20
20
0
A long debated issue.... I have often argued against... Even though I was a paratrooper back in the day
Does the Army need airborne?
Posted from armytimes.com
11B1P: Infantryman (Airborne)
XVIII ABN Corps
Airborne School
82nd ABN
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 34
21
21
0
Sir,
The way I look at it is like I look at having a 4wd truck rather than a 2wd truck. It is better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it. I am currently Air Defense, we don't need Air defense currently and haven't use it in quite some time, but there is always a possibility we will need it at some point.
The way I look at it is like I look at having a 4wd truck rather than a 2wd truck. It is better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it. I am currently Air Defense, we don't need Air defense currently and haven't use it in quite some time, but there is always a possibility we will need it at some point.
(21)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) -
Technically we are though. Since 9/11 air dand dense units have stood watch over the NCR region. There is also the CRAM missions.
As to airborne I wasn't saying to disband them. I'm fully in favor of having and not needing. However, the likelihood of ever using them again on the scale they were in WW II are unlikely.
Technically we are though. Since 9/11 air dand dense units have stood watch over the NCR region. There is also the CRAM missions.
As to airborne I wasn't saying to disband them. I'm fully in favor of having and not needing. However, the likelihood of ever using them again on the scale they were in WW II are unlikely.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Robert Webster -
There are plenty of applications for those systems of course. Aquisition and implementation of systems arent my job. Using them to clear the skies is. If you have policy issues of advise taking those up with congress. I'd love for a system better than the Avenger.
There are plenty of applications for those systems of course. Aquisition and implementation of systems arent my job. Using them to clear the skies is. If you have policy issues of advise taking those up with congress. I'd love for a system better than the Avenger.
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SGT (Join to see) - You do realize that my question and statement are rhetorical? Especially since the Avenger is what basically replaced those systems.
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
PFC Jon Singleton, the GRF is a threat of Americans on the ground quickly. There is a difference between that and reality. Sure...we can put the 82d in its entirety on the ground...but the rest of the Army can't. So, I am against the concept in general. Airborne operations have horrendous historical success records. They serve a symbolic purpose right now. We CAN put Americans there immediately. Using the bumper sticker of "911 Force" is only applicable if they are going to jump in and fight a light infantry brigade...not an enemy Army. We can't reinforce them fast enough unless we are fighting in Mexico or Canada. Most importantly, we wouldn't try. Saying the 82nd can get somewhere in its entirety in 30 days is meaningless because we will NEVER do that...because they will die before we can get the rest of the Army over there. No where in history have we said, "HAH!!! NINJA SMOKE!! AMERICA!! Here's an airborne division that we can't support." We have built plans over hundreds of days to enable that kind of operation and have met with mixed results every time. For every Normandy invasion there is a Market Garden.
(0)
(0)
15
15
0
A few thoughts regarding if Airborne capability is needed.
- Strategic. The US can not always bank upon an area or country from which to conduct RSOI. The nation needs the ability to "kick the door open" when necessary. Right now, the only two ways that the nation can do this is via airborne or amphibious operations. Amphibious is only useful when the contested area is next to water. Airborne is useful inland or coastal.
- Operational. US doctrine is to fight joint combined arms. What are the forcing functions to practice this doctrine in peacetime and/or garrison? Airborne operations are one forcing function.
- Tactical. Why did the US Army stand up the Ranger Regiment? One reason was to serve as seed corn for small unit leadership throughout the rest of the Army. Airborne forces can and do serve this purpose as well. Just compare and contrast how airborne/light forces fight compared to mechanized forces. One contrast is that management skills are key to success in a mechanized force (log, maint, supply) whereas leadership skills are key to success in an airborne force. There are others and this is an over simplification but I believe it to be true.
- Strategic. The US can not always bank upon an area or country from which to conduct RSOI. The nation needs the ability to "kick the door open" when necessary. Right now, the only two ways that the nation can do this is via airborne or amphibious operations. Amphibious is only useful when the contested area is next to water. Airborne is useful inland or coastal.
- Operational. US doctrine is to fight joint combined arms. What are the forcing functions to practice this doctrine in peacetime and/or garrison? Airborne operations are one forcing function.
