Us oob

[Imp]

Stryker Unit number 681 should have stabilizer 1 currently 0

[MarkSheppard]

I found this tidbit regarding when Gliders disappeared from US airborne units by...researching Russian Airborne Forces -- the following is google translated from a Russian internet forum:

https://desantura.ru/forum/forum3/topic6630/

The staffing table of the American Airborne Forces provided for the formation of one parachute and two glider regiments. The glider infantry regiment was organized according to the same scheme as the parachute regiment, but consisted of only two battalions.

In 1949, a new staffing table appeared. The differences between parachute and glider regiments disappeared. All battalions and divisions were called airborne. Differences between parachute and glider units in wartime sometimes did not allow flexibility. After the reorganization, all battalions, depending on conditions, could land both by parachutes and gliders. Training on light gliders continued after 1947/48, but on January 1, 1953, it was finally canceled.

[Karagin]

That would be when the helicopter was starting to see more use in Korea and may saw it as the answer to all airborne operations.

[MarkSheppard]

Originally Posted by Karagin

That would be when the helicopter was starting to see more use in Korea and may saw it as the answer to all airborne operations.

I actually wrote something on the feasibility of helicopter use in WWII; let me break out the part about the advantages of even 1950s helicopters as a replacement for gliders:

---

1.) You no longer need to keep a huge Transport fleet around to carry gliders – D-Day utilized around 800 x C-47s.

2.) Unlike gliders, helicopters can be reused after landing in the drop zone. They can be used for local liaison/observation/transport tasks in the drop zone.

3.) Tying into #2, unlike gliders, you simply fuel up helicopters and fly them away, as opposed to mounting a large recovery and repair operation that consumes a large amount of manpower.

4.) The short range of piston-powered helicopters (200 miles or less) is not an issue; since gliders are limited to only 1.15 to 1.5 hours in the air due to pilot fatigue (gliders were unpowered, with no power boost for the controls); which at the top tow speed of around 120 MPH for a CG-4, is 138-180 miles.

[Karagin]

Originally Posted by MarkSheppard

I actually wrote something on the feasibility of helicopter use in WWII; let me break out the part about the advantages of even 1950s helicopters as a replacement for gliders:

---

1.) You no longer need to keep a huge Transport fleet around to carry gliders – D-Day utilized around 800 x C-47s.

2.) Unlike gliders, helicopters can be reused after landing in the drop zone. They can be used for local liaison/observation/transport tasks in the drop zone.

3.) Tying into #2, unlike gliders, you simply fuel up helicopters and fly them away, as opposed to mounting a large recovery and repair operation that consumes a large amount of manpower.

4.) The short range of piston-powered helicopters (200 miles or less) is not an issue; since gliders are limited to only 1.15 to 1.5 hours in the air due to pilot fatigue (gliders were unpowered, with no power boost for the controls); which at the top tow speed of around 120 MPH for a CG-4, is 138-180 miles.

All valid points, but like with gliders they can be shot down just as easily, and unlike gliders, they are noisy, granted the sound is normally not heard till they are almost on top of you but that sound does give them away.

The point about the gliders being a one-use item until recovered and repaired is in some ways the same for helicopters. Any damage taken while trying to land or take off from a hot LZ means you are out that craft, even if they do get away it's going to be days to weeks before it's back in the fight. So the trade comes down to the idea of re-use and the fact that the same vehicle can do both drop and recovery. Like everything else there are trade-offs and the biggest one is weight and carry. Not every helicopter can carry heavy weapons as well as have the fuel to return, whereas a glider can carry and it's already known it's a one-way trip.

I have seen older reports of mixing all three ideas together, use the transports to drop the airborne and gliders into the area and then helicopters to support and evac wounded or bring in reinforcement at critical areas until ground forces linked up. Nothing ever went with this because like all things post-WW2 and Korea, budget cuts and new wonder hight tech toys were seen as the future, and the old silliness leftover from THE WAR was well outdated and didn't work. Recall all the cool pictures of a single man flying hover platforms and similar items. Also here in the last six months, the Navy has been back to playing with jump packs aka jet packs for SEALS and Marines to board ships, etc...so old is new again keeps coming along. Imagine a glider built with composites and better materials we have today and a bit of that magical stealth technology tossed...

[MarkSheppard]

Originally Posted by Karagin

I have seen older reports of mixing all three ideas together, use the transports to drop the airborne and gliders into the area and then helicopters to support and evac wounded or bring in reinforcement at critical areas until ground forces linked up.

By the 1950s, US Airborne Doctrine now centered around STOL capability for transports such as the C-82 and C-119. The idea now was to parachute in and seize something that could be used as an airfield or could be cleared away to act as one; and then using that as an "airhead" fly in the rest of the airborne division.

[Karagin]

Originally Posted by MarkSheppard

By the 1950s, US Airborne Doctrine now centered around STOL capability for transports such as the C-82 and C-119. The idea now was to parachute in and seize something that could be used as an airfield or could be cleared away to act as one; and then using that as an "airhead" fly in the rest of the airborne division.

Yes and the ideas were a mixed bag of thinking, but many of them never went anywhere. They had grand ideas, but even to this day they still can meet all of them. Keep in mind every 10 to 15 years, some pen-pushing officer comes up with the amazing idea of how air-droppable whatever and how it will revolutionize airborne thinking and warfare and it falls flat either on the overall cost of the plan how to pay for it, or the technology isn't there. Again look at the ideas of hover platforms for both the Air Cav infantry and the traditional infantry and how that never went beyond the testing stage, same with the Jetpacks, regardless of the cool testing the US and British Navies are doing with it, the cost will kill the idea.

Helicopters were seen under both lights, cool and new and expensive. Then came Vietnam and things changed overnight, lots of ideas got tested and all ended up dropped or mixed into the doctrine we saw from the mid-70s to currently. Same with Airborne operations, everyone in the Airborne Corps in the US from private to General wants another D-DAY or Market Garden where airborne forces will win the day in glory, etc...and yet warfare has changed too fast for that to happen again. Yes, the current think is dropping them in to gain strategic targets that can be used by following troops, but they are still light infantry with limited weapons and limited armor. Not saying gliders would fix the issue, but at the same time helicopters aren't the save technological winner either. Let me know when we have a dropship that puts an entire tank battalion on the ground with the same impact as an airborne landing...

[Suhiir]

I can see uses for parachute infantry, glider weapons/light vehicle/supply carriers, and helo transport.

I don't see another "Market Garden" or anything similar. Smaller scale operations to seize key objectives or create a blocking position yes.

During Desert Storm they set up an advance helicopter support base to support the operations of the 7th Corps in it's "End Run". It seems to me this sort of operations is perfect for air/heloborne forces. Had the objective been occupied AND lightly defended a parachute landing with glider/helo follow up could seize it for future use.

[Karagin]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

I don't see another "Market Garden" or anything similar. Smaller scale operations to seize key objectives or create a blocking position yes.

Likely there won't be one, but that seems to be the end goal of the Airborne and their thinking, massive landings that regain them glory in the annuals of military history. I agree smaller-scale operations as blocking forces, but trying to convince them of that.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Karagin

Likely there won't be one, but that seems to be the end goal of the Airborne and their thinking, massive landings that regain them glory in the annuals of military history. I agree smaller-scale operations as blocking forces, but trying to convince them of that.

You might have better luck convincing the USAF they can't win a war (other then WW III) with fighter and bombers.

Or maybe not ...