Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58

Thread: Air Force Motorized Jaeger Regiment?

  1. #21
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I know and did not mean that you should not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    Ken ... If I think the perception and attitude are wrong I'm going to speak up about it ... a lot of assumption and jumping to conclusions based on bias and not evidence. The underlying subtext is that there is a hidden agenda at work. I don't think there's anything wrong in challenging those assumptions and what I see as false perceptions and I will continue to do so.
    I was expressing regret that you had to do it due to what I can only presume to be on the part of some posters sheer parochiality, ignorance or a desire to yank chains to see what happens.

    P.S.

    Didn't you advise me once not to read the comments following newspaper columns? Allow me to reciprocate -- I suggest not reading the comments on so-called 'Defense Blogs' (present Company excepted) -- they're all as bad as the newspapers. The articles to which those comments are appended seem to quite often be full of ignorance and inaccuracies also.

  2. #22
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I know. I was expressing regret that

    Deleted, double post. ???

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Didn't you advise me once not to read the comments following newspaper columns? Allow me to reciprocate -- I suggest not reading the comments on so-called 'Defense Blogs' (present Company excepted) -- they're all as bad as the newspapers. The articles to which those comments are appended seem to quite often be full of ignorance and inaccuracies also.
    Good advice, thanks!

  4. #24
    Council Member Umar Al-Mokhtār's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cirenaica
    Posts
    374

    Default Let's not forget...

    the Luftwaffe had it's own paratroop panzer division!
    "What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."

  5. #25
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Entropy,

    For the record, I do support the AF. In particular, I seem to be in a minority that wants the F-22 bought in its original planned number so it can accomplish the mission of air supremacy. I also would like to see C-17 purchased to replace C-130s one for one.

    Thanks for your comments. I'll mull over them before spouting off about the AF again.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  6. #26
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    I served in the USAF as a ROMAD. Something directly related to CAS. I grew out of my blue uniform within a year and never wore it outside of basic training. Attached to the 82nd my squadron and my sister squadron spent 60% of our enlistment in the field with the grunts. Both squadrons completed at the very least Jump School at Ft. Benning and some went on to Air Assault School as well. It was not a pleasant 8 to 5 Air Force job.

    The reason the Air Force doesn't completely let go of CAS and give it all to the Army is that the Air Force wants her assets on the ground as well. It's part of the whole SO scenerio. Cannon AFB is now entirely a SO air base and has a rather complex set of missions to perform. As intimated, all sister services have assets on the ground trained to coordinate CAS, whether the aircraft are Marine, Navy, Army, or Air Force. It doesn't matter. Maximum use of all assets available. The "S" in CAS stands for "support". The Air Force has no business reaching out beyond that with the Army's MLR, FEBA, or whatever you want to call it for CAS. The Air Force has her "Airplanes" to reach out and touch someone as far as she wants to reach for a variety of reasons to include paving a path for ground forces. This whole topic is a moot point. Sorry about that. Just how I feel about it. Some things never just go away.
    Last edited by Culpeper; 04-17-2009 at 02:04 AM.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  7. #27
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    AUT+RUS
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Not exactly sure how this here ended up as "Air Force doesn't want to do CAS" thread ...

    Moot the point is not. The Forces lack that 3D forced entry capability that the Russians never dropped. The Hermann Goring Division was mentioned - the Germans also never dropped that idea, see Wiesel airportable tank with TOWs and 20mm machine canon. And if I remember correctly, the JHL/HLVTOL part of the Objective Force Mobility concept also talks about lifting a FCS out a 1000 nm (which is a little too far, I guess one fighterbomber flight hour would be a good distance, or around 300nm behind the major ground combat line).

    The Army AirMech Strike idea, at least as far as I understand it, was/is basically loading a M113 onto a CH-53 and flying it out a 150km. Nice, but in real life 150km doesn't even get you out of SMERCH range. And against counter-air and air defense such a force wouldn't have a chance.

    No, what I was asking was, if it would make sense to give such a forced entry unit to the Air Force, like the Marines are the forced entry component of the Navy (well, should be). I mean, the Wehrmacht Fallschirmjager were also part of the Luftwaffe, and not of the Heer. As I described, the Air Force would have all the ressources needed to enable and sustain such a ground element.

