Paratroops!

[B-24WillowRun]

Ok I had proposed it and it was asked for so why not talk about the use of pratroops as we talk of aircraft? This can be as a large scale discussion or detail as to the Market-Garden operation. I would just hope that we can generate a new discussion atleast this is my hope.

While looking at some information on Market-Garden I found a website that is dedicated to the whole mission.
www.rememberseptember44.com/index3.htm

Ok so lets talk. [:0]

[andyo2000]

Let's see... my favorite paratrooper method is definitely gliders. Not the Me 321, no that was a disaster, as I'm sure GregP will agree :D. But instead, the not-so-well-known Waco CG-4. It was an American cargo glider that was used in few operations, but with a high success rate. C-47s were also useful in paratrooping operations.

I think one extremely good example of paratrooper ops is the storming of Malta in the Mediterranean. While it didn't work as well as planned, it did make history!

[simon]

Malta? Are you sure?

[Ricky]

Crete, maybe?

[simon]

That's what I thought, although I could be wrong and there may be a Paratroop assault on Malta that I'm not aware of, I don't mean to sound sarcastis if it comes over that way!

For me I think possibly the best, or most innovative use of Paratroops was the small units the Germans used to sieze vital bridges and locations (such as famously at Eban Emael), during the initial offensives in the west.

BTW I think it's important that we distinguish between Air Landing units and Para Units, slightly different, but the difference is important.

Andyo2000, I look forward to Corsarius' response regarding the Me321, although he is frustratingly difficult to bait!

[Ricky]

Air Landing vs Paratroops.

I assume this is the difference between glider-bourne infantry and those who actually jump?

[simon]

Correct, but like I say the difference is important.

Firstly in terms of the actual deployment, Glider bourne (In modern warfare this would broadly also include Helibourne, although these tend to be refered to as Air Mobile Units), Paratroops can be deployed almost anywhere, with very little additional training, or simply using bombers to create an artificial clearing, you can drop Paratroops into forest or jungle if necessary. Glider Troops require enough flat open land to land their transports on, and crucially this has to be enough that the first glider will not obstruct any following.

So initially, Paras are far more deployable.

However, with Glider Troops basically whatever the glider can carry can be transported with the unit, including light artillery, light anti-tank guns, jeeps, possibly trucks or even light tanks and armoured cars on some of the largest transports. For Paras, broadly what you jump with is what you fight with, not much else, especially any of the heavier kit is going to survive a parachute drop.

So beyond the initial phase, Air Landing troops are going to be far more capable, militarily speaking.

This is to a degree offset by the fact that Paras are generally much tougher, physically and mentally, and much more aggressive than their regular army counterparts.

That's a rough summary of the differences between the two.

To put it in context, in the same way that just because a soldier arrives in battle by amphibious means doesn't make him a Marine, just because a soldier arrives in battle by air, that doesn't make him a Para.

[andyo2000]

Ahh, my mistake, it may have been Crete. I always get the two islands mixed up. I always thought Malta was assaulted though. I'll have to check back on that.

[Ricky]

Malta was heavily bombed, if that's any help.

I'll just take this opportunity to sing the islanders' praises & respectfully point out their George Cross...

But yes, paratroops can be a formidable force, but one that needs resupply or relieving as soon as possible...
Some of th supply problems were resolved by dropping 'supply cannisters' with the troops, but there are limits (parachuted Shermans...:D)

Were those deployed at Arnheim paras or glider-bourne?

[simon]

Mainly Paras, although I think some Gliders were involved. Certainly if you ever go drinking in a Para pub the distinction is even more important, you don't want to go confusing a Para with a "Hat"! Definitely though there were a lot of Gliders used during Overlord and Crete, and Paras too.

Supply cannisters actually seem to benefit the enemy more than anything, where they were required it seems that the vast majority stray so far that the only the enemy can pick them up, the Warsaw uprising, Stalingrad, Arnheim, even post war at Dien Bien Phu the French cannister drops were more use to the Viet Minh than the French Troops!

Generally it seems that the best use for Paras is ahead of an army's advance to seize key objectives before the enemy can respond with a counter attack or demolition charges, but where it is possible to quickly reinforce them with regular troops. This is the crucial difference between Paras and Commandoes, Paras are a take and hold force, Commandoes are primarily raiders.

[Ricky]

Agreed, though I was meaning supply cannisters that are dropped along with the paras.
There was even a specialist folding mini-motorbike developed for use with the Paras - not unlike the motorised scooters you can get now.

