Ariete! Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 (edited) I think other posters have shown that numerous situation have emerged, including in the recent past, where (fairly) large-scale air-drop deployment has been useful. So there are benefits. The extra cost is, IMO, limited, given that no respectable military can do without a considerable cargo aircraft fleet. The extra cost of paratroopers is jump training which is not a show-stopper. While I do think that retaining the ability to deploy brigades by air-drop is useful, modern armies should probably emphasize (for both airborne and air assault troops) the deployment/use of combined-arms AB/AA units of battalion size to be used in conjunction with more "conventional" forces as 3D maeuver elements. Edited July 19, 2007 by Ariete!
Archie Pellagio Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Given that in the biggest deployment of troops - a full scale invasion of a working country - The US only deployed three divisions, its safe to say a div level drop is old skool. The biggest problem seems to me to be more that the use for them (jumping ahead and securing "stuff") then to be met up by armour/infantry who go on to do the meat of the war "stuff" can be done by much smaller units. Plus ground forces have much greater mobility, and overmatch power.\ but saying they should be gote rid of is like saying the marines should be disposed of. They're a useful niche role for forced entry, with the added bonus they provide generally mark higher troops (in fitness at least) for standard ops, and can be moved quickly. better than just having basic light infantry...
Guest bojan Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Datum: 25.05.1944Ort: Drvar, Bosnien, Operation "Rösselsprung"Beteiligte Einheiten:SS-Fallschirmjägerbtl 500Angehörige der Division Brandenburg874 Mann in zwei Absprungwellen und GleiternFeindkräfte:Jugoslawische Partisanen, alliierte MilitärberaterVerluste:Deutsche: 213 Tote, 51 Vermisste, 881 VerwundetePartisanen: ca. 6000 One minor note, 6000 "partisans" killed includes civilians killed - IIRC acording to the recent researches partisans lost about 1000 kia, 1500 wia.
DemolitionMan Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 I think that the absence of gliders as a means of transportation limits the potential of today´s airborne operations. They were so successful in WW2 and then completely forgotten. This article here is a good read about that topic: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...cc/torrisi.html
bd1 Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Datum: 25.05.1944Ort: Drvar, Bosnien, Operation "Rösselsprung"Beteiligte Einheiten:SS-Fallschirmjägerbtl 500Angehörige der Division Brandenburg874 Mann in zwei Absprungwellen und GleiternFeindkräfte:Jugoslawische Partisanen, alliierte MilitärberaterVerluste:Deutsche: 213 Tote, 51 Vermisste, 881 VerwundetePartisanen: ca. 6000 do I understand it correctly - 874 germans jump , losses are 213 dead , 51 missing , 881 wounded ?
baboon6 Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 (edited) Datum: 25.05.1944Ort: Drvar, Bosnien, Operation "Rösselsprung"Beteiligte Einheiten:SS-Fallschirmjägerbtl 500Angehörige der Division Brandenburg874 Mann in zwei Absprungwellen und GleiternFeindkräfte:Jugoslawische Partisanen, alliierte MilitärberaterVerluste:Deutsche: 213 Tote, 51 Vermisste, 881 VerwundetePartisanen: ca. 6000do I understand it correctly - 874 germans jump , losses are 213 dead , 51 missing , 881 wounded ? IIRC the operation included a near-simultaneous ground assault, maybe those casualties are included. Edited July 19, 2007 by baboon6
DemolitionMan Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Yes, those are the total casualties of the airborne element and the ground element. The SS-Btl was nearly annihilated in the operation. The remaining survivors as well as new recruits then formed the SS-Fallschirmjaegerbtl 600 which fought until the end of the war but was never used in a combat jump.
baboon6 Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 (edited) Here's a link to a page that has a staff college paper on Operation Rosselsprung. Funny that the SS Fallschirmjager battalion was a penal unit, though not something like the Dirlewanger brigade, which was composed of murderers, rapists etc. Most of the SS paratroopers had been convicted of pretty minor offences (at least by Western Allied standards). http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=g...ifier=ADA403840 Edited July 20, 2007 by baboon6
CV9030FIN Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Most of the SS paratroopers had been convicted of pretty minor offences (at least by Western Allied standards). Who right minded would be stupid enough to jump off from fully working aircraft...
baboon6 Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Their aggressive attıtude is still needed All infantry should have an aggressive attitude.
