———————————————————————-Yeah. Something like that.
Gov supported "Skydiving schools" perhapse?
Cheers.
There is historical precidence of Russia and France establishing gov’t sponsored parachute schools for “sporting” purposes.
———————————————————————-Yeah. Something like that.
Gov supported "Skydiving schools" perhapse?
Cheers.
While their biggest market are Wehraboos, there's enough raw data thst shows thru to be not exactly inaccurate, but biased, as is the case with most authors.Interesting, I'll try and find a copy to check out, but Schiffer books does have a reputation of being historically inaccurate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiffer_Publishing
Though to be fair there are issues with work of the two particular historians who've raised the issue.
So..... earlier request for such a weapon givem the information garnered from the early instigation of 'Skydiving schools' ?
How quickly did they put the FG 42 together? Only one or maybe two years?
Cheers.
I looked up the author and book, which yielded detailed reviews about it contained. It is entirely possible to judge the validity of the source without reading the content. If I can get a copy I'll check out the details though.You havent read the book and are already criticizing it?
The book was probably reissued in 2000 or published by the family. I can't find anything else about the author and apparently the Guy Richards cited was in the military in WW2 (had an NY Times obit too):That would be a remarkable feat for a dead man, to write a book in 2000...
Sure, but a lot of BS ended up getting circulated because little fact checking was done by publishers.While their biggest market are Wehraboos, there's enough raw data thst shows thru to be not exactly inaccurate, but biased, as is the case with most authors.
Books on Nazi gear has sold well since the '60s. Allies, not as much. Schiffer, you have to admit, are far better than the old Crescent, Charles Scribner or Salamander coffee table books and the Profile pamphlet series from back then
Probably. The G41 though was a piece of garbage and rightfully withdrawn after the combat reports flowed in. The G43 was better, but was only accurate out to about 350 yards, while not doing what the FJs needed out of it, i.e. be accurate at long range and having an automatic feature to allow for all their weapons (SMGs, rifles, and MGs) to be combined into one weapon to ease logistics. That said it would have been a much more viable weapon had they gone down to 6.5mm given the spec. It is amazing that they basically met the spec, but the problem was the spec even though it made sense at the time for the needs of the FJs.Problem is the Crete shock was needed to create it, otherwise they would have just gotten the StG or G43 like everyone else, but since they LW believed to need a full power round to not be outranged, the FG 42 was created, in spite of the G41 being already in troop trials by then. Nazi Germany...
If it were only an issue of dropping separately from weapons they could have solved that with a different parachute like the RZ-36. They had the additional problem of complicated logistics due to different weapons and ammo being dropped and not necessarily having the right weapon at the right time. The FG42 was meant to solve all of the problems in one in addition to the evolution of the parachutes, because AFAIK the FG was not intended to be used with existing parachutes due to how they were laid out.OTL FG42 was developed in a rush after Fallschirmjagers suffered heavy losses in Crete. The problem was identified as FJ landing with only pistols and grenades and taking too long to retrieve long guns from cylinders dropped separately.
RZ harnesses limited how much equipment FJ could strap on. Also, low doors in Ju52 limited the amount of weight (rucksacks, rifles and snowshoes) FJ could carry out the door.
FG42 goals included making a multi-purpose weapon short enough to jump with: overall length 1 metre, weight, etc. The result was a flimsy weapon that was ingeniously designed and surprisingly versatile. Flimsy because it was a “Mark I” rushed into production Renowned engineer Louis Stange made the FG42 accurate because it fired single shots from a closed bolt, could fire full-auto for short periods of time and was short enough for house-clearing.
On a personal note: I have fired a German-made, modern, semi-automatic replica of a first-pattern FG42 rifle and thoroughly enjoyed it! When firing full-bore 7.92 mm Mauser ammo, it barks and emits a ball of flame out the muzzle, but recoils less than an FN FAL firing similar, full-bore ammo (7.62 x 51 mm NATO).
When the zombie apocalypse arrives, I want to be armed with a made-in-Texas (Smith Machine Group) replica of an FG42 second pattern and sitting on a crate of 7.62 NATO ammo.
I looked up the author and book, which yielded detailed reviews about it contained. It is entirely possible to judge the validity of the source without reading the content. If I can get a copy I'll check out the details though.
The book was probably reissued in 2000 or published by the family. I can't find anything else about the author and apparently the Guy Richards cited was in the military in WW2 (had an NY Times obit too):
https://www.librarything.com/author/richardsguy
Sure, but a lot of BS ended up getting circulated because little fact checking was done by publishers.
