Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 8/17/2001 4:21:12 AM EST
I can't think of a single combat paratroop drop conducted anywhere in the world in the last forty years. (I'm talking about battalion-level or larger operations, not special ops stuff.) Nor can I imagine a scenario in which the United States would conduct one anytime in the near future. So why do we bother keeping an entire division of troops airborne-qualified?
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 7:31:18 AM EST
I notice 32 airbourne troops were injured today in training jumps in Germany.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 8:29:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/17/2001 9:39:05 AM EST by 504PIR]
173rd ABN. BRDE, RVN, 1967. 1st & 2nd Batts. 75th Inf. (Rangers), Grenada, 1983. Bn. size elaments of the 82nd AD and 75th Ranger Regt., Panama, 1989. More detailed info here: http://home.nc.rr.com/strick/cbtjumps.html Strike Hold [%(]
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 9:44:38 AM EST
The largest large scale airborne operation that was successful (that I can think of) was the German invsasion of Crete. But it was costly. Operation Market Garden was a failure. The German use of airborne in the low countries in 1940 and the allied use of airborne during the Normandy invasion were successful, but only due to quick link ups with ground forces. Basically, airborne is very risky, and if the enemy is trully dangerous (that is, has powerful ground forces), quick link up with ground forces is neccessary. Airborne units have made much of their reputation without airborne operations. This is true of the Para Marines, and the German paras certainly added greatly to their reputation in their non-airborne operations.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 11:00:28 AM EST
While investigating this topic, I came across an interesting website: [url]http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5265/index.htm[/url] The website's creator seems to have a real problem with the USMC. Still, it is worth a look.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 11:34:43 AM EST
The French Foreign Legion parachute battalion, 2e REP, has made several combat jumps into Africa to rescue foreigners from the mob, Zaire in 1979 and the Congo in 1997 that I know of.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 1:01:08 PM EST
Elements of the 82nd (I cannot remeber how large) jumped into Grenada and Panama.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 2:18:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By Renamed: While investigating this topic, I came across an interesting website: [url]http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5265/index.htm[/url] The website's creator seems to have a real problem with the USMC. Still, it is worth a look.
View Quote
I think I've seen that site before. The guy is arborne, and argues that sea landings are obsolete. Which is kinda funny, because sea landings have been much more useful than airborne, for inserting major forces. Certainly, air insertion is useful in special ops (as is sea insertion).
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 4:15:40 PM EST
Airborne are just too vulnerable. I think Air Assault is more effective. There might still be a few Third World scenarios where it would be handy to drop a battalion
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 6:15:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/17/2001 8:08:34 PM EST by Doug_in_CO]
I think airborne drops of larger than a battalion are too likely to be spotted ahead of time, or fail. The objective needs to be something that naturally leads to resupply, like an airfield or port. The problem with airborne forces is running out of beans, bullets and band-aids. They are useful on short notice, but need to be resupplied or extracted by means not organic to their organization, so their chance of success is limited. Joint operations are bizarrely complicated, and I wouldn't trust any other service to come get me if I were them. I would say that if the US could bring itself to spend airborne troops a bit more liberally, it would give us significantly more options in difficult situations like the embassy evacuation in Mogadishu in 1990/1991. If the Army were allowed to run a tactical airlift capability with something like the Buffalo/Caribou aircraft, I would feel much better if I were an airborne trooper. BTW, Grenada was a goatfuck.
Link Posted: 8/18/2001 9:27:44 AM EST
It depends on who you are fighting. In Burma in 1944 we successfully supplied the Marauders and the Chindits entirely by air. If we owned more C-17's than we do right now we might be able to supply the 82nd better. They work off of dirt fields just fine. The 101st is more problematic. Their huge fleet of helicopters consumes so much fuel and spares that they are considered the same as a HEAVY divsion logisticaly by the Army. Africa is the most likely place to use the 82nd in the near future. Covering the evacuation of Whites from Zimbabwe.
