View Full Version : Are paratroopers an outdated concept in modern warfare?
A family member of mine in the 82d feels this way. Logically I think I'm tracking, the only time you'd use a massive paratrooper drop is when you have air superiority. But then, why not use other safer means to get troops on ground?
When was the last time such a drop happened anyway?
Not talking about HALO or HAHO drops with special operations.
I don't believe it is outdated or will ever be obsolete; especially with the ability to have a medium/large force able to deploy in an extremely short amount of time. Who we go to war with and the geographical location, among other reasons, will determine the factors. If we had a large scale war tomorrow, say, with Russia or China, we would definitely need the Airborne. That last time that I can think of would be Grenada and Panama.
If I remember correctly, the 82nd is supposed to be able to have boots on the ground anywhere in the world, in what 72hrs? The Rangers in 48hrs...something like that.
When would we use the airborne against, say, China?
If we had air superiority, why not use sof (rangers, force recon, af cct, etc) to take an airfield and land mechanized infantry? Or helos? Or any number of less risky insertion methods that doesn't scatter your unit all over the place?
If we don't have air superiority... Yeah, cargo planes at nearly stall airspeed jam packed with infantry is too big of a target to pass up.
When would we use the airborne against, say, China?
If we had air superiority, why not use sof (rangers, marine recon, af cct, etc) to take an airfield and land mechanized infantry? Or helos? Or any number of less risky insertion methods that doesn't scatter your unit all over the place.
If we don't have air superiority... Yeah, cargo planes at nearly stall airspeed jam packed with infantry is too big of a target to pass up.
Light and Mech infantry cannot mobilize nearly as fast as Airborne.
Light and Mech infantry cannot mobilize nearly as fast as Airborne.
Marines then?
I'm not sure I see the need for conventional army units to mobilize quickly, that's theoretically what marines are for and I don't forsee any ridiculously massive intelligence failures that don't give us adequate warning of a major threat.
Marines then?
I'm not sure I see the need for conventional army units to mobilize quickly, that's theoretically what marines are for and I don't forsee any ridiculously massive intelligence failures that don't give us adequate warning of a major threat.
I don't believe there is a medium to large size conventional force that can have boots on the ground faster than the Airborne. If we had a large scale war, we would be hard pressed to win without the Airborne.
As for the Marines, they conventionally specialize in:
The seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and other land operations to support naval campaigns;
The development of tactics, technique, and equipment used by amphibious landing forces in coordination with the Army and Air Force
(amphibious warfare)
Whereas if boots on ground were needed quick fast and in a hurry somewhere inland, the Airborne is who you are going to call.
Obviously a large scale airdrop DOES have some risks: you're likely going to lose a small percentage of your force to water landings, canopy failures, air collisions, etc. I suppose there's some risk of having units getting lost, but even lost airborne units can get their shit back together faster than you can put together non-airborne units and fly them into airbases of varying degree of hotness. We have these majestic devices called GPS receivers, and they work well.
But since we're talking about a true emergency situation- China, Russia, any other modernized military adversary- we are obviously going to lose a sizable percentage of our forces to combat, accident, and disease anyway. We can handle some losses in exchange for getting rage on the ground meeting force with force and seizing important assets sooner than later.
The question isn't why would we use airborne; it's why wouldn't we?
It provides a capability but it is expensive and highly dependent on the variability of available lift and if at a distance refueling capability.
One of the big problems right now is if there is a large drop at distance, you have to decide whether to fuel the aircraft carrying the jumpers, the SEAD/strike aircraft or the aircraft assigned to provide CAS because there is not a capability to aerial refuel all of them.
We did not need them in Granada or Panama. Outdated? Maybe not. A whole division? Probably not.
I would say the same thing about the Marine Corps vis-a-vis amphibious warfare, too. BTW, the Marines DO quite far inland, and are the best, first force to do so. A MEU(SOC) offshore can go to most spots a lot faster that a unit of the 82nd sitting on the green ramp at Pope.
Yeah, you have to have air superiority but just as importantly you have to have successful AAA suppression. If you have both of those there still is no faster/more efficient method of airfield takedown allowing for the subsequent infusion of follow-on forces.
We did not need them in Granada or Panama. Outdated? Maybe not. A whole division? Probably not.
Panama was a much better example of their employment. Things like Gen. John W. Vessey Jr, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying "We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of this island, and three Army regiments pinned down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on? there were all kind lessons learned during Grenada that lead to how the Marine role was limited in Panama
Yeah, you have to have air superiority but just as importantly you have to have successful AAA suppression. If you have both of those there still is no faster/more efficient method of airfield takedown allowing for the subsequent infusion of follow-on forces.
The essential problem is the Air Force, it can be made to work but there will be numerous 3-4 star level discussions to get the support needed. I think if you could get the air assets actually part of the Army (similar to the attempt to get the C-27s) and make it one cohesive air-ground task force (similar to a MAGTF) it would be a much better solution than the current joint operating environment.
The essential problem is the Air Force, it can be made to work but there will be numerous 3-4 star level discussions to get the support needed. I think if you could get the air assets actually part of the Army (similar to the attempt to get the C-27s) and make it one cohesive air-ground task force (similar to a MAGTF) it would be a much better solution than the current joint operating environment.
Agreed but then there's that whole "Key West" thing.....the zoomies won't give it up.
Any major revamping of the armed forces like that would be akin to amending the Constitution: with the wrong moves made it could endanger things as we currently know them (up to and including the USMC and their mission/structure, even their very existence). Making things work in their current configurations would be best for all, especially those with service pride involved. ;)
Consider that in WWII there were not actually many massive drops: Normandy, Market Garden and ... ?
Panama was a much better example of their employment. Things like Gen. John W. Vessey Jr, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying "We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of this island, and three Army regiments pinned down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on? there were all kind lessons learned during Grenada that lead to how the Marine role was limited in Panama
Grenada was not exactly a textbook operation, for sure. The fact the US was as successful as it was was remarkable. Panama was a better operation for sure.
Not saying airborne does not have its place; I am not an army ops guy and don't know all of the scenarios in which airborne would be the best option. I see the role of mass airborne drops a la WWII a product of the bygone era and senitmental. I think they are good at augmenting conventional forces (i.e., non-airborne; I suppose airborne are conventional otherwise), but they will never occupy a role like they did in WWII.
Consider that in WWII there were not actually many massive drops: Normandy, Market Garden and ... ?
Sicily, Salerno... The Brits had some without us I believe.
I don't think it will ever be obsolete. Two words: Speed & Surprise.
If I remember correctly, the 82nd is supposed to be able to have boots on the ground anywhere in the world, in what 72hrs? The Rangers in 48hrs...something like that.
18 hours for both.
You can use Paratroopers for a lot more than just seizing airfields.
The war isn't won just from the front.
Two words: Speed & Surprise.
Bingo.
Light Airborne Infantry can maneuver further and faster behind enemy lines than any other conventional force. Drop us, give us an azimuth, and we'll burn the villages and salt the earth.
Sicily, Salerno... The Brits had some without us I believe.
I don't think it will ever be obsolete. Two words: Speed & Surprise.
Agree! Great to have it as an option.
Sicily, Salerno... The Brits had some without us I believe.
I don't think it will ever be obsolete. Two words: Speed & Surprise.
The 509th also conducted the first allied combat jump in history on 8 Nov 1942 during Operation Torch.
That could not have happened with anyone except Paratroopers.
Sicily, Salerno... The Brits had some without us I believe.
I don't think it will ever be obsolete. Two words: Speed & Surprise.
Speed, sure. Don't you think that radar kinda defeats the surprise?
