Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: nulspace@eng.umd.edu (Michael Chang)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Airborne operations
Message-ID: <1990Jul8.053437.7936@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 8 Jul 90 05:34:37 GMT
References: <1990Jul3.031911.6890@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul5.020538.14365@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul6.032802.27798@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Lines: 20
Approved: military@att.att.com



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)