"PARATROOPS WITHOUT PARACHUTES" Topic

Someone told me this story and I fully accept they might have been pulling my leg, but I wonder if anyone has heard it as well.

They told me that in WWII the Soviets experimented with paratroops who jumped from a plane without parachutes. Now before you think that this might have been some "Lysenko-esque" attempt to train the "New Soviet Man" to fly, the idea was the plane sould slow down to less than 100 mph, and it was to be done ONLY over large fields covered with deep fluffy snow- about 5 to 6 ft deep.

He told me that they experimented with this and it was obviously not a success ( NO! Ya think!) as they had about 30% casualties, fatalities and broken bones).

Has anyone heard about this.

Please note that this has not inhibited me in the least from making this a tactic of my WWII Imagination army of the WWWF (Worker's Winter Wonderland of Freeland). As GM whenever a player tries to use it I award him a success percentage based on how fervent and long he can keep up the slogan shouting of the devotion of the paratroopers to Comrade Grandofrato (the Stalin in that Imagination).

Has anyone heard of this, or is it pure hokum?

Yes I have heard of it. I think it was used in the desperate first winter to support partizans. No idea why parachutes were not issued.

Very slow speed, very low altitude, very deep snow.

I have seen footage of this, they were sliding off the wings of that god awful huge metal ribbed plane (Stalin?) big 4 engine deal. I don't think they made a habit of this, but come on how much can a parachute cost? get off the wallet Joe.

At the very least they should've 'requisitioned' all the umbrellas from the civilian populace :-)

I thought this was used to drop spies or sabatours. This way no parachute would be seen. All their paratroopers were used up in the first months of the invasion as foot soldiers.

Never heard of that, but did hear of a guy that survived a jump from high altitude, without a chute.

Apparently, he hit the trees in a forest just right, and then landed in some snow below.

I think he decided to jump out of the burning plane, rather than be cooked.

Grossman

No the paras dropping from the TB-3 were equiped with chutes. Unlike German, British and Italian paras they were even equiped with reserve chutes. In fact the Soviets were among the early pioneers of airborne op's.

The TB-3's were a stopgap until they got enough Li-2's, these were licence built DC-2's.

The Paras with no chutes story has circulated since the fifties in many versions. The version I read in the seventies had the paras dropped in wooden crates lined with straw and dropped from bombers into deep snow.

Personally I think it's a load of tosh but I could be wrong. The Soviets have proved on many occasions that they are willing to accept casualties which few nations would countenance.

Faman

Mako

link

There were some drops using the packing crate/low,
slow, snow method to provide leadership to some
partisan groups.

Don't think any mass/large drops were ever involved.

Yes, as Fatman said, at the start of the war the Soviets were years ahead of everyone when it came to airborne and air-transportable troops. In the 30s they successfully transported a whole division from Moscow to Vladivostock by air. No one else was even thinking about things like that then.

But when the war started they threw all their airborne forces into the meatgrinder as infantry and they were pretty much used up. Later airborne formations had to be built new.

28mm Fanatik
What's Russian for Mary Poppins?

I have read a reputable source that says the method Oschmidt says was used for a particular combat drop in the winter of '41/'42. Understandable you'd think it's silly, so did I, but I did read it in a reputable source. Now if only I could remember where…

Why not just crash land the plane in the deep snow?

On Lone Sentry
"Geronimo! and the Red Army" from Intelligence Bulletin
Article describing Soviet airborne forces and their use in WWII, from the Intelligence Bulletin, May 1946.
link

Robert

Who did they recruit, Wile E. Coyote?

