Alright let's settle this forever, are airborne troops a meme or not?

Alright let's settle this forever, are airborne troops a meme or not? They have never changed the outcome of a battle unless they linked up with the main force. And if they need the main force to succeed whats the point? Just add more soldiers to the main force

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    100% a meme, usually they just fight as conventional troops (see UK paras for example who spent most of their history policing northern ireland, kek)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the Paras (and the Royal Marines) showed the importance of elite infantry in 1982; they could fight better than the other regular battalions sent down, finishing the campaign faster

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yeah but they didn't need to be paratroopers though

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thats just winmore

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          tempo tempo tempo

          finishing faster means the other guy has less time to react

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >they never won a battle unless they won the battle amirite guys? guys?

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >flanking is a meme, just add more troops
    what is this vatnik thinking

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >our 500 men with no heavy equipment or support are on the flank of your 10,000 men who have no force frontally engaging them, we are sure to win

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >have no force frontally engaging them
        says who

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          not him but, isnt that the point of airborne? You send them first before even engaging the enemy to "divide their attention"
          But if you can win by dividing their attention with 500-1000 men you can also win without sacrificing 500-1000 elite soldiers used as bait
          Just put them in the main attacking force or split your forces to flank instead of sending your best behind enemy lines to get killed

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >bait
            they're not used as bait, they're supposed to seize important infrastructure or territory
            the reason for any failure is always that the enemy was too strong, which is the same as if you tried to flank elsewhere and the flanking attack was defeated
            >send a tank brigade on a flank
            >they're defeated
            >HURR DURR WHAT'S THE POINT OF A TANK BRIGADE
            that's how stupid this thread is

            >flank
            airborne forces ARE flanking; they're flanking via the air

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You send them in advance to facilitate movement of the main force, like capturing airfields that the main force will use as staging points or silencing air defenses. Outside of that, they work simultaneously with the main force as the hammer part of a hammer and anvil.
            >split your forces to flank
            such as, by air perhaps?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >send them to the flank
            >enemy has a competent defensive line
            >instead of flanking enemy, troops just become an extension of your line
            >take more casualties because you're attacking an entrenched enemy
            You're a genius.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              wont an entrenched enemy have enough AA to stop your paradrops :^*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not always.
                Airborn operations aren't meant to be über elite troops with each Man worth 3-4 enemy soldiers.
                They are a specialized tool to achieve very specific goals, where you really really need that objective under control asap.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >thirdie cannot into SEAD
                Many such cases.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                thats what Im saying, you can paradrop only if you clean up everything before. But if you can do that why paradrop?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yeah but the argument was why have paratroopers when you can just bomb everything and use ground forces. You got all these "elite" guys that dont do anything except soak the airforce budget which could just be spent on more jdams and more ground troops.
                Paratroopers have literally no niche left

                >SEAD means Bomb Everything

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sometimes, like D-Day, the main force needs them to succeed as well.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They are very good at killing a lot of highly trained Russians very fast.
    The VDV got obliterated and no longer does any plane jumping circus shit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The VDV got obliterated
      It didn’t, though. A corridor was made out of the airport where they left and regular army replaced them. Not sure why this falsehood has stuck around.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Anon. The vdv is under the sea. There was no relief they were butchered by TDF

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is anyone who's joined the VDV since February, 2022 even jump-qualified?

      I imagine in the rush to replenish their ranks, the Russians have just straight-up cut out things like jump training since they can't even gain air superiority to carry them out. Hell, they can't even conduct air assaults with helicopters now.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The VDV got obliterated and no longer does any plane jumping circus shit
      They didn’t do any jumps in Ukraine either, not in any numbers. All the initial assaults were by helicopter

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Which raises another point: helo-borne air assaults have all the same vulnerabilities as paradrops, but you rarely see butthurt legs seething about helicopters.
        They’re all tools for your toolbox, no reason to get rid of them. We still have amphibious landing craft too.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    France and Belgium had great success with paras in Africa

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Belgium here.
      We had "success" against mostly untrained militia-level congolese.
      And we had to use the paras because deploying in any other way in the middle of Congo would have meant carving your way from the coast.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Those in the picture are.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >They have never changed the outcome of a battle unless they linked up with the main force.
    They were never successful unless there were successful? Okay.
    >And if they need the main force to succeed whats the point?
    Attacking from two different flanks, dividing your attention. Ever been in a fight with black people? Have to watch your back because there's always some Black person trying to sneak up behind you and sucker punch you, so even the possibly of that Black person being around means you cant fully focus on the guy in front of you. Airborne forces are that Black person. Casualties are largely irrelevant, its to be expected that a force cut off from support and resupply is going to take losses, but that's why they tend to be elite units; not just so they can work effectively but so they can remain effective when they are below full strength.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Great in Africa.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They let you take france in a day and britain in two, so I'd say they're worth it, as long as you build enough planes.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Russian tanks get decimated because they're complete trash
    >OMG r tanks over u guise?!

