Are airborne troops still useful in modern times ?

Rwandan paras were GOAT in the day.

Are they not just drilled harder than regular troops?

Nowadays they're pretty much light infantry that don't insert via planes anymore, at least that's what it's like in the UK. Don't know much about the US

There's a saying that if you need a hole punched through with no regard for anything else, call the paras

Yes, And even if your enemy has good AA they can still be effective if you have your Electronic Warfare game down well enough to get them and get the planes out. One of the problems with Airborne is, the actual conditions where they are most useful haven't existed since the invasion at Inchon.

>Are they not just drilled harder than regular troops?
Yes.

All depends on doctrine, who you are facing and where.

If you need to take a relativly undefended island in a supprise attack (before your opponent can come in and reinforce it) for example they are great. If you need to take strategic targets quickly they are also great.

Whats the point of having paras then?

D-Day was a pretty big airborne operation by the coast guard

>>are airborne troops still useful in modern times ?

>In conventional warfare with peer adversaries?
DOUBT [X]

>In low intensity conventional warfare against non-peer adversaries?
Yes, very much so. Having the ability to drop a brigade out the sky is a very valuable asset to any commander. Especially when facing an enemy who may not have the command and control that you do. Dropping 3k guys in his rear and seizing some key points, while your regular units push his front, will destroy whatever cohesion his formation has.

>In irregular warfare or counter-insurgency
This is what airborne are best for. Well drilled, high mobility, light-infantry are the key to COIN/CT. Operating at the company or battalion level, with Air-assault following up they are very useful at getting into places where they are least expected and attacking insurgent infrastructure - or just generally harassing the enemies ability to train, recruit and arm insurgents - and then quickly with-drawing.

A big problem is that many people consider insurgencies in terms of what was seen in Iraq - a largely urban space where most conflict was limited to cities, while the country itself was very small. Or Afghanistan where mountainous terrain worked against the para's. So, unfortunatly, America's only two recent insurgencies happened in the one place you cant really use your paras.

>>what are some examples of good airborne operations in history?
Pic related, also
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cassinga
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dragon_Rouge
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kolwezi

Attached: 137148420831 (1).jpg (1200x825, 219K)

Operation Varsity?

Potentially useful in a conflict agains a conventional force.
> drop 82nd and 173rd outside Tehran
> used as blocking force to cut highways 2,5, and 7
> main body assaults through city with armor

Attached: B674DAC1-7FD0-4B3A-97E8-60007D418FA7.jpg (400x336, 32K)

Strategic capability. It means you can put thousands of troops anywhere in the world within hours without needing a secured airfield. Most significantly, your enemies know it and need to allow for it.

>Get overrun by armor from the rear

Yeah but how do they do that if they dont insert via planes anymore?

>Not understanding how the Carl G and AT4 work
>not understanding that brigade and division sized operations have anti-armor capabilities

>by the coast guard
wat

>how the Carl G and AT4 work
Not very well against main battle tanks, I'm told

The Carl G will blow up damn near anything.

Also, like the other guy said a division level operation would have a bunch of at guns and howitzers.

Rambo is timeless.

Also, what is CAS? US plan one is pretty much always to establish air superiority and iran's airforce seems to peek with some old ass f14's that don't have the last couple blocks of upgrades.

The point is that they CAN if needed.

Attached: IMG_20180513_174042_516.jpg (1440x841, 173K)

>AT4 is more than enough against APC and soft skin vehicles
>Carl kills all
> also javelin
> A10, AC130, Cobra, Apache, etc
Are you assuming that airborne forces would jump and fight without support? It’s the 21st century and American airpower, not to mention coalition allies, will still clear the sky and the provide CAS

>toxic
You're right but I'm still gunna call you a fag for using that word unironically.

I think the point he's stressing is just because we don't, doesn't me we can't. The adversary, knowing airborne can show up where you least expect it, means they have to assign resources to defend more areas than just the fronts where advancing columns of armor and infantry are rolling in.

It's an asset that forces the adversary to spread their resources thinner than they can afford, to the advantage of the agressor.

Yeah, that makes sense, I read it as they had lost that capability for whatever reson