Link Posted: 8/18/2001 3:15:23 PM EST
Airborne forces, other than SF, have been obsolete since the Normandy invasion. Air assault is cool, if they can hold till relived by mech infantry and armored forces in time. The catch word is "if". IMHO of course.
Link Posted: 8/18/2001 3:50:25 PM EST
Just saw on Fox news, about 45 minutes ago, that an airborne group in Texas that was formed during WWI (was there airborne then ?) made their final jump today and is no longer. I think it was the 147th ???? You airborne guy's help me out on this. I guess Taps is in order.
Link Posted: 8/18/2001 4:22:37 PM EST
Obsolete since Normandy ? I must disagree. And that I'm sure we could do all day. However, I submit a question instead. By what other means would the US Military capture a toehold in some far away hostile land within 18 hours or less, once deciding to do so ? Helicopters/Air Assualt ? Don't have the range, though I must admitt, flying nap of the earth in a Black Hawk is COOL. One of the primary missions of the 82nd's Infantry Regiments and that of the 75th Infantry Regiment is airfield seizures. Then when the airfield is secured, follow on heavier forces, along with beans and bullets can be brought in. Strike Hold[%(]
Link Posted: 8/19/2001 7:11:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/19/2001 7:36:47 PM EST by Doug_in_CO]
In “Breaking the Phalanx”, the author makes some interesting points about the cost of permanently stationed forces overseas, and the vulnerabilities of amphibious invasions. Personally, I think that amphibious forces are a better bet. But, the potential of snatching a perfectly functioning airport with no warning is so tempting, it can’t be ignored. We should have used Haiti as an experiment. It would have been worth a few dozen casualties to test the viability of jumping into an airport to secure it. Grenada was a generation before, and it was ineffective. The jump into Haiti would have been worth the test. Too bad Powell and Clinton wimped out. The more important issue is follow-on forces. In anything other than first-world incursions, armor is not a serious threat to the operation, but logistics always are. To be specific, the Air Force won’t even bother landing an expeditionary force without a PX. I feel embarrassed for the Army troops involved in Kosovo/Albania. General Officers and politicians who are not willing to take casualties in order for an operation to kick-off, are treasonous and ought to be given an option to lead from the front.
Link Posted: 8/19/2001 7:46:22 PM EST
Can somebody tell me how troops are going to get BEHIND enemy lines w/o airborne? There are only so many helicopters available in a given theater to transport troops and most without inflight refueling capability(short range even with drop tanks). Are troops going to WALK 1500 miles to the middle of China? Drive tanks over high mountain tops? Granted, airborne troops only have so many supplies, and can't carry much beyond artillery, and yes, are vulnerable. But in many areas around the globe there will be no other way to secure stategic inland sites. Airborne will still be useful in situations requiring immediate attention. Remember, only troops can secure airports, etc. Bombing can only prevent the enemy from using these areas TEMPORARILY. An airborne assault today into a well armed/trained country, would no doubt result in large casualties, perhaps unacceptable to today's American citizen, but at what price freedom?
Link Posted: 8/20/2001 3:52:29 AM EST
It would have been worth a few dozen casualties to test the viability of jumping into an airport to secure it. Grenada was a generation before, and it was ineffective.
View Quote
Why do you say it was ineffective? The Rangers did capture the airport, didn't they?
Can somebody tell me how troops are going to get BEHIND enemy lines w/o airborne? There are only so many helicopters available in a given theater to transport troops and most without inflight refueling capability(short range even with drop tanks). Are troops going to WALK 1500 miles to the middle of China? Drive tanks over high mountain tops?
View Quote
How are you going to gain air superiority all the way from Fort Benning (or another American air base) to the middle of China? A single forty-year-old fighter could destroy a dozen transport planes. Then, once you've airdropped the troops in the middle of China, how do you support them? If they don't hook up with friendly ground forces ASAP, they're instant POWs.