I've heard the same, slow and very low altitude … and a lot of deep snow … And I've seen the footage of them sliding off the top the aircraft's wing, I think it was originally a bomber, but they had chutes …

<< link

Between the wars, all the world's military powers toyed with the idea of airborne operations. The Russians took an early lead in this field. In 1936, 1,200 men in the Red Army, parachuted during manoeuvres near Kiev. The watching foreign military attaches were suitably impressed. The Russians called these troops ‘locust warriors'. Ironically, despite their pre-war lead in this field, the Russians barely used paratroopers in World War Two. Men destined to lead Russian partisan groups were dropped behind German lines. A legend held by the Red Army told of soldiers who were dropped from a low flying plane without parachutes as they were targeted at a large snow-bank!

link

And by the way, the tale that Russian paratroopers jumped without chutes in the winter (to land in the snow) is based on the rare practice of having espionage agents jump from very low-flying and slow aircraft (to land in the snow). It's amazing how these tall tales change as they get passed around. Jumping without a chute is never practical.

link
"Later in 1939 on 30 November, Soviet paratroopers had the distinction of making the first combat jump in history when they dropped at Petsamo and other points behind the Finnish lines during the Soviet invasion of Finland. Due to poor navigation on the part of pilots and quick action on the part of Finnish snipers who picked off many as they landed, few of these paratroopers actually made it into combat. Those who did fought with courage, and many had even jumped without parachutes into deep snow drifts.">>

Thus do the urban myths do the rounds; finding a good source is always the problem.

when life gets boring tune in to TMP Fantasy channel and cheer yourself up! Be amazed at those good people who will believe anything!

Well again, I heard the same about USSR Paras jumping into deep snow. Even when I was at US Army Airborne School a "Black Hat" (instructor) told us the same … So I didn't really think much about it … it sounded a little far fetched, but based on the USSR's sometimes "careless" use of troops, nothing would have really surprised me … I remember reading about the Germans dropped paras on Leros in '43 in the mountains. They took like 60% casualities just in the drop … Now I just looked up the Battle for Leros … link … says most landed safely … So who knows ?

Steven Zaloga, "Inside the Blue Berets: A Combat History of Soviet and Russian Airborne Forces", Presidio Press, 1995, page 72:

[in regards to the 4th Airborne Corps in the Vyazma pocket, February-March 1942]

"By 12 March, when the 204th Airborne Brigade began to cross into German territory, it came under intense small-arms fire, punctuated by artillery. The German actions inflicted heavier and heavier casualties as the missions continued over the next few nights. The Germans also noted the flight of Soviet transport aircraft into areas behind their own lines, evidently dropping supplies to the advancing airborne groups. Some troops without parachutes were also dropped during the course of the operations. Slow-flying U-2 biplanes would skim close to the ground, and the paratroopers would leap off into deep snowdrifts. The first major attack occurred on 15 March when the garrison at Maloye Opuevo was overrun by about twelve hundred paratroopers from the 1st and 204th Airborne Brigades."

I find Steven Zaloga to be a reliable author. He really broke ground as far as being the first Western author to make extensive use of Soviet archives. Although he's made a couple mistakes (Balkankreuze!), if he says it and has the detailed specifics on the operation and units involved as above, I believe him.

Agreed … Steve knows his Russkies !!!

Unbelievable!!!

Look at Stalin's attitude to Soviet PWs. They were non-people.

So what's a potential few thousand dead non-parachutists to the Russians?

OK, so once you've picked your jaw up off the floor, what would be the tactical benefit of inserting troops in this manner? I can't think of one offhand, I'm not sure I could think of one inside a year that would make sense, anyone else got a clue? Nothing seems to make the perceived losses worth the risk, and it doesn't look like there's an indication of how many casualties may have been incurred on landing.

Also, does that snippet indicate that the 1200 troops were dropped (or should we say bounced, chucked or splatted?) in the same manner, or was there some scope for a link-up with troops already obeying the laws of gravity?

The only time I've come across this stype of story was in an old war comic, possibly Battle or Battle action, when it was the sneaky Hun dropping an elite squad behind the lines for sabotage missions, using deep snow and no chutes. Apart from the one who landed on a brickwall, they were fine as I recall…

Gary

The tactical benefit is that the Soviets could reinforce a pocket without expending parachutes, rigging gear, and trained parachutists.

