Bad Books

[KingSargent]

If we are going to discuss transports that sucked, may I nominate the Bristol Bombay?

230814[/snapback]

Ah yessss.... Another British design that was supposed to fill both bomber and transport roles. The Handley-Page Harrow was another 'multi-role' type.

[yak_v]

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

 

Interestingly enough Soviets used Li-2s (license built DC-3) and LL C-47s as long range bombers, many even had a 20mm gun in the dorsal turret.

 

Vladimir

Edited October 4, 2005 by yak_v

[KingSargent]

Interestingly enough Soviets used Li-2s (license built DC-3) and LL C-47s as long range bombers, many even had a 20mm gun in the dorsal turret.

 

Vladimir

230825[/snapback]

So did the Japanese, but as transports, which might have made things a little tricky at times...

[Yama]

Ah yessss.... Another British design that was supposed to fill both bomber and transport roles. The Handley-Page Harrow was another 'multi-role' type.

230819[/snapback]

 

Ju-86; half bomber, half airliner, wholesale suckage.

[Ol Paint]

So did the Japanese, but as transports, which might have made things a little tricky at times...

230843[/snapback]

Then, of course, there were the B-18 and B-23 bombers based on the DC-3 wings & other parts, and the erzatz bombers that consisted of C-47, loadmaster/kicker, & drums of napalm, but this is really drifting the topic (but not quite outright derailment--that'd happen if gaseous moose somehow entered the discussion).

 

Douglas

[Chris Werb]

Bill, I thought our Paras did get some special small arms/platoon weaons in WW-2 - specifically short barrelled versions of the BREN and 2" mortar. They were also (IIRC) among the first to get the Mk5 STEN and the first non SF outfit to get M1 carbines toward the end of WW-2. There was to have been a Mk2, short-barreled airborne variant of the Boys AT rifle but I think PIAT was (fortunately) issued before it entered service.

[BillB]

Bill, you are the airborne expert here and I hate to nitpick, but the Hotspur mk1 was the one that couldnt be put down quickly, at least according to the display at Middle wallop. The mk2 remedied that and could use a steeper approach, but by that point it was evident that something bigger was needed, and it was relegated to training. A remarkable aircraft though, Im informed that when one came unglued in the air, the pilot was able to forceland it with one wing, which I dont suppose did much to improve its approach characteristics.

Okay, you got me, and lay off the "expert" bit. But as the MkI was at least based on the German DFS 250 and the MkII involved a pretty major redesign involving reducing the wingspan by 17 feet, modifying the flaps, ailerons, canopy, controls and troop exit (from coffin lid to proper door), I think my original point stands. Oh, and while we are nitpicking, you missed the MkIII with the externally braced tail assembly. Ref the last bit, I can well believe it. All the Brit wooden gliders were pretty robust despite US hearsay to the contrary.

Incidentally Bill, If you havent yet made it down to middle wallop, make sure you do, they have a glider collection that must be pretty much unrivaled. The size of the Hamlicar was staggering.

Been there mate, altho not for a few years now. I was non persona grata at one time as I had a run in with the retired colonel running the archive there, but I suppose that has blown over by now. They only had a section of Hamilcar fuselage when I was there, and I agree about the scale. I'd love to see the real thing in its entirety, or even a full scale mock up.

If we are going to discuss transports that sucked, may I nominate the Bristol Bombay?

Well, I suppose it depends on what you are measuring it against. They had one of those at Ringway for about ten days before the RAF whisked it away agan as part of their "Whitley-or-nothing" campaign. Considered opinion at Ringway was that it was far, far better than the Whitley for parachuting, not least because it had a proper door rather than a hole in the floor....

 

all the best

 

BillB

[BillB]

Ah yessss.... Another British design that was supposed to fill both bomber and transport roles. The Handley-Page Harrow was another 'multi-role' type.

