hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry Bloomberg) (07/03/90)
From: hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry Bloomberg) I finally joined the cable TV generation last week and stumbled accross a show on the A&E network called "Crusade in Europe". This is a long series based upon Gen. Eisenhower's memoirs of WWII. This particular episode described the invasion of Germany and the crossing of the Rhine River. The footage that really caught my attention depicted the dropping of paratroopers, both by towed glider and directly out of aircraft. Some questions: 1) What are the trade-offs one must concider when deciding how to deliver paratroopers to the target area? When do you want to use gliders and when do you want your paratroopers to jump directly out of aircraft? 2) Does the US still use gliders? If we no longer use them, when did we abondon them? In my years in the defense industry, and as an avid reader of Aviation Week, I can't remember hearing about paratrooper gliders, so I suspect they're no longer in service. 3) Are gliders currently used by anyone else? 4) How many men could be carried by a glider, how large were they, what was the range, how well did they work, etc? Much thanks, Harry Bloomberg hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu
jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) (07/05/90)
From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) >From: hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry Bloomberg) > > This particular episode described the invasion of Germany and the >crossing of the Rhine River. The footage that really caught my >attention depicted the dropping of paratroopers, both by towed glider >and directly out of aircraft. > > Some questions: > > 1) What are the trade-offs one must concider when deciding how to >deliver paratroopers to the target area? When do you want >to use gliders and when do you want your paratroopers to jump directly >out of aircraft? Gliders are no longer used in the U.S. Army (or any other army to my knowledge), and one would have to be an historian to know the specific set of considerations used by WWII planners when deciding whether to use gliders versus paratroopers. I'm no historian, but I can shed a little light on the topic, based on _Paratrooper_, by Gerard M. Devlin (New York: St Martin's, 1979). MG William Lee (the "father of American airborne troops", the guy who first bought off on the concept of gliders) was attracted to gliders because of their ability to carry heavier loads (arty guns, jeeps, etc) and reinforcement troops and supplies while being cheap enough to be expended as one-shot delivery systems (unlike motorized aircraft). They were designed for landings on unimproved clearings (many even landed successfully in swamps during the Normandy invasion!), places no pilot in his right mind would try to land a plane (at least, not if he wanted to get it off the ground again). Paratroopers are used for forced entry operations, or "vertical envelopments." Gliders, even less safe than parachutes in this role, were relegated to the resupply and reinforcement tasks just mentioned. Doesn't answer your question, but I hope it helps. > 2) Does the US still use gliders? If we no longer use them, when did >we abondon them? In my years in the defense industry, and as an avid >reader of Aviation Week, I can't remember hearing about paratrooper >gliders, so I suspect they're no longer in service. I don't know when we abandoned them, but by the end of WWII, we had built 13,000 of the buggers! It's possible some were kept until and used during Korea. They were definitely out of active army service by Vietnam. > 3) Are gliders currently used by anyone else? Don't know. Not to my knowledge. > 4) How many men could be carried by a glider, how large were they, >what was the range, how well did they work, etc? The gliders used in WWII were just a bit smaller than the C-47s (and later, C-46s) that towed them: the motorless Waco CG-4A glider had a wingspanw3 of 84 feet and an overall length of 49 feet. Load capacity was 3,750 pounds, meaning it could carry two pilots and 13 combat-equipped soldiers. The glider had a hinged nose (opened like a C-5As nose does) to allow loading of small vehicles, arty pieces and other oversized equipment. According to Devlin, a typical mixed load was six men and a jeep. I couldn't find a glide ratio for the CG-4A, but it must have been pretty poor, given its dimensions, shape and load. Effectively, its range was the range of the C-47/C-46 towing it plus 10-30 miles (depending on altitude at release, air conditions and unknown glide ratio). It (and the glider regiment troops that used it) were apparantly very effective at the job they were assigned during WWII. Sorry I can't be more definitive on some of the questions. Hope this helps! John Pulliam
nulspace@eng.umd.edu (Michael Chang) (07/05/90)
From: nulspace@eng.umd.edu (Michael Chang) > 1) What are the trade-offs one must concider when deciding how to >deliver paratroopers to the target area? When do you want >to use gliders and when do you want your paratroopers to jump directly >out of aircraft? Gliders allow you to bring in heavy equipment, such as small vehicles and artillery pieces. Try to attach a parachute to a 105mm howitzer sometime... They are also more accurate when delivering troops, compared to paratroops; there can be alot of scattering if there is a lot of wind. A drawback with gliders [from a civvie point of view] is that if you crash, everyone is basically toasted. With paratroops, you are scattered about so it would be a smaller target to hit. Anyways, gliders need more room to land, otherwise see sentence above about crashing. Paratroops are much more flexible in that they can drop in rough terrain and such where there would be no space for a glider to land in.
Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) (07/05/90)
From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson)
If memory serves, the US stopped using gliders after WWII,
because of their extreme vulnerablility and difficulty of logistical
support (you have to ha not only risk the glider to AA fire, but the
tow aircraft also). I don't think anybody else uses them anyymore,
either, but I am not sure.
The tradeoffs of paratrooper ops is vulnerability . A
paratrooper, hanging from a parachute for several minutes, is
possibly the easiest target in the military world (except for
grounded airplanes, maybe). Until he gets clear of that parachute,
he is a target, not a soldier
. THat was the reason for the developement of gliders. Paratroop ops
had such a high potential for casuualties that it was thought that
it would be better to put them all in a ctransport that could land
and then be discarded. The transport could manuveer (sp?) and
(hopefully) avoid AA, and large numbers of troops could be landed in
one spot safely. In execution, however, the gliders were bears to
handle, the pilots that flew them were poorly trained, and they were
almost as easy a target as the parachute.
Today most paratroop ops are conducted from hhelicopter. The
troops are kept low, out of AA and missle fire, in a h (relatively)
fast, manuverable craft. They repel off the helicopter and are on
the ground and ready to fight in a few seconds.
The largest a glider ever got was a Messcherschmidt (sp?)
type. It was larger than a C-47, and required either two Me-110's or
its own special-designed towinng aircraft.
