Paratroopers: Are they still relevant?

>namefag
>shitty opinion
imagine my surprise

It might hard to get the fuel/spare parts to keep the planes running, but I doubt the rebels would have any AA.

Like many capabilities they are probably more useful as a "fleet in being", as in they force the enemy to prepare for the possibility of such an attack which wastes resources better used elsewhere.
Of course if an enemy makes no preparations for such attack, then they can be used to great effect.

I was thinking small scale, as in dropping raiding teams. Something something post ww2 wehrwolf commando style

Yup, or the initial phases of invading a weaker country. Paratroopers are shit for counter insurgency, but the idea of having infantry land behind the enemy and cut off their routes of retreat can be attractive. With modern air support, light infantry can be a lot more survivable behind enemy lines. Of course, if the enemy still has an Air Force, they’re fucked.

This. Basically, if the enemy has mobile anti-infantry assets (IFVs, mortar carriers, patrol vehicles with auto grenade launchers) and, for some reason, you're unable to destroy/suppress them, you're going to lose your para battalion.
However, they are quite good for glownigger shit in tusken raider territory, since it's unlikely they'll encounter the sort of forces described above, and you can put them almost anywhere.

Weather is not so much of a factor now. Cloud cover wont dissuade jumps because we have gps now.

They are pretty much pointless in a COIN scenario (only major American drops in the last 20 years have been dog and pony shows on already secure locations, just so insecure faggots up the CoC can get their combat ribbon and feel if only for a little while that "leg" isn't a hollow phrase) but you'd be a retard to neglect the capability.

I mean, that’s probably something SEALs and shit specifically train for. Wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve used it periodically in Afghanistan.

In a modern conventional conflict, air superiority would need to be gained and SAM sites would have to be neutralized. If this can be achieved at least on some level than paratroops become an extremely lethal force, both in the disruption of retrograde operations as well as airfield seizures other means of opening supply lines.

To be fair, at least in the US’s case, gaining air superiority is a prerequisite for basically any infantry operations.

>any infantry operations.
any long term operations that is

I mean they do cut off supplies but they themselves live on rations cause 90+% of the time they're surrounded

That’s fair, but I think it’s worth reiterating just how much the US is obsessed with maintaining control over airspace. Even in the Abbottabad raid, SEALs were using stealth helicopters to absolutely ensure that they wouldn’t be seen by Pakistani AA.

That's because they were wary of potential moles in the Paki military.

Right, I’m just saying that even for an op that lasted like 10 hours in (ostensibly) friendly territory, the US military dusted off experimental stealth helos from the 90s, just to mitigate the relatively low risk of radar detection by a “friendly” country. We really, really, really prioritize air superiority. It’s not without good reason, but it’s still something that’s always a priority for American planners at every level.

>Fighter escort doesnt exist: the post

Shooting down parachuting soldiers is a war crime.

Geneva convention, Protocol I.

1 ZSU-23-2 would ruin a whole paradrop

Why do slavs have so many of them then?

Attached: Russian_Airborne_Forces.png (1280x612, 395K)

I could be wrong, but I think that only applies to bailed-out aircrew. Guys with guns committing an offensive action are fair game.

No its not. Paratroopers are legit targets both in and outside of aircraft

This guy is right.

>Shooting down parachuting soldiers is a war crime.
>Geneva convention, Protocol I.
Shooting down aircrews bailing out burning aircraft is a crime but armed paratroopers currently doing an assault are another kettle of fish

Don’t they airdrop APCs and stuff with their men? Seems like a bit of a different scenario than dismounted light infantry behind enemy lines.

Only applies to aircrew bailing from a fucked plane. Paratroopers are not covered by it.

Ah, the more you know i guess.
Thought it was a blanket ban, thanks.

Part of it is prestige, and the perceived loss of prestige that would happen if the unit were disbanded, since it would be seen as the decommissioning of an "elite" unit. Another part of it is genuine fear that if airborne units were ever disbanded, it might be very difficult to re-acquire the knowledge necessary to rebuild the unit if for some reason you ever want to re-commission it.

>it only applies to plane crews jumping out of their planes
>implying anyone gives a real fuck about the Geneva convention

Almost everyone today dropps vehicles with their paratroopers, but only the Bundeswehr and VDV use APCs/light IFVs. The US even airdrops 155mm M777 howitzers and shit tho.

