![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/EastTimor.html
I'd say this site spells out quite nicely the limited role most countries played in comparison to Australia, and I think we managed to get ourselves there without relying on the fairly limited US resources allocated. Quote:
Perhaps my view is clouded somewhat by the local state situation where the government is basically broke. They're pulling AU$100,000,000.00 (US$ is roughly equal) out of the local public hospital (which services a population of approximately 150,000 people) after attempting to close 15 public schools across the state (total population of about half a million) - they suffered a VERY nasty backlash. The state government, like the federal government is a hung parliment with the Greens (very minor party) holding the balance of power and so we have a lot of the same types of problems here that exists in Canberra. My understanding is it's a different story in the West where you are Targan, what with the resources boom and all... I believe in a multiparty system as I indicated in the Politics thread. Simplified greatly I see the Australian arrangement as basically Labor spending bucketloads of money on infrastructure projects, then the Liberals coming in and paying off all the debt. This time around Labor has basically ballsed it all up - take the roof insulation scandle, or the schools improvement - both schemes which were horribly abused to the tune of hundred of millions of dollars. I don't see Labor themselves as the problem, just the current batch of them. Back on topic, it does make some sense to do away with paratroops in the modern world, however I'm not convinced Australia needs a dedicated amphibious force. Capability yes, but not a force that does amphibious operations and only amphibious operations 24/7/365.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Makes sense to me still to convert Paratroops into Marines.
Large Scale Airborne Operations in contested airspace is dead. An Expeditionary unit with Land ships and Landing craft brings much more than an equivalent airborne unit can (tonnage of supply), and with the vehicles to move that logistical tail about. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You do realize that the Airborne Mafia now have you on their hit list now? WHAT!!! No more classic large-scale airborne operations????? Why it calls most of their existence into question.
Although I do agree with you, the era of the Large Airborne Operation is over.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Current radar, satellite systems, and engagement with missiles from beyond visual range makes loading up heavy lifters with 200 paratroops an act of criminal stupidity. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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?
__________________
“We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Money. It costs a lot of money to keep sufficient aircraft on hand to shift an entire division.
There's also the limits on size and weight able to be carried by air. An airborne force is never realistically ever going to be much more that light infantry.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I agree that large scale beach landings against defended positions are unlikely; however, a trained amphibious brigade is the ideal way of getting a defensive force into position, with the heavy weapons, armour and logistical support if a threat becomes apparent.
It would be theoretically possible for an invader to land a force somewhere on a remote part of Australia's coast, with the plan of expanding the beachhead before defending forces can be brought to bear- but if Oz has a unit capable of landing on the next beach, ready to fight, that invasion becomes much less practical. Ok, setting up an amphib brigade ready to invade yourself would be unusual, but it seems (to this ignorant foreigner, anyway) a novel and effective solution to some of Australia's unique defensive problems. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the money/aircraft issue doesn't work the same for the US as for Australia. The aircraft already exist, although many of them might be doing other jobs until the airborne guys need moving. I agree completely that airborne forces are going to be light. One has to adjust expectations accordingly.
__________________
“We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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....
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis. |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|