Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Airborne Operations Message-ID: <1990Jul6.032814.27856@cbnews.att.com> Date: 6 Jul 90 03:28:14 GMT References: <1990Jul5.020552.14422@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN. Lines: 66 Approved: military@att.att.com From: jpulliam@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jacqueline Pulliam) >From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) > > If memory serves, the US stopped using gliders after WWII, >because of their extreme vulnerablility and difficulty of logistical >support (you have to ha not only risk the glider to AA fire, but the >tow aircraft also). I don't think anybody else uses them anyymore, >either, but I am not sure. I agree so far. > The tradeoffs of paratrooper ops is vulnerability . A >paratrooper, hanging from a parachute for several minutes, is >possibly the easiest target in the military world (except for >grounded airplanes, maybe). Until he gets clear of that parachute, >he is a target, not a soldier. I still agree, at least with all after the first sentence. >That was the reason for the developement of gliders. Paratroop ops >had such a high potential for casuualties that it was thought that >it would be better to put them all in a ctransport that could land >and then be discarded. The transport could manuveer (sp?) and Nope, not according to my source (Devlin's _Paratroopers_). What source did you get this info from? >(hopefully) avoid AA, and large numbers of troops could be landed in >one spot safely. In execution, however, the gliders were bears to >handle, the pilots that flew them were poorly trained, and they were >almost as easy a target as the parachute. If I were a glider pilot, I'd be insulted. Everything I've seen, heard and read about the glider pilot program and the troops who graduated from it has been very complementary. Again, I'd double-check my source... > Today most paratroop ops are conducted from hhelicopter. The >troops are kept low, out of AA and missle fire, in a h (relatively) >fast, manuverable craft. They repel off the helicopter and are on >the ground and ready to fight in a few seconds. If you mean specifically in the U.S. Army, and you mean "51% or more" when you say "most", I'm not sure I'd disagree with you. There is one Airborne division (whose troops are paratroops) in the U.S. Army, the 82nd. There is also one Airborne (Air Assault) division (troops not on jump status), the 101st. There are also a large number of soldiers in other units who use air assault techniques, so I won't disagree with you. But if you mean "almost all" by "most", I disagree strongly. Airborne troops (XVIII Airborne Corps, which has corps support units from 16th MP Bde and 20th Engr Bde to COSCOM, as well as the 82nd, on jump status; and Special Operations Command with 4 SF groups as well as Civil Affairs and Psyop units) are pretty widespread. In addition, every light (or light and heavy?) division now has a platoon of troops on jump status in a rebirth of the old long range recon patrol mission (can't remember the name of these new platoons, but they're a division asset, controlled by the G-2). I'm sorry that I don't have exact figures, but I'd guess the percentage of airborne soldiers in the U.S. Army at between 5% and 10%. By the way, it is much more common for air assault troops to dismount from an aircraft than to rappel out of it. There are situations when the bird can't touch down to unload; but when it can, it is actually faster and safer to do so than to throw out the ropes.