Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Are Paratroop troops no longer needed? Is there a viable role for them in the future? When was the last time a large scale combat parachute drop occured? Considering the growth of sophisticated AD and AAA assets would the politicians ever risk a traditional 'behind-the-lines' drop with the risk of high levels of media-unfriendly casualties?

Edited by Tinopener
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Ach, not again...Paratroopers have played a vital role in OIF when the 173rd Airborne Brigade dropped in Northern Iraq to open the second front...France uses them alot in Africa to bring troops fast where they are needed. The days of the paratroopers in combat jumps are not over yet.

Posted

I think the days of thousands of paratroopers jumping from fleets of planes might be over. The role of a lightly equipted rapid responce troops who can respond at a moments notice will be in demand for some time. Jumping from planes is more of a caracter building exercise nowadays and I can't see it end anytime soon but the role they were created for wont dissapear.

Posted

Wasn't the entire 82nd deployed and airborne to Haiti in '94 when Powell told tin-pot that ''Thay're on their way - ALL of them are on their way" ?

 

I doubt you'll see a market garden or normandy in china or wherever, but the role is definately there, just limited.

But paratroopers are useful as an easy way of creating more "elite" (god i hate that word) forces within an army.

Posted
Wasn't the entire 82nd deployed and airborne to Haiti in '94 when Powell told tin-pot that ''Thay're on their way - ALL of them are on their way" ?

 

I doubt you'll see a market garden or normandy in china or wherever, but the role is definately there, just limited.

But paratroopers are useful as an easy way of creating more "elite" (god i hate that word) forces within an army.

 

Just a brigade - that's about the largest package we can deploy.

Posted

I think the question wasn’t: “is it useful to have troops that can deploy by aircraft” but rather do we still need paratroopers in the sense of jump-fight.

 

On a large (Brigade/Division) scale probably not, due to the risks/sustainment difficulties we all know about. However if a conflict got particularly nasty and iut made strong operational sense they might be. It’s nice to keep the capability, therefore.

 

As rapid deployment where you cannot just land (but threat is medium-low – see French experience) or for ‘forced entry’ (as in: to capture the airport where the rest of the force lands, for instance), there is no question that thy are still needed. I think it makes sense for the US to maintain one airborne division. I think smaller armies should keep a regiment (in the sense of three maneuver btns) or so. I think full-on brigades/divisions (with airborne arty, engineers, etc.) may be slowly waning.

Posted

I think the advent of helicopters, especially the V-22 Osprey with more capabilities, reduces the need for soldiers to jump into combat. Even nowadays would be extremely hard for an enemy not know that the paratroopers are coming. IIRC, Haiti military junta back in 1994 had people near the bases of the 82nd Airborne, and as soon as the planes took off, he was told about it.

 

There are ocasions that jumping HAHO or HALO for SOF to infiltrate a country could be ideal. Also, in Africa, with a lack of appropriate sized airstrips and remoteness as well as lack of early-warning, possibly makes the use of Paratroopers a good option.

 

It all depends on the needs and circumstances as well as what the current military equipment available, allows you to plan.

Guest aevans
Posted

Guys who know how to use parachutes? Sure, we'll probably need them for a long time to come. Large parchute-trained units with an elite status and mythos? No more use for them.

Posted

Paratroopers (plural, not just small bands of SOF types) are like tanks: people are always prematurely predicting their demise. Then along comes a Panama scenario, or even more applicable, the northern front in Iraq, where having the ability to quickly put down a brigade-sized force, independent of fickly helos or contentious land routes, is invaluable.

 

Serious armies need at least a brigade, and for folks like us USians who can keep a division, well that, too. It's just like Marines, in that even if they won't be used in their primary role (parachute or sea-based assault), they're still useful and well-trained light infantry. And the logistics assets habitually used to support them surely won't go begging for work in a large campaign.

Posted
Wasn't the entire 82nd deployed and airborne to Haiti in '94 when Powell told tin-pot that ''Thay're on their way - ALL of them are on their way" ?

 

Just a brigade - that's about the largest package we can deploy.

 

But nobody really jumped Am I right?

