Airborne!

Discussion in 'U.S. Army' started by BlueHawk, Apr 15, 2017.

Share This Page

  1. BlueHawk

    BlueHawk Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    268
    Location:
    Norway
    Hobby:
    Sport
    Impressive stuff!

    Paratroopers from the 82nd and 101st Airborne Division perform static line jumps from C-17 Globemaster III aircraft over Sicily Drop Zone at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

     
    Kat and Pathfinder like this.
  2. Pathfinder

    Pathfinder Lieutenant Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,403
    Likes Received:
    2,434
    Location:
    United-States
    Pretty cool but our guys are not as well equipped as the Russians and the Chinese when it comes to vehicles.
     
    Falcon likes this.
  3. BlueHawk

    BlueHawk Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    268
    Location:
    Norway
    Hobby:
    Sport
    I dont get it. What is it u feel US Army need to be better?
     
    Pathfinder likes this.
  4. Kat

    Kat 1st Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    386
    Occupation:
    Kat
    Location:
    Norway
    Hobby:
    =^_^=
    Very cool!! We have a fallskjermhopping unit too, but it's Army Special Forces - Forsvarets Spesialkommando. FSK is a lot like the US Army's Rangers, but does have expanded duties.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I guess we really don't have a need for a dedicated parachutist or airborne infantry unit since the likely hood of Norway plotting an aerial invasion of, say, Sweden or the British Isles, is close to 0%.

    I'm not saying we should do that|Angelic|. But I'm not saying we shouldn't either:evil:.
     
  5. Pathfinder

    Pathfinder Lieutenant Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,403
    Likes Received:
    2,434
    Location:
    United-States
    The Russian have specially designed vehicles for their airborne troops. They can paradrop light tanks and armored personnel carriers, we can't anymore. We used to have the Sheridan light tank but they were all phased out.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    The ol'e Sheridan

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    They wouldn't be bad to have though incase you need to quickly reinforce your troops in the North in case of a Russian invasion. The terrain in Norway is pretty tough telling from the photos you have been posting, being able to drop a few hundred guys wouldn't be a bad capability.
     
    Falcon and Kat like this.
  6. BlueHawk

    BlueHawk Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    268
    Location:
    Norway
    Hobby:
    Sport
    I think they can buddy. If you look on the video you can see the plane is designed to drope any ting if needed & and carry any ting u wish. I belive i have seen a video not so long time a go where US is droping a humvee. And they can do the same with a tank too.. Any ting they wish :)

    @Pathfinder
     
  7. BlueHawk

    BlueHawk Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    268
    Location:
    Norway
    Hobby:
    Sport
    There is allways need for Fallskjermjeger. You never no what mission you will get in the future. They are good soldier and also can be used to difrent type of mission.

    @Kat
     
    Falcon likes this.
  8. Kat

    Kat 1st Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    386
    Occupation:
    Kat
    Location:
    Norway
    Hobby:
    =^_^=
    They can do the same thing with a tank, but the Americans don't field light tanks anymore. The M551 was retired in 2003 and was the last air-droppable tank in the US inventory. At nearly 70 tons, the Abrams is too heavy to be safely airdropped.

    Stryker can be airdropped though, including the somewhat hated mobile gun version, which this particular vehicle being dropped out the back of a C-17 is. In many ways the Stryker MGS has become the US Army's light tank, for better or worse.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    This laser is a 5kw GBAD type, good for short-range air defense against UAVs, but a scaled up model could give airborne infantry units some added punch.

    [​IMG]

    I've thought about this before, but have never come to an adequate conclusion. Norway is long, but thin, heavily forested, mountainous and pock marked with islands and rivers. While a C-130 could drop troops quickly, I'm not sure about the accuracy versus helicopters, which is what the Norwegian Army is currently set up to use.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    There are less bases able to support large airframes like the C-130 versus the Bell 412 SP too, and NATO, not Norway owns the refueling aircraft we'd need to cross the entire country from extreme south to extreme north-east with a C-130 without stopping to take on provisions.