[mod.note: That's "Messerschmitt", and the gliders was the Me 321
"Gigant." - Bill ]
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N.W. Arkansas' UUCP to FidoNet Connection. If you are interested in connecting
up Contact Kenneth Whelan. Addresses postmaster@palace or at 1:391/9(Fido)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (07/06/90)
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) A long long time ago (in a galaxy far far away...) I read a book on the DC-3/C-47, which mentioned that some C-47 fuselages were equipped as gliders. Basically Douglas left the engines out and capped off the nacelles. One of these could be towed by a standard C-47. Perhaps a few of these were used on D-Day, or shortly afterwards. The book gave the impression that those involved eventually concluded the fuselages were better employed by putting the engines in.
jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) (07/06/90)
From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) >From: nulspace@eng.umd.edu (Michael Chang) >Gliders allow you to bring in heavy equipment, such as small vehicles and >artillery pieces. Try to attach a parachute to a 105mm howitzer sometime... I don't want to nit-pick, because your basic argument is right on the money: but I don't think the U.S. Army's WWII gliders would have been capable of carrying a 105mm how, either. Smaller tubes, yes, but the 105 is a bit large... (anyone know for sure?). By the way (you may already know this), there is no problem "these days" with strapping parachutes on 105mm's; it is done all the time. In fact, there are even larger loads that can come down by parachute, like pans (earthmoving scrapers; the really low-slung tractors that look like they have a square earth-holding pan right in the center) and tanks (Shermans). I don't want this to take anything from the rest of your posting, Michael: you brought out some really good points!
jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) (07/06/90)
From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) >From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) > > If memory serves, the US stopped using gliders after WWII, >because of their extreme vulnerablility and difficulty of logistical >support (you have to ha not only risk the glider to AA fire, but the >tow aircraft also). I don't think anybody else uses them anyymore, >either, but I am not sure. I agree so far. > The tradeoffs of paratrooper ops is vulnerability . A >paratrooper, hanging from a parachute for several minutes, is >possibly the easiest target in the military world (except for >grounded airplanes, maybe). Until he gets clear of that parachute, >he is a target, not a soldier. I still agree, at least with all after the first sentence. >That was the reason for the developement of gliders. Paratroop ops >had such a high potential for casuualties that it was thought that >it would be better to put them all in a ctransport that could land >and then be discarded. The transport could manuveer (sp?) and Nope, not according to my source (Devlin's _Paratroopers_). What source did you get this info from? >(hopefully) avoid AA, and large numbers of troops could be landed in >one spot safely. In execution, however, the gliders were bears to >handle, the pilots that flew them were poorly trained, and they were >almost as easy a target as the parachute. If I were a glider pilot, I'd be insulted. Everything I've seen, heard and read about the glider pilot program and the troops who graduated from it has been very complementary. Again, I'd double-check my source... > Today most paratroop ops are conducted from hhelicopter. The >troops are kept low, out of AA and missle fire, in a h (relatively) >fast, manuverable craft. They repel off the helicopter and are on >the ground and ready to fight in a few seconds. If you mean specifically in the U.S. Army, and you mean "51% or more" when you say "most", I'm not sure I'd disagree with you. There is one Airborne division (whose troops are paratroops) in the U.S. Army, the 82nd. There is also one Airborne (Air Assault) division (troops not on jump status), the 101st. There are also a large number of soldiers in other units who use air assault techniques, so I won't disagree with you. But if you mean "almost all" by "most", I disagree strongly. Airborne troops (XVIII Airborne Corps, which has corps support units from 16th MP Bde and 20th Engr Bde to COSCOM, as well as the 82nd, on jump status; and Special Operations Command with 4 SF groups as well as Civil Affairs and Psyop units) are pretty widespread. In addition, every light (or light and heavy?) division now has a platoon of troops on jump status in a rebirth of the old long range recon patrol mission (can't remember the name of these new platoons, but they're a division asset, controlled by the G-2). I'm sorry that I don't have exact figures, but I'd guess the percentage of airborne soldiers in the U.S. Army at between 5% and 10%. By the way, it is much more common for air assault troops to dismount from an aircraft than to rappel out of it. There are situations when the bird can't touch down to unload; but when it can, it is actually faster and safer to do so than to throw out the ropes.
bateskm@clutx.clarkson.edu (Gargoyle,207VanNote,2652180,2683942) (07/06/90)
From: "Gargoyle,207VanNote,2652180,2683942" <bateskm@clutx.clarkson.edu> > The tradeoffs of paratrooper ops is vulnerability . A > paratrooper, hanging from a parachute for several minutes, is > possibly the easiest target in the military world (except for > grounded airplanes, maybe). Until he gets clear of that parachute, > he is a target, not a soldier > .. THat was the reason for the developement of gliders. Paratroop ops > had such a high potential for casuualties that it was thought that > it would be better to put them all in a ctransport that could land > and then be discarded. The transport could manuveer (sp?) and > (hopefully) avoid AA, and large numbers of troops could be landed in > one spot safely. In execution, however, the gliders were bears to > handle, the pilots that flew them were poorly trained, and they were > almost as easy a target as the parachute. > Today most paratroop ops are conducted from hhelicopter. The > troops are kept low, out of AA and missle fire, in a h (relatively) > fast, manuverable craft. They repel off the helicopter and are on > the ground and ready to fight in a few seconds. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Modern airborne operations (parachute insertions) in the US Army are conducted mainly from C-130 and C-141 aircraft flying at low alt- itudes. The standard training jump at Airborne School is from 1250 feet at 125 knots. The standard delivery in training is ten soldiers per door (one on each side of the aircraft) in the DZ (which is 900 x 2100 m, roughly). This is a one second deployment lag between jumpers with one door proceeding only after the other one has been dropped. From a height of 1250 feet the approximate time spent aloft is 50 secs. Combat jumps and jumps from airborne units are done at much lower altitudes (either 850 or 500 feet) with a correspondingly shorter time aloft. For a real combat drop into a hot DZ, the time aloft per soldier would be only about 20 seconds. This is a long time while you're being shot at on the ground, but dropping you onto an enemy position that expected you in daylight or in conditions favorable to the enemy is not done. (well, its not supposed to be...) It is also more difficult than one might realize to hit a target in the air moving at twenty feet per second vertically. There are no markers in the air with which to accur- ately judge distance as there are in the ground, and most shots over 100 m would become _very_ difficult. I feel more secure in the air than on the ground. Of course, heavy AA fire on a parachute force would be devastating. It would probably be better to drop the force a few miles away and let them hump to the objective than fly a slow, low, huge bird like the Starlifter into an enemy-controlled zone (one of the reasons Air Assault operations were begun...). Casualties from airborne operations are also much lower than openly thought. Yeah, there are casualties and equip- ment malfunctions, but the current safety rate is something over 99%. That one percent of casualties is almost entirely broken bones from poor landings (feet apart, knee landings, missed points of contact). Helicopter assault operations are taught by the Air Assault school. There are advantages (direct placement of troops, speedier insertions, and ability to go places where parachutes couldn't) but the mass inser- tion of thousands of troops is not possible, either. We rappel (abseil in the rest of the world) out from treetop level and continue with our air assault mission. Air assault is not paratroop operations. Gargoyle Airborne Air Assault trooper US Army
root@.UUCP (rb duc) (07/08/90)
From: root@.UUCP (rb duc)
In article <1990Jul5.020552.14422@cbnews.att.com> Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) writes:
-> The largest a glider ever got was a Messcherschmidt (sp?)
->type. It was larger than a C-47, and required either two Me-110's or
->its own special-designed towinng aircraft.
->
->[mod.note: That's "Messerschmitt", and the gliders was the Me 321
->"Gigant." - Bill ]
==========================
They eventually put motors on the Gigant and, I think, used JATOs to get
them in the air. I've seen some WWII footage of Allied fighters splashing
them in the Med. The German pilots must have felt hopeless in the extreme
when they were spotted - like flying an underpowered barn. They were trying
to fly supplies to Africa.
