Thanks for the article Jonathan.
James Hasik has an article up that makes a pretty strong case for the Army developing (or rather buying) an airborne tank.
I agree on that need but this part of his article caught my attention....
You're talking about 50,000 plus boat spaces....That's alot of jump pay!
Are airborne units obsolete? Do they provide more utility than a light infantry unit that would have to be airlanded?
I'm a traditionalist, so I believe that the speed and surprise that the airborne give our country is a need, not a want. But in this budget environment you can bet that someone, somewhere is asking these same questions.
Read the entire article on Airborne Tanks here.
Note: I've got to get ahold of that paper (Airborne Illusion).
James Hasik has an article up that makes a pretty strong case for the Army developing (or rather buying) an airborne tank.
I agree on that need but this part of his article caught my attention....
As Mark De Vore wrote in The Airborne Illusion, a 2004 working paper at MIT, the history of parachute operations points to debatable utility. During the Second World War, perhaps half of the major airborne operations were fiascos, if not outfight disasters. Since the Second World War, only two airborne operations have involved more than a battalion: the two-battalion American drop on Grenada in 1984, and the six-battalion American drop on Panama in 1989. Even the vaunted Israeli 35th Paratroopers Brigade has only made a single combat drop in its history—that of a single battalion on Mitla Pass in 1956, which didn’t go well. Plenty of other assaults at various times were considered and rejected, by Britain, France, the US and others. The memory of the disaster of the 1940s and the proliferation of anti-aircraft missiles were too much to overcome. All the same, parachute formations have survived. De Vore argues that much of this rests with the placement of former paratroopers in high ranks, who defend their regiments in bureaucratic battles. Soviet experience was particularly bad, but the establishment of the Airborne Troops as a separate corps of the Red Army made their reduction bureaucratically difficult. But while he and others scoff at the maintenance of "elite troops that can only be used against third-rate opponents,” (p. 29)Discussions about the utility of the Marine Corps always pop up, but what about the airborne forces. 10 percent of the Army is made up of paratroopers.
You're talking about 50,000 plus boat spaces....That's alot of jump pay!
Are airborne units obsolete? Do they provide more utility than a light infantry unit that would have to be airlanded?
I'm a traditionalist, so I believe that the speed and surprise that the airborne give our country is a need, not a want. But in this budget environment you can bet that someone, somewhere is asking these same questions.
Read the entire article on Airborne Tanks here.
Note: I've got to get ahold of that paper (Airborne Illusion).
Airborne forces have been usefull and used frequently in Africa, either in heliborne assaults (think of South African operations during the Apartheid) or in full scale paradrop assault by the French (Kolwezi in RDC, and various operations since, including Kosovo in 2008. Don't forget "opération Castor" in 1953 in Indochina and the forces dropped on top of the Egyptians during the Suez Crisis. And recently they airdropped on Mali too) but indeed they are often better used in smaller scale operations.
ReplyDeletenegative ghost rider. you're talking about airborne forces operating in either a long range recon role (essentially a ranger mission...in the Marines a force recon mission...either way not a classic airborne mission) or you're talking about airborne forces performing an air assault mission, what many call heliborne assaults.
Deletefor this to be an honest discussion you must separate special operations type missions from elite but conventional airborne missions and heliborne assaults from airborne assaults.
I agree, airborne's conventional effectiveness on the field of battle is debatable. But I also think airborne is, at the very least, useful as a force-in-being, something we never have to use but that the enemy has to waste time and effort preparing for, just in case.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Operation Uphold Democracy in '94 comes to mind. The 82nd was almost to the point of no return when the Haitian junta backed down and went into exile. Airborne makes a nice Big Stick, no?
Agree.
DeleteYou pay for latitude & capability. And in doing so force possible opponents to pay in $$$$$ or lives or both to "try" and defend against Airborne assaults.
The notion that the proliferation of AAA capabilities makes Airborne assaults too dangerous is shallow. You simply CAX away/down that threat to an acceptable level prior to the actual assault. The Israelis did it and we employed it in GW1; force your enemy to turn on in order to defend against air threats, then take out their capability.