AFAIK AA's last real combat jump* was in "first anti-terror operation" (Operation Just Cause) at Panama 1989. Then they really deployed a brigade by air: 1st Brigade TF / 82nd Abn Div. (1st and 2nd Bn/504th PIR, 4th Bn/325th ABN IR and A Co/3rd Bn/505th PIR) and reinforced it with an other batalion by land (3rd Bn/504th PIR that was used in first stages of operation as a operations rapid reserve unit in US canal zone).

 

*I know that in june 2002 B Co/3rd Bn/504th PIR/1st BDE CT jumped with Rangers in Afghanistan, but I don't count it as it was classified SOF operation

Posted
Guys who know how to use parachutes? Sure, we'll probably need them for a long time to come. Large parchute-trained units with an elite status and mythos? No more use for them.

 

Agree. From the US point of view, modern AD, modern communications (including kids with cell phones), and Western aversion to casualties make brigade and divission sized drops exceedly unlikely. More over the US lacks the transport to deploy more than a brigade anyway, assuming they could support it for any length of time. Ultimately some other ground force would have to catch up anyway with useful heavy equipment and logistics. And I can think of no situation where the enemy is both technically not proficient enough to oppose a major drop and yet the speed/opperational manuver requires such a drop. Given the progress that US conventional units have cut through or bypassed cities and strong points, I fail to see a need to seize bridgade and division sized objectives with airborne troops. Even in WWII, the opperations over Normany were successful more because their organization fell through and serendipity than actual planning and sucessful doctrine IMO. And the 'bridge too far' is pretty clearly a case of a bad drop. The Germans didn't have much success either IIRC outside of drops on Belgium IIRC (Norway?). IIRC they took catostrophic casualties at Cyrpus that no Western nation would sustain in anything short of a struggle for national survival (I think there were no major German drops after that affair specifically because of that concern).

 

Other countries would do well to retain regiments or batalions of jump troops for SOF if they can; the US would do well keeping its Rangers for large scale commando raids. But IMO the 82nd just isn't going to be used in its envissioned role and its not clear to me that maintaining jump training for espirt is cost effective. That said, they probably aren't nearly has expensive to support as the 101st, and its not clear to me when that helicopter heavy formation has truly been used opperationally as an air mobile unit at any significant level. I seem to recall there might have been a battalion to brigade sized airmobile manuver in '91, so maybe the expense is more justified.

Posted

The one true benefit that airborne brigades have is the ability to get into a place quickly. You can drop a brigade within a week of notification, and outside of MEU's (and they need to be in the general vacinity), there isn't another outfit that can get into a place faster. So for strategic operations that need to be done quickly, airborne is your way to go.

 

But they need to be reinforced quickly with logitisics because they have almost no operational mobility once they are on the ground, and they have little in the way of sustainment as well.

 

Against a decent 1st or 2nd world military, they will have trouble, but against many of the third world militaries, they are effective.

 

The Germans were mangled at Crete, and Hitler saw the effects of that operation and forbid the use of paratroopers from that point onwards.

Posted

Yet, the Fallschirmjäger, like other airborne forces, showed that they are very valuable light infantry fighting force, which performed far above average even in the non-traditional role.

Posted
The Germans were mangled at Crete, and Hitler saw the effects of that operation and forbid the use of paratroopers from that point onwards.

 

Yes Crete, sorry. Mixed up my islands and nationalities by a far margin.

 

I believe the 101 and 82 did a lot of work clearing the hedgerows due to their 'elite' status. Not sure how different either outfit would be compared to a LID in that role. Rather impossible to quantify, especially without major combat.

Posted
But nobody really jumped Am I right?

AFAIK AA's last real combat jump* was in "first anti-terror operation" (Operation Just Cause) at Panama 1989. Then they really deployed a brigade by air: 1st Brigade TF / 82nd Abn Div. (1st and 2nd Bn/504th PIR, 4th Bn/325th ABN IR and A Co/3rd Bn/505th PIR) and reinforced it with an other batalion by land (3rd Bn/504th PIR that was used in first stages of operation as a operations rapid reserve unit in US canal zone).

 

*I know that in june 2002 B Co/3rd Bn/504th PIR/1st BDE CT jumped with Rangers in Afghanistan, but I don't count it as it was classified SOF operation

 

Correct - they were recalled while in flight.