    I think the biggest problem is that Norway only has four C-130Js versus a dozen Bell 412 SPs and a number of AW101s delivered and on order, plus NH-90s the Navy can use or loan to support infantry operations They join trains, heavy trucks and naval ships as Norway's only strategic logistics vehicles, so I'm not sure they even could be spared for assault duties. I think they're too needed for other roles. They aren't new airframes either and have seen heavy usage, crossing from Afghanistan to Mali, Svalbard in the Arctic Ocean and across the Atlantic and all the way down to Antarctica!!

    [​IMG]

    There used to be five, but one crashed in 2012 during that year's Cold Response exercise and hasn't been replaced. Norway's mountainous terrain coupled with snowy weather makes flying very hazardous for aircraft. Helicopters are more able to safely transit during and in these conditions and can land faster in the event of a crisis or problem.

    [​IMG]

    I'm not sure how much life they can spare to airborne operations. They get used a lot.

    Right now only the Ranger school trains paratroopers though, and that's to train FSK and MJK (I don't believe KJK has airborne units). Norway already has airborne assault teams beyond FSK in the HV and Army.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Personally I'm in favor of expanding on these rather then standing up a new parachutist or airborne infantry unit. And I'd really like to see a replacement for the 412 SP.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying "no" to the prospect or even unsupportive, but I do feel it would be of limited tactical utility versus the existing heliborn assault teams Norway has. Make them better, then add new units.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2017
    Falcon and BlueHawk like this.
  9. BlueHawk

    BlueHawk Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    268
    Location:
    Norway
    Hobby:
    Sport
    @Kat I think to day the soldier is so profesjonell that parajump need to be in there basic traning. So then u dont have only one unit for one section. And when u come to special force they are just better over all in what they are doing.
     
  10. Kat

    Kat 1st Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    386
    Occupation:
    Kat
    Location:
    Norway
    Hobby:
    =^_^=
    The Norwegian Army isn't fully professional though. Telemark Battalion could incorporate aerial assault tactics and training into its regime, since it's a fully professional front-line mechanized infantry unit, though it does lack airborne capable vehicles. Neither the Leopard 2 or CV90 MK III can be airdropped. The CV90 MK III is 35 tons in weight, that's half the weight of a Leopard 2, but double the American Stryker MGS's and almost three times the weight of a Russian BMD-4 which grosses 13 tons.

    [​IMG]

    Panserbataljonen and 2 Battalion, the other mechanized infantry units of Brigade Nord are a combination of professional soldiers and conscripts, which would make training uneven.

    Conscripts are used to fill gaps left due to a shortfall in professional forces, they're supposed to be inexpensive to train so adding a parachuting regiment might be too costly versus just switching over to an entirely professional forces, which I believe current organizational structure changes are trying to implement.

    Training soldiers for airborne assault could be implemented by expanding Ranger school or adding jump training to basic, but that still leaves us with the problem of how to support them. Russia can airdrop BMD or BTR models, the Americans Stryker, but what about us? Are Javelin and Carl Gustav sufficient for a light airborne cavalry unit like 2. BN?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Creating a new regiment during basic could cost money to hire trainers and expand facilities, not to mention personnel costs for the soldiers themselves, and could be too expensive to expand to conscripts which both 2 Battalion and Armored Battalion still use, and then we'd have to buy armored vehicles or weaponry to equip them with since we don't have anything at the moment that's viable.

    For Telemark Battalion? Yeah, but they're already somewhat airborne capable anyway, so adding a few extra weeks of training isn't a major departure from the norm. Telemark Battalion is a fully professional force. I don't see the same happening with Armored or 2 Battalion.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Telemark is best thought of as a cross between the United States Marine Corp and Army Rangers.
     
    Falcon and BlueHawk like this.
Loading...