Considering that they were constantly making tactical combat drops of battalion size or less through fall of '41, that they were constantly engaged in partisan support drops (supplies and personnel), and had also sent in airborne units as elite infantry, it seems perfectly credible to me that in this situation, this was a makeshift response to shortages in equipment and trained personnel. Your speculation may vary, of course.

Yes Gary you are spot on when you mention old war comics; I think too many of our contributors have never got beyond this stage.
Read some decent history books guys!!!

I've provided a reputable source that says it happened. If you disagree, provide any reputable sources to support your argument.

If all you have to contribute to the conversation is vague expressions of disbelief and lots of exclamation marks, then we needn't bother with your opinions any longer.

tuscaloosa

Yup Zaloga is usually reliable. But I have to admit to being baffled as to why it was thought a viable option!

Peter Haclerode has a similar story in his book, Wings of War, a history of paratroop operations. link

tuscaloosa – 'reputable sources' – ask any medical person who has ever worked in a casualty department.
By the way if you believe that soldiers voluntarily jumped out of aircraft without parachutes then please, to paraphrase you, 'do not bother with my opinions any longer'
Grow up!!!

No need to be abusive … it's just a conversation … And Zalogo is a very reliable source. But since none of us were there … I just take it as an interesting bit of history … Admittedly it is generally challenging to even get soldiers with chutes to jump out of a perfectly good airplane anyway. But I've never seen anyone who took off in a loaded aircraft full of paratroops, exit the airframe any other way. Parachute trainees and as well as units are full of people who for whatever reason volunteer to do it … I did … as well as most of my friends. And after watching the WWII footage of USSR paras climbing out on the wing of an aircraft (TB-3 ?) holding on to a rope and slide off the wing and activate their chutes … They got bigger ones then I do and probably made of brass … So as I said, jumping into snow drifts at low altitude in a slow moving aircraft … who knows ?

Hmm, this is going to be a tough decision.

Believe SEwart, who can quote no sources to support his beliefs, and is short on logic and long on exclamation marks, or believe Steve Zaloga, who has written at least fifty books on World War Two.

I think I'm going to go with believing… Zaloga.

It's only stupid if it doesn't work. Besides, in a war the size and scale of the second world war, virtually anything was tried somewhere.

I'd recommend Glantz's "The History of Soviet Airborne Forces" for a full overview of Soviet airborne doctrine and development during WW2.

A number of systems were developed for canister/capsule dropping of agents, by both the Germans and Russians.

To be fair, the Zalooga quote stated does not give a figure on the numbers dropped by the slow-low insertion method, he merely states 'some'.

I did my MA of British and German Airborne Operational Effectiveness (though I covered Russian developemtn as its impact was rather great on the German experience)and the procedure to drop agents and the like without parachute did occur. I do have several primary sources, including one from a Russian working for the Germans who was dropped in a capsule by the Luftwaffe. However I never came across any reference to the method having been used en masse. Certainly the skill required by the pilots to fly so slowly and at such a low altitude was far beyond many transport pilots capabilities, hence why you tend to see it only in rare use with specialist formations tasked with agent insertion. How effective it was is open to debate… Certainly alot of the German efforts to drop agents by capsule did not end very well for the capsule occupant… Hence why them seem to have reserved it almost solely for foreign agents.

I cant imagine jumping into a snow drift from a moving plane would be too safe…

I spent a little time googling for extra info on the web, and the story changes so many times. Sometimes it's linked to the Red Army in Finland in 1940, others on the Eastern Front proper in 1942 or later. There have been a couple or three threads over on the Axis History forum, but considering the 'source police' over there the details are extremely vague. The closest thing to a rational explanation I found 'suggested' that equipment was thrown out of planes into snow drifts, boxed up and padded with straw, and key personnel followed by chute. this was to support partisan units behind German lines. Another suggestion was that there was some confusion between troops being air landed rather than air dropped.

I don't know either, but whenever i hear a story like this the cynic in me wants to know a bit more about numbers of troops involved at least and casualties incurred. Even if it was a one off, it seems like the kind of operation that would be remebered, even if only by witnesses on the ground.

Gary