 

Little tidbit of history - if they had jumped, it would have been the first time Americam female soldiers had participated in a combat jump.

Posted
Agree. From the US point of view, modern AD, modern communications (including kids with cell phones), and Western aversion to casualties make brigade and divission sized drops exceedly unlikely. More over the US lacks the transport to deploy more than a brigade anyway, assuming they could support it for any length of time. Ultimately some other ground force would have to catch up anyway with useful heavy equipment and logistics. And I can think of no situation where the enemy is both technically not proficient enough to oppose a major drop and yet the speed/opperational manuver requires such a drop. Given the progress that US conventional units have cut through or bypassed cities and strong points, I fail to see a need to seize bridgade and division sized objectives with airborne troops. Even in WWII, the opperations over Normany were successful more because their organization fell through and serendipity than actual planning and sucessful doctrine IMO. And the 'bridge too far' is pretty clearly a case of a bad drop. The Germans didn't have much success either IIRC outside of drops on Belgium IIRC (Norway?). IIRC they took catostrophic casualties at Cyrpus that no Western nation would sustain in anything short of a struggle for national survival (I think there were no major German drops after that affair specifically because of that concern).

 

Other countries would do well to retain regiments or batalions of jump troops for SOF if they can; the US would do well keeping its Rangers for large scale commando raids. But IMO the 82nd just isn't going to be used in its envissioned role and its not clear to me that maintaining jump training for espirt is cost effective. That said, they probably aren't nearly has expensive to support as the 101st, and its not clear to me when that helicopter heavy formation has truly been used opperationally as an air mobile unit at any significant level. I seem to recall there might have been a battalion to brigade sized airmobile manuver in '91, so maybe the expense is more justified.

 

101st was used in '91, and was moved via helo to the maximum capacity of its organic lift assets, which meant a brigade at a time, IIRC. Even the 101st Airmobile is unable to get the entire division in the air at once, unless they manage to snag a whole mess of non-organic lift.

Posted (edited)

I worked for some time on a list containing all combat jumps that were conducted in and since WW2...and...although Crete was a hard won victory and one that was never supposed to be fought the way it was(Seaborne element, total knowledge of plans by the allies), the Fallschirmjaeger kept jumping until 1944. They made jumps in 1942, many jumps in Italy, Sicily and the Dodecanese Islands in 1943, Operation Knight´s Move against Tito in May 1944, and a (disastrous) combat jump in the Ardennes to support the Panzer advance in December 1944. All of these jumps were conducted in battalion to regimental size.

Edited by DemolitionMan
Posted
Although Crete was a hard won victory and one that was never supposed to be fought the way it was(Seaborne element! ), the Fallschirmjäger kept jumping until 1944. They made jumps in 1942, many jumps in Italy and Sicily 1943, Operation Knight´s Move against Tito in May 1944, and a combat jump in the Ardennes to support the Panzer advance in December 1944. All of these jumps were conducted in battalion to regimental size.

 

I only remember the one jump in Sicily and none in Italy, what were the other ones? The raid on Tito's HQ was interesting in that it was done by Waffen-SS paratroopers (500. SS Penal Parachute Battalion), AFAIK their only combat jump. The Ardennes drop (done by a composite parachute battalion led by Baron von der Heydte of Crete fame) was a complete fiasco.

Posted

I´ve edited my post a bit...but here are the german combat jumps since Crete:

 

Datum: Januar 1942

Ort: Östliches Persien (heute Iran), Operation "Bajadere"

Beteiligte Einheiten:

100 Mann des Regiments Brandenburg, zumeist Hindus und Moslems

Feindkräfte:

Britische Kolonialtruppen

Verluste: ?

 

Datum: 30.12.1942

Ort: Gegenden um Tebessa und St.Arnaud, östliches Algerien

Beteiligte Einheiten:

3.Kompanie, Fallschirm Pionier-Btl

Abgesetzt per Ju52 und in 2 DFS-230 Gleitern

Feindkräfte:

Britische Truppen

Verluste:

Die Kompanie wurde weit weg von ihren Zielen abgesetzt und der Großteil umzingelt, nur 2 Mann gelang die Flucht zu den deutschen Linien

 

Datum: 11.07.1943

Ort: Bei Syracuse und Catania auf Sizilien, Italien

Beteiligte Einheiten:

1. und 3. Btl, FJ-Regiment 4

Fallschirm MG Btl (beide FJ-Division 1)

Feindkräfte:

Alliierte Invasionstruppen

Verluste:

?