[simon]

The supply "cannisters" you usually see dangling from below the Paras themselves aren't actually cannisters at all, these are the Para's personal equipment, and the reason they're dangling below him are that the space that they would usually occupy (i.e. the soldier concerned's back) is taken up with parachute.

Going back to equipment though, in all seriousness given the general level of inventiveness during WWII, I'm sure someone would or could have found a way to parachute even Shermans directly into combat, if only they could have found a transport aircraft that could take off with one on board!

[PMN1]

quote:glider that was used in few operations, but with a high success rate. C-47s were also useful in paratrooping operations.

Anyone know what the logic was behind the glider conversion of the C-47.

It was designated the XCG-17 and was designed for towing behind the C-54 with TWO C-54's being used in tandem the front one casting off when height had been reached.

It could carry 14,000lbs or 40 fully equipped troops and could be towed at up to 290mph as compared to 200mph for actual gliders which is about the only advantgae I can see given its need for the C-54 to tow it.

Did it actually enter service or did it remain and X designation?

[B-24WillowRun]

Thanks all for picking up this topic. I hope that we can continue.
As for the para drops with canisters they can and did drop canisters with the troops and they were able to be colected by the jumpers. I would agree that the use of Paratroops is best when it can be done for an asualt to hold key bridges or other areas. Also they were used to develop or take forward tatain for fuel and munisions bases.

As for gliders I am not a big fan. :( They did provide a way to get the heavier things in but as Simon stated "need more open space to land"
Yes, the USAF did develop ways to airdrop almost anything that the army needs. And aircraft like the C-82 were developed dased on needs from the war. I have read they can drop a tank now.

Question, any one have information on a German Paraasult on a Bulgain Castle? This would be early in the war.[B)]

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by B-24WillowRun

Thanks all for picking up this topic. I hope that we can continue.
As for the para drops with canisters they can and did drop canisters with the troops and they were able to be colected by the jumpers. I would agree that the use of Paratroops is best when it can be done for an asualt to hold key bridges or other areas. Also they were used to develop or take forward tatain for fuel and munisions bases.

As for gliders I am not a big fan. :( They did provide a way to get the heavier things in but as Simon stated "need more open space to land"
Yes, the USAF did develop ways to airdrop almost anything that the army needs. And aircraft like the C-82 were developed dased on needs from the war. I have read they can drop a tank now.

Question, any one have information on a German Paraasult on a Bulgain Castle? This would be early in the war.[B)]


I read a book in the late 1950s 'Lion with blue wings' about the glider regiment ...
Also Sosabowski's (spelling?)'Parachute general' (he led the Polish paratroops at Arnhem).

The first German paratroops (e.g. to the time of Crete) dropped without their equipment and on a very primitive apparatus (hanging on a single back-strap). They needed to pick up their equipment from canisters dropped with them. They were largely massacred.

Allied paratroops (later) had better apparatus. Personal equipment was hung below the paratrooper so it was available on landing. The heavy bag arrives on the ground first and the paratrooper slows down for the landing (fewer broken legs etc.).
Allied doctrine was to drop paras some distance from the target so they could group before launching the assault.

Gliders were silent, they got concentrations of organised troops (say a section) to a pinpoint (paras scatter across the landscape). Glider borne troops were used in attacks on bridges where they came down on the bridge approach. The German army used them on the Belgian forts in 1940 ... where they landed on the top of the fortresses and blew their way in with shaped charges. Gliders could carry more equipment (major glider assaults were made up of a diversity of glider types including heavy carrier gliders like Hamilcars). Glider borne troops received special training, but were not as expensive as paras.

Crete was won by air-landed infantry who arrived in Ju52s into the airstrip controlled by the paras after a command stuff up. They also landed on the adjacent beach I believe. Again air-landing troops were best with special training, but this was less than needed for glider troops.

Gliders could kill lots of troops when they were released too far from target as happened in Sicily.

[simon]

I can remember seeing footage of early (Pre-war) Soviet attempts at using paratroops. What this involved was the transport flying low and slow over a suitable snowdrift and the "Paras" exiting via doors onto the wing and literally just dropping off into the snow!

Hate to think of the operational casualties, not least if the pilot got it wrong and what was assumed to be a nice deep snowdrift was only a few inches deep!

[simon]

"Anyone know what the logic was behind the glider conversion of the C-47."

Can't say for certain, but I would imagine that the logic was down to the fact that removing the engines and fuel tanks but keeping the basic airframe freed up a lot of poundage that could potentially be used for cargo, especially some of the denser types of cargo like munitions or even small vehicles. I'd imagine that the latter would be the intended use for the type rather than as a troop transport.

