Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Airborne operations
Message-ID: <1990Jul6.032802.27798@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 6 Jul 90 03:28:02 GMT
References: <1990Jul3.031911.6890@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul5.020538.14365@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN.
Lines: 21
Approved: military@att.att.com



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!