Earlier assault gliders?

[riggerrob]

When is the earliest date for practical assault gliders?
Let's start with small assault gliders meant to deploy small raiding parties of 4 to 6 men.
When were WW1 airplanes powerful enough to tow 4-man gliders?
Would they have been useful to Italian Arditi fighting in the mountains over-looking Venice?
What about Italy's failed invasion of Ethiopia during the 1930s? Italy deployed a variety of new weapons including tanks, airplanes, poison gas, etc. but failed to dislodge Ethiopian soldiers stubbornly defending mountain passes.
What about French battles with uppity colonists trying to throw off the colonial yoke?
What about United States Marines propping up banana republics in Central America?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

When is the earliest date for practical assault gliders?
Let's start with small assault gliders meant to deploy small raiding parties of 4 to 6 men.
When were WW1 airplanes powerful enough to tow 4-man gliders?

Probably not. The 1930s might be the earliest.
Modern gliders started development due to the ToV forcing Germany to use gliders for training instead of powered aircraft.
The first glider was about 1200kg, but also required a rope and harness to the aircraft that could tow it without breaking in adverse conditions. So maybe in the 1920s you can make it work with the most powerful 4 engine aircraft, but I'm not sure if the materials were strong enough to make it safe enough to try.

A 4 man glider isn't worth it, might as well develop a STOL aircraft that could handle a pilot and 4 armed men; that's ultimately what the Germans did in the Ardennes in 1940 in a helicopter style operation. Why not that vs. gliders? Vastly easier. Well that or parachute landings.

In 1918 it planed to use parachutist behind the lines, because that was the easiest way to do it at the time:

https://www.airforcemag.com/PDF/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2014/August%202014/0814mitchell.pdf

 

[marathag]

Probably not. The 1930s might be the earliest.

Sikorsky's Ilya Muomets of 1914 had a 3000 pound payload, 1000 of that in bombs.
A C-47 from WWII, had 8000 pounds payload

It would struggle, but could probably do something a little smaller than the DFS 230, that could carry 9 men

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Sikorsky's Ilya Muomets of 1914 had a 3000 pound payload, 1000 of that in bombs.
A C-47 from WWII, had 8000 pounds

It would struggle, but could probably do something a little smaller than the DFS 230, that could carry 9 men

1000 pounds of carried bombs isn't 1200kg of towed glider. Even 900kg would not be able to be towed by that bomber.

 

[Driftless]

When is the earliest date for practical assault gliders?
Let's start with small assault gliders meant to deploy small raiding parties of 4 to 6 men.
When were WW1 airplanes powerful enough to tow 4-man gliders?
Would they have been useful to Italian Arditi fighting in the mountains over-looking Venice?
What about Italy's failed invasion of Ethiopia during the 1930s? Italy deployed a variety of new weapons including tanks, airplanes, poison gas, etc. but failed to dislodge Ethiopian soldiers stubbornly defending mountain passes.
What about French battles with uppity colonists trying to throw off the colonial yoke?
What about United States Marines propping up banana republics in Central America?

A lot of those landing zones are really rugged. Either steep and rocky, or jungle. Not a lot of good space to land gliders.

A 4 man glider isn't worth it, might as well develop a STOL aircraft that could handle a pilot and 4 armed men;

How soon could you create a big and powerful enough STOL plane or Autogyro to carry 4-10 air assault troops?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

How soon could you create a big and powerful enough STOL plane or Autogyro to carry 4-10 air assault troops?

I'd say many of the WW1 biplanes probably could fit the bill.
The Russian bomber mentioned earlier would work, could take 12 passengers max, but probably 8 armed men is more realistic. Land it in a grass field and you're good.
It was in a lot of ways like a powered glider.

 

[jlckansas]

The parachute was a mature, for the materials available, technology in WW 1 the balloon observers routinely used them. Dropping men would not be a problem but the amount of weapons and material they could carry on their person in a jump would be limited, but if they used cargo containers it would be more. It’s the technology to carry them there, not the parachutes themselves that are a limitation.

 

[BlackDragon98]

IMO the earliest assault glider would probably be made in Germany in the 1930s as part of their rearmament.
During the inter-war period, there were a lot of gliding clubs in Germany.
Erich Hartmann the world's highest scoring ace pilot with 352 kills started out as a kid who went gliding with his mom.

Maybe someone like Hanna Reitsch proposes something like an assault glider and the plan gains traction with Goering and Wolfram vR?
Then Hitler finds out about it and jumps on the assault glider bandwagon.

 

[marathag]

1000 pounds of carried bombs isn't 1200kg of towed glider. Even 900kg would not be able to be towed by that bomber.

When loaded with fuel had over 10 hours of endurance. It won't need the full 1300 pounds of fuel used on bombing missions, as wouldn't be flying its 250mile range before detaching tow

Many Cessna 170 class planes have less than 700 pounds payload, but can tow a Schweizer that can be upto a thousand pounds without difficulty.

A 1915 4000 pound glider is doable IMO, had a glider that heavy existed back then.
But there were only 80 or so Ilyas built, so that's around 600 mean and their gear maximum able to be transported, providing you can get 80 gliders and pilots

Even on the lower troop density East Front, that's really hardly worth doing

 

[Deleted member 1487]

When loaded with fuel had over 10 hours of endurance. It won't need the full 1300 pounds of fuel used on bombing missions, as wouldn't be flying its 250mile range before detaching tow

Many Cessna 170 class planes have less than 700 pounds payload, but can tow a Schweizer that can be upto a thousand pounds without difficulty.