Don't get me wrong; I think they are a bit cool. I can see a need for airborne, and I do not think they are obsolete, but I am just not convinced that they would make THAT much difference in today's world. Panama was the last non-spec ops drop? What about before that? Before that?
Speed, sure. Don't you think that radar kinda defeats the surprise?
Don't get me wrong; I think they are a bit cool. I can see a need for airborne, and I do not think they are obsolete, but I am just not convinced that they would make THAT much difference in today's world. Panama was the last non-spec ops drop? What about before that? Before that?
Well there was a jump into northern Iraq in 2003 but it was uncontested from what I recall.
The surprise part can still be achieved. It may require some creativity if we are engaged against a first or second world threat country, but there are techniques to mitigate every detection threat out there. Google SOLL for just one example.
Speed, sure. Don't you think that radar kinda defeats the surprise?
Don't get me wrong; I think they are a bit cool. I can see a need for airborne, and I do not think they are obsolete, but I am just not convinced that they would make THAT much difference in today's world. Panama was the last non-spec ops drop? What about before that? Before that?
173rd dropped in Iraq 26 MAR 2003 as well as 3/504 in Afghanistan 25 FEB 2003.
As for before that, there were combat jumps in both the Vietnam and Korean War.
The exact times from notification to wheels up (time often misquoted as the boots on ground time) for the airborne segment of the GRF or the NMF are classified but 18 hours to anywhere in the world is a bit of misinformation
Think about it there are numerous places on earth that are greater 18 hours away by C17 from either coast of US and that is assuming you have a ready aircraft and crew that can take off instantaneously from notification
As for before that, there were combat jumps in both the Vietnam and Korean War.
Thanks for the info. Why was airborne used? Closest units? Best option? Most appropriate? No other units available? Politics? Or were those jumps required for the mission? I have no idea.
To answer the original question, are they outdated? Maybe, I don't know, I doubt it, but they are a niche capability for specific pusposes.
The 3/504 jump was half company; the 173 jump was much bigger affair with a reinforced battalion jumping on an objective previously secured by an ODA and Kurdish fighters
R0N, were you on either jump?
Who cares the size of the elements or "secured" DZs...those men stepped out of aircraft in flight into complete darkness in a hostile country. Pretty ****ing ballsy.
Crow Hunter
03-13-14, 07:26
I am not in the Army and never have been.
However, I would think that the ability to jump massive numbers of troops behind the current combat lines, even if nothing else but a feint would not be something we would want to give up/let be known we do not have.
Just simply the threat that we could drop a large combat effective element into an enemies rear area could be enough to cause them to divert some resources to protecting against that threat that could otherwise be brought to bear against other frontline troops, even if they aren't actually used for this.
In my completely unstudied opinion, in an all out war between major powers (vs our current 2nd and 3d world opponents), the ability of SOF to take and HOLD key objectives will be reduced. While both the Airborne and SOF can take key objectives, I would think that the Airborne, with their greater numbers and organic heavy weapons could hold an objective longer and more effectively against a counter attack by a large coordinated force.
But again, I am not Army nor do I have any military training other than playing wargames.:o
Thanks for the historical perspective...that is helpful. I want to iterate that although I am challenging doctrine, I have no dog in the fight. I come from a VERY long line of Marines and I have often broached the subject of whether we need a significant capability in amphibious warfare. I don't care what windmills I joust.
R0N, were you on either jump?
Who cares the size of the elements or "secured" DZs...those men stepped out of aircraft in flight into complete darkness in a hostile country. Pretty ****ing ballsy.
Ballsy or not is generally not a measure of requirement nor necessity
You will find the majority of these operations are conducted not because of an actual requirement but instead re-validate the capability in the minds of planners at the pentagon.
Thanks for the historical perspective...that is helpful. I want to iterate that although I am challenging doctrine, I have no dog in the fight. I come from a VERY long line of Marines and I have often broached the subject of whether we need a significant capability in amphibious warfare. I don't care what windmills I joust.
People often wrongly equate amphibious operations with assault across a defended beach; probable something that will never will happen again.
Instead they ignore the whole usage of forces from the sea on average once ever ten weeks since the the 1990s
Cagemonkey
03-13-14, 07:55
DISCLAIMER: I'm a former Marine and have no experience with airborne ops. I don't think that airborne/paratroopers will be obsolete in the near future. My opinion is that the Army Airborne have been stagnant in exploring new parachute and delivery technologies, since the fielding of helos, with the exception of special ops. I remember back in the late 80's the German Luftwaffe had special parachutes that let their paratroopers jump at extremely low altitude to reduce hang time/exposure (Somewhere around 290'). No ones done anything new with gliders, that I'm aware of. Dropping fireteams or squads in a guided (GPS,etc.)pallet or container would have some merit as far as maintaining unit cohesion and preventing dispersion. I think theirs a lack of imagination and priority. Newer methods may be helpful in Aghanistan for example. Where our helos have problems operating in the high altitudes or attaining the element of surprise. Just my 2 cents on the subject.
Edited for professionalism.
People often wrongly equate amphibious operations with assault across a defended beach; probable something that will never will happen again.
Instead they ignore the whole usage of forces from the sea on average once ever ten weeks since the the 1990s
No question. I was a corpsman for many years, then committed familial suicide by getting my commission in the Navy, so I am well versed in the doctrines, and when people argue the need for/against amphib warfare capability, I raise the same points you do. Again, I have no problem challenging doctrine as it helps me understand the positions better and gives me different perspectives.
A family member of mine in the 82d feels this way. Logically I think I'm tracking, the only time you'd use a massive paratrooper drop is when you have air superiority. But then, why not use other safer means to get troops on ground?
When was the last time such a drop happened anyway?
Not talking about HALO or HAHO drops with special operations.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/airborne4.htm
This is an account of all Airborne operations of the 21st Century. FWIW, the GWOT land war (edit for accuracy) was launched on 19OCT when the 75th jumped into A-Stan to take an airstrip (Objective Rhino).
Failure2Stop
03-13-14, 08:06
Parachuting into contested areas is about as relevant as amphibious assault to contemporary warfare, and really, everybody has pretty much been doing the same job for a while now, regardless of branch and tab.
Air insertion and water insertion will always be a method of delivery, but large-scale assaults are the exception rather than the rule.
The opinion on the validity of Paratroopers in modern warfare from a Leg is like a virgin giving sex advice.
Trust me, nobody here in Afghanistan cares what the planners at the Pentagon think about us.
I have lead sleds, so I have been to the school and never in a billet to do more than 5 jumps
And your later comments belie why the service does so poorly in battle of the beltway, how did the QDR treat you'll this go round?
You will find the majority of these operations are conducted not because of an actual requirement but instead re-validate the capability in the minds of planners at the pentagon.
No one wants to give up capabilities because that gives up funding.
I still can't think of a situation in which dropping a huge amount of infantry would happen in modern times. IADS can and does cover the entirety of most countries' airspace. If we do what we did in the more recent wars - achieve air superiority, remove ground to air threats, and hit critical infrastructure and command and control - why can't we use mechanized infantry and armor to take objectives that can't be bombed into oblivion instead of relatively lightly armed and armored paratroopers?
If IADS are not destroyed or otherwise taken out and air superiority is not achieved, the utilization of the airborne is a massive waste of lives, materiel, and money.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/airborne4.htm
FWIW, the GWOT was launched on 19OCT when the 75th jumped into A-Stan to take an airstrip (Objective Rhino).
The GWOT kicked off 7 Oct with SOF, OGA and airstrikes
Parachuting into contested areas is about as relevant as amphibious assault to contemporary warfare, and really, everybody has pretty much been doing the same job for a while now, regardless of branch and tab.
