Controversial article about parachute operations

[Rifleman]

The following article is from Carlton Meyer's g2mil site:

http://www.g2mil.com/Fall2007.htm

Let me say up front that I don't agree with most of it; and many other things Meyer writes as well. But what I found intriguing was his assertion that small scale tactical parachute operations - sort of a fireforce type operation, I guess you could say - could be safer and more effective in some cases than landing large helicopters in hot LZs.

As for the whole thing about landing on top of buildings.....well, what's possible for an ODA is one thing, but obviously Meyer has never done a night mass tactical operation before.

[jcustis]

I can't remember the details of Meyer, but he was a Reserve Marine corps Captain back in the early 90's. It would seem that he didn't learn much at The Basic School, and despite being provocative ideas, they fall short when meeting reality. As a case in point, I love how he says we should break the Rangers down into company-sized elements just so the battalion staff can be removed...Haha, that's the moment when I have to say, "Put that darn test tube pipe down buddy, before you hurt yourself."

Seems he is in league with Mike Sparks. Mentioning his name around these parts could easily get your tongue cut out.

I wouldn't call his work controversial, but rather...constipated.

[Jedburgh]

The amount of abject ignorance evident in that short piece is amazing. Meyer is clearly a leg of the worst sort. In any case, as an author he has zero credibility - he is known not just for writing assertively on things of which he has no knowledge, as in the piece linked above, but also for just plain ol' making stuff up to justify his position.

[Tom Odom]

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

The amount of abject ignorance evident in that short piece is amazing. Meyer is clearly a leg of the worst sort. In any case, as an author he has zero credibility - he is known not just for writing assertively on things of which he has no knowledge, as in the piece linked above, but also for just plain ol' making stuff up to justify his position.

Suggesting that steerable canopies allow roof toop landings is fantasy island stuff. While a couple of highly skilled ram air pilots can do such landings, they are a far cry from tactical assaults with steerable round canopies. Doing them at night would only add to the carnage. I made my very first night jump as a demonstration jump into a lighted dirt race track with a 40 foot fence and light poles all the way around it. It was small to me even though it was a quarter mile track. My canopy was round but it was far more maneuverable than an MC1-1 steerable. I cannot imagine trying to hit a rooftop, especially under combat conditions.

Tom

[sgmgrumpy]

I remember seeing a similar article in Infantry Magazine years ago but cannot seem to find it. I think it was titled "US Airborne Forces Obsolete." Or something to that title.

Did find this article though: ARTICLE

The Airborne Division in 2010
Lieutenant Colonel Richard D. Hooker Jr., US Army

For almost six decades US Army airborne forces have been key to worldwide US military operations. Usually manned at full strength, well equipped and well trained, flexible and adaptive airborne units have remained in demand even during times of downsizing and reduced funding.

Because of their unique capabilities, airborne troops will remain the centerpiece of the Army’s rapid reaction, strategic-intervention capability.
Nevertheless, advanced technologies and new organizational concepts suggest that the airborne division must evolve to meet the challenges of 2010.

[Ski]

Ahh! A Mike Sparks comment! Please make it stop, mom! I'll be good! Stop the pain!

Sparks is a mouthbreather of the highest order.

[Jedburgh]

Originally Posted by sgmgrumpy

I remember seeing a similar article in Infantry Magazine years ago but cannot seem to find it. I think it was titled "US Airborne Forces Obsolete." Or something to that title....

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.......

[Bill Moore]

When I read the critiques I initially thought the article couldn't be that bad, but after finishing it there was no doubt that the author is an idiot. When I read his last sentence, "

Today's paratroopers are adrift, and need pathfinders to show them a meaningful role"

, I was ready to grab this clown by the head and slam by knee into his face a few times, but the moment passed.

He has a warped view of history, we have a better air delivery capability now than we did during WWII, and we can definitely mitigate surface to air threats more effectively. Airborne assualts are generally short in duration, such as the airfield seizures in Grenada, Panama, and Western Iraq, so logistics isn't the huge concern he makes it out to be.