Link Posted: 8/20/2001 7:33:02 PM EST
Why would someone try a airborne assault that far inside a first world enemy? There are many places to use Airborne, China and Russia arent two of them... You dont use airborne without air superiority. If there is even "one forty year old fighter" we dont do it. Gaining air superiority over most countries is a matter of a nights work for Air Force and Navy airmen. In fact it has become real difficult to find aerial targets to shoot down in the last ten years or so. China, Russia, and North Korea are just about the only places where attaining such dominance could be difficult.
Link Posted: 8/24/2001 7:04:30 AM EST
504PIR, as I said, SF and Rangers need to be airborne, however, a Div.? for what? it does not take a Div to secure an airport. As far as dropping massive forces behind enemy lines, I hope you are also planning on massive supply drops and air superiorty. The crossbow still has its uses, however it is still an obsolete weapon.
Link Posted: 8/24/2001 10:02:23 AM EST
Airborne units are useful, but not in all situations. To stop training troops for Airborne would be to remove a valuable tool from the Army's arsenal. Be prepared for anything. BTW, to the post refering to Grenada as a goatfuck, what part do you refer to? The SEALs had problems, DELTA had major problems, the Marines did OK (even if they weren't supposed to be there), the 82nd was airlifted in and did ok. The 75 Rangers dropped in en masse a battalion sized force on Point Salines and kicked the shit out of the Cubans. Didn't sound like a screw up to me.
Link Posted: 8/24/2001 9:24:05 PM EST
Rew, are you suggesting that SF Groups should make airfield seizures ? That is not their mission. It's a big scary world out there my friend. Would you propose that all this country needs is one Ranger Regiment to handle it all ? My guess is the Rangers would concur, but that is called Esprit De Corps. The 82d has three PIRs, artillery, engineers and until recently a light armor battalion that was air insertible. Not to mention all the REMFs...I mean support folks. For Desert Shield, the 82d was first in. The QRF was on the ground in about 18 hours. Now, they did not jump, but that option was not needed. They were the speed bump if Saddaam had decided to go into Saudi. One might argue that the 101 could have done the same(that thing they do with the helicopters is so cool) and this may be true. Unless there was a need to insert by force. Are you also a supporter of the new "Let's give a black beret to every swingin dick ? Better yet, when was the last time you wrote up the Op Order for an airfield seizure or participated in a brigade mass tac at 0 dark thirty ? Tis better to have and not need, than need and not have. Strike Hold [%(]
Link Posted: 8/26/2001 3:30:10 PM EST
If all we had for inital entry ops were Marines all anyone would have to do to stop us is buy a lot of mines and a few diesel electric subs and mine their coast. It would take a major effort to get a path through them and a lot of time would be wasted. And land locked countries wouldnt even have to worry about this. Marines cant reach them. If all we had was one Ranger Regiment all they would have to do is give a AK to every man and woman who could carry one and just mob them, before we had time to airland anyone. If we had only Airborne all anyone would have to do is invest a lot in Russian SAMS- and simply leave them in holes in the ground as the Yugoslavs did a couple years ago. We kept sending the bombers over looking for SAMS and they kept refusing to turn on- which is why AC-130's were never used over Kosovo, when they could of gone a long way to protecting the civilian population from attacks by Security Forces and Serb militia. And we definently wouldnt fly transports over such a site. It is VERY easy to tell the difference between transports and fighters, even if the news media doesnt inform the enemy ahead of time. Then the SAMS would come out all at once and we just wouldnt have enough fighters to protect the transports from them all at once. If anything we dont have enough paratroopers, and even more to the point we dont use the ones we have enough. So many are the times we needed quick reaction forces to respond to a problem, like Rawanda, Kosovo, the current problem in Zimbabwe, the cruse missile attack on bin Laden, but no one wants to use the 82nd. Why? Because the 82nd is tied up as the RDF lead element- and there is no one to replace it in that mission if we actually have to use it. Everyone is terrified that if we use it we won't be able to respond to the "Real War" if it were to break out in the next few weeks. First off, what is the chance of that happening anymore? Second, if it is a problem then get another airborne unit! Either make the 101st parachute capable again, or bring back another unit like the 11th or 17th that is not part of the RDF and can be used purely to serve US National interests. For that matter, what happened to the 173rd Abn. Brigade?
