Paratroopers/Glider Infantry?

>>31182260
No, combat drops behind enemy lines are mostly obsolete with few exceptions.
Paratroopers are mostly "first responders" now and when things start to get heated, a rapidly deployable unit to reinforce/secure an area prior to actual conflict.

>>31182260

They're a meme unless you have complete 100% unchallengeable air superiority.

File: 1454095021533.jpg (146KB, 835x1170px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 835x1170px

>Paratroopers last used in combat as recently as 2013

>People still asking if they're viable in warfare

>>31182309
>rapid QRF is a meme
ok

>>31182341
That was the 2REP in mali wasn't it? Aren't they the only serving paras in the world that have been used for their intended purpose?

>>31182364

>airborne assault
>5 manpads
>airborne assault fails with 100% casualty rate

Not a meme

>>31182260
>Can paratroopers still be used as they were intended? Dropped behind enemy lines to secure bridges, take out communications, etc.
If you mean large scale drops on enemy positions, no but hey have other more valuable uses.
>I know glider infantry is kind of obsolete, but are there innovations that could make it viable? Or have helicopters more or less taken over?
Helicopters have basically taken over.

>>31182260

In 2001 Osama used Paratroopers to attack the US. They didn't jump out at the correct time.

>>31182383
All the US jumps to secure airfields since the 80s have been legit uses of paratroopers for their intended purpose in the modern era.

>>31182391
Why would you do a combat drop in the first place? Like >>31182305 said they're a nice strategic unit with other uses.
>>31182383
The VDV is another one.

Please ignore these blow hard, jealous fags. If you need an airfield secured, you drop in Airborne troops.

It's pretty simple logic.

>>31182520
Nobody is denying their uses tho

Apart from the strategic usage of paratroopers, one huge factor is the intimidation. Imagine being an enemy ground troop and seeing a thousand motherfuckers parachuting into your feeble country.

>>31182383
173rd Airborne jumped into Iraq and still train primarily as paratroopers.

>>31182383

VDV preformed jumps in Chechnya I and II, still insert Special Forces via HALO/HAHO jumps, and were used in Georgia.
Probably Ukraine too.

The 2REP as you said were used in Mali.

Paratroopers main usefulness now is rapid insertion/QRF. With limited air control or contested airspace they can still be useful in large-scale warfare.

>>31182391
whats a manpad gonna do to a glider?

>>31182520
You missed the key part that the airfield needs to be undefended.

If the airfield is defended, then paratroops/helicopters aren't gonna be doing dick all.

>>31184789
>whats a manpad gonna do to a glider?
I dont know, fuck it up perhaps? Not all MANPADS are IR guieded.

File: flyerI.gif (248KB, 1174x577px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1174x577px

>>31182260
>I know glider infantry is kind of obsolete

Extremely debateable. Glider infantry can be inserted in a cheaper manner than out of standard transport craft. They also are transported in a stealthier way which may help in areas with enemy SAM and air defense systems.

With the development of drone technology I can definitely see a one-way stop glider force become a reality. Massive saturation by small targets with little heat signatures. All made of cheap, inexpensive material. The improvements in navigation systems also help the issue with rough landings. Glider drones could talk to one another and figure out the best way to get into a landing zone and satellite imagery would give information to the gliders in the planning phase.

Gliders may or may not be obsolete as a vessel, but their use as an insertion vessel at the operational level is still very relevant. For example, in a war with Russia aircraft attrition is expected to be high and transport craft would be needed to manage logistics efforts. Gliders free up those transport craft, get paratroopers on the ground in a much safer manner than WW2, and then the troops wreak havoc in enemy defenses.

Helicopters fill an entirely different role and on a much smaller scale.

>>31184890
Oh please not again go away Gliderfag

>>31184890
Fuck off gliderfag

>>31184890
The real problem with paratroopers is that they take hours to regroup after landing, forfeitting the surprise advantage that their mobility grants them.

Also we don't have any worthwhile vehicles to paradrop.

Gliders would solve all sorts of problems that they've been complaining about for some time.

>>31184896

War was expensive in 1942 and it is exponentially more expensive now. The financial burden on resources in a conventional war in the 21st century would not allow for an extended war. A $100 million dollar loss of an F-35 is not nearly as acceptable as $50000 loss of a Mustang. The same goes for anything, really.

If the US had to lead a prolonged offensive operation with high attrition rates for transport aircraft it would definitely consider alternative methods. Gliders are a viable and realistic answer for that sort of operation.

>>31182413
include me in the screen cap X)

>>31184955
>The United States of America
>anything less than a flawless victory
>anything more than 0 losses in manpower and equipment

>>31182260
Not really no. But they serve the use of being a strategic distraction that forces other countries to plan for them.
They're also double volunteers which means they're more willing to sustain high op tempo allowing them to be globally rapidly deployed units.

File: 1451448078815.jpg (720KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 1280x853px

>>31184890
So what are Gliders going to do about OTH radars and SPAAGs
Also
>postin airborne starting with VDV

File: 1451448078820.jpg (495KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1280x853px

>>31185003
>They're also double volunteers which means they're more willing to sustain high op tempo allowing them to be globally rapidly deployed units

File: 1451448078834.jpg (578KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 1280x853px

>>31185016
I did not mean to quote that?

File: 1383308894296.jpg (250KB, 886x1065px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 886x1065px

>>31185030

File: 1376934111697.jpg (1MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2250x1500px

>>31185043

>>31185003
durable gliders without fuel in them, with the infantry in armored vehicles would not be anywhere near as susceptible to ground based AA as normal planes.

File: 1376934111703.jpg (2MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1500px

>>31185062
>>31185095
> infantry in armored vehicles
Name one sub 20 tonne armored vehicle that can sustain a full burst of auto cannon fire and a OTH radar would still pick them up, leaving them to be shredded in mid air.

File: 1376934111722.jpg (2MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1500px

>>31185128

>>31185128
Why sub 20 tonne?

File: 1454797540304.jpg (336KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1200x900px

>>31185144
>Our very own legionfag

File: 1380483912041.jpg (650KB, 1815x1210px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 1815x1210px

>>31185178
>>31185145
Because most vehicles that weigh more than that aren't air droppable and I doubt they'd be glider-able either.

File: 1451449180852.jpg (1006KB, 2880x1916px) Image search: [Google]

1006KB, 2880x1916px

>>31185216
And even at around 13 metric tones (BMD 3), it needs a rocket assisted landing.

File: 1394648018012.jpg (86KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 960x640px

>>31185243

File: 1316357678402.jpg (104KB, 850x604px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 850x604px

>>31185269
>>31185243
BMD 4*

File: 140012835729.jpg (531KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 2048x1536px

>>31185284

>>31185216
They aren't air droppable because parachutes don't scale well, and the impact with the ground will smash stuff
Different story with a glider which will have a soft landing.

>>31184890
Dear god, you again?

File: 3384430069_601e69aabe_o.jpg (58KB, 610x391px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 610x391px

>>31185319
>>31185379
Okay...I wasn't aware that a massive 10-15 tonne vehicle traveling at a highspeed and impacting the ground, regardless of angle, was a soft landing.
Even if you were capable of "gliding" a BMD sized armored vehicle you'd still be shredded by autocannon fire, and its not until 30-40 tonnes till an AFV can withstand it and theres no way in hell you're gliding a 40 tonne IFV without it plummeting to the ground from sheer weight.
You also have to make a glider capable of high attitudes or make the glider capable of flying EXTREMELY long distances (I'm assuming in the event of gliders you probably don't have air superiority, otherwise you wouldn't be doing this) otherwise the launcher aircraft is going to be blown out of the sky by long range SAMs.

>>31185517
The soft landing is due to the fact its being pilotted and can "flare", turning its forward velocity into upwards..... everything that flies can glide..

Imagine what sort of airborne capabilities the US would have with a powered glider capable of delivering a bradley to almost any terrain/location.

File: 1451448078841.jpg (1MB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1365px

>>31185564
A glider capable of lifting a Bradley would be huge, leaving it more susceptible to anti air and this time it's powered making it an even larger target.
Sure if you have no opposition in the area, but if there were no hostiles, it be better to land and unload multiple Bradleys or fly super low and push out multiple on pallets.

>>31185640
>>31185564
Not to mention the fact that Bradleys aren't suited to every terrain due to its weight and we don't have an light AFV like the BMD in service.
And gliders have to be light, meaning they aren't armored so a ZPU could light it up ez.

>>31185640
>Sure if you have no opposition in the area, but if there were no hostiles, it be better to land and unload multiple Bradleys or fly super low and push out multiple on pallets.

??
You have this all backwards
If there is opposition then your cargo planes aren't going anywhere near, they certainly won't be landing at enemy held air bases

Nor can Bradleys be paradropped

So now we're back at the same reason that the airborne forces only have humvees as maneuver vehicles, the lack of gliders.

File: C-130_airdrop.jpg (84KB, 772x432px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 772x432px

>>31185675
If there is no opposition, what's the benefit of gliders when you can land heavier vehicles? Or develop a way of doing pic related with multiple Bradleys?

>>31185757
Sheridan was only 15 tons, and you wouldn't be doing that with people inside the vehicle.

you'll need a pretty flat area to do that since you are flying along like 2 meters above the ground

>>31185844
So how would a glider lift 30 tons without being the size of a C-130?
If you need a flat area to drop an IFV, you'd need a relatively flat area to land a glider.
Again if it is powered and the area is secure, you might as well land and unload.
If you had lighter AFVs you could air drop mulitple with the crew inside.
There is no reason to have to glide in a single AFV when there is no opposition.

>>31185906
The shit you are talking about essentially requires a runway to operate off of. Along with no nearby hostiles.

Gliders can land in relatively rough terrain, using less than 100 ft from touch down to halted.

The weight of AFV's has been trending upwards, not lower.

>>31182260
Didn't helicopters pretty much make gliders and paratroopers obsolete?

>>31186235
No, helicopters are disasters and lost the US the vietnam war

>>31182383

I recall there being an epic thread about how paratroopers are popular among African nations and still used there.

File: 1383679_379100085526882_209374379_n.jpg (45KB, 307x405px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 307x405px

>>31185379
>Soft landing
Not all the time.

During ww2 a riding in a glider was pretty dangerous. You have to land on the right kind of terrain, and be sure that it is unobstructed. There was also the issue of towing the glider, which had many accidents. These accidents were a major problem in Market Garden, for instance.

I suppose modern tech could mitigate these problems somehow, but they wouldn't be as cheap to make, defeating cost purposes.

>>31186383
>During ww2 a riding in a glider was pretty dangerous.

Not any more than paradropping

They had a number of problems that stem from the fact they didn't have night vision & they were doing operations at night, they didn't have GPS so they would often get lost/miss landmarks. And it was a world war so construction quality of the gliders was poor.

Nothing inherent in the vehicle or concept. Though obviously its always safer to be staying home than going to war.