230819[/snapback]

Well to be fair, I think the bomber/transport thing came about partly because of budgetary restrictions, and partly because it was a tried and proven formula for imperial policing. The RAF made good use of converted bombers for transport work immediately after WW1, and the dual use idea came in very shortly thereafter. I think the Harrow, or Sparow as the dedicated transport conversions were dubbed, were ok. The RAF certainly got some use out of them - they were employed on medevac tasks until 1945, the last combat losses being incurred in Op Bodenplatte in early 1945 IIRC. Like the Bombay, it depends what you are complaring it with. IMO it was far better for parachuting than the Whitley, or indeed the Albemarle, both of which were a nightmare.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[BillB]

Bill, I thought our Paras did get some special small arms/platoon weaons in WW-2 - specifically short barrelled versions of the BREN and 2" mortar.  They were also (IIRC) among the first to get the Mk5 STEN and the first non SF outfit to get M1 carbines toward the end of WW-2. There was to have been a Mk2, short-barreled airborne variant of the Boys AT rifle but I think PIAT was (fortunately) issued before it entered service.

230901[/snapback]

Ferk me, what is this, Nitpicker's Night Out or something? Seriously, fair comment abnd sounds about right. The 2nd Parachute Brigade had M1 carbines in Greece, and some were also used by members of 1st Airborne Div at Arnhem and IIRC 6th Airborne Div had MkV Stens for Normandy. However, I'd argue that minor modifications to standard issue weapons to save weight or to make things a wee bit more wieldy don't really count as special small arms. I should have been clearer that I was thinking of custom designed stuff like the FG42.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[Argus]

I'm no Para expert by anymeans, but I spent A LOT of time hanging around civilian DZ's as a kid.

 

The Germans seem to have wanted to eliminate as much risk as possiable at every stage of the jump from door to ground. The single point suspension system is the safest way to rig a parachute, it is more reliable in extension, deployment and fall, but it reduces the user to a passenger. With a single point harness the jumper has absolutly no control of any aspect of his decent. While this makes it idiot proof, it also means the user can't take advantage of any intelligence they may have, in steering away from obsticles (so far as the canopy would allow) and most importantly the direction they face on landing.

 

I understood this to be the main reason for Gymnastic training, weapon containers and the ankle - knee - elbow - head protection used by the FJ, becuase essentially the paratrooper hits the ground like a proverbial sack of manure, he has no choice about the location or direction he's moveing in, so has to deal with what ever the fates present.

 

I think its worth noting that the PLF was developed for the BA's Para's not the FJ (though I wonder what the Russians were doing). You can't do a PLF under a single point harness, and in effect that system concentrates all the risk factors down to where man meets mud. You have to be a gymnist because your comming down like a cat held by the scruff of its neck, a weapon would just be something to get wraped around. But why they never employed a drop bag I don't know, its not like the man has anything else to do in the last 20'.

 

This cascades through the rest of the drop too, the jump hight has to be low because the only way to try and insure the man is faceing up wind on landing is to drop him so he's faceing in roughly the right direction and low enough so he hasn't time to spiin around too far before he hits.

 

shane

Edited October 5, 2005 by Argus

[BillB]

I'm no Para expert by anymeans, but I spent A LOT of time hanging around civilian DZ's as a kid.

The Germans seem to have wanted to eliminate as much risk as possiable at every stage of the jump from door to ground. The single point suspension system is the safest way to rig a parachute, it is more reliable in extension, deployment and fall, but it reduces the user to a passenger. With a single point harness the jumper has absolutly no control of any aspect of his decent. While this makes it idiot proof, it also means the user can't take advantage of any intelligence they may have, in steering away from obsticles (so far as the canopy would allow) and most importantly the direction they face on landing.

I understood this to be the main reason for Gymnastic training, weapon containers and the ankle - knee - elbow - head protection used by the FJ, becuase essentially the paratrooper hits the ground like a proverbial sack of manure, he has no choice about the location or direction he's moveing in, so has to deal with what ever the fates present.