    >Russian air defense gets embarrassed by cold war weapons
    >hur Is the age of air defense over??!?

    >veh-deh-veh gets massacred because no air support
    >uhh uhh uhhhh uhh guise, r hurrborne troops a meam?!

    No, your country's just a giant clown tent full of super gay babies. Shut the frick up already.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Alright let's settle this forever,
    >tactical implications
    >Are they obsolete
    >Is this a good/bad thing
    You homosexuals are fricking obnoxious.
    Airborne in general has it's uses, but requires specific parameters and effective protections following the insert. If even 1 thing goes wrong it can cause mas cas events.
    Strategically they're useful for specific things.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden
      Failed
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crete
      Failed

      The only "successful" airborne assault example here was D-Day but that battle was won due to overwhelming materiel difference and due to germans guessing wrongly where the main force would be

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Cherry picks losses
        Yah you newbie Black folk need to leave
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch
        >Operation Husky
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Sicily
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ladbroke
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fustian
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Corregidor_(1945)
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uphold_Democracy
        Frick OEF started with airborne taking Kandahar Airfield
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Viking

        I can keep going you worthless Black person.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ladbroke
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ladbroke
          >En route to Sicily, sixty-five gliders released too early by the American towing aircraft crashed into the sea, drowning approximately 252 men. Of the remainder, only eighty-seven men arrived at the Pont Grande Bridge, although they successfully captured the bridge and held it beyond the time they were to be relieved. Finally, with their ammunition expended and only fifteen soldiers remaining unwounded, the Allied troops surrendered to Italian forces.
          Lmao

          >Americans seal clubbing third world homies
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uphold_Democracy
          Frick OEF started with airborne taking Kandahar Airfield
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_Viking

          And the rest are fighting shitalians that literally lost to ethiopians armed with spears. As expected airborne never made a qualitative difference. All the battles would have gone in the same way without them

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nta but I'm a little confused, anon. The premise of the thread was 'are paras useless', most things listed are examples of them being quite effective and getting better results than conventional forces might in the same situation.

            if your argument is 'there are no examples of paratroopers taking down a peer army without conventional support' yeah you might be right, but that would be a silly thing to argue

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They have never changed the outcome of a battle unless they linked up with the main force.

              Thats exactly the point in OP though

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >attacks have never been successful unless they were successful

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He's genuinely moronic, or underage.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you cant refute that statement parabro

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so you are looking for examples of battles where they stayed completely separate from the main force as it progressed? foraging for food and casting their own bullets after a few days?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm looking for a battle where paratroopers were the decisive factor for the operation succeeding

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Operation Mercury
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palembang
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Thunderstorm
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salamaua%E2%80%93Lae_campaign#Operation_Cartwheel
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Varsity
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_at_Nadzab

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crete
        >Failed
        But Crete was a success?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Battle of Crete
        >failure

        Remind me, who controlled it until 1945.

        >Market Garden

        The Airborne didn't drop the ball at Arnhem, XXX Corps did and Horrocks should have been shot for his incompetence (Browning and Gavin too).

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Gavin
          But we wouldn’t have the M113 in this case.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden
          Failed
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crete
          Failed

          The only "successful" airborne assault example here was D-Day but that battle was won due to overwhelming materiel difference and due to germans guessing wrongly where the main force would be

          >Crete
          >failed
          Ughhh how come the Germans took the island then? Also the Germans wouldn’t have suffered such high casualties if they knew how to design a proper harness.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Crete is considered a failure of a paratrooper operation because the losses crippled the operational capacity of Nazi paratroopers. And while they did carry out the most decisive element of the battle, capturing an airfield allowing for an air bridge, that success owed more to British incompetence than German capability and given the depletion of local RN and RAF forces the defenders would have been unable to stave off amphibious landings in short order.

            tl;dr: Crete is considered a loss because the battle didn't need them and they attrited themselves into non-functionality.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >high casualties
            they wouldnt have lost so many if their intel guys werent complete fricking morons

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Gavin
          I think he did pretty good. Why else would they name the M113 after him?

