WW2 Technology WI: Airborne Divisions Create "Drop Pods"?

In my limited understanding it seems like armour is usually too heavy to be used, or too light to be useful. And in aircraft the problem is many times worse than usual.

I think Draconis has it right, the solution is along the lines of:
  1. Get rid of the parachute altogether, it is the absolute worst, last-resort option for getting troops down if you can’t land any kind of airframe at all
  2. Improve the gliders to get the troops down on the ground as fast as possible, with the least possible risk of injury on landing
And then build good tactical transports so you can start flying in and out as soon as any kind of flyable spot can be secured.

Where I do think you are correct is in identifying that the cost of losing a decent number of highly trained troops, plus also potentially losing the battle due to casualties, makes it worthwhile to invest a decent chunk of money in getting them down safely.
All that pissing about with cheaply-built allegedly-reusable deathtrap gliders which happened OTL seems to me the epitome of ‘penny wise pound foolish’.
Wasn't the Locust Tanks capable of being transportable via glider during ww2? This would seem to indicate that some armor is possible
 
A drop pod would basically be a worse and more dangerous version of a glider. Terminal velocity would be high and parachutes can only do so much, so you would need specially engineered crush zones and crash seats to keep the occupants safe. Gliders are able to use the lift generated by their wings to control their rate of descent and make a controlled and safe landing.

Imagine the difference between jumping off your house and being able to use your knees and roll into the landing to control your deceleration versus getting thrown off your house strapped to a chair and praying you don’t shatter your spine into a million pieces.
 
Last edited:

Puzzle

Donor
Maybe they could just open their parachutes later. Airborne troops used the static line which automatically opened them. I assume there’s a good reason for that as I’m not a paratrooper, but if they fell ballistically for longer there’d be less dispersal. It certainly seems easier to engineer than a drop pod as cool as they are.
 
The Purpose of troops in a glider was to allow them to concentrate with their heavy equipment and late war this included vehicles but early war - particularly the Germans who dropped with a Pistol and 2 Grenades due to their single point harness, dropping their rifles, SMGs, Machine guns, ATRs and Mortars in supply cannisters meaning that until they could marry up with the equipment they were pretty much defenceless.

Landing by glider they had everything in one place
When did paratroopers first use drop bags, and how much could they hold?
 
When did paratroopers first use drop bags, and how much could they hold?
The British had them before D-Day but not sure when (1943?)

I understand that the bags could weigh up to 100 pounds (about 45 kgs)

The idea being that the bag attached to the paratrooper by a length of rope would hit the ground first and for the last however so many meters the length of line was - the paratrooper now lighter by x pounds/kgs would slow down and run less risk of injury when landing than if they landed with all the weight on them.

The US Army was a late adopter of the system Just before Normandy and their bags during D-Day were not as well made nor were the paratroopers that used to using them.

Coupled with many aircraft dropping to fast many paratroopers had their drop bags (also known as leg bags) torn away when they hit the air stream - they also lost googles and helmets etc and many landed with just a knife!

But the system is still used to this day.
 
The drop pod concept here seems to be an attempt to force Warhammer 40k technology onto a World War 2 timeline. It might be cool, it might be possible, but there is no reason to do it, and lots of reasons not to, as the posts above have detailed. Post World War 2, with the advent of tail ramp cargo aircraft, air dropping armoured vehicles is not a problem. They do not need a pod.

 
Thanks to this interesting new thread I had a second look at my purported redesign of the CG-4A Waco glider. I noticed that the wheel part of the landing gear design could be optimized for simplicity.

From my original post.

"For takeoff we need wheels. A pair of axle less wheels fitted to each side of the fuselage near the C of G so the pilot can balance on the wheels during the takeoff run. If the glider is loaded correctly the nose would only be resting very lightly on the corrugation less front skids which would not impede a quick acceleration to a speed where the glider can be balanced on its' two double wheels for the majority of the takeoff run.

I don't know if the wheels should be designed as jettisonable after take off or built as to be raised up above the level of the landing skids for an assault landing. It might be nice to have the option of making a wheeled landing providing one allows for a long landing roll-out. The wheels would be raised by some simple lock and lever mechanism operated by a soldier or one of the pilots can go back to the cargo area to raise the wheels for a skid landing."

The second paragraph describes the problem. What is the simplest way to take off on wheels and land on skids? It's deflate the tires. No need for a complex and heavy mechanism for raising the wheels. And having droppable after take-off wheels means the wheels have to be recovered or spares made if the gliders are to be reused.

If using 10" or 12" tires with the hub mounting fixed to just below the lower edge of the fuselage then when inflated the tires will provide about 4" inches of ground clearance between the skids and the runway which is adequate for take off. In flight the tires are deflated. So when landing the weight of the glider is fully loaded onto the landing skids for a quick deceleration giving a shorter landing roll.

How to deflate the tires in flight? The wheels are mounted with the valve stem facing inward. A small zippered flap is built into the fabric skin beside each wheel. Somebody sticks their hand out and pushes the valve stem to let the air out. If for some reason eg. cargo blocking access then bayonet the tire through the fabric.

Cheap, dirty but effective.
 
Last edited:

Puzzle

Donor
The second paragraph describes the problem. What is the simplest way to take off on wheels and land on skids? It's deflate the tires. No need for a complex and heavy mechanism for raising the wheels. And having droppable after take-off wheels means the wheels have to be recovered or spares made if the gliders are to be reused
Or you could take off on a wagon and leave it behind when you lift off. The wagon never even needs to leave the ground and you could motorize it if you need additional power.
 
Or you could take off on a wagon and leave it behind when you lift off. The wagon never even needs to leave the ground and you could motorize it if you need additional power.

