Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: zonker@ihlpf.att.com (Thomas M Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Airborne Operations
Message-ID: <1990Jul8.053521.8182@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 8 Jul 90 05:35:21 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 53
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: zonker@ihlpf.att.com (Thomas M Harris)
In reference to gliders.  During WWII due to the relatively primitive nature
of transport aircraft (at least as far as using them for parachute
operations) the glider was the best alternative for delivery of the heavy
equipement needed by the airborne forces.  Nobody on the allied side seems
to think it was a particularly good way to do things, especially 
by the end of the war, but it was the best way at the time.  Gliders
require too much open, level, hard ground, they are fairly easy to defend
against i.e. obstacles, and as such they tended to restrict the location
for airborne operations.  Gliders are one of the reasons the British First
Airborne Division gets so badly chopped up.  They have to drop six miles to
the North of Arnhem to protect the only suitable glider landing zones.  If
they had been all parachute they could have dropped south of the bridge and
been in a much better position to hold the bridge and support XXX corps
advance.  Instead they are almost cutoff and wiped out.  The glider disappears
after WWII as military air transports are developed with parachute operations
in mind (i.e. back loading ramps so large equipment can be parachuted) and as
helicopters become available which can do the same job.  I don't think that
in the time frame available in WWII after D-Day there is enough time to
develop an alternative and frankly the gliders did the job.
    The Central Illinois Tabletop Warriors are currently working on a replay
of operation Market-Garden and as part of the judging team I have been
doing a fair amount of research in allied airborne OBs.  All three U.S. Airborne
divisions had a glider infantry regiment. (The 82nd's was the 325th and the 101's
was the 327th and don't know the last one's probably the 326th).  I don't know much
about the third U.S. airborne division except that the 507th parachute regiment was
attached to the 82nd for D-Day as the rest of the division wasn't ready yet
and it was gone for Market Garden as the Division was in England, but not
yet combat ready. Most of each U.S. division's artillery regiment was also
glider borne (two battalions 75mm guns and 1 battalion of 105mm), but each
also had one parachute artillery battalion (75mm guns were dropped
un-assembled from the side doors of the transports).  Note: the
U.S. airborne artillery used pack 75mm  and pack 105mm howitzers which had
special carriage and could be broken down into small loads (the guns were
also used by mountain troops such as the 10th division).  The British
Divisions  were set up similarly as far as glider troops went i.e. one
regiment, but all their artillery was glider born.  The British 
generally were much more enthusiastic about gliders until Arnhem.
    Also developed at the end of the war was a glider borne tank the
Locust.  It was dropped using the large British Waco glider.  It saw action with
the British in the Ruhr operation.
					
					Non Cuniculus Est,
					    Tom Harris


[mod.note:  Chamberlain and Ellis, in _Tanks of the World, 1915-45_,
claim that the Locusts were delivered in Hamilcar gliders.  Britain had
their own airborne tank, the Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch, also carried
by Hamilcars; these were used at Normandy and in the Ruhr operation.
Twenty were also sent to the USSR via Iran. - Bill ]