Are paratrooper units outdated in modern war

Trooper · 05-12-2001, 20:15

This has been a big topic in military cirlces, with many senior officers saying the day of parachuting troops in to be pointless, when heliborne troops are more efficient.
I beleive there is a need for paras. Beside the morale issue, there are times when para jumps are more tactically sound than sending in troops on helicopters.
Canada disbanded it's Airborne Regiment and it trying to phase out all parachuting capability. Are any other countries going the same route?

Bylandt · 05-12-2001, 20:40

Surely, helicopters have a more limited range than airplanes and are easier targets for AA-fire?

Monoriu · 06-12-2001, 04:13

I believe there are a lot more reasons why Canada disbanded its para. troops than "para. troops are useless".

The multi-billion federal debt must be one of them.

Its just human nature to say something is useless when you can't afford it.

"Oh why are you still driving that Ford? You know, a Mercedes is much better."

A. "Mercedes are useless. I can do everything I want with the Ford".
B. "I can't afford a Mercedes, hence I am stuck with the Ford."

Most people will say A. It takes a lot of courage to openly admit B.

General Winter · 06-12-2001, 07:01

With the prolifferation of MANPADS para's are obsolete as a decisive force against any but the most basic opponent. That means Arnhem style mass drops. Add to this the lack of transport capability for deployment and supply, there simply ain't enough lift capability. That being said, the org charts are not useless. The need for light soldiers with some airlift component probably a mix of para and heli-borne for problem spots is probably more needed today than any other time. The light grunt is far from being obsolete, what is closer to being obsolete is the manned fighter, and the MBT. Both of these babies are going the way of T-Rex...

Emperor of Europe · 06-12-2001, 09:27

Quote:

Originally posted by General Winter
With the prolifferation of MANPADS para's are obsolete as a decisive force against any but the most basic opponent. That means Arnhem style mass drops. Add to this the lack of transport capability for deployment and supply, there simply ain't enough lift capability. That being said, the org charts are not useless. The need for light soldiers with some airlift component probably a mix of para and heli-borne for problem spots is probably more needed today than any other time. The light grunt is far from being obsolete, what is closer to being obsolete is the manned fighter, and the MBT. Both of these babies are going the way of T-Rex...

Agreed. As a rapid reaction force paras are still of use. But largescale para drops on a conventional battle field might be a thing of the past.

Regards,

EoE

Trooper · 06-12-2001, 13:21

Quote:

Originally posted by General Winter
With the prolifferation of MANPADS para's are obsolete as a decisive force against any but the most basic opponent. That means Arnhem style mass drops. Add to this the lack of transport capability for deployment and supply, there simply ain't enough lift capability. That being said, the org charts are not useless. The need for light soldiers with some airlift component probably a mix of para and heli-borne for problem spots is probably more needed today than any other time. The light grunt is far from being obsolete, what is closer to being obsolete is the manned fighter, and the MBT. Both of these babies are going the way of T-Rex...

I agree with you and EOE. A light infantry brigade is still a useful tool in the OoB. They are usually better trained than regular infantry and are very good for low intensity actions and peacekeeping missions.
I do agree we will probably never see a mass paradrop ever again.

Trooper · 06-12-2001, 13:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Monoriu
I believe there are a lot more reasons why Canada disbanded its para. troops than "para. troops are useless".

The multi-billion federal debt must be one of them.

Its just human nature to say something is useless when you can't afford it.

You are partially right in ref to Canada. The military has seen it budget drastically cut and the Generals decided we did not need a para ability. We still do have jump companies within our light infantry battalions. Hopefully they will keep this skill set.

Admiral Yi · 06-12-2001, 16:45

Last time they used the silk was in Grenada, and that didn't go so well--and against a relatively lightly armed opponent.

HALO drops might still be useful for Chindit-style work.

Trooper · 06-12-2001, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
Last time they used the silk was in Grenada, and that didn't go so well--and against a relatively lightly armed opponent.

HALO drops might still be useful for Chindit-style work.

They used silk in Afghanistan. While not a great tactical victory, it did show that para units can still be used.
The main dif between para and heli troops is that heli troops can bring in heavier arms and usually has close support. Resup is easier with the heli system as well. However it is easier to shoot down a heli coming in for landing than a herc flying by.

Admiral Yi · 06-12-2001, 17:14

Did not know that.

Sire Enaique · 06-12-2001, 18:50

Parachute operations have always been tricky. Crete was a close-run affair, Kanev was close to a complete disaster, Arnhem was a real one.
Still, when the conditions are right, paratroops are quite handy. Witness the Kolweizi operation in 1979. It wouldn't have been possible with only heliborne troops.

Admiral Yi · 06-12-2001, 19:46

Kolwezei--details please.

Rictus · 06-12-2001, 20:34

Trooper, are you saying this just 'cause you used to be one?

I think I remeber you saying that somewhere.

I agree that Paras troopers should be kept, if you want my two cents. AFAIK, there are no plans to pahse out British Paratroopers, which are on standby to enter Afghanistan.

piero · 06-12-2001, 20:53

WWII USA had 5 para divisions, now only one (82nd).

perhaps this is enough. some situations cannot be covered by airmobile. combined arms there is still the solution, paradrops to secure airfields rapidely and dicretly (helicopters do a lot of noise), then large cargo planes land... of course depending of the type of terrain and warfare.

I think para are not obsolete, but yeah, large drops are a thing of the past...

unless... you really can airdrop MASSIVE number of troops and armor, like the Soviet divisions could do. Today this would be useless, in the future, who can say.

I am for Starship Troopers (the book) kind of armoured landing suits - that kind of orbital "para" drop kicks ass.