Air insertion and water insertion will always be a method of delivery, but large-scale assaults are the exception rather than the rule.
That is often the problem people get to wrapped around the axles about method of entry
We did not need them in Granada or Panama. Outdated? Maybe not. A whole division? Probably not.
I would say the same thing about the Marine Corps vis-a-vis amphibious warfare, too. BTW, the Marines DO quite far inland, and are the best, first force to do so. A MEU(SOC) offshore can go to most spots a lot faster that a unit of the 82nd sitting on the green ramp at Pope.
Rangers dropped on the island, they actually faced tougher resistence then the marines who landed up North.
I think the 173rd's drop will be the last Bde Level drop we see for awhile.
Co/Bn employment is the near future. Bn dropping on an airfield allows Marine/Conventional units to start using that airfield quickly.
Likewise, dropping Company's over a wide area ties down more units, then if you do a Bn/Bde drop in a single location.
Marines are good if you have time to move the ARG, otherwise Rangers/Airborne become the go to force.
Apparently Russia's still down with the concept...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0
"One statement announced that another 1,500 paratroopers from Ivanovo, east of Moscow, had parachuted onto a military base in Rostov, not far from the Ukrainian cities Donetsk and Lugansk."
Parachuting is but one mode of delivery. Is it a cookie cutter solution to all woes? Hell no. Is it useful? Hell yes. The advent of air to air missiles was to end dog fighting...woops not so much. The advent of ICBM's, cruise missiles, smart bombs, drones... Was all supposed to make some thing or another disappear, yet here we still are with boots on the ground shooting bad people one at a time. Hell there are still events where people are forced to engage in hand to hand fighting.
IMO the more options we have the better off we are as a fighting force. Yes having all those options does mean that someone will actually need to choose wisely when they decide to kick off a campaign instead of simply following some cookie cutter recipe. Not everything in life can or needs to be dumbed down to lowest common denominator.
Rangers dropped on the island, they actually faced tougher resistence then the marines who landed up North.
I think the 173rd's drop will be the last Bde Level drop we see for awhile.
Co/Bn employment is the near future. Bn dropping on an airfield allows Marine/Conventional units to start using that airfield quickly.
Likewise, dropping Company's over a wide area ties down more units, then if you do a Bn/Bde drop in a single location.
Marines are good if you have time to move the ARG, otherwise Rangers/Airborne become the go to force.
As I come from a Navy/Marine-centric background, my question is this: I know there are Rangers forward deployed, but is the 82nd routinely forward deployed, so they are closer to "hot spots" a la MEU/ARG? Educational question, I really don't know. If so, then absolutely, get them (or anyone) to the crisis as fast as possible.
telecustom
03-13-14, 14:09
As I come from a Navy/Marine-centric background, my question is this: I know there are Rangers forward deployed, but is the 82nd routinely forward deployed, so they are closer to "hot spots" a la MEU/ARG? Educational question, I really don't know. If so, then absolutely, get them (or anyone) to the crisis as fast as possible.
The 173d ABN BDE is our forward deployed Airborne capability in Europe and 4th BDE 25th ID up in Alaska is our Pacific our forward deployed Airborne capability.
Grand58742
03-13-14, 14:23
Airborne drops are a strategic line of thinking. You have a significantly sized and capable force capable of dropping behind the lines (within reason) and threatening strategic objectives, cutting lines of communication or disrupting rear areas. It does give an enemy pause for thought in having to dedicate forces to deal with such an incursion and can potentially pull those forces from the front lines.
It's far better to have a strategic level force capable of being deployed in a reasonably short amount of time that has the potential to threaten enemy formations. And whether that's on or behind the lines or even expanding a second front like OIF the capability is unique enough to never become outdated.
Airborne drops are a strategic line of thinking. You have a significantly sized and capable force capable of dropping behind the lines (within reason) and threatening strategic objectives, cutting lines of communication or disrupting rear areas. It does give an enemy pause for thought in having to dedicate forces to deal with such an incursion and can potentially pull those forces from the front lines.
It's far better to have a strategic level force capable of being deployed in a reasonably short amount of time that has the potential to threaten enemy formations. And whether that's on or behind the lines or even expanding a second front like OIF the capability is unique enough to never become outdated.
But strategic bombing is even quicker to deploy, can be done with stealth aircraft, and is also very good at C3 disruption/destruction. And instead of pulling forces away in a conventional conflict, just bomb them into the stone age while you're in the area.
Yeah, I'm a proponent of airpower and high explosives whenever possible.
Grand58742
03-13-14, 15:01
But strategic bombing is even quicker to deploy, can be done with stealth aircraft, and is also very good at C3 disruption/destruction. And instead of pulling forces away in a conventional conflict, just bomb them into the stone age while you're in the area.
Yeah, I'm a proponent of airpower and high explosives whenever possible.
True, but there is also that psychological edge an airborne force gives you as well. The fact that several thousand highly trained and equipped infantry can come dropping in on your head at any given point in time is disconcerting to some. And when used strategically, can capture important targets that otherwise could be easily defended from a frontal attack. Or like in the case of Market Garden, pave the way for the land based component by capturing objectives that might otherwise be destroyed in advance.
And while air power can and will continue to be used for interdiction, aircraft can only remain on scene until their bomb load runs out or they bingo fuel. A paratrooper on the other hand is something that's there and has to be dealt with. It's not like an enemy can wait until it finishes it's bombing run and then move their convoys down Route 1. An airborne force can continually disrupt lines of communication and hold important ground whereas an aircraft force can only disrupt for a limited time and can hold no ground.
Again, an airborne force is a strategic asset that, when used correctly, can make or break the battle on the front lines by opening a second battle well away from the front lines. The basic principle that they have the ability to drop anywhere at any time means and enemy has to take that into account when committing forces towards the FEBA and away from important strategic targets. You don't leave your important targets in the rear wide open to attack when you have an airborne force lurking in the midst which in turn means the front lines don't receive reinforcements or replacements.
True, but there is also that psychological edge an airborne force gives you as well. The fact that several thousand highly trained and equipped infantry can come dropping in on your head at any given point in time is disconcerting to some. And when used strategically, can capture important targets that otherwise could be easily defended from a frontal attack. Or like in the case of Market Garden, pave the way for the land based component by capturing objectives that might otherwise be destroyed in advance.
And while air power can and will continue to be used for interdiction, aircraft can only remain on scene until their bomb load runs out or they bingo fuel. A paratrooper on the other hand is something that's there and has to be dealt with. It's not like an enemy can wait until it finishes it's bombing run and then move their convoys down Route 1. An airborne force can continually disrupt lines of communication and hold important ground whereas an aircraft force can only disrupt for a limited time and can hold no ground.
Again, an airborne force is a strategic asset that, when used correctly, can make or break the battle on the front lines by opening a second battle well away from the front lines. The basic principle that they have the ability to drop anywhere at any time means and enemy has to take that into account when committing forces towards the FEBA and away from important strategic targets. You don't leave your important targets in the rear wide open to attack when you have an airborne force lurking in the midst which in turn means the front lines don't receive reinforcements or replacements.
But again, this whole concept of "front line" doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this day and age. Any "front line" will be completely annihilated by air power as soon as it's created. Contrary to traditional land-centric doctrine, you actually want your opponent to mass his forces so you can destroy them all at once rather than scattering them across the country and facing yet another COIN environment.
If we got into a war with China, we'd do much better if we killed off their army in the field than if they just dispersed their army across their entire population and waged a never-ending insurgency.
The exact times from notification to wheels up (time often misquoted as the boots on ground time) for the airborne segment of the GRF or the NMF are classified but 18 hours to anywhere in the world is a bit of misinformation
Think about it there are numerous places on earth that are greater 18 hours away by C17 from either coast of US and that is assuming you have a ready aircraft and crew that can take off instantaneously from notification
IIRC 18 hours is "wheels up" time.
