"Light Infantry/Airborne Capability" & "Canadian Airborne - a waste of $$$?"

[1feral1]

1. Even if they do not get involved with immediate combat they establish a deterrent and the seriousness of our nations commitment to the situation. This can limit or deter the need for actual violence.

2. Is there a transport helicopter that can achieve a trans-atlantic/trans-pacific flight? Im not confident there is one (maybe with frequent in flight refuelling but it would be an exhausting ride).

3. Depending on the range of the helicopters and support of island nations they could also reach Australia and the numerous pacific islands. There is a major political hurdle to this approach in resolving over flight permission. A second helicopter transoprt/support force might remain in Canada for training and to deploy across the North and South America continents.

4. I do feel we need to encourage positive qualities associated with paratroopers and a force that to go overseas is very much required for our foreign policies. A large paradrop though is beyond our $$$ so other choices need to be considered. An overseas helicopter transport force is one way. It would certainly be faster than using a ship for initial insertion of materials

Firstly, what does your post have to do with the CAR? If you have suceeded in one thing, and thats hijacking a perfectly good thread. You have also suceeded in having others closed because of your hollow posts.

Now a brief response to your post.

PARA 1. Actual violence? Thats a new one. This simply leaves me speeceless!

PARA 2. Trans-Atlanitc and trans-Pacific, ya sure at 140 Knts/PH, in a large 'fleet' of helos, supported for refuling by how many a/c? Pure fantasy, might make good game for some who knows nothing about the real world though.

PARA 3. BTW, Australia is a 9 hour flight from Hawaii alone (and thats at 1000 kph). How long is that at a helo's cruising speed? You're the expert, you tell us. I don't know what you are reading or what you are smoking, but you are fast becoming a serial pest on here, and obviously have no idea what you are indeed talking about. The   'we can wait for them at the airport bit' is the straw that broke the camel's back for me! Your failure to take heed on a moderators advice is beginning to prove that possibly you have a hidden agenda to harass, hijack and attempt to try to discretly wreck havoc on here. Today your actions have been reported to the moderators for their action. You had been warned in the past, not only by the moderator, but by other members (including myself) and your failure to comply shows nothing but true arrogant contempt not only for the moderator, but also for this site, and its members in good standing.

PARA 4. Well, I am not even going to comment on this, but I will say the ongoing continual posting by this person (who has already been warned) is nothing but a waste of band width, and I hope someone shuts him down soon.

Being honest, I am embarrassed that others from around the world (and first time visitors) will read such CRAP on here, and overall making us all look like idiots. First impressions count, and its our integrity and credibility that cop a hiding. So, to those foreigners, first timers, and other guests who are reading any posts by 'brygun', please take them for what they are worth, absolutly NOTHING.  

This poster refuses to use his 'optional' profile, and refuses to even tell us his qualifications and his experience. Its obvious he has no military experience whatsoever is is most likely a role playing adolecent child with little more than computer games as his information source.

Regards,

Wes


EDITed for spelling and english

 

[paracowboy]

oh, can't believe I forgot Haiti! While it wasn't a jump, the mere threat of the entire 82nd Airborne Division being Airborne and inbound was enough to cause the belligerents to see things in a new light.

 

[Britney Spears]

Speaking as another "empty profile" poster, I should point out that Brygun has indicated in other threads that he is currently in the recruiting proccess and has no military experience.  A quick click on "last posts by this user" will reveal this. 

And here ends the hijack.

 

[1feral1]

Even though you have no profile, your entegrity of almost 1000 posts speaks for itself mate. As does the quality of brygun's posts but in the opposite direction.

He was 'challenged' and openly refused to give us any info to back up his posts. What does he have to hide, and yes I read that he could not even do one pull-up, but that is now, as he might have had previous expereince somehow elsewhere, but with what I have read, this is HIGHLY unlikely, infact extremely hightly unlikely. The more he posts the more he sinks deeper into a pile of his own crap.

