What ever happen to the Airborne? Part 4
This is the last installment of my series on the Airborne.
Why it should be brought back.
There are two reasons for bringing back the Airborne; first is to aloud the Canadian Forces to finally recover from the Somalia affair which left sour taste in a lot of soldiers mouth's (which I will talk more about in a future post). Second to have a force which is large, light and mobile that can be send to the world's political hot spots.
What I think the Airborne should be.
I think the Airborne should be a mobile peace making force or deployed in a national emergency which is similar in nature to the U.S. Marine Corp. Some similarities should include separating the Airborne from the army and give it's own branch of the Canadian Forces (Navy, Air force, Army, Airborne) and train the soldiers to be aggressive. The soldiers should undergo jump training, so they can use parachute when necessary and prove that they are tough enough to be in the Airborne. The Airborne should also be able to go anywhere in the world within 24 to 48 hours and conduct peace making or war fighting operations to control a hostile situation until a larger force takes over or assist in a large operation with the rest of the military and allies.
In conclusion, if our country wants play a role in global security than it needs the Airborne.
Why it should be brought back.
There are two reasons for bringing back the Airborne; first is to aloud the Canadian Forces to finally recover from the Somalia affair which left sour taste in a lot of soldiers mouth's (which I will talk more about in a future post). Second to have a force which is large, light and mobile that can be send to the world's political hot spots.
What I think the Airborne should be.
I think the Airborne should be a mobile peace making force or deployed in a national emergency which is similar in nature to the U.S. Marine Corp. Some similarities should include separating the Airborne from the army and give it's own branch of the Canadian Forces (Navy, Air force, Army, Airborne) and train the soldiers to be aggressive. The soldiers should undergo jump training, so they can use parachute when necessary and prove that they are tough enough to be in the Airborne. The Airborne should also be able to go anywhere in the world within 24 to 48 hours and conduct peace making or war fighting operations to control a hostile situation until a larger force takes over or assist in a large operation with the rest of the military and allies.
In conclusion, if our country wants play a role in global security than it needs the Airborne.
posted by Jim at 7:28 AM
4 Comments:
I'd be nice if Canada had an equivalent to the U.S. Marine Corps but I wouldn't call them the Airborne.
A true airborne unit isn't really practical in this day and age since you're rarely going to lead the way into a battlezone from the air. Better to train a team of marine landing ground forces with the possibility of airborne training rather than making that the focus.
Of course we also need better air support for those troops. If you can't gain air superiority no matter what your new unit is it's gonna get it's ass bombed/missled into next week.
But that's just me.
Actually they need transport aircraft so they can be deployed in this country. It's hard to look bad ass with no supplies.
I see what you are saying about the name but the term airborne also refers to troops that travel by air (parachute,helicopter,transport plane)
In the US aren't there Airborne units? In the army maybe?
The Airborne is part of US army.
Post a Comment
<< Home