The 3/504 jump was half company; the 173 jump was much bigger affair with a reinforced battalion jumping on an objective previously secured by an ODA and Kurdish fighters
The rest were Rangers.
Don't forget the Ranger jump into Kandahar in late 2001 (?). They went in and pulled out. First American boots in the Kandahar AO.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/airborne4.htm
This is an account of all Airborne operations of the 21st Century. FWIW, the GWOT land war (edit for accuracy) was launched on 19OCT when the 75th jumped into A-Stan to take an airstrip (Objective Rhino).
Yep, that would be Kandahar.
Bingo.
Light Airborne Infantry can maneuver further and faster behind enemy lines than any other conventional force. Drop us, give us an azimuth, and we'll burn the villages and salt the earth.
Exactly.
Grand also has been hitting the nail on the head.
Speed, sure. Don't you think that radar kinda defeats the surprise?
That is what SF is for. Insert them to take out strategic targets like communications and radar.
Grand58742
03-13-14, 15:38
But again, this whole concept of "front line" doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this day and age. Any "front line" will be completely annihilated by air power as soon as it's created. Contrary to traditional land-centric doctrine, you actually want your opponent to mass his forces so you can destroy them all at once rather than scattering them across the country and facing yet another COIN environment.
If we got into a war with China, we'd do much better if we killed off their army in the field than if they just dispersed their army across their entire population and waged a never-ending insurgency.
Thinking of the aftermath of the conventional sea-air-land battle, you are correct. There probably won't be any conflicts we get into ever again that an insurgency in the aftermath won't be a part of. Winning the war is easy, keeping the peace afterwards will never be.
But during that conflict, air power alone cannot be everywhere at once and cannot always destroy all units on the front lines. And if you are facing a larger armored foe as well as one that has significant air defense, the potential to destroy major portions of enemy armor at the front trace goes down dramatically. We got lucky in Desert Storm that air supremacy was achieved reasonably quickly and our ground attack assets were able to roam over the battle lines relatively freely. And the SAM/AAA threat was a little easier to take down than we originally thought. So in that case, air power was instrumental in destroying a significant portion of the threats facing our forces.
But your principle that we won't see a "front line" again presumes the point that we won't be in large set piece battles with a capable foe in the future. Korea for example is an area that airborne forces could be applied with good results. A hypothetical war with China would be another one that airborne forces could be used to threaten and strike at important targets. Or look at the Ukraine right now. If we needed boots on the ground quickly, the JCS will probably look at the 82nd or the 173rd first.
As someone else pointed out, it's a method of delivery. Airborne forces can be utilized as normal line infantry in a COIN situation but also retains the capability for future warfare as an asset that can be applied in their traditional role of dropping into targets behind the lines. The method of delivery is sound, proven and again, a capability that won't necessarily be made obsolete by increases in technology. Nothing will ever be able to replace boots on the ground as a means of winning a war. And an airborne force gives additional capabilities to combatant commanders over and above conventional units.
If we got into a war with China......
....it would be a war of containment, i.e. keeping them within their borders and out of wherever they were trying to invade. We will never (nor should we ever try) attempt to take down China with ground troops, like as in an invasion. Sure, targets within China would have to be hit but it'd be the biggest USAF and USN show since WWII. The Army and Marines (save for *maybe* some SOF missions but even those would be extremely limited in number and scope) would largely sit it out.
....it would be a war of containment, i.e. keeping them within their borders and out of wherever they were trying to invade. We will never (nor should we ever try) attempt to take down China with ground troops, like as in an invasion. Sure, targets within China would have to be hit but it'd be the biggest USAF and USN show since WWII. The Army and Marines (save for *maybe* some SOF missions but even those would be extremely limited in number and scope) would largely sit it out.
I war with China would be vastly too large to have ground troops mostly sitting it out. A war with them would get out of hand and quick.
I war with China would be vastly too large to have ground troops mostly sitting it out.
Our strategy wouldn't call for ground troops I'll guarantee you. *Perhaps* in the invaded area but the goal would be to stop whatever aggression they were perpetrating and contain them. We would never seek to "invade" China proper a la Japan or Germany. It would be insanity (of course the same could be said for invading Russia or the U.S. too).
95% Navy and Air Force would be my prediction.
Thinking of the aftermath of the conventional sea-air-land battle, you are correct. There probably won't be any conflicts we get into ever again that an insurgency in the aftermath won't be a part of. Winning the war is easy, keeping the peace afterwards will never be.
But during that conflict, air power alone cannot be everywhere at once and cannot always destroy all units on the front lines. And if you are facing a larger armored foe as well as one that has significant air defense, the potential to destroy major portions of enemy armor at the front trace goes down dramatically. We got lucky in Desert Storm that air supremacy was achieved reasonably quickly and our ground attack assets were able to roam over the battle lines relatively freely. And the SAM/AAA threat was a little easier to take down than we originally thought. So in that case, air power was instrumental in destroying a significant portion of the threats facing our forces.
But your principle that we won't see a "front line" again presumes the point that we won't be in large set piece battles with a capable foe in the future. Korea for example is an area that airborne forces could be applied with good results. A hypothetical war with China would be another one that airborne forces could be used to threaten and strike at important targets. Or look at the Ukraine right now. If we needed boots on the ground quickly, the JCS will probably look at the 82nd or the 173rd first.
As someone else pointed out, it's a method of delivery. Airborne forces can be utilized as normal line infantry in a COIN situation but also retains the capability for future warfare as an asset that can be applied in their traditional role of dropping into targets behind the lines. The method of delivery is sound, proven and again, a capability that won't necessarily be made obsolete by increases in technology. Nothing will ever be able to replace boots on the ground as a means of winning a war. And an airborne force gives additional capabilities to combatant commanders over and above conventional units.
The problem is, the only time we can use airborne forces is after achieving both air superiority and neutralizing the enemy IADS. Without both conditions met, our C-17s would be shot out of the sky before they can drop their cargo.
So any wargaming on the potential uses of airborne forces has to assume that we have uncontested control of the skies. And if that's the case, exploiting that advantage by first wiping out all the opposing centers of gravity followed by their forces in the field with air power provides the least amount of risk and the highest amount of reward. Once that's done, it's mop-up and COIN from there with ground forces and close air support.
And at one time (including now), there have been rocket scientists that said we didn't need Armor any more, either...
Grand58742
03-13-14, 16:09
The problem is, the only time we can use airborne forces is after achieving both air superiority and neutralizing the enemy IADS. Without both conditions met, our C-17s would be shot out of the sky before they can drop their cargo.
So any wargaming on the potential uses of airborne forces has to assume that we have uncontested control of the skies. And if that's the case, exploiting that advantage by first wiping out all the opposing centers of gravity followed by their forces in the field with air power provides the least amount of risk and the highest amount of reward. Once that's done, it's mop-up and COIN from there with ground forces and close air support.
I wouldn't go as far as to say we had to have complete air superiority or suppression of IADS. Localized suppression will work and escorting those transports to target can be achieved reasonably easily.
But without drawing further away from the original question, are they obsolete? No. It's an additional capability for combatant commanders, an arrow in the quiver so to speak that can be used in a conventional (front line infantry) or unconventional (airborne drops behind the lines) manner. Even in the face of high tech aircraft that can bomb a nation past the stone age or IADS that limits aircraft deployment over the battlefield, airborne forces still have a capability and a role that is unequaled when applied correctly.
And at one time (including now), there have been rocket scientists that said we didn't need Armor any more, either...
