Sometimes you have to get lucky. Every unit I went to, I requested to go to Airborne. Every unit told me they weren’t sending anyone to Airborne because XYZ. My first unit told me they weren’t doing it because in Korea, we train for a Korean conflict. My last unit told me they weren’t sending anyone because we were training up for deployment to Afghanistan. Everyone in between gave me similar types of excuses.Its a brotherhood that I wish I had entered when I was in the army. Its that little extra.
I don't know if the author had an agenda or not but he makes some valid points. I don't have an agenda, just found it interesting and it caused me to think a bit.You're on a little rampage aren't you lol.
Bashing traditions, telling us elite units aren't really elite or needed, now airborne is not needed too.
I may be wrong, but I feel an agenda....
Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
Well said.The article states airborne units are an outdated concept and that we have too many. I suspect the author doesn't understand military history and strategy.
One of the primary missions of airborne units is to seize airfields. It's still a valid mission for a forced entry outside the range of rotary wing (Grenada). That's all about the flow of forces, evacuating medical, and logistics. Our ability to project and mass forces saves lives. Another valid mission is to rapidly gain a foothold by securing terrain his rear (northern Iraq). The capability itself prevents a smart enemy for massing forces and requires him to secure rear areas.
If the author is only looking at history since 9-11 then he is falling into the easy trap of assuming the last war will be like the next rather than the realizing the need to prepare for a near peer competitor. For example, had we trained for a Vietnam type war into the 80s we likely wouldn't have won the Cold War because Russia likely wouldn't have stayed on their side of the fulda gap. Another example preparing for the last war was France's magineot line which was a mere speed bump to the blitzkrieg.
as for the article, the author has no idea what in the hell he is talking about, this is nothing more than an opinion piece from an uninformed person.Let me tell you something, OP. My unit, 1-508th, 173rd AB, while in Kunar Province, had a reaction time that NO UNIT matched, while I was in country(2009). I can also say with total confidence that we, alongside our friends from Latvia(those guys HATED muslims like you would'nt believe), took care of business re: wacking muslim dogs.
You have no clue.
Just so you know, the fall won't hurt you....it is that sudden stop if you don't pack your chute properly that'll get you every time. :THE ONLY way you could get me to jump from an airplane would be if it was on fire.
I volunteered to do a lot of thing in my life. But, NOPE...
Maybe it was because I started flying at an early age. I solo'd at 16.
planes are your friend.:thumb:
I 'd rather take my chances going into a hot LZ on a helicopter than ride in on a bed sheet.
Both are crazy.:thumb::thumb::thumb:
I'm an experienced paratrooper who served with several elite units, including on active jump status. And I'm a veteran of OIF.An interesting article regarding the need or not for airborne units.
Total F***** Hogwash. Like anything, experience matters. Experienced RIGGERS, JUMPMASTERS, LOADMASTERS, PATHFINDERS, and PILOTS mitigate risks to jumpers and equipment. You cannot abandon this for a generation and expect to just relearn it from scratch. The author really demonstrates total lack of the ecosystem involved in Airborne Operations. Further, an experienced paratrooper will exit an aircraft correctly, is less likely to panic if there's a problem, and will be better at avoiding ground obstacles, and landing without incident. You don't just "strap on a parachute and fall." It doesn't work that way. Airborne school is a very busy 3 weeks of intense training on all aspects of jumping. Using the equipment properly, safe aircraft posture, correctly exiting the aircraft, chute deployment, reserve deployment emergency operations, avoiding ground obstacles, safely landing, and chute retrieval among dozens of other things. Far more complicated with 80-100 pounds of equipment..."The operational characteristics, fully published in FM3-99 Airborne and Air Assault Operations, show the limitations clearly. The threat to personnel from the jump alone has the exact same dangers whether performed during peace or war. In fact, regardless of the number of jumps a person has, the risk to life and limb is the same each time they jump. The experience they receive does not affect the process once they exit the aircraft. The senior commanders are just as exposed to risk as the privates....We can still, when the need arises, utilize airborne operations. All risk being equal, there is no difference to the mission to drop an entire unit using a small cadre of experienced personnel and the rest of the personnel can just strap on the parachute and fall."
Not true. Airborne operations were taught extensively prior to WWII participation. Has this author never studied history? However, there were a lot of complications due to inexperience and improperly designed equipment and aircraft, which lead to a lot of casualites. Guess what changed to make it safer... DECADES of improvements based upon EXPERIENCE!! Something this moronic author wants to throw away."This was also proven in WWII by the same units. Many of those men had no training in parachute operations. They were taught to put it on and they got in the plane and jumped into combat."
This isn't possible on a short time horizon and we would lose the ability to train YOUNGER generations of paratroopers to pass the torch. There are specific techniques to safely be in the aircraft, guard your reserve, an orderly manner to exit the aircraft to avoid injury, what to do if one is a dragged jumper, how to properly exit the aircraft to avoid injury, static line and reserve chute performance, how to steer, how to land without injury (FYI, the impact is the equivalent of jumping off a 1 or 2 story building and requires SPECIFIC technique to avoid breaking your legs, hips, back, etc.)."We don’t need units like the 82nd or battalions like the 1/501st. We need each unit to have a small cadre of jump masters and if the military decides to utilize personnel on an airborne operation, the cadre will ensure everyone is suited up, rigged, and then push them out the door."... "The risks are exactly the same and if they are, then there is no reason to have a specialized unit with nifty hats just to practice a tactic that is not really necessary to practice. All they do is fall. They don’t have to open the parachute because the static line does that. While the appropriate parachute landing fall might be worthwhile to prevent injury, it is not really worth the effort of a 3 week school just to teach that."