The U.S Army Airborne is Irrelevant??

[@leanit5756]

Interesting take on AB forces. If nothing else, the AB school itself serves as a confidence builder. For the same reason all young soldiers (even cooks, supply, admin, etc) do obstacle courses and the like, completing AB school is an additional step in strengthening the mind and character of the soldier.

[@whiskeythree1622]

Damn straight 👍🏽

[@michaellmiller2382]

"Show me a man who will jump out of an airplane and I'll show you a man who will fight." - Gen. James Gavin. The tactical and strategic utility can be debated, but the measure of a soldiers heart and will cannot. This is why Airborne is the gateway to all things SpecOp.

[@JoeFarrell-e3f]

@@michaellmiller2382 that's debatable. NATO airborne units roles were to hold key strategic points in the event of red army armour rolling across Europe. Their lifespan was around right hours. They are the nearest NATO has to storming or shock troops. In regards to SOF, previously country regiments made up a large percentage. This gave the SAS a far more balanced ethos and skillset in its green roles.Subsequently it's now far more airborne dominated. It's green role skill sets learned in places like Malaya have decreased. What with it's black roles in NI and various theatres. It's decline is also linked to adopting the one dimension al Para mindset. Doing not thinking.

[@slightlyseen6767]

Got my wings in 99' For as much shuffling as we did in school it was one of the proudest days of my life. 17 years later after being medically retired and a career I'm proud of many pains and sarrows, I'm still proud of my wings. Honestly even going through RIP and becoming an 18 Echo my jump wings are sacred to me. I wish my grandfather got to see me get them.

[@whiskeythree1622]

Agreed & good on ya! On my last jump, there was a civilian gentleman -- in his 70s or 80s -- at the recovery/observation area ... had a glider pin in his truckers cap. Proud to meet him.

[@nickklein8163]

Great perspective. I always told people that the best reason to have airborne training and jump status is to keep certain large scale infantry units elite. 82nd, 173rd and 101st (Air Assualt) are different breeds of units. I did two combat tours with the 82nd and even though we never jumped into the battlefield, I knew every one I was deploying with would do that and much more and it gave me more confidence to fight for them.

[@RougeRangerX]

It is 100% relevant. Airfield seizures is one of the most important aspects of moving and forming a frontline. If we have a near-peer engagement one day (which is what we are shifting training to) then it is more relevant now than ever. People need to stop thing of the past few wars and look to the future.

[@stevefowler2112]

I'm a now old U.S. Recon Marine vet. who went to jump school at Benning in '74. The biggest reason for the U.S. Army to keep a robust Airborne element is the old war adage that the army who gets there the firstest with the mostest has the advantage.

[@mikejackson7284]

I went through the SF Q Course in 1969. I was told up front that termination from the Q Course would result in orders for Vietnam to serve in an Airborne unit. I was relieved. If I did not make it at least I would not be with the regular army.

[@willowtree5267]

Completely useless... until they are needed and don't exist. 🙄

[@Firegal64]

I was in during the 1980s, and people were arguing then that an airborne capability was irrelevant and unnecessary. Then Operation Just Cause happened...20 December 1989...and an airborne capability was essential for the operation. Contingencies come up when you least expect them.

[@stevelucero9047]

We need Airborne like we need the A10 Warthog. Both are necessary.

[@nickklein8163]

and even if they weren't, they are both bada$$

[@danielmcneely1579]

No other unit can be in your backyard in a matter of hours. Everybody else has to get close before they can make a forced entry. Also, a big chunk of the 18th Airborne Corps are legs. Only the 82nd Airborne and the 75th Ranger Regiment have the ability to seize an airfield in a land locked country and make it safe for the more timid souls to air land.

[@fredrickmillstead2804]

I believe airborne troops will always be needed as AN OPTION in ground warfare.

[@mksonmor]

I got $110 a month back in the 1990s. You can put 18000 troops anywhere in the world in 48 hours. Just the threat of the 82nd abn div in route back in 1994 lead to a leadership change in Haiti. I was pissed when we didn't jump in. We had 61 C130s in the enroute. Then we turned around. That sucked.

[@boathemian7694]

Jump school and wings have been resume builders for decades now. If only airborne infantrymen who were in an actual unit were allowed to go to jump school it might still mean something.

[@mksonmor]

Put in a DA 4187. A good training NCO would make sure you would go. I sent a few troops to abn school.

[@davidwagner9644]

When you said 150 dollars it reminded me of my Grandfather, his brother and his 3 first cousins were all Paratroopers. All 5 came home. 4 of 5 jumped on D Day. The 1 who didn't was recovering from Anzio. He jumped on Market Garden and fought in battle of Bulge. Anyways, at a family gathering as a child i asked why you all were Paratroopers. My Grandfather without missing a beat said, 150 dollars. In the 1943 when they joined they found out the regular infantry got 60 dollars a month and Paratroopers got 150 dollars a month. He and his brother sent their father 100 dollars a month each. To put that in perspective that 200 dollars a month my great Grandfather received is equal to $3,500 in 2024 dollars. My grandfathers oldest brother was KIA when his B17 was shot down over Germany. My Great Grandfather received $10,000 for his sons death benefit. My Great Grandfather built his family a brand new farmhouse for 3,500 dollars. Increased the size of his farm. I still have the paperwork. He paid 50 dollars an acre. Bought an additional 120 acers of land. Also bought 2, new Farmall tractors. Both still work to this day. For many WWII is what propelled them out of poverty or just barely making it That said, as a Paratroopers myself in my younger days $150 extra is not enough. There is a pinetree in pineland with my name etched in it. I managed to survive bouncing off the tree.

[@thekitchenvillain]

He said …. “If you ain’t airborne, you ain’t shit”

[@oldman3516]

Airborne is irrelevant until it isn't, no tactic or weapon is obsolete, it's all about suitability at the time and place

[@alexdale8705]

I think that even since WW2 historians have wondered whether the airborne troops were as useful as its often thought they were.

[@History90585]

Airborne Ops still relevant. The ability to quickly project forces behind enemy lines, destroy or secure key targets, re supply operations, equipment delivery are some additional reasons why still relevant. If we ever have to face an adversary in Large Scale Combat Ops or War in Europe or Asia, you all will see that is still very relevant.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@History90585 Imagine being attacked by various types of SAMs and UAS on a jump. It would really suck.

[@Blitzkrieg_Wolf]

@@LRRPFco52 SAM counters & flares/chaff exist ya know.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@Blitzkrieg_Wolf Yes, my family did FORMAT-E on early Soviet SAMs. Modern IR Imaging seekers can lock onto certain shapes and reject flares. You don't want to be sitting in a fat C-130 or C-17 in even a degraded IADS environment. Those systems need to be completely suppressed or destroyed prior to dropping. Every modern multi-spectral guided AAA will make short work of a low-flying cargo plane.

[@Beetlejuice67668]

lol I think Ukraine showed why the airborne forces are irrelevant they wiped out a division before it even got out the fuckn plane

[@derrickwilliams1902]

Situations Where Mass Airborne Operations Remain Useful 1. Rapid Deployment for Large-Scale Conflicts: • In a near-peer conflict (e.g., NATO vs. Russia), airborne troops could still be used to secure strategic locations such as airfields, bridges, or choke points. • In such scenarios, airborne forces could disrupt enemy logistics, seize key terrain, or create forward operating bases for follow-on forces. 2. Humanitarian and Crisis Response: • Mass airborne operations can be effective in humanitarian interventions or non-permissive environments, where conventional ground forces are not immediately available (e.g., evacuating civilians or securing critical infrastructure). 3. Show of Force and Strategic Influence: • Airborne readiness exercises serve as a deterrence measure by demonstrating the ability to rapidly project power (e.g., U.S. 82nd Airborne Division exercises in Europe).