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    homosexuality.jpg

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    parahomies be like
    >Why yes the main force must bail me out in order for me to be successful. I'm very useful and did all the work!

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They are a very specialized unit and require being used very carefully and not being thrown into the grinder mindlessly like Russia does. You need an air mobile light infantry force that can hopefully seize and hold something vital for the enemy for a short while; a rapid response force capable of taking down guerrillas or briefly slowing down advancing enemy infantry while heavier units can get in place; or a group of guys who you can drop in the rear to kill or destroy something and then be picked up by a helicopter. Airborne infantry is suited for those roles. However, let's say that you are mindlessly throwing them against regular infantry, or, even worse, mechanized infantry, with no support from units that are actually equipped for that kind of combat, or they get bogged down and forced into a protracted fight with heavier units like that. Then your airborne troops get hunted into extinction, like what happened with Russia's airborne striped tank top homos in Ukraine.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'd imagine that paratroopers, much like everything else, are a specific tool for a specific job. Being able to airdrop well trained and motivated troops to frick with and harass the enemy is a valuable strength at the cost of very obvious weaknesses. If used appropriately and tasked with objectives that can be reasonably accomplished by a temporarily unsupported force, then they can be one very dangerous meme.
      Like any tool, they have a time and a place. Utilized properly, they're a valuable asset; utilized improperly, and you're just wasting lives and material.

      Basically what said.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >They have never changed the outcome of a battle unless they linked up with the main force.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Airfield seizure is the only real use. Rangers routinely conduct MLATs to this day.
    >Night drop elite infantry on airfield
    >Push back security forces just long enough for air assets that dropped them off to land
    >Offload supporting assets including close air support helos that can be assembled on the tarmac in literally a minute, light armor, HMMWVs, etc
    >Birds are back in the sky in literal minutes
    >Evac casualties on the rotating birds
    >Repeat support operations until airfield is hardened position and begin staging a more aggressive invasion force
    In order to pull it off you need to at least provide a brief window of air superiority (which the Russians never fully achieved), provide an assaulting force capable of seizing the airfield (which Ivan failed to do pushing towards the barracks and getting BTFOd), and supporting assets staged and ready to help repel inevitable counter assaults (which they never committed). So yeah they got fricked hard.

    Also 82nd are LARPers that haven’t been relevant as an airborne unit since the 1940s and every year Uncle Sam pisses away our tax dollars and the knees of increasingly expensively trained grunts as sacrificial lambs to said LARP.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      in reality those air assets are getting shot down

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yeah airborne assaults only work if you outclass the enemy hard, otherwise its gonna happen like in 2022 where 30% of your forces die enroute and the rest die at the airport

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >82nd are LARPers that haven’t been relevant as an airborne unit since the 1940s

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >brief window of air superiority
      My dude, you need complete fricking air dominance and destruction of enemy AA in the theatre to even consider doing something this moronic. This strategy is about as viable as fricking cavalry charge in 21st century - in other words, can work against incompetent depleted enemy at unreasonable risk to your own assets.

      Airborne assaults in large scale engagements serve same role as air harassment - suppression of long range fire support and delay of reinforcements to facilitate a localised breach in a frontline. They aren't doing any significant hammering - they take up their designated logistically important positions and sit tight on their asses, hoping that mystical frontline breach actually materializes. AT MOST they opportunistically take out some soft position nearby.

      The reason why nobody is doing mass airborne assaults anymore (beside 3rd worlders) is because regular ground attack air assets achieve the same effect with less attrition. Paratroopers have exactly one thing going for them - they look cool in the footage afterwards. Hence, why 3rd worlders love and keep using them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >you need complete fricking air dominance and destruction of enemy AA in the theatre
        that's not how SEAD works against near-peer enemies

        anon is correct, you use your assets to generate a

        Airfield seizure is the only real use. Rangers routinely conduct MLATs to this day.
        >Night drop elite infantry on airfield
        >Push back security forces just long enough for air assets that dropped them off to land
        >Offload supporting assets including close air support helos that can be assembled on the tarmac in literally a minute, light armor, HMMWVs, etc
        >Birds are back in the sky in literal minutes
        >Evac casualties on the rotating birds
        >Repeat support operations until airfield is hardened position and begin staging a more aggressive invasion force
        In order to pull it off you need to at least provide a brief window of air superiority (which the Russians never fully achieved), provide an assaulting force capable of seizing the airfield (which Ivan failed to do pushing towards the barracks and getting BTFOd), and supporting assets staged and ready to help repel inevitable counter assaults (which they never committed). So yeah they got fricked hard.

