‘Rupert’ and ‘Oscar’: WW2 Air-Dropped ‘Paradummy’ Parachutist-Decoys.

[Wingknut]

Hi folks,
Not aircraft as such, although they did descend from the air, but included here as almost the opposite of stealth, i.e. rather than flying things made to look smaller than they actually are (whether optically, acoustically or on radar), behold British ('Rupert') and American ('Oscar') WW2 paradummies, airdropped decoys designed to look/sound bigger than they are:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100326052243/http://home.att.net/~1.elliott/paratrooperdummyhistorysite.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20091003232059/http://home.att.net/~1.elliott/decoyparadummies.JPG
http://web.archive.org/web/20070227231834/http://home.att.net/~1.elliott/britishrupertparadummy.JPG
http://web.archive.org/web/20090302170206/http://home.att.net/~1.elliott/firstamericantestparadummy.html

As shown, ‘Rupert’ versions include ‘SDV’ (‘self-destroying version’) types, some of which included “rifle fire simulation” and “explosive initiation box to simulate rifle fire or grenades” to recreate sights and noises as of a much larger airborne assault. American ‘Oscar’ paradummies seem a lot more convincing-looking, I have to say.

More images here: http://www.tweedewereldoorlog.nl/100voorwerpen/en/voorwerp/rupert-doll/

I have seen references to German paradummies too but so far images elude me.

Skyblazer has this thread on the Bristol (US) "Skeet" 1942 target glider, which "had a full-scale cousin that probably was considered a live decoy for real aircraft", http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,11083.msg104329.html#msg104329

But other than that, I don’t know of any plans for WW2-era flying decoys. Happy to hear if there were any more though …

Thanks, ‘Wingknut’

 

[Wurger]

Interesting subject, too bad there are no images of german paradummies, apparently the most efective (and pioneering).

 

[Wingknut]

Thanks, Wurger.
The best I can do so far, after some Googling, are these images of 'Fallschirmpuppen' aboard a Junkers Ju 52:
http://wardepartment.prophpbb.com/topic505.html
All best, ‘Wingknut’

 

[ArmchairSamurai]

I knew there was a thread for this! Sorry to revive another thread, but I was curious if anyone knows when and where these para dummies are from. The caption from the article below does not give me much: "A more realistic para dummy developed by the U.S. was this 36-inch-tall decoy intended for daylight drops. Paradummies were used until the 1970s." The caption is the exact same as the one under a picture of an Oscar para dummy in the article. I would presume these dummies were perhaps early post-war, but I am unsure. Nothing came up from reverse image searches. Any guesses?

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/operations-titanics-paradummies/

 

[riggerrob]

Later, heavy rope dummies were used during heavy-weight, high-speed drop tests of parachutes.
I have only used the Irvin molded rubber dummies, but I have also seen a few made of welded steel pipes. Weights can be increased by adding lead shot or strapping lead ingots to dummies.

 

[ArmchairSamurai]

Later, heavy rope dummies were used during heavy-weight, high-speed drop tests of parachutes.
I have only used the Irvin molded rubber dummies, but I have also seen a few made of welded steel pipes. Weights can be increased by adding lead shot or strapping lead ingots to dummies.

That makes sense considering the dummies in question have no arms... interesting. I wonder what the significance of the parachutes in the photo are. I am unfamiliar with parachutes, so I do not know too much about them to the extent I can tell them apart at a glance. I wish I could read the label on the left one, that would probably give us a clue.

 

[dan_inbox]

I would presume these dummies were perhaps early post-war, but I am unsure. Nothing came up from reverse image searches. Any guesses?

The very article that you quote reads "Combined engineering tests occurred in March 1946 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. (...) The conclusion was that the four-foot dummy presented a “satisfactory simulation” under controlled conditions."

Me, I love the idea of the "rifle fire simulator", to be added to the mix.

 

[riggerrob]

That makes sense considering the dummies in question have no arms... interesting. I wonder what the significance of the parachutes in the photo are. I am unfamiliar with parachutes, so I do not know too much about them to the extent I can tell them apart at a glance. I wish I could read the label on the left one, that would probably give us a clue.

