# How effective do you think airborne forces were in the war?



## mahross (Aug 11, 2006)

Just wondering how effective people think airborne forces were in the war.

I happen to feel that they were to some degree a waste of manpower and resources. This is not to take way from there achievements. I just think that much of what was doen by them could have been achieved in another way.

Looking at British airborne forces, especially in the 44 - 45 campaign, I feel they were a drain on much needed manpower. You have to remember that the airborne units had a higher proportion of NCO's and took longer to train and then you have the support units both from the army and the RAF. For what they achieved I personally do not think it was worth all the expenditure. 

Also the Soviets, who had pioneered airborne force, got on well without them to a large degree. Despite the fact that they had a large amount of airborne troops they were mostly used in an elite infantry role.

Opinions?

Ross


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2006)

I feel that in some cases they were very effective and other times they were not so effective. Depends on what they were used for.

In the beginning of the war the Germans used airborne troops with great success in the invasion of Norway and Denmark in Operation Weserübung. 
Airborne troops from the Brandenburg Regiment were succesfully dropped into France to secure bridges.

In Belgium a small group of German Airborne troops landed on top of the Belgian fortress of Eben Emael on the morning of May 10, 1940 and it was captured in a matter of hours. This attack was led by only NCOs and was a complete success with minimal casualties to the German side.

Perhaps the German airborne forces greatest victory was Crete. This also was there worst time for losses as well.

Casulties were so high, that Hitler forbade there use on large scale operations.

The British and the US used airborne effective only small commando raids throughout the war.

With heavy casualties the US 101st and 82nd Airborne were very pivital in the D-Day victory, Operation Giant II, and Operation Husky.

There were large scale failures as well:

Operation Market Garden
509th Parachute Regiments drop during Operation Torch


----------



## mahross (Aug 11, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> With heavy casualties the US 101st and 82nd Airborne were very pivital in the D-Day victory



I would have to debate that. As to playing a vital role in D-Day I would argue that the American divisions especially were not that vital considering that they never achieved ther D-Day objectives. Many people have argued that dispersal of American Para's helped the invasion but I do not think that is true. It would have been more effective if they had achieved the objectives set to them. Yes of course there is the historiographical arguements surrounding Monty's intentions for D-Day but the soldiers landing on the day were not to know that. I would even argue that the British landing was not a success because they were, in conjunction with 3 Div and the Commandos, unable to secure Caen. I still think without airborne units D-Day would have succeded and with not much change in casualties. I tend to think, especially with the British and Americas, that time and energy had been exoended forming these new units that they had to be used to save face but objectives probably could have been achieved with other troops.

Ross


----------



## Chief (Aug 11, 2006)

Mahross, good points, but I dissagree.
I believe even though the 101st and 82nd airborne ultimately failed their mission they did a great job in taking out artillery placements and just plain keeping the germans at bay behind the lines. Although, your right there would be a chance for D-day to have succeeded without the airbourne, however you need to remember that when the invasion occured the germans didn't have all their men at the coastline. The 101st and 82nd was an important part in keeping the germans focused in the center of Normandy rather than at the coastline. Without them the boys on the beech would of face a much harder fortification to take and they already were facing a jerk to take.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 11, 2006)

I agree with DerAlder and Chief. Airborne divisions had to add to the confusion of the Germans on D-Day. This would have been very beneficial.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 12, 2006)

Yep, the airborne divisions achieved their main objectives on D-day (with help from the 'Ruperts'). I would say the airborne divisions where effective in causing disruption but less effective at taking on heavily armoured positions (tank etc) because of the lack of anti-tank weaponary (bazooka's, PIAT's etc).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2006)

That is the way I see it. The airborne divisions behind the lines caused confusion and chaos among the German forces in Normandy. The higher ups were confused as to what was going on (and that is fact from reading memos and documents) and it kept the Germans forces at lenght because they needed forces to fight the threat that was allready beyond the beaches.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 12, 2006)

Yes, I am with the rest of you. Look at the battle of Brecourt Manor. That battle, well executed and featured in "Band of Brothers" is still taught today at West Point.