Link Posted: 8/26/2001 4:28:05 PM EST
ArmdLbrl, The SkySoldiers were reactivated within the last year or so in Italy. I beleave the Herd is being formed into a RCT type formation. Strike Hold [%(]
Link Posted: 8/26/2001 5:00:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2001 5:49:25 PM EST by ArmdLbrl]
Really? Oh, cool. Take a look at this link:[url]http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7963/paratrooper.htm[/url] paying particular attention to the Belgian (1964) and French (1978, 1997) rescue missions in the Congo in the foreign armies section at the bottom of the page. I find it interesting that, in spite of their poor history of loosing wars in general, and the disaster of Diem Ben Phu in particular, the French are still conducting operations with Battalion sized elements that we are unwilling to try with the whole 82nd Airborne. Both times they not only got the vast majority of the civilians out with minimal losses to both civies and paras- but they also savaged the gurillia armies that opposed them. In the 97 op, 2REP not only rescued people and pummled the militas but also got out 2 C130 loads of endangered animals from wildlife research centers around Brazallville! You know we run so many people through Airborne School every year who dont stay with the Regular army past their comitment- but they dont give up jumping, skydiving has become such a popular sport and such... point is why are there no National Guard or Reserve Airborne Divisions? I dont think it would be hard to find ex-Airborne regulars who would be willing to give up the time to stay in the Airborne community, and still be able to undertake a profitable career in civil life.
Link Posted: 8/27/2001 8:02:52 AM EST
504PIR, I agree it is far better to have and not need than to need and not have, however if I remember right it was the Rangers that took the Airport on Granada. I have never wrote up an op order for taking an airport, but I was a First Shirt for one in Safwon Iraq. One Runway, and IIRC about 6 C130s taking out refugees. I had to make sure the beans got there, and the the latreen's where taken care of. Somebody has to do it. We had airforce personal, army interpeters, and believe it or not, bus drivers from all over the damn place. Not one of them had wings. And I was the youngest SFC in the BN. 5/5 Cav 3AD. So of course I got to run this wierd company along with the BN TAC. I am not trying to run down the Airborne, I went to ANOC at Ft. Benning with a bunch of great guys with wings. I am just saying that a Div is not needed anymore, excuse me for being damn proud of being Mech infantry for a littl over 20 years.
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 3:22:24 PM EST
First everybody needs to realize that the individual responsible for the Airborne website wasn’t up to snuff as a Marine and neither a credit nor asset to the airborne forces. The website has more than a few factual inaccuracies concerning recent (last 10-20 years) events. These inaccuracies may be unintentional while are errors of omission others are outright falsehoods. Both Airborne (I’ll use parachute vice helo) and amphibious forces are designed for forced entry leading to other types of operations. Both serve different niches and have different + and -. Both 82nd and 101st have larger lift requirements than an USMC division which has both more firepower and better sustainability. The caveat is that the USA divisions include an aviation component while the USMC division doesn’t. The aviation component that goes with an USMC division has far greater capabilities than the USA ones. The some/majority of the USMC aviation assets (aircraft) are self deployable while none of the USA divisions are. What is the bottom line on the logistical tail? From what I gather (I’m not a log type) with full aviation assets included from largest to smallest lift requirement is 