"German Paratroop Jump Technique Superior?" Topic

I'm playing an ETO WWII miniatures game (Crete campaign) featuring German paratroops. I noted that the rules allow German paratroops to spend less time in the air and land more accurately (hitting the drop zones more close together) than I've found playing Allied paratroops in other games. When I questioned the rules author he said the rules recognize the "special" way German paratroops jumped which his rules translates into more accurate landing (less drift, etc.).

I've seem the WWII German newsreels and have noted the spectacular "spread eagle" way German paratroops exit their planes in contrast to the ankles and arms tightly together way the Allied paratroops jump. Why the difference? I was told that was the way the Russians taught the Germans to jump in the 1920's and 30's when the German and Soviet armed forces were cooperating. Is that true and was this jump technique really superior? And if it was superior why didn't the Allied paratroops jump that way?

To me, that doesn't make alot of sense, as the German parachute design didn't allow the paratrooper to control the descent in any way. This is also why you read about alot of broken ankles etc. on the DZ because the descent is totally uncontrolled.

By contrast the Allied 'chute design allowed some rudimentary control by the paratrooper in controlling the speed and direction of descent. Not like a modern skydiver mind you but better than the Fallis.

Cheers

w.

From feldgrau.com:

"The worst parachutes used by a Major power were those of the Germans which were based on the Italian "Salvatore" design. The German RZ (RUCKENPACKUNG ZWANGAUSLOSUNG or, rucksack packed to open) series of chutes (primarily the RZ-16 and the RZ-20) had a single strap between the back of the body harness and the chute. This resulted in a face down position which required knee and elbow pads and a forward roll upon landing. (Employment of this type of parachute is curious since German air crew used a chute that had lift webs attached to the shoulders like the British and American models.) This landing position led to many landing injuries. To allow for proper deployment, the paratrooper had to leap forward in a straight body dive when Jumping. Control during the descent was almost impossible except for a superbly trained and agile trooper and even then little control was possible. The forward roll landing also kept the parachutist from carrying much equipment on his body. Except for pistols, grenades and the occasional submachine-gun, German paratroopers had to rely on containers for their main combat equipment. The chute was attached to the harness with four clips which, like the American chute, were difficult to undo when under fire or when the trooper was being wind dragged. The Germans issued each Fallschirmjaeger with a gravity knife to cut the rigging in an emergency. The opening shock of this canopy first parachute was also very harsh but the chute would fully deploy in under 40 meters which meant a lower drop altitude and less time dangling helpless in the air. By the Crete invasion, the Germans deployed various colored parachute canopies for camouflage and to aid in the identification of commanders and/or containers."

Perhaps the rules author zeroed in on the fact that lower drop height means less time in the air and a greater chance of the stick landing together on target. However this should be offset by a greater chance of landing injury on the DZ.

w.

The German parachute and harness system allowed a lower opening altitude than the comparable Allied systems but with no directional ability. The Germans could jump from lower altitudes and land faster but be completely at the mercy of any wind drift. This also made their forward speed, in relation to the landing, a lot faster, the reason why they wear those knee & elbow pads for impact protection. Allied Parachutes could be literally steered into the wind to reduce the speed of landing. Unfortunately in the Crete drops the Germans got the worst possible scenario, high mountains behind the drop zones forced the JU52 aircraft to fly higher than they normally would to drop paratroopers. The poor old FJ had much longer in the air with no steering ability, no way of firing a weapon from the air and more time in the air to be shot at – one of the main reasons behind such a high initial casualty rate.

You mean there's something the Germans weren't best at?

No way!

John

theres a reason many italian car/bike companies went broke, great ideas…poor implementation

this seems to be yet another example of a system where there was no centralized German thinking on manufacture or cost

a lot of the german aircraft were also shot down before they reached crete by the poms which caused losses in the mountain division which were junkers borne and meant to land at the airfeilds after they had been seized by the paras

they weren't the best on not poking the stick in the hornets nest either…hey lets take over europe …. duh!

To be fair the WW2 US army used a canopy opening first system which was pretty hard on the jumper too, and even today use two point connection to release the canopy and another three points to remove the harness for the static line system.
The British airborne parachute deployed the lines first then the canopy which gave a slower & much reduced opening shock but needed slightly more height to be safe as the tradeoff. The inclusion of a single point harness release was also better than all the others, lthouh still difficult if the wind is dragging your canopy.
The Germans were working, slowly, in 1944/45 on developing a triangular parachute that could've been similar to the modern square sport canopies in performance.

Allied 'chutes steerable? Not so much. The best that could be hoped for with the type of 'chute used (very similar to the current T-10) was to somewhat counteract drifting by "pulling a slip." This meant pulling one or two of the risers (front left, front right, rear right and rear left). This serves to spill air from the 'chute, producing thrust in the desired direction. Again, this is done to control drift.

