Archives for Infantry Magazine from 1982 through the present (with the exception of 2001) are available here for anyone with an AKO log-in. The archive isn't searchable, and I don't have the time to look through'em all for the article myself.......Originally Posted by sgmgrumpy
Noooo. Jed, you had to go and drop that on my plate
Thank god I don't have to navigate BCKS I might get lost in those forums
Oh guys, why do you beat Meyer so much? Did he assault anyone of you? Let's stick to the text itself, please. Neither biography nor person are interesting, just the idea itself. A man should be rated for his ideas, not his ideas be rated for the man. (I hope I got that translated to something that'll be understood...)
I disagree on the accuracy problem as mentioned by Tom Odom. It's at least not that large.
Technical equipment with GPS navigation is able to land a bomb as accurate as is demanded in the paper for parachutists.
Similar technology has proven 100 ft CEPs many years ago.
So unless somebody is really involved in those developments and can tell us about the accuracy achieved at present and about the one expected for the near future, we should not rule out the possibility of precision landings.
But that's a minor point of the article anyway.
I agree with him that a division-sized air assault is unlikely, and a brigade-sized air assault in unsecured terrain is unlikely as well for the next couple of years.
This has some relevant implications, as for example no specialist airborne artillery is necessary - heavier standard equipment instead of white elephants like M777 could be used for the more conventional ground combat missions.
Lastdingo,I disagree on the accuracy problem as mentioned by Tom Odom. It's at least not that large.
Technical equipment with GPS navigation is able to land a bomb as accurate as is demanded in the paper for parachutists.
Similar technology has proven 100 ft CEPs many years ago.
So unless somebody is really involved in those developments and can tell us about the accuracy achieved at present and about the one expected for the near future, we should not rule out the possibility of precision landings.
Unless you have actually jumped from an aircraft using current US military technology, what you offer is at best uniformed opinion.
My last jump was in 97 using state of the art parachutes for the sky diving industry. I work with a unit that is on jump status.
As for GPS delivery, the article was not about GPS. It was about use of steerable canopies that use technology from the 1960s. My office mate has tested GPS delivery systems and they do work. That is fine for cargo delivery on a fairly open DZ.
It is however an entirely different matter when it comes to hitting a target as small as a rooftop while accounting for wind direction and strength, cloud cover, and visibility.
All of this so far is regards to a single parachutist; when you add more the issues grow exponentially. It was for that reason that the 82d largely stopped using steerable canopies in the late 70s (at least for a while). When you have 500 troops in the air, steerable canopiies create as many problems as they solve.
Tom
Lastdingo, I mean no slight here, but if I said I had an idea that I could build a manned spaceship that would carry me to Mars, you'd call me an idiot right?
Same thing with Meyers...It's just that Meyers and Sparks have had delusions for over ten years now. Don't get me wrong, he can write, as evidenced by his published articles in Proceedings and the MCG. I think it's easy to get published when you're trying to be provocative...it doesn't mean your thesis holds any water.
As for the CEP issue, I'll share with you that several parachute supply drops were made to my task force by the high-altitude steerable delivery system. It did not have a CEP of 100ft., and certainly couldn't deliver the accuracy to put a man on a rooftop. Is it technically feasible in the future? Sure, why not, but why the hell would you want to land on a rooftop with all of your force, cut off from the ground. Top-down MOUT entries are not doctrine anymore. I think the 3/5 AAR sealed that up.
For those who have suffered through reading his rants, I think we are happy that Meyer and Sparks have a limited sphere within which they can sell stupid. It's nothing against Rifleman for posting the link, but in my case, it just reminded me of what fingernails on chalkboard sound like.
Meyer is more than welcome to come to the Council and join me in a discussion to prove to me otherwise.
Last edited by jcustis; 07-09-2007 at 08:50 PM.
There are several points that one can disagree with in the article.
But what astonishes me is that here and in another forum a couple of days ago the people focused so much on the rooftop landing stuff and largely ignored the assertion that division-sized air assaults are quite illusionary.
I mean that this assertion is more worth a debate and that such a debate would be much more interesting.
TTPs need to be sorted out in exercises and not in forum discussions anway.
Air Assaults/Airmobile operations and Airborne operations are not the same. Let's try to use the correct terminology. It's like saying a Abrams and Bradley are alike because they both have tracks. What we're talking about is Airborne operations.
Have you ever heard of DRB status? A DRB is the equivalent of the fire brigade. THey're deployable anywhere in the world within hours of notification. I'm not sure Meyer's proposal, but unless he's going to screw over a brigade's worth of people for 3 years at a time, the Army isn't going to can the contingency valve.
The problem is that people like Meyer forget that once Iraq is through we have a very real possibility of becoming involved in a high-intensity conflict scenario again. All things being equal, since we scaled down to the 10 division concept we haven't left ourselves a whole lot of margin for error. Airborne operations are excellent for massing conventional firepower behind the FLOT/FEBA and disrupting logistical lines of communication. Having that option alone may require a potential adversary to hold more in reserve than orginally factored in.
As for Meyer's track record, just thumb through his other idiotorials. He's had an axe to grind against the Army for a long time. Few, if any, of his posts have anything good to say about the Army. Keep this in mind - Meyer is the same tool who said that the CIA has done better at unconventional operations than SOCOM and therefore SOCOM should be eliminated. They should revoke his internet access....
Example is better than precept.
Lastdingo,
That may be true but remember that the U.S. dropped six infantry battalions, plus support, - three ranger battalions and a brigade combat team from the 82nd Airborne Division - in the Panama operation.
That the Panama operation might have been successful without a large airborne operation is irrelevant, I think. A large night mass tactical drop was the best way for a rapid buildup of combat power.
I didn't agree with about 90% of Meyer's article. The one part I did find interesting was his idea of small scale tactical airborne operations - something akin to fireforce operations, if you will. Most of the world isn't Rhodesia, so it won't be feasible in many areas. But then again it might in some. And rough terrain jump gear, unlike rooftop landings, is probably not beyond the capability of a basic parachutist.
Last edited by Rifleman; 07-10-2007 at 11:42 AM.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
OK, I buy it that the diversion effect of large-scale airborne capabilities is useful in conventional war. The enemy needs to keep reserves far to the rear.
That's not exactly what you want him t do when you intend to do some old school maneuver warfare, but in other cases it's desirable.
The other point that many seem to raise is the deployability by air and the virtue of having a brigade ready for immediate deployment to everywhere.
Well, that's not a requirement that only an airborne (sorry about mixing the terminology, wouldn't have happened in my native language) can fulfill. 101st and 10th should be able to do that as well. It was even quite what was proposed in the Stryker brigade concept.
Anyway, 82nd is still ill-prepared forf that role as far as I know for it lacks foreign language negotiation capabilities and heavy weapons for both irregular as well as regular warfare missions immediately after deployment.
Operations in english or spanisch speaking countries with ill-equipped/ill-trained opponents are within its abilities (basically carribbean adventures).
Again, as far as I know.
Well, my own feeling about airborne forces is that they should prepare for airborne operations of battalion to slightly smaller than brigade sizes. They should not have heavy weapons like M777 in such actions as air support should be assured if you were able to use transport planes in the first place. Quick reinforcement with heavy or air deployable units should always be assured.
The other orientation that I'd propose is being especially proficient in forest and urban combat. They could be added as motorized units to heavy divisions which certainly lack infantry component in several possible terrain types.
Finally, they could be used as air-deployable forces (as well as other forces should be air-deployable to a really high degree, up to two divisions overall in the case of the USA, imho). In that case, they can make good use of an air-deployable but not airborne support element. Artillery like truck-mounted Caesar, for example (not HIMARS because of its logistical inefficiency). This would be the classical tripwire and ally reassurance mission, or without much fire support a very quick reaction force for cases like Rwanda genocide.
No one on here has been bashing Meyer for the type of person he is - he is being slammed for what you just said - for the content of the article, and clear trends in previous work that demonstrate his utter lack of credibility, if not integrity.
As regards your other statement, achieving accuracy with GPS-guided bombs does not even approach being comparable to achieving accuracy with a small team on a combat jump. False analogy. As others have brought up, current JPADS capabilities with cargo drops are a better comparison.
In any case, there is much in the article at the top of the thread that open to derision besides the matter of accurate landings.
FM 3-05.211 Special Forces Military Free-Fall Operations, dated 6 April 2005
Touche. Let's discuss that then. The Brts recently scaled back their parachute training regimen, and on another board it was discussed at length pro and con. I'll concede that the conditions have to be just about perfect for a large scale assault, across a wide specturm of threat environment, mission, logistics, etc., but it is still one of the quickest ways to put a lot of firepower on the ground in a short period of time.But what astonishes me is that here and in another forum a couple of days ago the people focused so much on the rooftop landing stuff and largely ignored the assertion that division-sized air assaults are quite illusionary.
Tom,I spent 3 years in the 82nd and You where their for awhile and not once did we ever practice a PLF(parachute landing fall for you straight legs) on roof tops. Did you ever do that Tom??? Did ever even hear anybody even suggest such a thing?? There was an expression I saw on hear once about Crack Smoking Stupid ......seems to have a lot in common with the article.
That would be division-size airborne operations and the article really goes beyond that by stating that a single battalion would be needed in a brigade with the remaining battalions as "air assault", a term which implies helicopter assault. Division level airborne operations may be a thing of the past; the capability of mounting them is quite a card to hold, especially when it comes to remote areas and the need to put lots of troops on the ground in a short time, especially when airfields are limited.But what astonishes me is that here and in another forum a couple of days ago the people focused so much on the rooftop landing stuff and largely ignored the assertion that division-sized air assaults are quite illusionary.
Tom
It took me too long to post. Glad to know I'm thinking on the same wavelength as Tom Odom....
Example is better than precept.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks