Post by: Cromlech on December 17, 2006, 04:23:44 AM
Quote
Parachute training in the Army is set to be halted for four years as part of a £1 billion cost-cutting programme by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
The proposals mean that Britain will be without a parachute-trained force for the first time since the Second World War when the Parachute Regiment was created on the orders of Winston Churchill.
The proposals mean that Britain will be without a parachute-trained force for the first time since the Second World War when the Parachute Regiment was created on the orders of Winston Churchill.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/17/nparas17.xml
Post by: Nightfall on December 17, 2006, 08:21:42 AM
Post by: Mannlicher on December 17, 2006, 08:31:04 AM
Post by: MillCreek on December 17, 2006, 09:39:29 AM
Post by: Cosmoline on December 17, 2006, 10:25:06 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 17, 2006, 10:50:44 AM
Let me be the devil's advocate and suggest that parachute training is about as relevant today as glider training. We don't drop men behind lines by parachute anymore. Sometimes forces are dropped onto friendly airfields, but for various reasons the politicians and brass are not willing to drop thousands of men into the meat grinder.
I assume you meant "onto unfriendly airfields", like the Rangers. And you meant your statements in regards to, say, a whole Division of infantry parachuting in as opposed to a massive heloborne assault. I assume you think parachuting in its various forms is still viable as an insertion technique for Special Ops or the aforementioned Ranger Bns.
Just trying to preclude misunderstanding of your assertion.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 17, 2006, 11:14:24 AM
Let me be the devil's advocate and suggest that parachute training is about as relevant today as glider training. We don't drop men behind lines by parachute anymore. Sometimes forces are dropped onto friendly airfields, but for various reasons the politicians and brass are not willing to drop thousands of men into the meat grinder.
BS. The 101 and 82nd were dropped into Iraq.
Post by: Cosmoline on December 17, 2006, 04:44:50 PM
I assume you think parachuting in its various forms is still viable as an insertion technique for Special Ops or the aforementioned Ranger Bns.
The last time I remember it being used was in Northern Iraq, and there were CNN cameramen on the field greeting the US paratroops. I just don't see any commander ordering a mass drop into unfriendly airspace a la Operation Overlord or Market Garden. The number of KIA and captured are simply too great, and there's little need anymore. There may be some very limited use for parachuting for special forces, but we really don't seem to use large units of paratroops for combat anymore.
Post by: Cosmoline on December 17, 2006, 04:49:50 PM
BS. The 101 and 82nd were dropped into Iraq.
Were they dropped into hostile enemy territory with AA and small arms killing them as they dropped? Were they even under attack? I remember a small number dropping into fiendly airspace in Northern Iraq at Bashur. It was under 1,000 men, and you'll note that there was no such use of para drops to secure positions further south where the situation was more dangerous. Nor have paratroops been dropped down to fight the insurgency. It would be a hideous waste of American lives. The drop at Bashur seems to have been more of an homage than a practical military tactic. Will we ever be seeing mass drops behind the lines? Doubtful.
Post by: wingnutx on December 17, 2006, 05:04:56 PM
Post by: Cosmoline on December 17, 2006, 06:10:19 PM
Post by: Guest on December 17, 2006, 08:46:50 PM
Post by: Cosmoline on December 17, 2006, 10:54:04 PM
Post by: Cromlech on December 18, 2006, 12:42:40 AM
Let's face it, we don't have huge manpower, we rely mostly on being some on the best trained troops on the planet. As soon as we cut the specialist training, all we have is a bunch of Cannon Fodder.
(Ok, that's an exaggeration, but you get the point)
Post by: Phantom Warrior on December 18, 2006, 01:42:57 AM
MECHANIZED! (Big Red One
)
Post by: roo_ster on December 18, 2006, 04:40:09 AM
Let me be the devil's advocate and suggest that parachute training is about as relevant today as glider training. We don't drop men behind lines by parachute anymore. Sometimes forces are dropped onto friendly airfields, but for various reasons the politicians and brass are not willing to drop thousands of men into the meat grinder.
I also wonder how many soldiers are injured or killed in parachute training every year. Is it worth doing this just to keep up the tradition?
Uh, yes we do. Grenada & Panama are just two examples of landing on an airfield in the midst of a hostile enemy.
Outside of high-value targets like airfields, you really ought not jump into the teeth of enemy defenses. Ideally, you would jump quite a ways to the rear where the enemy wasn't and (coordinated with land-bound units) do your best to attack the enemy where he is least prepared. This is somewhat similar a heloborne assualt, but with greater range, less vulnerability to the platforms, and much less infrastructure needed near the objective.
Our recent battles have not yielded many objectives amenable to an airborne assault, outside of airfield siezure at the beginning of an operation like Afganistan or Iraq. But, I am reminded of the old saw, "Armies prepare for the last war." In contemporary context, this would mean that we'll prepare for counter-insurgency ops and neglect to prepare for the massed waves of Chicom & Nork infantry and motorized units.
Injuries during training do happen, myself being an example. It is going to happen if the training is at all useful and meaningful.