High-Speed Russian VDV Airborne: Air-Mech Paras Jump with Drogues

youtube ^

[rktman]

Time sure flies doesn’t it? Hard to believe the “Troubles” in VN was that long ago. “AIRBORNE!” Thanks for your service. It’s appreciated a lot more now than it was in the late 60’s/early 70’s. We were often told to dress in civies when leaving the ship or base.

[1rudeboy]

I’ve seen one! Don’t remember the computer game I was playing, though.

[Axenolith]

Why can’t anyone do a decent youtube video without setting it to crappy music?!?!

[ansel12]

The C-141 was the Cadillac of jumps, it was effort free because it sucks you out so leaning forward was pretty much it.

[ansel12]

There was one drop in Iraq against almost no opposition in northern Iraq just so a brigade could get its jump badges.

LOL, always so predictable.

[ABN 505]

You probably trained while they were still using C/119’s, they were alot of fun. I liked the C/130’s and Chinooks But a Huey drop was cool too.

[fella]

No “Phony Sequester” to interfere with their training and no gaying to disrupt their units cohesion.

[ScubieNuc]

Where did I advocate removing all of America's airborne capabilities? I didn't.

I simply stated the truth, in that it is only really effective against small nations, like Mali or Panama. I believe I have even read where the US Army is considering shrinking the 82nd Airborne into just one Brigade as traditional airborne and the rest into Air mobile, like the 101st. Now, whether or not that really happens, remains to be seen. The 82nd has a long tradition in the Army, and the Army, like the other armed forces hates to change tradition.

As for Russia's capabilities....they have a long history of hiding their weakness and over blowing their strengths. That said, I don't doubt that their fighters would be very formidable in a fight. What this video doesn't really take into account is the large radar signature of those planes and the accuracy of artillery and missiles. Small countries have limited radar and missile defenses. Large countries like the US, China and Russia could shoot down those planes before and during a drop let alone obliterate the landing zone with artillery strikes.

[ansel12]

I simply stated the truth, in that it is only really effective against small nations, like Mali or Panama.

You did it again, from describing the Airborne as being 20,000 men to just parachute into the borders of little countries to create havoc, to now ignoring their use in Iraq. We have never dropped 20,000 men and couldn't do that today.

Your original point seemed to be to want to end American Airborne capability because the option has been removed in the modern world, a Brigade is better than nothing, but I don't see the reason to eliminate our only Airborne Division, especially since it is so multi-purpose anyway.

[Rick_Tygart]

I made my first jump from a C-141 into Panama, in February, 1977. It was great, those ships are almost like commercial airliners. Also, we were old that the Finns painted exposed rocks White so the Russkies would drop their guys there. It sounded pretty much like BS to me.

[ScubieNuc]

I said 20,000 because the only Airborne Division the US Army has now is the 82nd, which has about 20,000 soldiers in it. Granted, there are a few other units with Airborne Regiments attacted to it (the 25th for one) but essentially America has only about 20,000 Airborne soldiers.

Of course operations can use less soldiers, but that just fits in with my point that it is really only effective against small countries. I would like for you to give me the use of airborne drops of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. As far as I know, only Special Forces did any, but if there was some done by other groups, it was small.

As for elliminating...I didn’t say that. The 82nd could become like the 101st, Air Assault.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Thank you

Yes, it was a very long time ago

[CIB-173RDABN]

I am proud that I earned my jump wings at 17, and my CIB at 18 but I don’t think I would like to do what it took to earn those honors ever again.

I never got over being afraid of making jumps, but I forced myself to do it. I was a happy camper when my enlistment was up. ;)

[ansel12]

Of course operations can use less soldiers [20,000], but that just fits in with my point that it is really only effective against small countries.

LOL, we have never had an Airborne operation of 20,000 in all of our history, so thanks for the permission to use fewer than that.

Your fallback position of keeping a Brigade, after you first indicated that Airborne was not credible today, would bring us down the level of other nations with only an Airborne Brigade, countries like Malaysia, Pakistan, Turkey, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, India.

Russia and China maintain a Division each.

[ansel12]

I never got over being afraid of making jumps, but I forced myself to do it.

I have always been an interviewer of people, always trying to pick up a feel of them as a group, and in my years of talking to paratroopers I came to the personal idea that about half of them are afraid of heights.

[ScubieNuc]

LOL, we have never had an Airborne operation of 20,000 in all of our history, so thanks for the permission to use fewer than that.

Dude, your confused. I never said that we did have an airborne operation of 20,000 troops. Like I said before, I only used the 20,000 number because that is approximately how many troops are in the 82nd.

Your fallback position of keeping a Brigade, after you first indicated that Airborne was not credible today, would bring us down the level of other nations with only an Airborne Brigade, countries like Malaysia, Pakistan, Turkey, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, India.

If you know anything about our military and foreign militaries, it isn't about numbers vs. numbers, it's about quality and support vs. what they have. If we pared down to one brigade (Oh and I just remembered, the 173rd in Italy is also Airborne, but I digress), that brigade would be the finest with the best air and arty support and they could easily go up against any of the countries you mentioned, because as I'm guessing you know, it isn't one aspect of our military that wins a fight.

Russia and China maintain a Division each.

So you advocate that we should maintain a division because these countries do? That's retarded. As I said before, modern warfare capabilities that we have can easily equalize the battlefield if China or Russia were threatening to attack us. Modern warfare isn't like risk or chess, if you got a rook then I must have a rook to be equal to you.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Don’t know about the others, but true in my case.

[ansel12]

There only use today is to scare small countries with little military capability. Being able to drop 20,000 troops inside a small countries borders can create havoc, but against the a larger country like China, Russia, or the US.....not so cutting edge. More like sending many highly motivated troops to there death.

You seem to have a bee in your agenda bonnet but it sure isn't convincing.

I think we'll keep the 82nd for a while.

[ABN 505]

When I saw you were with the Herd it jarred whats left of my my memory. When I first got to Bragg my Squad leader had served with the Herd and had just gotten back from rehab for his wounds. He had holes in him from his legs to his neck plus missing digits. He had been hit by a Chinese claymore, [he told me if it was an American he would have been dead.]He was in Nam 68-69 I think, His name was Richard Cyr and was from East Hartford Ct. You probably don't know him but it's funny how just seeing 173rd brought his name back to me after all this time.

[CIB-173RDABN]

By 1968 I was out of the Army.