Is there a place for paratroopers on a modern day battlefield? Have they become obsolete due to the prevalence of helicopters?
Also, paratrooper general thread.
Bumping
Helicopters can't take and hold ground.
>>29555495
Men in helicopters can.
>>29555479
Airborne is a means to deliver a massive ammount of Soldiers and equipment in a very short ammount of time.
Chopers CAN do this as well, but no where near as fast.
Its all about force projection. No other method lets you take a division or three from one side of the world and put it on the other side in less than 24hrs with all its combat and support personale and equipment.
Every other delivery method requires a build up that takes weeks or months. The enemy sees the attack coming, and the build up is part of a force display that says "we are serious, please dont make us fuck you up." Airborne is a 911, "oh shit, go kill them NOW" force.
Iraq had a pointless airborne operation, because there was a build up. There was a build up because there was hope that Sudam would step down. Panama we dropped in a few divisions because we needed that 911 force there ASAP.
Airborne is what you hope you dont need, but when you do need it, you are glad you have it.
>>29555502
What kind of a non sequitur assumption is that? Are you american? They spout all kinds of delirious nonsense about obsolete tanks and unnecessary paratroopers based on a habit to fight in uncontested airspace.
Helicopters can't fly for 10k km, deliver company deep behind the enemy lines somewhere in the Arctic and drop them in a vertical line from 6000m high.
>>29555502
No men who get out of helicopters can
>>29555479
Why not just build a stealth transport that sneak through the radars and drop paratroopers?
>>29555573
True they can't do it as fast, but the last time we've never had airborne operations against a prepared enemy (ie one with radar and decent SAMs).
A couple of dozen C5 or C17s could carry a couple thousand men into an area, but how many of them could actually reach the ground?
Helicopters can cover and return fire during the descent stage, which is the one in which Airborne troops are most vulnerable.
We would need something like >>29555593 said, but I dunno how feasible "stealth" + Payload is
>>29555639
>>29555573
For reference, if we loaded all the C-17s we have with Paratroopers we could only get about half the capacity of Market Garden, and I'm not finding Para-specific numbers for Operation Husky but I bet they were >20k.
Airborne was effective for about 5 minutes, when we still prosecuted war from a Napoleonic ideology but had industrialized technologies. The lessons we learned from the Great War and WWII taught us to fight in a different style, one much better suited to smaller groups of better-trained, professional soldiers. Helicopters serve that strategy very well.
Yes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ElySEd8MOw
>ITT: legs butthurt about not being airborne so they come up with bullshit stats
>>29555639
We have anti-SAM aircraft that would go in with them or just prior. Not to mention a lot of air support.
Like I said choppers CAN do the same mission, but not with the same range and projection of forces.
And remember, you have to factor in the total force, ehat air assets will support it? What naval assets will support? Where is the Marine attack hitting?
>>29555673
Dude you are way off on the seating inside a C-17. They carry about a 120 compared to the WWII planes carrying 15-20. Hell the C-130 will carry 68 and the C-5 can drop 220 or more depending on set up.
Also look at the range, how far can a helo with combat equiped Soldiers fly? 300Miles? We will say 1000 mikes for arguments sake, compared to 10,000 miles with room for the guys to rig in flight in an airplane.
Also relying on helo's is relying on your choppers being within range of where you need them. A C-130 and larger aircraft can fly aroind the world.
Will your choppers drop extra ammo, food, water and vehicles? Nope!
>>29555479
Choppers as a short range taxi that can park just about anywhere have no equal.
But for long range fast insertions, they are beaten to the punch by transport aircraft.
Choppers are on average about three times slower than turbojet heavy transports, have vastly inferior range without air refueling, which already involves large transport aircraft and even the largest operational military chopper in the world, the Mi-26 can only carry as many troops as relatively small C-130.
Moreover, the transports can not only paradrop the troops, they can also drop mechanized elements, field artillery and large quantities of supplies.
Russians do it right. Their Airborne troops have their own sizable (~30,000 men) branch of the military, command their own fleet of aircraft and have their own mechanized forces with all the bells and whistles, including APC's, IFV's, SPG's, even their own tank destroyers and more.
As the snap drills in past two years showed, Russians can move around a division sized force with mechanized support, thousands of miles in a matter of HOURS.
You simply cannot do that with helicopters.
>>29555479
>Is there a place for paratroopers on a modern day battlefield?
No, that's why they're in the air you retard.
>>29555754
I agree that Airborne can do something that choppers can't, my argument is that thing isn't really necessary compared to other options we have for similar effect.
I felt like I made a difference.
They are the M14 of infantry divisions. They're clunky, of questionable usefulness/practicality and have defied effective modernization in the face of more sensible options, but we keep them in inventory in case we ever need them. And much like the M14, we probably never will.
>>29555921
You either have zero strategic insight or you are a butt hurt leg. Which is it?
>>29555673
>For reference, if we loaded all the C-17s we have with Paratroopers we could only get about half the capacity of Market Garden
No, you'd have the full capacity since Market Garden itself took two full airlifts on two separate days. And since the C-17 cruises twice as fast as the C-47, you'd probably be able to get even more airlifts done in the same span of time.
>>29555935
>b-but what if we need to i-insert large numbers f-fast over long d-distances
Thats that insecure airborne asshurt I love. The fact is, the US has allies surrounding any country it would need to deep strike, making heli insertions fully viable in any situation. You're wholly irrelevant and all you have to fall back on is "leg", the mother of all non-insults. Chin up though, if you use your GI bill wisely, you don't have to be worthless forever.
>inb4 leg
We're done here.
>>29555965
Damn, you really are ass pained over being a fall out. It doesn't take more than rubbing two brain cells together to realize the significance and relevance of an airborne unit.
You need to pray to the god - oh, wait that is lingo we used in an elite unit. You probably need an explanation.
>>29555479
Gliders make paratroopers obsolete.
>>29556016
>elite unit
I get youre upset about the unkind things anon said, but that's just false. You want to call yourself elite, get a ranger tab because right now youre just an 11b with a parachute.
>>29556105
Fields with poles in them make gliders obsolete.
>>29555892
There isn't another option when it comes to that kind of global force projection. Choppers dont have the range that our cargo planes do. Yes, for rapid deployments of pre-staged troops choppers cant be beat. But when it comes to putting a division on enemy soil where no forward bases exist, there is only the airborne.
They are in no way similar in that respect. Choppers are regional at best, where Airborne are global.
>>29556574
Guess what you are not.
>>29556635
nah senpai, gliders can land anywhere helicopters can!
>>29555479
I guess we shall see if they're useful in the next war. My money is on not useful, but we shall see.