Both of us did it prior to airstrikes but the tactic can be used for air assaults as well.
I hate to admit it, but I think I'm totally with the author. Paratroops don't really make sense. I'd even be willing to argue that the missions that were "successful" during WWII were still disasters when you compare what you gained to the losses sustained by the troops they dropped in. I'm thinking like Market Garden or the siege at Bastogne, France during the Battle of the Buldge.
ReplyDeleteAirborne troops at Bastogne made a tailgate jump from trucks not aircraft yet they still used their tactics of always being surrounded to hold on and win.
DeleteBecause I'm sure some asshole will call me out, apparently Bastogne was in Belgium not France.
ReplyDeleteDepends on where they are to be utilized ,for the Russians paratroops are probably quite must have asset due to the wast country that is sparsely populated and equipped with infastructure in the far east and they do have air dropable armor that provides some fire power .
ReplyDeleteAirborne Formations are needed, Paratroops can be utilized as a tactical move and to make the enemy use forces and material to defend against them whether they are used or not.
ReplyDeleteHaving forces that have already faced the prospect of certain death by leaping from an airplane and overcoming the fear of death through discipline and training as well as faith in the Aircraft, the crew and their fellow Paratroopers means more than can be explained in any manual.
I say yes, We do have a need for Airborne ops and the men and women who are specialist in it's employment.
Besides, Paratroopers kick ass.
they were used quite a bit in Suez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis#Britain, but it's about reach and the enemy a nation is facing - sending in a mass of paratroopers against an enemy with large numbers of man portable SAMs will just not turn out well...no matter how many tanks those aircraft are loaded with.
ReplyDeletewe're talking about making an airborne drop, not being involved in fighting. take away the parachute training and they instantly become light infantry.
DeleteIt depends entirely on where, when and how.
ReplyDeleteMass drops like D-Day, Market Garden, Crete are out of the question in a contested environment. Once the enemy air forces and defense have been neutralized, then you start limited parachute drops, but it's not going to happen in an area with SAM, MANPADs and robust AAA intact.
The real value of such units is being air assault and landing close to AO, then driving into combat like the Russians (who were pioneers in airborne/air assault ops). Landing several battalions on C-17s, having them drive off the planes and into combat a dozen kilometers away is something more realistic.
Even then, while the 173rd BCT did a drop into Northern Iraq, it was supported massively with C-17s, etc. If our airborne BCTs were really adequate, why didn't we drop them into Afghanistan rather than land the Marines? Or land them next to the Marines? At a time when the Taliban was on the run and we were trying to find a way to cut them off from the Pakistan border, wouldn't a BCT or two landing astride likely routes to Pakistan have made sense? We'll never know because I think the Army doesn't think of dropping large units into combat unless there are supply routes.
On a smaller level, however, parachute forces are underutilized. The French used Airborne forces on a large-scale in Indochina since they were the only forces that they could cover the distances quickly enough. Company and Battalion-sized drops were common and the Vietminh couldn't stop them.
In Rhodesia, the Light Infantry would bring in 32 troops via Alouette III and DC-3 on top of suspected insurgent sites. Eight groups of 4-men (One NCO with FAL, two FAL rifleman and a FN MAG gunner) each either landing or being dropped and moving against insurgents made them extremely deadly. Often times the men would drop from the DC-3 at lower than 500ft wearing shorts and high-top sneakers.
I wonder what company-sized QRF being dropped to reinforce a unit under attack would look like in Afghanistan. Some lonely convoy being hit by a large Taliban force, then a company dropping nearby.
DC-3 jumps became the only option when Rhodesia started to struggle to support its Aloutees (and later Bells). Towards the end the RLI (and Rhodesian SAS) were jumping several times a day!
DeleteI have a few points to make.
