so the nigs cord got caught on his arm
as a filthy casual I have to ask, why do they not pull the jump cord back straight away?
would placing to0 much stress on it make the cord snap and the guy to plummet without deploying his chute ?
The static line cord has a breaking strength of 3600lbs. The risk is he'll deploy his reserve and tear himself in half and bring down the aircraft in the process.
how?
if he's still on the cord opening up his reserve wouldn't fix that.
I'm sure there is plenty of good reason to deploy that pulling aid, But I fail to see why pulling in a cord rated to take more than a metric ton isn't an option
The cord is wrapped around his arm stopping his primary from deploying. If he accidentally pulls his reserve while dangling in the wind he'll still be attached to an aircraft going 140 with a parachute trying to rip him away.
Why the fuck did they tske so long to pull him up, why the fuck did they have a woman (or shortarse) who can't reach the top on this duty, and why the FUCK did they apply a tourniquet with no visible signs of bleeding how many fucking things can go wrong in one fucking drop holy shit put them all for demotion my god.
No, you use a tourniquet when the bleeding won't stop. When I was an emt I was taught: is it bleeding? Bandage. Is it still bleeding? More bandage. Is it STILL bleeding? Now you can put in the tourniquet. Make sure to write down the time! >no downside
Enjoy your compartment syndrome.
>You put a tq on fucking everything that bleeds internally or externally because there's no actual downside to doing so.
besides losing your limb due to stopping blood flow like what happens to russians
>losing limbs
Yeah, if you leave it on without losing it for hours
That plane is going to land soon, then medical personnel will take a look at the injured soldier, TOO INCLUDE any tourniquets on him. And if it IS gonna be hours before the landing, the JMs and safeties will be checking on the tq.
The US dropped the use of tqs for exactly the reason you described, fringe cases of people improperly performing first aid.
Turns out WAY more people die if you don't use them, and it's always safest to just slap one on and pay attention to it over time.
Holy fuck dude if there's anything the military learned from GWOT it's to have body armor over organs and multiple tqs on every single soldier.
No, you use a tourniquet when the bleeding won't stop. When I was an emt I was taught: is it bleeding? Bandage. Is it still bleeding? More bandage. Is it STILL bleeding? Now you can put in the tourniquet. Make sure to write down the time! >no downside
Enjoy your compartment syndrome.
What you learned in BSA about tourniquets was old wives tale bullshit. >When I was an EMT
Entirely different circumstances, training, and most likely closer to a trauma center. The military throws tourniquets on everyone and everything because people started dying less when they did, and you only lose limbs if you forget to take it off after the doc shows up.
>No downside to putting on a Tourniquet.
I mentioned Tourniquets in an emergency aid course for a job a while back, and made the instructor go off on a five minute tangent about how sometimes you don't want to Tourniquet a laceration or a puncture.
Is it normal for the patient to cry this much?
I've seen burn victims more calm and collected.
Responses tend to differ as much by the environment, situation, and crowd response, as the actual pain level or Stat severity.
He's probably freaking out about fucking the jump up, and embarrassing himself, which is unironically making his pain worse. >Source. Used to work in ED. You'd get a thirty year old woman screaming about a stomachache while her girlfriends swan around her and hug her like she's dying of cancer, while a six year old dutifully sits quietly in the corner with an arrow in his thigh, because none of the staff reacted much and kids are impressionable like that.
>He's probably freaking out about fucking the jump up
He just spent a long while being repeatedly smashed into the side of the plane. A towed jumper doesn't just flutter in the breeze, they are tossed around in the plane's slipstream. We had a towed jumper on one of my unit's jumps once and the guy broke both ankles, his collar bone, and got a brain bleed from getting beaten against the side of the plane.
No, you use a tourniquet when the bleeding won't stop. When I was an emt I was taught: is it bleeding? Bandage. Is it still bleeding? More bandage. Is it STILL bleeding? Now you can put in the tourniquet. Make sure to write down the time! >no downside
Enjoy your compartment syndrome.
A soldier's battlefield med training is tourniquet all large bleeds immediately because the biggest cause of preventable deaths in combat is hemorrhage. They slap it on and let a medic decide if it stays. >compartment syndrome
That plane is going to be on the ground in minutes and the guy in the vid already called ahead to have ambulances waiting for them. The arm will be fine and it's better to deal with an unneeded tourniquet than having the guy bleed to death by an internally torn brachial artery. He gets the tourniquet, and yeah, they aren't really appropriate outside of battlefield medicine, but it's what they know and it isn't going to hurt the guy in this.
The decrying of tourniquets was trumpeted as "common wisdom" for years, with no one really understanding why or knowing what they were talking about. Much like the bad advice from gun magazines back in the day, it's stuck around in boomers that never bothered to accept new research and information, and those they teach.
