Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
I agree that the era of large-scale airborne operations against well-equipped opposition has passed, but the airborne still have their role. It's important to be able to exploit opportunities. At the very least, airborne units travel by air. Perhaps as importantly, airborne units view themselves as an elite and tend to train that way. Whether the 82nd Airborne ever makes another assault drop, they are a highly motivated group that train hard and have excellent esprit de corps. They are one of the few formations in the Army that I would hold up against the Marines on a battalion-by-battalion basis. If the price we pay for maintaining such a formation is the illusion that we may someday execute a divisional combat drop, what's the harm?
|
Airborne units travel by air, that was also the argument used to justify the light divisions, remember all of the studies that showed how much easier it was to transport a LID by air rather than any other type of division (and that included airborne and Marine!!!)?
I don't dispute the need to maintain a airborne division, especially since current doctrine is that any future operation would be, at most, brigade sized; you would need a division in order to keep a ready brigade on the Green Ramp. But I doubt, that there would ever be another division or multi-division sized airborne operation.
While the paratroopers point to their success at Normandy and Market Garden, I also remember the slaughter of the airborne troopers in the Battle of the Bulge when they were committed as regular infantry in an emergency, remember the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion, the were committed on December 21st with 745 men and relieved on January 23rd, with 55 men remaining, or the 551st Parachute Infantry Battalion, committed on December 21st with 845 men and relieved on January 9th, with 98 men remaining.
Its the same story today as then, they are just too lightly equipped to go toe-to-toe with a armored division....