101st, USMC, then 82nd. The USAF/USA overstate their ability for global strategic airborne forced entry. Without an adequate SEAD/DEAD and follow on logistic support the 82nd will die on the vine. The USN/USMC is more honest with their ability to forced entry a division sized formation. Where do the transports land and refuel after dropping off paratroopers? A whole lot of countries don’t take kindly to over flights of their territory of damn Imperialist Yankee dogs and have been known to hinder unescorted transport flights. Another problem with modern mass airdrops is the size of the aircraft. The smallest is a C-130 with 60 jumper through two doors. Figure approx. 1.1 seconds per jumper and the aircraft covering the ground at 65-70 meters/second gives a planning figure of 75 meters per jumper (30 in a C-130). The larger the aircraft the worse the problem of finding an appropriate DZ, checking the defenses etc., then getting a formation to make a perfect drop to minimize intermingling of units and non-combat casualties. This the why the 97 drop in Brazzaville didn’t happen even after it was released that the OP was a go. Six C-130 (one USMC was to lead!?) to drop into a 210 meter soccer field, can we say scattered unit? They went overland. pt1
Link Posted: 8/30/2001 3:25:22 PM EST
pt2 This disruption of unit integrity can be overcome to an extend with training but 82nd has it’s problems in that area and not as proficient as the 101st or USMC. This is not just my opinion but also of our Brit colleagues after last years Purple Helmet (Dragon). Not that the USMC didn’t have leadership problems at the Gen. officer level in the 80s (can we way 1st MarDiv?). More countries have the relatively light anti-air capabilities and ability to deny/disrupt large-scale parachute landing zones than have the anti amphibious capability. The former is easier and cheaper to do but the latter will cause the U.S. greater total losses (losses of highly trained infantry on both but some aviation transports against heavier land and ships). The 82nd too large when we only need a regimental sized ready force? The minimum standard is 3 to make 1. One doing the mission/ pulling alert, one training up to replace the operational formation and the third pulls the immediate relief for the first while getting rest and refit getting ready to start the training cycle again. This is for sustainable peace time matrix. That the USA SF doesn’t/hasn’t trained for airfield seizure is a false hood. From personal knowledge at least one group has and I am led to believe still trains for the mission. As do USMC units. The best way to seize an airport? Drive over it with an infantry, mech infantry, or an armored formation (with infantry to secure it)! The last time the Legion savaged some guerrillas in Africa, AFAIK, was in the Central African Republic in 96 or 97. The legion lost the runway 4-6 times at the capital of Bangui (SP) but kept their hangers and always re-took the whole airfield. Aircraft could only operate at night into a darkened airfield. The USMC embassy guards were augmented with a MEU MSPF an part of either a wpns plt or Co., and they went through more than a few pallets of ammo.
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 10:09:19 PM EST
all very interesting... but none of these marines or solders are going anywhere with out air superiority!... Can you imagine with todays attitudes of love and peace, the united states sending a full division into battle without total air superiority?? Some general standing at the mic telling the reporters the op was still a success despite loosing 2 LST'S AND 10 C-17'S WITH ALL SOULS ON BOARD.... You get the idea... with out total air power neither force will ever be used again. This means that both types of ops will only happen against a third world country ...What will we do if we ever have to fight a first rate force again??