[@pfedd00]

Nuclear weapons are irrelevant too. It's the threat of its existence that matters.

[@cliffordbaxter1992]

82nd here 🙂 Remember, if you don't have it,.........Your gonna need it ✝️🇺🇸😕

[@yorkeoldfather3146]

With 18 hours notice the 82nd Airborne can deploy anywhere in the world, and everything is dropped by air, including vehicles. There isn't some some new technological thing that can replace that. It's a tool in the tool box. Entire countries have capitulated when told the 82nd Airborne is in the air and on the way. Airborne!

[@No-One-of-Consequence]

You might never need large scale artillery operations again. You can repalce armor operations with air cavalry, if you're willing to go that route. There are a lot of elements of combat arms that you can designate unnecessary, but you will never know when you'll wind up needing them again. So be ready for anything. That's why you need paratroopers. Frankly I think Airborne School should follow basic training and precede AIT, and you should fold Air Assault School in with it and make every last member of the Army from your clerk typist to your four star general a paratrooper capable of parachuting or fast roping into a war zone, because it would increase the flexibility of the service and juice up its sense of presige and professionalism. Think about the WWII paratroopers and the way they carried it. It would be hard to judge who would win a brawl between paratroopers and U.S. Marines, but you know there would be a lot of loose teeth on the deck regardless. It's an expense, sure, but there are wasteful expenses and there are worthwhile investments. I'd like to see the Army stepping up its badass quotient.

[@minarchist1776]

I have to agree with the reasons you cited for maintaining airborne forces. We don't know exactly what we're going to need for future conflicts because they have a tendency to turn out to be nothing like we thought they would. Besides, if we were to let that capability lapse and then find out a decade or so later that we really needed it we'd be humped. That's not the sort of thing you can just turn on and expect to do well with it building it back up from scratch in a short time.

[@Blitzkrieg_Wolf]

An advantage taken from the enemy is gained by your forces, if they have to expend more resources just to prepare for a tactic that is rarely used then it is an advantage to keep.

[@_Big_Brother_]

Thank you for this comment. I actually ganied some enlightenment.

[@Morestuffaboutstuff-j9o]

It is my understanding that US Airborne forces would not be used like in WW2 to capture bridges and conduct disruptive operations behind enemy lines, but as a rapid way to re-enforce troops already on the battlefield. Airstrips and other infrastructure would likely be destroyed so re-enforcement by air would be the only option.

[@derek96720]

This comment should be pinned.

[@Sleepyembers]

Good point. Thanks for sharing

[@SinOjOs-Transport]

I got $50 airborne pay in the early 80's, they upped it to $100. Pack of cigarettes was 25-49 cents on the east coast. Could get a shot of bourbon & beer back for 35-59 cents, $1-1.50 pitchers of beer depending upon the dive bar. Gas was cheap. Used change to fill my motorcycle tank. Yes, things suck nowadays. Glad my life is about over. You kiddies, are going to have a hell of a time over the next 50 years. That is if you live.

[@brianfoley3925]

Airborne capability at the Brigade level is still very relevant...Airborne Assault against a defended target (a la Normandy/Market Garden, etc.) is akin to suicide...So, yes, having Battalion/Brigade Airborne capability is vital...but like any capability, it has to be used appropriately. Airborne troops used as front-line infantry in a static front is like using a Ferrari as a pick-up truck.

[@ryanfirst9761]

Has the world gotten rid of the possibilities of another Grenada, Panama, or even Operation Rhino. It’s a near perfect fast strike capability to put troops inside an area, and that’s something our enemies need to fear. How many helicopters does it take to transport a Bde or Btn even compared to a C-5, 17, or even a 141? I remember when Nicaragua invaded Honduras. They pulled out an hour after we took off from Pope AFB. We still spent time on the ground after we got there, and I even got my Honduran wings.

[@pfdrtom]

Dude, read Relentless Strike, a book about socom in the last two wars. Everyone knows the 173rd made one jump in Iraq but Ranger Regiment did many static line jumps and jsoc did a slew of HALO drops.

[@ryanfirst9761]

@@pfdrtom My problem with what he is saying is Airborne units are still needed for operations requiring a rapid response. My comment isn’t in support of the 82nd over the 173rd but about keeping Airborne units in general. Airborne Btns , just like the Ranger Btn, rotate in and out of RDF status all year. The 173rd only has 2 Btn of infantry as far as I can find, and to rotate one unit out of the two Btns on RDF status year round would take a toll on troops. Being in Vicenza, Italy makes them perfect for their role as a RDF for Europe and Africa, but I would still like to see them expanded to 3 or 4 Btns for the troops. It makes sense to have one Abn unit in Europe and one Abn unit in the US.

[@pfdrtom]

@@ryanfirst9761 Exactly.

[@84marcow]

The concept of Airborne is not irrelevant. It’s a great tool to have. But due to new technologies, it would never be used in large capacity. Make it a smaller component. Pay those men more than $150 a month and give them the best equipment. No need to be sending HHC and their S shops to Airborne school.

[@loocius]

It Might Be. But Its A Nice Option To Have If Ever Needed.

[@timfrank1262]

How bout the fact that Reserve hazardous duty pay is pro-rated despite having to maintain the jump proficiency as AD? Reservists jump a minimum of once a quarter and get $20 a month!

[@denisdegamon8224]

Back in the mid to late 1970s, enlisted airborne pay was $55.00/ month, and officers was $110.00/ month. So, your statement that airborne pay hasn't changed in 50 years is not quite correct. The actual pay was I stated back when I was on active duty.

[@Maniac1607]

Terrence Popp said that Airborne School isn't nearly the ballbreaker that it once was.

[@WillieBrownsWeiner]

@@Maniac1607 you're still exiting an aircraft in flight. No matter how easy it is

[@ryanfirst9761]

Our military basic isn’t the ball breaker it once was either.

[@denisdegamon8224]

As an ex Army airborne infantry officer, you don't own or control an area unless you stand upon said ground. Airborne operations are still an effective tool, especially in limited operations. No other force on earth can be deployed anywhere on the globe in eighteen hours. Airborne and Ranger units have similar applications and are the vital tip of the spear in many scenarios.

[@chrisabn1]

A very good analysis! 👍🏻

[@arthurbrumagem3844]

Well with all those women who are “ paratroopers “ change the outcome I’ll wager. Standards were lowered. Wish I was paid 150 a month when I was in the 173rd and 82nd instead of 55 a month

[@seanwatts8342]

It was $110 in the early 1990s.

[@sirg-had8821]

I always had a good time when I got to work with paratroopers. The discipline and professionalism were noticeable.

[@jager6863]

Air Borne units have so many loses on combat operations, they are usually not worth it. Would you place infantry, even highly trained infantry units behind enemy lines without real mobility, armor and detached from your logistics? What we probably need is 3 airborne brigades that have light tanks and a similar vehicle to the German Wiesel. Most of the time, these troops will just function, as they have in the past, as highly trained and motivated infantry.