As for what killed it off, I would imagine that either it was just too late (Perhaps it was even intended for the invasion of Japan?), or more likely too expensive since even a gutted C-47 airframe would probably cost a lot more than either a Horsa or Hamilcar.

14,000lb cargo load is impressive though, as a what if...? imagine one of these packed with explosives along the lines of Project Aphrodite, got to be cheaper than using old B-17s!!!

[B-24WillowRun]

Interesting thought about the C-47 glider;)

Thanks for the info on the German glider and paratroops. I can see that they would be cheeper and fater to train, and Paras do scatter over a wide range. But then this is a thought that cattering and confusion did help in Normandy. Though others will say it was just poor US airborn or very good British airborn that prevailed.

Quetion do you think Paratroops still have a place in modern warfare? This being tradionaly delivered and not the Heliborn. This is a bit off topic but related enogh to ask.[:p]

[simon]

I'm going to sit on the fence a bit here and say yes and no.

Traditionally delivered against opposition modern Paratroopers enjoy the advantages of both fighter and bomber escort, that said in a hot-drop situation the typical estimates seem to be that the attacking troops will suffer 30% casualties just in the initial drop. For most governments this would just be unacceptable, so it seems the only real use for traditionally delivered Paratroops is against light or none-existent opposition.

That said the invasion of Iraq showed how useful Paratroops still can be.

However it has to be said I believe the detractors of Paratroops are largely missing the point of their value. For most NATO armies Para units are the only real Light Infantry they have left, the sad fact is that even in the better professional armies the typical infantryman is not capable of performing prolonged marches, they have become reliant on trucks and armoured personnel carriers. Examples like the Falklands war in 1982 show that there are still places or circumstances that may require an infantry regiment or battalion to move their equipment by foot, and here at least is where the Paras come in.

[Ricky]

Excuse my ignorance...

Where were paratroops used (via parachute) in Iraq?

I'm not questioning your statement, I just did not know that they were used, and would like to find out about it!

[simon]

I believed from news footage at the time US airbourne were parachuted into the north in order to sieze some important airstrips there and link up with local Kurdish guerillas. I could well be wrong, on reflection it could have just been pathfinders or special forces that took local control for the rest to arrive by helicopters, they may not have even used parachutes at all [:I], and in any case they certainly encountered no more than minimal resistance, but it did show the fundamental ability of paratroops to deploy pretty much anywhere.

[GregP]

Personally, I feel paratroops are still useful in very limited circumstances, especially since they can now steer the parachutes, but that their role has been largely userped by helicopter-borne troops that can land and deploy as an effective unit.

One of the places where paratroops are stuill very useful is when trying to make a silent night approach. Prachutes are VERY quiet and the military is pretty good at HALO drops these days for just such quiet assault purposes.

Still, the bulk of their jobs is done by heli-troops these days, so their days are probably not exactly numbered, but their usefullness is very specialized.

[B-24WillowRun]

HALO jumps are not a walk in the park ;) But they are great to go in to hostile space from friendly space. Quiet yes, but even a parajump with say a full compony will be picked up at some point.

I probable have to agree that the times of seeing the sky filled with airborn troops falling into the battle is past, but they are still very important.

As for the lack a of marching try talking to some troops in Afghanastan (can never spell that :(). Some places they are going it must be hicked in and out.

[amigojeff]

Well how about those planned but never realized operations?Come to mind ,C3/Herkules,the could've been biggest Axis joint efforts to conquer Malta.As many as two para divisions(German 1.,Italian Folgore)and an Italian La Spezia air transport division were supposed to land Malta and Gozo islands.

[B-24WillowRun]

Yes, I was reading about that bomb crater called Malta. That is no disrespact but when it holds the title of the most bombed spot I cannot resist. Why invade? Hitler ordered the preperation but then backed off wanting to try to bomb them out. As the US Marines found out in the Pacific islands seem to do well if given the time. But that brings me to the question if the two divisions would have been able to land? The islands are not that big and the resistance was very strong? I still have not found how they survived all that carpetbombing, do any of you know if they dug caves or built bunkers?

