Army dropping paratroopers

[Utah Bob #35998]

No not from planes, from the budget.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/01/army-dropping-number-of-paratrooper-units.html?ESRC=dod.nl

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

What next-----Change to air-soft, maybe?

LG

[J-BAR #18287]

How are they going to get 'em to the battlefield....UPS?

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Didn't that nit-wit Carter, do the same stupid thing?

LG

[Old Scatterbrain]

a retired Command Master Sergeant Major

[Subdeacon Joe]

Well, they changed from being Infantry to Airborne, no reason they can't go back to being Infantry. Or become Air Assault.

 

What does it do to the overall readiness and effectiveness of our military? How realistic is it to expect replays of Eindhoven and Nijmegen with regiments and divisions being delivered by parachute?

[Utah Bob #35998]

Well, they changed from being Infantry to Airborne, no reason they can't go back to being Infantry. Or become Air Assault.

 

What does it do to the overall readiness and effectiveness of our military? How realistic is it to expect replays of Eindhoven and Nijmegen with regiments and divisions being delivered by parachute?

It is more the training and fighting spirit of the paratrooper rather than than possibility of an airborne operation that is important. We used airborne troops in Panama. They are not exactly obsolete like the horse cavalry

[G #1840]

With Ospreys and Hellicopters, maybe the use of parachutes isnt as necessary as it used to be.

[Utah Bob #35998]

With Ospreys and Hellicopters, maybe the use of parachutes isnt as necessary as it used to be.

When they can get an Osprey that's a quiet as a parachute and leaves as small a radar signature maybe...

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Who needs 'em? We have World Peace, or was that whirled peas?

[Marshal Dan Troop 70448]

It is more the training and fighting spirit of the paratrooper rather than than possibility of an airborne operation that is important. We used airborne troops in Panama. They are not exactly obsolete like the horse cavalry

Very well said, especially "fighting spirit--". MT

[Trailrider #896]

Did Sec. of State Kerry have a black "Chamberlin" umbrella in his hand when he talked about peace for our time? Everybody should have a copy of the words to "Cum-by-ah"? I got an idea... Let's get rid of our paratroops, cut the Minuteman leg of the strategic deterrance Triad, forget about maintaining our nuclear arsenal, reduce flight hours to our active ready response flying units. That will cut the budget. And when our P-40's are lined up wingtip-to-wingtip to prevent "sabotage" from "enemy sympathizers", we will learn once again what happens when we tell soldiers and dogs to keep off the grass! That's if there's anything left that doesn't glow in the dark!

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

The next 15 to 20 years we will see the fall of America IMHO.

The more we cut the deeper the wounds will be .

 

We are now loosing our Trained Military .

 

We have already lost our NASA program .

 

We are already forcing GOD out of every thing in our Country

 

All I can say is Pray for our Nation and it Leaders .

[Utah Bob #35998]

To quote one famous paratrooper, I can only say, "NUTS".

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

Soo, everybody will have their own drone to carry them aloft to the battlefield. Nostradomus tolt me so.

[Chantry]

All they are doing is taking about 2600 people off jump status and capping the limit of jump qualified soldiers at 49,000, which I presume includes Rangers, Green Berets and any other soldiers in the Army that are jump qualified.

 

Whether we like or not (and I don't), I think we are entering a period where the military is going to have to start being more careful in how they allocate the money. How much more does an Airborne or Air Assault divison (inculding the dedicated Air Force assets require to transport them) cost versus a mechnized infantry unit and how likely are we to drop an entire airborne division into combat in the foreseeable future?

[Utah Bob #35998]

I'm afraid we can't count on the militarty being careful with money. Oty!

New uniforms??

[Henry T Harrison]

With all respect to guys either a lot braver or a lot dumber than I am and I suspect the

former, do you ever see a time with the exception of spec ops when they will be
deployed in an air assault again?

Like the cavalry charge the airborne parachute assault is now just a proud part of

history.

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

Henry,

 

If I recall right, Desert Shield began when a large unit from the 82nd loaded onto C-141's at Pope AFB in North Carolina and jumped onto the Saudi Arabia / Kuwait border to defend against further aggression by the Iraqis. Landing at an improved airfield, bringing in vehicles, and then driving to the border would have added days that were not available at the time.

 

We can have all the missiles, satellites, drones, and air power in the world, but there are times when you're going to need a large number of troops on the ground in a hurry in some third world s*&@hole that has no airports or transportation infrastructure. Those are the times when you need large units of paratroopers, and not just the special ops kind.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Nobody ever won a war without boots on the ground.