Probably. The G41 though was a piece of garbage and rightfully withdrawn after the combat reports flowed in. The G43 was better, but was only accurate out to about 350 yards, while not doing what the FJs needed out of it, i.e. be accurate at long range and having an automatic feature to allow for all their weapons (SMGs, rifles, and MGs) to be combined into one weapon to ease logistics. That said it would have been a much more viable weapon had they gone down to 6.5mm given the spec. It is amazing that they basically met the spec, but the problem was the spec even though it made sense at the time for the needs of the FJs.
That was just one of several that said the same and no reference to any other author with the name. Perhaps it is an unfortunate mix up of two authors, but going off of what I could find it appeared they were one and the same.In some cases, when it is obvious a book is garbage, maybe, otherwise...
That library thing seems to be some sort of Wiki... see?
View attachment 467748
I was initially talking about the shift from the pre-Crete parachute and the RZ-36 as a result of experience gained there, as cited in a DTIC report on the history of the German experience of parachute operations, since that was the big shift from the horizontal posture chute to the vertical one.Another reference to the RZ 20s in Crete:
"Weapons and equipment of the German Fallschirmtruppe" (page 40) argues that " The RZ1 remained in use until early 1940. Then followed the new RZ16 with improved packing of the static line. The subsequent RZ20 featured improvements in the central opening mechanism. It was first used at Crete in 1941 and remained in service until mid-1943 (...) was first used in limited numbers during the Crete operation".
James Lucas´"Storming eagles" on page 366 points out that the RZ20 was first used "operationally" in Crete.
As for the photographic reference, Chris Ellis´"7th Flieger Division. Student´s Fallschirmjäger Elite" shows on page 83 a (accurate?) pic captioned as "General Student making a point to a para in early 1941. Behind Student is von Roon (Staff of XI. Fliegerkorps). Note the second mark of parachute RZ20"
This pic can be also seen in Von Roon´s "Die Bildchronik der Fallschirmtruppe 1935-1945" (page 22)."
...and a reference to the author who seemed to be quite alive in 2003.
https://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31446
In any case, if he is who you claim, I think graduating from the US airborne school at the tender age of 63 is commendable, that and writing while dead...
Copyright 2000, no indication of edition, bibliography includes books from the 80s and 90s.
You are jumping to conclusions and grasping at straws...
You know how Germany R&D was run in WW2, that was par for the course! Of course given the special mission of the FJs it is totally understandable that they'd want a weapon that fulfilled their unique requirements, but was of at best limited utility to anyone else. The big reason the FG42 was controllable was the muzzle brake, not a hard technology even at the time; the US military tested it after the war and found controllability disappeared without the brake. The recoil buffer in the stock helps as well, again nothing particularly difficult technologically, just expensive, too expensive for a mass service weapon, but acceptable for a limited run paratrooper weapon. What is surprising though is that the US didn't learn from that when making the M14...Sure, but how crazy do you have to be to request a NEW weapon be developed mid-war with a nigh-impossible spec? Because what Stange did was close to a miracle, even today that is an outstanding weapon, more manageable in full auto than most if not all of the full-powered rifles that came after.
The sane thing would have been to wait for the G41 and MP43 programs to yield an usable weapon.
Maybe if Goring had ordered a compact rifle to be designed for the FJ's shortly after their formation Volmer could have reconfigured his design to be suitable for the FJ's. a folding stock, pistol grip and shorter barrel might have done the trick and could have led to an even better design down the road but for the record I love the FG-42 and would love to own one or even a non-firing replica.
I wish someone one would come out with an airsoft version.
From the Ju90? I said a a new wing was needed, not that the Ju90's was optimized for a strategic bomber, though the bomber variant of the Ju290 was apparently viable.No, but you did claim the new wing as a positive, and as we have seen, it wasnt.
Much depends on the layout of the design. But remember most of the potential bomb capacity of the Ju88 was external. It's max internal capacity was less than that of the Ju89 and that also reduced the range to something like 600 miles. Using the bomb bays as fuel tank holders and loading up the external bomb racks with max potential payload extended range, but only by consuming a bunch more fuel due to the much increased drag.How weird would it be if two bombers, designed side by side by the same company, ended up with the FAR LARGER bomber having a smaller bomb bay... and one incapable of being expanded at that...
When I get home I can double check on the ramp. Not sure exactly you're referring to with the 'not drag, not speed'part.Not drag, not speed, the ramp was added on the V6.
I'll check my books on the bomber, but IIRC there was a version that could.Nope, the He 177 did not have the 5.000Km range needed to make the trip, at best managed 4.400Km with 1t bombs as per its data sheet.
Are you talking production models? Because of course, they weren't even in production. I can check my book on the bomber when I get home to get the chart about their planned range.No Ju 288 ever reached even 4.000Km, not with Jumo 222s nor with DB 610s.
