Bad Books

[toysoldier]

http://peoples.ru/military/hero/maresiev/foto_01.shtml

[Yama]

Anything written by Rezun aka 'Viktor Suvorov'. Meet the BT-series tanks designed (in USA) to cruise the German Autobahns, built by USSR long before there were any Autobahns in Germany. And lets not forget tens of thousands Su-2's - which will overtake attack missions against enemy airfields - flown by Komsomolets with rudimentary glider training. Oh, and according to Great Military Expert Suvorov, anyone who has undertaken a parachute course from a jump tower, is a trained airborne commando. This gave USSR astonishing force of one million airborne troops. Of course, there were transport capacity only for few thousand, but who cares? Russians are so much more efficient compared to decadent West, that they don't need aircraft!

 

Clancy get a frequent treatment here. He got gradually worse until Debt of Honor where he completely collapsed. I've seen 14-year old war nerds come up with more plausible military fiction. Gave up on Clancy after that disaster. Though, I am thinking about picking up his next book hoping that he has regressed enough so that his writing makes a decent self-parody and I will at least get a good laugh.

Edited October 3, 2005 by Yama

[KingSargent]

This gave USSR astonishing force of one million airborne troops. Of course, there were transport capacity only for few thousand, but who cares? Russians are so much more efficient compared to decadent West, that they don't need aircraft!

230210[/snapback]

No NO NO!! They had planes, they didn't have PARACHUTES. The lucky highly trained people picked a soft snowdrift and jumped.

[swerve]

Oh, and according to Great Military Expert Suvorov, anyone who has undertaken a parachute course from a jump tower, is a trained airborne commando.

 

Hey! I'm an airborne commando & I didn't know it. Well I never!

[Tony Williams]

To digress for a moment - that reminds me about the wonderful story of the Gurkha unit which was to be dropped behind enemy lines. Their (British) officer explained what was to happen to their NCOs, pointing to the plane which awaited. The NCOs looked worried and went into a huddle with their men. They came back shortly afterwards and asked the officer: "Can you please ask the pilot to fly verrry low and verrry slow?" It then dawned on the officer that he hadn't mentioned the parachutes...

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Geoff Winnington-Ball]

LMAO!!!! I'd forgotten that... who the hell was it who recounted that incident? George MacDonald Fraser mayhaps, or John Masters? Sheesh...

 

To digress for a moment - that reminds me about the wonderful story of the Gurkha unit which was to be dropped behind enemy lines. Their (British) officer explained what was to happen to their NCOs, pointing to the plane which awaited. The NCOs looked worried and went into a huddle with their men. They came back shortly afterwards and asked the officer: "Can you please ask the pilot to fly verrry low and verrry slow?" It then dawned on the officer that he hadn't mentioned the parachutes...

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

230306[/snapback]

[Colin]

I think it was John Masters in his very good books

[Bob B]

The way I heard the story from a friend's father, who flew a Dakota in the RAF somewhere in asia during WW2:

 

They were flying very low and slow and the Gurkha commander asks them to go even lower. The pilots says that they are so low now that the parachutes may not have time to open.

 

The Gurkha commander say, "What is a parachute?"

 

 

[BillB]

I think the soviets had 2 or 3. Bader was the better self publicist.

 

Not denying Baders bravery and tenacity, but most of 'Reach for the sky' according to After the Battle was pure mythmaking. The real clincher was Bader colliding with an ME109 when in reality, was almost certainly shot down by his own wingman. I assume accidentally.

230273[/snapback]

Heh. I bet the Russian wasn't a self-serving snob obsessed with having his name pronounced "correctly", either. The petit bourgeoisie can be extremely tenacious when there is a bit of social status to be obtained.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[BillB]

Ref the Gurkhas and parachutes, I believe this is mentioned in Maurice Newnham's "Prelude To Glory", his unoffical history of the British airborne training infrastructure written in the early 1950s. Newnham was one of the early arrivals at RAF Ringway and ended up commanding the British Parachute Training School. IIRC an RAF NCO parachute instructor was giving a sales pitch to a bunch of prospective Gurkha volunteers when they opened the School at Chaklala which involved waxing lyrical about the joys of parachuting and describing a jump in detail. The Gurkhas remained somewaht unenthusiastic at the end of the pitch until one asked a question about landing and it dawnwd on the NCO that they didn't realise they would be issued with parachutes. Enthusiasm rose by leaps and bounds when he explained this...