[@ViktoriousDead]

Look up Hill 400

[@ryanfirst9761]

You can’t heavy drop or LAPES an Abrams. The 82nd had Sheridans, but those were not the greatest. Now the 82nd is testing heavy drop capable armor and vehicles for transporting squads. Airborne didn’t lose in Airborne operations after WWII, but then again, there have only been about 15 Airborne operations since WWII. Since they have Battalions on standby all year long with heavy equipment already rigged for heavy drop. They can be equipped and in the air within 24 hours (75th Rangers sooner than that) of notification and dropped inside an area (82nd trained for taking and securing airfields when I was in) so conventional troops can land.

[@burnttoaster6313]

The airborne purpose is to jump behind enemy lines and fuk sht up! They are supposed to be like raiders causing all sorts of havoc so enemy resources are diverted away from the front.

[@mksonmor]

The 82nd had light tanks when I was there in the 90s. They were called Sheldon's. We tried to drop the Abrams in the 90s but the electronics would not hold up. We only dropped one. I was a Rigger.

[@vincent-wu7bw]

Getting rid of Airborne would probably go as well as getting rid of guns on fighters in Vietnam went. There may be a time and place for it again, and scrambling to get the force together in a pinch isn't a great plan.

[@robertedwards9880]

Two of the largest army branches prior to World War Two were the Horse Cavalry and the Coast Artillery Corps. How relevant are they today? Technolgy changes and things become obsolete. Just how it is

[@brianoswald1067]

See what the Houthis are up to in the Bab al Mandeb. Cavalry was an actual thing in late 2001. Paratroopers were an answer to fix trench warfare. What’s going on in Ukraine? Trench warfare.

[@bencoffey5344]

Well, as someone who spent almost 17 out of a 21 year career on status, I have a hard time believing that airborne assets are irrelevant. RLTW!

[@stumpynubs5387]

It's irrelevant to people who never got their wings.

[@kenb.8596]

Having sniffed plenty of fumes on Green Ramp & jumps on Sicily DZ both full combat & Hollywood doing the doo. It’s a toss up to maintain or dismantle. I’m 100% P&T from a multitude of things, but as the author states, ya probably don’t want us on your front doorstep, not a healthy bunch to arrive with our many toys & f’ed up mentally. We be sick mother puppies. C/1/508.

[@JohnSmith-7n8]

I think it's what makes the 82nd so good on deployment 1 everyone has already done a very dangerous bonding thing together like long night full combat jump people do die so I fell it prepares mentally for war better then any other training 2 the chaos of jumping prepares the unit to react like now a team leader is weapons squad leader cuz the real wsl got red lighted or scratched or real Ijuries

[@wonkyscroll5002]

I just got out, I was C Co, HHC, and B Co 1-508. We were very close to getting a combat jump during the Afghanistan withdraw until the decision not to retake BAF was made.

[@paulthompson1216]

18th ABC, 16th MP Group, 118th MP Company 01/76 to 08/78. We only got an extra $55/month on top of about $400/month pay as a Spec 4. I didn’t feel irrelevant and was proud to serve.

[@jessesmith1261]

I’m a Leg and know for a fact airborne isn’t irrelevant, some fat 1 contract GWOT vet might have said that or worse someone that’s never served, not only do airborne units have the capability to drop anywhere behind enemy lines, the individual soldiers are double volunteers you don’t just accidentally end up airborne, you get less soldiers that are there for benefits purely or had no choice, you get more try hard, fearless soldiers with drive, obviously sht bags too but less than a regular unit for sure, keep kicking ass airborne, god forbid we end up in ww3 but if we do we’ll do the same sht our grand daddy’s did in ww2🤙🏻

[@nickklein8163]

This was always my opinion. I served two combat tours with the 82nd and I felt safer in Iraq with my BCT than I did on the streets of the US. Much of the "regular Army" soldiers are weeded out by the prospect of extra work and training. It makes for a better work enviornment, trust me.

[@Tim82ATW]

Actually there have been 6 combat jumps during the GWOT.

[@jessesmith1261]

@@Tim82ATW never said there wasn’t lol

[@Tim82ATW]

@@jessesmith1261 I apologize! I misread it

[@jessesmith1261]

@@Tim82ATW no worries bud 🤙🏻

[@bodidley5015]

Same kind of question as “Do we need the navy-marine corps team for primary core competency in amphibious operations?” I doubt the airborne or the marines will be replaced or eliminated anytime soon.

[@soup31314]

@@bodidley5015 the difference between airborne and the marines is that the marines are mandated by Congress to exist. After ww1 Congress wanted to disband the marines because they were deemed redundant. Then a report from New York and a couple higher marines begged and pleaded with Congress to pass a mandate so that the marines could never be disbanded and to be manned to a set strength. Then during ww2 the marines were not the only force to train and conduct amphibious assault operations. There were two amphibious assault schools one on each coast. The east coast school was run my 3rd ID. The U.S. military unit with the most amphibious assaults is actually an U.S. Army unit 7th Infantry Regiment.

[@bodidley5015]

@ you’re about half ass right. Neither one is going anywhere. Do some more research.

[@pallidustigris]

I served with the 8th Infantry Division from 1977 to 1980. Nato was facing seven Warsaw Pact airborne divisions then. The hardest thing to predict is where and when the Airborne infantry will land. Well-equipped and trained Airborne Infantry can destroy conventional forces effectively with newer advanced weapons in existence today. It's a strategic force designed for action under exigent military necessity. I don't know what the Russian Federation has at its disposal presently, but I am confident they have some airborne conventional counterpart to target NATO's turf. There are times in which taking a target cannot wait and it has to happen within hours after hostilities break. Dangerous, injuries, and deaths are all part of the risks all service members face.

[@mr.wallace1074]

"These are my credentials!"

[@vincedee6607]

That makes sense. Keeps the enemy thinking and planning for this possibility. 🇺🇲

[@jonfillion3732]

better to have and not need then to need and not have. and just my humble opinion as a NG member, every state should have at least 1 airborne company. would be great for retention and moral to have the ability.

[@Tiah-mm8lp]

I agree, and for moral have a squadron of F-14 Super Tomcat 21's.

[@KC-UT4rmAZ]

Until they’re needed again. Better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them anymore.

[@carltonvanhoy3999]

They kept saying the same thing about snipers. Learn from failed history, and don't tie our hands for no reason.

[@marksmusicplace3627]

I am airborne and jumpmaster qualified. I am retired but my point of view is this. we hadn't fought a conventional enemy since Vietnam or Korea or WW2. Airborne is still the fastest way to employ the highest amount of troops to a forward area in amount of minutes. Iraq and Afghanistan showed us that the enemy was crippling us with IEDs and VBIEDS but they definitely would not be able to fight 1000s of soldiers coming in by airborne operations in amount of minutes, securing and occupying areas as reinforcements come in by convoy. Not only do we jump in personnel but we airdrop supplies and vehicles and commo. 82d and 173d are already airborne qualified. It would take nothing to setup Sabalaski at Campbell for airborne training and reactivate 101st as an airborne division as well. With the uncertainty of China and Russia as well as North Korea and even Syria or Iran. I see 10th Mountain and even 1st Cav and 3rd ID becoming Airborne Divisions. Airborne is definitely High Risk because of major Malfunctions, and even death but its all part of the casualty of war. All the schools they want to eliminate like air assault, airborne which means jumpmaster would also go away. and pathfinder. This kind of thought process will always bite us in the butt. We have to maintain proactive and stop being reactive to enemy threats.

[@ashvandal5697]

Integrated a2/ad and more sophisticated missile systems makes the option EXTRAORDINARY more dangerous than its ever been, and arguably the light infantryman far away from support is more vulnerable than he’s ever been. Data from Russia-Ukraine forces a rethink from our generals and leadership, which is smart. There’s a lot of new capabilities to plan for, and not all of them are hypothetical. Russia has proven to be bad example, but you can certainly learn from all their failures too.