Only retarded camelfucking sandniggers disregard the Geneva convention.
You're not a camelfucking sandnigger retard, are ya boy?

>Only retarded camelfucking sandniggers disregard the Geneva convention.
>Implying
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

One argument I've heard for airborne units that makes sense is simply that they are good "filters." Anybody who volunteers for parachute training, and then goes on to join a parachute unit, is going to be a highly motivated soldier who isn't risk-averse. And so every member of that unit gets satisfaction of knowing that he's part of a unit where people are fully committed and go the extra mile. He doesn't have to worry about whether his fellow soldiers are cowards or not, if they were cowards, they wouldn't be in a parachute unit.

Grün ist ünser fallschirm. German paratrooper song, listen to it, trust me, it rocks.

Hadn’t considered that. Good point.

Very true. I'm sure in a conventional assault of a near peer threat there would be a fair amount of SAM sites left active and possibly only a brief window of total US air dominance in a small pocket of DZ area, probably resulting an a fair amount of casualties before dropping and leaving AA positions for paratroops to knock out. But it's definitely doable.

Even if it was, why would some sand people give a shit about your convention lmao

SAS did it a few times in iraq in the 80s and 90s but most of those ops were fubar by day 2. The jumps worked tho.

as a paratrooper in a midle european country ( we have one airborne brigade in our country) imho this brigade is just a preparation for sof, the best of us sits here for few years and go to sof. have no fucking idea how we would be used in battle. dont know how would work a drop of whole kompanny and dunno about smaller units (like my recon/scout plooton, we are trained to be droped in teams)

>Are they relevant?
As a common practice? Absolutely not. It's expensive, complex, absolutely pointless for pretty much any scenario other than for SOF operations...
As a maintained strategic capability? It's priceless; while, realistically, non but one or two paratrooper forces in the world will ever put their special capability to a justified use, this one time will have a substantial chance of redirecting the course of an entire conflict.

Attached: 1555301320718.jpg (676x1180, 139K)

>It's expensive
Is it? All you're doing is jumping out of a plane with a parachute. How expensive can that be?

Training
Equipment
Fuel

Basically this. As if Russia and China (or even the United States) are really going to give a flying fuck about muh Geneva convention when SHTF. It's all based on Western morality anyways, not like chinks and slavs give a fuck.

The Geneva Convention does absolutely nothing except standards for how POW's are supposed to be treated. A person ejecting out of a doomed aircraft over hostile territory is assumed to be a near-future POW, so they are protected by the Convention. An armed paratrooper is not.

For starters, paratroopers get both complete infantry training as well as paratrooper training, so they're more expensive than regular infantry by default. Then, add surrounding coasts such parachutes that must be bought, maintained and constantly and meticulously inspected, maintaining specialized trainers, (usually) longer training, each para-drop, which happens several time during training, potentially coasting millions due to fuel, plane maintenance and flight personal coasts (rough estimate, might not really be "millions"), coast of parachute folderers and more.

On top of all of that, is the manpower coast: paradropping assumes the soldier will get separated from his team for some time, will have to preform lone-navigation in order to regroup, will operate while lacking supply chain, support and is surrounded, will need to complete the mission while missing soldiers or even standard CoC due to failed landing/navigation and will have to take initiative if left stranded due to failure to regroup (usually, if you didn't make it to the regroup point in time, you're on your own). That's a level of skills and mindset are often not expected, or at least not demanded, from "common" soldiers, thus requiring the paratrooper manpower to be made up of higher-quality personal, even if only slightly- and by this straining the manpower pool.

Attached: 11512357.jpg (1614x1082, 1.1M)

An airborne brigade is still probably less expfnsive then your avrage mechanized brigade. Naturalky its more expensive then just footsoldiers, but nobody except literal shitholes use infantry without any vehicles or support.

On top of that most nations alredy operatetactical transport aircraft, so the only cost there would be whatever FH cost that plane happens to have.