The drop might have worked but at a great coast. i think that Italy should have realized that it was a VERY important tatget and a way to secure the Eastern Med and the shipping and air routes to North Africa. If it was done say in 1940 or 42 when the para drop was proposed it might have made some differance. Before operation Torch. ;)

[B-24WillowRun]

Sorry for the double, but would any of you know if the the P.108 ever had a mission over Malta? Also as i was reading on the bomber, it might have been able to help win the invasion. but more reading should be done, anythoughts?[:I]

[PMN1]

For a thread on an Invasion of Malta

http://p069.ezboard.com/falltheworldsbattlecruisersfrm1.showMessage?topicI D=782.topic

Scroll down to Theodore's post for airborne ops - this is what he has to say

This is a repost of a summary I did a while back, drawn largely from Greene & Massignani's "The Naval War in the Mediterranean 1940-1943."

Air Forces
There would have been a massive commitment of Axis air power, including all of II Fliegerkorps and elements of X Fliegerkorps and Fliegerführer Afrika, with other bits and pieces of German units, and even more Italian aviation. G&M break it down as follows:

bombers - 486 (270 Italian, 216 German)
fighters - 411 (222 Italian, 189 German)
torpedo bombers - 36 (all Italian)
ground attack - 195 (168 Italian, 27 German)
transports - 386 (170 Italian, 216 German)
rescue planes - 42 (24 Italian, 18 German)
large gliders - 27 (all German, at least 12 and possibly 27 Gigants)
total - 1533 (840 Italian, 693 German)

Against that the British had 60-odd Spitfires on Malta, the ones flown in from WASP and EAGLE on 9 May 1942. Don't know about other aircraft that could have participated. It's worth noting that of the 46 Spitfires flown in from WASP on 20 April, forty were destroyed in about ten days.

Ground Forces
The Axis would have committed seven divisions (one German and six Italian) plus a few smaller formations: two parachute divisions, the 7th Fallschirmjäger and the Folgore, one air-mobile division, the La Spezia, and four leg infantry divisions, the Friuli, Livorno, and two which they do not name. In addition, the RA's 1st Assault Battalion, elements of the Loreto Battalion of combat engineers, the marine San Marco Regiment, and some Blackshirt infantry would have been involved. Total manpower was 96,000, equipped with 754 guns (including at least twelve 149mm and two dozen 105mm and plenty of 90mm and 75mm AT/AA guns), 850 motorcycles, 270 81mm mortars, 170 gun tractors, 27 assault guns (eight Semoventi 75mm scheduled for the first wave to counter British tanks, with nineteen 47mm later), and 70 tanks (20 Panzer III, 50 L-3.)

Opposing this would have been fifteen battalions totalling 26,000 men with ten tanks, a mix of Matilda IIs and Vickers Mark VICs. I don't know what artillery they had. I do know that food was extremely short and the defenders were suffering the effects of malnutrition, if not outright starvation.

Sea Forces
The Italians would have sailed a covering force of four battleships, four heavy cruisers, eight light cruisers, and 21 destroyers under Admiral Iachino. About 25 torpedo boats and numerous MAS boats would have operated out of Sicily in support, commanded by Admiral Parona. The invasion convoy would have consisted of 46 Germans ships with 81 assault boats and 151 Italian ships and craft of all types ranging from large transports on down. In addition there would have been 52 other supporting vessels including trawlers, tugs, water-carrying ships, oilers, and a pair of hospital ships. Escorting all this would have been three destroyer escorts, ten destroyers, six torpedo boats, a sloop, nine MAS boats, three patrol boats, twelve minesweepers, and one flotilla each of German E-boats and minesweepers. I expect the Sicilian-based light forces would have contributed as well if the need arose. The invasion fleet would have been commanded by Admiral Tur. Many submarines would have been deployed in support.

Against that the Allies would have been able to field very little. There were no warships of any description remaining at Malta. Nothing larger than a cruiser remained operational in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Gibraltar Force (the designation Force H was not being used at the time) had only MALAYA, ARGUS, and EAGLE. The Mediterranean Fleet was pretty well gutted at the time. Now had the Allies become aware of the Axis efforts in time (presumably through code-breaking) they might have been able to organize a powerful relief force, but that's difficult to quantify owing to variables in dates, priorities, intelligence assessments, etc. I don't know exactly what the British (presumably in the form of Home Fleet) might have been able to contribute, especially with the Murmansk convoys ongoing. US contributions could have included WASHINGTON, operational with Home Fleet from April to July, and possibly NORTH CAROLINA, which went to the Pacific in June. I don't think they'd care to commit the really old battleships (any more than the British would the R-class.) RANGER and WASP are also possibilities, engaged as they were in aircraft ferry missions in the Atlantic area at the time. The latter sailed to the Pacific in June along with NORTH CAROLINA and other ships, most notably the heavy cruiser QUINCY and the antiaircraft cruiser SAN JUAN. A task force built around those warships would have been formidable, but I'm not sure it would have been enough considering the amount of Axis air power in the vicinity. The British could throw in submarines, but they would likely have negligible effect on the invasion as a whole.

The Plan
A three-week air campaign would have preceded the landings. Week One was the battle for air supremacy. The overwhelming Axis numerical advantage would most likely have seen that won. The Allies would have responded by trying to organize more ferry missions, but how quickly they could have been mounted or how successful they might have been, I can't say. Week Two was to soften up the ground defenses (and if code-breaking hadn't already warned the Allies, that campaign would.) Week Three was to knock out antiaircraft guns defending areas where it was planned to drop paratroopers.

The assault would have begun at approximately 0130 hours with a battalion-strength glider landing under Colonel von der Heydte. This battalion would have been tasked with the destruction of the remaining antiaircraft guns near the main drop zone. Following it would have been two regiments of the 7th Fallschirmjäger and one regiment of the Folgore, dropping on the west side of the island. Their mission was "to clear and then protect the amphibious beachhead area." Translated, that means seize the high ground overlooking the landing beaches. They were also to capture an airfield (there were two nearby, at Luqa and Hal Far) on which the La Spezia division would then land. Assisting in this would have been the RA's 1st Assault Battalion, 400 strong, and 800 combat engineers coming in to clear the field. The rest of the paratroops would been dropped in toward the end of the first day.

Simultaneously with the airborne assault, 300 commandoes with naval gunfire support would have gone after Fort Benghasua, while another 300 naval paratroopers dropped into Fort St. Lucian. The idea was to clear the seaward defenses of Marsa Scirocco Bay so that supplies could be landed there.

The amphibious assault starting in the wee hours of the morning would have come on the western end of the island, behind the the heavy fortifications known as the Victoria Lines (which would eventually have had to be crossed in order to capture Valletta.) The British defenses in this area were very limited. The Friuli and Livorno divisions would have landed near Famagusta, with a 1900-man force would have gone in at Lamarca. The Friuli and the troops at Lamarca would have attacked Marsa Scirocco Bay from the rear and most likely taken it, as it was defended by only four battalions, all covering the eastern side. The Livorno's role is not specified, but I suspect it was to act as a reserve, supporting whoever needed the most help (probably the paratroopers.) Two more divisions would have landed the next day. Once all the troops were ashore, they would drive on Valletta.

Fire support was amply provided for, as the plan called for "continuous support" from the air beginning at 0500 (that is, dawn.) As seen above, there would have been plenty of aircraft available to do it. Naval gunfire support would have been provided by Iachino's heavy covering force, with the two old battleships assigned specifically to the job, and the rest doubtless available to contribute if required.


I conclude, therefore, that had the Axis gone forward with the operation, they would have carried the island. The British were outnumbered and outgunned, and I don't think any amount of intelligence information could have saved Malta from a determined assault in the summer of 1942. The numerical (and qualitative, when considering Axis air power vs British ships - that's where Crete comes in) disadvantages were simply too great.

[B-24WillowRun]

WOW[:0]
That was just good. I had read a little while looking at a website dedicated to Malta but not that much. I am still trying to understand why they never did try the mission. But on a nother side why Italy never gave the Navy an air arm? That would have I think really helped to make the Med an Italian lake. Any help on these points? [B)]

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by B-24WillowRun

I am still trying to understand why they never did try the mission. [B)]


I think that the British sowed enough seeds of doubt to make the Axis step back and take a good long look. I expect the experience of Crete hada lot to say in the final decision.

As I mentioned in my original post on the Battlecruisers forum - ironic Park and Kesselring faced each other again and the scenario was the same - constant reports of the RAF being on their last legs and finally a win for Park.

[B-24WillowRun]

The Germans just missed a great oprotunity. But now you want me to go read about Crete [:0]

I am still trying to understand the lack of a Naval Air arm for the Italians. Would that have made any differnce in Malta? I know it is only about 60 miles or so from mainland but the they could have sailed with the fleets to Africa and west of Malta.;)

[B-24WillowRun]

WE talked about Malta and its falts, but then Crete was a great leap in the development of airborn attack. But also showed the big error in not being able to have the Ship strength to counter the RN and that doomed the paratroops even if they won. Now if Hitler would have truely developed plan Z all things might have been differnt in Crete. But then Italy was to blame for all that. They had no overall war stratgy then Hitler really did not as well. His plans for the jews were more thought out then for winning the war. That is just all my thoughts [B)]