ReplyDelete1, the Army has completely abandoned the concept of "vertical envelopment" that previous generations of Paratroopers believed in. Kinda like we no longer talk about "victory through air power" as anything other than a side note in history.
2, small units benefit more from being Airborne capable than large units. Special Forces and Rangers especially. Getting small teams into remote locations not accessible by helicopter is what a parachute is for.
3, even these small units rarely use parachutes except as a delivery method of last resort. The Haditha Dam operations showed that too many legs will "shatter" when a paratrooper is loaded down for a real mission.
4, Airborne regular Army formations are the recruiting grounds for Special Forces and Rangers, similar to the Paras and SAS relationship. You want elite forces, you need an elite pool of applicants.
5, Airborne forces do exactly one mission really damn well, which is airfield seizure. Once a landing zone is secure, C-130s can offload Strykers or C-17s could offload M1A2 Abrams to put some hard offensive punch on the ground. We probably don't need 6 brigades training for that mission.
6, My peers and I agree, there will never be another mass assault on an unsecured LZ unless the shit has really hit the fan. More likely you'll see a battalion seize an airfield and then pass off security to a follow on force.
Would rather have 2 more Ranger Regiments; using the break up of airborne as some of the cadre.
ReplyDeleteThe last use, in Mali, proven paratrooper utility. In an era of IED,you can drop as much paratrooper as you want, without the risk of being slowed or stopped by IED / Ambush / relief.
ReplyDeleteWe fight against mali, we dropped some companies.
Think Iran and his doctrine of massive use of kamikaze and guerilia warfare : you just fly over it.
thermal guided manpads don't fear anybody nowadays. biggers systems are the business of airforces...
In normandy there was plenty of AAA, it didn't stopped assault. Nowadays, airborn assault would be covered by drones, which would take out any AAA...
Plus I think paratroopers have quite the same role of nuclear weapons in this way : tomorrow USA can drop full battalion anywhere in the world, with a smaller delay than conventionnal troops. The enemy can't even think beat USA by speed.
IE : China launch naval assault on Taiwan : USA just know about few hours before : within 24 hours paratroopers reinforcement arrives, despite submarines and distance. And, I think, It's less dangerous for an escorted C17 to fly over contested waters, than to sail an LHA...Unless china has AA Submarines..
USA cant drop battalion anywhere unless you have a ready suplly chain running as unit will run out of supplies faster than you might think..
DeleteGreat post fabsther. And the US' ability to supply and reinforce is unrivalled.
DeleteYes if you hire Russian An124 operators to ferry the stuff or pay taliban to escort convoys trough their teritory. Belive me once first C17 or C5 is shot down supply would stop ASAP
DeleteGlad you acknowledged that we do indeed have a "ready supply chain" (whatever the heck that is). And therefore we can drop battalions whenever we want. We mastered brute force logistics over twenty years ago.
DeleteI think that large scale para drops of light infantry are something of full scale war. Usually the small drops to grab an airfield are better. As a standing forces I definitely think all of our troops should be fully mechanized. But when I think about C-17s para dropping lots of heavily armed JLTVs Im like oh yeah thats nasty enough loool. When I say heavily armed I mean really, really big guns.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I would design an airborne tank though, we have the Stryker MGS and the M8 Buford already. And when you have a bunch of really heavily gunned vehicles, if you need a even more robust platform a light tank isn't what the doctor ordered.....Dropping a M1A2 SEP on the other hand would be my definition of robust. Its entirely possible to do, the only reason we don't is that gaining that capability has always been a low priority. Training that way costs a lot of money and they don't want to damage the plane or the tank but it can work...en masse.
JLTV is useless for airborne use ,unless you are landing it in the desert or somewhere with good roads ,imagine using it in southeast Asia. There you need tracks like BMD-3 or Sheridan ,M1 in not the first choice as its way too heavy and more importantly has a huge logistics footprint (think fuel).
DeleteIn Africa on the other hand wheels seem to be working ok you do not need MRAPs or JLTV ,light 4x4 and 6x6 with big guns seem to do well (armored cars with 90-105mm guns).
