Path Print Pp 76-77
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
DIN 2019DIN01-014: Selection Process And
Defence Instructions and Notices (Not to be communicated to anyone outside HM Service without authority) Title: Selection Process and Service with Pathfinders (PF), 16 Air Assault Brigade’s Advance Force Audience: All Service Personnel Applies: Immediately Expires: When rescinded or replaced Replaces: 2015DIN01-207 Reference: 2019DIN01-014 Status: Current Released: January 2019 Channel: 01 Personnel Content: Information about service in Pathfinders, including the Application and Selection process. PF is a Tri Service unit. Sponsor: Pathfinders 16X Contact: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Keywords: Pathfinders; Pathfinder; Advance Force; Course Dates; Selection; PF; Local PFPC, PFSC Keywords: Supplements: N/A (Please click on the links to access >>>> ) Related Info: Classification: OFFICIAL Background 1. The Pathfinders (PF) were formally established in 1985 having existed in various forms as far back as 1942. They provide the Advance Force (AF) to facilitate Theatre Entry and subsequently form a Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol (LRRP) capability working direct to 16 Air Assault Brigade (16X) HQ. PF are a small unit who are constantly at very high readiness as part of the Air Assault Task Force (AATF). General 2. PF are currently based in Merville Barracks, Colchester and applications to join are accepted from soldiers and officers from all three services and all cap badges and trades. Within each PF patrol there exists a range of specialist skills including Forward Air Controllers, Snipers, Demolitionists and Medics. In addition all soldiers are trained in HAHO and HALO parachuting, Heavy Weapons, Mobility and SERE. Operating as an AF requires high calibre soldiers and officers who are well motivated, mentally and physically robust, reliable, determined and capable of working at significant distances from supporting forces. -
During the Month of September, the 504Th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82Nd Airborne Division, Commemorates the WWII Events That
During the month of September, the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, commemorates the WWII events that occurred during OPERATION MARKET GARDEN in 1944. On September 15tn, word came down for a proposed jump ahead of Gen. Dempsey’s British Second Army. The mission called for the Airborne Army to descend from the skies and occupy bridges over the extensive waterways of Southern and Central Holland. The 504th, jumping as part of the 82nd Airborne Division, was to descend 57 miles behind enemy lines in the vincity of Grave, Holand and take the longest span bridge in Europe over the Maas River, along with two other bridges over the Maas-Waal Canal. At 1231, pathfinder men of the 504th landed on the DZ and thus became the first Allied troops to land in Holland; 34 minutes later the regiment “hit the silk” and the greatest airborne invasion in history was officially on The 2nd BN, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment (PIR), was given the mission to take the bridge over the Maas River. E Company of the 2nd BN, 504th was to jump south of the Maas River while the remainder of the 2nd BN would descend north of the river. The Hero of this article is 1LT John Thompson, who was 27 years old and the Platoon Leader of 3rd Platoon E Company, 2nd BN, 504th PIR . His mission was to take the southern end of the grave bridge over the Maas River. At fifteen hundred feet long, with nine spans, the bridge was the largest and most modern in all of Europe. -
The United States Airborne Divisions, and Their Role on June 6, 1944
The Histories Volume 6 | Issue 1 Article 3 The nitU ed States Airborne Divisions, and Their Role on June 6, 1944 Dennis Carey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/the_histories Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Carey, Dennis () "The nitU ed States Airborne Divisions, and Their Role on June 6, 1944," The Histories: Vol. 6 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/the_histories/vol6/iss1/3 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Scholarship at La Salle University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The iH stories by an authorized editor of La Salle University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Histories, Volume 6, Number 1 2 I The United States Airborne Divisions, and Their Role on June 6,1944 By Dennis Carey ‘07 The United States Airborne Divisions that were dropped behind Utah Beach in the early morning hours of June 6,1944 played a critical role in the eventual success of Operation Overlord. On the evening of June 5th, General Eisenhower visited the men of the 101st Airborne division as they geared up in preparation for their jump. In making his rounds among the troops giving his words of encouragement, a paratrooper remarked “Hell, we ain’t worried General. It’s the Krauts that ought to be worrying now.”1 This is just one example of the confidence and fortitude that the men of both the 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions possessed on the eve of Operation Overlord. -