You want successful airborne operations, read about Operation Varsity, the largest and most successful airborne operation in history. It opened the northern crossing of the Rhine toward final victory.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 12, 2006)

Paratroopers were brave for dropping in behind enemy lines and accomplishing their missions. That deserves a Hooah and a salute!


----------



## timshatz (Aug 12, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Yes, I am with the rest of you. Look at the battle of Brecourt Manor. That battle, well executed and featured in "Band of Brothers" is still taught today at West Point.



Little known or sited fact is that the battle of Brecourt Manor shown on "Band of Brothers" (very good TV) was actually the second attack on that position. The 101 had attacked it earlier on the day and been repulsed with losses. Details escape me at present.

But that does not detract from the effectiveness of Airborne troops. The record of airborne, from Belguim (German, 1940) to Crossing the Rhine (Allied, 1945) was excellent. Their failures tended to be failures of planning (logistics of resupply or too much with too little). The accomplishments are exemplery. 

Which brings me to one of the digs against Airborne. They formation and staffing of Airborne units tended to strip straight leg infantry of their most effective (and probably most crazy) troops. It was argued that doing so reduced the effectiveness of the line infantry.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 12, 2006)

Well, to me, you have to be a little crazy to want to jump out of a perfectly good airplane. It takes a gung-ho soldier to be dropped behind enemy lines into harms way. You can't be iffy about it.


----------



## trackend (Aug 13, 2006)

My opinion is that although undoubtedly some successes where achieved with airborne troops the inherent scatter that occurs with paratroop drops means too much time is wasted regrouping hence the modern use of helicopters, also even with the extremely low altitudes that where used (on Crete a number of paratroops hit the ground before fully deployment) there is a dead time in mid air (Crete St Mare Eglise) so apart from a few instances I think the loss of life and lack of heavy equipment was too high a price for the amount of gain.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 13, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Well, to me, you have to be a little crazy to want to jump out of a perfectly good airplane. It takes a gung-ho soldier to be dropped behind enemy lines into harms way. You can't be iffy about it.


Exactly!


----------



## timshatz (Aug 13, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Well, to me, you have to be a little crazy to want to jump out of a perfectly good airplane.



Ditto. Did it once. That's enough.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 13, 2006)

The airborne forces in World War II were very effective in my opinion. From the start of the war until the end, they secured many objectives that would have been difficult or even impossible to come by conventionally. 

In 1940, the Blitzkrieg through Holland and Belgium was led by the Wehrmacht's Fallschirmjager who dropped in hours before to capture key strongholds and bridges. These operations were completely successful and allowed the German Panzers to move much quicker across what would have otherwise been an extensive delay, or halt. 

In 1941, the famous Crete invasion was a complete tactical blunder. The German High Command used the troops as the invading force rather than the supporting force. This is why their losses were so high, and the tactical gains so few. The island was taken however, which proves some success even when the High Command orders the wrong troops in. 

The invasion of Italy was marked by the dropping of U.S and British airborne on to the mainland. These units did become scattered but achieved objectives behind enemy lines, and prepared the path for the landing forces. 

The invasion of Normandy, well known, was opened up by the airborne. Dropping behind enemy lines, the British 6th Airborne secured the left flank of the invasion forces by destroying several bridges and capturing a few more. As well as halting artillery fire that would have come from the Merville Battery. 
The U.S troops, as we know, became scattered all around Normandy. But they still achieved some goals, and the confusion of the drop zones played havoc with German planning. These units also secured vital road links off the beaches, one such place was Carentan which was secured by 101st Airborne to allow V Corps tanks off the beaches and on to the grassland. 

Operation Market Garden, while a failure in the end, was a good example of effective airborne troops. The 101st and 82nd managed to secure objectives in Eindhoven, Son and Nijmegan. While 1st Airborne managed to capture most of their objectives in Arnhem. The plan itself was fine, had it been done in August. The timing of the operation was wrong, not the usage of airborne. 

And finally the drop on the Rhine. Which carried the offensive across the Rhine and into the German homeland. Probably not possible without the 17th and 6th Airborne divisions landing over the east bank.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 15, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> That deserves a Hooah and a salute!



If you knew how much soldiers actually hate saying Hooah and that we only say it because we are basically expected to do it, you would not use that word all the time.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 18, 2006)

In ROTC, we love using that word.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 18, 2006)

Freakin noobs at PLAYING soldier.... If ur excited about carrying an M-14/16, wait till u have to field strip the SOB 4 times a day....

All fun and games aside, ur in for a world of sh*t pal... Be prepared....


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 20, 2006)

Well, my Battalion Cadet Commander who is serving in the Army Reserve has already told me what its like. I think ill be prepared. I have discipline in me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2006)

You base your opinion of the military off of what an officer tells you. Did you know P38 they are clueless! 

Example:

They polled officers in Iraq and asked them what they think the moral of the soldiers in the unit was and 72% said thad the moral was excellent. 

They asked the same question to the soldiers themselves and 72% said that moral was extremely low!

This was an Army poll too!

Officers are clueless P38 when it comes to how the military is. They live in there own little world.

You are not going to know how the military really is from being in JROTC. JROTC is not the military. You are not really in the reserves and it is completely different.

JROTC=Kids playing soldiers.

I know I have been in both JROTC and I am in the Army now.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 27, 2006)

First off, my Cadet Commander isn't even an officer right now. He's been going through basic training like any other soldier would.

Besides, whats happened to the spirit?! You'd think the moral would be high?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 28, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> First off, my Cadet Commander isn't even an officer right now.



Cadet Commanders can not have gone through basic training because they are *Cadets*. Cadets are high school *children* not soldiers.



P38 Pilot said:


> He's been going through basic training like any other soldier would.



First off you said Battalion Commander in your last post. BN Commanders are officers. Most officers dont go through Basic Training. Trust me I know...



P38 Pilot said:


> Besides, whats happened to the spirit?! You'd think the moral would be high?



You know why soldiers hate saying that word, because it steels your identity. They force it down your throat from day one in Basic Training. The only time we say it is when we have to, to make some officer happy...

As for your moral. Can you tell me why the moral would be high?

Let me give you a scenerio and you tell me if your moral would be high.

You have been sent to some small country to keep them from killing themselves. You have not seen your wife or your kids for 10 months now. You have not been intimate with a woman for 10 months now. You have not had a good decent home cooked meal in about 10 months now. You have not had a nice cold beer for 10 months now. 10 months is over and you finally get to go home. Your making up for the lost time that you had over the last 10 months and then you get the word 1 month later that you are going to field for 45 days to train up for something else (training is important but you would still like a little time off before you go back to the field). You spend you 45 days in the field and you come home for a week and are told you are going to annual gunnery (if 10 months of honing your marksman skills was not eneogh) for 30 days. You get back from gunnery and they tell you to go and take leave and spend time with your family because you are going to the ****ing **** hole of Iraq for 14 months in a month.

Yeah moral was really great after that one P38. You try spending 24 months out 30 away from your loved ones and see how your moral is.

The majority of the army feels this way right now. The army is burnt out and there is no relief....

You think the military is the greatest thing since bread and butter but you dont understand the sacrifice that comes with it.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 1, 2006)

You _think _you will be prepared? Discipline isn't enough. Trust Adler, he speaks the truth, he knows. He has been there, and still is there. I think there are plenty of us here that have told you there is a huge difference between thinking you are ready and really being ready. Whatever you think, when the first bullets start to fly, you are in a world of sh*t. How you respond to it comes from within, and you cannot say with any truth that you are ready for it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 1, 2006)

Still in it for 19 more days!