Tokarev · 06-12-2001, 22:38

Quote:

Originally posted by piero
WWII USA had 5 para divisions, now only one (82nd).

What!? No 101st 'Screaming Eagles'? Only the 'All American'?

(Sorry, overload on cc5 has drastically made me overvalue para's

)

Admiral Yi · 06-12-2001, 22:41

101st is now "airmobile" division.

Tokarev · 06-12-2001, 22:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
101st is now "airmobile" division.

Heli-born? "airmobile" sounds like an old name for a plane.

Admiral Yi · 06-12-2001, 22:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Tokarev

Heli-born? "airmobile" sounds like an old name for a plane.

Not completely sure. Pretty sure it means the whole division can be transported by plane. Also am pretty sure they have some organic helicopter assets, but don't think enough to lift the whole division.

Tokarev · 06-12-2001, 22:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Admiral Yi

Not completely sure. Pretty sure it means the whole division can be transported by plane. Also am pretty sure they have some organic helicopter assets, but don't think enough to lift the whole division.

Sounds like a pretty fussy concept. Seems like the're basically light infantry but with better ancestry.

Admiral Yi · 06-12-2001, 23:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Tokarev

Sounds like a pretty fussy concept. Seems like the're basically light infantry but with better ancestry.

Can't argue with this. Maybe time to change the nickname, eh?

05-12-2001, 20:15	#1
Trooper Major Join Date: May 2001 Location: Nova Scotia, Canada Posts: 741	Are paratrooper units outdated in modern war This has been a big topic in military cirlces, with many senior officers saying the day of parachuting troops in to be pointless, when heliborne troops are more efficient. I beleive there is a need for paras. Beside the morale issue, there are times when para jumps are more tactically sound than sending in troops on helicopters. Canada disbanded it's Airborne Regiment and it trying to phase out all parachuting capability. Are any other countries going the same route? __________________ -A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

05-12-2001, 20:40	#2
Bylandt Bylandt Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Flanders Posts: 1,201	Surely, helicopters have a more limited range than airplanes and are easier targets for AA-fire? __________________ Chassez le naturel et il revient au galop.

06-12-2001, 16:45	#8
Admiral Yi Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Iowa Posts: 1,120	Last time they used the silk was in Grenada, and that didn't go so well--and against a relatively lightly armed opponent. HALO drops might still be useful for Chindit-style work. __________________ If you're going to be insulting, please try to be funny as well.

06-12-2001, 17:14	#10
Admiral Yi Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Iowa Posts: 1,120	Did not know that. __________________ If you're going to be insulting, please try to be funny as well.

06-12-2001, 18:50	#11
Sire Enaique Quartermaster General Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Paris Posts: 1,202	Parachute operations have always been tricky. Crete was a close-run affair, Kanev was close to a complete disaster, Arnhem was a real one. Still, when the conditions are right, paratroops are quite handy. Witness the Kolweizi operation in 1979. It wouldn't have been possible with only heliborne troops. __________________ I see life as being extremely serious, horrifying, and at the same time wonderfully absurd and funny. It's full of paradoxes, and as you get older, it seems to me that you have to realise this more and more and learn to embrace it. Joe Jackson

06-12-2001, 04:13	#3
Monoriu Pennyless Investor Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 131	I believe there are a lot more reasons why Canada disbanded its para. troops than "para. troops are useless". The multi-billion federal debt must be one of them. Its just human nature to say something is useless when you can't afford it. "Oh why are you still driving that Ford? You know, a Mercedes is much better." A. "Mercedes are useless. I can do everything I want with the Ford". B. "I can't afford a Mercedes, hence I am stuck with the Ford." Most people will say A. It takes a lot of courage to openly admit B.

06-12-2001, 07:01	#4
General Winter in Exile Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Its all grey here Posts: 198	With the prolifferation of MANPADS para's are obsolete as a decisive force against any but the most basic opponent. That means Arnhem style mass drops. Add to this the lack of transport capability for deployment and supply, there simply ain't enough lift capability. That being said, the org charts are not useless. The need for light soldiers with some airlift component probably a mix of para and heli-borne for problem spots is probably more needed today than any other time. The light grunt is far from being obsolete, what is closer to being obsolete is the manned fighter, and the MBT. Both of these babies are going the way of T-Rex...

06-12-2001, 19:46	#12
Admiral Yi Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Iowa Posts: 1,120	Kolwezei--details please. __________________ If you're going to be insulting, please try to be funny as well.

06-12-2001, 20:34	#13
Rictus bAAR Landowner Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Twickenham, Surrey Posts: 1,470	Trooper, are you saying this just 'cause you used to be one? I think I remeber you saying that somewhere. I agree that Paras troopers should be kept, if you want my two cents. AFAIK, there are no plans to pahse out British Paratroopers, which are on standby to enter Afghanistan. __________________ Check out the The Alien Online

06-12-2001, 20:53	#14
piero Major Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Geneva, Helvetia Posts: 543	WWII USA had 5 para divisions, now only one (82nd). perhaps this is enough. some situations cannot be covered by airmobile. combined arms there is still the solution, paradrops to secure airfields rapidely and dicretly (helicopters do a lot of noise), then large cargo planes land... of course depending of the type of terrain and warfare. I think para are not obsolete, but yeah, large drops are a thing of the past... unless... you really can airdrop MASSIVE number of troops and armor, like the Soviet divisions could do. Today this would be useless, in the future, who can say. I am for Starship Troopers (the book) kind of armoured landing suits - that kind of orbital "para" drop kicks ass. __________________ Panem et Circenes "Truth is allways revolutionary" - Gramsci

06-12-2001, 22:41	#16
Admiral Yi Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Iowa Posts: 1,120	101st is now "airmobile" division. __________________ If you're going to be insulting, please try to be funny as well.