@fester A large portion of the French Resistance were called the Maquis. Unless this particular group were composed exclusively of aristocrats.
I'm HEEEEEeeere!
Keynes' Cruisers Volume 2
- Thread starter fester
- Start date
- Status
I'm HEEEEEeeere!
In this timeline, the US (and UK) did not go heavy on airborne units as the German experience in this timeline limits the imagination of the plausible. TTL the US raised the 82nd Airborne as the sole divisional element of paratroopers plus three additional parachute infantry brigades. In OTL, there were 5 airborne divisions.
See this story post:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/keynes-cruisers.388788/page-365
Driftless
Donor
That thought poses a series of questions:
*would there be as many transports produced(C-47's especially) without the Airborne demand?
*or was there plenty of other work to be done for every transport built?
*or would some of that C-47 money get shifted over to developing the next generation of planes?
Yes, they needed transports to move men and materiel quickly that would not change. They may need a fair few less because they would not need as much troop lift, but they will still need a lot for tactical resupply etc.
Actually, a lot of the para activity was from slightly modified versions of the C-47; modified enough that they carried a separate designation from C-47...
Not likely to be fun, I'm afraid
in OTL the first major Allied Airborne assault in the Med was an unmitigated disaster for both US and UK forces.
Over 50% of the British Glider Assault infantry landed in the sea, with 200 drowned.
Less than 10% landed on target and none of the objectives planned were attained.
The US Para forces fared even worse. They were scattered so badly that 5 days later only 75% were in organised units but even then most of these groups were not at any of the designated rally points.
These elite troopers fought bravely of course. when they stumbled across an enemy
One British platoon that landed close to a vital bridge (helped by others who rallied to the gunfire) surrendered only after taking losses around 70%
But all those lives were effectively wasted
Errolwi
Monthly Donor
Expecting logic from US Aircraft designations of this era is ... optimistic.
Coin toss if they go ahead with C-53 ITTL IMO, but probably fewer made if they happen. I assume they were cheaper to make, and had a bit more range (as had lower empty weight).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_C-47_Skytrain#Design_and_development
The specialized C-53 Skytrooper troop transport started production in October 1941 at Douglas Aircraft's Santa Monica, California plant. It lacked the cargo door, hoist attachment, and reinforced floor of the C-47. Only a total of 380 aircraft were produced in all because the C-47 was found to be more versatile.
The Airborne drop was a total cluster but Primosole Bridge was captured and the demo charges removed and held long enough against some of the best troops in the German army, for the 151st brigade and tanks from the 4th Armoured to arrive and recapture it after the 1st Airborne 'Brigade' troops (only about 2 companies worth) had been forced away from it.
The Bridge was vital for the 8th army's advance towards the Catania plane as it was one of the few heavy bridges that spanned the Simeto River.
As it was effectively captured intact with the Germans and italians unable to destroy it those lives were not wasted at all!
Another change that has freed up a lot of transport planes, even more than a reduced airborne corp, is the Burma Road remaining open. A greatly reduced Hump airlift in TTL only for high priority cargo and personnel. This frees up many bigger four engined transports as well as the C-47s.
Driftless
Donor
(To go with the transport aircraft discussion) The CW-20 (C-46) was first designed back in 1937, but didn't hit production till 1941. IF that timetable got accelerated by a year or two, and both operational kinks and improved civilian market usage get worked out, does that put more C-46's into military service during the war? Both the C-47 and C-46 had useful characteristics, but the DC-3/C-47 had a leg-up on the CW-20/C-46 by it's earlier service life.
Last edited:
AFAIK the C-46 was never pressurized in military cargo service. Pressurization was its original design for use as a civilian airliner but that wasn't desired for a cargo plane or paratrooper carrier. It could carry a heavier load then a C-47 due to its more powerful engines. One problem the C-46 suffered from was fuel leakage into the wings causing fires or explosions. That problem was eventually fixed.
Not true in any significant aspect, I'm afraid.
