Slitherine

Aside from the deployment issue with paras (hopefully we get the choice to deploy them either airborne or normally in a future patch) I was wondering whether their land transports (trucks etc) should really be permanently abandoned in case they want to make a para op?

Maybe it would be better in such a case to make those trucks unavailable *in that scenario only*, so that in campaign mode these paras would still have their trucks for the next scn/deployment?

I can't imagine a para unit equipped with trucks would get rid of them completely for an airborne op, just leaving them behind for further use after the return should work perfectly.

Of course this leaves out the whole issue of possible airmobile light equipment...

Just on a related topic, the airborne guys didn't drop in jeeps to tow their artillery (75mm) or light AT guns - they manhandled them everywhere!! I was amazed when I read that about the US airborne - it was their doctrine to move their guns around with them by hand. Gotta respect that kind of dedication.

Good suggestion, bebro. I hope they can implement this in a future patch.

bebro wrote: Of course this leaves out the whole issue of possible airmobile light equipment...

That's why in all of my mods I made the 37 mm Flak and the 7.5 cm arty airborne capable.

At least that way the Fallshcirms have some kinda of support weps.

I know what you mean about the whole transport thing it's very annoying. That's the very reason that I never have a Fallschirm unit in my core.

El_Condoro wrote:Just on a related topic, the airborne guys didn't drop in jeeps to tow their artillery (75mm) or light AT guns - they manhandled them everywhere!! I was amazed when I read that about the US airborne - it was their doctrine to move their guns around with them by hand. Gotta respect that kind of dedication.

It makes for some very strong (and tired paratroopers).

They actually flew in jeeps in the gliders,(that's the primay reason that all US Airborne Divisions had Glider Rgts. the glider grunts were right there to protect the gun bunnies) but more often than not the gliders wound up either crashing or the jeeps were so beat up that they didn't work so the gun crews used LPC'S to move the heavy stuff.

The main arty gun was the 75mm. I've actually moved one myself (at a reenactment) ,quite a distance on, a bet. The airborne versions were actually mountain guns and were very,very well balanced. They also could be "broken down" fairly easily and humped in peices by the gun crews.The thing that's the bitch was lugging all of the ammo.

Btw, for all of you non-infantry types out there ...LPC stands for Leather Personnel Carriers-------in other words boots

airbornemongo101 wrote: They actually flew in jeeps in the gliders,(that's the primay reason that all US Airborne Divisions had Glider Rgts. the glider grunts were right there to protect the gun bunnies) but more often than not the gliders wound up either crashing or the jeeps were so beat up that they didn't work so the gun crews used LPC'S to move the heavy stuff.

and thats why its sort of a moot point as the only time this was really attempted under combat conditions was Market Garden which remained the only allied airborne operation in WWII due to obvious reasons...
btw since the german airborne divisions suffered such high casualties in Crete Hitler ordered to refrain from further airborne operations and for the rest of the war these highly trained elite divisions fought as emergency units..

chris10 wrote:and thats why its sort of a moot point as the only time this was really attempted under combat conditions was Market Garden which remained the only allied airborne operation in WWII due to obvious reasons...

D-Day (Neptune) with the 82nd and 101st was pretty big, too.

El_Condoro wrote:

chris10 wrote:and thats why its sort of a moot point as the only time this was really attempted under combat conditions was Market Garden which remained the only allied airborne operation in WWII due to obvious reasons...

D-Day (Neptune) with the 82nd and 101st was pretty big, too.

And Operation Varsity (crossing the Rhein March 1945) with the British 6th AB and the US 17th AB.

The 11th jumped into the Phillipnes also.

The Russians made at least one large scale jump also

The Fallschrims (and the mountain division that went in w/ them) had to put up with a bad parachute design and very small gliders.They were also out-numbered and out-gunned,yet they still won.

The allies studied Crete and decided that large scale airborne ops were a viable solution to difficult problems

El_Condoro wrote: D-Day (Neptune) with the 82nd and 101st was pretty big, too.

Erik wrote: And Operation Varsity (crossing the Rhein March 1945) with the British 6th AB and the US 17th AB.

these were supportive operations not operations were the main weight was laying on the paras being dropped...
I wasnt referring to this kind of operation ...I exlained myselb badly,sry

Combat effectiveness in WWII depended upon heavy weapons. Paras didn't have any so they weren't suited to prolonged combat. If they had to fight for more than a day or two unsupported they were in trouble. Obscene casualty rates made para operations prohibitively expensive, but the glamor of fighting men from the sky seems to attract people's attention anyway. You could say the same thing about helicopter-borne operations but they are at least a big improvement over jumping out of perfectly good airplanes. Modern jump training is a nice 'macho' thing but noone does it on a large scale any more.

shawkhan wrote: Modern jump training is a nice 'macho' thing but noone does it on a large scale any more.

Needless to say I disagree.........

Look up the Third Herd in Iraq and Vietnam.

The 82nd in Panama.

Nato and the Warsaw Pact both had plans for large scale airborne ops if there had been a conflict.

There hasn't been any large scale airborne operations recently because ,thankfully, there hasn't been any large scale prolonged conventional wars since WW II...Thank God.

I have read military punidts in the 50's that said that rifleman and large armies were a thing of the past due to nukes. Then in the 70's I distinctly remember the pundits saying big tanks were obselete due to tank killing aircraft and the developement of easily manportable anti-tank systems.

As long as humans continue to wage war there is always be a need for air-delivered light infantry.

Also the "macho" ( I would call it more hard-core ,deadwood dropping,and detail oriented) training of both air assault and airborne training instills a sense of espirit de' corps that few leg units can match.

Tell it to the Marines about esprit d' corps. (Semper Fi)
Anything over a battalion airdropped is a waste. Navy Seals and Halo drops are interesting insertion techniques but large-scale operational level para operations are simply too expensive. Small units for quick in and out ops are practical still, ala the Osama extermination of recent history. The military is the most conservative institution in any country, so ineffective methods and equipment are still used for 'traditions' sake. Bayonets for equipment and cavalry in WWII for units as examples. Heck, a dress sword was part of my uniform still in the 70's.
BTW, I like 'macho' myself but see it for what it is.

shawkhan wrote:Tell it to the Marines about esprit d' corps. (Semper Fi)

That's why I said few leg units (and yes I was thinking of the Mean Green when I typed it).There are many units around the world that can match the motivational level of an airborne/air assault unit,but they are few and far between.

Personally I think the cav units that were on the intra-german border (11th ACR in the Fulda for example) are the best example,for treadheads , of units that expected to be virtually wiped out if it hit ever hit the fan,but were still highly,highly motivated and dedicated,and no I was never cav.

I think dress swords are still authorized for dress blues for ofc's and senior enlisted (for all branches),but I've been out along time and could be wrong.

God this whole conversation is making me feel old .