Why were the Paras at Arnhem so lightly equipped?

[John Kettler]

When I compare what I'm seeing in various pics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_Regiment_(United_Kingdom)#mediaviewer/File:Private_Smith_8th_Parachute_Battalion.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_Regiment_(United_Kingdom)#mediaviewer/File:Four_men_of_the_1st_Paratroop_Battalion.jpg

and the 1946 docudrama "Theirs Is the Glory" regarding the individual loads for the Paras vs what the 101st airborne guys had on D-Day, I find myself wondering why the British came to the party so seemingly underdressed? Their field packs look like something more suited to a picnic than war, so I marvel they lasted as long as they did, considering they would appear to have had very little per man to begin with. Obviously, pockets figure in as well, but the Americans had roomy pockets, too.

http://www.101airborneww2.com/equipment.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Rinaldi]

Differing doctrines, I'd wager, as well as different expectations. Something like this would be left to the minutiae of the divisional commanders, rather than the GHQ planning Market Garden, no?

I know the media overplays American hesitation towards the plan in general, but I suspect the American airborne commanders had a more realistic expectation of how long it would take for armor support to arrive. If memory serves me correctly as well, didn't the 1st Airborne not have any experience since Italy '43? The 101 had just come off a relatively hectic jump in Normandy. The differing experiences, commander's expectations, TO&E and legitimate quartermaster concerns are all factors I would consider in scrutinizing the difference.

[Michael Emrys]

The US army had a tendency to really load the men down with all they could carry. Just last night I was viewing some films of the paratroopers boarding up before the D-Day drops, and it looked like they must have had 100 lbs of various gear including their reserve 'chute. They were so burdened that they were having trouble climbing aboard the planes without a shove from beneath.

One of the problems that the men had on Omaha beach was that they were so heavily loaded down that they couldn't run and had to cross up to 200m of open sand in a sort of waddling trot.

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the infantry was carrying so much gear that their mobility was seriously impeded, according to Atkinson.

Michael

[GLynn41]

they expected to be relived very quickly--also many were at a distance from their real target-- and as with all paras they are all basically under loaded awaiting being relived

[J Bennett]

Yep I served in two branches U.S.M.C and Army every time we went to the field they always loaded us down with a ton of gear. 12 - 15 mile road marches with 100 plus pounds of stuff to carry. I reckon its always been part of U.S. doctrine. That part of service I definitely do not miss.

One of the problems that the men had on Omaha beach was that they were so heavily loaded down that they couldn't run and had to cross up to 200m of open sand in a sort of waddling trot.

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the infantry was carrying so much gear that their mobility was seriously impeded, according to Atkinson.

Michael

[altipueri]

If you go to a site called Arnhem Jim there's a picture of a para soldier's kit.

Why would they carry a "toggle rope" each?

[Michael Emrys]

Why would they carry a "toggle rope" each?

To get down from trees, spires, and other tall objects their parachutes might get hung up on?

Michael

[altipueri]

Of course, I could have googled it myself:

"A toggle rope was part of the standard equipment of British commandos and the Parachute Regiment during World War II. It was 6 feet (1.8 m) long, and had a toggle at one end in a tightly fitting eye splice, with a larger eye at the other end. This enabled them to be fastened together to create an ersatz rope ladder, or to secure around a bundle for hauling, among other uses."

[altipueri]

Here's another list, including the toggle rope !

http://www.1stairborne.com/webgear.html

Oh, and you can buy a replica for 20 quid on the Soldier of Fortune website! (includes VAT!)

As you can tell it's a quiet Sunday, but it is Remembrance Sunday.

[Holman]

The paras might not have been as lightly equipped as we sometimes think. We're used to seeing photos and movies focused on fighting soldiers at Arnhem, but they seldom show the array of full handcarts and even vehicles that landed with the Airborne. There were a significant number of jeeps and AT guns available, and this implies other kit and supplies as well.

[JonS]

As noted by Martyr, the paras at Arnhem were not "lightly equipped" for airborne forces. 1 A/B Div took a ton of small-arms firepower with it, plus 16x 17-pr, over 60x 6-pr, over 800 jeeps and trailers loaded with stores and ammunition, some trucks, and 18x bren carriers loaded with more ammunition. Roughly, there was one motor vehicle and trailer for every 10 men who dropped in. Finally, the men themselves were burdened with excess ammo jammed in pockets and packs, and dragged along many many hand carts carrying even more stores and ammunition.