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 5:52:17 AM EST
Given recent events, I think that airborne forces have a chance to finally be relevant on a large scale. The only ground forces that have a chance to impose our will on Kabul is the 82nd Airborne. Assuming we are willing to finally accept conventional casualties, the plan is as follows: The mission would be to kill as many Taliban supporters as possible, capture or kill the Taliban leadership, and reduce the ability of the Taliban to resist conventional Northern Alliance attacks as much as possible. Civilian casualties would be irrelevant. They would not be targeted explicitly, but they would not be considered in any way when targeting military sites. Have F-15E’s run SEAD against known anti-aircraft positions. Prep the perimeter of the airport with FAE. Drop one PIR on the airport to secure it. Drop the other PIR as close to the seat of power of the Taliban political establishment as possible. Pile on with air transported regular troops ASAP. A couple of aircraft at a time from the airlift force can be left running at the end of the runway to provide a medivac capability once full. As quickly as possible, establish a rotary wing attack capability from the airport to provide CAS to the Airborne troops. The initial strike should be done using whatever air-to-air refueling assets are necessary. After that, intermediary stops at bases in Russia could be used if necessary. The 82nd would loose a few hundred guys, but it would make them relevant again.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 11:46:55 AM EST
I'll throw my two cents in here. I witnessed the 82nd drop 3000+ paratroopers in to Egypt in 1981. It was a spectacular sight. Parachutes filled the sky! Along the drop corridor the horizon was gray with parachutes. I still have photos somewhere. That said, I think parachuting into denied territory is becoming a special forces option. We don't really need to insert troops by that method. Paratroopers are light forces, which has been stated earlier. Subsequently, they need to complete their mission quickly and evacuate or be resupplied constantly. Eventually, they will need to mate up with a heavier force if they face a determined foe. It is easier to have troops rappel into an insertion than it is to drop them. Helicopters can fly nap of the earth, but C-141 & C-130's don't. Also big aircraft pose big targets and a moderate concentration of AAA around the drop zone would raise havoc with the drop. The USAF has so few strategic airlifters that risking them on a large jump mission would probably not be considered. During recent forest fires, I had a chance to talk with a former 82nd member who was now employed by the USFS. He told me that the smoke jumpers were a dinosaur and would be phased out as those senior members of the USFS who came from the Smoke jumper ranks retired. He said it was easier to rappel fire fighters into hot spots. It was cheaper, took less training and inflicted less casualties. So simple economics plays its part. The same parallel can be drawn with the military. Some paradrop insertions will ALWAYS be necessary but in small numbers. I don't believe we'll ever see 3000+ troopers drop again. FWIW IMHO....Geno
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 4:24:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2001 6:44:49 PM EST by MrClean]
I believe that in today's world, paratroopers have a different mission than in WWII. They have their unique 'niche.' Gliders are out, and choppers don't always work. (1979 in the desert in the Mid East?) I work with a guy who had 18 years in the Special Forces who had many drops. John
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 8:53:11 AM EST
Since the C-17 can land on dirt, all you really need is to seize some flat, hard desert. So there is a good chance the 82nd might be used to seize a LZ in South Afganistan, in the fairly flat country south of Kandahar, as a place for SPECOPS helicopters and C130's to fly from. Not to mention A-10's and AC-130's. Since Pakistan has repeated today that they will not let us base troops in their country such a forward base is needed. Pakistan will let us land planes in their country, so C-5's and C-141's and charter 747's can land there, offload to C-130's or C-17's which can then land in the airhead. Getting in a sufficent supply of jet fuel will be the biggest problem, but if that can be solved than the 82nd can be replaced by the 101st and 2ACR. This is a bread and butter mission for those two units.
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 10:07:59 AM EST
I wouldn't say that the airborne force is obsolete,, but certainly their concept of use have evolved quite abit over the last 50 years. Many lessons were learned during WWII, that were employed with some success in the early post war period,, but again,, it is the proper mix of forces (light, heavy, mech, air, sea, space, etc) that will give you the edge, based on what your objectives are and the enemy you are up against. They certainly give a commander a extra element of flexibility. The only real con to airborne, is their cost ($),, particularly if you are a small country, and have a difficult time trying to keep your conventional forces up to strength and equipped.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 1:16:36 PM EST
