How effective do you think airborne forces were in the war?

Very hit and miss. On the Eastern Front they had virtually no impact. In the West they were quite effective on small specialist missions (Brunevail raid, Eben Emael, Pegasus Bridge etc). On the large scale, they were marginal (D-Day, Sicily, Salerno, Market-Garden, Rhine crossings). In the Pacific they proved more useful where they could be dropped into positions to form air heads like Nazab.
On the whole, they were an expensive and to some degree necessary adjunct but, probably in the end mostly a marginal luxury for most armies.

 

Quite a hard question to answer accurately I think.

 

This an interesting subject. If you look back to Hitlers airborne offensive over Britan, he basically had the RAF on its knees which would of had a huge effect on the war. However because his attention went to civilian targets the RAF had time to regroup which no doubt had an influence on the war, as for the effectiveness of planes in the war I think the A bomb answered that question ('',)

 

I think that as with everything it depends, on which army, where and when. Although to be honest I only really know the african and italian theatres, the accounts I have from them are eye opening regarding the havoc enemy aircraft played on the allied lines.

I just have three points to get away from the battle of britain and the bomb: firstly Bombing Bone forced the allies to ship everything from Algiers and made travel by night a neccesity. Arguably it was this that determined the lines around Tunisia.

The sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repluse by land based aircraft arguably changed the conflict in the pacific irrevicably.

How does this compare to the lives and industrial effort put into aircraft on the whole compared to the ground war? Probably not very well; you can't land a plane on an enemy held capitol, but then the air war is curious like that- you can't really look at it in isolation.

Whilst I can quite happly win HOI without building any planes I bloody wouldn't want to be in any of my armies!!!

 

*edit*

 

An interesting topic (if an old thread!) and a question that gets asked quite often, and indeed was asked at the time.

I just want to raise two points in regards to the 6th Airborne in Normandy

In Normandy the 6th Airborne remained in the line till the end of August. Rather than being a drain on manpower it was utilised as elite ground troops used to spearhead several advances up the coast.

"Several" advances? The 6th was only involved in the one which has already been mentioned, PADDLE, right at the end of its time in Normandy. That alone was an incredible achievement given that the division had not been designed for that , but it is misleading to suggest that the division was active in that manner throughout the Normandy campaign. It was not. Playing devil's advocate, one could also argue that PADDLE was rather insignificant in the wider context of the campaign, and that the terrain (hills and rivers) precluded the rather-exhausted and under-equippied 6th Airborne from effectively following up the retreating German forces, the bulk of which were able to escape via the northernmost Seine crossings.

However, at platoon and company level, following the battle of Breville (which, along with the division's first week after D-Day, was a close run thing) the 6th Airborne was used excellently to harass the German Fifteenth Army forces in that sector and ensure that no further attacks could be launched in that sector - the Germans did rebridge several of the Dives crossings destroyed on D-Day.

Playing devil's advocate for a second time, it could be argued that that constituted a waste of the 6th Airborne given its primary "Airborne" role, but then using the benefit of hindsight, had it come home after D-Day, it would have sat on airfields like all the other Airborne Divisions waiting for drops that were cancelled, and then perhaps used in Market Garden.

However, IMHO, keeping the 6th in the line was a sensible decision because it allowed Montgomery to deploy the bulk of his ever-diminishing infantry manpower (in divisional terms) in the key sectors and offensives, rather than having to detach another division to the Orne Bridgehead area where it would have been involved in largely static operations for most of the campaign, as the 6th Airborne was.

In terms of 6th Airborne in normandy and the advance to the seine the division operated in conjuction with the 51st Highlanders, especially in terms of artillery support, something which the division lacked.

Incorrect, sorry Ross. The 6th advanced with the 49th (West Riding) Division on its right flank during the march to the Seine. The 49th Division took over the 6th's sector when it was withdrawn at the end of August. It's true that the 6th lacked integral transport and artillery compared to a division like the 49th, although its Reconnaisance Regiment packed more of a punch, having been re-equipped with Cromwell tanks mid-campaign. These were used interestingly to speed an assault force into Pont Audemer in the last day of PADDLE.

Interesting discussion,

-S

 

With an avatar like mine, there's only one answer....VERY EFFECTIVE!!!!

 

If you say so.

 

The Rhine Crossings ... Operation Varsity 24.03.45.
The largest successful Airborne Operation in History.

Without the Airborne Forces, alongside all the other fighting forces involved, the last push to end WW2 would never have been achieved.

 

In the same timeframe elsewhere other minor things occurred, like:

• the Soviet Vistula-Oder Offensive (12 January-3 February 1945)
• the Soviet East Prussian Offensive (13 January-25 April 1945)
• the Soviet Lower Silesian Offensive (8-24 February 1945)
• the Soviet East Pomeranian Offensive (10 February-4 April 1945)
• the Soviet Upper Silesian Offensive (15-31 March 1945)
• the German Balaton Offensive (6-15 March 1945)
• the Soviet Vienna Offensive (16 March-15 April 1945)
• the Bratislava-Brno Offensive (25 March-5 May 1945)

but as the Airborne Forces were not involved I suppose these would be irrelevant sideshows, right? Mere diversions while "the last push to end WW2 would was being achieved" :p

 

If you say so.
Yes I say so, so there.