I think its worth noting that the PLF was developed for the BA's Para's not the FJ (though I wonder what the Russians were doing). You can't do a PLF under a single point harness, and in effect that system concentrates all the risk factors down to where man meets mud. You have to be a gymnist because your comming down like a cat held by the scruff of its neck, a weapon would just be something to get wraped around. But why they never employed a drop bag I don't know, its not like the man has anything else to do in the last 20'.

Which is what I said above I think Shane, albeit in less detail. Ref gymnastics and weaon sleeves etc, have a look at athe door in a JU52. I have been in and out of the example Duxford and it is a bit of squeeze in civvies, never mind with a parachute pack, you have to bend down significantly to fit under the top of the frame on exit and I suspect it would have been a heck of a job lifting a weapon/kit bundle over the door sill too, which is also pretty high. I think the problem is that the door has to be fitted between two important bits of the airframe. This is not just my uninformed opinion, it is based on the opinion of a long-serving para friend who accompanied me on the examination. He almost got us ejected from the museum for experimenting with gymnastic type exits...

 

Ref the BA inventing the PLF, I thought this was a parallel US development originally dictated by the need to train blokes to come down in whatever direction they end up facing at touch down. It was ameliorated by the technique of spilling air from the canopy by manipulating the risers to give a modicum of control invented by a Polish officer seconded to Ringway called Gebolys, and was initially dubbed "the Polish method".

 

This cascades through the rest of the drop too, the jump hight has to be low because the only way to try and insure the man is faceing up wind on landing is to drop him so he's faceing in roughly the right direction and low enough so he hasn't time to spiin around too far before he hits.

shane

231070[/snapback]

Fair one, altho I thought that the jump height was ditated by the need to have the men in the air for shortest possible time vice the time necessary for the canopy to deploy properly. It was also to protect the men from enemy fire, and partly to minimise stick dispersion. I suspect trying to use weapon/kit bundles from a JU52 would have led to an unacceptable opening of the stick dispersal and consequent delay in reorging once on the ground. This was certainly the British rationale, which is why they disliked the Whitley with its equally problmatic floor exit.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[Chris Werb]

This was certainly the British rationale, which is why they disliked the Whitley with its equally problmatic floor exit.

 

all the best

 

BillB

231081[/snapback]

 

My Geography teacher (who passed away about a decade ago), who joined the Paras very early in their history, told me it wasn't unusual for your face to smack into the opposite side of the floor exit as you jumped through it.

[BillB]

My Geography teacher  (who passed away about a decade ago), who joined the Paras very early in their history, told me it wasn't unusual for your face to smack into the opposite side of the floor exit as you jumped through it.

231089[/snapback]

He told you right, Chris. It was jocularly known as "ringing the bell". Virtually guaranteed if you were exiting from the tail side of the aperture facing forward, as the slipsteam hit the front of the legs and pivotted the top of the body forward.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[Colin]

I seem to remember the early SAS practising jump training out of the back of a truck at 30 mph in North Africa, apparently an effective way to reduce your troop strength quickly.

[Ken Estes]

I seem to remember the early SAS practising jump training out of the back of a truck at 30 mph in North Africa, apparently an effective way to reduce your troop strength quickly.

231175[/snapback]

hahahahahahaha very good that last. The first part I recall from Who Dares Wins, perhaps my third military book for [supposed] adults that I ever bought.

[Doug Kibbey]

I seem to remember the early SAS practising jump training out of the back of a truck at 30 mph in North Africa, apparently an effective way to reduce your troop strength quickly.

231175[/snapback]

 

It's been done since. WAY back when I trained for skydiving ("when 'chutes were round and men were square") we jumped off the back of a pickup truck going maybe 15 mpg (30 does sound a little excessive) in what was the big open field across from what is today Loews Motor Speedway in Charlotte, NC (Charlotte M.S., then).

 

I took my wife for a tandem jump on her birthday this year. When I described to the staff the way we used to modify T-28 chutes by cutting holes ("gores") in them with a soldering iron and then making them "steerable", they looked absolutely horrified (and a couple, incredulous). This was standard practice, especially the "7-gore" (7GTU) and the "Double L". Rich guys had the Para-Commander Mk I.

Edited October 5, 2005 by Doug Kibbey

[BillB]

Nitpick away Bill, you got me, Ill admit the MkIII was news to me   One wonders if it would have been useful at Arnhem, they might have been able to drop a full battalion right by the bridge.

 

Ref the MkIII, that's the upside of having photocopies of the appropriate pages from Thetford's "Aircarft of the Royal Air Force". Ref Arnhem, they had enough Horsas for the job. The problem was too few tugs and Browning using nearly a battalions worth for his personal entourage. And the RAF planners with their imaginary flak defences around the bridge.

 

The Hamlicar I gather was real, though due to the size of the museum, they only managed to get the fuselage and one wing in. The Hotspur was a mkII, which I think they only added a couple of years ago, so well worth seeing. Pity they dont have a fully rebuilt Horsa in there, do they have any at Aldershot?

 

Downside was seeing a Lynx and a Gazelle in museum format. Im getting old.

231250[/snapback]

Don't think the Hotspur was there last time I was there, and they don't have Horsa at Aldershot AFAIK. Ref the Lynx and Gazelle, well time and tide wait for no man, mate...

 

all the best

 

BillB

[BillB]

I seem to remember the early SAS practising jump training out of the back of a truck at 30 mph in North Africa, apparently an effective way to reduce your troop strength quickly.

231175[/snapback]

Well, that's what you get when you let the overly enthusiastic set up their own private armies. When they're not breaking their limbs making parachute jumps without any training... I've seen some old black and white footage of folk doing this, and the trucks were moving a lot slower than 30mph. More like a fast walking pace IIRC.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[Manic Moran]

The nice thing about the 10,000 though was that at least not every single American was a supersoldier and incapable of screwing up. (There was that idiot lieutenant...)

 

Dawn Rose is another one which has to be read for its sheer horribleness factor. (Arabs conquer Ireland as a hostage for Palestine, a Celt Force of British and Americans together with the one remaining Irish battalion and warship retake the country)

 

Curiously, the author didn't use real names for the ships either.

 

NTM

[M38]

Not a comment on writing so much as laziness in the book industry: on my last trip to Borders, I saw that there's a new reprint of Robert Crisp's excellent (IMHO) book, "Brazen Chariots". For those not familiar, this covers Crisp's experiences as a Honey commander in North Africa.

 

The cover photo was of German PZKW IVs in what looked like Russia.

 

If you've never read it, buy it, tear off that idiotic cover, and read it anyway. It's a classic tank book.

229245[/snapback]

 

That is an excellent book, I'm glad it is out again - I lent my copy & never got it back.

[BillB]

That is an excellent book, I'm glad it is out again - I lent my copy & never got it back.

231657[/snapback]

Wish I had a tenner for every time that's happened to me. I'd be rich...

 

BillB

[Chris Werb]

The nice thing about the 10,000 though was that at least not every single American was a supersoldier and incapable of screwing up. (There was that idiot lieutenant...)

 

9,999 supersoldiers I can forgive! IIRC it also avoided the tedious habit Clancy has of giving a bio of every major player in the book, explaining how the hero was in the top 00001% of his class at West Point, saved his platoon in Vietnam on a top-secret black op for which he was awarded the CMoH with triple bar and oakleaf cluster, had a top neurosurgeon and ex Miss W. Virginia for a wife who gave him three utterly beautiful and exemplary kids, all of whom won Nobel awards in different scientific fields etc.

[Geoff Winnington-Ball]

Wish I had a tenner for every time that's happened to me. I'd be rich...

 

BillB

231670[/snapback]

 

You took the words right out of my mouth... costs a bloody fortune in time and drinking money to source replacement copies nowadays...

[Yama]

Wish I had a tenner for every time that's happened to me. I'd be rich...

231670[/snapback]

 

Hmmm...but if you had never bought the books, you would be even richer.

[BillB]

Hmmm...but if you had never bought the books, you would be even richer.

231790[/snapback]

Only assuming I hadn't stolen the books in the first place...

 

BillB