For what purpose do you need an M1A2? That tank is good tank killer but there is better equipment available to protect a bridgehead. Stryker MGS can support ground troops but didn’t you miss some artillery? What about the two DONAR instead of one M1A2 or a horde of 20 Wiesel within one C-17 or 5 within one C-130?
DeleteThis is one of the first successful airborne assaults:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael
The aim was to attack on Fort Eben-Emael and to keep 3 surrounding bridges until the main force arrives. Gliders were used during the first wave of attack.
Well, currently US airborne units are mounted on humvees and gun trucks so I though that a heavily armed JLTV would be a nice upgrade for them. I agree that tracks are better but airborne hasn't had a airborne tank for 20 yrs and they've never had APCs so I felt that going with JLTVs would be a lot easier to get out of congress. Plus expediently dropping an M1 would be more effective than a light tank since its tougher and there is a larger supply of them. As for artillery every IBCT has a artillery battalion attached to it so I didn't mention it. The reason I stressed dropping an M1 is that when the airborne forces are mounted and moving quickly they are going run into to resistance and need a really thick skinned tank to guard their rapid maneuvers.
DeleteThe only airborne operation I can think off today is to secure an airport. Size of an airport is about 4 km long and 1 km wide. It might be a UN mission somewhere in Central Africa. One C-130 can take one Humvee and a towed M119 or one C-130 can take 3 Wiesel or one M113 as airport taxi. In case you would need an Abrams something went wrong. In case of resistance the Wiesel with 20 mm cannon or 120 mm mortar should do it. I expect the result of an M1 drop to be a big hole on the runway.
DeleteWhere do you draw the line between airborne operations and airlift? I would say airlift starts when the first C-17 touchdown on runway.
Blind the search RADARs and For SAMs and AAA in the assigned DZ's simply use a MOAB first to suppress the defenders, orbiting a B-1, Gunship or a BUFF would give hours of air support.
ReplyDeleteIsolation of the DZ area and Obj. would make the Paratroops a nice place to land.
Airbase/Airfields and Airports are the mission of the Para's. Once a landing strip is taken, built or simply graded out the M-1's can come in.
Don't use world war two airborne ops as an indicator that was a long 70 years ago and things have changed a bit.
HELL! Anyone prior to the current Afghanistan operations would have laughed their straight leg asses off if there were any mention of horse borne cavalry would be used again in battle, yet SEALS and Rangers as well as SF rode horses and donkeys in the mountains there.
ReplyDeletePart of me wants to agree with you, but classical horse borne cavalry is pretty distinct from the kind of horse borned operations I assume happen(ed) in Afghanistan.
DeleteYou do know that mules and pack animals are quite relevant to any mountain warfare. That horse 'charge' was a PR stunt every one still rode in on 'tacticals'
DeleteNegative Ghostrider, Airborne units are still relevant. They can be used to kick down the door of another country by air
ReplyDeletekick in the door? to what? any major campaign is going to require sea lift just to get enough armored forces in.
DeleteAfghanistan has proven the old adage true. professionals study logistics and a landlocked country is a logistical nightmare.
hell, lets be honest. if you jump the 82nd into a real deal 100% combat situation with staunch resistance the only flights that will be coming in will be to resupply them and bring in replacements...we just don't have enough aircraft to reinforce them at the same time. modern warfare requires armored vehicles, just ask the French in africa.
airborne units are relevant? yeah, but within limits. they just don't have the endurance, mobility or firepower to be utilized as they always have been. and another truth that no one wants to admit is that most airborne units worldwide are simply guards units. specially selected men that protect the government from a military coup.
Ain't how they say, Army Ranger/Airborne Units take down Airfields and Airports. Airborne units are great for quick reaction force that can parachute in, kick in the door for major units to come in.
DeleteI definitely agree that we don't have enough cargo planes. I think the congress agreed that they wanted more C-17s than they bought as well, they just weren't willing to buy them all on top of the expense of the war in Iraq. I think 300 was the number they originally wanted.