Give him time, as he has already given himself enough rope.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Infanteer]

No worries, Brygun will get some "receive" time on these means - I think his heart's in the right place, he just can't figure out that this isn't some wargamer forum; so we had to help him the hard way.

Anyways, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[paracowboy]

and I forgot the "Exercise" Jump into Honduras along the Nicaruagua border in '88. With full battle rattle, live ammo, and really bad attitudes. Funny how the Nics settled right down. Again, no actual combat, but the message was certainly received.

 

[Jungle]

Here's a link to all the Airborne ops in history: http://www.geocities.com/paratroop2000/paratrooper.htm
The first half is mostly about US ops, but the second half is about Int'l Airborne ops. There have been more of them than we suspect, by more countries than we expect...
There will always be a debate around Parachute Troops, but they are an essential component of modern Armies, no matter what any of you think.
It takes courage (not to be confused with Bravery) to exit an aircraft from a thousand feet, with full combat gear, in the middle of the night, jumping into a place you've never been to... a lot of people lack that courage, and most of the opponents of Parachute / Airborne Troops come from them.
Good reading !!!

 

[claybot]

Well lets address these points in the order you present them.

GO!!!
The Airborne was never a specialist unit - it maintained capabilities (airmobile, amphibious) that the "working"   Bns did not, at least in a meaningful context. So maybe it was a specialist unit - in everything.

Having a unit on standby is not a waste of time or money, any more than the firefighters who watch porn for four, four day shifts in a row, but no - one begrudges them that, because eventually, there will be a fire!

As for sending social misfits to the Airborne - I joined long after the Airborne was gone, but I've met alot more losers in uniform who trash the airborne, than people who were actually IN it. I suppose it's easy to critisize if you could never hack the entrance requirements, and had to watch all of those fit, well trained and disciplined misfits collecting jump pay while you pounded track in Winterpeg...

1st paragraph -- Airborne was never a specialist unit it maintained capabilities that the working Bn's did not .....
I guess those company level Airmobile ops I went on in RV or in (get your helmet on) Germany in Blackhawks never really happened as for those amphibious ops That the 3 PPCLI (Work Point Barracks) and 2 RCR (Gagetown) have done never really happened either. I would think that only having one unit with a jump capability makes that unit a specialist unit.

2nd paragraph -- As per the last post having a unit sit on their rucksacks waiting for a mission the government will never authorize is a waste of money

3rd paragraph -- Yes well trained soldiers joined the Airborne alot of my friends who I joined up with were in the Airborne, but the fact is that the battalions used the Airborne as well as other trades as a dumping ground for undersiables within in their unit. Unlike you I was in the military when the Airborne was around and I've seen this happen. Being critical of the airborne and being critical of the Airborne uses and capability are two different things.

GO!!! If you had joined long after the airborne was gone how could you possibly discuss or even know what the Airborne was and what there capabilities were. I may have not been in the Airborne but I was in the Army doing tours while the Airborne waited and waited to go one.
And for the jump pay .... The Real Airborne jumped from airplanes to earn their jump pay.... not helicopters.........

This thread is about the usefullness of the CAPABILITY not the soldier perhaps if you read the title of the thread you would understand.

But whats the point I'm bringing up points that were before your time, I was in the Army, you were in high school.

 

[a_majoor]

An interesting aside about airborne troops:

During the battle for Dien Bien Phu, the French Union forces suffered high casualties among the specialist and support trades. The beseiged garrison desparately required replacement personnel, but the airstrip had been closed early in the battle and air landing troops was not an option. The French command in Hanoi wanted the replacement troops (volunteers all) to undergo a complete parachute training cycle before they could be deployed to the fortress, but with time being against them, this idea was dropped. (sorry)

The specialists were dropped into Dien Bien Phu without "airborne" training and only rudimentary parachute instruction, yet they arrived and apparently only suffered about 5% casualties due to landing accidents and other parachute related hazards; fairly typical numbers even for French paratroopers of the era. (This is particularly amazing since this was a combat drop into a very hot LZ).

You can read this in more detail in Bernard Fall's book "Hell in a very small place; the battle of Dien Bien Phu"

 

[Jungle]

And for the jump pay .... The Real Airborne jumped from airplanes to earn their jump pay.... not helicopters.........

Yeah... ignorance talking again... I belong to a Para Coy, and just this week, the Troops have conducted the following drops from C-130s:
one day, no eqpt, double-door jump
one night, full eqpt, double door jump
one day, no eqpt, ramp jump (after the drop of a heavy eqpt platform)
one day, full eqpt, double door jump
one day, no eqpt, ramp jump (with civilians as observers)
That's 5 jumps in 5 days... not all weeks are like that, but we get a fair number of C-130 jumps. We have C-130s lined up for Oct and Nov as well. CH-146 jumps are useful to keep Parachute skills honed.
Claybot, re-read my previous post in this thread, you will likely recognize yourself in the last part  :
The biggest problem we have in our Army is jealousy... It is one of the major obstacles preventing us from moving forward on a lot of projects.

 

[baboon6]

Jungle, have you guys ever done an NBC jump? I was reading something recently about the British 1 Para doing one in Kuwait just before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Apparently it was so hot guys were almost passing out on the aircraft...

 

[Jungle]

No, never done one; but it must be very hard on the Troops. I wonder how the mask does during the exit...

 

[Kirkhill]

a_majoor brings up an interesting point: the difference between using the parachute as a means of transportation versus training troops to operate in places that parachutes can take them.

Virtually anybody can be trained to fall out aeroplanes and land safely most of the time (assuming good packers and a clear LZ).  Hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians are taught this capability every weekend in industrialized countries.  I know it can be done.   One weekend at Claresholm Alberta, about 3 hours of ground instruction and by the end of the weekend I had my first two jumps in.

Is that the same as jumping into a hole in the map where you don't know if you're going to be shot on the way down? No
Is that the same as jumping with an additional 150 to 200 lbs of kit? No, but is it always necessary to attach that much kit to the parachutist? Especially if the LZ is known to be secure.

If, for example, you wanted to build up a force in an otherwise secure area then teaching soldiers to fall out of planes should not be that difficult.

Suppose we consider a Canadian Example.  A Northern Example.    Any foreign small unit incursion (humour me ) is likely to be miles from any place.   Response options could be drop on the enemy by parachute (dangerous), drop by helicopter (noisy and more dangerous?), drop away from the en posn and walk in dragging your pulk behind you (less noisy, less dangerous?, slow, poor support), drive gear by M113/Bv206.....(no preferences here just any suitable vehicle - all of which have to come from somewhere, which takes time) or drop troops away from en posn (50 -100km) along with LAPES'd vehicles and then proceed in a conventional advance to contact.

Parachutes open up the whole of Canada to exploitation.  This is the reason that cadres of Smoke Jumpers were employed to fight fires (apparently there currently only exists one in Canada in the North Peace district of BC).

Airborne training, despite Field Marshal Montgomery's observation, seems less about getting out the door than dealing with what is likely to be encountered on the ground in an unknown and unsupported environment.

Parachute training, on the other hand is just about getting out the door - much like teaching a kid to get on those vicious looking machines in the mall, the ones with all the teeth that move really fast through impossibly high holes in the ground? You know.  Escalators.    If you have forgotten just watch a mother or father try to convince a balky toddler to get on an escalator the next time you are in a mall.  Often the first few endeavours involve dragging them on......problem two is to convince them to stop playing on the things once they have figured out they aren't dead ;D

Helicopters are slow and noisy and expensive.  Aircraft are fast and less noisy and in some ways less expensive (payload hours and miles).  Aircraft can drop vehicles and supplies virtually anywhere.  Helicopters can as well but they are more limited in carrying capacity, take longer to get where they are going and advertise their presence.   The only issue is that of getting people on the ground and I believe that that is more of a psychological barrier that can be overcome than anything else.  I don't think there is much difference in training someone to step out the door and to trust in a parachute and training that same individual to step off a tower, or the door of a helicopter, and to trust in the rope down which the are required to rappel.

A parachutist is not the same as an Airborne Commando.


Edit:  By the way helicopters are absolutely necessary - as recovery vehicles more than delivery vehicles.  While parachutes and planes can deliver anything anywhere, including tree tops and swamps, the helicopter is the only anti-gravity device we have to be able to pull people and stuff OUT of anywhere, including tree tops and swamps.

 

[Jungle]

A parachutist is not the same as an Airborne Commando.

... and that is the difference between red wings and white ones !!! 
Even though the Para Coys, like the LIBs they are part of, are not "doctrinal" yet, we work very hard to maintain some of the skills inherent to "Commando" type Troops; not easy in today's context, but manageable.

 

[KevinB]

Dont mistake civy jumps for MIL.

A civ plane with 3-6 pax. is doing about 90kps when the skydivers exit.  The chute opens slowly and has both forward speed and turning ability - plus a GREAT deal less of vertical speed.

Mil jumping is all speed and violence - the Herc is MOVING, the sky in much more crowded and unlike a civy chute all you can do (CT-2 exempted) is make a vain attempt at slipping away from anything you dont want to run into.  Add in pers kit, weapon etc.  and the fact that the terrain is not always ideal - and you have a receipe that demands more than a 3 hour ground school.  Plus 1000-1200 AGL is a wee bit lower than 3500 which most civy jumps do as a MIN.  Partial failure in a civy chute and you have a bit of time to assess pump your toggles and decide if you want to cut away - Exiting a Herc and you get a bad canopy - you had best immediately be doing your IA's for either complete or partial malfunction...

I did a civy jump last month and only had a few open cells -- In theory you should cut away, but I knew that I had a great deal of time - so I pumped and the chute opened - If I ever waited on a Mil jump they'd be naming a DZ... (if I was lucky)

 

[Kirkhill]

Definitely NOT confusing civvy and MIL jumps Kevin.   I understand your point fully. That is why I differentiated between parachuting in a secure environment as a means of transportation and parachuting in a contested environment as part of an assault.  

The point I was trying to make I think, is that not all parachute deployments have to be assaults.   They can just be transport, as was effectively the case for the US Brigade that parachuted into secured airfields in Northern Iraq.  It was probably cheaper on gas than landing the aircraft.

 

[KevinB]

The point I was trying to make I think, is that not all parachute deployments have to be assaults.   They can just be transport, as was effectively the case for the US Brigade that parachuted into secured airfields in Northern Iraq.   It was probably cheaper on gas than landing the aircraft.

Roger that - BUT they have to have the ability to be assaults.  Kinda shitty is you plan on an unopposed landing and have an admin jump onto a held airfield.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair Enuff.

 

[paracowboy]

  It was probably cheaper on gas than landing the aircraft.

and less stressful on the aircraft involved, I understand. (Air Force types feel free to correct me, but I was told that the stressful part of an aircraft's life is the landings and take offs.)

That being said, let's keep in mind that the 173rd jumping in to Northern Iraq were fully expecting it to be a hot DZ. They jumped in expecting to be under contact while under canopy. Fortunately, the Kurds on the ground were not only friendly, but competent.

 

[McG]

the remaining 6 Infantry Battalions will rotate through mission after mission with very little breaks, doing all the work. Sending their social misfits to this new unit trying to keep the best soldiers for themselves.

History repeats itself........

Sending "problem children" to the airborne was a fault of the system & not an insperable negative of paratroops.  It was a fixable problem, and an avoidable problem if we start new.  David Bercuson addressed this in his book "Significant Incident."