 

You can bomb a people into the stone age but if you don't occupy, to what purpose?

 

But then, I never understood why a body would jump out of a perfectly good airplane.

 

Must be a grunt thing for me. I was lucky to master the M1 Garand.

 

But SSgt Buxton helped me.

 

 

[Chantry]

I'm afraid we can't count on the militarty being careful with money. Oty!

New uniforms??

No kidding, this is exactly the kind of crap that the military needs to stop. I'm thinking there are some colonels or brigidier generals that need to be retired for this. If they have time to think this crap up, we don't need them.

[Seldom Seen #16162]

Henry,

 

If I recall right, Desert Shield began when a large unit from the 82nd loaded onto C-141's at Pope AFB in North Carolina and jumped onto the Saudi Arabia / Kuwait border to defend against further aggression by the Iraqis. Landing at an improved airfield, bringing in vehicles, and then driving to the border would have added days that were not available at the time.

 

It appears your memory is faulty;

 

Air strikes against Iraq began on 16 January 1991.

 

The ground war (Desert Storm) began almost six weeks later. On February 23, the vehicle-mounted 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers protected the XVIII Airborne Corps flank as fast-moving armor and mechanized units moved deep inside Iraq. A 2nd Brigade task force was attached to the 6th French Light Armored Division becoming the far left flank of the Corps. In the short 100-hour ground war, the 82nd drove deep into Iraq and captured thousands of Iraqi soldiers and tons of equipment, weapons, and ammunition. After the liberation of Kuwait, the 82nd began its redeployment back to Fort Bragg with most of the Division returning by the end of April.

 

 

Traditions should be remembered and honored but there is a time to recognized that warfare has changed.

 

 

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/178-82nd-infantry-division-82nd-airborne-division/

 

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

Seldom,

 

I was referring to Desert Shield, not Desert Storm. Desert Storm was entirely mechanized and air assault with no parachute operations. It was during Desert Shield, in the first few days or so after the Iraq invasion, the 82nd was air dropped onto the border.

 

I remember it because planners quickly realized that light infantry would not be a big deterrent to the Iraqi armor so they called for the AH-64 units out of West Germany, one of which I was part of. My unit didn't go until a few months later, but all Apache units went to full war time footing within the first few days.

[Utah Bob #35998]

With all respect to guys either a lot braver or a lot dumber than I am and I suspect the

former, do you ever see a time with the exception of spec ops when they will be

deployed in an air assault again?

Like the cavalry charge the airborne parachute assault is now just a proud part of

history.

I disagree. Airborne operations are far from obsolete. A brigade of troops can still be placed on the ground over a distance of many hundreds of miles far quicker than an armored or helicopter assault. There are a number of scenarios that could make such an operation not only feasible, but critical.

[Utah Bob #35998]

The assumption that warfare has changed led to the lack of guns of the F4 Phantom. Dogfighting was obsolete because of the fine air to air missile. Turns out the assumption was incorrect. The Mig pilots had guns and used them.

Nobody argues that boots on the ground is still the best way to win a conflict. There's a quick way to put boots on the ground when time might be of the essence; you stuff about a hunnert foaming-at-the-mouth paratroopers into each C17 in a squadron and fly balls to the wall till the green light comes on. Badabing.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C17_aircraft_alt.jpg

[Utah Bob #35998]

Nobody ever won a war without boots on the ground.

 

You can bomb a people into the stone age but if you don't occupy, to what purpose?

 

But then, I never understood why a body would jump out of a perfectly good airplane.

 

Must be a grunt thing for me. I was lucky to master the M1 Garand.

 

But SSgt Buxton helped me.

 

 

No airplane is perfect.

[Trailrider #896]

Now the Air Force is proposing to cut the number of 2nd LT's coming out of AFROTC, either by allowing them to NOT take their commissions, or to try to find billets with the ANG or AF Reserves! Now I know there is nothing dumber than a 2nd LT, but a lot of them eventually make fine officers, especially if they are mentored by good NCO's. With all due respect to Air Force Academy graduates, IMHO (biased, of course, as I came from ROTC)ROTC cadets are more worldly. We need BOTH: "The Eternal Air Force Officer" and the ROT-cy graduate. If this is allowed to go through, I believe it will lead to civilian college students opting out of ROTC altogether, with a result that colleges and universities will drop the programs! Don't know how the Army and Navy are thinking on this... Sounds like post-WWII, when Secy of Defense Lewis Johnson "cut the military spending to the bone" and the started sawing on the bone! The result was a lack of preparedness when the Korean War started!