ReplyDeleteI definitely recognize the value of sea lift too though, that high speed vessel is fast as heck and can cross 9600 miles in just 10 days with tons of vehicles. It is much more fuel efficient than flight.
The only reason I really get on it about airborne is that sea lift always enters from the coastline. While typical airborne war scenarios involve air field capture, others can involve dropping in nonlinear applications that disperse the enemy in ways that make an initial beach landing drastically more successful.
There are enough C-17. What is missing is a capability to move bulk cargo in a cheap way. Therefore the USAF ordered the KC-46.
Deletekc-46 will be a sorry airlifter for bulk cargo. it would have been cheaper to do the old concept of converting 747s cargo variants for military use.
Deletebut the issue isn't just seizing an airstrip (a Ranger mission now), the issue is keeping an airborne division or brigade supplied if its engaged in combat.
the air force can take out dedicated sam sites and vehicles. taking out man portable sams is a different issue. additionally airfields only have a few approach and departure lanes which means you can setup and fire on aircraft after a little recon.
resupply is the weak link and everyone knows it.
For sure the KC-45 would have been better than the KC-46. On general summed it up to one word: "more" but in the end USAF did get the KC-46. On the other side I don't think DHL, UPS and FedEx use a "sorry airlifter" for bulk cargo? There is a reason why these companies have a huge fleet of 767 and far less 747.
DeleteIt is cheaper to operate one aircraft than two types of aircraft (A-10?). Also it is far more economic to use an aircraft than to keep it alive for more than half a century (KC-135).
Against manpads the KC-46 will be equipped with LAIRCM.
Logistics is a weak link, but not for the reasons most people think which is "resupply."
ReplyDeleteYou can easily drop beans, bullets, and bandaids out of an aircraft to resupply light infantry on the ground. What you can't easily do is go the other direction to pull casualties out of the firefight and get them back to to a hospital. One of the reasons why we saw casualty rates go down in Vietnam (compared to WWII) is that now the Helicopter can pull out casualties inside of the "golden hour."
So if you plan on sending Paratroopers into harms way, your casevac plan can't be "medic with an aid bag and a chaplain to deliver last rights." So you either plan for helicopter support, or you plan for a ground relief convoy to get there with ambulance capability and level 2 or 3 care available inside the "golden hour."
Remember that the massive airborne operations of WWII were designed with follow on ground forces right behind them. The fantasy that the Airborne will drop in and kick in someone's door falls under the "wishful thinking" category of tactical thought. You drop in, at night, into a drop zone that is at least not contested enough to deny you entry. Now you have to walk to your objective, in LGOPs, (little groups of paratroopers) and the enemy most likely knows you are coming.
Remember the AH-64 assault on Baghdad that got turned back because the Apache's got chewed up by small arms ground fire? I do. The chopper pilots learned once again that it is risky business flying beyond the FLOT. Sending C-130s and C-17s to drop off a Brigade of paratroopers is not something you do if you can avoid it.
If there is one thing that WWII should have taught us about Airborne ops is that if the follow on forces don't get there on time, the paratroopers fail in their mission simply because they don't have the staying power to slug it out with the enemies mounted QRF.
So there is no point in planning an Airborne op without a follow on airmobile (helicopters) or ground/sea assault operation. Grenada and Panama are good examples of this. I wouldn't plan an Airborne operation if I didn't have a follow on wave of combat power in at least 12 hours.
Yeah I just reviewed aircraft specifications.and You're kind of correct about the KC-46, its kind of small. Which is good when you're looking for suitable runways, but bad when you're trying to get bulk cargo/fuel moved a long distance.
ReplyDeleteLooking at resupply and tankers I would think the best thing to do in that respect would be to have about half KC-46 and half the fleet in larger 747 converted cargo/tanker. But on the other hand there are so many hairs we can split, the air force has a lot more tankers and cargo than they had 30 years ago.
More sea lift too, those Iwo Jima classes were tiny.