But the thing is you have these uncontrolled wagons careening around the airfield at about 50 MPH with every glider take off. That's dangerous. And you don't have the wagons available for recovering gliders after the assault landing unless you ship them in. And you have to build these wagons in the first place in numbers because many won't survive the take offs. It goes against the simplicity effort.
 
Last edited:
This sounds like an armored glider.

IMO, as Draconis suggests, gliders are the better option. They're more maneuverable under fire, & able to vary their descent speed at need.

Could they have been bigger? Maybe. I ponder something like a C-119 "parasite glider", with a full C-47 fuselage & glider wings, carried to the launch point by something like a B-17 wing & cockpit. Is that impractical? Very possibly...
 
Could they have been bigger? Maybe. I ponder something like a C-119 "parasite glider", with a full C-47 fuselage & glider wings, carried to the launch point by something like a B-17 wing & cockpit. Is that impractical? Very possibly...
The Americans built a C47 glider but quickly realised that it was a waste of resources, abandoned the project and converted it back to a standard C47.


1616631427381.png
 
Last edited:
The Americans built a C47 glider but quickly realised that it was a waste of resources, abandoned the project and converted it back to a standard C47.


View attachment 636055
AIUI, the CG-17 (?) was probably THE definitive US WWII heavy glider, or would have been had it not detracted from the aviation marvel that was the C-47. Could have turned Airborne Divisions into almost exclusively glider outfits. As for the pod idea, I don't think parachute tech was evolved enough for that in the mid 40s. Doesn't mean they couldn't have dropped a variety of heavy weapons in separate pods.
 
The Americans built a C47 glider but quickly realised that it was a waste of resources
I wasn't thinking of an exact copy, just the fuselage (for its volume), with a wing that could lift as much. Actually, I was imagining the Skycrane idea as a glider, combined with the Mistel concept, if that was possible (or practical).
 
This is the follow on to the WW 2 glider program. The Chase XG 20 developed in 1950.


Basically they put engines on it and voila, the C 123 was born and that was a real successful aircraft.

Unlike the Germans and the Me 323 this actually worked better with engines on it.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
They developed Gliders for that very reason to drop troops and equipment in a concentrated fashion

A drop pod unlike a glider would impose a weight penalty on the carrying aircraft that I think would be inefficient given the tech of the day and would not be as efficient as a towed glider.

Also while Gliders did crash and this meant that everyone board would be at risk - parachutists would be individually be at risk of being harmed etc on landing

I would think that a 'drop pod' would run the risks inherent to individual paratroopers.

Granted parachutes and gliders were both imperfect in WW2 but they worked well enough and were achievable with the technology of the day
Beat me to it.

Always felt that American Glider troops got hosed. Assignment was just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than jumping, they were assigned to the same divisions, were qualified parachutists, but if assigned as "glider infantry" they didn't get jump pay. That was not a minor thing, and it didn't only apply if you were in a hostile fire zone or in combat, it was constant. Jump pay was $50 a month, the base pay of a PFC was $54 a month, even a Staff Sargent only made $96 a month. junior offices only pulled down $150/mo.

MAJOR hose job.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Over sized drop tanks with a couple of troops inside and a cargo chute.
Well, that would be one way to ensure discipline.

"Okay Johnson, that'll do. Thanks for volunteering to be part of the light armored deployment unit. Make sure you clean up your personal effects before we take off, don't want the wrong sort of things getting back to your folks."

Also make identifying and transporting the remains a lot easier for the Graves Registration units (yet another "Why me, God???" assignment).
 
Well, that would be one way to ensure discipline.

"Okay Johnson, that'll do. Thanks for volunteering to be part of the light armored deployment unit. Make sure you clean up your personal effects before we take off, don't want the wrong sort of things getting back to your folks."

Also make identifying and transporting the remains a lot easier for the Graves Registration units (yet another "Why me, God???" assignment).
No, that's the Rapid Light Armoured Deployment Unit. The one's that are dropped from an altitude of 50 feet or less and bounce to the target.
 
Well, that would be one way to ensure discipline.

"Okay Johnson, that'll do. Thanks for volunteering to be part of the light armored deployment unit. Make sure you clean up your personal effects before we take off, don't want the wrong sort of things getting back to your folks."

Also make identifying and transporting the remains a lot easier for the Graves Registration units (yet another "Why me, God???" assignment).
Why not make these individual drop pods out of wood approximately 6' tall, wider at the shoulders & narrowing to the head. With the correct velocity those that fail to slow could end up 6' down saving the Graves Registration a lot of work.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Why not make these individual drop pods out of wood approximately 6' tall, wider at the shoulders & narrowing to the head. With the correct velocity those that fail to slow could end up 6' down saving the Graves Registration a lot of work.
Better if you include fins that impart a "stablizing" spin and built in landing nose that will both arrest the spin and ensure a secure exit

1616695658358.png
 
The British had them before D-Day but not sure when (1943?)

I understand that the bags could weigh up to 100 pounds (about 45 kgs)

The idea being that the bag attached to the paratrooper by a length of rope would hit the ground first and for the last however so many meters the length of line was - the paratrooper now lighter by x pounds/kgs would slow down and run less risk of injury when landing than if they landed with all the weight on them.

The US Army was a late adopter of the system Just before Normandy and their bags during D-Day were not as well made nor were the paratroopers that used to using them.

Coupled with many aircraft dropping to fast many paratroopers had their drop bags (also known as leg bags) torn away when they hit the air stream - they also lost googles and helmets etc and many landed with just a knife!

But the system is still used to this day.
Major John Landers, OC of pathfinders, 22nd independent para coy "invented" the leg bag.

Winter of 42/43
 
Last edited:
Top