--
\\\
- - Richard Ducoty ..uunet!grumbly!root
_] Capitola, California root@grumbly.comnulspace@eng.umd.edu (Michael Chang) (07/08/90)
From: nulspace@eng.umd.edu (Michael Chang) >I don't want to nit-pick, because your basic argument is right on the >money: but I don't think the U.S. Army's WWII gliders would have been >capable of carrying a 105mm how, either. Smaller tubes, yes, but the >105 is a bit large... (anyone know for sure?). I'm not too sure about the 105mm in particular [never actually seen one] but the point is, heavy-duty arty can be brought in. Anyone know anything about mortars specially designed for airborne use? I know the British had some 2" mortars for airborne troops, not too sure whether the U.S. had any. >By the way (you may already know this), there is no problem "these >days" with strapping parachutes on 105mm's; it is done all the time. [...] >and tanks (Shermans). I know that it can be done, but I don't understand how it is done... Such as having something fly around with a tank in it/underneath it. Unless they are light models (BMPs come to mind)
terryy@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Terry Yeung) (07/08/90)
From: terryy@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Terry Yeung) In article <1990Jul6.032802.27798@cbnews.att.com> jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.! > > >From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) >>From: nulspace@eng.umd.edu (Michael Chang) >>Gliders allow you to bring in heavy equipment, such as small vehicles and >>artillery pieces. Try to attach a parachute to a 105mm howitzer sometime... > >I don't want to nit-pick, because your basic argument is right on the >money: but I don't think the U.S. Army's WWII gliders would have been >capable of carrying a 105mm how, either. Smaller tubes, yes, but the >105 is a bit large... (anyone know for sure?). Yes, you're right. The artillery pieces carried in the gliders were 75mm guns. I don't believe they ever carried 105mm in their gliders. > >By the way (you may already know this), there is no problem "these >days" with strapping parachutes on 105mm's; it is done all the time. >In fact, there are even larger loads that can come down by parachute, >like pans (earthmoving scrapers; the really low-slung tractors that >look like they have a square earth-holding pan right in the center) >and tanks (Shermans). > As a matter of fact some of the 75mm guns used by the airborne troops can be broken down into several smaller components. These pieces would be dropped with the troops who would assemble them later on the ground. Only problem was they sometimes lost pieces which might have fallen into a river or someplace where they can't extract it. There was a lot of problems with cargo dropped into the marshes on the D-Day assault. [mod.note: These were known as Pack Howitzers. Most nations had similar designs, as they were also quite useful for mountain troops. - Bill ] Terry Yeung terryy@ocf.berkeley.edu
woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) (07/08/90)
From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) In article <1990Jul6.032802.27798@cbnews.att.com> jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) writes: >I don't want to nit-pick, because your basic argument is right on the >money: but I don't think the U.S. Army's WWII gliders would have been >capable of carrying a 105mm how, either. Smaller tubes, yes, but the >105 is a bit large... (anyone know for sure?). > 75mm pack howitzers... *QUITE* a bit smaller than the '05s. also, 75mm recoiless rifles may be manpacked. if you need heavier firepower, i believe 4.2 inch mortars are still TOE. at least they were in '72 :-). >By the way (you may already know this), there is no problem "these >days" with strapping parachutes on 105mm's; it is done all the time. >In fact, there are even larger loads that can come down by parachute, >like pans (earthmoving scrapers; the really low-slung tractors that >look like they have a square earth-holding pan right in the center) >and tanks (Shermans). i've seen SHERIDANs LAPSED in... i've also seen GAMMA GOATS, JEEPS, and 105's dropped from C-130's and -141's. the c-47 didn't have this capability as it was extremely hard to get them through the door. this also provided a use for the gliders, as has been mentioned by damn near everybody. /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
zonker@ihlpf.att.com (Thomas M Harris) (07/08/90)
From: zonker@ihlpf.att.com (Thomas M Harris)
In reference to gliders. During WWII due to the relatively primitive nature
of transport aircraft (at least as far as using them for parachute
operations) the glider was the best alternative for delivery of the heavy
equipement needed by the airborne forces. Nobody on the allied side seems
to think it was a particularly good way to do things, especially
by the end of the war, but it was the best way at the time. Gliders
require too much open, level, hard ground, they are fairly easy to defend
against i.e. obstacles, and as such they tended to restrict the location
for airborne operations. Gliders are one of the reasons the British First
Airborne Division gets so badly chopped up. They have to drop six miles to
the North of Arnhem to protect the only suitable glider landing zones. If
they had been all parachute they could have dropped south of the bridge and
been in a much better position to hold the bridge and support XXX corps
advance. Instead they are almost cutoff and wiped out. The glider disappears
after WWII as military air transports are developed with parachute operations
in mind (i.e. back loading ramps so large equipment can be parachuted) and as
helicopters become available which can do the same job. I don't think that
in the time frame available in WWII after D-Day there is enough time to
develop an alternative and frankly the gliders did the job.
The Central Illinois Tabletop Warriors are currently working on a replay
of operation Market-Garden and as part of the judging team I have been
doing a fair amount of research in allied airborne OBs. All three U.S. Airborne
divisions had a glider infantry regiment. (The 82nd's was the 325th and the 101's
was the 327th and don't know the last one's probably the 326th). I don't know much
about the third U.S. airborne division except that the 507th parachute regiment was
attached to the 82nd for D-Day as the rest of the division wasn't ready yet
and it was gone for Market Garden as the Division was in England, but not
yet combat ready. Most of each U.S. division's artillery regiment was also
glider borne (two battalions 75mm guns and 1 battalion of 105mm), but each
also had one parachute artillery battalion (75mm guns were dropped
un-assembled from the side doors of the transports). Note: the
U.S. airborne artillery used pack 75mm and pack 105mm howitzers which had
special carriage and could be broken down into small loads (the guns were
also used by mountain troops such as the 10th division). The British
Divisions were set up similarly as far as glider troops went i.e. one
regiment, but all their artillery was glider born. The British
generally were much more enthusiastic about gliders until Arnhem.
Also developed at the end of the war was a glider borne tank the
Locust. It was dropped using the large British Waco glider. It saw action with
the British in the Ruhr operation.
Non Cuniculus Est,
Tom Harris
[mod.note: Chamberlain and Ellis, in _Tanks of the World, 1915-45_,
claim that the Locusts were delivered in Hamilcar gliders. Britain had
their own airborne tank, the Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch, also carried
by Hamilcars; these were used at Normandy and in the Ruhr operation.