The landings were certainly CFs ... worse than anything I heard of before. Many of the casualties over the sea were friendly fire, pilots refused orders to continue... the list is horrifying.
While the cobbled together assault force did achieve some sort of a coup-de-main against Primsole Bridge, they were effectively destroyed before any relief force arrived. (And that attempt at 'relief' was in itself another catalogue of unforgivable blunders).
The Air Assault troops most certainly did NOT 'hold until relieved' despite getting significant NGFS.
The Axis were in full control of the north bank and the bridge again within one day,
repulsing the belated Allied efforts to take the Bridge by ground assault from the south,
destroying both Tanks and attacking infantry easily.
Primsole bridge was not finally secured until three days after the start of the operation when an infantry battalion established a bridgehead on the north bank of the river using a completely separate ford. This outflanked the Axis defence but even then there was more hard fighting before the Axis defenders were driven off.
It is true the original UK forces had indeed prevented the immediate, total destruction of the Bridge and luckily the Axis did not have the equipment to drop it in the time that they held it again. They tried improvised methods though and it was made unusable for heavy traffic. The bridge required repairs by engineers after the Allies finally secured it.
On balance it was the Axis forces that had achieved their main aim of preventing a rapid advance by Allied Tanks across the Bridge which might have cut off a portion of the Axis assets in the area.
The Sicilian air assault was a good idea on paper but probably impractical given the level of resources available and definitely unrealistic given the lack of training of personnel involved on land, sea and air
IMHO that is definitely waste ... even counting the valuable lessons on what not to do that were identified in the process and accepted by some but rarely implemented in later actions
Last edited:
Driftless
Donor
Hopefully, with an earlier first flight and earlier general service, that issue also would have been dealt with sooner. Both C-46's & C-47's soldiered on seemingly forever after the war, so there was some good bones there. Both proved to be outstanding aircraft for their era.
Last edited:
It certainly proved to be a Bridge too far but had they not attempted the mission what would have happened to the Bridge?
And I would not use the term 'destroying both Tanks and attacking infantry easily' - the Germans had to fight tooth and nail to push back 9th Durham Light Infantry battalions initial assault and the later 8th DLI flanking assault via the ford had the DLI and FJs fighting each other at Grenade range for hours though vine yards etc
The same thing happened when No 3 Army commando captured the Malati Bridge further to the East - although they made a far better job of it than the Paras arriving as they did as a more or less cohesive Battalion from a amphibious landing - but they had to relinquish the Bridge as well when they ran low on ammo etc but like Primsole Bridge they had destroyed the demo charges and that Bridge was recaptured by the 69th Brigades leading infantry the next day.
As for the 'attempted relief' the 50th TT Division and supporting tanks had been fighting since the original landings on the 10th without rest and were given the mission to relieve the paras only on the 13th had to fight through a town and were low on Transport so pretty much had to march to the Bridge and then fight for it. And also send one of it 3 Brigades to relieve 3 Commando at Malati.
Basically even had the Airborne landings worked as intended it is not a certainty that the Bridge would have been held in the face of so much enemy resistance and the Germans sent their best troops in elements of the 1st FJ Division to defend it.
Knowing as we do what was on the other side of the hill regarding this mission I think capturing the bridges and preventing their destruction was realistically the best that could be achieved and this was not possible without the Airborne assault (despite its CF nature).
In addition the hope that their would be a rapid advancement onto the Catania plane was never realistically possible even if the 8th Army was able to cross straight over on the 15th.
And anyway all of this is totally irrelevant as the important thing is you should be writing Chapter 12.......
This announcement reminds me of the weather forecasts we've been getting around here recently.
Re: C-47, their era.. this continues to be their era, some still fly today! http://www.journalgazette.net/news/us/20190526/d-day-plane-to-celebrate-75th-anniversary
Sounds like the flood forecasts on the Lower Mississippi....the Bonnet Carre spillway has been opened twice in the same year for the first time and the Morganza will be opened for the third time in 60 years
- Status