The one area where the paras at Arnhem were light on firepower was indirect artillery, having only one regiment with them, rather than the three regiments you'd typically see in a three-brigade leg-infantry division. One regt was, however, normal for an A/B div.

Bear in mind that this thread started with a half-arsed and incompetent effort at research and analysis based on just two photos. Ask yourself how likely it is that any two photos on their own are to provide a good indication of the amount of stores and ammunition carried by an entire division, let alone one that is staged and another showing troops in contact. That's not good evidence for anything, let alone broad sweeping statements about doctrine. It is however, as we should all be more than well aware of by now, par for the course when it comes to the research and analytical skills of a certain member here. With 'analysis' like this it's small wonder that the Pentagon during the Cold War got itself into one procurement boondoggle after another.

[altipueri]

Ouch!

Ouch! again to get enough letters.

[John Kettler]

altipueri,

Good link, but is the frog for iron rations with the bayonet acting as the spit? Are you sure this isn't a list for French airborne? Simply couldn't resist such good material!

JonS,

What a pity, when you'd done so well for so long! Call your sponsor and start over. You'll have your 30-day chip soon enough.

Martyr and JonS,

I never claimed to be any sort of CW expert (unless you count the other CW, at which I was nauseatingly well up to speed at one point), and my question was based on available photography and the kit depicted in "Theirs Is the Glory" and "A Bridge Too Far," both of which had technical advisers on weapons, military kit, procedures and such, with the former being done in 1946 with many actual former MG participants. The carts are depicted in the first film, and I've pushed for equivalent items for U.S., German and other leg units, so far to no avail. I wasn't looking at the thing from the perspective of the overall drop, but from what the individual soldier had, especially when looking at the troops in fighting order. To me, it looked as though, compared to their American Airborne confreres, the 1st Airborne lads had very little on their persons, hence the question. I did previously note my surprise over UCs, which I confirmed, together with the even more revelatory Morris Quads, whose acquaintance I first made via the Airfix kit featuring it towing the 25-pdr. to me, and lacking references then, long before the Internet and with almost nothing in the local library, I thought the Quad was an AFV. Certainly looked like one, what with all that faceting.

Regards,

John Kettler

[cool breeze]

Seemed a reasonably question to me based on the pics, the brits do look a little picniky compared to US troops. But thanks Jon for the info interesting to know the brits just had a lot more motorized ammo transport for the gear. Kinda harsh response to John tho he never claims to be a WW2 expert.

[LukeFF]

Kinda harsh response to John tho he never claims to be a WW2 expert.

He brings it upon himself with the wacky claims he makes from time to time.

[AlexUK]

Someone else in John's defence. I think some of the negative comments are in relation to comments John made quite a while ago. I appreciate his input into the forum and he has brightened up my days on several occasions. He often raises interesting points for discussion, and I am very impressed in his perseverance in battling (literally) his way through some scenarios!

[sburke]

I did previously note my surprise over UCs, which I confirmed, together with the even more revelatory Morris Quads, whose acquaintance I first made via the Airfix kit featuring it towing the 25-pdr. to me, and lacking references then, long before the Internet and with almost nothing in the local library, I thought the Quad was an AFV.

Regards,

John Kettler

That sentence hurts. I am gonna have to go have a drink to soothe my brain cells.

[Warts 'n' all]

Seemed a reasonably question to me based on the pics, the brits do look a little picniky compared to US troops. But thanks Jon for the info interesting to know the brits just had a lot more motorized ammo transport for the gear. Kinda harsh response to John tho he never claims to be a WW2 expert.

Not sure I'd want to go on the same kind of picnics as you...haha

[JonS]

Seemed a reasonably question to me based on the pics, the Brits do look a little picnicy compared to US troops.

So, presumably you must also think that Canadians routinely went into combat with no webbing and not wearing battledress blouses. Because ...

thanks for the info interesting to know the Brits just had a lot more motorized ammo transport for the gear

You're welcome, but it really wasn't that difficult to find. It just takes an inquiring attitude of mind, and not accepting a staged photo - or a movie - at face value.