 

all the best

 

BillB

[hojutsuka]

Oh, and according to Great Military Expert Suvorov, anyone who has undertaken a parachute course from a jump tower, is a trained airborne commando.

230210[/snapback]

Not that I think much of "Suvorov" myself, but actual "practice drops" are apparently not that necessary for successful jumps into combat. When the French were trapped in Dien Bien Phu, the only way to get reinforcements in was to drop them in by parachute. When the French ran out of qualified paratroopers, they dropped in volunteers with very minimal training (IIRC maybe one practice drop, or less). The percentage of drop injuries did not differ much from that for trained pratroopers apparently (see Bernard Fall, "Hell in a Very Small Place". I can't locate my copy at the moment, unfortunately).

 

Hojutsuka

[hojutsuka]

I think it was John Masters in his very good books

230313[/snapback]

"The Road Past Mandalay"

 

Hojutsuka

[Yama]

Not that I think much of "Suvorov" myself, but actual "practice drops" are apparently not that necessary for successful jumps into combat.  When the French were trapped in Dien Bien Phu, the only way to get reinforcements in was to drop them in by parachute.  When the French ran out of qualified paratroopers, they dropped in volunteers with very minimal training (IIRC maybe one practice drop, or less).  The percentage of drop injuries did not differ much from that for trained pratroopers apparently (see Bernard Fall, "Hell in a Very Small Place".  I can't locate my copy at the moment, unfortunately).

230434[/snapback]

 

Yes, but that's different compared to what Suvorov claims - those 'trained paratroopers' of his were actually civilians, mostly teenagers.

[Rickshaw]

Yes, but that's different compared to what Suvorov claims - those 'trained paratroopers' of his were actually civilians, mostly teenagers.

230482[/snapback]

 

Who else do you think would be crazy enough to jump out of a perfectly good working aeroplane at altitude?

Edited October 4, 2005 by Baron Samedi

[starman]

I noticed a pretty dumb error in Blum's The Eve of Destruction. In the map at the beginning of the book, the "Lexicon Road' is where the Artillery Road should be and the "Artillery Road" is actually the supply road. Tirtur is also too far south.

[larrikin]

Not that I think much of "Suvorov" myself, but actual "practice drops" are apparently not that necessary for successful jumps into combat.  When the French were trapped in Dien Bien Phu, the only way to get reinforcements in was to drop them in by parachute.  When the French ran out of qualified paratroopers, they dropped in volunteers with very minimal training (IIRC maybe one practice drop, or less).  The percentage of drop injuries did not differ much from that for trained pratroopers apparently (see Bernard Fall, "Hell in a Very Small Place".  I can't locate my copy at the moment, unfortunately).

 

Hojutsuka

230434[/snapback]

 

Much of the myth about the difficulty of being a paratrooper comes from the intensive training of early Western (inc FJ) airborne units. Of course, much of the intensity of that was so that they could be dropped behind enemy lines and operate there until the ground troops caught up. Training people to jump out of aircraft isn't all that difficult, and only takes a few days, with troops it's even easier due to two factors - the 'obey' reflex, and the fact that the jumpmaster can kick 'em in the arse to get them out of the plain.

[BillB]

Much of the myth about the difficulty of being a paratrooper comes from the intensive training of early Western (inc FJ) airborne units.  Of course, much of the intensity of that was so that they could be dropped behind enemy lines and operate there until the ground troops caught up.  Training people to jump out of aircraft isn't all that difficult, and only takes a few days, with troops it's even easier due to two factors - the 'obey' reflex, and the fact that the jumpmaster can kick 'em in the arse to get them out of the plain.

