GotLag posted:

Pump CO2 into the atmosphere until they stop

LatwPIAT posted:

Airborne forces being lightly equipped and therefore not suited for much of anything you'd want to deploy them for is a persistent problem (that kind of plagues all light infantry) but how does your conclusion square with the existence of mechanized airborne forces like the VDV, who seem to be trying to solve the problem by constantly adjusting upwards the limit for what can be dropped out of a plane. They have a lot more organic firepower and mobility than most airborne forces!

(Bring back 9th Motorized Infantry High Tech Test Bed!)

This is an open question to the room, by the way.

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

Of all places in the worlds, a high-altitude plateau filled with escarpments seems like one of the worst to conduct a paradrop operation

FrangibleCover posted:

I think the VDV are an interesting point of comparison because they've definitely said "Well, if mechanised infantry beat everything, why don't we just be mechanised infantry?" and there's a logic to it. I think they've probably lost out in deployability because of the size of the vehicles and the massive increase in lift requirements to drop and sustain them, but if we're taking airborne forces to be a Big Dick capability only available to superpower states then whatever, just buy another 200 strategic airlifters.

Kemper Boyd posted:

The VDV is also mostly concerned about doing ops like "land in the Baltic states" or "drop into Minsk" or whatnot, they're probably not planning to drop a continent away. So they can build their capacities around that.

The Lone Badger posted:

Instead of AFVs that can drop from a plane, why not AFVs that are planes?

The time of the Aerogavin will come yet!

Stairmaster posted:

what if the mountains supply the water for over 3 billion people.

Polyakov posted:

Airmobile forces dont need to be dropped out of a plane, its more that if you have a group of people who are prepared to be dropped out of a plane they have light gear they are trained to use and to be able to operate with a minimum of resupply, which is fantastic if every ounce of weight you can cut helps get your resupply helicopter over that mountain ridge or makes room on your resupply drop plane for another box of bullets.

Combat dropping is largely speaking silly in most circumstances, but the unit design that it creates is potentially useful.

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

Then you drive a whole a whole army up there on the highway.

Incodentally, the reason why China and India had that melee skirmish last year is because China wanted to use the area to finish a highway between Tibet and Xinjiang. Attaining nebulous control of a few mountain streams probably didnt even cross their mind


This is describing light infantry in general, and in these particular circumstances, alpine infantry.

When fighting in mountains, alpine infantry are superior to airborne infantry because you can't airdrop donkeys. Or yaks.

FastestGunAlive posted:

From the marine corps perspective I disagree

Mustang posted:

I'm coming at it from an Army perspective

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

This is describing light infantry in general, and in these particular circumstances, alpine infantry.

When fighting in mountains, alpine infantry are superior to airborne infantry because you can't airdrop donkeys. Or yaks.

bewbies posted:

I loved this conversation.

Both of you are right, you're just talking about different things: reconnaissance as tactical task, versus reconnaissance as a mission. Recon as a task isn't going anywhere...every soldier is a sensor and all that. I'd even argue that this idea of EVERYONE being a sensor is going to become more pronounced as network backbones improve and sensor technologies are made available to more and more individual troops.

Reconnaissance as a mission, however, is definitely trending towards more specialized units. With all of the newer systems and capabilities recon formations have to manage, this is really a necessity...you can't just plop some random 11 series down in a modern scout vehicle or give him modern ISR gear and expect him to have a clue how it works, which is very different from previous generations.

Kemper Boyd posted:

The VDV is also mostly concerned about doing ops like "land in the Baltic states" or "drop into Minsk" or whatnot, they're probably not planning to drop a continent away. So they can build their capacities around that.

Alchenar posted:

Yeah, they're about Russia/the USSR being able to make a lightly mechanised brigade/division/corps suddenly appear at a crisis point on its border within a few days using internal strategic airlift and not needing to pre-position equipment. This is a big deal when you have a land border that stretches across 9 different time zones.

FrangibleCover posted:

so I just want everyone to buy lots of wheeled shitboxes and have a giant stupid 110kph fight.

Xiahou Dun posted:

Are you just a Warhammer 40k ork that has learned to type?

Arquinsiel posted:

Aren't we all?

PeterCat posted:

This is why you have a MEU.

PeterCat posted:

Also, the 82nd didn't jump into the KSA.

FrangibleCover posted:

Attaching your wings to eggbeaters does a number on your aerodynamic efficiency and the only places the US can practically project power to with helicopters are Canada, Mexico and Cuba.

Xiahou Dun posted:

Are you just a Warhammer 40k ork that has learned to type?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Cessna posted:

?

Pryor on Fire posted:

When I was a kid I remember reading about mountain infantry and I immediately assumed they must be the most badass mountaineers in the entire world, like they can all free solo Everest with nothing but a rifle and they all know how to light a fire in the snow with just their nutsack and some leaves.

I got very disappointed when I learned it's really just about saving weight on helicopters and most of them don't even go hiking.