[@irakennington9701]

"And where is the Prince who can afford to so cover his country with troops for its defense, as that ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might not in many places do an infinite deal of mischief, before a force could be brought together to repel them?" "infinite mischief"

[@Robert53area]

Airborne if used correctly can stop and hold the enemy in position. But if they do not get resupplied and reinforced quickly they are overwhelmed. The russian airborne is armored, but even when they are used in ukraine they opened up with seizure of airfields, which was great. It also had to have force come from belarus to reinforce. But with out full air cover they are currently being used as assault brigades, and currently being used to hold. If the US want to adapt its airborne, which it has the ability to drop them deep in territory they need more firepower or they need to go light and act as behind the line sappers. Blowing bridges and others and then enough supplies to hide out till reinforcement arrive

[@ggfreed]

If you need to get a battalion-sized or larger force on the ground immediately to intervene in any conflict, or to capture and hold key strategic objectives like international airports or military airfields, there is only one way to do it….by parachute. Advance forces of Marines take weeks to arrive by sea, same as Army units. By that time, the war aims of an enemy may have already been attained.

[@michaeloeser9187]

MEUs are forward deployed and can respond in 6 hours.

[@ggfreed]

@@michaeloeser9187 yes, Understood, if those ships happen to be close enough to the targeted areas. But to be able to strike deep into enemy territory such as flying from Italy and jumping into and seizing an Iraqi military airfield deep inside northern Iraq, or the 82nd flying down to Haiti, with a large enough force to make a difference, you’re still talking Airborne.

[@chrisray9650]

@@michaeloeser9187 good point. But you are also assuming the target is near the coast. It will take some time for the Navy to put you onto the coast, and then you will take some time to navigate to the target which could be 100's of miles in shore. Even by helo, that will take much longer than 6 hours.

[@GrimSoldat]

Makes sense to me. I mean, I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the value of having the capability to deploy a sizeable force in a short amount of time to a combat area that could be impassible. It doesn't have to be as grand as the D-Day paras, but the potential for seizing key strategic points without the added logistics and risk of more aircraft remaining on station is a huge plus. Is Air Assault superior in many ways? Kind of. If your helo gets shot down, you're fked. Now there has to be even more manpower and resources committed to recovering that, plus casualties. I feel like they are a capability being horribly squandered by overly cautious leaders, or ones that just don't think outside the box. I realize there is a lot more to it than just phoning up a BCT and saying "Hey, can we drop your guys in?" 😅 but it's got to be a hell of a lot less than all the logis and maintenance of a helicopter air wing.

[@michaeloeser9187]

@@chrisray9650 I'm not assuming anything. The original post said that the only way to accomplish the objectives he laid out was via Airborne. I'm pointing out that that's not necessarily the case.

[@mannyfit75]

Last Airborne operation was done by the 75th Rangers Regiment when they dropped dropped over Afghanistan in 2001. I do not think Airborne is obsolete. JSOC which is better than BIG Army are all Airborne. Those complaining about Airborne are POGs.

[@PunkN_JTM]

No... 2003 iraq had a drop west by north of the dam/lake .some, not many Rangers came down for the dam week 1 on that drop the rest of em i have no clue what they did...i was a comms chief, myself and my xo was discussing this as we burned across the desert.. it was not advertised it was kinda all botched up according to the Ranger i know that partook in it... Lol.. 🤣 Operation Northern Delay.. I don't know the exact location they burned in.. I was on forwarding party with 535th creating route donkey as they drooped in ..

[@mannyfit75]

Airborne is still utilized, thus it remains relevant as some others have pointed out.

[@MWDJR173]

The 173RD jumped into Bashur, Iraq in 2003 and I currently serve with a senior nco who made that jump as a specialist.

[@steveo1413]

Last one huh? Incorrect.

[@mcgoon8027]

No

[@CBUCK1994]

Airborne is not irrelevant they just need to be used correctly because it is a bigger risk to deploy them. If Airborne gets used in any wars most likely the casualty rates will be high. its up to the generals to decide whether it's worth the risk to secure objectives. I personally think Airborne is most effective dropped behind enemy lines before a major attack from ground forces in order to cause a huge breakthrough

[@airhabairhab]

Ukraine Russia war has show that those planes won’t even be able to get anywhere near the stop zone in a near peer conflict. Airborne can only drop in conflicts against smaller much poorer countries with no air defense. It’s 90% redundant, but it’s still cool though.

[@keithiverson2644]

Why not make airborne units into orbital drop units? In theory that capability carries more fear and a broader range of tactics.

[@tewksburydriver8624]

Some things are important whether useful or not. Airborne units are a draw and a badge of honor and that means a lot in terms of recruiting, reputation, and pride.

[@joebobgrizzler9963]

There was once something called "Air Assault" as well. I'm not sure if the Army still has that school. They're calling Air Mobile units "Air Assault" now. I remember a truck pulling up at the end of basic. "Anybody want to be Airborne get on the truck." Hell no. I heard that at the end of "Airborne".. a truck pulled up and they said "Anybody want to be a Ranger get on the truck." Hell no. I didn't even want to be a leg.

[@peterdahl2952]

The Brits (under a Labour Government) disbanded their Airborne forces in the mid-70’s, …then Kolwezi happened, and the Brits had no way whatsoever to respond, …had to leave it to the French and Belgiques. Guess what, …Airborne Forces were reconstituted 😉

[@1anre]

Kolwezi was?

[@peterdahl2952]

@@1anre en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kolwezi

[@AJoe-ze6go]

US Marine here - GO AIRBORNE!

[@MichaelBrowning-et5xy]

Airborne is the best invasion option against near peer, air assault & waterborn is just slowly heading towards pillboxes.

[@tmmccormick86]

There are still places where we can’t get ground mobility vehicles or helicopters full of soldiers- like Afghan mountaintops, or deep jungle zones. We may never see another Market Garden, but the Rhodesian-style small scale jumps will continue to be tactically viable into the foreseeable future.

[@SteveSmith-os5bs]

I went through Jump school in 1983, I got over my fear of heights by doing what scared me the most. The school builds confidence and builds a more motivated soldier. Maybe the concept of a mass tact is out of date but being able to insert teams of troops by parachute I think still is relevant.

[@Tim82ATW]

Just a FYI!! There have been 6 combat jumps during the GWOT into iraq/Afghanistan. These are facts!! Do your research!!

[@gt5971]

Todays Airborne school could take 2 days. 1 day to learn all the songs, the second day to learn how to jump. It's a confidence course, thats it. Not like the training WWII training Paratroopers received.

[@Chris-t6x]

No doubt. WW2 ABN would be the equivalent of Rangers today. Not even close.

[@patwxdaddy]

Best reason I have heard yet! Having been in 10 Airborne units in 16 years of service from the Cold War Army to Air Force Special Ops in OEF with a Combat Jump into Panama. The basics but its not as simple as cost, the whole point of the Cold War was the giants could not dare fight each other or nothing would remain. It came down to the dynamic ability to make strategic moves across the third world (Domino Theory). Now the little countries are still the issue more than ever. Yes with success comes risk, that is where intelligence has to be used in the package. And other assets like air support hitting the SAM sights identified on Sat photos. But no other asset takes ground first, how many grunts died on the troop transport ships just getting to Europe in WW2? If you want to be amazed, find a list of the French combat jumps. If your worried about the Military being able to pay their bills, don't. A 30 mil fighter can crash in training and its just the price of doing business. And in action the fighter planes may just be supporting men taking ground the plane can't do it, many countries have airborne its just a matter of how big? America always fights somewhere else, it takes Big Green and Big Blue 72 hours to move in force. Marines and Airborne are considered 'Shock Troops'', without establishing an initial Airhead or a Beach Head there will be no war to effect and during the Cold War 50% casualties were considered acceptable to gain this toe hold. In the 80s we trained not sleeping or eating for 72hrs just 'jump-hump-dig/dig-hump-jumping it' and it works. The largest Air Mobiles were done into Afghanistan 2002, Iraq in 1991. But like LZ-Xray in Vietnam, if its an actual prepared enemy it may get very iffy to becoming wasted. Airborne or 'Vertical Envelopment' as its doctrine was called, has proven several combat jumps against hard defended areas could take a large area by force successfully. Air Assault (let alone a land locked country) talk about a large target signature, how do you mass thousands of Air Assault troops within a few hundred miles flight range by surprise?. I have been in the 160th, planned SF Air Ops, FARPS, MED Evacs, been shot down, called Helo fire. And trust me outside the 160th and gunships we don't have those hard-ass Nam troop transport pilots anymore. If those large 101st or Marine Air Assaults had come under serious fire they punk-out pretty quickly, just look at Desert One. Further demonstrated when I had to listen to Gene Vance die live on the radio due to pussy Army Medevac. Airborne being disorganized and going off script as it is its greatest advantage. No mission stays on plan but once you infest an enemy's back yard there is not much they can do about it until every little trooper is hunted down and exterminated, not just mowing down everything coming in one direction. They may have a key fixed gun position but get two or three little Joe Snuffie's who did not use a road to get there vectoring in with a M203 and it will not mean much, the LGOPs concept There was also at least two cases that the 82nd being in route to a target finalized negotiations. Its a big stick, because everyone knows once the first man exits the aircraft everything is getting smashed. I believe it was Chad in 1978 and Haiti in 1994 where negotiators told those governments "The 82nd is now in the air!", 'you only have the next few hours to make a peace deal and recall the aircraft'. In the Cold War the doctrine was for the Ranger to go in two hours ahead so they could kill everything on key targets and not worry about friendly units. The 82nd would follow overwhelm the area from counter attacks and secure the area. Delta and JSOC elements always go with the Rangers jump to further hit the most critical targets. That mission needs to happen, but that small force also needs that larger backup as happened in Granada. In Panama due to 30year record sever weather, the first pass of the 82nd caught the tail end of the Ranger assault at 02:00 and 02:15 hrs respectively, let me tell you yes the Rangers kill everything, I was lucky to stay out of the way! A lesson learned in Panama as the Rangers had two DZs. Rangers jumped Rio Hato DZ alone and was REAL HOTooo! Rangers were shot in the plane, in the air and on landing and counter assaults on the DZ, but their mission was a success. Unknown to them, I believe was a company+ to battalion size Panamanian unit was moving in on the DZ that a larger follow-on airborne force should have been needed. That only one 7th Group A-Team saved the day, that the TF-160 quickly flew in pinning down the larger enemy on a bridge that entered the DZ. Airborne forces are the ultimate flexibility. The US forces jumping in and taking Panama in a month and then jumping back in returning to Ft.Bragg. We were told was actually the US sending a message to Russia and everyone else "We can jump in, smash you and be back for dinner!' I was Arctic Alaskan Airborne, few people know a because it was overshadowed by Desert Storm. A terrorist leader's forces were close to overtaking parts of the Philippines. With most US units being committed to Iraq Pacific Command were left had to handle it themselves. The 501st Abn. Alaska, The 2nd Ranger Battalion and follow on 7th and 25th IDs were two weeks away from a full scale invasion of PI. But last minute they got lucky and the Terrorist leader was isolated to one island and they just blasted that island and his forces were leaderless. But the capability was there. Just like few people know the 82nd fought when it invaded the Dominican Republic but was overshadowed by Vietnam. When the US has a large commitment like GWoT or Nam, that the US can still walk and chew gum in other places with the Airborne. Then there are the 'Airborne are Legs when they hit the ground' people. The side benefit is Airborne separates the men from the boys. If your in a Leg Infantry Division...WHY? Yes I know, there are some very fit legs, so why did they they choose to run with the turtles and not the rabbits? Its the will to fight, did you join to fight or only for the collage fund? Self explanatory! My old Sergeant Terrance Popp (see Grunt Speak Live channel) one of the hardest men I have ever known, He is Ranger,SF, Sniper, 2 CIBs and 2 Purple Harts that would have killed a normal man, hates to jump. He did it because that was where he had to go to be the best. During long periods of peace airborne will be there first or only ones most likely in a historic event. The kind of person who goes where the action is will be more committed to the fight. In many countries like Europe, Mountain Troops are the best to recruit Special Ops from but in America not so much. In the Cold War only Airborne troops got a hundred additional points on the NCO boards for implied leadership. If you were Leg Air Mobile you landed on the objective and your Sergeant said "GO THIS WAY!" If you were Leg Mechanized your APC rolled up on the objective and your Sergeant said "GO THAT WAY!" But as I learned at 19yrs old, you may be a private fighting all alone all night long until you assemble. I have been tired of explaining the "Is it time to get rid of the 82nd Airborne Div.? argument. People always talk about things they know little about. Where is the "Is it time to get rid of the Leg Infantry Div.s discussion??? Airborne can replace Legs missions but Legs can't replace Airborne missions for the reasons I just explained. Infantry has its limitations where more is not better, better is better.! But it can't be that well mass produced, the cream rises to the top. If you want to save money I say convert all Leg Infantry Divisions into Engineer Divisions. Any time you enter another country the count down begins until they get tired and want you gone, especially if there are undisciplined grunts getting drunk and raising hell traditionally. I better reason is to have a good reason to be there, building village civic action or valuable infrastructure. When something breaks out suddenly or over time there could already be a presents without them making a nuance of themselves. Intel can be embedded to extend the lead time and when action is needed the Marines, 82nd, Rangers and Special Ops can be ready. Engineers have Sapper and Ranger Schools to secure themselves and as the Sea Bees proved they can have plenty of fighting sprite too. Fell free to use it in your next collage paper. And to a different point, there should be no reason for someone to get out of the military and not have the skills to build parts of their own home or have a good job operating equipment or read schismatics in the trades. All the Infantry gives is a lot of injuries. Take the billions of Aid we waist giving to corrupt governments or USAID (I worked for DoS 6yrs, trust me) and keep it in the family for our kids futures? And maintain a better strategic presents around the world.

[@feltwedge]

While I agree that airborne ops are largely outdated, many of our potential adversaries do not see it that way and it is another tool in our war chest they have to plan against as was pointed out. Aside from that, jumping is a lot of fun…

[@capncharmz]

My view, particularly from the SOF community, is that the Airborne capability might be the equivalent to something like a knight on a chess board. People might say, "Oh, well a knight can't do anything against a bishop that can strike from across the board!" or "A knight would get destroyed by a queen!" or "A strong front of pawns makes a knight irrelevant!" Maybe true, but in COMBINATION with all the other pieces on a board, and a well positioned and timed strike, a knight can take any piece on the board, including a bishop, queen, or king. JFEs are never used in isolation. They are always used in combination with other capabilities. And if you take out a few important counters to the JFE, and drop thousands of Paratroopers behind enemy lines at night, that quickly becomes terrifying to the enemy. The massive swarm of dark parachute silhouettes dropping slowly and silently onto your country is a psyop, in-and-of-itself.

[@cpiff100]

Currently combat airborne ops have a 30% casualty rating right off the bat. 30% of your combat force is immediately combat ineffective. As an enemy of the U.S. I would count my lucky stars if you immediately surrounded a BDE or two that would get overwhelmed with mechanized, light infantry, arty, and drones. It would be so foolish to conduct a modern day airborne operation, just imagining the logistics behind it is hilarious

[@professionalschizo]

Airborne operations are, still, at their very core, used to disrupt enemy forces and seize key objectives behind enemy lines, WITH THE EXPECTATION that you have follow on armor to link in with. Using paratroopers for quite literally any other reason than this is pants-on-head retarded. I can't think of a niche in modern combat where this would be necessary though, honestly. If I know where the enemy is resupplying from, I'm just tossing a handful of precision guided munitions their way instead. Maybe, MAYBE for time critical objectives where I absolutely need boots on the ground ASAP.

[@David-vg1wl]

When I joined in 1984, jump pay was $87. I think it was 1985 when it jumped (pun intended) to $150.

[@allanh3865]

Whether we use these assets in any actual airborne ops or not, they are not a wast of investment as they are still utilized in combat operations. The plus side of this equation is the level of toughness and endurance they bring to the battlefield. Whether they were trucked in, or dropped in, they are still some the finest soldiers we field. I was a chairborne troop, and not airborne, so I bring no jump wings bias to the table

[@ExpatriatePaul]

Fellow retired paratrooper (SOF) here, and spent most of my career deployable to anywhere in the world within 24 hours. Having discussed "rapid deployment" with guys that were in non-airborne/heavy units, they consider it rapid if they left within a week.

[@LRRPFco52]

The only real 24hr recall deployable units like that were 75th, definitely not 82nd. We heard this mantra all the time, but it took us weeks to prep and deploy anyway as well.

[@ExpatriatePaul]

@@LRRPFco52 False, I was in several SOF units that were deployable within hours, and could be anywhere globally within 24, and I was never in Ranger Bn.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@ExpatriatePaul I'm talking Parachute Infantry Battalions, not SOF. Recalling, staging, drawing weapons & equipment, moving to the airbase, and deploying a small # of people is a lot easier than an Infantry Battalion as you know. BTDT myself with CJSOTFs before. Same basic process, a lot less people, all of whom had GT scores over 110.

[@ExpatriatePaul]

@@LRRPFco52 I'm well aware conventional guys take a bit longer, but if you'll look at my original comment, I did specify my SOF background.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@ExpatriatePaul In 82nd, they had this really gay propaganda when you got there: " When America dials 9-1-1, da phone don't ring at Fote Hood." 🤣 It was so insufferable. Talking with some other guys who were in megaleg units, I didn't have it so bad after all there, but I couldn't stand the 82nd fluff.

[@nickc8819]

Fire extinguisher..check Concealed weapon..check Airborne capable..check I’m ready 💯

[@michaellmiller2382]

forgot your PT belt

[@nickc8819]

@@michaellmiller2382 Oh SNAP!

[@johnh.5160]

After 20 years in the Army. Non-Airborne. I find that with a lot of luck the Airborne Can take a Airfield Hold it and supply it. But mech or Armor will overrun the Airfield in Time To many Field exercise Proved it. And the 18th Airborne Knows it. Airborne Klick runs the Army

[@Panzerman-r1p]

It’s a capability and a mindset that needs to be retained. Take that capability away and it makes the enemies planning easier. Keep them specialized, yes send all soldiers to Airborne school if you wish but keep the real paratroopers together in the 82nd. I am not a paratrooper, not even jump qualified and I am a retired Marine so I have no experience in this realm but it seems ludicrous to suggest that jump school qualifies a soldier as a paratrooper. They have jump wings but no operational experience, no knowledge of what I presume are intense, plan laden, exceptionally physically and mentally demanding operations. That knowledge and experience takes time. Much like amphibious operations, airborne operations would certainly be a coldly calculated violent dance not for the faint of heart or physically weak. Additionally the 82nd has a proven track record of exemplary service in non airborne deployment.

[@jager6863]

The difference is that amphibious operations have fire support from ships and more importantly logistics from the sea. These forces are never left to fend for themselves, as a link to the sea is the first objective and must be maintained during the entire operation.

[@Panzerman-r1p]

@@jager6863 they are not supposed to be left to fend for themselves but they have. Guadalcanal is an example. Additionally I would argue that the US Navy would be hard pressed to provide accurate, reliable and EFFECTIVE fire support from the sea nowadays. Most support would come from CAS and CIF which the Airborne would also have.

[@KyleCowden]

C Batt (FIST) 1/319th FA a generation or two ago. I have to refer back to Benjamin Franklin's words quoted at the US Airborne school, “And where is the Prince who can afford so to cover his Country with Troops for its Defense, as that Ten Thousand Men descending from the Clouds, might not in many Places do an infinite deal of Mischief, before a Force could be brought together to repel them?” There will always be areas of operation where the only effective way to put adequate boots and material on the ground is by airborne insertion.

[@jeffeverett274]

An airborne force properly backed up can make a big difference in times of 3:04 conflict. That's why we have triad.

[@robertedwards7749]

I can say it simpler. If the enemy is squawking about something we are doing. Our politicians and US Military leaders should be looking at increasing, improving or adding to that squawk inducer. Trouble is our politicians and US Military leaders do not understand or refuse to learn from history or our enemies. Its a shame people like the one who wrote that comment in the first place even exist. They are a prime example of those who do not know or understand our History. They are why our men and women who serve have to pay with that blank check we all signed when we decided to serve our Country. So in response to "those" people I say this, May God continue to watch over us all and keep us Safe. May your careers be full and boring.

[@syntheticdrone7178]

I think its important to keep it as a capability. I will say they SHOULD get paid more though. 150 bucks doesnt pan out to much at the end of the day. I would argue 250 or more.

[@porkrind3512]

I am not airborne. My last unit was 101st abn. I retired SFC at 22yrs. I agree with CSM. Every one of our unique units and every one of our special ops is a card in the hand. I've sat in on more maneuvers battle games and in real life from Bn to Div level, including on the ground combat. Every card is precious, and every card has a moment to play. It's how you win, and Abn is part of winning. That ability is what keeps our opponents awake at night. Cause they just never know.

[@erniechacon1010]

" All the way!" Airborne

[@RHampton]

Somebody needs to look at the Rhodesian bush war and the drop in the Suez. Pretty sure Grenada and Panama also had combat drops.

[@jager6863]

The Rhodesian Bush War is a good one to look at. The only reason that the Fire Force troops jumped out of C47's was the lack of helicopter transport. Using paratroopers was an act of desperation and a drain on the few resources available to continue the fight.

[@SkateboardSoldier]

As a Ranger we need to be airborne as our main mission is tarmac control. A fast way to get a few hundred soldiers on the ground ready to take control.

[@willianjaques]

One of the latest videos from the Task & Purpose KZbin channel kinda talks about that and he made really good points very similar to what this Sargent Major that Gritty mentioned said. It’s all about a tactical point of view of things.

[@travisdiehl5350]

To quote a friend of mine: "Can you think of a faster way to put a Birgade sized element into a fight" Armored, and Air Assault units require more time to deploy with their equipment. Airborne can jump in with it.