>how many fucking things can go wrong in one fucking drop
Everything. Paratrooping is so fucking sketch from all the creative ways you can get fucked up with it. The Airborne is the best place in the Army to become familiar with the term "acceptable casualties" (thanks
60% loses or fewer is considered a success for airborne operations
If you drop 500 guys on a crossroads supporting the enemy frontline, and 300 hundred dudes survive to take it, the enemy will now have to deploy to displace 300 men with machine guns, light AT, and SLMs. To safely do that, you'd need a 3-1 ratio, armor, and indirect fire support.
Congratulations! You displaced a battalion of troops and concentrated them AWAY from the frontline, probably at the same time as an enemy offensive, and every hour that you fail to dislodge the airborne troops your frontlines are failing to get precious support that they need to stay in the fight.
And that's assuming the enemy only got 500 paratroopers out the door. >inb4 muh air defense systems
Well now, instead of deploying those air defense systems in forward positions to tldefend your front from getting bombed, you have deployed a massive amount of men and material to your backline. You have weakened your front to prevent the potential of an enemy airborne operation. >b-but you do that to prevent bombings anyway
Yeah but you weren't gonna make sure that random, empty, useless fields hand some kind of air defense, UNLESS the enemy had an airborne unit.
And now, assets that were gonna defend logistical hubs, motor pools, HQs, bridges, and so on are getting spread out to defend against an attack that may never come. >but muh no use since wwii
There hasn't been a near peer conflict since wwii, what, were we gonna outflank insurgents??? Air assault is much more fit for facing guerrilla warfare
Airborne units aren't the ultimate trump card, or even an ace in the hold. They are a threat that by merely existing, forces the enemy to either spread themselves thin, or find entire companies of infantry appearing behind them.
). The U.S. loses about one paratrooper every year (dead) from accidents jumping out of airplanes, and a handful of career-ending injuries, and a decent chunk (10%) receiving minor injuries every year.
The smallest thing going wrong can cause incredibly gruesome injuries. The static line if improperly handed off deglove you from wrist to bicep, or have your bicep ripped off. It can get you tangled up and rip your arm off and you'll be dead before you hit the ground. Then there are unplanned chute deployments inside the aircraft. Big dudes can practically lawn dart when coming in hot, and if you're little, you might dangle for awhile. The chute can and will kill you on the ground too by dragging you, although landing injuries in general (like blowing out both knees) are fairly predictable, and not as scary.
It's almost as if man was never meant to jump out of airplanes.
Why the fuck did they tske so long to pull him up, why the fuck did they have a woman (or shortarse) who can't reach the top on this duty, and why the FUCK did they apply a tourniquet with no visible signs of bleeding how many fucking things can go wrong in one fucking drop holy shit put them all for demotion my god.
60% loses or fewer is considered a success for airborne operations
If you drop 500 guys on a crossroads supporting the enemy frontline, and 300 hundred dudes survive to take it, the enemy will now have to deploy to displace 300 men with machine guns, light AT, and SLMs. To safely do that, you'd need a 3-1 ratio, armor, and indirect fire support.
Congratulations! You displaced a battalion of troops and concentrated them AWAY from the frontline, probably at the same time as an enemy offensive, and every hour that you fail to dislodge the airborne troops your frontlines are failing to get precious support that they need to stay in the fight.
And that's assuming the enemy only got 500 paratroopers out the door. >inb4 muh air defense systems
Well now, instead of deploying those air defense systems in forward positions to tldefend your front from getting bombed, you have deployed a massive amount of men and material to your backline. You have weakened your front to prevent the potential of an enemy airborne operation. >b-but you do that to prevent bombings anyway
Yeah but you weren't gonna make sure that random, empty, useless fields hand some kind of air defense, UNLESS the enemy had an airborne unit.
And now, assets that were gonna defend logistical hubs, motor pools, HQs, bridges, and so on are getting spread out to defend against an attack that may never come. >but muh no use since wwii
There hasn't been a near peer conflict since wwii, what, were we gonna outflank insurgents??? Air assault is much more fit for facing guerrilla warfare
Airborne units aren't the ultimate trump card, or even an ace in the hold. They are a threat that by merely existing, forces the enemy to either spread themselves thin, or find entire companies of infantry appearing behind them.
That explains why paratroopers have that song as their anthem "Glory glory, what a hell of a way to die".
>C-17s Fly 19 Hours Nonstop to Kazakhstan >Sept. 14, 1997 >Air Force C-17 airlifters fly nonstop from Pope Air Force Base, N.C., to Kazakhstan to airdrop 500 U.S. troops from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division as well as 40 Asian troops during an exercise named Centrazbat ’97. Two aircraft airdrop cargo and vehicles. The C-17s are refueled three times en route during the 19-hour flight.
How else are you going to deploy 500 troops halfway across the world in less than 24 hours without an operational airfield to land on?