Twenty were also sent to the USSR via Iran. - Bill ]woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) (07/08/90)
From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) In article <1990Jul6.032827.27916@cbnews.att.com> bateskm@clutx.clarkson.edu (Gargoyle,207VanNote,2652180,2683942) writes: > m would become _very_ difficult. I feel more secure in the air than on > the ground. hear, hear! but on the ground we can always find nice holes to crawl into! > much lower than openly thought. Yeah, there are casualties and equip- > ment malfunctions, but the current safety rate is something over 99%. > That one percent of casualties is almost entirely broken bones from poor > landings (feet apart, knee landings, missed points of contact). this is only true of *training* operations. read "A Bridge Too Far" and see waht happened to the Brits at Arnhem. The 173rd also made a drop in VietNam. see if you can find anything on that operation. dropping out of a perfectly good aircraft that's going to land anyway is *statistically* safer than driving a car. but, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics. in combat operations i used to hear a figure of merit of about 70% casualties. Remember, you have to count casualties from the time of insertion until the troopers are relieved. *THAT* is an airborne operation, not just the delivery. > Helicopter assault operations are taught by the Air Assault school. > There are advantages (direct placement of troops, speedier insertions, > and ability to go places where parachutes couldn't) but the mass inser- > tion of thousands of troops is not possible, either. We rappel (abseil > in the rest of the world) out from treetop level and continue with our > air assault mission. Air assault is not paratroop operations. > Gargoyle Airborne Air Assault trooper > US Army and disadvantages, everybody and his dog from the base camp to the insertion point know you're there. in HALO you can't see or hear the bird. on a hop-n-pop the aircraft is going NOE and *shouldn't* been seen on radar until the drop. the longer time on station or in transit allows the aircraft to use deceptive approaches to mislead observers. do you still wear *baby-blue berets* <snicker-snicker>? /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) (07/09/90)
From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) >From: nulspace@eng.umd.edu (Michael Chang) >>By the way (you may already know this), there is no problem "these >>days" with strapping parachutes on 105mm's; it is done all the time. >[...] >>and tanks (Shermans). >I know that it can be done, but I don't understand how it is done... >Such as having something fly around with a tank in it/underneath it. >Unless they are light models (BMPs come to mind) The tank rides inside the bird (C-130, C-141). Your intuition is correct; the Sherman is a light tank (because it was designed and built before the modern 60- and 70-ton monsters were conceived). [mod.note: Granted the Sherman is relatively light when compared to the Abrams and other modern MBT's, but it's still not a Light Tank by any standards. It weighs about twice what an M-551 Sheridan does, and even by modern standards qualifies as a Medium Tank. - Bill ] There have been several recent postings in this newsgroup about the Sherman, so I won't get into that any more. I will give a brief description of aerial equipment delivery techniques. Barring the return of gliders :-), paratroopers have five means of getting their equipment to the battlefield: 1. Strapping it to themselves. This works for the soldier's personal combat equipment (weapon, basic load of ammo, food and water, personal gear, etc), as well as some larger hand-held weapon systems, including machine guns and dragon missle launchers. As an engineer, I've seen some pretty heavily-laden jumpers; but I've never seen anyone carry more than his own weight in equipment on a jump. 2. Bundles. Used to parachute-drop heavier, but still relatively light, loads (200-500 pounds). The bundles, usually about the size of a coffin (although they can be smaller), are tossed out the door or (using a metal contraption called a wedge) off the tailgate of an aircraft. This is how we get mortars, recoilless rifles, extra ammo and water, etc. to the ground. 3. LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System). Used when an open area has been secured, but is unfit for the landing of aircraft. The bird makes a low (10-30 feet AGL) pass over the field, and parachutes are used to "tug" the load out of the aircraft in flight. The load never rides under a chute, the drop being of such short distance. As with other equipment drops, special energy-absorping materials are used to prevent damage from impact with the ground. This method is used for the large loads (tanks, scrapers, vehicles, etc). 4. Heavy Drop. Parachute drop of heavy equipment (tanks, etc). The equipment comes off the tailgate similar to a LAPES; but, once the load is free of the bird, some number of cargo (huge) parachutes are deployed to bring the load safely to earth. The heavier the load, the more parachutes are attached to it. This is the primary means of getting vehicles and larger weapon systems (tanks, howitzers, etc.) to the ground during an airborne insertion, at least during the initial hours of the mission (before the airhead is secured). 5. Helicopter Delivery. This is a limited, but very useful option. Although the limitations are several (limited range of helicopters means a relatively close intermediate staging base is required, etc.), the utility of helicopters for resupply is great. These aren't all the methods of getting equipment and supplies into the area of operations (logistics over the shores and host nation support being two other prime methods), but they are all the airborne delivery methods. Hope this clears it up a bit!
jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) (07/09/90)
From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) >From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) > >>and tanks (Shermans). > >i've seen SHERIDANs LAPSED in... i've also seen GAMMA GOATS, JEEPS, and Oops. Of course, you're right. Sheridans, not Shermans, are air-dropped. Sorry about the slip of the tongue (I may have made the mistake in other postings as well; my apologies for all such errors :-).
jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) (07/09/90)
From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) >From: zonker@ihlpf.att.com (Thomas M Harris) >a fair amount of research in allied airborne OBs. All three U.S. Airborne >divisions had a glider infantry regiment. (The 82nd's was the 325th and >the 101st's was the 327th and don't know the last one's probably the >326th). I don't know much about the third U.S. airborne division except There were at least five U.S. airborne divisions during WWII, although one or more never saw combat. They were, in numeric order, the 11th, 13th, 17th, 82nd, and 101st. There were also a number of independent (today we would call them separate) airborne regiments and battalions. It was the 17th Abn Div which chopped troops to the 82nd for Market Garden. The 17th, newly arrived in England, still had its equipment on the docks in crates and would not be able to prepare in time for the operation. The 17th did finally see combat, in the Ardennes, but as straight leg infantry. It later jumped into battle (with the British 6th Abn Div) in the operation to cross the Rhine (ironically, the event whose TV dramatization started this whole line of commentary on sci.military 8-). It is not easy to say conclusively which glider (or parachute) regiments belonged to which divisions, for a few reasons. First, units were being chopped back and forth between divisions regularly, based on the needs of each operation and the readiness of the units available. Second, airborne units were new to the army, and tables of organization and equipment were continuously being questioned and modified at even the highest levels of command. At one time, the 17th Abn Div had _three_ glider infantry regiments! Finally, the presence of the independent regiments and battalions, also being attached and chopped from unit to unit, muddies the historical waters even more. > Also developed at the end of the war was a glider borne tank the >Locust. It was dropped using the large British Waco glider. It saw action >with the British in the Ruhr operation. > >[mod.note: Chamberlain and Ellis, in _Tanks of the World, 1915-45_, >claim that the Locusts were delivered in Hamilcar gliders. Britain had >their own airborne tank, the Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch, also carried >by Hamilcars; these were used at Normandy and in the Ruhr operation. >Twenty were also sent to the USSR via Iran. - Bill ] My source, Devlin's _Paratrooper!_, says the same. The British Hamilcar glider was the largest glider used by the Allies in WWII. It had a wingspan of 110 feet, overall length of 68 feet, and could carry 36,000 pounds (one Tetrach tank or two Bren-gun carriers). The Waco was an American glider (??).
jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) (07/09/90)
From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) >From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) > >In article <1990Jul6.032827.27916@cbnews.att.com> bateskm@clutx.clarkson.edu (Gargoyle,207VanNote,2652180,2683942) writes: >> >> much lower than openly thought. Yeah, there are casualties and equip- >> ment malfunctions, but the current safety rate is something over 99%. >> That one percent of casualties is almost entirely broken bones from poor >> landings (feet apart, knee landings, missed points of contact). > >this is only true of *training* operations. read "A Bridge Too Far" and >see waht happened to the Brits at Arnhem. The 173rd also made a drop >in VietNam. see if you can find anything on that operation. > >dropping out of a perfectly good aircraft that's going to land anyway >is *statistically* safer than driving a car. but, there's lies, damn >lies, and statistics. in combat operations i used to hear a figure of >merit of about 70% casualties. Remember, you have to count casualties >from the time of insertion until the troopers are relieved. *THAT* is an >airborne operation, not just the delivery. Counting casualties that way can be misleading, too (although I agree that 1% casualties is only a training figure, not to be expected in a combat jump). In fact, there is no good way of comparing insertion methods, because everything "depends on the situation". If the insertion route (airborne or air assault) happens to be over a newly-placed ADA unit, or a unit with a large number of Grails, you may not get any aircraft _to_ the DZ/LZ. Then there's the question of a hot DZ/LZ, where anything can happen (and much depends on the guts and tenacity of the troops dropping in). You simply can't put figures on it. As General Stiner implied (said?) after Just Cause, you can't ask for many fewer casualties than we experienced then. But even that operation is not a good standard of comparison, because the drop was compromised (or so it appears). >> Helicopter assault operations are taught by the Air Assault school. >> There are advantages (direct placement of troops, speedier insertions, >> and ability to go places where parachutes couldn't) but the mass inser- >> tion of thousands of troops is not possible, either. We rappel (abseil >> in the rest of the world) out from treetop level and continue with our >> air assault mission. Air assault is not paratroop operations. > >and disadvantages, everybody and his dog from the base camp to the insertion >point know you're there. in HALO you can't see or hear the bird. on a >hop-n-pop the aircraft is going NOE and *shouldn't* been seen on radar until >the drop. the longer time on station or in transit allows the aircraft >to use deceptive approaches to mislead observers. > First, "ability to go places parachutes can't" with air assault troops is a false advantage. Airborne troops can be dropped practically anywhere. Casualties may be very high dropping onto very mountainous terrain or in heavy winds, but it can still be done. Anywhere a helicopter can get, a fixed-wing plane can get (okay, not _anywhere_, but let's don't get ridiculous :-); and anywhere a fixed-wing a/c can get, troops can be dropped. Into water? Sure! Trees? Ouch, but yes. Second, the disadvantage Woody gives isn't necessarily true, either. Unless the drop is HALO or HAHO (high altitude drop, high or low altitude opening of the chutes), which only a small number of U.S. paratroopers are qualified to do, the bird is going to make just as much noise as the helicopter. Both C-130's/C-141's and helicopters are able to stay below the radar screen on the ride in, but both make lots of noise doing it. By the way, Woody, C-130's don't fly NOE; they fly "terrain flight". Helicopters fly NOE. Not a big difference for this conversation, but one which many chopper pilots would be adamant about pointing out. The biggest disadvantage of helicopters is their limited range. You can not drive a chopper from North Carolina to Panama, drop off troops, and turn around to refuel in a friendly nation. Simply don't have the range (I know, in flight refueling exists for some rotary wings; but now you're talking about a special ops mission, not the mass insertion of troops). The other major disadvantage is mentioned above: helicopters can not be efficiently used to insert large numbers (whole brigades or multiple task forces) of troops. The bottom line is that airborne units offer strategic flexibility; air assault troops and helicopters offer tactical flexibility. The two can not easily be mixed or matched.
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (07/09/90)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU
I don't know if these are really used in airborne operations. Perhaps,
someone on the net could further elaborate. Just something to throw
into the fray ...
Touch & Go: The transport comes in *real low* (like 5m or less), a
chute is deployed to pull cargo mounted on a pallet out of the plane.
It seems this method could be used to deliver big pieces of equipment
as long as they can be shock mounted to withstand a short fall. This
seems more like a method for reinforcing an airhead, rather than for
the initial assualt. Of course, a real landing strip is always
preferred.
Rocket Retros: I have seen pictures (in the "Soviet War Machine"
Salamander book) of Soviet equipment (maybe pallet mounted) slung
under a rocket which fires just before hitting the ground. Apparently,
it lengthens the deceleration period sufficiently that the equipment
can survive with shock protection.
-ted
Ted Kim
UCLA Computer Science Department Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu
3804C Boelter Hall UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek
Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (213) 206-8696thos@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas Cohen) (07/10/90)
From: munnari!softway.sw.oz.au!thos@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas Cohen) In article <1990Jul8.053423.7852@cbnews.att.com> root@.UUCP (rb duc) writes: > >In article <1990Jul5.020552.14422@cbnews.att.com> Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) writes: > >-> The largest a glider ever got was a Messcherschmidt (sp?) >->type. It was larger than a C-47, and required either two Me-110's or >->its own special-designed towinng aircraft. >-> >->[mod.note: That's "Messerschmitt", and the gliders was the Me 321 >->"Gigant." - Bill ] It was a lot larger than a C-47 and it required _3_ Me 110s to drag it off the ground (and they were at full power). The He 111 based 'Zwilling' was two He 111 fuselages with a centre wing section with either one or two (probably two) engines on it (like an F82 twin Mustang). As a bit of trivia, the worst aircraft accident for many years was a fully loaded test flight of the Gigant, where one of the three Me 110 tow aircraft lost an engine and slewed sideways into the cables, dragging the second 110 down. The third 110 went down when the Gigant dragged it down on its way to crashing into the ground, killing all aboard all 4 Messerschmitts. The toll from this was well in excess of 100 men (I could find out if needed). >They eventually put motors on the Gigant and, I think, used JATOs to get >them in the air. I've seen some WWII footage of Allied fighters splashing >them in the Med. The German pilots must have felt hopeless in the extreme >when they were spotted - like flying an underpowered barn. They were trying >to fly supplies to Africa. Apparently a lot of their loads were fuel drums. That _must_ have been exciting. > - - Richard Ducoty ..uunet!grumbly!root > _] Capitola, California root@grumbly.com -- thos cohen |Softway Pty Ltd English is a living language, but |ACSnet: thos@softway.oz "Simple illiteracy is no basis for |UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!thos for linguistic evolution" - Dwight MacDonald |Internet: thos@softway.oz.au
woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) (07/10/90)
From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood)
In article <1990Jul6.032814.27856@cbnews.att.com= jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) writes:
=
=From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam)
==From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson)
== The tradeoffs of paratrooper ops is vulnerability . A
==paratrooper, hanging from a parachute for several minutes, is
==possibly the easiest target in the military world (except for
==grounded airplanes, maybe). Until he gets clear of that parachute,
==he is a target, not a soldier.
