Relevancy of Paratroopers?

>>31657418
Oh boy, this thread is gonna be 100+ posts from people who don't understand combined arms.

>>31657429
>100+ posts from people who don't understand combined arms
Apparently you don't either. Combined arms doesn't mean paratrooper vs leg infantry you fucking retard. The qualifications of the infantry have no meaning in the "combine arms" sense.

Fucking idiot kys

>>31657418
>they can be moved in such speed that the defence cannot respond quickly enough
>can oper8 behind enemy lines
>can be dropped literally anywhere
>they can be used as regular ground forces
i think they still pretty revelant

>>31657418

It's a skill that MIGHT be potentially useful and it would be very difficult skill to relearn if the Army lost the institutional knowledge required to pull it off. So airborne will stay. And as you say, there is an aspect of personal accomplishment to it. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

>>31657418
Are we just going to ignore Glider infantry?

More useful then Da Muhreens

>>31657446
/thread
Plus from a strategic aspect it tells other countries we can project our forces rather quickly. One division anywhere in the world within 8hours. With the second there within 8 hours after the first. So you piss us off and by sunrise the following day you have two US divisions in your country establishing or capturing a landing strip for more to come.
>and thats not even factoring in Marine QRF
>>31657550
Thats not a thing anymore

>>31657448
>it would be very difficult skill to relearn if the Army lost the institutional knowledge required to pull it off.
This is the reason as near as I can figure it. People don't realize how much of our knowledge is never written down and how much gets lost when the people doing it leave, if they haven't trained replacements.

Here's a short, interesting, and rather funny writeup about institutional memory:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120111055334/http://wrttn.in/04af1a

Paratroopers will never be used like they were in ww2 and I find it unlikely they'd be used from planes at all when helicopters exist. Maybe small squads or what have you but parachutes are so inaccurate.

Paratroopers would be used to insert behind enemy lines directly in front of an assault to help clear the way for the assault/prevent or slow counterattacks.

Just dropping paratroopers a day behind a main advance would get every paratrooper killed or captured. But dropping them an hour ahead would be fine.

File: iraq 231.jpg (3MB, 2816x2112px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2816x2112px

>>31657583
One batalion can be wheals up in 18hr. From there the rest of the BCT will follow and the rest of the BCTs as the situation calls for. Source I was a paratrooper with the big gay AA

File: 1388842098207.jpg (75KB, 534x645px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 534x645px

>>31657622
I think you are placing to much importance on the accuracy of jumping. the idea is that you can drop a company to a division plus element on to an open field has to be at least a 1200m for a c130 (just a guess). So as long as most hit the DZ then its fine and besides jumping is at 400 -1000ft so its not like you are in the air for that long.

As for mission I agree that it would be unlikely to have massive drops like in WWII but for a more modern role airfield seizure is the name of the game. A battalion jumps onto or near the air field one or two company's take the airport and the rest set up blocking positions.

>>31657435

Hey look the first one!

>>31657446
>they can be moved in such speed that the defence cannot respond quickly enough
no. a hercules or vertol chopper isnt very fast.
>can oper8 behind enemy lines
They can't, see the last line
>can be dropped literally anywhere
They can be dropped in a lot of places, sure
>they can be used as regular ground forces
no. Ground forces have tanks and artillery. Airborne is light infantry, and only light infantry which is very, very limited in mobility and combat prowess.

>>31657741
A hercules can do 671 km/h that's still a lot faster than anything the mechanized have also they have the surprise factor too

>>31657705
How is some shitty light infantry going to seize an airfield? What we need for that is gliders, to be dropped in silence directly at the location.

After a paradrop they spend hours/a whole day grouping up, its a disaster. Gliders avoid all that.

>>31657770
A hercules is really vulnerable to ground fire and/or enemy AA assets. Against a competent enemy with radar guided AAA and heat seeker manpads i wouldn't risk paras, helis are much better at inserting infantry behind enemy lines.

>>31658157
oh look it's
>glider meme autist

>>31657741
planes. they jump out of planes too bub

>>31658157
Oh look at that, the retard is back.

Time to close your thread OP, its all going downhill from here.

Also, most airfields isnt well defended (usually only have something like a company of light infantry to defend it so paratroopers will be enough)

>>31658290
What, and helos are somehow better at avoiding ground fire and AA, not to mention MANPADS? Try to explain that bullshit you just said, go on.

>>31658290
A helicopter is much more vunerable to any of those weapons than a C-130 but sure bud

>>31658383
>>31658401

I'd love to see the answer to these questions.

>>31657418
They are more relevant than ever. Being able to land forced and attack from a direction the enemy is unprepared to defend is a tremendous advantage. Key assets like bridges, power plants, highway crossings, factories, ports and much more can be secured, throwing a giant wrench into enemy's defensive plan. He now has to reorient his entire rigid and slow-as-fuck machine to respond to this giant threat, or else deal with paras raping all of his unprepared rear echelon POGs, sabotaging everything, terrorizing the populace, ruining morale and writing mean words on captured buildings.

>>31657418
Do you want 45,000 infantry in a location within 72 hours and airland of vehicles and equipment a few hours behind?

>Troops jump in
>do whatever immediate tactical requirements
>establish an airhead to land transport aircraft full of shit that can't be dropped
Its mostly irrelevant until you need lots of boots in an area fast.

SF doesn't occupy more than a few buildings, they don't take regions.

>>31657583
>8 hours
its not that fast, for one the aircraft can't get everywhere within 8 hours.

File: 1455331737470.jpg (101KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 700x525px

>>31657418
In any symmetrical modern war scenario, being able to move forces rapidly into enemy territory is very important, because a conventional mechanized column moving along a predictable route (like the Fulda Gap) is liable to be blasted with tactical nuclear weapons. Airborne may be the only way to avoid that. If they can deploy fast enough and spread out (especially in enemy territory), before the enemy can react, forcing the enemy to use conventional means to respond to this threat.

>>31657622
Helicopters are good for local operations, but you're not going to conduct cross-continental helicopter operations. A single C-17 holds 96 men and several pallets of heavy equipment (vehicles, artillery, equipment, supplies) all delivered to where its needed.

Remember setting up an airfield to land "legs" is part of the strategic mission. If it were some video game its setting up a teleporter receiver in the enemy base.

>>31657583
GLIDERS CAN WORK.

>>31658676
>>31658157
I'm actually going to find this person and make him stop posting about gliders. I will make him stop posting about anything.

>>31658695
You should drop unannounced in his back yard.
In a glider.

>>31658290
C130 is intratheater, C17 is intertheater. The primary feature of paratroopers is opening an entirely new front and securing the means to reinforce it. Meaning C17 is most likely as the primary delivery in actual combat.

C17 has more range and speed.

Also regarding MANPADS/AAA, static line drop altitude is below 1,000ft. Altitude can be much lower as tactics dictate, but it gets spooky when your chute opens and you're already about to land and haven't even dropped equipment.

>>31658707
Don't play with me man, or you're next. I've had it.

File: 19792.png (24KB, 141x181px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 141x181px

>>31658707

>>31657663
>>31658663
8hrs from wheels up.
82nd in theory has the west hemi with 173 covering the east hemi
one backs up the other.
From their home stations those two units can cover their parts of the globe in about 8hrs
>sauce I was a para with USACAPOC

>>31658676
Gliders don't provide any advantage over modern paradrops.

Gliders were used in WWII because C-47 Skytrains only held so much but they could pull a glider to increase the number of people, also the gliders would deliver an artillery piece, GPW, or other equipment.

Modern paradrops just have the lead aircraft paradrop that equipment out the rear cargo ramp. A C-130 or C17 pulling a glider isn't a good idea for lots of rasins.

I figure it's a lot like snipers

After WWI the US, and many other nations, stopped training snipers. Many of the skilled marksmen were not retained and were left to return to civilian life. When the next war came, nations took notice of the powerful force multiplier that snipers can be.

It wouldn't be until Vietnam that the US started taking sniping seriously again.

In certain circumstances, the Airborne could perform tip of the spear or beyond the tip of the spear style operations. If that circumstance doesn't arrive, they can still be used as light infantry.

It's kind of like how the Marines used to be. They were trained in amphibious landings, but could also function as a standard unit once ashore.

The potential for use outweighs the monetary cost, of which is very small.

>>31658740
>8hrs from wheels up.
>from wheels up

And there's the rub.

Why didn't the paratroopers just parachute to Mordor?

>>31658786
Nazgul Combat Air Patrols were too numerous.

>>31658743
Gear that is paradrop is often damaged
Troops that are paradropped are all spread out, over loaded, and will always be observed by locals.

What this means in modern war is that they will be dropped like 100 kilometers from their target.

>>31658896
Plus gliders are stealthy by nature.

>>31657741
Umm you can airdrop both artillery and tanks. One of the main uses for airborne troops is airfield seizures. Air assault can work but over a much shorter distance. Airplanes have a much greater speed and range over a fully loaded helicopter and helicopters carying a sling load. One of the main reason an airfield is necessary is logistical support not combat infantry.

>>31658157
I've gotten so used to the gliderfag rp mockery that it's always a surreal experience when the actual one shows up.

>>31659426
Simple fact is, gliders do still have a set of advantages that are useful.

Guys what if.. guys.. guys what if you had paratroopers.. stay with me now... paratroopers that jumped out of GLIDERS?

File: aerogavin.jpg (15KB, 703x407px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 703x407px

>>31658157
Gliders are OK, but lack the maneuverability and armor needed to ensure survivability. What we need is the M113A8 Aerogavin for our paratroopers and light infantry, They have all of the benefits of gliders with one of the drawbacks.

>>31659523
That one disadvantage, slamming into the ground at high speed, is admittedly a big one.

>>31659547
If you're looking for a more controllable, although shorter range option the Gavin Gunship offers superior firepower and rotary wing performance. This will give an organic CAS system to paratroopers and light infantry.

File: 1418894208-m113-gavin.jpg (142KB, 695x596px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 695x596px

>>31659566
Forgot pic. The Gavin Gunship, for all your CAS, antiarmor and transportation needs. The only fully amphibious attack helicopter that can carry 11 troops.

>>31658769
Considering the next fastest method is a few days at best, a month at worst.

>>31659586
Rotary wing is a fad.

>>31657597
>Martian tech priests in a nutshell