideal for the purpose, and four were acquired from the US Army for trials. These were manufactured by Willys Overland in 1957, and were listed on the Australian Army’s vehicle register as ‘Carrier, Light Weight, Infantry Weapons’. The Australian registrations are shown in Table 1. The more formal nomenclature applied in Australia was the ‘Truck, Platform, Utility ½ ton, GS, M274 Mechanical Mule’. It was assigned the Census Code 6008.

In December 1959, soon after the arrival of the four Mules, a trials directive was issued. Two different series of trials were to be undertaken. Automotive trials by the Army Design Establishment (ADE) and infantry user trials by both the Jungle Training Centre (JTC) and the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment (2RAR). No endurance trials were required, partly because the results from US trials were available, but mainly because no replacement parts had been acquired.

The ADE trials commenced in February 1960, and were concluded in June. All the trials undertaken by ADE were on the basis of the M274 compared to the new ¼ ton Land Rover Series 2. There were four main phases. The first was a straight comparison between the physical characteristics of each vehicle, such as dimensions, weight and so on. The second was a series of automotive performance trials at the Trial and Proving Wing at Monegeetta, including acceleration, braking, climbing ability on slopes, fuel consumption, and so on. One of the more bizarre tests in this series was to test the ‘towability’ of the Mule over rough terrain when used like a trailer. It was hooked to a Land Rover in the first instance, and a 2-1/2 ton GS truck in the second. The conclusion was that it was possible to tow a Mule over rough terrain at 10 to 15 mph, and ‘…. on bitumen roads at 50 mph providing the road is smooth and free from bumps. Maximum towing speed is restricted to the amount of Mule ‘bounce’ experienced. This could be excessive and dangerous at high speed on rough ground.’ Having driven a Mule at very moderate speed along a reasonably smooth gravel road, this seems something of an understatement! Not surprisingly, the overall conclusion drawn from this phase of the trials was that ‘ …the automotive performance (of the M274) is satisfactory, though not up to the standard of the Land Rover in speed, acceleration, fuel consumption and range.’

The third phase of the ADE trials was held in sandy terrain near Cranbourne, Victoria. Here, the Land Rover with a ½ ton trailer and the M274 were driven over five different sandy courses, each with a different slope ranging from 12 degrees to 22 degrees. Both vehicles were laden with similar loads of around 1,000 lbs. The Land Rover was able to negotiate short, steep slopes by virtue of its speed and momentum which overcame the loss of traction that occurred when driven over the same course at low speeds. From a standing start at the foot of the slope, however, the M274 was able to reach further up the slopes than the Land Rover.

The fourth phase of the ADE trials were held on the tidal mud flats at Lang Lang, at the head of Western Port Bay. The aim of the trial was to drive each vehicle repeatedly along a short track until each became bogged. The Land Rover, both with and without a trailer, and with and without chains, eventually succumbed to the mud and became bogged. The M274, on the other hand, completed a considerable number of circuits without showing any signs of stopping. The M274 outperformed the Land Rover in the muddy conditions in all except the last course, which required each vehicle to enter a saturated area to see how far they could traverse before becoming bogged. Here, the higher approach speed of the Land Rover was able to carry it further across the mudflat than the slower M274, in much the same way as it had conquered the short, steep sand slopes at Cranbourne.

The ADE trails came to the conclusion that the M274 offered some distinct advantages over the Land Rover in some military applications. Its light weight allowed for easier recovery by manpower without recourse to
assistance from other vehicles or hand winches, and its low silhouette afforded distinct tactical advantages in forward areas. It also required less maintenance with fewer tools, and consumed a lesser number of spare parts: no doubt the accountants thought the latter a significant factor. The most significant conclusion was that the M274 offered advantages when operating in rough terrain where speeds were restricted. In such conditions, the M274 out-performed the Land Rover by a wide margin.

In parallel with the ADE trials were the user trials conducted by JTC and 2RAR. These sought to answer a series of questions posed by Army Headquarters. Several of the questions are interesting. What is the performance of the M274 at night? The answer, which seems elementary, was that mobility rested only on the degree of illumination available. The question as to how easy was it to transport a number of Mules in the back of a 2 ½ ton GS truck provided interesting answers. JTC stated that six men could easily load and secure 3 Mules onto the cargo bed of a GS truck using nothing more than a bank or ditch to assist with loading. The 2RAR answer was a little more ambitious. They claimed that six Mules could be loaded in the back of a GMC CCKW353: three loaded crosswise on the cargo bed, and three more perched on top of these ‘..preferably with wheels removed. Only the top three Mules require lashing’. One has to wonder if the unlashed load would still be there after a few miles of rough roads.

The overall conclusion from the user trials was that the M274 would make an ideal load carrying vehicle in forward areas and in rough terrain. It was particularly well suited to carrying mortars and medium machine guns, ammunition and defence stores. It could also be adapted for line-laying and carrying the tools of an Assault Pioneer Section. Given this versatility, it could replace a small number of Land Rovers in some units. However, the user trails also concluded that the driving characteristics of the Mule required special training. In short, ‘… experience in handling the Mule is required by drivers if a satisfactory level of performance is to be obtained from it. Cross country operation should not be attempted until drivers are fully proficient in walking the Mule and in four wheel steering.’ Indeed, the Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Instruction for the M274 includes a special note that the use of four wheel steering is dangerous above walking pace.

These were apparently prophetic words. Hearsay reports indicate that a soldier was badly injured some time after the trials were concluded, and that this in part helped decide against the introduction of the type into Australian service. Just how much a single accident influenced the final decision is not known. However, in an Army that was trying to introduce a variety of new equipment on a tight budget, the introduction of yet another vehicle type, with all the added requirements in training and logistics, but without providing a great advantage over current in-service types, was probably the principal deciding factor.

The Mules were eventually written off and disposed of by auction. One example surfaced in the hands of a collector in the late 1980s, and the author had the opportunity to ‘take it for a spin’. My inexperience coupled with the over-confidence of youth (this is 22 years ago, after all!) taught me that the M274 Mechanical Mule is to be treated with great respect and not be trifled with. The warnings about the handling characteristics are real. Having ‘launched’ off a cattle grid on the gravel driveway at far too high a speed, I very nearly came to grief when the front left tire took the brunt of the fall back to earth. After a wobbling ride for the next several yards, I managed to bring the little brute back into some semblance of control and come to a stop, all the wiser for the experience! I quickly came to the conclusion that driving the Mule safely takes practice and patience.

The surviving Mule has, fortunately, found its way into the public display of the Army Museum at Bandiana, Victoria, and can be seen there, complete with simulated load, whenever the museum is open.


Table 1: Australian Army Registrations of M274 Mechanical Mules

Australian Registration Chassis No. Engine No. US Army No.
107069 M274-11510 1M11079 Nk
107070 M274-11503 1M11708 Nk
107071 M274-11501 1M11681 2B-4481
107072 M274-11505 1M11701 Nk







Image Captions:

Image 1: The M274 Mechanical Mule in comparison to the ¼ ton short wheel base Land Rover. The trials were based on a comparison of their performance over various types of terrain. The Mule’s Australian Army registration plate ‘107071’ can be clearly seen.

Image 2: Climbing a 26 degree sand slope near Cranbourne with a load of ammunition boxes. The Mule started spinning its wheels before reaching the top, but still out-performed the Land Rover in most instances.

Image 3: The M274s performance on the Lang Lang mud flats was outstanding. It bogged only on the traverse across a patch of well saturated mud.

Image 4: Climbing a steep grassy slope at the Trial and Proving Wing at Monegeetta. Grades up to 1 in 2 (22.5 degrees) were negotiated with ease, with the Mule able to stop, hold in position, and then continue to climb.

Image 5 and 6: A well-laden Mule during user trials, possibly at JTC.

Image 7: The author ‘overextending’ in the late 1980s. The front left tire is taking the brunt of the load after crossing the cattle grid at far too high a speed. The Mule, when treated with respect, was an interesting and exciting vehicle to drive.