 

In the same timeframe elsewhere other minor things occurred, like:

• the Soviet Vistula-Oder Offensive (12 January-3 February 1945)
• the Soviet East Prussian Offensive (13 January-25 April 1945)
• the Soviet Lower Silesian Offensive (8-24 February 1945)
• the Soviet East Pomeranian Offensive (10 February-4 April 1945)
• the Soviet Upper Silesian Offensive (15-31 March 1945)
• the German Balaton Offensive (6-15 March 1945)
• the Soviet Vienna Offensive (16 March-15 April 1945)
• the Bratislava-Brno Offensive (25 March-5 May 1945)

but as the Airborne Forces were not involved I suppose these would be irrelevant sideshows, right? Mere diversions while "the last push to end WW2 would was being achieved" :p
At that point in the war, in that sector, airborne operations would have been a bit of an "over kill", and a waste of assets, much like Operation Varsity. But I do see your point Za.

And, you know what they say about airborne capability, better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

 

Yes I say so, so there.

You've said it.

At that point in the war, in that sector, airborne operations would have been a bit of an "over kill", and a waste of assets, much like Operation Varsity.

"In that sector" the airborne forces - if any - would better get out of the way if they didn't want to be overrun by a Tank Army or two even before they hit the ground

Now seriously, IIRC the last time the Soviets mounted an airborne operation was in Sep.'43 within the context of the Dnepr Offensive subsequent to the victory at Kursk, and it was such a fiasco that they didn't want to repeat the performance. Why bother anyway?

 

You are right about not wanting to be a speed bump for the tank armies! Didn't think of it that way, but right you are.

It a different things with US over here. We like to have airborne capability just as much as we like aircraft carriers. And we can afford them both, then and now.

 

Those that think German paratroopers ceased to exist, except for small special ops, after Crete should remember Primasole Bridge and Leros. The paras acted as a highly mobile reserve and quick reaction force in 1943 and also played a major role in the creation of the defence lines in Tunisia after Torch. BTW this was a similar role to the one of the US 101 and 82 divisions during the bulge though they were trucked not dropped to the front lines. Airborne and airmobile forces have unmatched strategic mobility.

 

You are right about not wanting to be a speed bump for the tank armies! Didn't think of it that way, but right you are.

It a different things with US over here. We like to have airborne capability just as much as we like aircraft carriers. And we can afford them both, then and now.

Wait, wait, wait, I wasn't saying they were useless in absolute terms, only the Soviet experience of them was pretty negative. That operation I mentioned was worthy of the Keystone Cops, and incredible cock up, and the Soviet command decided it was better to go without them from then on for the duration.

After the war they took a long look at the thing at re-casted it entirely with training, doctrine, equipment, etc. How WW3 would go nobody knows, but they did provide NATO with serious thought food.

Those that think German paratroopers ceased to exist, except for small special ops, after Crete should remember Primasole Bridge and Leros. The paras acted as a highly mobile reserve and quick reaction force in 1943 and also played a major role in the creation of the defence lines in Tunisia after Torch. BTW this was a similar role to the one of the US 101 and 82 divisions during the bulge though they were trucked not dropped to the front lines. Airborne and airmobile forces have unmatched strategic mobility.

Yes, airborne troops have the advantage of easy mobility due to their light equipment but that comes with the price that this light equipment is, well, light. The German troops were very suited for this kind of operations but of course could not be risked in anything tougher due to their support weapons being based on recoilless guns, which at the time were not very well developed. In Tunisia they played a light infantry role because that's what was available, not exactly because the brass thought they were the best solution.

 

Update 14/12/2023 the linked resource has vanished and the website has no search option. Shame.

In 2013 an American friend found this document (63 pgs) a 'History of Military Operational Parachute Jumps' and it is still available today via: http://www.specialforcesassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Combat_Jump_Record_03.07.2013.pdf
There are 38 pgs devoted to WW2 and I was fascinated to see drops by the Japanese in the Dutch East Indies (never heard of those), the Italian raiding groups (I knew of mini-subs), the NKVD drops in France - presumably assisted by the RAF, that is really odd (although somewhere I have an academic article on wider co-operation) and the German Brandenburg raid in Iraq in 1944.
Being new here I thought this was a suitable place to drop it.

 

Airborne forces are just ‘horses for courses’. They have a job to do, same as the Navy, Army (other than Airborne) and Air Force. Used in their intended role they had short periods of intense danger and long periods out of the firing line.

What I dislike about this whole thread and many more about Airborne Forces is the use of the word ‘elite’. I don’t see what is elite about them, they just have a job to do like everyone else. For example, Airborne forces did not win WWII for the Allies they were merely one cog in a massive war machine. Was 6th Airborne Division’s success at Pegasus, etc., any better or more important than 50th (Northumbrian) Division’s assault on Gold Beach and capture of its objectives, or the Yanks finally overcoming adversity on Omaha Beach. I think not.

Also, taking 6th Airborne Division as an example, I believe it was formed from ordinary home based infantry battalions in mid-1943, trained thereafter for D-Day and had never seen action until the D-Day operations. Whereas 50 Div had been overseas since April 1941 and had fought throughout the subsequent Western Desert campaigns - Gazala, El Alamein, Mareth, Wadi Akarit, and then an Assault Division in Sicily, Primosole Bridge, etc.

I am not besmirching the role Airborne troops played or their contribution, I just wish the fan boys would cut out this elite crap. It belittles all other combatants...!

 

I've seen these over the years but it never occurred to me until your post that if they had paratrooper rifles that they must of had paratroopers

 

14 Feb 42 Kawasaki transport planes of the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force dropped Teishin Shudan (Raiding Group) parachutists on P1 Airfield and oil refineries at Palembang, Sumatra. Amongst the defenders were Batteries of the 6th HAA and 35th LAA.
More detail of this battle is contained in 6th Heavy Anti Aircraft Regiment by Patrick Walker (Forum member).
Teishin Shudan - Wikipedia

Tim