American paras at Arnhem

[Markus Becker]

The US divisions has more and heavier artillery than the UK divsions with gives it some advantage.

Regards
Daniel

A US AB division that makes a jump? I recall reading that the entire divisional artillery was not deployable by air.

[Trackhead M2]

The US divisions has more and heavier artillery than the UK divsions with gives it some advantage.

Regards
Daniel

A US AB division that makes a jump? I recall reading that the entire divisional artillery was not deployable by air.

Dear MB,
There were field pieces which were Glider deployable. I have seen the 75 mm Pack Howitzer which has folding trails. Also, there were some 90 mm guns adapted from Coast Artillery mounts which were deployable via Glider. Each of the Airborne INF DIVs had a Glider RCT. I have even ridden a GMC 2 1/2 Ton truck designed to break down into 3 parts for Glider deployment.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

[Von Schadewald]

Content removed as it didn't pertain to the original WI.

Lets keep on the original thread topic please

Andy H

[Carl Schwamberger]

Dropping either of the US divisions at Arnhem seems to be simply rearrainging the deck chairs. Things like accepting higher FLAK losses and dropping directly adjacent to the bridges, accepting higher accident losses and having a night takeoff and dawn or night drop, and training more commando teams for direct assualt A La Pegasus Bridge seem like more productive changes in the operations plans.

[Galahad]

--Assuming that there was no change in the LZ's, I can see only one way there could have been a difference made by using a US Airborne division--and then only if it was the 82nd Airborne.

--The 82nd equipped itself with captured German panzerfausts and used them till the end of the war in Europe. This gave it a significantly heavier anti-tank "punch" than the British 1st Airborne. Whether that would have been enough to change the result at Arnhem, I don't know. But with panzerfausts the division COULD, in theory, have done a lot more damage to the SS armor than the 1st Airborne was able to do.

[Aber]

IIRC the British flew in anti-tank guns by glider to their airhead where most of the fighting took place.

The PIAT also had a greater effective range tha the panzerfaust, which is perhaps more important for the troops using it than theoritical armour penetration.

[Alanmccoubrey]

IIRC the British flew in anti-tank guns by glider to their airhead where most of the fighting took place.

The PIAT also had a greater effective range tha the panzerfaust, which is perhaps more important for the troops using it than theoritical armour penetration.

I would disagree, not being afraid of the recoil of the weapon would be more important than that and EVERYONE was afraid of the kick from the PIAT.

[Galahad]

--Evidently there was a problem with 1st Parachute Division and PIAT's.....it didn't have nearly enough of them. Here's a link to a report filed after Arnhem. The caption is "Report on Arnhem Observations Including Street Fighting and P.I.A.T.'s": http://www.paradata.org.uk/media/3034?m ... at+reports

--The title is Report on Operations, by one of the battalion commanders of the Parachute Regiment, which and whom I can't make out. It's hard to read, but look at Section 2 P.I.A.T.'s:

"These proved of immense value. The tragedy of the operation was the shortage and towards the end the complete lack of them. Times without number the cry was 'Give us the PIATS and we'll stay till Christmas'. It is suggested that a number of additional P.I.A.T.'s and bombs could be gliderborne and brought to (?) on their (?). At short range they are a good destructive weapon."

--I can't make out the words that ought to be where the question marks are. They are too fuzzy. But the message is clear.....1st Parachute Division didn't have nearly enough anti-tank weapons.

--This is where 82nd Airborne, with its TO&E bazookas and its bootleg panzerfausts would have held a considerable advantage. And didn't the bazooka outrange the P.I.A.T, even if the panzerfaust didn't?

--That site has a bunch of photocopied reports concerning Arnhem, for those interested in the Paras there and elsewhere. But you'll need to jack the zoom up for most in order to read them. Maybe. Like 300% or so. Because a lot of them are definitely not very clear.

[Von Schadewald]

One wonders what would have been the effect on the psychology of the German defenders when word got out out that it was Black men dropping out of the sky, if it had been the 555th "Triple Nickles" deployed at Arnhem?

[Trackhead M2]

Dear VS,
It might resemble the scenes from Blazing Saddles where Mel Brooks plays an Indian Chief, the reaction "Schvarzes".
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

[redcoat]

It should be noted that US Airborne divisions didn't use the US 57 mm M1 A/T gun, they used the same British built 6 pdr A/T gun with a cut down carriage and APDS ammo as the British airborne divisions did.

[redcoat]

="Galahad]--This is where 82nd Airborne, with its TO&E bazookas and its bootleg panzerfausts would have held a considerable advantage. And didn't the bazooka outrange the P.I.A.T, even if the panzerfaust didn't?.

The PIAT had a major advantage over the bazooka and panzerfaust at Arnhem, the area around Arnhem was built up and the PIAT could be safely fired from inside buildings and in cover due to the lack of back blast.

[Trackhead M2]

="Galahad]--This is where 82nd Airborne, with its TO&E bazookas and its bootleg panzerfausts would have held a considerable advantage. And didn't the bazooka outrange the P.I.A.T, even if the panzerfaust didn't?.

The PIAT had a major advantage over the bazooka and panzerfaust at Arnhem, the area around Arnhem was built up and the PIAT could be safely fired from inside buildings and in cover due to the lack of back blast.

Dear rc,
The drawback to the Projector, Infantry Anti-Tank was it could only penetrate 4 inches ( I'll guess approximately 105mm) of armor at 50 yards(approximately 38 m). So, to have any effect you need a really brave gunner to wait for the Panther to get in range.
Strike Swiflty,
TH-M2

[redcoat]

="Galahad]--This is where 82nd Airborne, with its TO&E bazookas and its bootleg panzerfausts would have held a considerable advantage. And didn't the bazooka outrange the P.I.A.T, even if the panzerfaust didn't?.

The PIAT had a major advantage over the bazooka and panzerfaust at Arnhem, the area around Arnhem was built up and the PIAT could be safely fired from inside buildings and in cover due to the lack of back blast.

Dear rc,
The drawback to the Projector, Infantry Anti-Tank was it could only penetrate 4 inches ( I'll guess approximately 105mm) of armor at 50 yards(approximately 38 m). So, to have any effect you need a really brave gunner to wait for the Panther to get in range.
Strike Swiflty,
TH-M2

The max effective range of the PIAT was 100 yards and the distance to the target has no effect on its penetration as it's a HEAT warhead.

[Trackhead M2]

="Galahad]--This is where 82nd Airborne, with its TO&E bazookas and its bootleg panzerfausts would have held a considerable advantage. And didn't the bazooka outrange the P.I.A.T, even if the panzerfaust didn't?.

The PIAT had a major advantage over the bazooka and panzerfaust at Arnhem, the area around Arnhem was built up and the PIAT could be safely fired from inside buildings and in cover due to the lack of back blast.

Dear rc,
The drawback to the Projector, Infantry Anti-Tank was it could only penetrate 4 inches ( I'll guess approximately 105mm) of armor at 50 yards(approximately 38 m). So, to have any effect you need a really brave gunner to wait for the Panther to get in range.
Strike Swiflty,
TH-M2

The max effective range of the PIAT was 100 yards and the distance to the target has no effect on its penetration as it's a HEAT warhead.

Dear rc,
I got my information from Tanks and Weapons of WW 2. What is your source? I am not so sure that the effective range the manual provides is the accurate one.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2