Re: Heavy Air Drop

[Fabian Russell]

Interesting video.

But why aren't the soldiers following?

[Ri©ardo]

On 03/02/2016 02:10, Fabian Russell wrote:
> Interesting video.
>
> But why aren't the soldiers following?
>

Because the aircraft will have to do another circuit so that they're
dropped as close to the heavy drop as possible.

Ri©ardo

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)[_2_]]

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:35:17 +0000, Ri©ardo >
wrote:

>On 03/02/2016 02:10, Fabian Russell wrote:
>> Interesting video.
>>
>> But why aren't the soldiers following?
>>
>
>Because the aircraft will have to do another circuit so that they're
>dropped as close to the heavy drop as possible.

Eep. If the bad guys are bad shots, they get a second chance at all
the good guys.

[Ri©ardo]

On 04/02/2016 08:55, Bob (not my real pseudonym) wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:35:17 +0000, Ri©ardo >
> wrote:
>
>> On 03/02/2016 02:10, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>> Interesting video.
>>>
>>> But why aren't the soldiers following?
>>>
>>
>> Because the aircraft will have to do another circuit so that they're
>> dropped as close to the heavy drop as possible.
>
> Eep. If the bad guys are bad shots, they get a second chance at all
> the good guys.
>

Hi Bob, how true that is.

However, given the speed of the aircraft and the time elapsed from the
first vehicle's departure from the aircraft, how many miles away will
the aircraft be from the landed vehicles when the lads get out? Imagine
a a minimum of a five mile hike through hostile territory to claim a
couple of essential vehicles which, by that time, could already be in
enemy hands.

Separation of heavy drop and personnel drop would seem common sense,
would it not, with the personnel coming in within a few minutes of the
heavy stuff? Even better, get the troops on the ground first to secure
perimeters and then await the heavy stuff!

I know that they're dreadful pictures, but fifty years have passed and
the Kodak Brownie 127 did have some limitations. Here's me with a
vehicle I helped to rig and, and the next one, which I took, was after
parachuting in and assisting with securing the DZ, to allow instant
access to our vehicles and kit once they landed.

Ri©ardo

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[john szalay]

Ricardo?= > wrote in news:-
:
> Separation of heavy drop and personnel drop would seem common sense,
> would it not, with the personnel coming in within a few minutes of the
> heavy stuff? Even better, get the troops on the ground first to secure
> perimeters and then await the heavy stuff!
>
> I know that they're dreadful pictures, but fifty years have passed and
> the Kodak Brownie 127 did have some limitations. Here's me with a
> vehicle I helped to rig and, and the next one, which I took, was after
> parachuting in and assisting with securing the DZ, to allow instant
> access to our vehicles and kit once they landed.
>
> Ri©ardo
>



Like wise, and sometimes the heavy drop goes where it wants to.

We dropped in the day before, setup and waited for resupply,
the birdmen decided to land one resupply pallet right on top
of a tent, there is a tent , bedroll and gasmask under the pallet

they didn,t even hit the dropzone, & we were 25ft in the heavy woods.
but they missed the squad tent.
sorry for the scratched negatives.. been stored in a drawer for 50
years..

[john szalay]

"Bob (not my real pseudonym)" > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:35:17 +0000, Ri©ardo >
> wrote:
>
>>On 03/02/2016 02:10, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>> Interesting video.
>>>
>>> But why aren't the soldiers following?
>>>
>>
>>Because the aircraft will have to do another circuit so that they're
>>dropped as close to the heavy drop as possible.
>
> Eep. If the bad guys are bad shots, they get a second chance at all
> the good guys.
>

Thats alright , we can always drop a 3/4 ton truck on them..

[john szalay]

Ricardo?= > wrote in news:-
:


Remember this parachute commercial for the MGB sports car ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIF9ys-hJn0




Here is the result first "take"...

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On 2016-02-04 15:02:09 +0000, John Szalay <john.szalay.at.att.net> said:

> "Bob (not my real pseudonym)" > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:35:17 +0000, Ri�ardo >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/02/2016 02:10, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>>> Interesting video.
>>>>
>>>> But why aren't the soldiers following?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because the aircraft will have to do another circuit so that they're
>>> dropped as close to the heavy drop as possible.
>>
>> Eep. If the bad guys are bad shots, they get a second chance at all
>> the good guys.
>>
>
> Thats alright , we can always drop a 3/4 ton truck on them..
>
> <image>

That is one way to get the tires off the rims.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Ri©ardo]

On 04/02/2016 16:32, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2016-02-04 15:02:09 +0000, John Szalay <john.szalay.at.att.net> said:
>
>> "Bob (not my real pseudonym)" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:35:17 +0000, Ri�ardo >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/02/2016 02:10, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>>>> Interesting video.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why aren't the soldiers following?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because the aircraft will have to do another circuit so that they're
>>>> dropped as close to the heavy drop as possible.
>>>
>>> Eep. If the bad guys are bad shots, they get a second chance at all
>>> the good guys.
>>>
>>
>> Thats alright , we can always drop a 3/4 ton truck on them..
>>
>> <image>
>
> That is one way to get the tires off the rims.
>

:-)

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[Ri©ardo]

On 04/02/2016 14:57, John Szalay wrote:
> Ricardo?= > wrote in news:-
> :
>> Separation of heavy drop and personnel drop would seem common sense,
>> would it not, with the personnel coming in within a few minutes of the
>> heavy stuff? Even better, get the troops on the ground first to secure
>> perimeters and then await the heavy stuff!
>>
>> I know that they're dreadful pictures, but fifty years have passed and
>> the Kodak Brownie 127 did have some limitations. Here's me with a
>> vehicle I helped to rig and, and the next one, which I took, was after
>> parachuting in and assisting with securing the DZ, to allow instant
>> access to our vehicles and kit once they landed.
>>
>> Ri©ardo
>>
>
>
>
> Like wise, and sometimes the heavy drop goes where it wants to.
>
> We dropped in the day before, setup and waited for resupply,
> the birdmen decided to land one resupply pallet right on top
> of a tent, there is a tent , bedroll and gasmask under the pallet
>
> they didn,t even hit the dropzone, & we were 25ft in the heavy woods.
> but they missed the squad tent.
> sorry for the scratched negatives.. been stored in a drawer for 50
> years..
>
>
>

As we know, real life is rather different to the theory situation. Once
you've had air under your boots...

:-)

Ri©ardo

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[Ri©ardo]

On 04/02/2016 15:02, John Szalay wrote:
> "Bob (not my real pseudonym)" > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:35:17 +0000, Ri©ardo >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/02/2016 02:10, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>>> Interesting video.
>>>>
>>>> But why aren't the soldiers following?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because the aircraft will have to do another circuit so that they're
>>> dropped as close to the heavy drop as possible.
>>
>> Eep. If the bad guys are bad shots, they get a second chance at all
>> the good guys.
>>
>
> Thats alright , we can always drop a 3/4 ton truck on them..
>

The driver seems OK, though...

;-)

Ri©ardo

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[john szalay]

=
>>
>> Thats alright , we can always drop a 3/4 ton truck on them..
>>
>
> The driver seems OK, though...
>
> ;-)
>
> Ri©ardo
>

Yep, we lost a 3/4 ton truck and a M-151 jeep that way..


John in Ky

[Ri©ardo]

On 04/02/2016 19:58, John Szalay wrote:
> =
>>>
>>> Thats alright , we can always drop a 3/4 ton truck on them..
>>>
>>
>> The driver seems OK, though...
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> Ri©ardo
>>
>
> Yep, we lost a 3/4 ton truck and a M-151 jeep that way..
>
>
> John in Ky
>

....and when every vehicle is crucial to success, that's lot to lose.

Ri©ardo

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[john szalay]

Ricardo?= > wrote in
:
>>>
the Kodak Brownie 127 did have some limitations.
>

> As we know, real life is rather different to the theory situation. Once
> you've had air under your boots...
>
>:-)
>
> Ri©ardo
>



I used an Kodak Instamatic, carried it in an ammo poach.


uh huh
John in Ky

[Ri©ardo]

On 04/02/2016 20:06, John Szalay wrote:
> Ricardo?= > wrote in
> :
>>>>
> the Kodak Brownie 127 did have some limitations.
>>
>
>> As we know, real life is rather different to the theory situation. Once
>> you've had air under your boots...
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Ri©ardo
>>
>
>
>
> I used an Kodak Instamatic, carried it in an ammo poach.
>
>
> uh huh
> John in Ky
>
>
>
>

I carried my tucked down my smock which enabled me to get the odd
picture like the attached.

The DZ officer was not amused...

:-)

Ri©ardo

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[john szalay]

>> Ricardo?= > wrote in
>>
> I carried my tucked down my smock which enabled me to get the odd
> picture like the attached.
>
> The DZ officer was not amused...
>
>:-)
>
> Ri©ardo
>


I think every trooper that ever carried a camera has taken that same
photo. ;-)

Have you seen the new T-11 parachute ? Supposed to have been deployed to
the troops in 2010.

[Jess Lurkin[_10_]]

John Szalay <john.szalay.at.att.net> wrote in
31:

>>> Ricardo?= > wrote in
>>>
>> I carried my tucked down my smock which enabled me to get the odd
>> picture like the attached.
>>
>> The DZ officer was not amused...
>>
>>:-)
>>
>> Ri©ardo
>>
>
>
> I think every trooper that ever carried a camera has taken that same
> photo. ;-)
>
> Have you seen the new T-11 parachute ? Supposed to have been deployed to
> the troops in 2010.
>


Tis been many decades (plural) since my last time of having
"air under my boots". So I know nothing about this 'chute.

I don't like the configuration/shape. Looks too prone to
folding in on itself. I see no thrust cuts. Looks like a
straight drop. But I suppose the Army has put the correct
amount of design and testing into it. And the Army ~never~
has any FUBARS or SNAFUS.

Thanks for posting this John. I will research it for S&grins.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)[_2_]]

On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:02:09 -0600, John Szalay
<john.szalay.at.att.net> wrote:

>"Bob (not my real pseudonym)" > wrote in
:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:35:17 +0000, Ri©ardo >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 03/02/2016 02:10, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>>> Interesting video.
>>>>
>>>> But why aren't the soldiers following?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because the aircraft will have to do another circuit so that they're
>>>dropped as close to the heavy drop as possible.
>>
>> Eep. If the bad guys are bad shots, they get a second chance at all
>> the good guys.
>>
>
>Thats alright , we can always drop a 3/4 ton truck on them..

Uh oh.... better get Maaco!

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)[_2_]]

On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:52:46 -0600, John Szalay
<john.szalay.at.att.net> wrote:

>Ricardo?= > wrote in news:-
:
>
>
> Remember this parachute commercial for the MGB sports car ?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIF9ys-hJn0
>
>
>
>
> Here is the result first "take"...

Pffft! A little Bondo® will fix 'er right up!

[Ri©ardo]

On 04/02/2016 22:19, John Szalay wrote:
>>> Ricardo?= > wrote in
>>>
>> I carried my tucked down my smock which enabled me to get the odd
>> picture like the attached.
>>
>> The DZ officer was not amused...
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Ri©ardo
>>
>
>
> I think every trooper that ever carried a camera has taken that same
> photo. ;-)
>

Ah, but did their 'chutes have the patches on them. That's not something
I'd have known if I hadn't taken the picture!

:-)

> Have you seen the new T-11 parachute ? Supposed to have been deployed to
> the troops in 2010.
>
>
>
>

No, that's new to me, but it looks pretty sturdy. It's good to the see
the ambulance in the background.

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[Ri©ardo]

On 05/02/2016 00:05, Jess Lurkin wrote:
> John Szalay <john.szalay.at.att.net> wrote in
> 31:
>
>>>> Ricardo?= > wrote in
>>>>
>>> I carried my tucked down my smock which enabled me to get the odd
>>> picture like the attached.
>>>
>>> The DZ officer was not amused...
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Ri©ardo
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think every trooper that ever carried a camera has taken that same
>> photo. ;-)
>>
>> Have you seen the new T-11 parachute ? Supposed to have been deployed to
>> the troops in 2010.
>>
>
>
> Tis been many decades (plural) since my last time of having
> "air under my boots". So I know nothing about this 'chute.
>
> I don't like the configuration/shape. Looks too prone to
> folding in on itself. I see no thrust cuts. Looks like a
> straight drop. But I suppose the Army has put the correct
> amount of design and testing into it. And the Army ~never~
> has any FUBARS or SNAFUS.
>

:-) As if...

> Thanks for posting this John. I will research it for S&grins.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>


--
Moving Things In Still Pictures

[Ri©ardo]

On 05/02/2016 09:48, Bob (not my real pseudonym) wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 12:03:15 +0000, Ri©ardo >
> wrote:
>
>> On 04/02/2016 08:55, Bob (not my real pseudonym) wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:35:17 +0000, Ri©ardo >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/02/2016 02:10, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>>>> Interesting video.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why aren't the soldiers following?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because the aircraft will have to do another circuit so that they're
>>>> dropped as close to the heavy drop as possible.
>>>
>>> Eep. If the bad guys are bad shots, they get a second chance at all
>>> the good guys.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Bob, how true that is.
>>
>> However, given the speed of the aircraft and the time elapsed from the
>> first vehicle's departure from the aircraft, how many miles away will
>> the aircraft be from the landed vehicles when the lads get out? Imagine
>> a a minimum of a five mile hike through hostile territory to claim a
>> couple of essential vehicles which, by that time, could already be in
>> enemy hands.
>>
>> Separation of heavy drop and personnel drop would seem common sense,
>> would it not, with the personnel coming in within a few minutes of the
>> heavy stuff? Even better, get the troops on the ground first to secure
>> perimeters and then await the heavy stuff!
>>
>> I know that they're dreadful pictures, but fifty years have passed and
>> the Kodak Brownie 127 did have some limitations. Here's me with a
>> vehicle I helped to rig and, and the next one, which I took, was after
>> parachuting in and assisting with securing the DZ, to allow instant
>> access to our vehicles and kit once they landed.
>>
>> Ri©ardo
>
> Impressive stuff!

Thanks Bob.

> My dad was a USAAF C-47 driver in Europe during the
> latter half of WW2. He had a few stories, though it was usually
> difficult to get him to tell them.
>

Well done, like so many of our dads.

> Good (if a tad crazy) folks. y'all are...
>

It's the only way to be!

;-)

Ri©ardo

--
Moving Things In Still Pictures