LeoTanker Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Here's a link to a page that has a staff college paper on Operation Rosselsprung. Funny that the SS Fallschirmjager battalion was a penal unit, though not something like the Dirlewanger brigade, which was composed of murderers, rapists etc. Most of the SS paratroopers had been convicted of pretty minor offences (at least by Western Allied standards). http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=g...ifier=ADA403840 Didnt the Germans "capture" one of Titos coats in that raid?Conclution: If you cant nab the guy you are after, you can allways take his clothes and force him to comand his forces naked...
DemolitionMan Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 They captured his new Marshall´s uniform yes. Don´t have the picture of the troopers presenting it now, probably up at feldgrau, axishistory or militaryphotos you can find it.
CavScout2 Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 I think it's a moot point. Divisions are passe. Light, Heavy, Airborne. Is there a need for Bde size elements to be Airborne? Yes. A collective Division (CS and CSS) or Corp? NO!The U.S Army needs to drop division patches and go to Bde alignments with shoulder patches. Each former Corp/Division HQ is equipped to handle 6-9 Bdes for a mission they are Officer heavy and several sizes larger than there former just a couple of years ago. 7 Bde's of Airborne are good fot the U.S(minus Ranger Regt and SF) give 'em all different patches anr designations for lineage sakes and make a Bde centric Army possible.DEATH TO THE DIVISION!!!
Guest aevans Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 I think it's a moot point. Divisions are passe. Light, Heavy, Airborne. Is there a need for Bde size elements to be Airborne? Yes. A collective Division (CS and CSS) or Corp? NO!The U.S Army needs to drop division patches and go to Bde alignments with shoulder patches. Each former Corp/Division HQ is equipped to handle 6-9 Bdes for a mission they are Officer heavy and several sizes larger than there former just a couple of years ago. 7 Bde's of Airborne are good fot the U.S(minus Ranger Regt and SF) give 'em all different patches anr designations for lineage sakes and make a Bde centric Army possible.DEATH TO THE DIVISION!!! Problems with HQs getting topheavy don't equate to a need to eliminate an echelon of command. Divisions are still very useful, despite the name-calling of "reformers" who don't know what they're talking about. If we didn't have them, we'd have to invent them.
Guest bojan Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Didnt the Germans "capture" one of Titos coats in that raid? Yes the oe that was in town being finished...
Typhoid Maxx Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Re Drvar Didn’t he claim his dog sacrificed itself to save him or some such nonsense?
LeoTanker Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Yes the oe that was in town being finished... What the Jugoslav partisans, and especialy the Serbs, acomplished during WWII is nothing less than amazing*. But sadly, your war has been forgotten to a great deal by the authors who write the history of the war nowadays. The fact that the Jugo. partisans had enemies within ther own lines (Chetniks) just underline what they eventually acoplished. I read somewhere Jugoslav partisans even participated in the storming of Wienna and Berlin. Is that true, or just gossip? *) It took the Germans one division to conqure Denmark (nothig bad intended towards the Danish, whos country is by far the nicest land I ever have visited), but 20 divisions just to keep Jugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro occupied. Ohhh... long ranting there about Jugo partisans. Sorry. Paratroopers? Yes, I belive their golden days are gone by now. Unless your country is reeealy big an scaresly poppulated and share a long border with the next-would-be-superpower (its not Canada Im thinking of here) .Then it makes sence to have rapid deployable units with decent fire power.