A Historical Assessment of Amphibious Operations from 1941 to the Present
CRM D0006297.A2/ Final July 2002 Charting the Pathway to OMFTS: A Historical Assessment of Amphibious Operations From 1941 to the Present Carter A. Malkasian 4825 Mark Center Drive • Alexandria, Virginia 22311-1850 Approved for distribution: July 2002 c.. Expedit'onaryyystems & Support Team Integrated Systems and Operations Division This document represents the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of the Navy. Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. Specific authority: N0014-00-D-0700. For copies of this document call: CNA Document Control and Distribution Section at 703-824-2123. Copyright 0 2002 The CNA Corporation Contents Summary . 1 Introduction . 5 Methodology . 6 The U.S. Marine Corps’ new concept for forcible entry . 9 What is the purpose of amphibious warfare? . 15 Amphibious warfare and the strategic level of war . 15 Amphibious warfare and the operational level of war . 17 Historical changes in amphibious warfare . 19 Amphibious warfare in World War II . 19 The strategic environment . 19 Operational doctrine development and refinement . 21 World War II assault and area denial tactics. 26 Amphibious warfare during the Cold War . 28 Changes to the strategic context . 29 New operational approaches to amphibious warfare . 33 Cold war assault and area denial tactics . 35 Amphibious warfare, 1983–2002 . 42 Changes in the strategic, operational, and tactical context of warfare. 42 Post-cold war amphibious tactics . 44 Conclusion . 46 Key factors in the success of OMFTS. 49 Operational pause . 49 The causes of operational pause . 49 i Overcoming enemy resistance and the supply buildup. -
Operation Overlord James Clinton Emmert Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2002 Operation overlord James Clinton Emmert Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Emmert, James Clinton, "Operation overlord" (2002). LSU Master's Theses. 619. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/619 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OPERATION OVERLORD A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Liberal Arts in The Interdepartmental Program in Liberal Arts by James Clinton Emmert B.A., Louisiana State University, 1996 May 2002 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis could not have been completed without the support of numerous persons. First, I would never have been able to finish if I had not had the help and support of my wife, Esther, who not only encouraged me and proofed my work, but also took care of our newborn twins alone while I wrote. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Stanley Hilton, who spent time helping me refine my thoughts about the invasion and whose editing skills helped give life to this paper. Finally, I would like to thank the faculty of Louisiana State University for their guidance and the knowledge that they shared with me. -
Operation Market Garden WWII
Operation Market Garden WWII Operation Market Garden (17–25 September 1944) was an Allied military operation, fought in the Netherlands and Germany in the Second World War. It was the largest airborne operation up to that time. The operation plan's strategic context required the seizure of bridges across the Maas (Meuse River) and two arms of the Rhine (the Waal and the Lower Rhine) as well as several smaller canals and tributaries. Crossing the Lower Rhine would allow the Allies to outflank the Siegfried Line and encircle the Ruhr, Germany's industrial heartland. It made large-scale use of airborne forces, whose tactical objectives were to secure a series of bridges over the main rivers of the German- occupied Netherlands and allow a rapid advance by armored units into Northern Germany. Initially, the operation was marginally successful and several bridges between Eindhoven and Nijmegen were captured. However, Gen. Horrocks XXX Corps ground force's advance was delayed by the demolition of a bridge over the Wilhelmina Canal, as well as an extremely overstretched supply line, at Son, delaying the capture of the main road bridge over the Meuse until 20 September. At Arnhem, the British 1st Airborne Division encountered far stronger resistance than anticipated. In the ensuing battle, only a small force managed to hold one end of the Arnhem road bridge and after the ground forces failed to relieve them, they were overrun on 21 September. The rest of the division, trapped in a small pocket west of the bridge, had to be evacuated on 25 September. The Allies had failed to cross the Rhine in sufficient force and the river remained a barrier to their advance until the offensives at Remagen, Oppenheim, Rees and Wesel in March 1945. -