I just loved his comment about making only one Bn per Bde in the 82d ABN qualified, and the remainder Air Assault. First he doesn't understand the alert cycle, and second I would love to see his logistical plan for "rapidly" deploying the helicopters that are going to insert these 2 bns. That is assuming we can find an intermediate staging base within range of the helicopters, or perhaps this idiot thinks all helo's are air refuelable, or that opening a FARP is no major issue in a combat environment. Yes everyone in the 82d jumps because it builds espirit corp, and the guys and gals willing to go that extra step are generally better Soldiers. I'm beginning to think some Airborne Sergeant ran off with this clown's girlfriend, and I'm sure she is better off.

You guys already addressed the building top landings and his reference to the Golden Knights ability to execute precision landings, I about fell out of my chair when he compared the Golden Knights to most of us who are pretty happy just to hit the drop zone. The majority of the Army doesn't have the time to reach that level of airborne proficiency. Also this clown simply ignores the weather issues related to Airborne operations. Yea baby, 24/7 we can drop a platoon of paratroopers anywhere into the mountains of Afghanistan to reinforce anyone in duress regardless of the winds, ceiling, and of course the whole world is a drop zone. I'm sure we won't have 50% casualties on the jump if this great pathfinder leads the way. I would like to take him up on his proposals and actually see him demonstrate how we should do them.

[sgmgrumpy]

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

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.......

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

[Lastdingo]

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.

[Tom Odom]

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.

Lastdingo,

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

[jcustis]

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.

[Lastdingo]

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.

[Jedburgh]

Originally Posted by Lastdingo

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....

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

[jcustis]

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.

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.

[slapout9]

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.

[Tom Odom]

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.

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.

Tom

[RTK]

Originally Posted by Lastdingo

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.

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....

[RTK]

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

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.

Tom

It took me too long to post. Glad to know I'm thinking on the same wavelength as Tom Odom....

[Bill Moore]

In most cases I would agree with your comment that we should address the ideas, not the person writing them, but after the author wrote the paratroopers are lost and they need a pathfinder to lead them I lost all respect for the author and his poorly researched article. The bottom line is the guy projected himself as an expert in a field he obviously knows very little about. If he wrote it as a series of questions, or even offered up it would be nice to develop an all weather, pin point accuracy, troop air drop capability I could accept it. Then we could discuss the merits of his thoughts, but that wasn't the tone of the article.

I'll address your question, since it was relevant. Why do we need an airborne division? We don't have an ABN Div so we can do division size Airborne Assaults, but to facilitate having one Brigade (BDE) on alert at all times. The other two are in various stages of training or taking leave. A 3-1 ratio allows a good training program and allows the Soldiers to take a needed rest, because you can't stay in the short notice mode month after month, year after year. One doesn't equal one, it takes three to equal one.

Having that capability in one division allows the Army to save considerable money, since most of the Airborne specific training required is centralized. You don't have to recreate DZs, Airborne training apparatus, training areas unique to airborne, etc. The bottom line (at least before GWOT) is that one Airborne Division allows us to have one Abn Bde combat ready. Within the Bde that is on alert the Bns are on different status, so one can get out very quickly and the others shortly behind it, whether they jump in, or land on a secure airfield.

Dropping a Bn behind enemy lines, especially with our technological capabilities today, is one hell of a capability. In many situations Airborne Assault or Airborne infiltration is the only viable option. Consider a crisis in central Africa somewhere that is too far inland for the Marines to get to (assuming they're in the area), we can relatively quickly dispatch a Bn or more of paratroopers to create a safe zone, or conduct combat operations. There are a number of other uses for Airborne units also, but I think I made my point.

I would like to see more effort developed towards modernizing the air drop capability, but we do not have a capability to replace it at this time, so it is definitely needed.