>mfw five jump chump as a cadet
airborne is useless and jump school was a waste of time tho, berets are gay too

Attached: 50907030_551446115358973_8570358408055783131_n.jpg (750x489, 65K)

I accept all your points, but my counter-point is this: even shitholes like North Korea or South Africa somehow manage to maintain active paratrooper brigades, so they can't be "that" expensive. I mean, I knew a guy who parachuted as a hobby, and he wasn't rich by any standard. Granted, he's dead now (chute didn't deploy properly, police still investigating) but my point stands.

Attached: 8b8a1917.jpg (1200x746, 294K)

Its a capability you're unlikely to use, but its a capability worth having. Its just another method of projecting force. I'd say all infantry should be basic airborne trained, without having to go through elite selection. Its just a mode of transport.

How do you get the kill? Vehicle disables can eat my ass

That is a bad way to go

>I'd say all infantry should be basic airborne trained, without having to go through elite selection

That would be expensive as fuck, andonly provide any sort of value to like five countries. For everyone else it would be a 100% vaste of money

To (hopefully) avoid death in those situations

1) try backup parachute
If not work
2) X formation and steer to snow or something simmilar
3) fall leg first and hope for the fucking best

>Why do slavs have so many of them then?
Russia is fucking gigantic and if something does happen they at least have some options to use them defensively instead of relying on local conscripts.

With active protection systems and lighter armor technology, you could see viable western AFVs being dropped again. This would give your troopers high ground mobility, protection and firepower.
This would finally make sparky's dreams come true.

Attached: Narcissisticlegs.jpg (781x580, 73K)

*I'm tried- so spelling is shit. Hope it's still readable

>less expfnsive then your avrage mechanized brigad
I will agree, but claim that this's only because mechanized base coast is smaller, allowing them to be used more/in larger quantities, while being far more useful in standard operations.

>nobody except literal shitholes use infantry without any vehicles or support
Sure.

>FH cost
Dk what is "FH".

>whatever cost that plane happens to have
That's a way to reduce cost, but not eliminate it. Scheduling, priority- all still translates into cost. Paras also often require some stable attachment to a dedicated aircraft to ensure availability.

>even shitholes like North Korea manage to maintain paratroopers
Everything is relative; The average DRPK troop doesn't coast half as much as an American average troop in equipment and training, and so does the paratrooper. The relative price stays mostly the same: if an infantry grunt coasts you 100$, and a paratrooper coasts 130$, than 1 paratrooper is worth 1.3 infantry grunts; if shitty NK grunt coasts 10$ and the shitty para coasts 13$, than the paratrooper is still worth 1.3 grunts (though, NK paras will probably trade some quality for extra quantity).

>can't be "that" expensive
And it's not "that" expensive indeed. But, even if only slightly, it's still more expensive than most alternatives (such as mechanized) that offer you the same combat skills (shoot bullets at enemy, shoot rocket at armor, shoot shoulder-missile at plane) while, in return, only offering you 1 unique skill that, unlike said alternatives, you have no real use for outside that once-in-a-lifetime event (and, in the long run, still important enough to justify their existence).
SOF, such, lets say, SEAL, coast way, way, more than paratroopers, but, in a sense, they're also cheaper because you actually get to use them for their intended purpose.

>chute didn't deploy
What a shame. At least went out doing something that he loved.

Attached: 90342038.jpg (1016x683, 664K)

>something that he loved
Screaming and cursing? Breaking every bone is his body? Agonizing over his past mistakes and his lack of a future to rectify them?

No seriously, you guys talk like having the ability to deploy thousands of highly skilled troops behind enemy lines is a bad thing

Attached: BelgianParas.jpg (446x282, 94K)

Attached: D2E4C990-1453-4844-8AF9-2D8ED6198EDB.jpg (700x937, 97K)

>Be higher quality, ie costly, manpower
>Go through infantry training
>Go through paratrooper training
>Get some mechanized training for good measure
>Get deployed behind enemy lines
>1/5 of the force is gone because 1 plane got shot down
>Another 1/5 is either lost in, or impaled on, the woods
>Another 1/5 is intercepted and mowed down without a fight because they're still alone
>Be cut off support and supplies
>Still manage to capture an airport
>Get surrounded from all directions because long since spotted behind enemy lines
>Just call in support/supplies
>lol, no support because behind enemy lines
>lol, no supplies because can't land 'till you repeal the counter attack
>Ok, time to retreat
>lol, nowhere to retreat when behind enemy lines
>All n all, good decision making by all parties, mainly me and command, throughout this process

Paradropping is a strategic capability of the highest order, but its use is extremely limited and near unproportionally dangerous. Use it correctly and (with some luck) successfully in an appropriate scenario, and this might be a war winning move- even if preformed at the start of it. Use it under any different circumstances, and all you get are "thousands of highly skilled troops" eliminated for effectively nothing.