230544[/snapback]

Take your point and largely agree mate, but with the possible exception of the FJ I don't think early airborne training was all that intensive, except maybe the physical hardening phase at the outset. The British dropped the Commando raider training and all-volunteer principle by the end of 1941 and started converting infantry battalions en mass with exceptions for the physically unsuitable only. The intensive selection and training is a largely a post-WW2 peacetime construct, I think.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[larrikin]

Take your point and largely agree mate, but with the possible exception of the FJ I don't think early airborne training was all that intensive, except maybe the physical hardening phase at the outset. The British dropped the Commando raider training and all-volunteer principle by the end of 1941 and started converting infantry battalions en mass with exceptions for the physically unsuitable only. The intensive selection and training is a largely a post-WW2 peacetime construct, I think.

 

all the best

 

BillB

230549[/snapback]

 

Also US airborne selection and training, which along with the FJ, is what most poeple think of when they cogitate on WWII paras. You see very little on Brit training, the main focus goes to the Commandoes and the 'private' armies. The Oz production of paras was pretty similar to the UKs, although 1 Para was an all volunteer unit from an all valunteer force. However, some of our Cdo regts were converted Div Cav regts.

[BillB]

Also US airborne selection and training, which along with the FJ, is what most poeple think of when they cogitate on WWII paras.  You see very little on Brit training, the main focus goes to the Commandoes and the 'private' armies.  The Oz production of paras was pretty similar to the UKs, although 1 Para was an all volunteer unit from an all valunteer force.  However, some of our Cdo regts were converted Div Cav regts.

230567[/snapback]

Should have been more clear, I'm unaware of US training being much different from what I wrote about the British. They just did more shouting and were a bit quicker at washing folk out at times IIRC, but this was more a matter of style than content I think. As for the FJ, it might be what folk cogitate on but there is an awful lot of nonsense about concerning them. However rigorous their training, overall they weren't up to much operationally or equipment wise.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[larrikin]

Should have been more clear, I'm unaware of US training being much different from what I wrote about the British. They just did more shouting and were a bit quicker at washing folk out at times IIRC, but this was more a matter of style than content I think. As for the FJ, it might be what folk cogitate on but there is an awful lot of nonsense about concerning them. However rigorous their training, overall they weren't up to much operationally or equipment wise.

 

all the best

 

BillB

230586[/snapback]

 

Bill, I'm referring to the fact that unlike the US Army's PBI, their paras were selected volunteers, not reeple-deepled, etc, etc. They were also given more training in being able to operate independently, and their junior leaders, including NCOs got a lot more training. They were also crosstrained in other weapons, instead of being just a rifleman, BARman, etc., much more like the way Brit/C'wealth troops were trained.

For those of SAM reading this, I'm being critical of your infantry, not the rest of your army. The PTB screwed your PBI badly in way too many ways.

[KingSargent]

Should have been more clear, I'm unaware of US training being much different from what I wrote about the British. They just did more shouting and were a bit quicker at washing folk out at times IIRC, but this was more a matter of style than content I think.

As you pointed out a good many of the British paras were simply converted infantry units. I don't really know if their equipment differed from normal PBI - except the parachute of course.

US Parachute infantry had a much different TOE than 'normal' GI infantry. They had a LMG per 8-man squad instead of a BAR per 12 man squad (this varied a lot through out the war) and usually had as much support weaponry as a normal bn, but on a much smaller number of men. More 'bounce to the ounce' as it were. They were also trained more for demolition work than normal PBIs.

As for the FJ, it might be what folk cogitate on but there is an awful lot of nonsense about concerning them. However rigorous their training, overall they weren't up to much operationally or equipment wise.

 

all the best

 

BillB

230586[/snapback]

I agree with reservations. The early FJs that "startled the world" were pretty well-trained, but their equipment sucked. Well not "sucked" but normal infantry gear. Later, after they essentially stopped making combat drops after Crete, specialist weapons for airborne use came out like the FG42 AR and the first recoilless artillery. So the early people who were trained had had 'grunt guns' and the ones who weren't dropped got the new stuff.

 

Their jump doctrine sucked in that the paras weren't armed, all their gear was dropped in equipment containers except that each man landed with a P.08 (Goering mandated the LW stick with the Luger - so much more elegant than that cheesy Walther P.38, y'know) which was his sole weapon until they could locate and unpack the equipment bundles. This is not a good idea on a 'hot' LZ.

 

Their transpost sucked too. 'Tante Ju' was a good old plane, but it carried fewer men than the Yank C-47, so more planes were required per unit. Their normal DFS glider also carried less than US and UK gliders.

 

And finally the op that made airborne famous - the surprise taking of Eben Emael - wasn't done by parachute infantry, it was done by glider-borne Pioneers.

[BillB]

Bill, I'm referring to the fact that unlike the US Army's PBI, their paras were selected volunteers, not reeple-deepled, etc, etc.  They were also given more training in being able to operate independently, and their junior leaders, including NCOs got a lot more training.  They were also crosstrained in other weapons, instead of being just a rifleman, BARman, etc., much more like the way Brit/C'wealth troops were trained.

For those of SAM reading this, I'm being critical of your infantry, not the rest of your army.  The PTB screwed your PBI badly in way too many ways.

230626[/snapback]

Fair enough, but my comparison was between the Brit and US airborne troops, not so much their respective infantry arms. First, I'd say the Yanks were self-selecting rather than selected volunteers. I believe anyone could volunteer and if you got through the course you were in. Incidentally the British retained the volunteer system for individual replacements, and had recruiting teams patrolling units and infantry depots until at least 1944. The Brits moved to converting entire infantry battalions to the parachute role because they could not find sufficient volunteers and because it was too time consuming to train non-infantry volunteers in the required infantry skills. I've studiied US airborne forces in some depth, and I've not seen much evidence for all this extra training you refer to in comparison with their British counterparts, as you say.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[BillB]

As you pointed out a good many of the British paras were simply converted infantry units. I don't really know if their equipment differed from normal PBI - except the parachute of course.

Personal equipment, no. They even did away with high leg boots copied from the FJ as unecessary. The logic, driven by the need to move the parachute force away from its freebooting raiding Commando roots, was that parachuting was merely a unorthodox means to an end, after which they were expected to perform like any other high-grade infantry. It worked too, except the PTB took the thing too far on occasion. I'd also point out that once the conventional battalion had been selected it then underwent all the intensive stuff before and after parachute training at Ringway. So there was a bit more to it than just giving them a new title and modicum of specialist training.

US Parachute infantry had a much different TOE than 'normal' GI infantry. They had a LMG per 8-man squad instead of a BAR per 12 man squad (this varied a lot through out the war) and usually had as much support weaponry as a normal bn, but on a much smaller number of men. More 'bounce to the ounce' as it were. They were also trained more for demolition work than normal PBIs.

Same for the British, who had a lighter TOE to start with. They had sergeants rather than corporals for section commanders to allow for losses in the drop phase, and a higher allocation of Stens for short range firepower in the shock role. They also received more intensive training that stressed the need for initiative, which was a beneficial hangover from their early Commando roots I think.

I agree with reservations. The early FJs that "startled the world" were pretty well-trained, but their equipment sucked. Well not "sucked" but normal infantry gear. Later, after they essentially stopped making combat drops after Crete, specialist weapons for airborne use came out like the FG42 AR and the first recoilless artillery. So the early people who were trained had had 'grunt guns' and the ones who weren't dropped got the new stuff.  

Fair one, altho personally I don't think airborne troops needed fancy weapons. Everybody seems to have done fine with standard issue weapons. Altho at least one unit in the 101st ditched the BAR as too unwieldy.

Their jump doctrine sucked in that the paras weren't armed, all their gear was dropped in equipment containers except that each man landed with a P.08 (Goering mandated the LW stick with the Luger - so much more elegant than that cheesy Walther P.38, y'know) which was his sole weapon until they could locate and unpack the equipment bundles. This is not a good idea on a 'hot' LZ.

Good catch, the bundle thing was the key problem. At least one op to seize a Dutch airfield went totally pear shaped in Holland because wind separated the parachute spearhead from its weapon containers and they were unable to deal with the AA defences before the airlanding units rolled up. The Britis identified this as a weakness right away, leading to the development of weapon sleeves that allowed even heavy weapons to be dropped with the men. The Germans missed the clue train though and suffered heavily again on Crete from exactly the same cause. That and their insistence on landing fully-laden transpots on unsecured airfields, which also cost them dear in Holland (c.500 aircraft written off IIRC) and at Maleme. Down to inflexible planning and poor comms I think, altho I've not dug into it properly.

Their transpost sucked too. 'Tante Ju' was a good old plane, but it carried fewer men than the Yank C-47, so more planes were required per unit. Their normal DFS glider also carried less than US and UK gliders.

Well, a slightly unfair comparison there, mate, as the C-47 was the dogs nuts. Look at the Whitley! The problem with the JU52 was the door, which was too small to allow a bloke out with an equipment bundle or weapon sleeve even if the Germans had bothered to remedy that problem. It is also why they had to have gymnastic training. The problem with the gliders was that they were just an adaptation of a sporting sailplane design. The Brit Hotspur was designed on the same basis and had the same flaws of small load and it couldn't be put down steep and fast because of the wingspan. I read about a demo for Churchill at Ringway where the Hotpsurs arrived on time but sailed right over the LZ at about three feet up and went right on going... They remedied that in the Horsa, which was incidentally originally designed to drop paratroops, and could make really steep approaches and bleed off the speed fast with big flaps. Finally, the German parachute was pretty poor too. As the risers were located in the middle of the parachutists back, it could not be steered at all and obliged the unfortunates using it to land on all fours. So I dunno if that was compatible with weapon sleeves anyway.

And finally the op that made airborne famous - the surprise taking of Eben Emael - wasn't done by parachute infantry, it was done by glider-borne Pioneers.

230680[/snapback]

Indeed, altho unlike their Brit counterparts they were all parachute trained I believe. IIRC the role originated with the initial Luftwaffe prefeence for parachute troops, which was to be a small scale raiding and demo force to deal with targets that bombers could not hit. On an allied line, I understand that current Brit light infantrymen take great delight in pointing out to bemused Paras that it was their people that spearheaded the Nomandy landings at Benouville...

 

all the best

 

BillB

[gnocci]

all the warbooks i´ve read are soviet.

230117[/snapback]

 

Other interesting were Alexander Bek's "Panfilov's men" & "The Volokolamsk Highway", on Moscow Battle. I've read it in the Cuban edition

Another was "Hot snow" or something like that, about the groups that raided behing German lines. In the end everyone on the "good" camp dies

On the bad side, i have a recopilation of submariners memories, and they're awfull (except one, i think). They're just baaaad. Most of them were written in the '50s, so that can explain it.

[KingSargent]

Fair one, altho personally I don't think airborne troops needed fancy weapons. Everybody seems to have done fine with standard issue weapons. Altho at least one unit in the 101st ditched the BAR as too unwieldy.

Yeah, so they got a Browning M1919 MG, either A4 or A6. Great decrease in unwieldiness there... .

 

I don't think the FJ needed the special weapons (although the FG42 was nice), but they got them because they were Goering's fair-haired children.

 

BTW, the US training of paras with demolitions arose from early days when the Air Corps wanted the paras so they could have their own ground force just like the Luftwaffe and Navy, the Infantry wanted them because they were just infantry with funny transport, and the Engineers put in a bid because they envisioned dropping small demo teams to blow bridges and stuff behind enemy lines.

Well, a slightly unfair comparison there, mate, as the C-47 was the dogs nuts. Look at the Whitley! blink.gif

Yeah, the Ju52/3m started service in the LW as a bomber too...

230787[/snapback]