History is littered both with people who correctly predicted the future and people who incorrectly predicted the future. Saying some people were and are wrong isn't an argument, nor is it a cautionary tale. It's a non sequitur with your implied conclusion.
Look at Billy Mitchell, a man whose forward thinking was so disdained by his leadership that he was actually demoted and received a court martial. Then he was proven correct when the pacific fleet's collection of battleships were annihilated by aircraft lauched over the horizon.
Contrast that to those who said we don't need armor, like you say, or those who thought armor should be divided among infantry divisions rather than concentrating them en masse.
I wouldn't go as far as to say we had to have complete air superiority or suppression of IADS. Localized suppression will work and escorting those transports to target can be achieved reasonably easily.
But without drawing further away from the original question, are they obsolete? No. It's an additional capability for combatant commanders, an arrow in the quiver so to speak that can be used in a conventional (front line infantry) or unconventional (airborne drops behind the lines) manner. Even in the face of high tech aircraft that can bomb a nation past the stone age or IADS that limits aircraft deployment over the battlefield, airborne forces still have a capability and a role that is unequaled when applied correctly.
I should say, we need local superiority of the air space in which the airborne infantry are to be deployed. And if we have that superiority, we could utilize other assets such as bombers and strike aircraft to do the same job quicker and safer. Alternatively, we could send in armor and mechanized infantry to also do the job safer with more mobility.
I agree it's an additional capability whose only cost is money to sustain. However, in this current fiscal environment, shouldn't we be cutting capabilities that are rarely if ever needed in exchange for enhanced effectiveness for capabilites that are constantly utilized?
Grand58742
03-13-14, 16:29
I agree it's an additional capability whose only cost is money to sustain. However, in this current fiscal environment, shouldn't we be cutting capabilities that are rarely if ever needed in exchange for enhanced effectiveness for capabilites that are constantly utilized?
If that's the case, our entire nuclear deterrent force should be scaled back or dismantled. Our sub fleet can be cut drastically. The Marine forced assault amphibious capabilities are rarely, if ever, used. Army artillery, air defense and armor units are not utilized very often. So on and so forth.
Thing about it is, when you need that capability, you have a pretty significant need for it. And airborne operations are something that might not be needed very often, but the capability is something that would be missed if it weren't around.
If that's the case, our entire nuclear deterrent force should be scaled back or dismantled. Our sub fleet can be cut drastically. The Marine forced assault amphibious capabilities are rarely, if ever, used. Army artillery, air defense and armor units are not utilized very often. So on and so forth.
Thing about it is, when you need that capability, you have a pretty significant need for it. And airborne operations are something that might not be needed very often, but the capability is something that would be missed if it weren't around.
In most cases the forces have been or will be scaled back; but you are incorrect on how often things like Arty, and AMTRACK and Armor are used they significant usage in Iraq and have seen mixed usage in Afghanistan.
Rangers dropped on the island, they actually faced tougher resistence then the marines who landed up North.
I think the 173rd's drop will be the last Bde Level drop we see for awhile.
Co/Bn employment is the near future. Bn dropping on an airfield allows Marine/Conventional units to start using that airfield quickly.
Likewise, dropping Company's over a wide area ties down more units, then if you do a Bn/Bde drop in a single location.
Marines are good if you have time to move the ARG, otherwise Rangers/Airborne become the go to force.
Port Salinas was tougher fight, so much so that the MAU's tanks were moved south and fought in support of the Rangers.
173d was titled a Bde jump but less 1000 guys were dropped, making it more of a battalion re-enforced effort.
History is littered both with people who correctly predicted the future and people who incorrectly predicted the future. Saying some people were and are wrong isn't an argument, nor is it a cautionary tale. It's a non sequitur with your implied conclusion.
Look at Billy Mitchell, a man whose forward thinking was so disdained by his leadership that he was actually demoted and received a court martial. Then he was proven correct when the pacific fleet's collection of battleships were annihilated by aircraft lauched over the horizon.
Contrast that to those who said we don't need armor, like you say, or those who thought armor should be divided among infantry divisions rather than concentrating them en masse.
I should say, we need local superiority of the air space in which the airborne infantry are to be deployed. And if we have that superiority, we could utilize other assets such as bombers and strike aircraft to do the same job quicker and safer. Alternatively, we could send in armor and mechanized infantry to also do the job safer with more mobility.
I agree it's an additional capability whose only cost is money to sustain. However, in this current fiscal environment, shouldn't we be cutting capabilities that are rarely if ever needed in exchange for enhanced effectiveness for capabilites that are constantly utilized?
Your premises about what we need to jump( completely uncontested airspace), what we can achieve once in place (nothing more than what a bombing and few missiles/planes can), and what we offer once on place offensively and defensively are all false. We're a forced entry capable division sized unit able to be wheels up anytime of the year within 18hrs, headed for anywhere on the planet we're told to go. I'll give the marines their due if it's coastal related, interior it's the deuce that gets the nod every time. The mere THOUGHT of a division sized force dropping on someones head has changed their actions and that's a fact.
"I should say, we need local superiority of the air space in which the airborne infantry are to be deployed."
We don't need to destroy everything that is potentially against us, just "jam" or otherwise make it ineffective against us until the jumpers are deployed.
"And if we have that superiority, we could utilize other assets such as bombers and strike aircraft to do the same job quicker and safer."
That's great if all you want afterwards is a crater, but if you want, or need that building/airfield/asset in one piece afterwards, how is an F18 going to hold it for you without destroying it at the same time?
" Alternatively, we could send in armor and mechanized infantry to also do the job safer with more mobility."
And just how exactly were you going to GET that armor and mech there unless we jump in and sieze/hold the airfield????
A family member of mine in the 82d feels this way. Logically I think I'm tracking, the only time you'd use a massive paratrooper drop is when you have air superiority. But then, why not use other safer means to get troops on ground?
When was the last time such a drop happened anyway?
Not talking about HALO or HAHO drops with special operations.
Didn't read all the replies, but IIRC, there was a combat jump into northern Iraq when OIF started.
wild_wild_wes
03-13-14, 23:06
A future wide-scale conflict could produce scenarios never imagined. Given that, it seems to me that having a diversified force structure is best. Airborne might be uniquely useful, as they definitely have capabilities no other units posses on a large scale.
Your premises about what we need to jump( completely uncontested airspace), what we can achieve once in place (nothing more than what a bombing and few missiles/planes can), and what we offer once on place offensively and defensively are all false. We're a forced entry capable division sized unit able to be wheels up anytime of the year within 18hrs, headed for anywhere on the planet we're told to go. I'll give the marines their due if it's coastal related, interior it's the deuce that gets the nod every time. The mere THOUGHT of a division sized force dropping on someones head has changed their actions and that's a fact.
"I should say, we need local superiority of the air space in which the airborne infantry are to be deployed."
We don't need to destroy everything that is potentially against us, just "jam" or otherwise make it ineffective against us until the jumpers are deployed.
"And if we have that superiority, we could utilize other assets such as bombers and strike aircraft to do the same job quicker and safer."
That's great if all you want afterwards is a crater, but if you want, or need that building/airfield/asset in one piece afterwards, how is an F18 going to hold it for you without destroying it at the same time?
" Alternatively, we could send in armor and mechanized infantry to also do the job safer with more mobility."
And just how exactly were you going to GET that armor and mech there unless we jump in and sieze/hold the airfield????
Exactly.
Bombing something to oblivion doesn't stop an enemy from coming right back in and re-fortifying before mech and armor can reach the objective. You also have to think about long term logistics and collateral damage (even with precision "smart" bombs). You bomb everything to oblivion, you have to come in and rebuild it all afterward. Seizing strategic areas without destroying everything and holding the area from being retaken is smarter than just bombing the hell out of it while eliminating some of the enemy just to have them come back and have to spend even more time to re-take it back using mech and armor. It could just be taken and held until mech an armor arrive and then Airborne and SOF move on to take and hold another area, and repeat.
Conventionally each force has a specific role in conventional/force-on-force warfare. SOF insert and disrupt/destroy enemy communications/logistics/supply/secure airfields and so forth so Airborne can drop in to take/hold/destroy larger strategic areas holding them until ground forces can arrive to assume control; thus leaving SOF and Airborne/Rangers/Light infantry to move on to do it all over again. While air assets soften targets for them to do so, eliminate the enemies air assets, and provide CAS and so forth. It is all coordination; you can't expect one entity to accomplish it all or assume all roles.
SeriousStudent
03-13-14, 23:43
Back when it looked like we were going into Rwanda, I figured the 82nd would get the nod for that. Jump in, secure some airports, create safe zones for folks. Then Marines set up enclaves on the coast. Link up, shake hands for CNN, etc.
My brother was in the Army, and spent a lot of time with various colors of headgear. We gently ribbed one another about the other's branch of service, but always remained respectful. It's a good policy to have.
Wars will never (or at least not for a long time) be won without boots on the ground. There's infantry, and then there's everything else that supports infantry - including F22s. CAS has is a huge multiplier, but like everyone else is saying, it cannot hold ground. And the level of sustainment needed for armor or even mech infantry is massive compared to light/airborne. They're much more maneuverable, versatile, and easier to support. A tank without fuel is just a poorly camouflaged, though well armed bunker. Airborne isn't outdated by any means. Just because we haven't used them en masse lately, doesn't mean they should go away. Also, a new parachute was adopted not too long ago, so advancements have been made.
BoringGuy45
03-14-14, 01:21
Having not had the opportunity to serve in the military much to my regret (I say that honestly :( ), I can't give a tactical perspective on the use of our forces these days. But as a student of history, I can understand why the thought of airborne assault aside from special operations would appear to be an obsolete tactic. I think large scale airborne operations are just another think lumped into a long list of units, equipment, and tactics that seem outdated in modern conflict, including large scale conventional infantry, armor and mechanized warfare, interceptor fighter jets, manned bombers, fast attack submarines, etc. It seems that the future of conflicts is going to be drones, precision bombs, special operations, and asymmetric warfare.
This is understandable as it appears that the 5,000 years of armies marching under the overt and proudly admitted banner of imperial expansion came to an end when Japan and Germany surrendered in 1945. Since then, most attempted annexations of other countries for any reason has brought a swift response against the aggressor. There have only been about six or so conflicts since the Korean War fought by major powers using conventional tactics and large battle formations, and very few lasted more than a couple weeks or even days (with the exception of the Iran-Iraq War). The U.S. has only been involved in two such conflicts, one lasting only three weeks and the other lasting a month with only four days of ground fighting. It really seems like the end of maneuver warfare; the future is fighting terrorists.
Or is it? Right now, we have Ukraine and Russia fighting over a long disputed territory. Ukraine could decide to try and take by Crimea, or Putin could accuse Ukraine of plotting to do so, declare them too dangerous to be neighbors with Russia, and decide that all of Ukraine will now be a Russian province. If the world doesn't respond, maybe he'll decide that Poland looks nice too. We also have an absolute madman in North Korea, who has been shielded from the world and believes he is the most powerful being on earth commanding the greatest army in history. If anyone tells them different, they're dead before the words leave their mouths. I believe he is unhinged enough to actually try and start a war with South Korea and us. We also have good ol' Iran constantly poking Israel with a stick and threatening preemptive force. We have Syria in danger of falling into the hands of al-Qaeda. To sum it up we have, well, the biggest and most volatile multinational powder keg since the First World War. We've not fought a major conventional war against another power lately simply because there's not been any dispute with another country that required war. Conventional war hasn't become outdated, it's just been somewhat dormant.
Paratroopers, tanks, and all the good old stuff could become the main fighting tools once again, and possibly in the next few weeks if the worst happens.
Having not had the opportunity to serve in the military much to my regret (I say that honestly :( ), I can't give a tactical perspective on the use of our forces these days. But as a student of history, I can understand why the thought of airborne assault aside from special operations would appear to be an obsolete tactic. I think large scale airborne operations are just another think lumped into a long list of units, equipment, and tactics that seem outdated in modern conflict, including large scale conventional infantry, armor and mechanized warfare, interceptor fighter jets, manned bombers, fast attack submarines, etc. It seems that the future of conflicts is going to be drones, precision bombs, special operations, and asymmetric warfare.
This is understandable as it appears that the 5,000 years of armies marching under the overt and proudly admitted banner of imperial expansion came to an end when Japan and Germany surrendered in 1945. Since then, most attempted annexations of other countries for any reason has brought a swift response against the aggressor. There have only been about six or so conflicts since the Korean War fought by major powers using conventional tactics and large battle formations, and very few lasted more than a couple weeks or even days (with the exception of the Iran-Iraq War). The U.S. has only been involved in two such conflicts, one lasting only three weeks and the other lasting a month with only four days of ground fighting. It really seems like the end of maneuver warfare; the future is fighting terrorists.
Or is it? Right now, we have Ukraine and Russia fighting over a long disputed territory. Ukraine could decide to try and take by Crimea, or Putin could accuse Ukraine of plotting to do so, declare them too dangerous to be neighbors with Russia, and decide that all of Ukraine will now be a Russian province. If the world doesn't respond, maybe he'll decide that Poland looks nice too. We also have an absolute madman in North Korea, who has been shielded from the world and believes he is the most powerful being on earth commanding the greatest army in history. If anyone tells them different, they're dead before the words leave their mouths. I believe he is unhinged enough to actually try and start a war with South Korea and us. We also have good ol' Iran constantly poking Israel with a stick and threatening preemptive force. We have Syria in danger of falling into the hands of al-Qaeda. To sum it up we have, well, the biggest and most volatile multinational powder keg since the First World War. We've not fought a major conventional war against another power lately simply because there's not been any dispute with another country that required war. Conventional war hasn't become outdated, it's just been somewhat dormant.
Paratroopers, tanks, and all the good old stuff could become the main fighting tools once again, and possibly in the next few weeks if the worst happens.
I'm glad you brought this up because I was debating starting another thread to discuss this. It is often said that we train for the last war we fought. Sure, I think insurgency will always be an element that we will have to deal with. However, this was brought up recently and I wonder about it. We were doing some "combat" training and, of course, the current mission was COIN based. An Egyptian with us turned to an American and asked what the hell we were doing. When asked for clarification, he said "In Egypt, we train to fight big armies - China, Russia. Not Libya." Granted I have yet to go to a FORSCOM unit and see how NTC/JRTC is running, but I have spent plenty of time in TRADOC and while here, the vast majority of "combat" training I have received has been COIN based. During the same FTX, I was sitting behind a 240 rolling down some supposedly dangerous route and I wondered what my peers would do if they were presented with conventional OPFOR. I honestly don't think many of them would know how to react.
I'm glad you brought this up because I was debating starting another thread to discuss this. It is often said that we train for the last war we fought. Sure, I think insurgency will always be an element that we will have to deal with. However, this was brought up recently and I wonder about it. We were doing some "combat" training and, of course, the current mission was COIN based. An Egyptian with us turned to an American and asked what the hell we were doing. When asked for clarification, he said "In Egypt, we train to fight big armies - China, Russia. Not Libya." Granted I have yet to go to a FORSCOM unit and see how NTC/JRTC is running, but I have spent plenty of time in TRADOC and while here, the vast majority of "combat" training I have received has been COIN based. During the same FTX, I was sitting behind a 240 rolling down some supposedly dangerous route and I wondered what my peers would do if they were presented with conventional OPFOR. I honestly don't think many of them would know how to react.
Last time I went to JRTC, it was COIN based. Then again, I assume a units JRTC or NTC rotation is dependent on the mission of their upcoming deployment.
Exactly.
Bombing something to oblivion doesn't stop an enemy from coming right back in and re-fortifying before mech and armor can reach the objective. You also have to think about long term logistics and collateral damage (even with precision "smart" bombs). You bomb everything to oblivion, you have to come in and rebuild it all afterward. Seizing strategic areas without destroying everything and holding the area from being retaken is smarter than just bombing the hell out of it while eliminating some of the enemy just to have them come back and have to spend even more time to re-take it back using mech and armor. It could just be taken and held until mech an armor arrive and then Airborne and SOF move on to take and hold another area, and repeat.
Conventionally each force has a specific role in conventional/force-on-force warfare. SOF insert and disrupt/destroy enemy communications/logistics/supply/secure airfields and so forth so Airborne can drop in to take/hold/destroy larger strategic areas holding them until ground forces can arrive to assume control; thus leaving SOF and Airborne/Rangers/Light infantry to move on to do it all over again. While air assets soften targets for them to do so, eliminate the enemies air assets, and provide CAS and so forth. It is all coordination; you can't expect one entity to accomplish it all or assume all roles.
With today's "kinder, gentler" military (more precisely it's ROE) we don't "bomb things into oblivion" anymore. Case in point: Fallujah. We had the ability to level that town to rubble and THEN send in boots to kick the rubble around and mop-up. However, we didn't do that. Instead we sent in infantry, WWII style, and fought house-to-house. So with that reluctance to use our might to it's fullest extent in mind, forces such as Airborne units will likely still have a role in the future (albeit perhaps not on a Normandy scale).
With today's "kinder, gentler" military (more precisely it's ROE) we don't "bomb things into oblivion" anymore. Case in point: Fallujah. We had the ability to level that town to rubble and THEN send in boots to kick the rubble around and mop-up. However, we didn't do that. Instead we sent in infantry, WWII style, and fought house-to-house. So with that reluctance to use our might to it's fullest extent in mind, forces such as Airborne units will likely still have a role in the future (albeit perhaps not on a Normandy scale).
My point exactly. My understanding from Koshinn, is that he believes that is the most viable option; just bomb the hell out of an objective then send in mech and armor. I was contesting that.
My point exactly. My understanding from Koshinn, is that he believes that is the most viable option; just bomb the hell out of an objective then send in mech and armor. I was contesting that.
Oh yeah, I was just piggy-backing on your point about bombing by adding that we WON'T do what we CAN do so it can't be counted on to happen. "Boots" will never go out of style.
I'm glad you brought this up because I was debating starting another thread to discuss this. It is often said that we train for the last war we fought. Sure, I think insurgency will always be an element that we will have to deal with. However, this was brought up recently and I wonder about it. We were doing some "combat" training and, of course, the current mission was COIN based. An Egyptian with us turned to an American and asked what the hell we were doing. When asked for clarification, he said "In Egypt, we train to fight big armies - China, Russia. Not Libya." Granted I have yet to go to a FORSCOM unit and see how NTC/JRTC is running, but I have spent plenty of time in TRADOC and while here, the vast majority of "combat" training I have received has been COIN based. During the same FTX, I was sitting behind a 240 rolling down some supposedly dangerous route and I wondered what my peers would do if they were presented with conventional OPFOR. I honestly don't think many of them would know how to react.
Yup, pretty much this.
When my last Cavalry Troop commander went to the Cavalry Leaders Course at Benning in 2010, they were continously reminded to not use princples for COIN/Low-intensity ops when doing their MDMP work. As the instructor said:
"For the next war, there will be red tanks, there will be red aircraft"
I totally agree with this mindset, and believe that focusing too much on low-intensity, assymetrical conflicts is an incorrect approach. Ideally, TTPs should flow seamlessly between high intensity all out war and low-intensity conflicts. The only difference should be application.
As has been alluded to, the purpose of using military force is not destruction in and of itself, it is to achieve a higher strategic/political goal. Of course, focus/perspective wrt this will vary based on where you are in the food chain.
With this in mind, thinking that boots on the ground will be obsolete in the near, or even long term, future is erroneous. Thinking that you can achieve the same effect by only using bombs and SOF is erroneous.
My brother was in the Army, and spent a lot of time with various colors of headgear. We gently ribbed one another about the other's branch of service, but always remained respectful. It's a good policy to have.
That's the way it SHOULD be. We all wear the same unifrom (you know what I am talking about...), all parts of the same machine. I do like debates like this, though, as it challenges dogma and perceptions. I have to say some of MY perceptions regarding airborne have changed because of this thread.
BTW, not part of the mil at that time, I did have a bit of involvement with the UN in Rwanda, 1993. Not sure it could have resulted in better results than Somalia. And you DO know that the only coastline Rwanda has is on a lake, right? :)
Bolt_Overide
03-14-14, 08:55
Consider that in WWII there were not actually many massive drops: Normandy, Market Garden and ... ?
Sicily, Salerno, Okinawa.
The last major jump I remember was Operation Junction City, by the 173rd (the Herd) in Feb. 1967, in Vietnam.
Oh yeah, I was just piggy-backing on your point about bombing by adding that we WON'T do what we CAN do so it can't be counted on to happen. "Boots" will never go out of style.
I don't think anyone is arguing that "boots" will go out of style. I'm certainly not arguing that; I'm a firm believer of conventional ground forces.
My point exactly. My understanding from Koshinn, is that he believes that is the most viable option; just bomb the hell out of an objective then send in mech and armor. I was contesting that.
Correct, this is what I'm in favor of. Destroy or disrupt enemy centers of gravity and units in the field from the air, then send in mech and armor.
My whole viewpoint on airborne is actually in the context of the next large scale conventional war, not the next COIN op in a third world country no one can point to on a map. Looking to the end of the war by saving infrastructure to rebuild it in the next war is a bit like putting the cart before the horse... you have to win the war first. In situations like Afg and Iraq where the outcome isn't in doubt one bit, that's more acceptable. But if we were to fight a large scale conventional war in which the outcome is not certain, squandering our resources inefficiently in hopes of saving money in the long term rebuilding of the losing country, assuming a victory that is far from assured, is negligent at best.
As for objectives that we'd want to use mostly intact like an airfield, the Rangers have proven themselves more than capable for such a task.
telecustom
03-14-14, 14:16
Talking about NTC/JRTC. They have shifted back to the Conventional Tank on Tank type fight. They are even adding a major CBRN (NBC) element to it since it has come into play in Syria lately.
I don't think anyone is arguing that "boots" will go out of style. I'm certainly not arguing that; I'm a firm believer of conventional ground forces.
Correct, this is what I'm in favor of. Destroy or disrupt enemy centers of gravity and units in the field from the air, then send in mech and armor.
My whole viewpoint on airborne is actually in the context of the next large scale conventional war, not the next COIN op in a third world country no one can point to on a map. Looking to the end of the war by saving infrastructure to rebuild it in the next war is a bit like putting the cart before the horse... you have to win the war first. In situations like Afg and Iraq where the outcome isn't in doubt one bit, that's more acceptable. But if we were to fight a large scale conventional war in which the outcome is not certain, squandering our resources inefficiently in hopes of saving money in the long term rebuilding of the losing country, assuming a victory that is far from assured, is negligent at best.
As for objectives that we'd want to use mostly intact like an airfield, the Rangers have proven themselves more than capable for such a task.
Bombing targets and then waiting days for mech and armor to show up is "squandering resources inefficiently." Not to mention much more expensive in a large scale war. No country would have the time, resources, or money, to throw away at bombing every single objective until mech and armor can show up to take over. There wouldn't be enough aircraft to supply those efforts either when many of them will be on task protecting naval fleets, other aircraft, fighting aircraft, providing CAS, etc. An Airborne unit on the ground holding the objective until mech and armor can arrive would be much more effective. They can provide recon that air can't, they can come across intel that air can't, they can seize high value targets not wanted to be destroyed, they can stop enemy from moving back on the objective, they can stop potential enemy moving in to ambush mech and armor or enemy not otherwise destroyed. None of those capabilities could be accomplished with dropping bombs and waiting for mobile units to move in, in a large scale war. Rangers also wouldn't have the numbers to accomplish such tasks themselves in a large scale war either.
Talking about NTC/JRTC. They have shifted back to the Conventional Tank on Tank type fight. They are even adding a major CBRN (NBC) element to it since it has come into play in Syria lately.
That's new. My JRTC rotation in January was a waste of time given we did 3 missions and I never once saw OPFOR. We did a "direct action" rotation, but were forced to make the "ANA" do all the door kicking/fighting. We basically just sat on support by fire positions and froze our asses off.
Bombing targets and then waiting days for mech and armor to show up is "squandering resources inefficiently." Not to mention much more expensive in a large scale war. No country would have the time, resources, or money, to throw away at bombing every single objective until mech and armor can show up to take over. There wouldn't be enough aircraft to supply those efforts either when many of them will be on task protecting naval fleets, other aircraft, fighting aircraft, providing CAS, etc. An Airborne unit on the ground holding the objective until mech and armor can arrive would be much more effective. They can provide recon that air can't, they can come across intel that air can't, they can seize high value targets not wanted to be destroyed, they can stop enemy from moving back on the objective, they can stop potential enemy moving in to ambush mech and armor or enemy not otherwise destroyed. None of those capabilities could be accomplished with dropping bombs and waiting for mobile units to move in, in a large scale war. Rangers also wouldn't have the numbers to accomplish such tasks themselves in a large scale war either.
You're making just about as outrageous and off-point statements regarding air war as you probably imagine I'm making regarding the airborne.
I also don't see why it would take days for mech and armor to show up when they can just wait a mile or two off station until the bombing ceases. All your arguments for the airborne don't only apply to the airborne, most of them work with other ground forces as well.
You're making just about as outrageous and off-point statements regarding air war as you probably imagine I'm making regarding the airborne.
I also don't see why it would take days for mech and armor to show up when they can just wait a mile or two off station until the bombing ceases. All your arguments for the airborne don't only apply to the airborne, most of them work with other ground forces as well.
There is nothing off point or outrageous. In a large scale war, you won't have time to wait for mech units to arrive at an ORP to take the next objective.
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate."
Bottom line, that is the conventional role of the Airborne, and no one else is going to fill that role as effective or as precise as them. Would you rather cut a tomato with a chefs knife or a butter knife?
Magic_Salad0892
03-15-14, 02:57
Would you rather cut a tomato with a chefs knife or a butter knife?
Depends. Will the chef's knife take more than 3 days?
ramairthree
03-15-14, 12:16
No.
There are a handful of mission sets where a company or bn sized element going in static line is still the best option.
There are more where a FF insertion is a good option.
What is outdated is all the waste of jump school slots and maintaining status and pay for a bunch a people that need it so a whole division or command can jump in.
It would make more sense for all steely eyed killers, direct support, etc. that have a need to go in that way be both SL and MFF qualified,
and not waste any SL or FF slots on those that do not.
The concept of airborne school being some sort of selective, challenging qualification that brought in increased quality density has not been true for decades.
In WW2 during the invasion of southern France, 9000 paratroopers jumped. The taskforce was composed of American, British, Polish, and free French airborne troops.
In Operation Junction City(Vietnam)about 800 guys jumped.
In WW2 gliders brought in artillery, jeeps, and other heavy stuff used to support the airborne troops.
The Principals of War as taught in US military schools:
United States principles of war
(Refer to US Army Field Manual FM 3–0)
The United States Armed Forces use the following nine principles of war:
Objective – Direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive and attainable objective. The ultimate military purpose of war is the destruction of the enemy's ability to fight and will to fight.
Offensive – Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative. Offensive action is the most effective and decisive way to attain a clearly defined common objective. Offensive operations are the means by which a military force seizes and holds the initiative while maintaining freedom of action and achieving decisive results. This is fundamentally true across all levels of war.
Mass – Mass the effects of overwhelming combat power at the decisive place and time. Synchronizing all the elements of combat power where they will have decisive effect on an enemy force in a short period of time is to achieve mass. Massing effects, rather than concentrating forces, can enable numerically inferior forces to achieve decisive results, while limiting exposure to enemy fire.
Economy of Force – Employ all combat power available in the most effective way possible; allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts. Economy of force is the judicious employment and distribution of forces. No part of the force should ever be left without purpose. The allocation of available combat power to such tasks as limited attacks, defense, delays, deception, or even retrograde operations is measured in order to achieve mass elsewhere at the decisive point and time on the battlefield. ...
Maneuver – Place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power. Maneuver is the movement of forces in relation to the enemy to gain positional advantage. Effective maneuver keeps the enemy off balance and protects the force. It is used to exploit successes, to preserve freedom of action, and to reduce vulnerability. It continually poses new problems for the enemy by rendering his actions ineffective, eventually leading to defeat. ...
Unity of Command – For every objective, seek unity of command and unity of effort. At all levels of war, employment of military forces in a manner that masses combat power toward a common objective requires unity of command and unity of effort. Unity of command means that all the forces are under one responsible commander. It requires a single commander with the requisite authority to direct all forces in pursuit of a unified purpose.
Security – Never permit the enemy to acquire unexpected advantage. Security enhances freedom of action by reducing vulnerability to hostile acts, influence, or surprise. Security results from the measures taken by a commander to protect his forces. Knowledge and understanding of enemy strategy, tactics, doctrine, and staff planning improve the detailed planning of adequate security measures.
Surprise – Strike the enemy at a time or place or in a manner for which he is unprepared. Surprise can decisively shift the balance of combat power. By seeking surprise, forces can achieve success well out of proportion to the effort expended. Surprise can be in tempo, size of force, direction or location of main effort, and timing. Deception can aid the probability of achieving surprise.
Simplicity – Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and concise orders to ensure thorough understanding. Everything in war is very simple, but the simple thing is difficult. To the uninitiated, military operations are not difficult. Simplicity contributes to successful operations. Simple plans and clear, concise orders minimize misunderstanding and confusion. Other factors being equal, parsimony is to be preferred.
America's standing non- Special Operations Forces Rapid Deployment Force is the XVIIIth Airborne Corps, consisting of the 82nd, the 101st, the 3rd ID, and the 10th Mountain Division -- a combination of Airborne, Air Assault, Mech/heavy, and light infantry (along with support tail).
Marines afloat may consist of a brigade-plus of forces on-ship with their own expeditionary capability.
The US doesn't plan to drop a force of any size anywhere where it can't be supported.
I'd challenge you to plan to move tens of thousands of troops (let alone Boy Scouts, missionaries, or FEMA and emergency relief people) and their machinery of war anywhere (let alone the other side of the planet) with plans to not just move them but to feed, bunk, supply, and keep them entertained or employed breaking things and killing people. Ain't as easy as just passing a magic wand over something and saying, "Make it happen."
Thank you sir, makes me want to find my 7-8.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.