You can claim eating is obsolete if you watch a fricked up moron fail to do it properly
Judge a thing by the results of someone doing it competently, i.e. anyone but Puccia
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.
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.
>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.
>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.
>para drop
Nobody did a fricking paradrop in fricking ukraine, vdv tried to do a wg:rd tier vdv helo rush and it failed because eugen uses unrealistic stats
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 fricking gongshow.
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.
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.
No you fricking 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.
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
> 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.
No, but you have to be a lot more particular about how you use them.
You can claim eating is obsolete if you watch a fricked up moron fail to do it properly
Judge a thing by the results of someone doing it competently, i.e. anyone but Puccia
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.
Warcrime
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.
>HATO endorising warcrimes ... AGAIN
Youre all psychopaths
>taking advantage of superior technology against an inferior opponent is against the laws of war because… BECAUSE IT JUST IS. OKAY?
Seethe.
post your image folder and we'll judge whos a psychopath.
Winning against an invader is the warcrime.
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.
No it isn't. Paratroopers are landing in an offensive operation. Downed pilots are fleeing a destroyed aircraft. Big difference.
I’m just imagining a fully armed commando squealing “muh war crimes!” as he’s ripped to shreds by a 20mm gun.
Just one commando?
>Skynex goes BRRR
An entire company is ripped apart by supersonic shrapnel in 5 seconds.
Explicitly not actually. The rules of war state a paratrooper being shot intentionally as he's parachuting down
>still thinking warcrimes are a thing
Warcrimes are just something the winner throws at the loser to kick them while they're down.
no
?t=43
Name one succesful operation
>inb4 some dark and obscure 50 men operation in asia or africa
Most of the successful operations were conducted in Africa by Africans and Israelis.
see
>name one successful operation except all those successful operations!!!
a lol is you
>some dark and obscure 50 men operation in asia or africa
Name any wars that don't fit this bill since korea.
Russia-Ukraine
Where it was tried and failed
>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.
>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.
>para drop
Nobody did a fricking paradrop in fricking ukraine, vdv tried to do a wg:rd tier vdv helo rush and it failed because eugen uses unrealistic stats
Operation Mercury
>Since Korea
>Posts ww2 shit
France paradropped two companies in Operation Serval, their biggest since the 1970s too
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 fricking gongshow.
Try conquering Africa with SAMs, homosexual.
Well OP, how many times have you reposted this same thread now? Does mom know you are using her computer?
>
"paradropping" is dead. but airmobile troops are still very important and usually make up the most elite soldiers of any given military.
In WWII-tier mass drops? No. In surgical takeovers of certain points of interest, especially in say, Africa or SA? Yes.
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.
Let me air drop 800 fully armed chinks in your backyard and you tell me.
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.
>400 lb hands typed this post
Shut your mouth or I will swallow you.
No you fricking 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.
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
> 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.
Are we counting Air Assault as Airborne?