The US wouldn't have a truly steerable 'chute until the introduction of the MC1 series. This 'chute has cut outs in the back which air automatically spills from. They can be closed by pulling on toggles found on the front risers. This provides thrust and a rotational action so the jumper can turn into the wind. If I recall from my jumping days, the MC1-1C has 9 knots of forward thrust. So, on a good day facing into the wind, you can have a very soft landing. I don't recall ever being so lucky.

If the jumpmaster says "5 knots on the DZ, and gusting," he's lying.

I agree with the above sentiment. The Krauts may be able to land closer together, but they should have a greater chance of injuries on the DZ. I would also limit their initial effectiveness due to containerizing their weapons.

Im not gonna repeat the basic points above as they are all correct, Germans could jump from a lower height but at the mercy of prevailing winds.

The German 'Triangular' parachute referred too seems to have been a Soviet design. Its only unconfirmed use was by Von Der Heydte during the Ardennes jump when he had to jump with a broken arm… He broke his other arm on landing!

Although the Germans used containers they did jump with weapons during, and after, Crete. At Crete several FJ jumped with MP40s strapped across their chests. After Crete I have training footage that shows FJ jumping with rifles and in one case an MG34 (who suffers a very hard landing…).

Its my belief that the high number of landing casualties during the drop on Leros was due to jumping with weapons while using a parachute in no way suitable for the practice given the forward roll needed to be performed on landing with the German chute.

"After Crete I have training footage that shows FJ jumping with rifles and in one case an MG34 (who suffers a very hard landing…)."

Thay would be 1./FJR3 in France while refitting after fighting in Russia in 1941/42. They became the FJ Lehr battalion and carried out trials of parachute jumps with various methods of jumping with weapons. The trials were for the planned airborne assault on Malta, instead the battalion went to Africa as part of the Ramcke brigade under Von Der Heydte.

The Germans had the disadvantage of being trailblazers in the development of paratroopers and so they made a few wrong turns. I've read that initially there was an obsession about avoiding anything on the uniform or gear which could possibly snag the shroud lines of a parachute. So, no buckles or buttons or straps or equipment was allowed outside the smock that the troopers wore. This also accounts for the cannister-dropped weapons and equipment. The Allies, starting later in the game, quickly came to realize that the danger of a snag was greatly exaggerated and they stopped worrying about it. Events proved them right but it was too late for the Germans by then.

I used to know a man who been a FJ late in the war. He always said that by then it was far too dangerous to go up in a plane, due to Allied fighters, and never actually got to jump out of one anywhere near a compat zone.

I don't know that the German Paras were able to open their chutes that much lower, and even if they did, that it provided a measurable advantage. American paras jumped at altitudes as low as 450 ft. I don't think the Germans jumped at lower altitudes. Even if the Germans jumped at say 350 ft, how hard would the wind have to be blowing to make an American Para jumping at 100' higher to be more than 50-100' less accurate?

If there are any variables affecting drop accuracy, it has more to do with weather, AA fire, pilot quality, aircraft speed, and time of day. You cannot, for instance compare the German drop at Crete with the American drops in Normandy. The difference in conditions far outweigh such a marginal technical advantage, even if it exists.

I think your rules writer is splitting hairs giving a supposed technical advantage far too much weight.

"Even if the Germans jumped at say 350 ft, how hard would the wind have to be blowing to make an American Para jumping at 100' higher to be more than 50-100' less accurate?'

The wind on the DZ has nothing to do with accuracy of the drop and everything to do with the shape your troops and equipment arrive in – the higher the wind the more injuries and damage/loss of equipment. Also the lower the drop altitude the less time spent in the air with a reduction in the amount of time you're a helpless target.The skill & ability of the crews of the aircraft, and the wind/weather enroute, have the most effect on the accuracy of the drop itself.

This is nuts. If anything the German parachutes should be less accurate. Look at how many paras drowned in Crete because they couldn't control their landings. They also often landed at an angle that would make a modern sky diver cringe. This author needs to do more research.

AX

Maybe the rules writer has it right maybe they should land closer together but then they should have an increased chance of injury.

They jumped much lower than the Western Allies. For instance against Tito's HQ they jumped from between 60 and 75 meters, thats about 197 and 246 feet respectively.

German parachutes were far inferior to Western Allied ones for all the reasons mentioned above.

Don't forget Allied paras drowned off Sicily on Op Huskey and in the channel during Overlord

The problem of pilots navigating through flak who firewalled the throttles caused equipment problems with the sticks. Over Normandy U.S. Paras with bags containing their weps lashed to legs, lost them in the air blast and shock of opening from a/c at well over acceptible jump speed. On Crete the FJ were dropped independently from their equipment bundles. Paras on the ground can be dangerous…if they have their weapons.