No announcement yet.

82nd Airborne adds Light Armor

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    There is a right way, a wrong way and the Army way. There has been at least an Airborne Battalion in Italy since NATO set up ACEFORCE. Now they use a two Battalion (last I saw) Brigade. The only real change I have seen is they once had an Airborne Battalion in Panama which is now gone. There have been "Airborne Infantry Battalions" in Korea and Alaska. I can't verify that they jump.

    Don't forget that many high ranking Generals have also been Airborne. Do Jump Winged Generals ever recommend deleting an Airborne Battalion when they can delete a Leg Battalion?

    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"


    • #17
      Originally posted by Tuebor View Post
      Ok, we have light "armor" for the paratroopers, but this begs the question; do we really need paratroopers this day and age? I would argue that they are an obsolete anachronism with no useful role except some special tasks (like taking airfields, but isn't that the Rangers' mission). We have some five brigades of paratroopers. Why? Modern AAA, SAMs, and MANPADs and helicopters have made mass aerial jumps unnecessary. It seems to me they are kept around for the KEWLness factor alone. I think we should keep the 173rd Airborne Brigade (but in the U.S. not Italy), maybe one battalion in the Pacific, perhaps convert one to another regiment of Rangers (which are of more use), and the others to air assault.

      I also think we can get rid of divisions. I would go to six or so corps with five maneuver brigades, an aviation brigade, two field artillery brigades, plus supporting units. The remaining aviation would be assigned to brigade aviation battalions.

      Off topic, and been discussed before, but I'll bite. Paratroops are THE only way to deploy a unit from CONUS to anywhere and force an entry without an intermediate staging base or limiting your objectives to areas capable accepting an amphibious landing. Thus, the capability remains useful. Why get rid of a capability when you have it? And when it cannot be recreated either quickly or cheaply, if at all?

      Rangers are SOF, and work for SOCOM, they are not available for conventional operations.

      if you want to be able to maintain a brigade-sized force at readiness, you need to have three- one is ready, one is preparing to be the ready force, and one is recovering/refitting/taking leave, etc, and is prepared to support the deployment of the ready force. That is what the 82nd does. If you reduced that to a brigade, you can only maintain a battalion-sized force ready to deploy. If you want to reduce, you get rid of the regional brigades, but they are already two-battalion brigades.

      What you've described as "corps" are really oversized divisions, and you need another Headquarters if you are going to conduct an operation with more than two of them. The worry right now is large scale operations, meaning multi-corps, or 9-12 maneuver brigades plus anablers, and how to control that since we have no more deployable army-level Headquarters.

      Aviation is flexible enough to support multiple brigade-sized areas of operation in most cases, and gains economies of scale by consolidation. If every brigade had organic aviation, it would be far too costly in manpower and airframes to support.


      • #18
        I remember the 82nd had used the LAV-25 from 1986-1991. I'm surprised they would want to use it again.


        Latest Topics