[@DeadThrallOfficial]

All good millitaries have multiple methods of rapid deployment. Air assult may be more practical for mass insertions by air in a lot of situations now, but that doesnt mean theres never a time for a mass "Airborne" insertion. In a "Near Peer" fight, it may come in handy to be able to drop a thousand troops in the enemies back yard fast. Some people may argue we havnt used mass Airborne drops since WWII or Korea, but we also havn't fought a near peer conflict since then either. Hell we havnt dropped a nuke since 1945, but we still have em. And the arguement about anti air artillery rendering it obsolete, did you all forget the Germans had "Tripple A" and used it to great effect, yet troops landed on the ground and went about their missions regardless of the situations they ended up in between the jump, and their objective. It's like the argument against issuing baynets in a modern conflict. Just because most combat never ends up hand to hand doesnt mean it never does. There were many cases of it in recent conflicts. Hell there was even a bayonet charge in Iraq. Shit happens and war is chaos incarnate. No plan survives contact with the enemy. You gota be ready to use every tool you got big or small to adapt

[@joshuadeanb]

Didn’t Russia just do combat airborne operations in Ukraine 2 years ago?

[@jager6863]

Yes, they seized an airfield and were pinned in place by police and other paramilitary reserves and were completely annihilated . The aircraft bring in reinforcements were picked off by ManPads and everyone died. Airborne troops and strategic bombing were both new, unproven ideas going into WW2 and both were shone to be failures.

[@joshuadeanb]

@@jager6863 the annihilation wouldn’t have happened if they were brought in by helicopters instead? Not holding it had nothing to do with the troop delivery.

[@jbone9900]

​@@joshuadeanb you need control of the skies for it to work ether way.

[@joshuadeanb]

@@jbone9900 seizing airfields is one of the methods for gaining control of the skies.

[@jbone9900]

@@joshuadeanb not if anti air systems are activate its impossible.

[@hankrichardson9057]

Yeah absolutely keep the airborne going, man there's a nostalgic magic about airborne since it was conceived , it's make tougher soldiers and theirs a since of humbleness that one presents when wearing the airborne jump wings , we need the airborne definitely.. don't take it away .

[@anonymousm9113]

For years now, I've been of the opinion that we should keep our current Airborne units but reduce the number of personnel going through the Basic Airborne Course. When a subordinate would ask whether he should attend Airborne or Air Assault, I'd always encourage him to attend the latter course--unless he was planning to reenlist for an Airborne assignment. Why? Well, it's simple: Air Assault School imparts knowledge that can be used Army-wide, including operational planning and capabilities, sling-load operations, and even basic rappelling. Airborne? Here's how to execute a PLF... let's run a bit... five jumps and you're a Super-Duper Paratrooper. Oh, and to clarify, maybe I'm just a hater: I spent a little time in the 101st and got my Air Assault wings but passed up the couple of opportunities I had to attend jump school before my philosophy changed. After my mindset shifted, why go to a school I had no intention to using? So, five jumps, "my philosophy and mindset", so on and so on... I consider myself a bit of an amateur historian, and as a PVT (yes, E-1), I tactically acquired a regimental history book published by the Rakkasan Association from my company training room. Reading the history of the 187th Regiment (at various times Glider, Parachute, Air Mobile, and Air Assault), especially its first couple of decades, makes Airborne troops in general out to be the precursors of the modern 75th Ranger Regiment, or even Special Forces. Larger scale, perhaps, but intended to drop behind enemy lines, sow chaos, and take and hold key infrastructure (airfields, etc.) for conventional forces to utilize. Up through the late-'60s and maybe even '70s, Airborne wings were the mark of a Paratrooper: someone who'd served in a unit guaranteeing more than "just" the five jumps required to receive the wings. In the past 40+ years, Airborne School has become more a mark of "check the box" than it has "jump into the box". When Cadets and 2LTs are offered the course, just so they can earn some wings before reporting to their Admin position in an Armored unit, there's what some would consider fraud, waste, and abuse. In my eyes, an E-2 serving in the 82nd ABN has provided the Army much more return on investment than that overweight O-4 sitting in S3 who did her five jumps 16 years ago and never jumped again. Had I gone through the school and never jumped again, I'd have a sixth shiny badge to worship (others being CIB, EIB, Air Assault, Drill Sergeant, and Recruiter), but unlike the five I did earn, it would speak nothing of the career I had. Simply put, if you attend the course, you should spend a minimum of three years in a unit on jump status. If you only want some wings, well, most units conduct air assault operations, and the skills you learn in that course will at least help you as you mature in your career and potentially move to the planning and operations side of the house. Oh, and Air Assault is a much less expensive course to attend. The Army has become increasingly badge/tab happy over the years. During my brief couple of decades in uniform, we saw the Sapper tab introduced (as well as the regional Jungle tab), along with at least nine badges (three Instructor, Military Horseman, three Space, CAB, ESB). Sure, we want well-qualified leaders in the ranks, but Airborne has become essentially a "gimme" badge, while even Ranger has become more of an expectation than a mark of excellence. When's the last time a Ranger tabbed Infantry officer was part of a minority in a unit? Now, that's the first thing you look for, and if the new Platoon Leader doesn't have a tab, you know they're either going to the school in short order, or plan to submit their unqualified resignation as a junior CPT. If they dare to stay in as an untabbed 11A, they might make LTC but will most likely not get a battalion, and if they do, that's the career pinnacle for probably 99.5% of their peer group. When you venture to S1 for that inevitable pay issue and see half that half the office consists of young Soldiers sporting Airborne wings, then you happen to glance at your left shoulder and see the "broken TV" of the Marne Division (definitely ain't jumping there), you realize the true amount of waste that goes with the modern Airborne course throughput mentality. Wanna jump? Get qualified and expect to go to the 82nd, 173rd, or another Airborne unit. Wanna badge? Probably the best option would be to go for your respective "Expert" badge (EIB/EFMB/ESB), especially if you're an officer or plan to become an NCO. Anyone can do a relatively unchallenging three-week school to gain a skill they'll never use. It takes a leader to pass a series of tests, meet exacting standards, and earn a badge that shows they are proficient in skills their most junior Soldiers are expected to know. Be, Know, Do.

[@briang9005]

Great post. I just had to give you credit for succinctly and logically expressing something I have thought for a long time and wondered if others felt the same way. Unfortunately, most won't read your post due to the length or appreciate it the effort you put into.

[@jager6863]

Airborne and Ranger School have turned into a "Ticket Punch" for promotion. Only people assigned to these functions need to go to these schools. Why waste money training people for a job they are never going to actually do??? We have too many generals and admirals as well. The Navy has almost as many admirals as they do ships, 100% disgraceful. Why does the Army need Corps commands when we don't deploy corps in peacetime???

