Understanding Airmen

[slapout9]

Hi Norfolk, sorry for the late reply but I actually agree with you about the Airborne and along the same lines as you were thinking (reference German Airborne forces). This concept was kicked around when they first came into being. They were going to be part of the Army Air Corps. Very similar to how the USMC used to be to the Navy.

Strongly disagree about Warden's rings. The main reason the Civillian population is listed in ring 4 is to either be on a No Strike list or to be a psy op or I/O target. If you can ever get a copy of the country X study by the Air Force it explains that in some detail.

[Norfolk]

Hi Norfolk, sorry for the late reply but I actually agree with you about the Airborne and along the same lines as you were thinking (reference German Airborne forces). This concept was kicked around when they first came into being. They were going to be part of the Army Air Corps. Very similar to how the USMC used to be to the Navy.

Strongly disagree about Warden's rings. The main reason the Civillian population is listed in ring 4 is to either be on a No Strike list or to be a psy op or I/O target. If you can ever get a copy of the country X study by the Air Force it explains that in some detail.

I wonder why the Airborne wasn't hived off in 1947 to the Air Force. Maybe it was all those memories of AAF generals at 1st Allied Airborne Army. Yeah, when I look at how effective the Luftwaffe Airborne was (until semi- or untrained ground crews with no planes to service were transferred to the Para Divs), it makes me wonder why the US didn't follow, especially when the Air Force became independent (I sure hope Ken doesn't see this)

I breath a sigh of relief at your response, slapout. When I take an (uninformed) look at the Five Rings Theory and see stuff like civvie population and infrastructure there, it just brings up all the old imagery of Bomb 'Em Back to the Stone Age. Culpeper may be right then, that some of us may still be stuck in the 1940's (well, maybe a little bit...). And thanks for telling me about the Country X Study - I assume it may accessed at Maxwell.

[Dr Jack]

Strongly disagree about Warden's rings. The main reason the Civillian population is listed in ring 4 is to either be on a No Strike list or to be a psy op or I/O target. If you can ever get a copy of the country X study by the Air Force it explains that in some detail.

When I look at the explanation for the five rings in terms of "system attributes," it seems to be a systems construct that entails targeting the entire system and those entities that provide a source of power; any of the five attributes or rings can and should be targeted simultaneously for the greatest effect (by lethal or non-lethal means). Theoretically, there are no caveats on the type of targeting for any particular ring...

Colonel John Warden, “Air Theory for the Twenty-first Century,” in Battlefield of the Future: 21st Century Warfare Issues, revised edition, Barry R. Schneider and Lawrence E. Grinter, editors (Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.: Air University Press) 1998, page 107.

[Schmedlap]

Readers on this thread might also find this article of interest:
Occupations, Cultures, and Leadership in the Army and Air Force in the Winter 2005-06 edition of Parameters.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/P...r/mastroia.htm

[Ken White]

Norfolk. You and Slapout are entitled to your erroneous -- heretical, even -- thoughts...

You two might want to ponder the fact that Student was unusual and everyone isn't a Kurt Student; that even as sharp as he was, he had little to do with Eben Emael, possibly the greatest example of an economy of force special operation for many years; that he got shot by his own troopies in Holland; and that, after Crete, the Fallschirmjaeger were simply high skill light infantry; leg light infantry -- declining in skill (and elan) as the war went on and attrition took its toll and fighting under Army commanders...

You might also consider that the US Army really doesn't use its airborne forces at all well * and the Army's supposed to specialize in ground combat -- which is what airborne units do, ground combat -- the aircraft and the T-10s are just delivery efforts; trucks and tailgates, no more...

So if the Army can't use them well on the ground, you'll forgive me if I have little faith in the ability of the Air Force to properly employ them -- and yes, Louis Brereton assists me in that decision, so did William Momyer later and today so does Gregory Trebon...

* more often than not; there's been an occasional exception, Chief of Staff, Army dependent...

[Norfolk]

Norfolk. You and Slapout are entitled to your erroneous -- heretical, even -- thoughts...

You two might want to ponder the fact that Student was unusual and everyone isn't a Kurt Student; that even as sharp as he was, he had little to do with Eben Emael, possibly the greatest example of an economy of force special operation for many years; that he got shot by his own troopies in Holland; and that, after Crete, the Fallschirmjaeger were simply high skill light infantry; leg light infantry -- declining in skill (and elan) as the war went on and attrition took its toll and fighting under Army commanders...

You might also consider that the US Army really doesn't use its airborne forces at all well * and the Army's supposed to specialize in ground combat -- which is what airborne units do, ground combat -- the aircraft and the T-10s are just delivery efforts; trucks and tailgates, no more...

So if the Army can't use them well on the ground, you'll forgive me if I have little faith in the ability of the Air Force to properly employ them -- and yes, Louis Brereton assists me in that decision, so did William Momyer later and today so does Gregory Trebon...

* more often than not; there's been an occasional exception, Chief of Staff, Army dependent...

Ken, as ever you are right about how things would turn out in practice, no matter how good the theory or example to the contrary offered. It's a real disappointment to be brought back to earth and have to face the reality that as much as the Airborne may not be realizing its full potential in the Army, the Air Force could hardly be expected to do a better job.

[Culpeper]

I wonder why the Airborne wasn't hived off in 1947 to the Air Force.

I wonder why certain people have wanted to abolish the Marine Corps throughout its history. Now, why on earth would a newly established Air Force in 1947 want to take on the responsibility of training infantry and then look for volunteers to jump out of perfectly good airplanes? Yes, the Germans did have good paratroop divisions structured differently. And they got annillihated during the Battle of Normandy with their enemy's back to to the sea and their supply lines to their own backs. They were great at defending hedgerows. They were not so good on the offensive up against divisions with 80% replacements like the 30th and the 90th. And they certainly were no good with their peers on the other side jumping in amongst their midst: i.e. the 82nd All Americans and the 101st Screaming Eagles. You can't move them to another branch of service and expect the same espirit de corps. The opportunity cost far outweighs any practical reason. Simply putting a beret on any soldier's head doesn't make it so. Mattis explained this type of elitism to his Marines not too long ago and the same applied to the 82nd and the 101st in 1947...

...For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles — who fought for life and never lost their nerve — carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world that there is 'No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy' than a U.S. Marine.

[slapout9]

When I look at the explanation for the five rings in terms of "system attributes," it seems to be a systems construct that entails targeting the entire system and those entities that provide a source of power; any of the five attributes or rings can and should be targeted simultaneously for the greatest effect (by lethal or non-lethal means). Theoretically, there are no caveats on the type of targeting for any particular ring...

Colonel John Warden, “Air Theory for the Twenty-first Century,” in Battlefield of the Future: 21st Century Warfare Issues, revised edition, Barry R. Schneider and Lawrence E. Grinter, editors (Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.: Air University Press) 1998, page 107.

Dr. Jack, your are 100% correct. Not only that but it was 2 or 3 fridays ago when I was in Col. Warden's office and I heard his defintion of COG. "The switch that will turn the system off with the least amount of destruction because you know you will have to turn it back on when the war is over."

[slapout9]

You two might want to ponder the fact that Student was unusual and everyone isn't a Kurt Student; that even as sharp as he was, he had little to do with Eben Emael, possibly the greatest example of an economy of force special operation for many years; that he got shot by his own troopies in Holland; and that, after Crete, the Fallschirmjaeger were simply high skill light infantry; leg light infantry -- declining in skill (and elan) as the war went on and attrition took its toll and fighting under Army commanders...

You might also consider that the US Army really doesn't use its airborne forces at all well * and the Army's supposed to specialize in ground combat -- which is what airborne units do, ground combat -- the aircraft and the T-10s are just delivery efforts; trucks and tailgates, no more...

Ken, you might want to re-read what you just posted. You just made our case for us. They did good under Air Force command and then went down hill under German Army command.

[Ken White]

you and I both know they did okay under Luftwaffe command and real good under Army command. Rotterdam was a fair operation, Crete, even though they won, was a disaster for them; they never made another jump.

They later occasionally outperformed other Wehrmacht light infantry (but not the Gebirgsjaegers) under Army command in France, Italy and Holland. That decline in performance late in the war was due to putting non-jumpers in the units and just hanging the title on 'em -- an Air Force decision.

Hope all's going well. Been there. Fortunately mine worked out okay, she bounced back and is again meaner'n a Water Moccasin...

[slapout9]

Now Ken... only Hitler thought Crete was a disaster. For them to take Crete was supposed to be impossible...but they did it when then concentrated on establishing an airhead which allowed them to be reinforced and then breakout and finish it. The army didn't even call them fallshimjager, they called them fallshimjagergrouppen or something like that. I know I can't spell either one but I will look it up later. It was the German Army that put non-airborne people into these grouppen whatchamacallits, basically truck infantry.

Thanks for asking about my better half. She finally went to sleep.

[Ken White]

You're thinking of the Kampfgruppe which the army formed out of Fallschirmjager and any other types of unit; sort of like a Task Force, they usually named them after the commander. Kampfgruppe Ramke did a goo job in Normandy IIRC.

'Fraid not on the Army loading up ersatz parachure units; it was the Luftwaffe that did it:

"The formation of the two parachute corps was only one part of a grand scheme devised by Göring for the formation of two parachute armies with a total strength of 100,000 men. The plan was approved by Hitler. Despite the fact that the days of large airborne operations were over, the various parachute units could still be classed as élites. Composed entirely of young volunteers from the draft (the average age of enlisted men in the 6th Parachute Regiment, for example, was 17 and a half), they were well armed and highly motivated."

LINK.

[wm]

but, one of the better German armored formations in WWII was the Hermann Goering Division in Italy, a Luftwaffe formation. It later went on to become a Luftwaffe armored corps, fighting very successfully on the Eastern front along the Vistula and in the Courland/Kurland Pocket.

BTW, I suspect Luftwaffe Field Marshall Albert Kesselring may have been the best commander the Germans had at the strategic-operational level.

Of course, none of the guys in those units jumped out of perfectly good airplanes after the units were created. They were probably manned with troops who had washed out of jump school during ground or tower week.

As the old story goes:
Jump school is a three weeks long. The first week is Ground Week, when they separate the men from the boys. The second week is Tower Week when they separate the men from the fools. The third week the fools jump out of the airplanes.

[slapout9]

wm, having been on one or two Air Force planes in my time it is debatable about them being perfectly good...which is why pilots wear parachutes

Ken, The group I was talking about was Schwere-Fallschirm-Infanteric-Kompanie. Loosely translated as Heavy Parachute Company which was developed by the Army. Also on 23 Feb. 1933 the first parachute unit was a POLICE unit. Polizeiabteilung Wecke authorized by Goring because of their experience in operating against Communist cells thus establishing some history of their capabilities with COIN operations.

Also I think we are splitting hairs about the leg infantry because the German Airborne Divisions just like their American counter parts had glider units and Air Landing units that were non-airborne qualified.

My source for the above information was "German Paratroopers" by Chris McNabb

[Ken White]

It's the pilots...

I thought what we were doing was splitting unnecessary hairs??? On a base level, the whole discussion is an exercise in alternative historical fiction.

I think you'll find the Heavy Parachute Company was the equivalent of our Weapons Companies, it was in the regular Fallschirmjager Battalions and thus was AF, not Army.

Yeah, they had glider troops; my point was that the later "Airborne" Divisions weren't really airborne and that was a Goring, not an Army, decision. Not that it made much difference in the end...

[wm]

wm, having been on one or two Air Force planes in my time it is debatable about them being perfectly good...which is why pilots wear parachutes

It's not the planes, they're okay.
It's the pilots...

I've been in a few USAF planes and a few of the airframes of the other services as well. I also used to test the POL products that each of the services put into their aircraft, both before they took off and after they crashed. I'm here to tell you, crappy POL is a good reason for everyone to have on a parachute when flying in a military aircraft.

[Tom Odom]

I've been in a few USAF planes and a few of the airframes of the other services as well. I also used to test the POL products that each of the services put into their aircraft, both before they took off and after they crashed. I'm here to tell you, crappy POL is a good reason for everyone to have on a parachute when flying in a military aircraft.

Planes are like wimmen; there's flaws in all of them. I am in twubble, now.

Besides you have not lived until you have flown 3rd world airlines or worse military air. Then one can always find a case or six of vodka on the flight deck of Russian or Ukranian Il76s and AN124s.

Best

Tom

[Stan]

Planes are like wimmen; there's flaws in all of them. I am in twubble, now.

Besides you have not lived until you have flown 3rd world airlines or worse military air. Then one can always find a case or six of vodka on the flight deck of Russian or Ukranian Il76s and AN124s.

Best

Tom

You lucked out by arriving after this bird was finally grounded

On that note, if the fly boys like to play with 105 howitzers, why can't they just take over the parachute business too

[Tom Odom]

You lucked out by arriving after this bird was finally grounded

On that note, if the fly boys like to play with 105 howitzers, why can't they just take over the parachute business too

Actually, no, my friend. I watched them repair the wing on that bird with 100mph tape in 1984 in Lubumbashi. Gratefully I was with Paul Wenzel in the DAO C12 (of course, Paul pranged two of them as I recall) and I never flew on it. But (copying the Holiday Express ads) I did fly ShabAir, Sudan Air, Egypt Air etc

Tom

[Stan]

Actually, no, my friend. I watched them repair the wing on that bird with 100mph tape in 1984 in Lubumbashi. Gratefully I was with Paul Wenzel in the DAO C12 (of course, Paul pranged two of them as I recall) and I never flew on it. But (copying the Holiday Express ads) I did fly ShabAir, Sudan Air, Egypt Air etc

Tom

Ahh, the memories are comin' back
The Colonel was left seat that day in Yaoundé, overloaded and me on the potty seat when our Kingair dumped on rotation and split into two pieces. I later rode a French Puma with the Colonel and we kinda-sorta-auto-rotated through a hut in Gabon together.

But, flying Sudan Air That's a tough one Tom, you got me there !

EDIT: His German - Ahem - honey ran the APO like a gestapo !