>You're not taking shit with 500 unsupported grunts retard
What's going to stop them? An RC quadcopter?
1 month ago
Anonymous
A pillbox, being surrounded by thousands of hostile forces, etc.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Oh yeah? Well, I have like a billion soldiers and they all have machine guns!
1 month ago
Anonymous
Again, what are you planning on taking with 500 grunts?
1 month ago
Anonymous
I dunno... Eben Emael?
1 month ago
Anonymous
The Waal River Bridge?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Torrijos Airport
1 month ago
Anonymous
An airfield for landing follow on forces.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Do you honestly think the United States military only has enough transport planes and tanker aircraft to move less than a battalion of paratroopers at once?
A joint training exercise. Much wow. Every time airborne units have been used in peer force global combat, they do a whole fuck ass ton of DYING. They may complete their objectives, but they still get fucking beat on.
60% loses or fewer is considered a success for airborne operations
If you drop 500 guys on a crossroads supporting the enemy frontline, and 300 hundred dudes survive to take it, the enemy will now have to deploy to displace 300 men with machine guns, light AT, and SLMs. To safely do that, you'd need a 3-1 ratio, armor, and indirect fire support.
Congratulations! You displaced a battalion of troops and concentrated them AWAY from the frontline, probably at the same time as an enemy offensive, and every hour that you fail to dislodge the airborne troops your frontlines are failing to get precious support that they need to stay in the fight.
And that's assuming the enemy only got 500 paratroopers out the door. >inb4 muh air defense systems
Well now, instead of deploying those air defense systems in forward positions to tldefend your front from getting bombed, you have deployed a massive amount of men and material to your backline. You have weakened your front to prevent the potential of an enemy airborne operation. >b-but you do that to prevent bombings anyway
Yeah but you weren't gonna make sure that random, empty, useless fields hand some kind of air defense, UNLESS the enemy had an airborne unit.
And now, assets that were gonna defend logistical hubs, motor pools, HQs, bridges, and so on are getting spread out to defend against an attack that may never come. >but muh no use since wwii
There hasn't been a near peer conflict since wwii, what, were we gonna outflank insurgents??? Air assault is much more fit for facing guerrilla warfare
Airborne units aren't the ultimate trump card, or even an ace in the hold. They are a threat that by merely existing, forces the enemy to either spread themselves thin, or find entire companies of infantry appearing behind them.
>If you drop 500 guys
That will take five C-17 or nine C-130 from it's primary mission, plus SEAD/DEAD to clear a whole route for it, plus battlefield suppression so they could fly low and slow to be able to drop. And all of that for diverting one mech brigade for a day, maybe two.
Yes? What's your point? Is it a bad idea to divert an enemy brigade while hampering logistics at the start of an offensive?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yes, but not by investing a shitheap of men, resources, ammo just to slow someone by a day or two. Maybe if you're desperate. But that's kinda Steiner's offensive level of desperate.
1 month ago
Anonymous
The initial hours of an offensive are the most critical. Once you commit your forces to the attack, the enemy will begin to draw forces back and reconcentrate them to stop your advance.
You HAVE to punch through fast, and the more reinforcements are delayed the better. To defeat that ONE brigade you diverted with paratroopers would require, by doctrine, THREE brigades.
By diverting them to the backline, you have split the enemy forces to a degree that makes it substantially easier to defeat them in detail.
Besides, the last time an airborne unit was dug in and surrounded they lasted more than a day.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Again I don't see any talk about air assets required to achieve the drop >five heavy transports WILL be available to waste >couple fighter squadrons WILL be available for SEAD/DEAD >another squadron WILL be available to suppress the LZ
1 month ago
Anonymous
>air assets
That's like 90% of America's gameplan. Air assets isn't the problem for the 2023 US military, it's boots on the ground. Particularly the lack of them.
And if you're doing an airborne operation, it would 100% of the time be in support of a larger overall mechanized operation, so why wouldn't all available air assets be mobalized? And it's not like they would be tied up in the airborne operation indefinitely, they would clear a path, move troops, provide support, and as the airborne infantry get their mission underway, the air assets would be RTB to reload to support the rest of the operation.
Also I feel like you've shifted the issue from *airborne operations* being ostensibly useless, to *air support for airborne infantry* being insufficient to facilitate the mission of an airborne operation.
I mean, if it all boils down to whether or not their is enough air support for the airborne operation, the it seems like you are conceding the airborne operation itself is a sound strategy for particular instances.
1 month ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/tb5cqlt.jpg
Again I don't see any talk about air assets required to achieve the drop >five heavy transports WILL be available to waste >couple fighter squadrons WILL be available for SEAD/DEAD >another squadron WILL be available to suppress the LZ
Both of you, stop. The point isn't that you do a drop, it's that you can do a drop. The enemy has to keep moderate forces positioned and available to prevent that because if they don't then you do it and it costs them a huge amount. It's a way of converting peacetime training surplus into a modest wartime tax on the enemy's disposition.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>It's a way of converting peacetime training surplus into a modest wartime tax on the enemy's disposition.
i already said that
60% loses or fewer is considered a success for airborne operations
If you drop 500 guys on a crossroads supporting the enemy frontline, and 300 hundred dudes survive to take it, the enemy will now have to deploy to displace 300 men with machine guns, light AT, and SLMs. To safely do that, you'd need a 3-1 ratio, armor, and indirect fire support.
Congratulations! You displaced a battalion of troops and concentrated them AWAY from the frontline, probably at the same time as an enemy offensive, and every hour that you fail to dislodge the airborne troops your frontlines are failing to get precious support that they need to stay in the fight.
And that's assuming the enemy only got 500 paratroopers out the door. >inb4 muh air defense systems
Well now, instead of deploying those air defense systems in forward positions to tldefend your front from getting bombed, you have deployed a massive amount of men and material to your backline. You have weakened your front to prevent the potential of an enemy airborne operation. >b-but you do that to prevent bombings anyway
Yeah but you weren't gonna make sure that random, empty, useless fields hand some kind of air defense, UNLESS the enemy had an airborne unit.
And now, assets that were gonna defend logistical hubs, motor pools, HQs, bridges, and so on are getting spread out to defend against an attack that may never come. >but muh no use since wwii
There hasn't been a near peer conflict since wwii, what, were we gonna outflank insurgents??? Air assault is much more fit for facing guerrilla warfare
Airborne units aren't the ultimate trump card, or even an ace in the hold. They are a threat that by merely existing, forces the enemy to either spread themselves thin, or find entire companies of infantry appearing behind them.
but such a tax can only be exacted if the threat is sufficiently dangerous, and if, in fact, airborne operations were an antiquated thing of the past that pose no threat and is a miss allocation of resources, then there would be no need to plan around the enemy attempting one.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yeah and
60% loses or fewer is considered a success for airborne operations
If you drop 500 guys on a crossroads supporting the enemy frontline, and 300 hundred dudes survive to take it, the enemy will now have to deploy to displace 300 men with machine guns, light AT, and SLMs. To safely do that, you'd need a 3-1 ratio, armor, and indirect fire support.
Congratulations! You displaced a battalion of troops and concentrated them AWAY from the frontline, probably at the same time as an enemy offensive, and every hour that you fail to dislodge the airborne troops your frontlines are failing to get precious support that they need to stay in the fight.
And that's assuming the enemy only got 500 paratroopers out the door. >inb4 muh air defense systems
Well now, instead of deploying those air defense systems in forward positions to tldefend your front from getting bombed, you have deployed a massive amount of men and material to your backline. You have weakened your front to prevent the potential of an enemy airborne operation. >b-but you do that to prevent bombings anyway
Yeah but you weren't gonna make sure that random, empty, useless fields hand some kind of air defense, UNLESS the enemy had an airborne unit.
And now, assets that were gonna defend logistical hubs, motor pools, HQs, bridges, and so on are getting spread out to defend against an attack that may never come. >but muh no use since wwii
There hasn't been a near peer conflict since wwii, what, were we gonna outflank insurgents??? Air assault is much more fit for facing guerrilla warfare
Airborne units aren't the ultimate trump card, or even an ace in the hold. They are a threat that by merely existing, forces the enemy to either spread themselves thin, or find entire companies of infantry appearing behind them.
was fucking wrong and retarded. It's not about moving air defence to protect avenues of approach onto airfields and key infrastructure because they're doing that anyway to defend against strikes from bombers and cruise missiles. It's about forcing combat units into a reserve posture so that they can respond to a paradrop instead of a posture where they can support the front. No one anywhere in this thread claimed that paradrops are useless, that's a strawman you invented to knock down, they claimed that it's an inefficient and wasteful use of scarce and valuable assets in the decisive land combat phase, which it is if the enemy is prepared for it. The goal is simply to do inexpensive things in peacetime that force a competent enemy to do wasteful things when prices are premiun in war, no to do wasteful things yourself when the prices are high.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>it's not about moving air defense, it's about moving more than
The air defense is part of that, I said "men and material" away from the front line
guess I focused on air defense assets but that wouldn't be the only thing moved to the backline
>no one anywhere in this thread claimed that paradrops are useless
What are 500 grunts going to do besides get killed or do what a drone can do nowadays?
https://i.imgur.com/YMshRrU.jpg
A joint training exercise. Much wow. Every time airborne units have been used in peer force global combat, they do a whole fuck ass ton of DYING. They may complete their objectives, but they still get fucking beat on.
this one comes close
1 month ago
Anonymous
It's not that it gets used much, but it's an option. The big use of airborne drops is to put troops where your opponent doesn't expect troops to be. Rangers train heavily for airfield assaults (like the VDV... lol), so you can seize the runways and facilities. I think the last contested U.S. airborne insertion was Haditha Dam in 2003 by a company of 75th Ranger Regiment.
The problem is that MANPADS and complexity of IADs makes paratrooping nowadays extremely difficult, although it's still useful in peaceful or in not-totally-fucked-up situations if you want to insert a large amount of people and equipment somewhere without using an airfield. Think a humanitarian situation where a runway could've received damage, you can get engineers and their airfield repair equipment on the ground to repair the airfield. Paratroopers are not super special soldiers but on average they also tend to be a bit better on average, a lot of which comes from having some baseline of volunteering and motivation that cuts a lot of chaff right off the bat. They're given a bit more leeway, have to extensively plan, and have to learn a couple levels up because you could be the dude who gets dropped into Hostomel (lol again) one day, which may or may not be worth keeping.
Not using that kind of parachute? Maybe just let them jump out lol. Jesus. Don't give me the official reasoning it's stupid. Just have them jump out. This shit happens way to often.
so the nog was too retarded to tie his cord all the way?
how is nobody checking this before they jump?
why is that retard screaming and them to tie his arm like he is losing blood when it's most likely broken?
looking at this in slow motion. this is incredibly unsafe.
everyone is jumping while still holding the rope and the rope is wildly swinging around.
how did these retards not figure out how to jump out safely?
in movies they first put their arms to their chest so shit like this doesn't happen.
It takes 1/3 of the time to train someone static line vs free fall. Plus with static line there's less variables as the operator is just there for the ride.
This guy got hung up because he couldn't hold a rope and fall properly, and you want to make him have to hold a rope, fall, orient, judge timing and pull a rope properly. How are you not aware that you're an idiot?
You can train a whole company in 2 weeks vs 6 weeks to train a squad for free fall. For mass insertion static line is faster and doesn't offer any real disadvantages.
The benefit of free fall is a small team can stear themselves onto a target without being seen. This isn't a concern for an inf company.
It's not faster. It's just easier for idiots and should be phased out. Dropping soldiers into enemy territory in the sky in a line slowly falling straight down with parachutes with little control is a death sentence. Before jets I understood the need, now it's just stupid. I've seen it screw up so many times, it just needs to be phased out.
you can deploy at 1250 feet as fast as guys can run out the door. even moderate jumps the guys can be in the air for 15 minutes. the bigger question is why in the fuck is side jumping still a thing
so the nigs cord got caught on his arm
as a filthy casual I have to ask, why do they not pull the jump cord back straight away?
would placing to0 much stress on it make the cord snap and the guy to plummet without deploying his chute ?
The static line cord has a breaking strength of 3600lbs. The risk is he'll deploy his reserve and tear himself in half and bring down the aircraft in the process.
how?
if he's still on the cord opening up his reserve wouldn't fix that.
I'm sure there is plenty of good reason to deploy that pulling aid, But I fail to see why pulling in a cord rated to take more than a metric ton isn't an option
The cord is wrapped around his arm stopping his primary from deploying. If he accidentally pulls his reserve while dangling in the wind he'll still be attached to an aircraft going 140 with a parachute trying to rip him away.
okay I get it now, thanks for clearing that up for me.
learn something new every day
They really couldn’t come up with a slower more complicated system to pull up cords in case of emergency?
I think the issue is they put a fucking midget on duty.
Why the fuck did they tske so long to pull him up, why the fuck did they have a woman (or shortarse) who can't reach the top on this duty, and why the FUCK did they apply a tourniquet with no visible signs of bleeding how many fucking things can go wrong in one fucking drop holy shit put them all for demotion my god.
You put a tq on fucking everything that bleeds internally or externally because there's no actual downside to doing so.
No, you use a tourniquet when the bleeding won't stop. When I was an emt I was taught: is it bleeding? Bandage. Is it still bleeding? More bandage. Is it STILL bleeding? Now you can put in the tourniquet. Make sure to write down the time!
>no downside
Enjoy your compartment syndrome.
Is it normal for the patient to cry this much?
I've seen burn victims more calm and collected.
Dude probably got a torn muscle that they're applying a tourniquet to.
>You put a tq on fucking everything that bleeds internally or externally because there's no actual downside to doing so.
besides losing your limb due to stopping blood flow like what happens to russians
>losing limbs
Yeah, if you leave it on without losing it for hours
That plane is going to land soon, then medical personnel will take a look at the injured soldier, TOO INCLUDE any tourniquets on him. And if it IS gonna be hours before the landing, the JMs and safeties will be checking on the tq.
The US dropped the use of tqs for exactly the reason you described, fringe cases of people improperly performing first aid.
Turns out WAY more people die if you don't use them, and it's always safest to just slap one on and pay attention to it over time.
Holy fuck dude if there's anything the military learned from GWOT it's to have body armor over organs and multiple tqs on every single soldier.
What you learned in BSA about tourniquets was old wives tale bullshit.
>When I was an EMT
Entirely different circumstances, training, and most likely closer to a trauma center. The military throws tourniquets on everyone and everything because people started dying less when they did, and you only lose limbs if you forget to take it off after the doc shows up.
>No downside to putting on a Tourniquet.
I mentioned Tourniquets in an emergency aid course for a job a while back, and made the instructor go off on a five minute tangent about how sometimes you don't want to Tourniquet a laceration or a puncture.
Responses tend to differ as much by the environment, situation, and crowd response, as the actual pain level or Stat severity.
He's probably freaking out about fucking the jump up, and embarrassing himself, which is unironically making his pain worse.
>Source. Used to work in ED. You'd get a thirty year old woman screaming about a stomachache while her girlfriends swan around her and hug her like she's dying of cancer, while a six year old dutifully sits quietly in the corner with an arrow in his thigh, because none of the staff reacted much and kids are impressionable like that.
>He's probably freaking out about fucking the jump up
He just spent a long while being repeatedly smashed into the side of the plane. A towed jumper doesn't just flutter in the breeze, they are tossed around in the plane's slipstream. We had a towed jumper on one of my unit's jumps once and the guy broke both ankles, his collar bone, and got a brain bleed from getting beaten against the side of the plane.
A soldier's battlefield med training is tourniquet all large bleeds immediately because the biggest cause of preventable deaths in combat is hemorrhage. They slap it on and let a medic decide if it stays.
>compartment syndrome
That plane is going to be on the ground in minutes and the guy in the vid already called ahead to have ambulances waiting for them. The arm will be fine and it's better to deal with an unneeded tourniquet than having the guy bleed to death by an internally torn brachial artery. He gets the tourniquet, and yeah, they aren't really appropriate outside of battlefield medicine, but it's what they know and it isn't going to hurt the guy in this.
The decrying of tourniquets was trumpeted as "common wisdom" for years, with no one really understanding why or knowing what they were talking about. Much like the bad advice from gun magazines back in the day, it's stuck around in boomers that never bothered to accept new research and information, and those they teach.
Flush your potty mouth!!
>how many fucking things can go wrong in one fucking drop
Everything. Paratrooping is so fucking sketch from all the creative ways you can get fucked up with it. The Airborne is the best place in the Army to become familiar with the term "acceptable casualties" (thanks
). The U.S. loses about one paratrooper every year (dead) from accidents jumping out of airplanes, and a handful of career-ending injuries, and a decent chunk (10%) receiving minor injuries every year.
The smallest thing going wrong can cause incredibly gruesome injuries. The static line if improperly handed off deglove you from wrist to bicep, or have your bicep ripped off. It can get you tangled up and rip your arm off and you'll be dead before you hit the ground. Then there are unplanned chute deployments inside the aircraft. Big dudes can practically lawn dart when coming in hot, and if you're little, you might dangle for awhile. The chute can and will kill you on the ground too by dragging you, although landing injuries in general (like blowing out both knees) are fairly predictable, and not as scary.
It's almost as if man was never meant to jump out of airplanes.
That explains why paratroopers have that song as their anthem "Glory glory, what a hell of a way to die".
Gory gory*
the actual name is "Blood on the Risers" and that shit is just as true now as it was then
why is this retarded tactic still in use? This goofy shit is akin to using catapults.
>C-17s Fly 19 Hours Nonstop to Kazakhstan
>Sept. 14, 1997
>Air Force C-17 airlifters fly nonstop from Pope Air Force Base, N.C., to Kazakhstan to airdrop 500 U.S. troops from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division as well as 40 Asian troops during an exercise named Centrazbat ’97. Two aircraft airdrop cargo and vehicles. The C-17s are refueled three times en route during the 19-hour flight.
How else are you going to deploy 500 troops halfway across the world in less than 24 hours without an operational airfield to land on?
What are 500 grunts going to do besides get killed or do what a drone can do nowadays?
Dronefags need to stop and think before they talk.
You're not taking shit with 500 unsupported grunts retard
Die in spectacular failure?
>You're not taking shit with 500 unsupported grunts retard
What's going to stop them? An RC quadcopter?
A pillbox, being surrounded by thousands of hostile forces, etc.
>Oh yeah? Well, I have like a billion soldiers and they all have machine guns!
Again, what are you planning on taking with 500 grunts?
I dunno... Eben Emael?
The Waal River Bridge?
Torrijos Airport
An airfield for landing follow on forces.
Do you honestly think the United States military only has enough transport planes and tanker aircraft to move less than a battalion of paratroopers at once?
a drone can't do what 500 grunts can do you fucking retard
A drone can't secure an airfield to allow c-17s to land.
And neither can unsupported airborne, Hostomel anyone?
A joint training exercise. Much wow. Every time airborne units have been used in peer force global combat, they do a whole fuck ass ton of DYING. They may complete their objectives, but they still get fucking beat on.
Dying tends to happen in most peer-on-peer battles.
>They may complete their objectives, but they still get fucking beat on.
See:
>Fort: captured
>120mm gun turrets: destroyed
>1000 prisoners: taken
>Albert Canal: crossed
>Coup: de Main'ed
>Casualties: 6 KIA, 20 wounded
60% loses or fewer is considered a success for airborne operations
If you drop 500 guys on a crossroads supporting the enemy frontline, and 300 hundred dudes survive to take it, the enemy will now have to deploy to displace 300 men with machine guns, light AT, and SLMs. To safely do that, you'd need a 3-1 ratio, armor, and indirect fire support.
Congratulations! You displaced a battalion of troops and concentrated them AWAY from the frontline, probably at the same time as an enemy offensive, and every hour that you fail to dislodge the airborne troops your frontlines are failing to get precious support that they need to stay in the fight.
And that's assuming the enemy only got 500 paratroopers out the door.
>inb4 muh air defense systems
Well now, instead of deploying those air defense systems in forward positions to tldefend your front from getting bombed, you have deployed a massive amount of men and material to your backline. You have weakened your front to prevent the potential of an enemy airborne operation.
>b-but you do that to prevent bombings anyway
Yeah but you weren't gonna make sure that random, empty, useless fields hand some kind of air defense, UNLESS the enemy had an airborne unit.
And now, assets that were gonna defend logistical hubs, motor pools, HQs, bridges, and so on are getting spread out to defend against an attack that may never come.
>but muh no use since wwii
There hasn't been a near peer conflict since wwii, what, were we gonna outflank insurgents??? Air assault is much more fit for facing guerrilla warfare
Airborne units aren't the ultimate trump card, or even an ace in the hold. They are a threat that by merely existing, forces the enemy to either spread themselves thin, or find entire companies of infantry appearing behind them.
>If you drop 500 guys
That will take five C-17 or nine C-130 from it's primary mission, plus SEAD/DEAD to clear a whole route for it, plus battlefield suppression so they could fly low and slow to be able to drop. And all of that for diverting one mech brigade for a day, maybe two.
Yes? What's your point? Is it a bad idea to divert an enemy brigade while hampering logistics at the start of an offensive?
Yes, but not by investing a shitheap of men, resources, ammo just to slow someone by a day or two. Maybe if you're desperate. But that's kinda Steiner's offensive level of desperate.
The initial hours of an offensive are the most critical. Once you commit your forces to the attack, the enemy will begin to draw forces back and reconcentrate them to stop your advance.
You HAVE to punch through fast, and the more reinforcements are delayed the better. To defeat that ONE brigade you diverted with paratroopers would require, by doctrine, THREE brigades.
By diverting them to the backline, you have split the enemy forces to a degree that makes it substantially easier to defeat them in detail.
Besides, the last time an airborne unit was dug in and surrounded they lasted more than a day.
Again I don't see any talk about air assets required to achieve the drop
>five heavy transports WILL be available to waste
>couple fighter squadrons WILL be available for SEAD/DEAD
>another squadron WILL be available to suppress the LZ
>air assets
That's like 90% of America's gameplan. Air assets isn't the problem for the 2023 US military, it's boots on the ground. Particularly the lack of them.
And if you're doing an airborne operation, it would 100% of the time be in support of a larger overall mechanized operation, so why wouldn't all available air assets be mobalized? And it's not like they would be tied up in the airborne operation indefinitely, they would clear a path, move troops, provide support, and as the airborne infantry get their mission underway, the air assets would be RTB to reload to support the rest of the operation.
Also I feel like you've shifted the issue from *airborne operations* being ostensibly useless, to *air support for airborne infantry* being insufficient to facilitate the mission of an airborne operation.
I mean, if it all boils down to whether or not their is enough air support for the airborne operation, the it seems like you are conceding the airborne operation itself is a sound strategy for particular instances.
Both of you, stop. The point isn't that you do a drop, it's that you can do a drop. The enemy has to keep moderate forces positioned and available to prevent that because if they don't then you do it and it costs them a huge amount. It's a way of converting peacetime training surplus into a modest wartime tax on the enemy's disposition.
>It's a way of converting peacetime training surplus into a modest wartime tax on the enemy's disposition.
i already said that
but such a tax can only be exacted if the threat is sufficiently dangerous, and if, in fact, airborne operations were an antiquated thing of the past that pose no threat and is a miss allocation of resources, then there would be no need to plan around the enemy attempting one.
Yeah and
was fucking wrong and retarded. It's not about moving air defence to protect avenues of approach onto airfields and key infrastructure because they're doing that anyway to defend against strikes from bombers and cruise missiles. It's about forcing combat units into a reserve posture so that they can respond to a paradrop instead of a posture where they can support the front. No one anywhere in this thread claimed that paradrops are useless, that's a strawman you invented to knock down, they claimed that it's an inefficient and wasteful use of scarce and valuable assets in the decisive land combat phase, which it is if the enemy is prepared for it. The goal is simply to do inexpensive things in peacetime that force a competent enemy to do wasteful things when prices are premiun in war, no to do wasteful things yourself when the prices are high.
>it's not about moving air defense, it's about moving more than
The air defense is part of that, I said "men and material" away from the front line
guess I focused on air defense assets but that wouldn't be the only thing moved to the backline
>no one anywhere in this thread claimed that paradrops are useless
this one comes close
It's not that it gets used much, but it's an option. The big use of airborne drops is to put troops where your opponent doesn't expect troops to be. Rangers train heavily for airfield assaults (like the VDV... lol), so you can seize the runways and facilities. I think the last contested U.S. airborne insertion was Haditha Dam in 2003 by a company of 75th Ranger Regiment.
The problem is that MANPADS and complexity of IADs makes paratrooping nowadays extremely difficult, although it's still useful in peaceful or in not-totally-fucked-up situations if you want to insert a large amount of people and equipment somewhere without using an airfield. Think a humanitarian situation where a runway could've received damage, you can get engineers and their airfield repair equipment on the ground to repair the airfield. Paratroopers are not super special soldiers but on average they also tend to be a bit better on average, a lot of which comes from having some baseline of volunteering and motivation that cuts a lot of chaff right off the bat. They're given a bit more leeway, have to extensively plan, and have to learn a couple levels up because you could be the dude who gets dropped into Hostomel (lol again) one day, which may or may not be worth keeping.
Have you ever stopped to consider that airborne infantry might have utility in situations other than a gritty modern reboot of Operation Overlord?
Not using that kind of parachute? Maybe just let them jump out lol. Jesus. Don't give me the official reasoning it's stupid. Just have them jump out. This shit happens way to often.
so the nog was too retarded to tie his cord all the way?
how is nobody checking this before they jump?
why is that retard screaming and them to tie his arm like he is losing blood when it's most likely broken?
Pretty big arteries in both arms, prob hedging their bets on it being ruptured from that whole shitshow
looking at this in slow motion. this is incredibly unsafe.
everyone is jumping while still holding the rope and the rope is wildly swinging around.
how did these retards not figure out how to jump out safely?
in movies they first put their arms to their chest so shit like this doesn't happen.
why not just have the guys pull a string instead doing this retarded unsafe shit?
The less variables you can introduce into a mass drop, the better.
It takes 1/3 of the time to train someone static line vs free fall. Plus with static line there's less variables as the operator is just there for the ride.
This guy got hung up because he couldn't hold a rope and fall properly, and you want to make him have to hold a rope, fall, orient, judge timing and pull a rope properly. How are you not aware that you're an idiot?
So what exactly did the nog do wrong here?
What does women have to do with some retard making a shitty handoff of his static line that caused himself to get his arm seperated at the elbow?
Something about the inconsistency on when he chose to swear bugs me.
Dang, without the white guys that plane would have never left the ground!
what is the point of line jumping? is it just to sacrifice leg bones to moloch?
You can train a whole company in 2 weeks vs 6 weeks to train a squad for free fall. For mass insertion static line is faster and doesn't offer any real disadvantages.
The benefit of free fall is a small team can stear themselves onto a target without being seen. This isn't a concern for an inf company.
It's not faster. It's just easier for idiots and should be phased out. Dropping soldiers into enemy territory in the sky in a line slowly falling straight down with parachutes with little control is a death sentence. Before jets I understood the need, now it's just stupid. I've seen it screw up so many times, it just needs to be phased out.
"b-but if I had to do it, THEY should too!"
this mentality that needs to be phased out of the military in general.
>It's just easier for idiots and should be phased out
if we are talking about the infantry, we ARE talking about idiots
you can deploy at 1250 feet as fast as guys can run out the door. even moderate jumps the guys can be in the air for 15 minutes. the bigger question is why in the fuck is side jumping still a thing
>why in the fuck is side jumping still a thing
just do more weighted jump squats bro, get that vigorous exit bro
>moron fucks up his jump
>woman makes it worse
Like fucking pottery
You'd think they'd have a medic onboard or at least some kind of first aid better than using some guy's belt. Especially if it's just training.
The belt struck me as weird too. There's an AED in every cafe now, surely, they have a bunch of first aid kits on a plane.