Kinda harsh response to John tho he never claims to be a WW2 expert.

I disagree. On both counts.

[c3k]

80 to 100 lbs of gear has been standard fare of infantry since...the Romans.

Also standard has been dumping the extra in a reserve location and going into actual combat a bit more stripped down.

[AlexUK]

Interesting to see the US ammo load carried for a Thompson gun - 300 rounds carried. I'm not sure how that translates into a combat load.

[cool breeze]

So, presumably you must also think that Canadians routinely went into combat with no webbing and not wearing battledress blouses. Because ...

You're welcome, but it really wasn't that difficult to find. It just takes an inquiring attitude of mind, and not accepting a staged photo - or a movie - at face value.

I disagree. On both counts.

Last I checked this is a video game forum not a history experts place to research how much gear is carried when, before one can ask or comment on a question.

[cool breeze]

That sentence hurts. I am gonna have to go have a drink to soothe my brain cells.

And Sburke you used to be such a nice guy, I'm not sure when you turned into one of these wolves lurking around waiting for a chance to make another mean spirited attack on John

[TrailApe]

I think perhaps part of the problem is in the title.

The title makes the assumption that the British Para’s WERE lightly equipped. Not ‘is this correct’? or ‘can anyone shed light on…’? but no – it’s opening gambit is that the British (and Polish presumably) dropped into Arnhem underequipped. Now if the post had been worded slightly different then perhaps there could have been more of a discussion.

However, for my part, reading the title and the comments within the opening post there is more than a little hint of – 'gee the Brits were so stupid compared to our guys'.

Their field packs look like something more suited to a picnic than war

Bumbling Brits at it again eh?

When you consider that the Brits had already been involved in deploying two big air operations (Tunisia then Sicily) and had been on the receiving end of another big air operation (Crete) it’s a bit of a huge assumption that they would not have any grasp of the ammunition scales and the need to pick up the slack if things went a bit awry.

Obviously, pockets figure in as well

Yeah, Para smocks are noted for their ability to stuff 17lbers and 35 rounds of AP into their capacious pockets.

Come on man – think a bit!

[John Kettler]

TrailApe,

When compared to the combat load US Airborne jumped with on D-Day, the British, in terms of what the individual paratrooper had on his person, did indeed go in light, and the pertinent equipment lists and individual loadouts have been presented as evidence. My question was why the paratroopers of 1st Airborne were that way, not whether they were light. Two different matters. I could've said that, compared to the American paratroopers, their British and Polish confreres seemed light, which presumably would have been more to your taste. I didn't. If you read something which came across as meaning the British and Poles were stupid, that's on you.

I was looking at it not from a perspective of their being stupid, which I neither thought nor said, but of my not understanding why they did something so apparently at odds with the historical airborne experience, which is that enemy resistance is often much worse than expected (see Crete for the FJ), leading to the need for more weapons and ammo than theoretically required, and relief seldom arrives as or when planned, which also affects water requirements, rations, medical supplies and things like radio batteries and radio parts. Before it was all said and done at Arnhem, the British pretty much ran out of water and were also hungry, therefore weakened by both, and had also gone through their medical supplies, to the point where sheets were being torn up to make bandages, there was no morphine and certainly no plasma. All these things, I maintain, directly and materially affected the combat effectiveness and staying power of the parachutists and glider landed forces, which also took substantial losses from enemy fire and various landing crackups, losses which greatly hurt 1st Airborne in such important categories as ATGs. The British lost, for example, 4 x 17-pdr of 8 in the first wave. Half. In the second wave, the British effectively received only 3 guns of the 8 planned.

http://arnhemjim.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-17-pounder-anti-tank-guns-at.html

In turn, this put much greater than expected demands on the infantry's man-portable AT weapons, leading to rapid depletion of now-vital PIAT stocks. The unexpected escalating scale and ferocity of German resistance also put paid to the small arms rifled weapon ammo consumption estimates, ultimately leaving the British with no means to defend themselves.

What you said derisively about pockets in Denison smocks and their uselessness for carrying cannon rounds tells me a) you fundamentally don't/won't/can't get my overall point and/or you wish to demean and insult me.

Regards,

John Kettler