Mental Health Among Commando, Airborne and Other UK Infantry Personnel
Occupational Medicine 2010;60:552–559 Advance Access publication on 5 September 2010 doi:10.1093/occmed/kqq129 Mental health among commando, airborne and other UK infantry personnel J. Sundin1, N. Jones1, N. Greenberg1, R. J. Rona2, M. Hotopf2, S. Wessely2 and N. T. Fear1 1Academic Centre for Defence Mental Health, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, London SE5 9RJ, UK, 2King’s Centre for Military Health Research, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, London SE5 9RJ, UK. Correspondence to: J. Sundin, Academic Centre for Defence Mental Health, King’s College London, Weston Education Centre, 10 Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RJ, UK. Tel: 144 (0)20 7848 5344; fax: +44 (0)20 7848 5397; e-mail: Josefi[email protected] Downloaded from ................................................................................................................................................................................... Background Despite having high levels of combat exposure, commando and airborne forces may be at less risk of mental ill-health than other troops. ................................................................................................................................................................................... Aims To examine differences in mental health outcomes and occupational risk factors between Royal Ma- rines Commandos (RMCs), paratroopers (PARAs) and other army infantry (INF). .................................................................................................................................................................................. -
Download Print Version (PDF)
The The night of 6 December 1943 in southeastern North Carolina was cold with a nearly-full moon. Towns in Moore, Hoke, Scotland and Richmond counties were blacked out by Army request. Road networks from Knollwood Cameron to Rockingham, Eastwood to Laurinburg, West End to Raeford and Hamlet to Hoffman had been closed to all civilian traffic from 7 p.m. to 2 a.m. Approaching from the east, a large armada of C-47 Maneuver: aircraft carrying paratroopers or towing gliders was nearing the Knollwood Army Auxiliary Airfield near Pinehurst, NC. Aboard one glider was Major (MAJ) The Ultimate Robert L. Johnson, six enlisted glider artillerymen and a jeep from the 675th Glider Field Artillery (GFA) Battalion of the 11th Airborne Division. They were part of the Airborne Test airborne invasion force launched to capture Knollwood Airfield. In the early morning hours of 7 December By Eugene G. Piasecki 1943, MAJ Johnson’s glider pilot released the tow line and began the descent toward his landing zone along N.C. Route 5 between Aberdeen and Pinehurst, NC.1 After hitting the landing zone, the glider skimmed across a field hitting a farmhouse that sheared off its left wing. It stopped and settled “tail-up”. No one was injured in the farmhouse or the glider. MAJ Johnson and the soldiers scrambled out to get the tail down, lifted up the nose compartment and freed the jeep. This accomplished, Johnson drove off to locate the battalion’s twelve 75mm pack howitzers and crews. This glider landing during the Knollwood Maneuver was typical for the “Blue” Force elements. -
Nadzab (1943): the First Successful Airborne Operation
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2004 Nadzab (1943): the first successful airborne operation James Philip Lowe Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Lowe, James Philip, "Nadzab (1943): the first successful airborne operation" (2004). LSU Master's Theses. 3068. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/3068 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NADZAB (1943): THE FIRST SUCCESSFUL AIRBORNE OPERATION A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Liberal Arts in The Interdepartmental Program In Liberal Arts by James P. Lowe B.S. United States Military Academy, 1990 December 2004 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my family for their support while I have pursued my master's degree. I owe an eternal debt of gratitude to my wife, Amy, for bearing not only the demands of being an army spouse, but also the additional burden of being the wife of a graduate student. She sacrificed her time to take care of our son Gavin while I was at either work, deployed or pursuing my education. I would also like to thank the members on my committee, Doctors Hilton, Roider and Clark for their time, patience and guidance. -
Enemy Airborne Forces
U 15 U635 no.7 c .3 MILITARY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE SPECIAL SERIES WAR DEPARTMENT No. 7 Washington, December 2, 1942 MIS 461 NOTICE 1. Publication of Special Series is for the purpose of providing officers with reasonably confirmed information from official and other reliable sources. This issue, because of its partly technical nature, has been prepared in col- laboration with the Director of Intelligence Service, Army Air Forces. 2. Nondivisional units are being supplied with copies on a basis similar to the approved distribution for divisional commands, as follows: INF DIV CAV DIV ARMiD DIV Div Hq-.. ........8 Div Hq ----------- 8 Div Hq ----------- 11 Rcn Tr . 2 Ord Co ----- --- 2 Rcn Bn ------------- 7 Sig Co -- ------- 2 Sig Tr - . .2 Engr Bn------ 7 Engr Bn ..........- 7 Rcn Sq ..-------- 7 Med Bn-------- 7 Med Bn --.- 71 Engr Sq -------- 7 Maint Bn ------- 7 QM Bn ----------- 7 Med Sq --- 7 Sup Bn - ---- 7 Hq Inf Regt, 6 each- 18 QM Sq ----------- 7 Div Tn Hq ------- 8 Inf Bn, 7 each --- 63 Hq Cav Brig, 3 each_ 6 Armd Regt, 25 each_ 50 Hq Div Arty --- 8 Cav Regt, 20 each__ 80 FA Bn, 7 each ---. 21 FA Bn, 7 each ----. 28 Hq Div Arty . 3 Inf Regt - . .......25 - FA Bn, 7 each- 21 .21 150 - 150 1501 Distribution to air units is being made by the A-2 of Army Air Forces. 3. Each command should circulate available copies among its officers. Reproduction within the military service is permitted provided (1) the source is stated, (2) the classification is not changed, and (3) the information is safeguarded. -
This Index Lists the Army Units for Which Records Are Available at the Eisenhower Library
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER LIBRARY ABILENE, KANSAS U.S. ARMY: Unit Records, 1917-1950 Linear feet: 687 Approximate number of pages: 1,300,000 The U.S. Army Unit Records collection (formerly: U.S. Army, U.S. Forces, European Theater: Selected After Action Reports, 1941-45) primarily spans the period from 1917 to 1950, with the bulk of the material covering the World War II years (1942-45). The collection is comprised of organizational and operational records and miscellaneous historical material from the files of army units that served in World War II. The collection was originally in the custody of the World War II Records Division (now the Modern Military Records Branch), National Archives and Records Service. The material was withdrawn from their holdings in 1960 and sent to the Kansas City Federal Records Center for shipment to the Eisenhower Library. The records were received by the Library from the Kansas City Records Center on June 1, 1962. Most of the collection contained formerly classified material that was bulk-declassified on June 29, 1973, under declassification project number 735035. General restrictions on the use of records in the National Archives still apply. The collection consists primarily of material from infantry, airborne, cavalry, armor, artillery, engineer, and tank destroyer units; roughly half of the collection consists of material from infantry units, division through company levels. Although the collection contains material from over 2,000 units, with each unit forming a separate series, every army unit that served in World War II is not represented. Approximately seventy-five percent of the documents are from units in the European Theater of Operations, about twenty percent from the Pacific theater, and about five percent from units that served in the western hemisphere during World War II. -
Airborne Operations in WWII.Pdf
Airborne OPERATIONS IN WWII The use of airborne troops was first seriously considered for landings occurred in North Africa in 1942 and in the Pacific. military operations just after WWI. US General Billy Mitchell British airborne troops also saw action in Tunisia and Sicily. In organised a demonstration where six soldiers parachuted from Tunisia, the 2nd Parachute Battalion dropped on an airfield at a Martin Bomber, landed safely and in less than three minutes Depienne. The airfield was found to be abandoned and supporting had their weapons assembled and ready. Although US observers troops never arrived, leaving the paratroops to fight their way back dismissed the concept, Soviet and German observers were to Allied lines across 50 miles (80km) of enemy-held territory. impressed with the demonstration. The 3rd Battalion successfully captured the airfield at Bône and The Soviet Union took the idea and ran with it. Parachuting fought on in Tunisia as line infantry. was introduced as a sport and military units were formed. By In Sicily the British launched their first major airborne 1930 Soviet paratroopers were involved in military manoeuvres operation of the war to start Operation Husky. Bad weather and impressing the military leadership and by 1935 they could field friendly anti-aircraft fire meant that many of the gliders of the two battalions. 1st Airlanding Brigade never made it to their landing zone, and The world began to take notice and by the mid-1930’s several most of the gliders were scattered or lost at sea. However, two other European nations followed suit. The British organized gliders did arrive within 5 miles (8km) of the landing target, the parachute forces in 1936 and used them in their manoeuvres.