Im almost there!


----------



## evangilder (Sep 1, 2006)

Hang tight. We used to say 18 days and a bag drag. You outprocessing there, or are they shipping you stateside for your outprocessing?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2006)

Nope I will outprocess in Germany and get out in Germany. I will continue to work on the post that I was on in the military but as a civilian. 

Damn it is a wiered feeling. Got my last haircut a few weeks ago. Letting it grow out!


----------



## Joe2 (Sep 3, 2006)

I think airborne forces where effective. This is becase of a few reasons. One is in D-day when they where scatterd about everywhere and the germans near Utah beach where on a 'wild goose chase' looking for them and therefore not defending the beach. Another is that they helped capture bridges, coasways and roads that where vital in getting off the beachead quickly. And the allies also dropped loads of dummys (although technicly they were not really paratroops) which made the germans think there where thousands of men behind their lines and this, in addition to the real paras, saved many lives on D-day


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Sep 7, 2006)

In my opinion they were moderatley succesful, Market Garden was a failure but D-day and Husky were success. Also, I didn't know we used Paratroopers in Torch.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2006)

Yes the first major US paradrop was during Operation Torch. It did not turn out too well though. The 509th dropped but was scattered all over N. Africa including there equipment and was essentially a failure.


----------



## HealzDevo (Sep 7, 2006)

I think the whole idea we can agree on is that paratroopers are effective as long as they are backed up. Where they are insufficiently backed up and supported is where you get losses like Crete. Paratroopers are good for achieving certain objectives that need to be done fast and rapidly. I thought during the 1991 Gulf War they were used for destroying Scuds. Paratroopers are good for silent stealth opperations. A lot of the time if they encounter the enemy it already means that their mission has probably failed anyway. Although having said that Operation Pegasus was one of those great successes where the Paratroopers managed to take their targets from the Germans who had had time to dig in and organize defences. Therefore the thing with Crete was that the mission was already blown, but the Germans went along with it anyway... That was the reason why German casualities were so high, because the British were already looking for paradropping Germans. Where there is no alert however they can be very effective, I think. It is more psychological impact on the defending forces, that somewhere, somehow some paratrooper could drop out of the sky to kill them...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> I thought during the 1991 Gulf War they were used for destroying Scuds.



Those were not Airborne troops. They were SAS, Navy SEALS, and Special Forces.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Sep 20, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes the first major US paradrop was during Operation Torch. It did not turn out too well though. The 509th dropped but was scattered all over N. Africa including there equipment and was essentially a failure.



Thanks for the info Adler.


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 9, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I feel that in some cases they were very effective and other times they were not so effective. Depends on what they were used for.
> 
> In the beginning of the war the Germans used airborne troops with great success in the invasion of Norway and Denmark in Operation Weserübung.
> Airborne troops from the Brandenburg Regiment were succesfully dropped into France to secure bridges.
> ...


what actually happend in the drops during oparation torch? I never knew there was any


----------



## k9kiwi (Nov 9, 2006)

The Germans new a few facts about Crete.

1. The Kiwis Aussies and Greek forces were under equipped having left most heavy gear and personal kit in Greece.

2. The RAF pressence was pitiful.

3. The Royal Navy could do little to nothing during daylight due to air supremacy.

The German attack was started by massive air strikes, well not more than had been going on for some time, followed by Gliders in 22 Btn positions around Maleme airfield.

Kiwi engineers had requested some days before the attack to be allowed to plough lines across the airfield and install contact and command detonate mines to deny the airfield to the germans from the air.

This was refused / delayed by British HQ as they thought they MIGHT want to use the airfield themselves later.

22 Btn found itself without coms, and in need of reinforcment, 23 Btn should have been moved up , but did not, causing 22 to withdraw to its B company positions, attempt a counter attack, and the have to fall back further due to coms problems and isolation.

Lt Col Andrews was later castigated for his decisons, but the reality of the day shows it to be poor equipment and air cover solely that enabled the Germans to gain the hold they did without being wiped out.

From the official history.

Even as they dropped they were within range and the crackle of rifle fire and Bren guns rose to a crescendo Wildly waving their legs, some already firing their Schmeissers, the parachutists came down, in the terraced vineyards, crashing through the peaceful olive boughs, in the yards of houses, on roofs, in the open fields where the short barley hid them. Many found graves where they found earth. Others, ridding themselves of their harness, crept cautiously in search of comrades, only to meet enemies. East of the airfield or in Galatas they were, more often than not, in the middle of the defenders and few were to escape. But where they landed out of range—as in the Aghya plain or west of the Tavronitis—there was the chance to collect more weapons and ammunition from the canisters, to organise in their sections, to attack. The day had indeed begun.

-----

The plan of the enemy attack in the Maleme sector will be more clearly grasped if the units and their objectives are set out in tabular form:

Gliders 
Unit Commander Landing place and objective 
Elements of HQ Assault Regt Maj Braun South of Tavronitis bridge 
Elements of III Bn (9 gliders) 
HQ I Bn 3 and 4 Coys (? 30 gliders) Maj Koch Mouth of Tavronitis (3 Coy) 
Point 107 (HQ Bn and 4 Coy) 
Paratroops 
II Bn (5, 6, 7, 8 Coys) Maj Stentzler South of Kolimbari 
Muerbe Detachment (72 men) Lt Muerbe 3 miles east of Kastelli 
III Bn (9, 10, 11, 12 Coys) Maj Scherber East of Maleme airfield along road to Platanias 
IV Bn Capt Gericke 
13 Coy (infantry guns) West of Tavronitis bridge 
14 Coy (A-tk guns) West of Tavronitis bridge 
15 Coy West of Tavronitis bridge 
16 Coy2 South-west of Point 107

By 1800 the following occured.

Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew (22 Btn) now had to make up his mind what to do. He again got in touch with Brigade HQ by wireless and told Brigadier Hargest that the counter-attack with tanks had failed. He said he had no further resources and that as no support from 23 Battalion had come he would have to withdraw. Hargest replied: ‘If you must, you must.’ But at this time, according to Andrew, by ‘withdrawal’ he did not mean withdrawal right away from the airfield but only as far as the ridge held by B Company. And presumably Hargest understood him in this sense.


Source
I: Maleme and 22 Battalion | NZETC


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2006)

There were three jumps in the PTO that I know were effective.

1) Nadzab in New Guinie, in which they occupied an excellent plateau that was developed into a large Allied airbase

2) Noemfor Island (Dutch New Guinie) in which they occupied the island that was needed as an airbase

3) Corregidore Island (PI) in which they surprised the whole Japanese garrison on this heavily fortified island, and defeated them. (Took a few days though)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

Joe2 said:


> what actually happend in the drops during oparation torch? I never knew there was any



The US Army 509th Parachute Infantry BN flew from England through Spain with the intent of jumping near Oran and capturing the airfields at Tafarquay and Youk-Les-Bains. 

The jump was a partial failure and was marked by problems in planning, navigation and communication.

The 509th did not jump on there target, the paratroopers were scattered throughout the area and several planes were forced to ditch into the desert. The airfields were taken however in the end.

The 509th was the first US Airbone unit and conducted the first US airborne operation during Operation Torch.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 26, 2006)

What I was meaning when I was calling them airborne troops is that they were dropped in from air or a helicopter and given an objective to secure based on intelligence. If that doesn't sound like what the idea for the WW2 Airborne Troops in a lot of missions was, I don't know what is... All I was saying was that was a modern example of this type of mission of small groups going in at speed to destroy targets. We are talking about the effectiveness of airborne forces in the war. I know it is a modern example, but hell it illustrates that there was at least something to the quick and fast air insertion type mission that it is still being used this many years after WW2.


----------