 

Datum: 14./15.07.1943

Ort: Flugfeld bei Catania auf Sizilien, Italien

Beteiligte Einheiten:

FJ-Regiment 3, FJ-Division 1

2 Kompanien des Fallschirm-Pionier Btls 1(sprangen am 15.)

Feindkräfte:

British 1st Parachute Brigade

Verluste: ?

 

Datum: 09.09.1943

Ort: Monte Rotondo, Italien, Operation "Student"

Beteiligte Einheiten:

2. Btl, FJR6, FJ-Division 2

665 Mann in 50 JU-52

Feindkräfte:

Truppen des Hauptquartiers der italienischen Armee

Verluste:

Deutsche: 52 Tote, 4 Vermisste, 79 Verwundete

Italiener: Gefallene ?, 100 Offiziere und 2400 Mann in Gefangenschaft

 

Datum: 17.09.1943

Ort: Insel Elba, Italien, Operation "Schwarz"

Beteiligte Einheiten:

3. Btl, FJR7, FJ-Division 2

Feindkräfte:

Italienische Garnison

Verluste:

?

 

Datum: 12./13.11.1943

Ort: Insel Leros, Griechenland, Operation "Leopard"

Beteiligte Einheiten:

1. Btl, FJR2, FJ-Division 2

Fallschirm-Kompanie des Regiments Brandenburg

Männer der 22. Luftlande-Division

Feindkräfte:

Britische und italienische Truppen

Verluste:

Deutsche: 68 Tote, 100 Verwundete

Alliierte: ? (3200 Briten und 5350 Italiener in Gefangenschaft)

 

Datum: 25.05.1944

Ort: Drvar, Bosnien, Operation "Rösselsprung"

Beteiligte Einheiten:

SS-Fallschirmjägerbtl 500

Angehörige der Division Brandenburg

874 Mann in zwei Absprungwellen und Gleitern

Feindkräfte:

Jugoslawische Partisanen, alliierte Militärberater

Verluste:

Deutsche: 213 Tote, 51 Vermisste, 881 Verwundete

Partisanen: ca. 6000

 

Datum: Juli 1944

Ort:Vercors Plateau in den französischen Alpen

Beteiligte Einheiten:

3. Staffel, II./Kampfgeschwader 200

Feindkräfte:

Französische Partisanen

Verluste:

?

 

Datum: Nacht vom 16. auf den 17.12.1944

Ort: Straßenkreuz Baraque Michel nördlich von Malmedy, Belgien, Operation "Stösser"

Beteiligte Einheiten:

Kampfgruppe Von der Heydte

1200 Mann in 90 JU-52 und 15 JU-88 (nur 10 erreichten die Absprungzone)

Feindkräfte:

Amerikanische Truppen, hauptsächlich 1. US Inf.-Division

Verluste:

Deutsche: ca. 1000 Tote oder Gefangene

 

 

Sorry they´re in german, don´t have the nerve to translate it all now. It says Date, Location, Units involved, Enemy troops, Casualties.

Posted

Thanks, I had also forgotten about the drops in Tunisia and the Dodecanese (Leros). What happened to the special forces types who jumped into Iran? I assume they were sent there to foment some kind of rebellion.

Posted

Interesting fact about the "Germans" in Operation Bajadere is that they were recruited from hindu and muslim POWs from the North Africa campaign, and their mission was originally planned to support the german advance into Iran and Iraq after the conquest of the Caucasus. They made their way into India where they conducted sabotage missions against the british. They were successful, at least that´s what the german military attaché in Kabul reported back to Berlin.

Posted

Odd. But I would think that the use of air-stealth technology and the trend of complete air superiority would make paratroopers more useful in modern times. This is especially true since the foreseeable future in combat are low-intensity conflicts.

 

While the Osprey and air-refueling makes jumps less required, they do have severe limits in both range and timely drops.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...