Agreed.
The parachute container on the left sort of looks like a 1940s vintage seat pack or chest pack, but it has been modified to allow the risers (white straps with a dotted line down the middle) to exit the "top" of the container. Traditionally, the 2 ripcord pins are mounted "traverse" on that vintage of container.
Probably a one-off for that series of tests.
OTOH It does remind me of some of the short back type pilot emergency parachutes worn by WW2 Luftwaffe pilots.
Odd.

The parachute on the right sort of looks like the British X-type used by paratroopers during WW2, but it lacks the pockets to stow the static-line.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Testing captured designs or war booty?

 

[ArmchairSamurai]

The very article that you quote reads "Combined engineering tests occurred in March 1946 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. (...) The conclusion was that the four-foot dummy presented a “satisfactory simulation” under controlled conditions."

Me, I love the idea of the "rifle fire simulator", to be added to the mix.

I just reread through the article, and there is nothing to indicate the dummies in question are the same dummies being spoken about--hence my curiosity. The biggest clue to the case is the mention of arms and the plaster of Paris head. The dummies pictured have none, whereas the description of the tests mentioned in the article says "all models used [...]" followed by details like arms and a plaster of Paris head. If that were the case, then why take a photo of an incomplete set of dummies, by the parameter set within the article, especially with different parachutes? This tells me that the dummies in question are being used for a different purpose, possibly to test parachute designs as riggerrob pointed out earlier. I just wish said parachutes were identifiable--since I am not knowledgeable at all on the subject.

 

[Hood]

When did the use of dummy parachutists end?

I'm sure I came across a reference to them being dropped in a post-war operation when reading something the other day, might have been early Vietnam-era?

 

[Archibald]

Thanks, Wurger.
The best I can do so far, after some Googling, are these images of 'Fallschirmpuppen' aboard a Junkers Ju 52:
http://wardepartment.prophpbb.com/topic505.html
All best, ‘Wingknut’

That fallschirmpuppen is scary as frack. It looks straight out of a slasher 1970's horror movie, you know, when the serial killer has a mask made of human skin. I wouldn't want facing him (It ? like the clown ?) somewhere in the depth of a dark forrest.
Reminds me of the unfortunate parachutist in Lord of the flies.

 

[Hood]

I'm sure I came across a reference to them being dropped in a post-war operation when reading something the other day, might have been early Vietnam-era?

I found the reference - DHC.4 Caribous of the Indian AF dropping dummy parachutists during the Tangail Airdrop to seize the Poongli Bridge and ferry on 11 December 1971.

I wonder if this is the last use of dummies and what those dummys were? Could they have been old 'Ruperts' or 'Oscars' left over from WW2?

 

[riggerrob]

I found the reference - DHC.4 Caribous of the Indian AF dropping dummy parachutists during the Tangail Airdrop to seize the Poongli Bridge and ferry on 11 December 1971.

I wonder if this is the last use of dummies and what those dummys were? Could they have been old 'Ruperts' or 'Oscars' left over from WW2?

Explosives would have gone "stale" by then.
Few professionals trust explosives more than 30 years old.
More likely that Indian factories revived a WW2 concept and they dropped newly-made para-dummies.

 

[riggerrob]

The very article that you quote reads "Combined engineering tests occurred in March 1946 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. (...) The conclusion was that the four-foot dummy presented a “satisfactory simulation” under controlled conditions."

Me, I love the idea of the "rifle fire simulator", to be added to the mix.

Rather easy to do for any skilled fireworks manufacturer.
Just install slow-fuse or various lengths to simulate random rifle fire. From a few dozen meters, it would sound exactly like a rifleman. Shorter fuses could simulate machinegun fire.
Larger bursting charges could simulate mortars, etc.
You only need to drop them beyond the next hedge to fool defending infantry.

 

[publiusr]

Also a great way in insert a sapper...one paratrooper dressed like a lardball with rope and straw sticking out

 

[ArmchairSamurai]

Also a great way in insert a sapper...one paratrooper dressed like a lardball with rope and straw sticking out

Something I failed to notice the first time I read through the article I linked originally, was the brief mention of exactly what you point out... stay behind saboteurs. This lot of SAS dropped with the dummies.

https://www.staybehinds.com/sas-operation-titanic

 

[publiusr]

More than I would have guessed---I might want no more than three or so---just in case an attentive infantryman takes it upon him self to lag behind and bayonet a few just to make sure.