Paratroopers the safer option? (1 Viewer)

[larso]

This is a very undeveloped idea but in raw terms, both 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions suffered close to 2,000 fatalities in WW2. Some 'leg' divisions suffered more than double that. The 4th suffered almost 5,000 fatalities. Other examples with service from Normandy are - the 29th 4,700+, 30th 3,500, 35th 2,950, 79th 2,943, 80th 3,480, 83rd 3,600, 90th 3,900+.

So can it be said that volunteering for the paratroopers, even with the epic battles fought, actually increased your chances of survival compared to regular infantry formations that entered combat at the same time?

 

[jazzeum]

I recall reading that in the right situation you are correct. However, if I'm not mistaken, after Crete, Hitler never used them again.

 

[larso]

I hadn't thought about the Germans and I don't have sufficient stats to consider the British. I guess my question is regarding the Americans only. So, to take it a bit further. You enlist in 1943, volunteer for the paras and end up in the 82nd or 101st for Normandy, rather than being conscripted and sent to one of those line infantry divisions that went into battle at roughly the same time.

 

[Currahee Chris]

Hello Larso-

This is a conclusion I ironically came to several years ago as well. Im sure there are several reasons as to why the casualty figures are lower in jump units than leg units. In general, I believe the following holds true with Jump units over straight legs:

- Better leadership at the Squad and platoon level;probably a direct correlation with the lower casualty rate- these levels could gain more experience.
- JUmpers were volunteers and generally wanted to be there .Higher comradie/ esprit de corps
- Better equipped and supported.
- Jump units were generally relieved earlier than leg units- they didnt have to hold ground as long so the frontline exposure wasnt as long;

 

[larso]

Yes, very few line divisions ever got much time out of the line. I guess they were mostly attacking too, which would've consistently exposed them to concentrated fire. The Airborne troops probably had more variety in their combat 'experiences' (ie defending Bastonge) which might've been, comparatively, less deadly.

There's probably something to do with the different size of the units too. I think regular battalions were bigger? Certainly there were a lot more support units in a regular division, though I'm sure I've read that 90% of casualties occurred in the rifle companies. Anyway, there were more guys in a regular division to become casualties.

 

[BHogan]

I agree with many of the other points that are being raised, but I'd like to add that the paras were often used to quickly overrun a position before the defenders knew they were being attacked, whereas the line infantry usually attacked prepared positions with an alert enemy.
Cheers,
Brendan

 

[Terp152]

Yes, very few line divisions ever got much time out of the line. I guess they were mostly attacking too, which would've consistently exposed them to concentrated fire. The Airborne troops probably had more variety in their combat 'experiences' (ie defending Bastonge) which might've been, comparatively, less deadly.

There's probably something to do with the different size of the units too. I think regular battalions were bigger? Certainly there were a lot more support units in a regular division, though I'm sure I've read that 90% of casualties occurred in the rifle companies. Anyway, there were more guys in a regular division to become casualties.

Correct, 101st shipped back to England in July and didn't go back into combat until MG. Then came out again before BoB. The length of ground combat in France and Germany for the US army was about 11 months. The airborne divisions were off the line roughly 3 months or 27% of that time. The non-airborne divisions were constantly in the combat environment other than short durations. The old saying for the 29th Division was they really were 3 divisions, one on the front, one in the hospital and one in the grave. The only way to get off the line was to wounded or killed. Chris

 

[larso]

"I agree with many of the other points that are being raised, but I'd like to add that the paras were often used to quickly overrun a position before the defenders knew they were being attacked, whereas the line infantry usually attacked prepared positions with an alert enemy."

Yes, good point. An aggressive attitude and highly trained and trusted comrades would also give you an edge over ordinary troops.