    Folks here might reject the notion, but the U.S. ground combat doctrine is still dominated by a slow linear development out of a long static buildup - in short they are not capable of Blitzkrieg and Bewegungskrieg, and are doctrinally less advanced and less capable than the German Wehrmacht in its time. That's why such a MotJaegReg might give new impulses and force a little competition.

    And don't get me started about how in times of "jointness" it doesn't matter who "owns" what. That's probably why we have Army air assault units on amphib carriers and Marines jumping out of UH-60 as part of a mountain division operation. Jointness was invented to make sure nothing is "joint", but technological progress made it natural (optimistic angle) and pure neccessity forced it in a couple of areas.

  8. #28
    Council Member CR6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post

    And don't get me started about how in times of "jointness" it doesn't matter who "owns" what. That's probably why we have Army air assault units on amphib carriers and Marines jumping out of UH-60 as part of a mountain division operation. Jointness was invented to make sure nothing is "joint", but technological progress made it natural (optimistic angle) and pure neccessity forced it in a couple of areas.
    I guess I don't understand the problem of having army air assaults launched off of amphibs, if that combination of resources best meets the combatant commanders needs. Why DOES it matter who owns what if all services are working together? Redundancies between servicies mean someone's not necessary.
    "Law cannot limit what physics makes possible." Humanitarian Apsects of Airpower (papers of Frederick L. Anderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University)

  9. #29
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    The Army AirMech Strike idea, at least as far as I understand it, was/is basically loading a M113 onto a CH-53 and flying it out a 150km. Nice, but in real life 150km doesn't even get you out of SMERCH range. And against counter-air and air defense such a force wouldn't have a chance.
    It was a lot more complicated than that and basically an idea of which I remain very un-convinced.

    Air Mobile is best for Special Ops /Small Unit special mobility, (including CSAR) and after that Helos should concentrate on CASEVAC, and Re-Supply/Sustain/Relief in Place. "Soft skin Truck that jumps woods"

    Can't see a need for much else in the real world
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  10. #30
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    AUT+RUS
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    It was a lot more complicated than that and basically an idea of which I remain very un-convinced.

    Air Mobile is best for Special Ops /Small Unit special mobility, (including CSAR) and after that Helos should concentrate on CASEVAC, and Re-Supply/Sustain/Relief in Place. "Soft skin Truck that jumps woods"

    Can't see a need for much else in the real world
    How do you see the Russian VDV troops? The Russians still believe in that concept; their main task would have been/is to capture rear HQs, blow up supplies, cut com lines, and take out enemy air defense. Though I have to admit that those guys I talked to were somewhat pessimistic about the prospect of being picked up again at the end of the mission (they also said the plan was to extract just the personnel, and leave the vehicles behind).

  11. #31
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    No, what I was asking was, if it would make sense to give such a forced entry unit to the Air Force, like the Marines are the forced entry component of the Navy (well, should be).
    I understood your question. It's beyond the scope of the Air Force. That is why the Army Air Corps became the United States Air Force. The Army has its own capabilities and the Air Force. The Marines has its own capabilities and the Navy. What's the problem?
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  12. #32
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default As one who was prepared for many years to engage the VDV

    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    How do you see the Russian VDV troops? The Russians still believe in that concept; their main task would have been/is to capture rear HQs, blow up supplies, cut com lines, and take out enemy air defense. Though I have to admit that those guys I talked to were somewhat pessimistic about the prospect of being picked up again at the end of the mission (they also said the plan was to extract just the personnel, and leave the vehicles behind).
    and their BMDs not (BMPs as you said and repeated) my only concern was whether I'd have enough Ammo or not. I suggest those who told you that just personnel and not vehicles would be extracted were correct -- IF the USSR had actually decided to bother picking up anything or anyone -- and that the number retrieved would be significantly smaller than the number dropped.

    That from an old Parachute troopie and Armored Cavalry guy who knows the concept of parachuting troops and attacking the enemy in the rear is still valid regardless of the SAMS take on it -- but you do have to use some sense about what you do and where you do it and there are limitations on what parachute troops can do. They can do more without the impediment of tracked vehicles. Tracks have their place, air landing has its place, parachuting has its place. the first does not go with the latter two for all sorts of reasons -- not least simple logistics. Fuel is heavy.

  13. #33
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    I will say the capability to Strike and Hold vital targets (from long ranges)or more correctly to "capture in tact" should become a vital capability of the military. It will only become more valuable as move into the future.

  14. #34
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    I will say the capability to Strike and Hold vital targets (from long ranges)or more correctly to "capture in tact" should become a vital capability of the military. It will only become more valuable as move into the future.
    Agreed, especially as armies become smaller and the earth does not. Doug Macgregors notes on dispersed mobile warfare are worth reading.

    However... that does not mean there is a need for large scale airborne or airmobile operations, in the way WW2 played them out and the Cold War forecast.

    If you drop anyone anywhere and they get into a fight, they have to be able to win, and break contact to be recovered. Very, very rarely does the risk match the reward.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  15. #35
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    However... that does not mean there is a need for large scale airborne or airmobile operations, in the way WW2 played them out and the Cold War forecast.
    General Gavin himself believed and wrote that large scale Airborne Ops were no longer feasible.

  16. #36
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    General Gavin himself believed and wrote that large scale Airborne Ops were no longer feasible.
    I believed that, but I've never had someone be explicit about it. I don't have his books, so thanks. That's interesting.

    Airborne and airmobile operations are extremely high risk and this is born out by the historical record.

    Actually they seem most relevant and have the greatest sustained success in COIN or small wars. In "big wars" they always seem to turn into a shambles.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  17. #37
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Actually they seem most relevant and have the greatest sustained success in COIN or small wars. In "big wars" they always seem to turn into a shambles.
    Exactly. Or use in GWOT or what ever it is called know had a lot of first hand experience with this when I was in. It is nothing but a Longe Range Raiding Force. It does no have to be extracted, it could be relieved in place, but they were never meant to survive long term high intensity combat.
    Last edited by slapout9; 04-19-2009 at 04:30 PM. Reason: fix stuff

  18. #38
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default True dat...

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    ...It is nothing but a Longe Range Raiding Force. It does no have to be extracted, it could be relieved in place, but they were never meant to survive long term high intensity combat.
    That should never be forgotten by planners and those either pro- or anti- airborne. Still, that limited utility can have great merit if used correctly. Nothing else can move a body of troops 10,000 miles and get them on the ground able to fight near but not necessarily on a military objective. Air landing is an option but airfields aren't always located conveniently and are rarely unguarded.

    Of course, we could have developed long range stealthy transport with significant rough field and STOL capability in order to do a far better job of getting combat ready troops on the ground in better shape at great distance -- but that might have led the Politicians into trying some risky adventures...

  19. #39
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
    It there's a second ground army isn't one of them redundant?

    Come to think of it, the USMC might want to pay attention to that idea as well. They started life as the Navy's infantry and have more or less morphed into a defacto second ground army. Case in point: SEAL snipers taking out pirates when one of the USMC's historic missions was.....sharpshooters in the rigging.

    No, Rifleman does not have a good pt, he uses that to point out role & mission when those are the 2 things he leap frogged over to try & make his point.

    If it was simply a matter of surgical shooting, there were 9 Marine Scout-Snipers on the Boxer who could've easily taken those shots but that would over look the fact that dedicated Hostage Rescue is not a Marine Corps Role or Mission.

    Not to mention disregarding the long & difficult song & dance of setting up those 3 shots. Something only a Dedictated HR team could've done.

    Dedicated HR is not a mission the USMC is interested in.

    So what you saw was a Dedicated HR Unit, using the sound HR tactics of time, deception, & irritation to make something very difficult look easy. Not 3 SEALs who were "secretly" airdropped in to encroach Marine sharpshooting territory.

  20. #40
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    If it was simply a matter of surgical shooting, there were 9 Marine Scout-Snipers on the Boxer who could've easily taken those shots but that would over look the fact that dedicated Hostage Rescue is not a Marine Corps Role or Mission.
    I had no idea there were already snipers on the destroyers. If so, you're correct the USMC snipers could have completed this mission, considering the final action that was needed to end the situation. Monday morning quarterbacking on my part. The SEALs were brought in for HR, which is one of their jobs. Nobody knew at the time, I'm sure, that it would boil down to 30 yard single shots to end the standoff. I concur with your statement. Apples and oranges.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


Similar Threads

  1. Shortchanging the Joint Doctrine Fight
    By slapout9 in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-15-2008, 09:24 AM
  2. Abolish the Air Force
    By Xenophon in forum Military - Other
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 11-22-2007, 03:52 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •