WW II Paratrooper question

44AMP - the only time I've ever come across that an ordinary rifle was mistaken as a sniper rifle was the unscoped Japanese 6.5 mm Type 38 rifle. I've never read of any GI who called his M1903A3 a sniper rifle. Generally men of the 82nd or 101 had M-1 Garands, M-1 Carbines, M-1 Thompsons and M1911s. Until the grenade launcher for the M-1 Garand was issued, their grenadiers had M1903A3s.

BTW, Simo Hayha used an unscoped rifle.

Buzzcock - I've read all four of Burgett's books and cite one or two of them.
 
The German Fallschirmjaeger jumped with their weapons in a separate container. One reason they suffered such high casualties in Crete was because when many of them landed they couldn't find their containers.
Those of use who have served know there's a big difference between what's prescribed in the manuals-and what the experienced do.
 
Maj. Gen. James Gavin says that after Sicily the 82nd they (82nd) wanted to jump ready to fight and declined using the Griswold bags. Rifles were carried bolt handle outward between the body and the reserve chute. A muzzle guard was sewn by the riggers and the one Gaavin used can be seen in a photograph of him prepping to jump in his book, On To Berlin.
 
This might not be precisely on topic, but you might find it interesting. I had an older friend (ex-Marine, like me) that hated the M14 and thought it was junk next to his beloved M1. And I met his old (real old) First Sergeant that thought that the M1 was junk next to his beloved 03A3.
 
I think it is also important to remember that the whole idea of jumping out of a perfectly good airplane into a battle was something that was still very new. This was 1944. The first experimental paratroop drop was the late 1920s and it wasn't seriously done until the mid 1930s. Techniques were still very much evolving at that point.
 
This might not be precisely on topic, but you might find it interesting. I had an older friend (ex-Marine, like me) that hated the M14 and thought it was junk next to his beloved M1. And I met his old (real old) First Sergeant that thought that the M1 was junk next to his beloved 03A3.
Click to expand...

The 1st Marine was recruiting at Tun Tavern. A fellow comes up and asks him what this is all about? "The New Marine Corps! Bring your own rifle and you can be one of the few and the proud!". The fellow replies "That sounds good to me, I got my rifle right here, sign me up" The Marine signs him up and sends him to wait in the tavern.

A little while later another guy comes in and says he signed up as well. The 2nd Marine asks him where his rifle is? "Well, I told the guy I didn't have a rifle, but I wanted to join. He told me they would find me one and signed me up"

The 2nd Marine grumbled "This sure isn't like the old corps!"
 
I think it is also important to remember that the whole idea of jumping out of a perfectly good airplane into a battle was something that was still very new. This was 1944. The first experimental paratroop drop was the late 1920s and it wasn't seriously done until the mid 1930s. Techniques were still very much evolving at that point.
Click to expand...

I asked a buddy who was an Airborne Ranger in the '80s, and he said they never left the airplane with anything in their hands; live and learn.
 
I asked a buddy who was an Airborne Ranger in the '80s, and he said they never left the airplane with anything in their hands; live and learn.
Click to expand...

No control of risers (and direction) if you can't use your hands. That's why the original statement puzzles me. I can see it if it was in a case strapped to him and he unstrapped it.
 
No control of risers (and direction) if you can't use your hands. That's why the original statement puzzles me. I can see it if it was in a case strapped to him and he unstrapped it.
Click to expand...
It is a puzzling statement indeed.

Don't forget, memory is a funny thing. It's not the video recorder that we would like it to be. This man jumped from a burning plane into horrific war. It's quite possible he misremembered some of the details.

People have been known to be adamant about specific things they remember, that never happened. Especially when under stress.
 
attachment.php


Been scouring footage, have not found much in the way of anything showing a rifle in a paratrooper's hands, but I did find what I think is a rifle falling during a jump.

it is at 4:22 - 4:25, the object falls down the left edge of the video.

Looks more like a rifle when the video is playing than it does in the screen-grab.

https://youtu.be/8oLd5Er9wno
 

Attachments

  • 82nd2.jpg
    82nd2.jpg
    28.1 KB · Views: 195
Last edited:
You quoted the author as saying:
"The Air Force sergeant dove out the door of the plane."
In 1944 there were no Air Force sergeants because there was no Air Force.
I am also suspicious of someone who claims they jumped with a rifle in their hands,
 
In the early 60s I worked with several WWII pars vets. One, Floyd Loveland, made all 3 WWII para assaults. Jumps were made from 250 to 500 feet. The 24' reserve required 250' min altitude to open and safely slow the parachutist. Because of this, some declined to use the reserve, prefering to have a "clean" front. There is adequate evidence that many troops were dropped too low for their parachutes to work.

Some paras secured or carried their weapon on their front or slung muzzle down until they cleared the door, then unslung ready to go to work.

The 28' flat circular T5 parachute had a much stronger opening shock than the 34' parabolic T10 or S-ll or the new T11 "square" static line parachutes.

No doubt in my military mind, the WWII paras were tough.
 
My guess is that the sniper carried his rifle in a drop bag, which was attached to him by a thick, canvas strap. I had one. It was green canvas on the outside that was thicker than my duffle bag, and the inside padding consisted of thick felt. The bag was thick and bulky. Am guessing it would have adequately protected a rifle from a free fall drop of 50-feet or more.
 
No doubt in my military mind, the WWII paras were tough.
Click to expand...
That they were. And they were all volunteers.

Were all Army Paras Rangers in WWII, or did that come later or just with certain units?
 
As an aside story; while working with the 4th Spl Forces Reserve at the Presidio, SF, CA, in the mid 60s, there was one NCO that related a story that in the early 50s when he joined the army, he told the recruter he was a qualified para. Recruter asked when he went thru jump school. He replied 1936. The recruter said impossible, the army did not have a jump school then. He replied it wasn't a US Army school.

My friend was a German, and a German para. He was on the opposite side and admitted he shot at Americans, and maybe even may have killed them. It was war after all.
He was a good American soldier, and had served, at that time, one tour in VN.

Years later, 79-82, when I served in West Germany, I met one other German national, employed by the USAF, that admitted to fighting against the US and killing an American. All other Gernans I talked to, fought on the Eastern Front. I've always wondered that of that was so, then why did we have such a hard time getting to Berlin.
 
Last edited:
I've always wondered that of that was so, then why did we have such a hard time hetting to Berlin.
Click to expand...

We never got to Berlin. Not going to Berlin was a decision made by our political leadership. We (for better or worse) decided to let the Soviets spend their "blood and treasure" taking Berlin. Our forces were ORDERED to stop short of Berlin, and did so. It was politics, not combat reality that made that decision.

I spent some time in Germany in the 70s, and spoke German, talked to a lot of folks, and yes, "Eastern Front" was the claim of nearly all the former soldiers, perhaps, in part because I was obviously an American. But there were a few who admitted to fighting against the Western Allies, and all of them, East or West front, all said approximately the same thing, though in differing ways, and that was that, while they fought, and fought hard against the US. they fought their hardest against the Soviets.

Their reasoning was clear, and simple and easy to understand. When the Americans (and allies) beat you, you lost the war. When the Soviets beat you, you were destroyed. Looking at the way things turned out, I don't see them being very far wrong...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top