I just finished reading several works on the employment of airborne forces to secure Corregidor in 1945. Very interesting. Iif you have not read about the subject area before, I encourage you to take a look at it in light of the European methods for employing airborne forces. While still a valid technique, my question is "do we need an airborne division in the current US force structure?" Follow-on--why and where would you use it?
thanks
DJ

DJ - I just purchased Osprey's Fortress Series book on the defences of Manila Harbor. The 503rd's jump on Corregidor is part of the book.

I still believe there is a mission for airborne forces - but not a full division. Not counting Special Forces, that use the parachute as a technique of movement and not for assault.
The US Army has the 82nd Airborne Div, 173rd Airborne Brigade, and the 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger). The use of the airborne assault by the Rangers at Grenada and of the 173rd and the Rangers in Iraq/Afghanistan are excellent missions for small battalion/brigade assaults.

Airborne troops can now be delivered form the USA to anywhere in the world in hours. Helicopter delivered troops can only be delivered out to about 150 kms (101st ABN standard) because the helicopters have to make a round trip and can't refuel in flight (not counting SPEC OPS helos).

Aircraft deliverd troops require a friendly airstrtip.

So how do I think we should use airborne troops - to conduct deep raids into enemy territory, capture airfields beyond 150 km range to fly in heavier forces, and to cut off enemy communications..