A 1915 4000 pound glider is doable IMO, had a glider that heavy existed back then.
But there were only 80 or so Ilyas built, so that's around 600 mean and their gear maximum able to be transported, providing you can get 80 gliders and pilots

Even on the lower troop density East Front, that's really hardly worth doing

A battalion by air? They would be pretty darn helpful getting behind the lines during an attack to seize important targets like bridges. I mean the Germans in 1940 in Belgium only used 600 men in the Sturmbattalion to seize multiple bridges and Eben Emael (later formed into a regiment):

Luftlande-Sturm-Regiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of Fort Ében-Émael - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hauptmann Koch divided his force into four assault groups. Group Granite, under Oberleutnant Rudolf Witzig, composed of eighty-five men in eleven gliders whose task would be to assault and capture Fort Eben Emael; Group Steel, commanded by Oberleutnant Gustav Altmann, and formed of ninety-two men and nine gliders, would capture the Veldwezelt bridge; Group Concrete, commanded by Leutnant Gerhard Schacht and composed of ninety-six men in eleven gliders, would capture the Vroenhoven bridge; and Group Iron, under Leutnant Martin Schächter, composed of ninety men in ten gliders, who would capture the Kanne bridge.[17]

 

[BlackDragon98]

A battalion by air? They would be pretty darn helpful getting behind the lines during an attack to seize important targets like bridges. I mean the Germans in 1940 in Belgium only used 600 men in the Sturmbattalion to seize multiple bridges and Eben Emael (later formed into a regiment):

Luftlande-Sturm-Regiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of Fort Ében-Émael - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Eben Emael was a pretty big risk though.
If anything went wrong those 600 paras were toast.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Eben Emael was a pretty big risk though.
If anything went wrong those 600 paras were toast.

Eben Emael was only 1/4th of the force, less than 100 men.

 

[BlackDragon98]

Eben Emael was only 1/4th of the force, less than 100 men.

Against thousands of Belgian troops that garrisoned the fortress.
My point is if the plan went wrong then, then the entire force would have been cut off by Belgian troops and then annihilated, unless the Luftwaffe came in to save them.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Against thousands of Belgian troops that garrisoned the fortress.
My point is if the plan went wrong then, then the entire force would have been cut off by Belgian troops and then annihilated, unless the Luftwaffe came in to save them.

K. Doesn't change the fact that they were able to suppress the entire fort, while the rest of the units successfully seized strategic bridges. No reason that couldn't work out for a WW1 force landing in aircraft behind enemy lines, not that far ahead of a regular ground offensive force. Rapid reaction is kind of tough in WW1 especially for something like an unconventional attack that would be brand new like this.

 

[BlackDragon98]

K. Doesn't change the fact that they were able to suppress the entire fort, while the rest of the units successfully seized strategic bridges. No reason that couldn't work out for a WW1 force landing in aircraft behind enemy lines, not that far ahead of a regular ground offensive force. Rapid reaction is kind of tough in WW1 especially for something like an unconventional attack that would be brand new like this.

Trench raids.
They were like every other day and done by both sides.
If trench raids could be repelled successfully, I don't see why an airborne assault could not be repelled in the same manner by the same troops.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Trench raids.
They were like every other day and done by both sides.
If trench raids could be repelled successfully, I don't see why an airborne assault could not be repelled in the same manner by the same troops.

It wouldn't be the same troops, it would be behind the lines against 3rd line supply units most likely. Plus trench raids were often effective, but that is a different topic.

 

[marathag]

It wouldn't be the same troops, it would be behind the lines against 3rd line supply units most likely. Plus trench raids were often effective, but that is a different topic.

Portable Transmitters aren't really a thing yet. Dropping off 600 guys with rifles without the ability to communicate past pigeons isn't useful, and being footbound, will have a lot of trouble with a single Cavalry Squadron

Eastern Front deployments were not nearly as densely packed as with the Trenches in the West

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

K. Doesn't change the fact that they were able to suppress the entire fort, while the rest of the units successfully seized strategic bridges. No reason that couldn't work out for a WW1 force landing in aircraft behind enemy lines, not that far ahead of a regular ground offensive force. Rapid reaction is kind of tough in WW1 especially for something like an unconventional attack that would be brand new like this.

Wasn't it the shaped charges that allowed the paras to suppress the fort? AFAIK - and I'm ready to be corrected - those were fairly new on the scene and would be a large advantage missing in 14-18.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Wasn't it the shaped charges that allowed the paras to suppress the fort? AFAIK - and I'm ready to be corrected - those were fairly new on the scene and would be a large advantage missing in 14-18.

Elements of the fort yes, but hardly the entire thing. I'm not sure what that has to do with seizing bridges or attack command centers or blowing up supply dumps behind enemy lines with WW1 bombers acting as troop transports for commandos.

 

[BlackDragon98]

Wasn't it the shaped charges that allowed the paras to suppress the fort? AFAIK - and I'm ready to be corrected - those were fairly new on the scene and would be a large advantage missing in 14-18.

There were shaped charges but they were not metal lined. It's the lining that actually does the armor piercing, by turning into a jet of molten metal.
AFAIK the Fallshirmjagers had to resort to demo charges because the power of their shaped charges were insufficient in destroying the gun breeches.