[@anonymousm9113]

@@briang9005 Thank you for taking the time to read my take on this. I tend to be long-winded, so oftentimes replies simply boil down to "I don't even know what you stated", or "you suck and it's good you're out." 😀

[@anonymousm9113]

@@jager6863 Most badge/tab producing schools have become ticket punching apparatuses for those seeking a rapid rise through the ranks. I served in roles that were relevant to each of the badges I earned. At one point, I might have attempted Ranger School, which would have been beneficial to me an as Infantry NCO. Of course, that school is not the end-all/be-all for leadership; I knew plenty of tabbed NCOs who sucked at fieldcraft and knew nothing of how to take care of Soldiers in garrison environments. I spent a few years as a brigade Schools NCO, and two of the badges that speak the most about my career are ones that few NCOs want: Drill Sergeant and Recruiter. It got so bad in 3ID that the division issued a policy that the CG himself had to approve any deferments or deletions. An NCO would come down on orders and instantly their entire command would start fighting the system. "We need this Squad Leader/Platoon Sergeant/whatever because we're deploying next year." The NCOs themselves knew that it wasn't simply a three-week or two-month school to get a cool badge or tab and walk around looking like Billy Badass. Of my 21 years in, nearly a quarter was spent in TRADOC (38 months in recruiting, 24 months on the Trail), and despite being DA Select for both, I simply followed the path the Army outlined for me and paid the price. There were a lot of grizzled old E-6 Drill Sergeants on Sand Hill in the mid-2010s, almost all of whom had already done tours as Recruiters when they were junior in grade. Most of us finally pinned E-7 after a year on the Trail. Instead of seven weeks of Recruiter School and nine weeks of Drill Sergeant School, I might have collected the "cool guy" stuff like Ranger, Airborne, and Pathfinder, and very possibly reached SFC sooner while also perhaps retiring a paygrade or two above E-7. But we have to acknowledge that we are a "progressive" Army. It's no longer just about the schools themselves, but also about being the "First" to graduate from those schools, like the "First" Space Force Ranger, "First" female CSM for the 101st (remember Veronica Knapp, since fired from her position in DC?), or first dual-tabbed (Ranger/Sapper) married couple. The more GO/FO positions we open up, the more opportunities we have for more "Firsts" to attain stars. There's style and then there's substance... probably the worst Platoon Sergeant I ever had possessed one of the most stylish service histories out there. Prior Service Marine, 75th Ranger Regiment, 7th SF Group. Combat Diver, dual-tabbed, but when he jumped ship to make bank as a Contractor and realized the grass wasn't greener, he got to somehow keep his rank but come back in as Leg Infantry. The guy knew nothing of how to run a platoon but would openly brag about walking into the CSM's office left sleeve first, and thought his style would make up for his lack of substance. He ended up fired and in S3 just before I left for the Drill Sergeant Academy.

[@acd-combatives]

well said

[@Pug351]

Airborne is a confidence course. Sending airborne troops into a modern near peer situation would be catastrophic and they have no use in low intensity conflicts short of supply drops.

[@parawill7074]

I think you are stuck in WW2 and don't understand how paratroopers would be utilized in a modern day war. Combat jumps today would be very different than it was in WW2 and you wouldn't have to worry about dropping a whole division when you could drop a brigade or lower in strategic areas where they would then build up combat power and assault objectives that are miles away. Like Gritty said in the video, planning for a paratrooper force would mean moving anti-air and other ground forces to strategic areas which would put them at risk of getting destroyed by our long range missiles and our aircraft. It would put the enemy in a serious bind because they know we see everything from space and they also know that they may not have the forces to spare, and would rather keep them in reserve for the defense depending on the conditions on the ground. You have to let go of the conflicts in Iraq and A-Stan, and realize that a near peer fight against China and Russia would be entirely different. You will need forces that could move about the world quickly and there is no quicker combat power than the use of paratroopers with respect with getting as many boots on the ground as possible for forcible entry.

[@Pug351]

@@parawill7074 That's all conjecture based on no evidence from actual conflicts. Not to mention drones are changing a lot of doctrine as we speak. Imagine swarms of drones, with thermite/pyrotechnic capability destroying the canopies of said paratroopers. Current weapons capabilities make aircraft delivering airborne troops so vulnerable that few would make it through air defenses to begin with. Leavenworth has studied this ad naseaum and come to similar conclusions. I'd recommend researching those conclusions

[@parawill7074]

@@Pug351 - Real hard to fly around drones when they get jammed and the drone operators are getting hit with mortars and other munitions. The threat of paratroopers alone would draw them out and if you think we aren't getting tons of data from the Ukraine and Russian war to develop techniques to exploit them, you are sadly mistaken. Also, your train of thought is limited when it comes to the use of paratroopers because you seem to be thinking that they would be deployed in heavily defended areas when they won't be. In a WW3 scenario or combat with a near peer, you could use paratroopers to drop in areas that aren't heavily defended or outside the range of enemy air defenses to open up a new front to build up staging areas for other forces to come in and carry out operations. Paratroopers don't have be used like the old days and you are overestimating the capability of drones. And don't think we could use drones or remote controlled aircraft to simulate a fake drop as well to trick the enemy and get them to expose their air defense positions. The whole thing is to get the enemy to stretch themselves thin by being able to move troops rapidly to secure other areas to launch more operations.

[@Pug351]

@@parawill7074 Keep living in your fantasy world. You forgot to deal with the fact airborne needs aircraft, that would be highly vulnerable due to low speeds they have to travel at. Grounds troops will have hard enough time surviving let alone airborne floating in the open with parachutes. Airborne is as big a relic as the battleship.

[@parawill7074]

@@Pug351 - Fantasy world? I actually lived in that world and know it's capability, because I did it. You have no real knowledge of airborne ops or ground combat as well. You don't even have any understanding of what a near peer conflict would look like and when paratroopers could be deployed. It is all about the CAPABILITY of dropping troops anywhere on (or near) the battlefield to seize an objective to open a corridor for more firepower or other operations. It can be done by parachute or rotary wing aircraft, and the parachute option provides that long range capability. Damn near every nation around the world have paratroopers. The capability is too important due to it's ability to move combat forces at great distances in a short amount of time. You do not give up that capability just because the conflicts you fought the last several years didn't require them that much (it was still used). A fight against a near peer will basically require them to be in your arsenal.

[@shibby5535]

Being a trooper is enough pay 😂 Sarcasm. Don’t kill me.

[@GrittySoldier]

Hey man, to each his own lol

[@ivanking1187]

As an airborne JFO, i see it a huge risk factor for a mission success. Threat elements like manpads, EW, light AAA and possibly even small arms/rpgs can easily take down a bird. The advancement of weaponry and radar detection within a airspace is way beyond the technology they had in ww2. Success of a air seizure or hitting the dz without getting hit with these threat elements is slim to none. But understanding that we do need to keep enemies on their toes when there is potentially possible outcomes make sense

[@timothypiltz3141]

Casualty rates would be over 50%. Stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles can rain down fire on a specific room inside a building. The mission we trained for in the 82nd is just not something that’s going to be carried out by large scale airborne operations. 325 was planned to jump in and take Baghdad International Airport but the plan was scrapped when higher ups saw the number of troops they’d likely loose.

[@946towguy2]

Airborne ops, combined with SEAD can be an effective way to get a brigade-sized element on the ground as the first jab of a surprise invasion before the enemy has time to prepare. An enemy may think that the attack is only a limited air or missile strike until it is too late. Other countries don't need airborne to attack the USA because it has porous borders and hostiles can freely move about the country or recruit among the population.

[@CuckimusMaximus]

Laughs in surface to air missiles and emp

[@bobbykurschat2213]

Except not, since a) no air defense is perfect, b) our main adversaries' air defense is... Well, not as good as our stealth, and c) to the EMP point specifically, C-130 engines run on gas, not electricity

[@nehsi]

Weren’t Airborne forces used in Grenada and/or Panama?

[@ExpatriatePaul]

Yes, both as well as Rangers and SF.

[@jameskerrigan2997]

Great fire fight between 2nd batt and 82nd. Most intense fight was joe on joe😂

[@acarbonopus]

AIRBORNE!

[@therangersinger]

Always relevant!