Attached: 1549034547285.png (1080x1191, 491K)

someone got that screencap of some user explaining why african nations have such a hardon for para's?
was a good read

Daily reminder that there has never been an airborne operation in history that wasn't a costly failure, with the exception of the German invasion of Holland. That would have been a costly failure too if the Germans hadn't been able to overrun Holland so quickly.

German capture of Belgian forts?

Good point, forgot about Eben-Emael. However again the paratroopers were reinforced in a few days by German foot troops.
Amend this to
>The only successful airborne operations have been limited-scope seizures of critical areas where the paratroopers had to hold out for forty-eight hours or less.

Attached: pup.png (481x424, 176K)

>Daily reminder that there has never been an airborne operation in history that wasn't a costly failure,
That's not true.

Fuck you, leg.

>with the exception of the German invasion of Holland.
*no*

the attack on the Hague was a failure as a whole, the airfields/strips they captured were virtually unusable due to their own bombing, dutch counter bombing or the runways not being finished before the battle began, nor did they manage to capture the Queen or any other government body, let alone enter the city proper

Rotterdam was 'successful' after the Germans threatened to bomb the city if the local forces didnt surrender (which they did, the Luftwaffe wasnt informed in time)
and overall the Germans lost a large portion of their air-transport capabilities

Green on

>shock troops that can appear anywhere and at anytime
>useless

to add:

ill give you Moerdijk en Dordrecht, the bridges were captured intact, and the relief force arrived soon enough that the Dutch decided to give up Dordrecht

Attached: 1537014753485.jpg (2560x1920, 1.29M)

This picture would be aesthetic as fuck if not for the eternal curse of UCP.

>paratroopers are shock troops now, too
this is the absolute fucking delusion i expect from stupid five jump chumps

hate to be this cunt but seems to fit iraq and especially afghanistan well or ?

Panama: Operation Just Cause

Attached: 250px-Operation_Just_Cause.jpg (249x159, 17K)

HELICOPTERS

>"thousands of highly skilled troops"
Why the quotations?

>I've never heard the airborne creed: the post

other then for comando or spec ops attack on a target that's too hard for bombers to hit I don't know what else they could be good for these days? Normally us army can be any where in force way faster. I do think air drops are good for resupplying troops in remote places and maybe low flying drones could do better resupplying really close troops

not a educated person just an opinion

Attached: 9419715.jpg (447x458, 25K)

But that's exactly what they are for. The US Army is an extremely mobile force, however it still requires insertion. If that means air insertion, there will need to be HLZs and airfields secured. This means pathfinders and paratroopers will have to secure these locations before leg units can reinforce.

Didn't the 75th Ranger Regiment do a paradrop to conduct an airfield seizure back during the Gulf War/ Iraq War?

HAHAHAHA no
>82nd paratrooper
You’d be surprised how many of these guys are actual pussies and will do anything to get out of a jump.

Because it's a quote from the previous message, used to illustrate that even with the original phrasing the conclusion can be turned around to exemplify an opposite resolute.

Marine infantry is more useful than you

>Fallujah

Yea fallujah was pretty great

Attached: 4D116376-B055-4D10-81A1-BA3711CA84FC.png (1200x1335, 269K)

Lol, like how the Marines needed Tanks from the army to be successful and not just die?

Well having the ability to reinforce the frontlines of any conflict with even one drop of hundreds maybe even thousands of paratroopers can be a good idea. Instead of finding transport, routes, fuel etc one drop is simpler.

I believe the US has this down to a tee with the 101st/82nd in the event frontlines are stalled, especially since they have the resources to do so (planes, helicopters etc).

You may find this shocking, but the branches of the US military are on the same side.

So why not have a special group of combat engineers and direct force group shoes soul purpose would be to go in and secure or establish an landing zone for the heavy planes? And to guard these landing zones