Cyrano4747 posted:

FrangibleCover posted:

Yeah alright, more precisely the only places without forward basing that the US can project power with helicopters are on its borders.

Cyrano4747 posted:

This kinda sorta was a thing in the 30s. Both the gebirgsjaeger and alpini made a bit of a propaganda point about having some world class climbers. I can’t find if they were actually gebirgsjaeger but Andreas Hinterstoisser and Toni Kurzwere both mountain climbers who joined the Wehrmacht and famously died together climbing the Eiger.

There were also some photo ops later of mountain troops planting nazi flags on peaks in the Caucasus and poo poo like that.

It also played really well with fascist conceptions of masculinity, the struggle of man against adversity, etc.

As pointed out the reality was a bit different but this is 100% the image they were trying to project:



Edit: this is a good one too

VictualSquid posted:

There are technically world class climbers and skiers there as "sportsoldaten" who are only technically soldiers to qualify as amateurs for the olympics.

Cyrano4747 posted:

Can you elaborate on this? What's the deal there, they're fulfilling their national service requirements but everyone recognizes it does more good to have them training for the olympics than learning how to march or what?

Cyrano4747 posted:

Can you elaborate on this? What's the deal there, they're fulfilling their national service requirements but everyone recognizes it does more good to have them training for the olympics than learning how to march or what?

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

other than that, mrs lincoln, how was the play?

edit: how are you proposing to project significant airborne forces in to say, somewhere in Europe or South America from the US without forward bases?

FrangibleCover posted:

Yes, I know, but this is the utility that the US sees in them. Don't shoot the redundant capability messenger. Also, the US has enough transport aircraft and enough air tankers to drop every parachute trained person in the entirety of the US anywhere in the world, given about seventy two hours. Most of which is going to be planning.

Dropping the whole shebang into Europe using no other bases isn't even difficult, it's what they're set up to do.

VictualSquid posted:

For more concrete numbers from when I was in the gebirgsjäger: There was 1 platoon of actual mountain climbers and one platoon of skiing specialists in the battalion. They were outnumbered by the more important infantry functions like paper-pusher or truck repairman.

Cessna posted:

Back in the old days Olympic athletes couldn't be professional athletes. (I.e., You couldn't play pro basketball for the NY Knicks, then go compete in the Olympics.) (This requirement was dropped in 1992.)

The workaround for many countries, notably the USSR, was to say that the athlete was really in the army and pay them army wages while they trained.

SeanBeansShako posted:

Red makes light infantry faster, fact.

LatwPIAT posted:

How many platoons of regular shooty mans to the two platoons of mountain-shooty-mans?

FrangibleCover posted:

Yes, I know, but this is the utility that the US sees in them. Don't shoot the redundant capability messenger. Also, the US has enough transport aircraft and enough air tankers to drop every parachute trained person in the entirety of the US anywhere in the world, given about seventy two hours. Most of which is going to be planning.

Dropping the whole shebang into Europe using no other bases isn't even difficult, it's what they're set up to do.

paper posted:

With five airborne brigade combat teams, the United States’ airborne forces are today the second largest (still behind Russia) and best equipped in the world.6 Moreover, American airborne forces can draw on a larger fleet of transport aircraft than many of their foreign counterparts, which frequently lack the airlift capability to airdrop even a miniscule proportion of their paratroop units. Two missions provide the official justification for airborne forces of this magnitude. These missions are the parachute-delivered forced-entry into hostile territory and the rapid deployment of troops to airfields controlled by friendly forces.8 Because these two missions are so central to American airborne forces’ current size, it is worth examining whether the missions are realistic and whether the current force structure (five brigades) is necessary to execute them.

The forced-entry mission’s requirement—to be able airdrop an air-borne brigade at short notice to a location on the other side of the globe—provides the justification for maintaining an airborne division.9 However, since only three brigades are needed to maintain one on alert, the strategic brigade drop cannot in itself justify retaining five airborne brigades.10Moreover, the United States would likely be unable to conduct a larger strategic drop if the situation arose because it lacks the C-17 transport aircraft necessary drop more than one brigade at a time. Consequently, the United States currently possesses more airborne troops than it can usefully employ in this role.11

VictualSquid posted:

For more concrete numbers from when I was in the gebirgsjäger: There was 1 platoon of actual mountain climbers and one platoon of skiing specialists in the battalion. They were outnumbered by the more important infantry functions like paper-pusher or truck repairman.
There are technically world class climbers and skiers there as "sportsoldaten" who are only technically soldiers to qualify as amateurs for the olympics.

Cyrano4747 posted:

Can you elaborate on this? What's the deal there, they're fulfilling their national service requirements but everyone recognizes it does more good to have them training for the olympics than learning how to march or what?

LatwPIAT posted:

Speaking of nationalist dickwaving, I don't get all this hullaballoo about mountain and ski-trained infantry, isn't that a job every soldier should be capable of?