What if the Luftwaffe adopts the Vollmer M35?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
I see leg bags as distinct from the choice of harness because both types of harnesses require strapping the leg bag close to your torso/leg for exit and opening.
Once their parachutes are open, modern paratroopers pull quick-release buckles to lower their rucksacks, rifles and snowshoes on 3 or 4 metre long lowering ropes.
As soon as you land 3 or 4 metres off to the side of your rucksack, you have vastly reduced the risk of landing on top of it.

As for a motive ??????? you tell paratroopers that they will jump into a mountain valley populated by pretty girls. They will have a few days Liberty and then they will have to walk out. The more ambitious paratroopers will stuff their best civilian clothes in their duffle bags and jump with their duffel bags.

Alternately, you could have an MG34 assistant gunner tire of shoving a spare barrel inside his jacket, wrapping mg belts around his torso, around his arms, around his legs, etc. The bright lad stuffs all of his mg spares in a duffel bag and ties the duffel bag to his harness.

Master Corporal (retired) Rob Warner, CD, BA, etc.
Canadian Army Basic Paratrooper Wings, West Germany Army Bronze Para. Wings, plus more than 6,000 civilian jumps.
 

Deleted member 1487

I see leg bags as distinct from the choice of harness because both types of harnesses require strapping the leg bag close to your torso/leg for exit and opening.
Once their parachutes are open, modern paratroopers pull quick-release buckles to lower their rucksacks, rifles and snowshoes on 3 or 4 metre long lowering ropes.
As soon as you land 3 or 4 metres off to the side of your rucksack, you have vastly reduced the risk of landing on top of it.

As for a motive ??????? you tell paratroopers that they will jump into a mountain valley populated by pretty girls. They will have a few days Liberty and then they will have to walk out. The more ambitious paratroopers will stuff their best civilian clothes in their duffle bags and jump with their duffel bags.

Alternately, you could have an MG34 assistant gunner tire of shoving a spare barrel inside his jacket, wrapping mg belts around his torso, around his arms, around his legs, etc. The bright lad stuffs all of his mg spares in a duffel bag and ties the duffel bag to his harness.

Master Corporal (retired) Rob Warner, CD, BA, etc.
Canadian Army Basic Paratrooper Wings, West Germany Army Bronze Para. Wings, plus more than 6,000 civilian jumps.
I did a bit of reading about the leg bag and it seems early designs would just rip off, like the ones they used in Normandy, so the ones that actually worked were first deployed for Market Garden.

The issue with the Germans is that they dropped very low to avoid scattering, which the Salvatore 'chutes allowed for, but then due to their lower weight capabilities and landing horizontally they just packed their MGs, bullets, rifles, etc. into drop containers that they'd have to recover after landing. Problem was theory and practice were different and especially when under fire it was a problem. Beyond that they also had a glider force land to secure the landing zone...but if landing into a prepared ambush like at Malme that system tended to breakdown very quickly, especially under AAA fire.

So modern combat drop systems were worked out as result of all the cockups in WW2 when they learned the hard way that jumping with guns in separate containers was a problem that even low open 'chutes didn't fix.
http://www.fallschirmjager.net/Vehicles/DropCanister/index.html
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/parachutists/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To the OP: I think there are big knock-on effects. Mitigated losses against the Dutch and especially in Crete (where the paratroops dropped separated from their weapons) may result in a 50 percent mitigation in losses, which are still horrific but makes the operation in Crete look more successful. I think operations in Barbarossa are not likely, but then they may be used to capture Rostov before a critical bridge was blown, which can change the whole campaign in 1942.
 

Deleted member 1487

To the OP: I think there are big knock-on effects. Mitigated losses against the Dutch and especially in Crete (where the paratroops dropped separated from their weapons) may result in a 50 percent mitigation in losses, which are still horrific but makes the operation in Crete look more successful. I think operations in Barbarossa are not likely, but then they may be used to capture Rostov before a critical bridge was blown, which can change the whole campaign in 1942.
50% less losses at Crete?

Also given that the Allies would capture the rifle in 1940 and 1941 would the Brits field a copy or their own version any time soon?
 
I suppose my opinion of such minute swapping arounds' is known, so I won't add it here but I do have to ask something...

The cost of the weapon was apparently extremely high, 4,000RM per weapon (or $1,600 1940 USD/$27,000 2016 USD). Even if the cost could be dropped by 2/3, that is still over $500 1940 USD per weapon (the EARLY production cost of the M1 was ~$91, dropping to under $30 by 1944). The MG34 cost $131 (tripod added $160), so you are looking at close to four time the budget hit compared to giving every trooper a LMG (and that is if the cost drops by 2/3). The Late War MP 44 was ~$28 per unit.

Any indication of what the demands in manhours and raw material input would be? I tend to find those to be even more important indicators of production then a glance of the price tag, which can be deceptive when it comes to war economies.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I suppose my opinion of such minute swapping arounds' is known, so I won't add it here but I do have to ask something...



Any indication of what the demands in manhours and raw material input would be? I tend to find those to be even more important indicators of production then a glance of the price tag, which can be deceptive when it comes to war economies.
Not a clue/
 

Deleted member 1487

Any indication of what the demands in manhours and raw material input would be? I tend to find those to be even more important indicators of production then a glance of the price tag, which can be deceptive when it comes to war economies.
Unclear. Certainly less than the more complex and heavy FG-42 (which used a special nickel based steel), but definitely more than the StG44, which was purposely designed to be made of lower quality stamped metal.
Prototype numbers tell us little, as they refer to a version that was more complicated than the 1939 developed prototype according to the book I was referencing. I'm thinking it will probably be around the cost of a G41/43, but used an intermediate cartridge and had automatic. It would probably be no more than a G-41 based on the system I'm seeing of it disassembled, but I cannot find material/man hours needed to make it.
 
50% less losses at Crete?

Also given that the Allies would capture the rifle in 1940 and 1941 would the Brits field a copy or their own version any time soon?

1. A lot of the losses were the Germans being dropped far away from their heavy weapons. This changes with ITTL.

2. It would take more time to backwards engineer the thing, so likely they modify what they have and it takes 4 years or so.
 
Top