Are airborne operations obsolete in modern combat?

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No, but you have to be a lot more particular about how you use them.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You can claim eating is obsolete if you watch a fucked up retard fail to do it properly
    Judge a thing by the results of someone doing it competently, i.e. anyone but Puccia

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Can you imagine being a Skynex gunner under a camo net and watching those appear above you?

    AHEAD rounds can prox fuze on quadcopters so a soldier and their gear should be plenty to trigger it.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Warcrime

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I can understand it being a crime to kill a downed pilot, but a paratrooper?
        >no no hang on, you can't fight back during this part of getting invaded!!!
        That seems pretty dumb.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          No it isn't. Paratroopers are landing in an offensive operation. Downed pilots are fleeing a destroyed aircraft. Big difference.

          >HATO endorising warcrimes ... AGAIN
          Youre all psychopaths

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >taking advantage of superior technology against an inferior opponent is against the laws of war because… BECAUSE IT JUST IS. OKAY?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Seethe.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            post your image folder and we'll judge whos a psychopath.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          No it isn't. Paratroopers are landing in an offensive operation. Downed pilots are fleeing a destroyed aircraft. Big difference.

          Winning against an invader is the warcrime.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Because it isn't
          Only applies to aircrews and passengers bailing out of damaged/lost aircraft, and even then you are allowed to shoot them of they are (somehow) taking hostile actions or actions to evade capture while decending.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        No it isn't. Paratroopers are landing in an offensive operation. Downed pilots are fleeing a destroyed aircraft. Big difference.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I’m just imagining a fully armed commando squealing “muh war crimes!” as he’s ripped to shreds by a 20mm gun.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Just one commando?

          >Skynex goes BRRR
          An entire company is ripped apart by supersonic shrapnel in 5 seconds.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Explicitly not actually. The rules of war state a paratrooper being shot intentionally as he's parachuting down

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >still thinking warcrimes are a thing
        Warcrimes are just something the winner throws at the loser to kick them while they're down.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    no

    ?t=43

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Name one succesful operation
    >inb4 some dark and obscure 50 men operation in asia or africa

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Most of the successful operations were conducted in Africa by Africans and Israelis.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      see

      France paradropped two companies in Operation Serval, their biggest since the 1970s too

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >name one successful operation except all those successful operations!!!
      a lol is you

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >some dark and obscure 50 men operation in asia or africa
      Name any wars that don't fit this bill since korea.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Russia-Ukraine
        Where it was tried and failed

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Where it was tried and failed
          The para-drop was completely successful.
          It was everything else that failed, that airfield was taken and held until ground forces failed to arrive and back them up and reinforcements got shotdown because SEAD wasn't performed in any meaningful way.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >The para-drop was completely successful
            >It was everything else that failed
            I also have defended the performance of the VDV at the start of the war. But we are talking about airborne forces as a concept.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >para drop
            Nobody did a fucking paradrop in fucking ukraine, vdv tried to do a wg:rd tier vdv helo rush and it failed because eugen uses unrealistic stats

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Operation Mercury

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >some dark and obscure 50 men operation in asia or africa
          Name any wars that don't fit this bill since korea.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/DUgoLWm.jpg

          [...]

          >Since Korea
          >Posts ww2 shit

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    France paradropped two companies in Operation Serval, their biggest since the 1970s too

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No, but the understanding of how and when to deploy them has always been a shortcoming. When used as part of a larger operation, and especially when politicians call for their use, it is often as not a fucking gongshow.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Try conquering Africa with SAMs, gay.

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Well OP, how many times have you reposted this same thread now? Does mom know you are using her computer?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    "paradropping" is dead. but airmobile troops are still very important and usually make up the most elite soldiers of any given military.

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    In WWII-tier mass drops? No. In surgical takeovers of certain points of interest, especially in say, Africa or SA? Yes.

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah they're pretty much dead. You likely won't see airborne operations higher than company level. Battalion, regiment, and division level airborne ops are suicidal these days.

    Even if they make it to the ground they'll be quickly surrounded and overrun without support by heavier line units within 2 to 3 days in most scenarios. They simply don't have the manpower, firepower, and supplies to last much longer than that.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Let me air drop 800 fully armed chinks in your backyard and you tell me.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Even if I die, that's eventually 800 dead chinks for certain because everybody else around me is armed and can resupply whereas the Chinks can't. And then that's 800 less Chinks the CCP have to work with.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >400 lb hands typed this post

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Shut your mouth or I will swallow you.

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No you fucking moron. Just because the Russians are stupid enough to conduct unsupported jumps without appropriate SEAD in advance doesn't mean that everyone else is.

    One need only look at the wildly successful use of the 75th Ranger Regiment and 82nd Airborne in Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq to know that.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Not obsolete.
    But you should properly pick place for them. Airborne operations are for terrains where land mobility is limited.

    For example in Ukraine airborne operations generally don't have any sense. You land troops in "enemy rear area". enemy in response just drive reserves by land and these reserves wipe out your airborne troops. By land you can deliver much more troops and arty ammo for them. Airborne can't compete.

    But if you can't just simply drive to place then yes airborne becomes the way. See combat around Snake Island (snake island been indefensible because it's to small and in arty range is another matter).

    General rule: you airborne if you can't drive there, if you can drive then just drive. But many airborne funbois don't understand this rule

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      > Airborne operations are for terrains where land mobility is limited.
      I'd add: AND when you're fighting an opponent who doesn't conceivably have effective anti-air anti-airborne capabilities. Which, these days, makes it a very small niche, pretty much limited to certain types of counterinsurgency and very small scale special operations.
      In most other cases, overland light infantry is the better option.

  16. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Are we counting Air Assault as Airborne?

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