All this is true, Link-ups, etc. But the fact is I wouldn't drop any sticks anywhere near enemies. Say 3 to 4 klicks away from massed infrantry. Directly on Target to a target unsuspecting and asleep to boot. Directly into Town in the middle of night, but probably 2-3 klicks away. But that is not the only insertion method available. What is also true is that if they know the land and are expierienced enough they can survive without being re-supplied at least as long as reg. infantry. Can be. They can also be put ashore in the middle of night, through boats or helo's quietly. Who else can do demolition,pathfinding, assasination, kidnapping, hit and run attacks and all round guerilla style fighting during night and sleep all day. Airborne nor Special Forces nor Air Assault is antiquated to say the least. They are totally usefull still and will be for some time. Who else can probe defense in depth, check flanks, kill officers behind the lines, or just about anything else they can do. The problem is not the Airborne Corps at all, be they SF or Air Assault. Its the insertion that can make or break you.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 1:29:44 PM EST
If the issue is firepower and survivability. I can think of Two stories right off hand where when forced to fight both Navy Seals and another Special Forces Either Army or Navy again took more then 50:1 lives. In Iraq the Navy Seal team which killed over 250 Iraqi soldiers in a desert firefight and then were evacuated out (this was a 4 man squad) all of which I think survived. Then there was the squad in Modadishu which had 4 members killed but their again killed upwards of 300 enemy in a single firefight.??? Not that body counts matter at all, but this is at least a hard number and points to the lethality of SF when in Direct contact with the enemy and under really shitty odds.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 1:38:29 PM EST
Futhermore, In the right circumstances if you really want to split someones forces in two you could really do worse then drop a bunch of Airborne in his rear. especially if Defense in debth is non existence. You would be forced to split your forces or have a very bad day when MR AIRBORNE STARTS PUTTING LEAD INTO YOUR BACK SIDE. That can route forces as fast as a massive frontal assault. And even more so when they are weakening or giving a little ground to begin with. I can think of a whole bunch of ways to use Airborne troops very effectively. The requirement being that you have Air Superiority and or weather no one else will fly in.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 2:32:03 PM EST
I would do afghanistan different. Rumor Has it that several years back Osama put millions on the market to purchase Suitcase Nukes. Supposedly he got plenty of them, but without the detonate codes which are still in Moscow. If he has an Engineer available he would likely rewire them to detonators. Putting American Ground Forces around Kabul is in my estimation a suicide mission. Unless you can fake a 10,000 man airdrop and get him to blow himself up. Which would be very much worth it. However America is rumored to have detection equiptment that can see Netron Sources, Gamma Sources etc,.. Chances are they know for sure if he has anything Nuclear arrayed around him. And possibly if he is stupid can pinpoint him using those If he has chosen to stay close to them. Ben
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 5:21:19 PM EST
What was amazing to me was that they were dropped so close to the airport. It was if it had been abandoned or something. Because those C-130's should have been taking fire, at least small arms fire. Benjamin
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 5:38:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: What was amazing to me was that they were dropped so close to the airport. It was if it had been abandoned or something. Because those C-130's should have been taking fire, at least small arms fire. Benjamin
View Quote
You know the IR film that was taken of the of the drop from above? That was of such high quality? It was taken by a AC-130U's SLIIR. That is why there was no fire.
Link Posted: 10/22/2001 4:43:37 AM EST
Army Rangers jumped into Afgahnistan yesterday. They just showed that parachute insertion is still an effective means of placing a mass formation of soldiers at a specific point in the least amount of time.
View Quote
A company or so of Rangers is not a "mass formation".
Link Posted: 10/22/2001 6:43:37 PM EST
If you have air superiority, like we do in Afghanistan, platoon drops would be very effective behind lines for hits on supply routes. Especially if you are trying to help out a smaller force like the Northern Alliance. Just the threat will force the Taliban into guarding convoys instead of manning the front lines.
Link Posted: 10/24/2001 9:39:11 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 8:48:50 AM EST
A company of Rangers is not even close to a mass formation. As I stated before, Airborne is obsolete as a large invasion type force. However, in small raids and quiet insertions it is very useful. The crossbow is obsolete, but in some roles can be very effective. My bolt action 30-06 is obsolete but the Mule deer never knew that. I really hope all our people come home safe, Airborne, Leg, Mech, Armor, Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy. Thay all serve. SFC(ret)Rew E. Williams Mech Ifantry and damn proud of it!!
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 7:54:31 PM EST
Crossbow is obsolete??? I don't know about that. Benjamin
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 12:21:17 PM EST
ROFLMAO, OK Ben, IMHO the crossbow is obsoleate and a mass issue weapon of war:), I like'em too.
Top Top