- Tactical. Why did the US Army stand up the Ranger Regiment? One reason was to serve as seed corn for small unit leadership throughout the rest of the Army. Airborne forces can and do serve this purpose as well. Just compare and contrast how airborne/light forces fight compared to mechanized forces. One contrast is that management skills are key to success in a mechanized force (log, maint, supply) whereas leadership skills are key to success in an airborne force. There are others and this is an over simplification but I believe it to be true.
(15)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
Thanks COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM COL (Join to see), and everyone else!!!
I did not show my cards, when I posted, as I did not want to sway the discussion. But, I too have have long wrestled with this. I personally believe "it is better to have and not need (Strategically and Tactically), then need and not have."
My last Airborne assignment was as the Deputy Brigade Commander, 16th MP BDE (Airborne), at Fortress Bragg and in Baghdad. And, my first was with the 65th MP Co (Airborne), both at Fortress Bragg and in Grenada.
I never really understood... as an example(s), why we had the MP BDE CMDR on jump status, or the whole COSCOM (at one time), or Helicopter Pilots etc... or MPs for that matter....
I believe we need this capability certainly within SOCOM, The Ranger Regiment, and then probably the 3 x 82nd BCTs, or perhaps the 173rd too on the other side of the world...
Since 911, we reduced some paid parachutists slots (many on Bragg), but than we added Airborne BCTs. Still, I believe it is better to have and not need, then need and not have.
With regards to how many MPs, Engineers etc we need on jump status... that answer is emotional, but in my view, we need enough to support the Airborne BCT maneuver commander for forced entry operations, whatever that looks like. For MPs (my world) we don't need a whole Battalion, a Battalion HHD, and Brigade HHC on jump status. One company, perhaps two, and maybe a few key leaders above the company. But, that decision really resides with the maneuver/supported commander.
As just one example... as we geared up for Operation Just Cause, many senior leaders were trying to bump "Joe" to get on an aircraft to get a "Combat Jump" in... The 82nd Airborne Division MP Company actually jumped in... Then as soon as they hit the ground, they were trying to commandeer and/or borrow vehicles from other MP units on the ground in Panama... as they had none... MPs in the Direct or General Combat Support Role are essentially useless if they can't move, shoot and communicate = trucks.
Interesting topic always.
I did not show my cards, when I posted, as I did not want to sway the discussion. But, I too have have long wrestled with this. I personally believe "it is better to have and not need (Strategically and Tactically), then need and not have."
My last Airborne assignment was as the Deputy Brigade Commander, 16th MP BDE (Airborne), at Fortress Bragg and in Baghdad. And, my first was with the 65th MP Co (Airborne), both at Fortress Bragg and in Grenada.
I never really understood... as an example(s), why we had the MP BDE CMDR on jump status, or the whole COSCOM (at one time), or Helicopter Pilots etc... or MPs for that matter....
I believe we need this capability certainly within SOCOM, The Ranger Regiment, and then probably the 3 x 82nd BCTs, or perhaps the 173rd too on the other side of the world...
Since 911, we reduced some paid parachutists slots (many on Bragg), but than we added Airborne BCTs. Still, I believe it is better to have and not need, then need and not have.
With regards to how many MPs, Engineers etc we need on jump status... that answer is emotional, but in my view, we need enough to support the Airborne BCT maneuver commander for forced entry operations, whatever that looks like. For MPs (my world) we don't need a whole Battalion, a Battalion HHD, and Brigade HHC on jump status. One company, perhaps two, and maybe a few key leaders above the company. But, that decision really resides with the maneuver/supported commander.
As just one example... as we geared up for Operation Just Cause, many senior leaders were trying to bump "Joe" to get on an aircraft to get a "Combat Jump" in... The 82nd Airborne Division MP Company actually jumped in... Then as soon as they hit the ground, they were trying to commandeer and/or borrow vehicles from other MP units on the ground in Panama... as they had none... MPs in the Direct or General Combat Support Role are essentially useless if they can't move, shoot and communicate = trucks.
Interesting topic always.