 

"Cock the gun that is not loaded,

Cook the frozen dynamite...

But, oh beware my country

when my country grows polite!"

Rudyard Kiplind

[Harvey Mushman]

It is also eerily beginning to sound like the beginning in the mid '70s when we stood down after Vietnam and became the "hollow force" (and We WERE).

Then we instituted drug testing and Reagan reinvested the military in the '80s that led to many successes in war, peace and prosperity, till what we have today.

 

Harvey

[Old Top]

Bob,

 

They should rember the rule of LGOP.

 

Old Top

[DocWard]

I'm with UB and others. There will always be a place for paratroopers. This doesn't mean we will ever see a drop the size of D-Day or Market Garden again, but there will be situations where the ability to put paratroopers on the ground will be vital.

 

Oh, a quick google search shows we actually utilized airborne troops in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

http://www.173rdairborne.com/manifest-iraq.htm

[Chantry]

Now the Air Force is proposing to cut the number of 2nd LT's coming out of AFROTC, either by allowing them to NOT take their commissions, or to try to find billets with the ANG or AF Reserves! Now I know there is nothing dumber than a 2nd LT, but a lot of them eventually make fine officers, especially if they are mentored by good NCO's. With all due respect to Air Force Academy graduates, IMHO (biased, of course, as I came from ROTC)ROTC cadets are more worldly. We need BOTH: "The Eternal Air Force Officer" and the ROT-cy graduate. If this is allowed to go through, I believe it will lead to civilian college students opting out of ROTC altogether, with a result that colleges and universities will drop the programs! Don't know how the Army and Navy are thinking on this... Sounds like post-WWII, when Secy of Defense Lewis Johnson "cut the military spending to the bone" and the started sawing on the bone! The result was a lack of preparedness when the Korean War started!

 

"Cock the gun that is not loaded,

Cook the frozen dynamite...

But, oh beware my country

when my country grows polite!"

Rudyard Kiplind

That just brings it in line with what the Army does with ROTC grads. They compete for the limited number of active duty Army openings and the remainder go to the National Guard or Army Reserves.

[Chantry]

The assumption that warfare has changed led to the lack of guns of the F4 Phantom. Dogfighting was obsolete because of the fine air to air missile. Turns out the assumption was incorrect. The Mig pilots had guns and used them.

Nobody argues that boots on the ground is still the best way to win a conflict. There's a quick way to put boots on the ground when time might be of the essence; you stuff about a hunnert foaming-at-the-mouth paratroopers into each C17 in a squadron and fly balls to the wall till the green light comes on. Badabing.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C17_aircraft_alt.jpg

I'm certainly not advocating for eliminating the paratroopers from the Army, it remains a useful asset. I just wonder if combining the 82nd and 101st into an oversized division of 2 brigades of paratroopers and 2 brigades of air assault troops and their supporting units might be a better expenditure of defense money.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Bob,

 

They should rember the rule of LGOP.

 

Old Top

Yup. All The Way.

[Seldom Seen #16162]

Seldom,

 

I was referring to Desert Shield, not Desert Storm. Desert Storm was entirely mechanized and air assault with no parachute operations. It was during Desert Shield, in the first few days or so after the Iraq invasion, the 82nd was air dropped onto the border.

 

.

 

Oops! To many Deserts.

 

I disagree. Airborne operations are far from obsolete. A brigade of troops can still be placed on the ground over a distance of many hundreds of miles far quicker than an armored or helicopter assault. There are a number of scenarios that could make such an operation not only feasible, but critical.

 

How many paratroopers are in a brigade?

How many and what type of aircraft are needed?

Can they all be dropped in at once?

If not how many addtitonal flights will it take to get everyone in?

What about additional flights for resupply?

How much additional protection will the transport aircraft need against A.A.A, SAMS, etc.? Wouldn't radar sites, command centers, missile batteries and enemy aircraft need to be knocked out first?

 

I'm with UB and others. There will always be a place for paratroopers. This doesn't mean we will ever see a drop the size of D-Day or Market Garden again, but there will be situations where the ability to put paratroopers on the ground will be vital.

 

Oh, a quick google search shows we actually utilized airborne troops in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

http://www.173rdairborne.com/manifest-iraq.htm

 

Can you explain the information on the website you linked? It says "10 chalks = 969 Jumpers"

 

Does that mean only 969 paratroopers were dropped in? If so it doesn't make a case against downsizing.

 

I'm certainly not advocating for eliminating the paratroopers from the Army, it remains a useful asset. I just wonder if combining the 82nd and 101st into an oversized division of 2 brigades of paratroopers and 2 brigades of air assault troops and their supporting units might be a better expenditure of defense money.

 

Generals would rather spend money on expensive new toys, er, weapon systems than support and logistics. Your idea is probably too common sense for the brass.

 

I would agree we need to keep our options on the table (we are using horse mounted troops in the mountain areas in the desert) but that doesn't mean the military shouldn't be spending it's dollars more carefully. Our military is fat, wasteful and bloated and is still trying to make a case for fighting W.W.3 in Europe against the Ruskies and now against the Chinese when the next war is most likely to be in the Middle East especially when Israel exercises it right to exist against Iran. (OK like Congress is a good example of careful budgeting, reducing the size of the Federal Government and cutting the budget).

 

But to show you my heart is with the Army I propose the Army bring back mounted soldiers. They can start with this;

 

http://www.aussiesaddle.com/Products/Shootist/carbine_scabbard.html

[DocWard]

How many paratroopers are in a brigade?

How many and what type of aircraft are needed?

Can they all be dropped in at once?

If not how many addtitonal flights will it take to get everyone in?

What about additional flights for resupply?

How much additional protection will the transport aircraft need against A.A.A, SAMS, etc.? Wouldn't radar sites, command centers, missile batteries and enemy aircraft need to be knocked out first?

 

Quite a few questions! A brigade is roughly between 3,000 and 3,500 soldiers, depending on composition. Likewise, the number of aircraft used would vary depending on composition. Artillery, vehicles, medical and other assets can all make a difference. The Army does large scale airborne drops all the time. Resupply depends on a number of variables, including mission, how long it is anticipated that the units will be operating in an environment requiring air resupply, etc...

 

As far as additional protection, the best answer is "it depends." Some locales don't have robust air defense resources. Think Panama, or Grenada. Others require softening up, such as we did during the air war during Desert Storm. Before and during operations, Aircraft such as F-15E Strike Eagles, and F-16s that now act in the "Wild Weasel" role would offer support. Airborne units would be a part of a larger multi-branch attack. When I came in, this was referred to as AirLand Battle. When I retired, you still heard that terms tossed around, but it was replaced by something along the line of "Full Spectrum Operations" or some such.

 

 

Can you explain the information on the website you linked? It says "10 chalks = 969 Jumpers"

 

Does that mean only 969 paratroopers were dropped in? If so it doesn't make a case against downsizing.

 

A chalk is a loadout for one aircraft. In the case above, yes, 969 paratroopers and accompanying equipment were dropped. Does it make a case for downsizing? I don't believe that can be answered by one operation. Despite the Cold War being over, and the War on Terror being the current focus, we still look in terms of contingencies. We can't predict when we will need to respond to a Grenada, a Panama, or a Haiti with Airborne assets, or what other types of situations will arise where they would be appropriate.

 

I was in a support company for a Special Forces Bn. for about a year (I didn't get to jump school through no fault of mine, don't ask, it is a sore subject nearly 20 years later). One cadence that I recall went "If I were the President and had my way / There wouldn't be a leg in the Army today." While I won't take things quite that far, I believe that as many soldiers as possible should be Airborne or Air Assault qualified, and should be able to refresh skills regularly. Anything that makes a soldier more versatile is a good thing.

 

Generals would rather spend money on expensive new toys, er, weapon systems than support and logistics. Your idea is probably too common sense for the brass.

 

I would agree we need to keep our options on the table (we are using horse mounted troops in the mountain areas in the desert) but that doesn't mean the military shouldn't be spending it's dollars more carefully. Our military is fat, wasteful and bloated and is still trying to make a case for fighting W.W.3 in Europe against the Ruskies and now against the Chinese when the next war is most likely to be in the Middle East especially when Israel exercises it right to exist against Iran. (OK like Congress is a good example of careful budgeting, reducing the size of the Federal Government and cutting the budget).

 

But to show you my heart is with the Army I propose the Army bring back mounted soldiers. They can start with this;

 

http://www.aussiesaddle.com/Products/Shootist/carbine_scabbard.html

 

You've pretty much nailed it. Government is wasteful. Bureaucracy is wasteful. Generals always want the next cool thing. I remember when arguments were being presented for procurement of the F-22. One of the arguments was that we needed them to counter aircraft such as the F-15, if that became necessary, since we had sold them to other countries. I don't recall which congressman it was, but he was incredulous that we would need to develop new, better, more expensive technology because we had decided to sell our best technology to others. Obviously, technology is telling us the F-22 is necessary, but at the time, the F-15 was still pretty much the premier fighter.