Gregory Posted April 22, 2007 Share #1 Posted April 22, 2007 Hello Here it is a link to the interview with Cpl Howard Rich, a veteran of gliderborne artillery. He mentions dummy parachutes issued for his battalion at Fort Bragg for glider flights. Does anybody know something more about the dummy parachutes for glider flights and for gliderborne troopers? What was this idea – quasi-psychological support or anything other? Thank you for possible comments. Best regards Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewA74 Posted May 12, 2007 Share #2 Posted May 12, 2007 Hello, Dummy paratroopers were dropped to make the Germans think that there were a whole lot more paratroopers than there were. These guys floated down and when they hit the ground, they exploded. If you ever watch "The Longest Day", when the pathfinders are bieng briefed, they unviel the dummy and he explodes. These guys were nicknamed "Rupert" and invented by a British Intelligence officer Captian Micheal R.D. Foot. They "self-destructed" on impact. These worked like the dummy tanks and planes in Britian. Meant to baffle the enemy. And it worked! . Hope this sheds some light on this subject for you Gregory. Sincerely, AndrewA74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted October 29, 2008 Share #3 Posted October 29, 2008 Tonight at our Sons of the American Legion meeting our speaker was a man who claims that he sent the military the idea for the dummy parachutes when he was a teenaged Boy Scout in 1942. He sent the idea after seeing a poster in his school about coming up with inventions to help win the war. He has been interviewed by the media over the years and has a scrapbook of articles written about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgawne Posted October 29, 2008 Share #4 Posted October 29, 2008 I think there's a misunder standing. The original post was about fake chutes to make glider troops less scared (I guess). Makes sense. Never heard of it but i can see it happen. But as to the ruperts, it was a British Concept, and the ones droppe din Normandy were Ruperts, although many of them were not droppd due to issues with the aircraft so that part of the overall deception plan did not actually come off very well- but it makes a great stpory and the Germans can point to it as to why they really did not screw up. The American version was called Oscar (after the resembalance to the Oscar statue) and was never used overseas- and was based upont he British idea- So while this guy may well have sent the idea in to the Army (as did a large number of people sending in ideas from good to stupid) the record of them being adopted fromt he British is pretty clear. I have talked to officers who were involved with the testing of them - and guess what, they were cast iron! And only a few were made before the end of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Sebring Posted October 29, 2008 Share #5 Posted October 29, 2008 I have seen on the WAF site where there did exist drag chutes for inbound CG4A gliders. There are even photos of them and where they were attached. My dad was in WWII glider artillery and he never saw them or heard of them. Glider artillery was always extremely heavy to begin with. My dad's outfit (319th GFA) tried to fly in pairs. One glider with a 75mm Pack Howitzer, supplies and about 8 men. The second one carried a jeep, supplies, and about 6-8 men. Upon landing (with any luck), they would join up and become a complete gun section. I don't know if the drag chutes were used that much but I would think it would give you the option of landing in a smaller area....stopping you quicker. Just my opinion, Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share #6 Posted October 29, 2008 Hi Gents, I think there's a misunderstanding. The original post was about fake chutes to make glider troops less scared (I guess). Makes sense. Never heard of it but i can see it happen. That's right. I wanted to discuss about moral and psychological aspects of those fake parachutes for the people on boards of the CG-4As because there was no possibility to use the parachutes in emergency situation there. I have seen on the WAF site where there did exist drag chutes for inbound CG-4A gliders. There are even photos of them and where they were attached. My dad was in WWII glider artillery and he never saw them or heard of them. This is one more evidence how the USAAF authorities treated the people carried by the gliders including well-educated and also well-trained glider pilots. Your words tone in ideally with my other topics where I discuss about this problem. It would be worth my longer reply but unfortunately I prepare myself now for hospital stay and have no too much time for fascinating discussions at the USMF -- maybe in a month or two. To be brief -- you are right, the Waco designers prepared CG-4A very professionally for crash landing techniques but there is big question what the USAAF did with this engineer's knowledge, flight safety rules and designer's professionalism? Not too much. The Waco company gave two alternative places for braking chutes in the CG-4A but a kind of American war crime against own soldiers starts at this point. Somebody in the USAAF did not order those chutes. Look at historic photographs and count how many gliders had braking chutes despite the fact that they had to have them... Glider artillery was always extremely heavy to begin with. My dad's outfit (319th GFA) tried to fly in pairs. One glider with a 75mm Pack Howitzer, supplies and about 8 men. The second one carried a jeep, supplies, and about 6-8 men. Upon landing (with any luck), they would join up and become a complete gun section. I don't know if the drag chutes were used that much but I would think it would give you the option of landing in a smaller area....stopping you quicker. You are right but not only stopping. As a glider pilot I may tell that theoretically it is almost impossible to turnover the glider ("capotage" for international forumers). The turnover is deadly factor with almost a hundred percent killed people on board of turnovered aircraft or cargo glider. Braking chute mounted in the rear of CG-4A was a part of system protecting glider against deadly turnover. The CG-4A was not the best cargo glider in the world none the less it was professional design well balanced by its designers for various emergency landings including ditching. But physics needs support as well. If you count only on miracles then physics does not know mercy. The glider pilots' safety and GIR troops surviving were very far on the list of USAAF priorities. Look at entire landing systems of the CG-4As in the LZs after an airborne assault. Against all possible regulations and flight safety rules they have no tactical landing gears, no Ludington-Griswold crash protection devices, no braking chutes. Big percentage of the glider pilots and GIR troops was killed by the US authorities, not by enemy, though American engineers did their best to protect glider pilots and GIR troops against stupid death. But Jonathan is right -- I would like to discuss about personal quasi-parachutes for the glider pilots and passengers. What for? I hope that at the end of year I will have more time for the USMF. Warm regards Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Bibliotecario Posted October 30, 2008 Share #7 Posted October 30, 2008 This is going up the etymological garden path--but re-digressing to the dummy parachutists (NOT the dummy parachutes about which the original poster asked) I find it amusing that in his memoir of his Gulf War service, an SAS troopie routinely refers to officers as "Ruperts.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now