=
=I still agree, at least with all after the first sentence.
=
unfortunately, i do not.
first, depending on conditions, a 'trooper is in the air for less
than a minute. my own jump experience averaged about 45 *seconds*.
except for disasterous mistakes like Ste. Mere Eglise at Normandy the idea
is to drop the troops somewhere where they aren't likely to be seen.
"Where is the prince so mighty that he can protect his country from assault
from the air?"
-- unknown (and pretty damn mangled, but you get the idea)
==That was the reason for the developement of gliders. Paratroop ops
==had such a high potential for casuualties that it was thought that
==it would be better to put them all in a ctransport that could land
==and then be discarded. The transport could manuveer (sp?) and
=Nope, not according to my source (Devlin's _Paratroopers_). What
=source did you get this info from?
=
yes, they do have a high potential for casualties. that's why they're
considered expendable troops. but if you wish to do a small unit insertion
you can't beat a drop. all airborne operations do not involve battalion
or larger mass tactical jumps! try a hop-n-pop sometime...
==(hopefully) avoid AA, and large numbers of troops could be landed in
==one spot safely. In execution, however, the gliders were bears to
==handle, the pilots that flew them were poorly trained, and they were
==almost as easy a target as the parachute.
=
=If I were a glider pilot, I'd be insulted. Everything I've seen,
=heard and read about the glider pilot program and the troops who
=graduated from it has been very complementary. Again, I'd
=double-check my source...
=
apparently the pilots of the gliders were sergeants... and though the training
may have been sketchy, the performance was admirable. much better i might
add, than that of the pilots of the troop transports who delivered their
loads so far off target and widely scattered that several units were
virtually ineffective during D-day. how many sticks of 'troopers were
dropped in the English Channel? How many were dropped so low their 'chutes
didn't open before impact? keep in mind that a 'trooper must fall ~250
feet *before* his 'chute opens.
== Today most paratroop ops are conducted from hhelicopter. The
==troops are kept low, out of AA and missle fire, in a h (relatively)
==fast, manuverable craft. They repel off the helicopter and are on
==the ground and ready to fight in a few seconds.
hahaha... you must be a puking buzzard...
[mod.note: I'm told that "puking buzzard" is a friendly (if
uncomplimentary) reference to the 101st Airborne (Screaming Eagles)
- Bill ]
=addition, every light (or light and heavy?) division now has a platoon
=of troops on jump status in a rebirth of the old long range recon
=patrol mission (can't remember the name of these new platoons, but
=they're a division asset, controlled by the G-2). I'm sorry that I
glad to know they're back...
=By the way, it is much more common for air assault troops to dismount
=from an aircraft than to rappel out of it. There are situations when
=the bird can't touch down to unload; but when it can, it is actually
=faster and safer to do so than to throw out the ropes.
true, but the latter is more impressive for demonstration purposes!
/*** woody ****************************************************************
*** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... ***
*** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd ***
****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (07/10/90)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
In article <1990Jul8.053535.8271@cbnews.att.com>, eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) writes:
:
:> much lower than openly thought. Yeah, there are casualties and equip-
:> ment malfunctions, but the current safety rate is something over 99%.
:> That one percent of casualties is almost entirely broken bones from poor
:> landings (feet apart, knee landings, missed points of contact).
:
:this is only true of *training* operations. read "A Bridge Too Far" and
:see waht happened to the Brits at Arnhem. The 173rd also made a drop
:in VietNam. see if you can find anything on that operation.
Um, Grenada and Panama are probably different, equipment, training, and
situtation-wise, than any WW II drop and in Vietnam. Hopefully, the
current statistics are from 1980 onward...
:do you still wear *baby-blue berets* <snicker-snicker>?
And why are you trying to aggreviate a man who carries around an M-16 as
a part of his daily job?alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) (07/10/90)
From: voder!nsc!dtg.nsc.com!alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) In article <1990Jul8.053437.7936@cbnews.att.com> nulspace@eng.umd.edu (Michael Chang) writes: > >I'm not too sure about the 105mm in particular [never actually seen one] >but the point is, heavy-duty arty can be brought in. Anyone know >anything about mortars specially designed for airborne use? I know the >British had some 2" mortars for airborne troops, not too sure whether >the U.S. had any. > We have the 81mm mortar, which, although it's no fun to carry for any distance, is part of a line company's equipment. The weapons platoon will have several of these (at least they did when I was involved in the early '70's). I believe there was also a 40mm version, but I've never verified that. >I know that it can be done, but I don't understand how it is done... >Such as having something fly around with a tank in it/underneath it. >Unless they are light models (BMPs come to mind) Equipment drops are done with Shithooks (oops - Chinooks), C-130's, C-141's, C-5's, and probably several other birds designed for transport. In the 82d ABN, everybody was trained in heavy rigging and the C5 drops were a blast: the first pass put down the heavy equipment, then the second and subsequent passes dropped the personnel. An impressive sight: Sheridan tanks under canopy (hopefully!) followed by a company of troops. Oh, yeah - we did bury a tank once when the 'chutes didn't deploy. That was even more impressive! - Devils in Baggy Pants - 1st bn 504th ABN INF 82d ABN DIV -- Alan Hepburn "'Taint what a man don't know that hurts him, mail: alan@spitfire.nsc.com it's what he knows that just ain't so." - Frank McKinney Hubbard
woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) (07/11/90)
From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) In article <1990Jul10.025028.10585@cbnews.att.com> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >Um, Grenada and Panama are probably different, equipment, training, and >situtation-wise, than any WW II drop and in Vietnam. Hopefully, the >current statistics are from 1980 onward... definite agreement on the situation part... i don't want to sound as if i'm belittling Grenada and Panama, but could you imagine the results if these assaults had been attempted against a *PROFESSIONAL* military force? how about during a time of war? all things considered, we were not in an actual state of war either time and Grenada/Panama are not quite in our weight class. > >:do you still wear *baby-blue berets* <snicker-snicker>? > >And why are you trying to aggreviate a man who carries around an M-16 as >a part of his daily job? my motto: if you must get unfriendly, do it from a distance. :-) after calling in every piece of artillery the US has in it's inventory (except battleships) at one time or another, as well as a few airstrikes, and after carrying the mighty mattel myself for a few (9) years. i'm not overly intimidated. besides, everyone has kicked around the grunts for awhile... a former paratrooper/former marine can kick around a glorified 'leg' if he wants, can't he? oh yeah... the obligatory :-) :-) /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) (07/11/90)