In Russia not an issue due to air defense being a point defense system rather than a nationally integrated system like in Germany or Britain. Even then air defenses were mostly concentrated in Moscow and Leningrad, with the rest being pretty inadequate for most of the war. Over Britain that wouldn't be needed, but of course the 5000k range was for the Ural Bomber and potentially VLR recon.And, finally, how do you find a target 2.500Km inside enemy territory at night? A 5.000Km daytime trip would be a bloodbath for ANY bomber.
Comparing a bomber without armor, bombs, and defensive weapons to production bombers that did really doesn't tell you much.It cruised as fast as the Lancaster and B17, of course, we cant know that for certain until fully armed and with production engines.
The He 111 was limited to SC250s internal, the Ju 88 SC50s... it wouldnt be hard to put much more lethal 8xSC500s on an aircraft as large as the Ju89 and end up with a better range and offensive payload than the 3xHe 111 that Kesselring claimed could be built for 2xJu 89s. Less crew as well.
With proper turrets after 3 years of development they could have them with 2xMG FF, belt fed, or with 2xMG17Zs, some real firepower.
The Perfect is the enemy of the Good Enough. The problem is it isn't clear than the Ju89, even developed, would have been Good Enough to justify the cost. Plus it wasn't really a 'bird on hand' yet due to the unpredictability of the how redesigns would work out.“The best is the enemy of the good.”
"Bird on hand" and so on...
You're forgetting all the redesign work that would have to be done, new prototypes needing to be built, construction of the new production facilities, not simply the lines being changed over due to how much larger the facilities would need to be to make them compared to twin engine bombers, and so on.Oh, development began in 1935, first flight 1936, service 1939 at the latest since it had no problems during early testing. Just like the Ju 88 until someone decided to screw it up.
Since we were talking about having the bomb bay inside and you said it did, citing the gondola....Of course not, and I never said that!!!
They needed the gondola for defensive weapons and the inside for fuel, so they put the bombs in the gondola as the simplest solution, big deal.
I'm not saying that, I'm saying that leaving all else the same would mean compromised performance compared to redesigning the aircraft around the much more powerful engines.Great, so do you have a source for such problems? The new engines would provide enough power so it would no longer be underpowered.
Same exact wings on the Ju290 as the 90? I highly doubt that given the engine power upgrade.Which is why I pointed out those wings appeared on the Ju90 and didnt help at all.
Well when you're talking about redesigns that didn't happen IRL...That is a whole lot of probablys there...
Hitler defense? He literally was in charge of the War Ministry and set national policy; since war wasn't being pursued by anyone but Hitler and as of 1936 there was no war on the horizon unless Hitler started it it was a reasonable assumption. Hitler's erratic foreign policy only came about later after the decision had been made. Since Wever died in 1936 there is no post-war rationalization there like with other generals.Ah! The Hitler defense, Hitler had no control over when wars began, and any professional soldier, from any country, in any period of history, trusting such statements, from anyone, is either an idiot or lying...
...other people might declare war on you, specially if you are doing stuff you are not supposed to do... like bombers...
What is the point of a Ju89 with heavy defensive firepower and armor, not to mention the range, if you're going at night and can cut all of that to increase payload with a lighter bomber, like the British twin engine strategic bombers of 1939-41? Something like the Wellington bomber would have been ideal in that case, or even a stripped down He111.First successful trial on blind bombing aids was in 1935, 200 Ju89s might make a difference in 1940 with proper signals security and no enemy night fighters.
Most things; it was capable of tactical, operational, and strategic level bombing provided the ranges are short enough and they were in 1939-40. Corum's book I mentioned earlier really covers the why's of all of this.Question, what is a medium bomber good for?
I honestly don't know why the Ju90 wasn't adopted as a military transport, especially since they were already flying a militarized transport prototype in December 1939 and could have adapted it to the Ju352 standard of three engines, one in the nose, well before the 252 prototype even flew.Just make a transport version of the Ju 89... wait!
A folding stock Volmer could've made a big difference at Crete.Very simple solutions would have fixed the problem...
![]()
The FJ could have jumped with that, and the MG34 could easily be broken down in two:
Before turning to more complicated solutions.
That was just one of several that said the same and no reference to any other author with the name. Perhaps it is an unfortunate mix up of two authors, but going off of what I could find it appeared they were one and the same.
I was initially talking about the shift from the pre-Crete parachute and the RZ-36 as a result of experience gained there, as cited in a DTIC report on the history of the German experience of parachute operations, since that was the big shift from the horizontal posture chute to the vertical one.
As to the situation of the author I was just going off of what was readily available online.
You know how Germany R&D was run in WW2, that was par for the course! Of course given the special mission of the FJs it is totally understandable that they'd want a weapon that fulfilled their unique requirements, but was of at best limited utility to anyone else. The big reason the FG42 was controllable was the muzzle brake, not a hard technology even at the time; the US military tested it after the war and found controllability disappeared without the brake. The recoil buffer in the stock helps as well, again nothing particularly difficult technologically, just expensive, too expensive for a mass service weapon, but acceptable for a limited run paratrooper weapon. What is surprising though is that the US didn't learn from that when making the M14...
The G41 was a bust and the FG42 requirement issued after the G41 was available. The G43 though was nowhere near meeting the sort of requirement that the FJs had, especially if they were going to jump behind enemy lines; the STG was ultimately something they got, but was more useful for the sort of fighting they ended up doing on the ground as full infantry divisions, rather than for drops. The FG42 makes a ton of sense for the sorts of missions that the FJs were doing as of Crete, but much less after, as they simply weren't doing most of their fighting as anything other than light infantry divisions on the front line.
What is really surprising is that they didn't adopt the Vollmer M35 pre-war despite strongly considering it and that would have been extremely helpful in 1940-41 despite the supply complications. The only thing it lacked was the range and ammo compatibility of the FG42 (and of course the open bolt select fire option).
A folding stock Volmer could've made a big difference at Crete.
Always been a fan of the MG-34, this is a new drum magazine for paintball guns, I would love to mod a paintball gun to look like an MG-34 and mount this drum on it.![]()
No, I just went off what info I could find about the author online, which every bookseller I could find had Guy Richards listed as having died in 1979 and being the author of that book.You jumped to conclusions because you didnt like the info.
Non-steerable is an irrelevant category for WW2 paratrooper parachutes, the big different was rigs allowing for vertical or horizontal landing, the former allowing for rifles to be carried in the jump.The RZ 36 didnt change the essence of the earlier ones, it was non-steerable, just like the others, the relevant changes were pre-Crete (dyed canopy, quick release) and implemented on the RZ 20. Nothing to do with the Italians either.
Sure, but they were hardly the only ones to make that mistake with Cold War battle rifle designs.And straight recoil, all that went into the M60.
Well, that is a partial solution and they wanted more than just adapting existing weapons, they wanted a full replacement of the different weapons with one unified system requiring one type of ammo to maximally simplify logistics and production, as well as have weapon weapon that could be jumped with. There is also the small issue of split weapons needing to be reassembled in combat situations, the potential for the parts to be lost, and of course the splits allowing for the weapons to potentially fall apart after heavy use, wear, or improper construction.They could have simply jumped with split MG34s and modified rifles, but no... nazis...
As they found out the MP40 did not have the range they needed on Crete and guys could already jump with them. They wanted the best of all worlds in one, which was achievable (see the Cetme designs of the 1950s or the small caliber designs later), but some technology and doctrine had not caught up, while having a different caliber added in production and logistics issues. They did the best with what they had given constraints and got the FG42, which was actually pretty good for what it was, but not ideal.You can always dress for the occasion, a higher % of MG34s when assigned to hold ground, higher % of MPs when in the assault, in both cases they could have jumped with them.
No worse than the FG42, but less heavy, lower recoiling, etc.And ease of production, it was a very interesting project, but it appears it was quite complicated internally. Still one of my favorite PoDs.
No need really, the Italians did a successful naval landing on the eastern part of the island with tanks from their garrison in Rhodes and could have done it sooner had they been asked; they offered and were turned down until it was clear the FJs were in trouble and they needed any help they could get.Or a slightly earlier Go 242, those could have taken a few L3s...
Depends on how much sooner, because most of the defenses were at Maleme and even with surprise they were still there. Plus they did have radar to give early warning before the Fall of Greece even happened.There's a short story where the Germans launch an earlier, smaller attack on Crete and focus their air drops on the airfields at Maleme, the Germans take the Brits by surprise (Ultra told them the attack would come later) and win a quicker and less bloody victory.
I believe the attack came just before the complete fall of Crete, General Alexander Löhr didn't want to wait for all the troops assigned to the attack to arrive feeling it would take too long and the defenders would have too much time to prepare a strong defense.Depends on how much sooner, because most of the defenses were at Maleme and even with surprise they were still there. Plus they did have radar to give early warning before the Fall of Greece even happened.
The Ar 232 stayed in development/production just as long as the Ju 352 (1944). The latter had no advantages over the Ar 232, it was only placed into production because that's what they had available at the time.No? They only made 20 and the Luftwaffe chose to keep the Ju52.
The Ju252 offered VAST advantages, which is they they even bothered to make the Ju352, which was to be the replacement for the 52. They made about 50 of those and only stopped because by 1944 there really wasn't a need for transports, a category they removed from production entirely, and they needed all the fighters they could possible make.
They should have started on something like the 352 at the start of the war instead of letting the development of the 252 go until 1941 when the prototype was ready and then waiting until nearly summer 1942 before asking for a redesign that resulted in the 352.