        Also 82nd are LARPers that haven’t been relevant as an airborne unit since the 1940s and every year Uncle Sam pisses away our tax dollars and the knees of increasingly expensively trained grunts as sacrificial lambs to said LARP.

        >brief window of air superiority
        for most anything. rest of the time you're defending and hiding.

        that is what is meant by picrel

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do you understand how transport planes are different from ground attack aircraft?
          They get easily locked on by the shittiest of aa
          They lack agility to evade anything
          And during landing/takeoff those vulnerabilities are further magnified.
          Active countermeasures can only take you so far.

          F-16 can happily drop guided bombs all day without giving a frick about Vanya hiding in a bush with Igla - it was designed to function in that environment.

          But if Hercules goes low anywhere near said bush? That Hercules is going to have a bad day. Especially if Vanya's and bushes are multiple.

          And no, you can't reliably suppress man portable AA.
          If your super extensive operation involving numerous expensive assets can be canceled (or worse) by a few low level enemy grunts with basic decades old kit just doing their job - then your operation is crap.
          And that's not even getting into details what happens AFTER theoretical airfield seizure.

          You can piss away as much money to the wind as you wish conducting carefully orchestrated drills that handwave away complications, that would have made the whole thing impossible in the real world. And that would be quentisential 3rd world behaviour.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >that would be quentisential 3rd world behaviour.
            so why is the US still doing it?
            >because they're deliberately being stupid
            or it could be that they're smarter than you

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >so why is the US still doing it?
              It doesnt, didnt the US bomb iraq during both wars before sending any airborne troops? There was nothing left when they got there

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                they also bombed the shit out of Iraq before sending in ground troops, that doesn't mean ground troops are obsolete

                thats what Im saying, you can paradrop only if you clean up everything before. But if you can do that why paradrop?

                >why
                vertical envelopment avoids ground defences

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yeah but the argument was why have paratroopers when you can just bomb everything and use ground forces. You got all these "elite" guys that dont do anything except soak the airforce budget which could just be spent on more jdams and more ground troops.
                Paratroopers have literally no niche left

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                To make one thing clear - I'm not arguing against elite super specialised SAS type troops, whose mission is to rapidly infiltrate, do their super specialised thing, and just as rapidly exfiltrate. Those guys have place and missions.
                What I am calling bullshit on, is using paradrops as part of (or primary) force of large scales operations meant to seize and hold territory.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yeah I agree with that, you still have to do assassinations and so on. I also am thinking in the context of actual full scale warfare rather than small skirmishes in a low intensity environment

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >why
                >vertical envelopment avoids ground defences

                Because nobody is immune to self-aggrandizing moronation - especially when the popular perception of your force is 'the hottest shit, the best of the best', and the only combat you ever see is whacking glorified militia in a hilariously lopsided manner.

                >they must be smart because they are le most powerful military in the world
                Russians used to think the same about themselves, circa being second, and we all rightfully laughed at them in the aftermath. Status and size doesn't guarantee competence unless said competence is regularly tested against substantial opposition.

                Going back to the topic of assault, how it would develop after very theoretical successful landing and securing the immidiate airfield vicinity:
                A very very limited long range artillery / missile attack is going to hit the airstrip targeting nothing in particular. And now your airplanes can't land there, and you have neither specialised equipment not time for repair. Not like you could fly supply there anyway, without needing to pulse temporary air dominance each time.
                Congratulations: you have managed to operate yourself into a pocket, against an enemy you likely outmatched in most capabilities.

                I'm not even sure what value you see in airfield close to the line of contact - it's just going to be a prime target for long range strikes.

                >it's just going to be a prime target for long range strikes.
                like amphibious landings, speed is key, i.e. moving fast enough to move anti-missile AA in and defend the LZ before the window forced open by the Air Force closes

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Can you estimate the amount of SHORAD you would need to keep facility incirled at the frontline free from cruise, ballistic, and mlrs attacks?
                Can you estimate the amount of infantry and accompanying armour you would need to establish a frontline beyond the range of regular self propelled artillery?
                Can you estimate the amount of artillery of your own you would need to support said frontline?
                Can you estimate how much ammunition would all of that expend to keep up high intensity fighting, plus equipment and personal attrition?

                The answer to all those questions is, too damn much, to a hilarious degree. D-day level too much. You would need a magical portal to sustain such a beachhead.

                There is one place you REALLY don't want to be in on the battlefield - and that is, incirled far beyond the frontline. I still don't understand why you consider it useful to dedicate significant resources to put a large force into a position that would be considered a tactical frickup of unprecedented proportions under any normal circumstances.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Can you estimate
                I can't, and neither can you, so your denial is just as worthless
                I'm just making the point that the US military thinks they can do it, and against their reference enemy
                >far beyond
                not too far obviously
                >I still don't understand why you consider it useful
                vertical envelopment avoids ground defences

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I will go out on a limb and say, that US military does not in fact consider itself capable of deploying an equivalent of Donetsk and Lugansk frontlines (it is, in fact, possible to estimate the minimum front length given the depth) worth of combined arms and supplies, in extremely limited timeframe, in a hostile airspace deep beyond the frontline against 'reference enemy'. Unless that 'reference enemy' of US nowadays is limited to man portable weaponry and jury rigged toyotas - and even against them, such a deployment would be a logistical marvel of physics defying kind.

                I personally consider US military quite competent overall - which is why I don't hold bizzare decisions of the specific branch as indicative of the whole. Assuming, such bizzare training is actually a modeling of realistic operation according to them, and not just an artificial mock exercise designed to maximize practice of key skills.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Or another equally sensible explanation - such training might be rehearsement for rapid response reinforcement of strained NATO frontlines in europe, rather than something meant to operate as a beachhead.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't say the reference enemy is Russia, but yeah, let's take Ukraine as an example
                as the crow flies, it's 360 kilometres from Kupyansk to Berdyansk
                the US Army expects the frontage to be about 60km per division, 30km and less for an offensive
                this is why they're going back to a divisional organisation, they expect to conduct such large scale operations once again.
                it would maybe take 4 divisions to hold the line, and 3 more at least to attack.
                incidentally, the US Army currently has around 10 active divisions. though of course in a war that size they would activate the National Guard, and call in allies.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I mean, of course US has the raw numbers - the problem is deploying and supplying them for a very extended amount of time solely by air on an extremely tight timetable. Plus, if the field gets struck halfway into the process, the already deployed forces are stranded in the worst position imaginable.
                I don't think US plans involve risking 1-3 divisions being completely wiped out to the last man if things go even slightly off script.

                That’s the crazy thing about war Anon. They expect casualties. Ideally you would have a squadron of helicopters to provide close air support (Russians tried it) until the penetrating ground forces or the next wave of infantry dropped but they took wayyyyy too fricking long and got fricked

                It's all about casualties vs potential payoff, and the likelyhood of both. Russians in Hostomel were banking on rapid resupply through the secured airfield. That went out of the window when airstrip was struck by the arty shortly after being secured. The moment that happened, any payoff went out of the window - the drop didn't achieve anything useful. And as frontline didn't advance to relieve VDV, it also ensured absurdly high casualties for the paratroopers.

                Hostomel wasn't VDV failure - VDV performed exactly as expected. But idiotic operational planning that assumed lack of any remotely competent response from Ukrainians, has committed them to an operation that was doomed to be somewhere between failure and disaster.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't think US plans involve risking 1-3 divisions being completely wiped out to the last man if things go even slightly off script.
                no, of course not

                another factor is time, for 2 reasons. firstly, air assault allows the US to attack at an unexpected time and place, before the enemy is prepared. a ground offensive had hard limitations i.e. the speed of vehicles. secondly, a lot of these plans depend on timing to work. the US keeps secret how fast they are able to move and how fast they expect enemies to move, under different conditions. so we are unable to reckon how effective an air assault would be, because we don't know this.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Hostomel was really a Russian SEAD failure. If Russia had secured air superiority like they should have, then Hostomel would have been a staging point for god knows how much material that would start rolling towards Kiev.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I actually agree with you there. Hostomel failed because the initial force flat out wasn’t large enough to take the airfield and the surrounding infrastructure. That allowed the Ukrainians to hold out and stage AD which only further fricked their position over. By the time the next wave came in it was a fricking turkey shoot. Ukrainians had a QRF and Ivan didn’t. No relief force from the ground. No armor coming in on sling loads. Just typical Russian Zerg rush.

                Again - you can't suppress man portable systems. They aren't reliant on separate limited detection infrastructure, and you can't target them individually because they are effectively indistinguishable from plain old infantry - and they are quite numerous. They couldn't care less about the air campaign you are waging, unless they are actively being bombed at this very moment - which you obviously can't do en masse. Well proliferated man portable sams mean that every crevice is presenting potential danger to your low and slow aircraft. This isn't Vietnam anymore, you can't hitch a heli ride through unsecured enemy territory and expect things not to go sideways. Russians learned that lesson in Afghanistan through a lot and lot of pain. Which US took to mind when they took their turn.

                Even if Russia did successfully suppress AD around Kiev, the airfield would have been struck by arty anyway, as it has been. Nobody sane would try to land a heavy plane on a busted runway. That means, you are limited to helicopters. Meaning, you can't get anything except very little of lightest stuff in there - and every flight is under significant risk flying over unsecured territory.

                Russian command made exactly one correct decision with Hostomel - they decided not to commit further assets to reinforcing it. If they did, we wouldn't be talking about merely one in the long list of failed operations involving airborne infantry - we would instead be talking about a disaster of historical proportions.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you can't suppress man portable systems
                you pick a landing zone where there's not much place for them to hide and you insert SF first to clear them out

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So you would need:

                At least slightly fortified position so it would defensible afterwards.
                In the middle of bumfrick nowhere so that air supplies won't be popped while landing.
                With a clear path of bumfrick nowhere back to your territory so your heli supplies won't get popped en route.
                And yet, despite all that, holding it somehow significantly binds enemy forces on operational level, to justify the whole risky operation.
                And you can guarantee that the enemy won't be able to bring anything heavy against your position, despite it being a significant hindrance for them.

                All those integral factors are very unlikely to line up together. Especially "significant hindrance to the enemy" and "in the middle of bumfrick nowhere with no surrounding cover" don't tend to match.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >At least slightly fortified position so it would defensible afterwards.
                a defensible position, not necessarily fortified
                >In the middle of bumfrick nowhere so that air supplies won't be popped while landing.
                an area which can be resupplied, yes
                >With a clear path of bumfrick nowhere back to your territory so your heli supplies won't get popped en route.
                not necessarily; as discussed earlier, this is dependent on a corridor or window which can be forced open for a period
                >holding it somehow significantly binds enemy forces on operational level, to justify the whole risky operation.
                correct; it must have an essential operational goal, obviously
                >the enemy won't be able to bring anything heavy against your position, despite it being a significant hindrance for them.
                yes

                in addition, it's a place that can be reinforced, and provides a good route from there to the enemy objective, and where the enemy will find it difficult to counterattack or defend against the attack, and where the climate is good, etc etc

                >All those integral factors are very unlikely to line up together
                tradeoffs are inevitable, but they're broadly similar to the factors that dictate the choice of landing beach for an amphibious invasion

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Great example with the RM landing on the west coast of E. Falkland

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I actually agree with you there. Hostomel failed because the initial force flat out wasn’t large enough to take the airfield and the surrounding infrastructure. That allowed the Ukrainians to hold out and stage AD which only further fricked their position over. By the time the next wave came in it was a fricking turkey shoot. Ukrainians had a QRF and Ivan didn’t. No relief force from the ground. No armor coming in on sling loads. Just typical Russian Zerg rush.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Because nobody is immune to self-aggrandizing moronation - especially when the popular perception of your force is 'the hottest shit, the best of the best', and the only combat you ever see is whacking glorified militia in a hilariously lopsided manner.

              >they must be smart because they are le most powerful military in the world
              Russians used to think the same about themselves, circa being second, and we all rightfully laughed at them in the aftermath. Status and size doesn't guarantee competence unless said competence is regularly tested against substantial opposition.

              Going back to the topic of assault, how it would develop after very theoretical successful landing and securing the immidiate airfield vicinity:
              A very very limited long range artillery / missile attack is going to hit the airstrip targeting nothing in particular. And now your airplanes can't land there, and you have neither specialised equipment not time for repair. Not like you could fly supply there anyway, without needing to pulse temporary air dominance each time.
              Congratulations: you have managed to operate yourself into a pocket, against an enemy you likely outmatched in most capabilities.

              I'm not even sure what value you see in airfield close to the line of contact - it's just going to be a prime target for long range strikes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That’s the crazy thing about war Anon. They expect casualties. Ideally you would have a squadron of helicopters to provide close air support (Russians tried it) until the penetrating ground forces or the next wave of infantry dropped but they took wayyyyy too fricking long and got fricked

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Check out who rescued Mussolini from the Allies. It was not the Panzer divisions.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think the biggest issue with airborne is the lack of innovation. I mean come on, they are still doing low altitude static line jumps out of cargo planes, it's practically WW2 larping. Have them do HALO out of a fast stealth c130 in conjunction with a drone swarm attack and SEAD. That might be moronic but it seems they are stuck in a tradition trap.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They literally changed governments.... in Africa.
    F. KeK.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Airborne was god tier until modern AA became a thing now it’s a meme unless you’re fighting insurgents or something really.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >picrel
    >gayest happening in internet history
    Who has the video

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    better question is how long until we see airborne infantry being intercepted mid-jump by suicide drones

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hmm should I waste experienced men to steal an airfield so that I can uh... bring more shit in that can easily be picked apart by an entrenched enemy
    Or I could lob infinite jdams and cruise missiles and then just clean up with ground forces...
    HMMM

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Airborne = light infantry that gets shit out of a aircraft (sometimes).
    Nothing special, just weight falling out of the sky under a big bag. When they hit the ground, then just light infantry with all of the problems and limitations of light infantry.
    In warfare, someone does not need to be good to survive nor bad to to die. It's just training + luck + hope higher ups have their shit together.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Airborne is a tool that can be used properly or improperly. If you just YOLO them miles away from reinforcements and your entire plan involves a mad rush to link up with that Airborne Pickett's Charge (COUGHmarketgardenCOUGH), then you are using them improperly. But if deployed properly, then airborne are instant elite light infantry that can cut off enemy retreat and reinforcement as well as secure key airfields, ports, and infrastructure.

    The fact is you can use anything improperly, and that is nothing more than a commentary on your own incompetence.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >are airborne troops a meme or not?
    Yes

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Seems like non-SOF light infantry in the US could really get sorted out if
    >paratroopers didn't solely rely on static line jumps and could fit a wider range of aircraft
    >Marines were just more symbiotic to the MEU structure and current battalions were structured like BLTs

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP purposefully framed the thread to exclude Operation Varsity, which traded some 3000 paratrooper casualties for 12 intact bridges across the Rhine in 24hr. This allowed the entire Allied 21st army across the Rhine unmolested by - to rampage across Westphalia for two weeks, join the US 12th Army to the south and together completely encircle Model's Army Group B. Some 5000km^2, 19 divisions and 317,000 Germans captured April 14-18th for just 10,000 allied casualties (at a very favorable 5-1 W/K ratio no less).
    Airborne forces are a tool by which competent commanders set in motion decisive mobile operations; OP is a nitwit of the Cadorna school.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      air defences have advanced just a little since then, while parachutes and the planes they are jumping out of effectively have not

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hostomel failed but the previous 2 times the same thing was attempted in the Suez and in Panama it worked. Just because Russians can't do it doesn't mean NATO can't.

    In the Suez jump where British and French paratroopers landed directly on an enemy held airfield and cleared the runway to allow an airbridge. They even came under fire from Egyptian tank destroyers and a Mig-15 (one of the only casualties was a guy who had a 23mm shell casing land on his head) which then got smoked by air support from a British carrier group. They also had 14" artillery support from French battleship but it was never needed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it works against turdies

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >They have never changed the outcome of a battle unless they linked up with the main force
    Neither have tanks, planes, helicopters, or flanking forces. Combined arms is the name of the game and a paratroopers' role is to do some minor sabotage and then be a nuisance while the main force makes its push. If at any point in history one army had a magic button to make its opponent act a day late then that army would have been unbeatable. Dropping paratroopers in an unsupported assault like the nazis did or Russia did on that airport is 100% a meme though. Maybe it'd work with paradropped tanks, bunkers, and a full logistics train, but using paratroopers as the main force is profoundly silly. It's like dropping a spoonful of water into a hot pan and being surprised it instantly evaporates

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They have to be used wisely, but what makes you think Russia can make wise decisions?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *