Airborne operations

[Franconicus]

They are elite in most armies since WW2. They had spectacular victories. But they always had big losses. And there were some desasters as well. So at the end of the day, do these kind of operations really pay?

[Mount Suribachi]

Yes.

In the gruesome economics of war, there are times when the lives of men need to be spent in order to achieve your military objectives. Of course the airborne operations on D-Day are probably the most famous - and most succesful - in history and show what airborne units could achieve. The losses were high, but not as high as were expected. And what would the results have been for the invasion of France if the Merville Battery or Pegasus Bridge had not been destroyed/captured. The German attack on Eben Emal is another example of airborne troops doing a vital job well.

Operations that went wrong such as Market Garden were due to factors such as weather, bad planning, dropping troops too far from their targets, poor intelligence, lack of impetus (British tanks halting after the US Airborne had just courageously taken the bridge at Nijmegen) all contributed to its failure.

The German invasion of Crete is an example were the objectives were achieved but the casualties were horrendous. Hitler banned airborne operations after that, such were the losses amongst German paras.

Again, remember that in war, soldiers are a currency to be spent.

[Boohugh]

No.

Large scale airborne operations of the sort you are talking too are a waste of men and resources. During WW2, the airborne units were incresingly used as very tough infantry units because only the best men were allowed into them, and this was their most effective role. This led to them being used in all the toughest battles, which made them even more effective as they were battle-hardened, but it also led to a high level of combat fatigue (which is why the 101st airborne was in the Ardennes in 1944, they were their to rest in an area with a supposedly low risk of battle).

The success of the German Army after Crete shows that airborne operations aren't necessary for offensive operations, and so it is perfectly feasible for operations such as D-day to have gone ahead without them. The D-Day airborne assualt had one or two successes, such as the capture of the Pegasus bridge, but overall they were generally chaotic and ineffective and served no strategic purpose.

[Grey_Fox]

[QUOTE=LordHugh] the 101st airborne was in the Ardennes in 1944, they were their to rest in an area with a supposedly low risk of battleQUOTE]

The 101st (and 82nd Airborne) were nowhere near the Ardennes in 1944 when the Germans started their offensive, they were in the rear acting as Eisenhower's strategic reserve (his only reserve in fact).

As with all combat units, paratroopers are useful under certain conditions, and less so in others. They can be used to capture strategic objectives (such as bridges) before the enemy can react and destroy them. Even during Market Garden the Airborne units were able to take 3/4 of their objectives. If ground forces broken through more quickly, or if two Panzer divisions had not been refitting in Holland on September 22nd, it would have been seen as a strategic masterstroke.

The same can be said for Dien Bien Phu, the disaster there was caused by the politicians in Paris despising their enemy, as well as gross incompetence.

They can also be dropped in an enemy's rear where they would not be expected, and the fear of such units can cause the enemy to put combat units into their rear to guard against such attacks, that would otherwise be used on the front line.

[econ21]

I suspect airborne units are something of an anachronism today. I don't think many countries armed forces seriously include large scale parachute drops in their war-fighting doctrines. Airborne units nowadays may be like grenadiers in the Napoleonic wars - elite troops, but no longer using the tactics their name refers to. Presumably, this is due to dangers of air defence and partly because of the riskiness of infantry fighting on foot without supplies or heavy support.

Even historially, large scale airborne operations seem questionable. I can see them helping sea born invasions when one side has total air superiority as in Normandy, but even then they don't seem essential and I am not even sure they were the best use of extremely high quality soldiers.

Airmobile units - helicopter transported infantry - on the other hand seem terrifically useful. Less vulnerable to interception or detection; more precisely deployed; much more mobile after they are deployed; and much easier to extract if they get into trouble.

[Grey_Fox]

Airmobile troops are basically the evolution of airborne units.

[Franconicus]

Well, the German operation in 1940 was a complete success, based on good training, planing and surprise. Nevertheless, th elosses were high.
Crete was the first attempt to attack an island out of the air without adequate naval power. Although the Germans reached their targets the losses were too high.
Allied airborne operation helped the landings on the European mainland. But again the losses were high. And you could not rely on these operations because the troops might land at the wrong place or just blown away.
Marketgarden was a desaster. Besides bad planing the airborne forces were just overrated.

Same happened at Dien Bien Phu. France lost 16.000 men during this operation against Vietcong.
Airborne units are very expensive. You selevct the best, give them best equipment and training. The effect is that very often these troops are overrated. And the losses are usually so high that it does not pay!