(2)
(0)
CPL(P) (Join to see)
Problem I saw as a paratrooper in a BEB with Airborne MPs is that there weren't enough. We got one PLT per BDE as attachments, which led to the MPs being way too thinly-spread and wearing far too many hats - running airfield security, ECPs, Detainee Operations Center, assisting with PSD, etc.
That does still beg the question of why the BDE HHC was on jump status since the MPs were always attachments to BEBs/BSTBs (from what I saw), but that's just to answer your question of why so many airborne MPs.
I'd actually argue (as a current USASOC Soldier) that the majority of USASOC doesn't need to be Airborne, since USASOC will never conduct combat static-line operations, but does need a selection process it doesn't have. Privates fresh out of AIT shouldn't be assigned to USASOC units; personnel shouldn't just come down for orders for USASOC. The lack of a selection process seems to create a rift between the pipe-swingers and their enablers.
That does still beg the question of why the BDE HHC was on jump status since the MPs were always attachments to BEBs/BSTBs (from what I saw), but that's just to answer your question of why so many airborne MPs.
I'd actually argue (as a current USASOC Soldier) that the majority of USASOC doesn't need to be Airborne, since USASOC will never conduct combat static-line operations, but does need a selection process it doesn't have. Privates fresh out of AIT shouldn't be assigned to USASOC units; personnel shouldn't just come down for orders for USASOC. The lack of a selection process seems to create a rift between the pipe-swingers and their enablers.
(1)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
COL Charles Williams,
- I have six years on jump status so have some background on the issue as well.
- Should the US have an airborne capability is a different question/issue from who should be on jump status. The first question should be answered first and that will drive the answer to the second question.
- Concur that the answer to "who should be on jump status" should be driven by the Maneuver BCT CDR's requirements. As you write, however, the issue is emotional and, unfortunately, the answer more often than not is based upon who used to be on jump status rather than who needs to be on jump status.
- By doctrine, forced entry operations (airborne) are high risk, high payoff operations. Unfortunately, very few people truly understand the requirements and necessary conditions of the operation at the three levels of war along with branch and service perspectives.
- I have six years on jump status so have some background on the issue as well.
- Should the US have an airborne capability is a different question/issue from who should be on jump status. The first question should be answered first and that will drive the answer to the second question.
- Concur that the answer to "who should be on jump status" should be driven by the Maneuver BCT CDR's requirements. As you write, however, the issue is emotional and, unfortunately, the answer more often than not is based upon who used to be on jump status rather than who needs to be on jump status.
- By doctrine, forced entry operations (airborne) are high risk, high payoff operations. Unfortunately, very few people truly understand the requirements and necessary conditions of the operation at the three levels of war along with branch and service perspectives.
(2)
(0)
14
14
0
I would challenge any man (or woman) that hasspent time among the Airborne to name a single division that is better or more professional than the 82nd Airborne Division. There is not one, there are some other division in 18th ABC that can stand close, but there is something different about a man who will jump out of a plane at 500 ft wearing 120 lbs of equipment.
Bottom line- you do not cut your best (regular army) soldiers because it was convenient. Cut down on the amount of people allowed to go each year, only essential troops.
This is a proficiency that we will lose and have to re learn if we ever need it. That is a disaster waiting to happen. Besides, would you really want to take away the history of the greatest soldiers in the world? The men who took back Europe get a tribute each and every day that new paratroopers out on the uniform. We speak English, not german because of them.
Bottom line- you do not cut your best (regular army) soldiers because it was convenient. Cut down on the amount of people allowed to go each year, only essential troops.
This is a proficiency that we will lose and have to re learn if we ever need it. That is a disaster waiting to happen. Besides, would you really want to take away the history of the greatest soldiers in the world? The men who took back Europe get a tribute each and every day that new paratroopers out on the uniform. We speak English, not german because of them.
(14)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SPC Timothy Repetto - Read the first sentence of my response again. I said Division (not unit). Long story short, I agree with you.
(2)
(0)
SPC Timothy Repetto
LOL I read that after I posted and thought to myself...... 173rd isn't a division. Agreed.
(3)
(0)
Rick Wiseman
I was 21st MP CO ABN, we were Corps but Division called us all the time for Ops. Division is under Corps so that means, you guessed it, we were the better of the two... ALL THE WAY!!!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google