From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) In article <1990Jul10.025044.10648@cbnews.att.com> voder!nsc!dtg.nsc.com!alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) writes: > > >From: voder!nsc!dtg.nsc.com!alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) >We have the 81mm mortar, which, although it's no fun to carry for any >distance, is part of a line company's equipment. The weapons platoon >will have several of these (at least they did when I was involved in >the early '70's). I believe there was also a 40mm version, but I've >never verified that. > that's the 60mm mortar you're referring to. one of the big transitions from the army to the marines was getting used to the idea that the marines use the 81mm as a battalion fire weapon (as opposed to the 82nd ABN using a 4.2 inch) and the 60 mm being used as a company fire weapon (as opposed to the 81mm in the 82nd). the firepower reduction stinks, but the mobility inprovement is incredible. i've humped the 81mm a couple of times, it is not recommended but when the old man says move, you move. you can break down an 81mm in no time and have it packed out. i have called in (practice) missions to a USMC mortar platoon (81's) while they were in a route march. they gave me first rounds in ~15 *seconds*. i never got that kind of response from mortars in the army. > /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
sasdvp@mcnc.org (David V. Phillips) (07/11/90)
From: unx.sas.com!sasdvp@mcnc.org (David V. Phillips) In article <1990Jul9.023743.9581@cbnews.att.com> jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) writes: >Barring the return of gliders :-), paratroopers have five means of >getting their equipment to the battlefield: >1. Strapping it to themselves. This works for the soldier's personal >combat equipment (weapon, basic load of ammo, food and water, personal >gear, etc), as well as some larger hand-held weapon systems, including >machine guns and dragon missle launchers. As an engineer, I've seen >some pretty heavily-laden jumpers; but I've never seen anyone carry >more than his own weight in equipment on a jump. In the July 1990 issue (Vol. 10, No. 1, Issue #109) (how's *that* for a reference! :-)) on page 34, there's a picture of a skydiver carrying a large bundle. The caption reads as follows: Jim Teters tests a SOVEC parachute system designed and built by the Relative Workshop in Florida. SOVEC stands for "Special Operations Vector." The system is derived on the company's Tandem Vector and allows a military parachutist to carry several hundred pounds of equipment or personnel. A couple of definitions. 'Vector' is the name brand of a parachute container system built by the Relative Workshop. 'Tandem Vector' is a system for two people, and one (VERY BIG) parachute. With this system, the 'pilot' carrys the main and reserve parachutes on his back, and the passenger/student wears a harness that attaches to the pilot's shoulders and hips. I've only seen pictures of military freefall jumpers, and with all of the extra gear they are carrying, their terminal velocity is going to be rather high, making for uncomfortable openings. The tandem systems have a drougue chute that is deployed soon after exit from the aircraft. This chute reduces the terminal velocity of the two jumpers to that of a single jumper (about 110 mph). Now for a question about HALO operations. If you've every been on the ground when a number of parachutes open above you, you'll know that it is not quiet. Is this a factor that concerns the HALO jumpers? Also, do HALO/HAHO jumpers use ram-air parachutes, and if so, do they try to stand up on landing or just do a parachute landing fall? I presume that most of these operations would be done at night...do you want a nice moon or a moonless night? On a moonlight night, you might be able to stand up, but I don't think I'd want to try to flare to a stand-up on a dark night.
jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) (07/11/90)
From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) >From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) > >=From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) >= >==From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) >== The tradeoffs of paratrooper ops is vulnerability . A >==paratrooper, hanging from a parachute for several minutes, is >==possibly the easiest target in the military world (except for >==grounded airplanes, maybe). Until he gets clear of that parachute, >==he is a target, not a soldier. >= >=I still agree, at least with all after the first sentence. >= > >unfortunately, i do not. > >first, depending on conditions, a 'trooper is in the air for less >than a minute. my own jump experience averaged about 45 *seconds*. > >except for disasterous mistakes like Ste. Mere Eglise at Normandy the idea >is to drop the troops somewhere where they aren't likely to be seen. > >"Where is the prince so mighty that he can protect his country from assault >from the air?" > -- unknown (and pretty damn mangled, but you get the idea) I agree that a minute is a long time in the air. When I originally read what Scott wrote, I interpreted that as "several moments." My mistake. I still agree with his main point, that we are highly vulnerable while in the air. Planners never intend to drop troops onto a hot DZ, but it happens (e.g., Just Cause was reportedly compromised, and the PDF met the 82nd at the DZ). And whether you're in the air for 10 seconds or 50, it would obviously seem like an eternity if you were suspended from nylon, being fired at, and your weapon was secured in a container. Whether the firers can hit you or not, there is nothing you can do to defend yourself until you reach the ground. From that perspective, I still agree with Scott. > yes, they do have a high potential for casualties. that's why they're >considered expendable troops. but if you wish to do a small unit insertion I've seen this before, but never understood it. Who (in a position of authority) ever said _any_ troops were "expendable". This sounds like something out of a Sylvester Stallone or Chuck Norris movie to me. >you can't beat a drop. all airborne operations do not involve battalion >or larger mass tactical jumps! try a hop-n-pop sometime... I agree not all airborne ops are mass tacs; but you're confusing terms. A "hop-n-pop" refers to the disposal of chutes when the jumpers reach the DZ (in this case, the jumpers don't have to do anything with the chutes; they just get out of them and leave them); it has nothing to do with the size of the drop. In combat, _all_ jumps are hop-n-pop (including battalion-and-larger deliveries). >apparently the pilots of the gliders were sergeants... and though the training >may have been sketchy, the performance was admirable. much better i might >add, than that of the pilots of the troop transports who delivered their >loads so far off target and widely scattered that several units were >virtually ineffective during D-day. how many sticks of 'troopers were >dropped in the English Channel? How many were dropped so low their 'chutes >didn't open before impact? keep in mind that a 'trooper must fall ~250 >feet *before* his 'chute opens. I am not normally in the habit of defending the Air Force (Air Corps, in this case 8-), but you have to keep in mind that in that day and age the pilots didn't have all the electronic naviagation wizardry which makes near-perfect drops so common-place today. They navigated by sight and dead reckoning (map and compass). They were flying at night over blacked-out countryside. They didn't perform any miracles on a large scale, but I would tend to believe they did fairly well given the tools with which they worked. When were you in, Wayne?
anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) (07/12/90)
From: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) Anyone remembered the German Sixth Army in Russia ? Apparently they were trapped by the Russian. During the early stages of the encirclement the Sixth Army was supplied by air. Did the German used guilders for that ? I also remember seeing some TV documentary about it. The supplies brought in were far less than required to sustain the Sixth Army. In the end the Sixth Army surrendered and the Russian ended up capturing a German Field Marshal (or the German equivalent, it was interesting that he was promoted the day before by Hilter to make sure he doesn't surrender). Anthony [mod.note: Sixth Army was, of course, encircled near Stalingrad, and the field marshal in question was von Paulus. - Bill ] -- Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) (07/13/90)
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) In article <1990Jul10.024921.10341@cbnews.att.com> munnari!softway.sw.oz.au!thos@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas Cohen) writes: > >[re: towplane for "Gigant" glider.] >The He 111 based 'Zwilling' was two He 111 fuselages with a centre wing >section with either one or two (probably two) engines on it (like an F82 >twin Mustang). > Not nearly a pretty as a twin Mustang. According to my reference, two twin-engine Heinkels were spliced together at the wing with an extra engine dead center, making the only five-engine aircraft I know of. One would expect that high-G maneuvers would be exciting -- there was no connection at the tail end, making the poor wing handle any assymetrical forces on its own. References to other five-engine hermaphrodites would certainly be appreciated. The smallest number of engines I can't associate with a plane in seven. Anybody heard of one to wise me up? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Opinions outside attributed quotations are mine alone. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- | phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG | Phil Gustafson | (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!phil | UNIX/Graphics Consultant | | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126 | | 408/286-1749
djm@castle.ed.ac.uk (D Murphy) (07/16/90)
From: D Murphy <djm@castle.ed.ac.uk> In article <1990Jul12.025834.19453@cbnews.att.com> anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes: > > >From: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) > > >Anyone remembered the German Sixth Army in Russia ? Apparently they >were trapped by the Russian. During the early stages of the encirclement >the Sixth Army was supplied by air. Did the German used guilders for that ? > >Anthony In an old history book of mine (History of WW2, ed. AJP Taylor, publ. UK by Octopus Books), the chapter covering the Stalingrad fighting says that the German forces were ill-equipped with transport aircraft, and accuses Goering of (amazingly) believing that bombers such as the He-111 could easily be used to resupply the surrounded troops. Even had the Germans had transports, the weather would most likely be against them. In addition, the Soviets at this time operated Hurricane fighters supplied by Britain, and might also (I don't know if they did, though) have had the good YAK-9 fighter. Considering the number of German supply aircraft which were shot down over the Mediterranean while trying to supply the Afrika Korps, the Soviets had the capability to deny much material to von Paulus' army. Murff...
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (07/16/90)
From: fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <1990Jul10.024921.10341@cbnews.att.com>, munnari!softway.sw.oz.au!thos@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas Cohen) writes: > > >In article <1990Jul5.020552.14422@cbnews.att.com> Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) writes: > > > >-> The largest a glider ever got was a Messcherschmidt (sp?) > >->type. It was larger than a C-47, and required either two Me-110's or > >->its own special-designed towinng aircraft. > >-> > >->[mod.note: That's "Messerschmitt", and the gliders was the Me 321 > >->"Gigant." - Bill ] The Messerschmitt Gigant was the largest to see service, Junkers' "Mammut" was about the same size but didn't make it into service. I could carry a tank, though. Spent 45 million Reichsmarks making sure it wouldn't work. (Well, Junkers had no wood-working experience, among other things. They tried, though.) > It was a lot larger than a C-47 and it required _3_ Me 110s to drag it > off the ground (and they were at full power). The "troika-schlepp". Couldn't have been fun to fly. Fortunately, it was only a stopgap measure until the real tug was ready: > The He 111 based 'Zwilling' was two He 111 fuselages with a centre wing > section with either one or two (probably two) engines on it (like an F82 > twin Mustang). The pictue I've got (in Gilbert's "World's Worst Aircraft") shows five engines. All on the Zwilling. > As a bit of trivia, the worst aircraft accident for many years was a fully > loaded test flight of the Gigant, where one of the three Me 110 tow aircraft > lost an engine and slewed sideways into the cables, dragging the second > 110 down. The third 110 went down when the Gigant dragged it down on its > way to crashing into the ground, killing all aboard all 4 Messerschmitts. > > The toll from this was well in excess of 100 men (I could find out if needed). 120 troops, six Gigant crew, three Me-110 crew. > >They eventually put motors on the Gigant and, I think, used JATOs to get > >them in the air. I've seen some WWII footage of Allied fighters splashing > >them in the Med. The German pilots must have felt hopeless in the extreme > >when they were spotted - like flying an underpowered barn. They were trying > >to fly supplies to Africa. Sixteen Me-323's (the powered version) of Luftwaffe #5 Transport Squadron left Trapani in Sicily for Tunis, carrying fuel for the Afrika Corps. Lost 14 to British Spitfires and Marauders. 121 of 140 total crewmen lost. One Me-323 lost on the ground two days later. The last one returned to Sicily with wounded from Rommel's troops. Remaining Gigants flew to the end of the war...but mostly in areas without many enemy fighters about. ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
jem3@bellcore.bellcore.com (John E McKillop) (07/18/90)
From: pyuxf!jem3@bellcore.bellcore.com (John E McKillop) In article <1990Jul6.032749.27741@cbnews.att.com> bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes: > > >From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) >A long long time ago (in a galaxy far far away...) I read a book on the >DC-3/C-47, which mentioned that some C-47 fuselages were equipped as >gliders. Basically Douglas left the engines out and capped off the >nacelles. One of these could be towed by a standard C-47. Perhaps a >few of these were used on D-Day, or shortly afterwards. I believe there was an experiment during WWII with one Gooney Bird where the engines were removed and the aircraft was towed. The USAAF realized that it was cheaper to build wood and canvas Waco CG-5's than to use the heavier, more valuable C-47/C-53 so the project came to nil. The CG-5 was the most used US glider in WWII with hundreds being used at Normandy, Market Garden, etc. These gliders rapidly disappeared after the war althouth the USAAF/USAF did experiment with a metal glider built by Stroukoff of West Trenton, NJ. Nothing came of that either. I know there is a CG-5 at the USAF Museum at Wright-Pat and I believe there is one at the Airborne Museum in Kentucky.
adrian@siesoft.co.uk (Adrian Hussey) (07/19/90)
From: adrian@siesoft.co.uk (Adrian Hussey) In article <1990Jul3.031911.6890@cbnews.att.com> hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry Bloomberg) writes: > > > This particular episode described the invasion of Germany and the >crossing of the Rhine River. The footage that really caught my >attention depicted the dropping of paratroopers, both by towed glider >and directly out of aircraft. > > Some questions: > > 1) What are the trade-offs one must concider when deciding how to >deliver paratroopers to the target area? When do you want >to use gliders and when do you want your paratroopers to jump directly >out of aircraft? > > 4) How many men could be carried by a glider, how large were they, >what was the range, how well did they work, etc? > >Harry Bloomberg No concrete answers to your questions I'm afraid, just an item you may find of interest. Gliders were used extensively in Operation Market Garden - certain units of the British airborne went in in them, and I thought elements of the 82nd and 101st did as well (?). I imagine any decent book on the operation would contain some information on the subject, but you could do a lot worse than try Cornelius Ryan's "A Bridge Too Far", which is a) very, very readable and b) covers all sorts of aspects, from the thoughts behind the planning of the operations, to the stories and reminiscences of the people who actually took part. Somebody mentioned the danger of being in a glider that lands badly and Ryan certainly has a couple of anecdotes in the book which bear this out - I recall (I think) one glider was carrying a field artillery piece which broke loose on landing, with fatal results for the crew. Anyway, it's a damn good book and well worth reading if you're interested in airborne ops (assuming of course, that you havn't already done so!) Also, a new book has just been published in the UK telling the story of Market Garden from the German perspective. If anybody wants details of it please email me. Hoping this was of interest. Regards Adrian Hussey adrian@siesoft.co.uk