CavScout2 Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Problems with HQs getting topheavy don't equate to a need to eliminate an echelon of command. Divisions are still very useful, despite the name-calling of "reformers" who don't know what they're talking about. If we didn't have them, we'd have to invent them.Divisions are worthless. They are too big, too expensive and pogue heavy. A robust Div and Corp type HQ can do the the work of a WWII Div/Corp/Army HQ. Bde's flagged, trained and deployed together work better. Div HQ could rip apart Bde's willy nilly before and have a few "paper tigers" left to say see were ready(i.e CTC rotations). The fight is smaller by budget and world events(tecnology did help!!!). Bde's do need to be fully manned-that is the down side. We have removed a manuever element from all but the SBCT's to say we're ready as an Army. Give each Bde a 3rd man element and kick ass from there.8 Airborne Bde's are alot better than a Div with all that ass and trash!
Rubberneck Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 The Army effectively removed the Army level from battlefield organization over the last few years. It was truly worthless anyway. The Division and Corps HQ have somewhat morphed in mission (and certainly size) and organization. They are both designed to be standing Joint Task Forces, although at different levels. The span of control for a Division is huge - the 1st CAV in Iraq under Chiarelli had 47 battalion size elements working for him. The Corps is even larger. There are so many seperate battalions and companies, many of which are very specific in nature, that they need some kind of HQ to work under. That is amplified with the amount of different modular brigades now. As Tony said, if the Division didn't exist, something else with a different name would have to take its place. The removal of the Army level was long due. In Afghanistan we completely skipped over the Army level and dealt with CENTCOM directly. I've heard the same from people who were in Desert Storm. Divisions are worthless. They are too big, too expensive and pogue heavy. A robust Div and Corp type HQ can do the the work of a WWII Div/Corp/Army HQ. Bde's flagged, trained and deployed together work better. Div HQ could rip apart Bde's willy nilly before and have a few "paper tigers" left to say see were ready(i.e CTC rotations). The fight is smaller by budget and world events(tecnology did help!!!). Bde's do need to be fully manned-that is the down side. We have removed a manuever element from all but the SBCT's to say we're ready as an Army. Give each Bde a 3rd man element and kick ass from there.8 Airborne Bde's are alot better than a Div with all that ass and trash!
Cromwell Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Kolwezi, 1978, was a textbook example of how useful paratroopers still are. I beleive about half parachutred in. A modern example would have been a divisional size drop on Rwanda when the crisis there was getting beyond tolerable. I understand Soviet paratroopers spearheaded the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan dropping on or near Kabul. Paratroopers at Brigade and Divisional level, even if there is not enough lift for a single drop is an existential worry for many a capital. I am sure there have been days when Georgian leaders have really worried about a Russian parachute drop on their capital. The big problem is of course that paras are virtually static when they arrive, are lightly armed with microscopic amounts of ammunition and so need reinforcement very quickly (rescued?); if this does not happen for whatever reason you have a disaster (Arnhem!). Yes, I think Paras are still very useful, just forget about D Day. It was a bit of a one-off anyway.
rmgill Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Divisions are worthless. They are too big, too expensive and pogue heavy. Do you mean the combat arms or the folks that support the combat arms by working on vehicles, driving supply trucks and otherwise maintaining everything that the teeth use to fight? Why not ditch the armor and just go with all infantry if you want no pogues...?
A2Keltainen Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 The big problem is of course that paras are virtually static when they arrive, are lightly armed Not the Russian ones. with microscopic amounts of ammunition and so need reinforcement very quickly Shouldn't the combination of modern high tech weapons (advanced ATGWs such as Javelin and Spike, and GPS and laser guided mortar shells) and cheap commercially available ATVs be able to reduce that problem a bit? Just imagine the amount of ATGW missiles and small arms ammuntion you can carry in a single C-130.
Sardaukar Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) What A2K said. If and when you have to get there "fastest with mostest", old Soviet Airborne Division was way to go. If you really have to take some airfield in some unnamed shithole, you drop in something like that, so they can fight it out against about anything than top-notch modern mechanized units for a while. It really has nothing to do with spreading troops around from planes and hoping for best. Airdrop like Soviets had in mind was Shock & Awe, not bomb blasts around, even though you'd need that too. Edited July 21, 2007 by Sardaukar
KingSargent Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Not the Russian ones.The Russian problem is airlift. Having what amounts to Airborne Mechanized Divisions isn't going to be really valuable without the airlift to get them there.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now