I concur. It was Kurdistan, for God sakes!
Printable View
Nope -- but we gotta keep Jump Pay going...;)I don't, DA probably will -- as many medals as they kick out nowadays, they'll probably tell the Herd to put a wreath around their combat jump star... :(Quote:
Do you even consider it a real "combat jump"?
The M1s were of little benefit -- other than to demonstrate a capability (which no one questioned that we had in any event...).
Seriously, not militarily necessary, both the drop and the tanks were pure PR -- I don't know when the Army's going to realize that kind of stuff, like poor PFC Lynch, is totally counterproductive -- not least because it cheapens the actuality for those who participate.
FWIW, the biggest US combat jump in Viet Nam by 2-503 of the then 173d was also militarily unnecessary as was the second jump in Korea by the 187 and Operation Varsity by three divisions in WW II. All IMO, of course.
I'm slowly, over the years, coming around to the idea that "purely political" airdrops ARE in fact, necessary.
They help demonstrate capability, if nothing else.
As I stated in the other thread, maintenance of airborne units retain true light infantry. I think that without airborne, the US wouldn't have light infantry.
Also, the "attitude" that accompanies airborne units is important. It might be crucial.
And now, reading Ken, I'm starting to wonder about the way the Army views airborne, and equating it with their chronic misuse of recon, which I am more attuned to, and seeing parallels.
We often talk about this airborne operation or that one as being unnecessary. Okay, doubtless that's true. Yet, consider this: might some of history's unnecessary airborne operations still have been the best way to achieve the objecitves?
We might find many things that are unnecessary for the success of a particular operation; yet, said things are still the best option for success.
And how come it's usually the unnecessary airborne operation that seems to receive the most criticism? Have we never conducted an operation involving an air assault, amphibious operation, armored thrust, artillery barrage, air strike, convoy, etc., when the operation stood a good chance of success with out it?
it's all about jump pay... :D
I joke. Well, sort of. That's part of it. It's just that the drops generally -- all of them, necessary or not -- do get truly excessive publicity (that always annoys those who get less) and add in the generally high casualty rate (which is why there is jump pay) plus the likelihood of a partial success and there's plenty of things for picking. Still sort of irrelevant, parachute troopies are for Armies like a gun is for a civilian here in the States, you don't usually need one but when you do you need it really bad.
For example, consider reinforcing Georgia (the Republic, not the State).
NOTE: I am NOT suggesting we do that, merely saying look at the map and consider what you can get there and how. Oh -- and add in the complication that the airfield for any airland would become an immediate target for Frogfoots (Frogfeet?) or worse... ;)
I reckon that's true; yet, the MIKE Force operations in Vietnam got hardly any puplicity at all.
Incidently, one of my favorite (and one of the more obscure) jump stories comes from one of the MIKE Force jumps. Supposedly, some SF NCOs had to hook up some of the 'Yards. The little fellers just weren't tall enough to reach the anchor line cable! But when the green light came on they went out the door like big men! Nary a jump refusal.
Airborne!
to be leaving a VNAF C-123.
Not that I'd blame them for that...:D
Friend of mine made that 173d jump in VN as JM, Catherine Leroy LINK was on his bird. He always smiled when he said she was short and he had to hook her up...