If you read Cornelius Ryan's book and then saw the movie "A Bridge Too Far," you should be relatively well acquainted with the Allies attempt to strike a bold, decisive strike against the Germans by launching an airborne invasion and armored invasion of Holland in September of 1944. Great idea. It did not succeed for a number of reasons. Based on what you saw and read, do airborne forces of division size or larger (that' about 15-18,000 people) still have a role on today'sbattlefield? Could they be used to conduct an airborne operation against the Iraqi Army?
DJ

210,

They absolutely can and will play a major role in future cirsis. There speed and surprise elements are things that can't be achieved by the armoured forces themselves. They can be deployed in a formation the size of a division or even an army corps, but they will act in smaller groups most of the time since there's little cause for a massive attack with a formation that has a larger size than a battalion (since the targets will be smaller, but tacticly more important).

I think that the difficulty in a massive deployment of these troops today is the defence of the transport planes. You'll need Topdeck, Bottomdeck, rearend and frontend jet defenders as well as a spearhead offensive force of jetfighters and bombers to defend these transportlanes. Look at the number of jets you will need to fly in a division of airbornes..... It's hughe....

So I think they can and will play a role in a larger formation, but they will be deployed in smaller teams.

Eagle-- I am surprised that you do not believe that airmobile forces allow a field commander greater flexibiity. However, if your thoughts are correct then the employment of smaller than division size forces airborne formation should relieve us from maintaining an airborne division. I can assure you that maintaining the 82nd is an expensive propostiion.
DJ

DJ,

I don't think I succeeded in expressing my thoughts, and I guess it will need a lot of typing to explain or make it more clear. I do believe in maintaining an (or more) airborne division(s). Sure the cost will be enormous, but modern warfare just needs them.... a lot of them, but in smaller groups at a time.

Don't forget the multiple "front lines" we have these days.... a lot of men are needed. I hope this makes sence. It would take me hours to explain every thought I have about this.... and it's almost bedtime over here so.... we'll meet again

I agree 100%.Airborne divisions can get to a spot quickly and efficently behind enemy lines to hold a position that the normal G.I cant get to.

In refering to your question about deploying them in Iraq I say yes they could be used in a operation against the Iraqi army.If we dont feel like blowing Baghdad upthen we can send these boys in and tear the Iraqi's up from the inside while the armor hits them from the front.

I do not see the use for a full airborne division in the US Army. The USAF would be lucky to transport the ready brigade for a same day drop. Once they drop and seize an airfield (in the old Soviet style), follow-up with some heavier armed infantry and light armor (which the US does not have ). The US has not deployed a drop larger than Regimental Combat Team since WW2, nor has it needed that large of a drop. One, maybe two airborne RCTs would be sufficient. Look at how much money goes in jump pay for all of the XVIII Corps assets that have never and probably never will jump for real. Small drops by the Rangers and SF is more within the capability of today's USAF. A mass jump requires air supremacy and complete suppression of ADA to keep from horrendous losses, or a drop so far from viable targets as to be useless.

I am not saying airborne forces are obsolete, but I believe the Airborne Division and Airborne Corps are

Jeff--as someone and everyone tries to figure out what they want to transform the military into, many are questioning the value of an airborne division. No one is questioning the need to maintain this form of infiltration/insertion. However, tieing up the lift capability and placing that many assets in this questionable a size unit is the key issue of the time. Do you need the division size force?
DJ

Interesting discussion. At first, I didn't know what to think, but after reading your responses I have an opinion. With the type of war fought today, a division of airborne troops doesn't seem necessary. The US takes part in a lot of smaller operations involving infiltration of this type, but certainly not on divisional scale. For deploying large numbers of troops across the world, we have seen infantry can be flown into areas without needing to make parachute drops. If and when war comes with a country like Iraq, I doubt any Western country would be willing to drop tens of thousands of men behind enemy lines, because of the great risk involved and a population that doesn't want high casualties. If a war comes along where airborne divisions are needed in large scale, you can always train soldiers to jump out of an airplane. They did it in World War II.

Nic

With the possible exception of the Russians and the Chinese I think every other country has less than a division's worth of paratroopers. I do not think that the US Army needs a division plus the airborne-capable assets we currently have, but the Airborne Mafia is still strong

We have a full regiment of medium weight infantry in the Ranger Regiment (they are not truly light infantry. They have a lot heavy toys. They, however, lack a logistics tail. They are a hit and run outfit, or best used for long range recon, etc.

A brigade combat team, maybe up to 4 battalions of airborne infantry, arty battalion (+), large light armor company and support battalion shopuld be sufficient for missions these days. The battalions should be larger, in support assets than the current airborne battalion to allow independent operations for short periods. These battalions would have more staying power than the ranger battalions. The brigade would have the intel, quartermasters, heavy maintenance assets, etc., etc., allowing task organization of the battalions, and some command & control of multi-battalion operations.

I would see using the airborne forces to:

assist Marines in seizing ports, beach heads (Similar to Operations Dragoon and Overlord),

occupy key terrain like passes, bridges, etc. where distance is too great for air assault, or where staging of air assault assets isn't possible.

guard the corps HQ (from a former scout platoon leader that was commander of the part time "Palace Guard"

I am always taken aback by the fact that the Army decided to bring on the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams at Fort Lewis, Washington rather than at Fort Bragg. The mixing of the Stryker with the airborne battalions might have proven a far more effective unit than turning mechanized infantry battalions into Stryker units. Wonder why they did that?
DJ