Will there ever be a mass attack airborne operation again?

2015-08-09T22:51:28-04:00

With the 75 anniversary of the Airborne, do you think that there will ever be another mass attack airborne operation?

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/08/09/army-celebrates-75-years-american-paratrooper/31278775/

Army celebrates 75 years of the American paratrooper

The Army will honor the 75th anniversary of the American paratrooper with — what else? — a large jump into Fort Benning, Georgia.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2015 10:54 PM

2015-08-09T22:54:18-04:00

There would have to be if you want troops behind the lines. I know guys that would kill for the opportunity. If they had the opportunity, I guess they wouldn't have a choice but to kill.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 9 at 2015 10:56 PM

2015-08-09T22:56:11-04:00

Nope but that doesn't mean that it isn't still a good skill set to keep in our Tool Box.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 9 at 2015 10:56 PM

2015-08-09T22:56:12-04:00

SGM, As a proud Paratrooper, my stance is better have it and not need it, than not have it and will need it.
The quickest and most efficient method of deploying an entire unit, with their equipment, in a moments notice. Being in an Airborne unit is the epitome of readiness. I love that mission!

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 9 at 2015 11:00 PM

2015-08-09T23:00:25-04:00

Probably not. Most future conflicts wil be small unit centered.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 12:23 AM

2015-08-10T00:23:16-04:00

There will be a need for future mass tactical Airborne Operations. They are always an attack operation, even if they are only BN sized.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 1:44 AM

2015-08-10T01:44:45-04:00

I doubt it to be honest. The only caveat I have to that is in a world war type situation, a massive airborne operation COULD take place simultaneously with multiple other insertion types.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 9:04 AM

2015-08-10T09:04:13-04:00

Those saying no to Mass Exit Tactical Airborne Operations ("mass attack" is incorrect), are forgetting the last four we've done. Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The need for the airborne forced entry technique will still be there, as long as there are countries and separate "organizations" that wish to do harm to us.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 9:32 AM

2015-08-10T09:32:48-04:00

As part of the 82D I can tell you that I can get wheels up to anywhere in the world in 18 hrs. With us you have the ability to put 3,500 paratroopers on the ground in under 10 minutes. All they have to do is call. Yes I see the chance for one as the world spins more out of control.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 9:50 AM

2015-08-10T09:50:03-04:00

If we are going to have special ops secure airfields then no. If we aren't going to go in and kick ass while seizing a distinct, armed objective then no.
If we decide to fight a conventional, combined arms conflict then it is definitely a nice option to have available.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 10:31 AM

2015-08-10T10:31:42-04:00

Yes - though I am probably biased in opinion. You can look as recent as Mali in 2012. Though it was 2REP (French Foreign Legion), they executed a combat parachute assault. Additionally there are many examples of the US Army executing company, battalion and brigade-level parachute assaults throughout the GWOT.

To me, it's all about maintaining capability. Will we ever find ourselves entrenched in a massive armor conflict again? Who knows. But we will continue to maintain our heavy brigade combat teams in the event our nation calls. As SGM Embich mentioned earlier, the 82nd Airborne Division has the unique ability to out-load an entire Brigade and take them anywhere in the world in 18-hours. Whether utilizing a parachute assault as the method of insertion or not, the capability is what is important.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 10 at 2015 6:43 PM

2015-08-10T18:43:40-04:00

I will not rule it out as there will be situations where we need to send in the infantry quickly.

Response by SGT Chip Hutchings made Aug 13 at 2015 2:54 PM

2015-08-13T14:54:49-04:00

If you look back over the last 75 years of the airborne and see the various opperations and levels of success in each. Some would say that it is an out dated means of insertion of a large number of troops. I would argue that it is less out dated then an amphibious assault by the marines.

Response by SGT Craig Northacker made Aug 13 at 2015 3:11 PM

2015-08-13T15:11:49-04:00

I believe history has demonstrated that as soon as we dismantle a program, the need for it invariably arises. The US Air Force is down to 50% of its' aircraft, the Army and Marines have been depleted, and the Navy is restricted, plus we have $ 1.5 trillion committed to an airplane with a lot of problems. There is no doubt in my mind why Putin is pushing the buttons wherever he can - having cogent airborne capacity is critical for deterrence, and for aggressive positioning. Apparently the command structure is revisiting a Fulda Gap defensive mindset again with current training. Back in the 70's we were given LAW's and TOW's in the hope that small, mobile units would be able to pick ambush and pick off Russian Armor and Mech troops. That, in my mind, would have made us the clay pigeons that Airborne were originally considered to be, and a stop gap measure to enable us to bring NG and Reserves over from the US. Russia has demonstrated their combined use of surprise, armor and airborne, with a steady dose of artillery - which makes them pretty effective in a conventional war scenario. The Estonians and Latvians (NATO partners) have no military to speak of, so the Russians can occupy those territories quickly. The Russians have 50,000 soldiers massed on the Polish border, and their big Tupolev's are challenging our airspace in the Pacific. We are spread precariously thin, removed our defensive missile umbrella from Europe, and stripped our bases there. What else do we have to counter them? Airborne units. After that?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2016 5:24 PM

2016-05-15T17:24:55-04:00

Having the capability to be wheels up in 18 hours and have a brigade size elements to secure an airfield in order for the Air Force to start bringing in armor and more troops will never go away. Airborne units are force multipliers and not all areas are accessible by ground forces. For units like the 82nd Airborne Division to have have that specialty to be inserted behind enemy lines and secure and hold a specific target until the rest of our military is able to reinforce them will never be taken off the table. Especially with everything going on in the world, big countries like Russia or China will be how fast we can get boots on ground and setup a command and control to start conducting operations to push outward.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made May 15 at 2016 5:31 PM

2016-05-15T17:31:27-04:00

No.

Response by MAJ L. Nicholas Smith made Jun 9 at 2016 10:35 AM

2016-06-09T10:35:32-04:00

Eventually. Those who believe that major combat actions/wars are a thing of the past were likely the same who thought the days of the tank were over prior to Desert Storm. History doesn't repeat itself but it certainly runs in concentric circles.

The real question here is will the American public support such operations and the casualty rates that come with them. Will the political machines sway public opinion and support our efforts as they did during WWII? Furthermore, will there be political leadership with enough strength to stand up to public opinion and support those hard choices when the body counts rise? I'm a cynic at this point so I have little optimism.

Response by MAJ L. Nicholas Smith made Jun 9 at 2016 10:36 AM

2016-06-09T10:36:06-04:00

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 9 at 2016 11:03 AM

2016-06-09T11:03:17-04:00

Define "mass". We currently only have 1 division (and a couple of independent regiments) of airborne (and not enough air assets to drop more than a BDE at a time), so if you're asking if we'll ever see a Normandy or Arnhem scale insertion insertion, my answer would be, short of a total remobilization, highly unlikely. However, I don't think airborne goes away either. As we've seen in recent conflicts, airdrops are still a viable method of inserting a large number of troops very quickly. But we have to put this tactic into it's proper place in the grand scheme.

Response by PVT Mark Zehner made Nov 30 at 2019 3:34 PM

2019-11-30T15:34:36-05:00

I doubt it but it's worth keeping that in the militaries tool box!