Talk:Air assault

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Air assault or just hot air?[edit]

I cannot understand why there is so much written about the history of units performing what 'appears' to be air assault (since it is under the heading air assault) and yet clearly by definition is not about air assault but air mobilitiy or air support. The first helicopter borne air assault was performed by British Royal Marines on November 5, 1956. Anything prior to this, although very interesting is irrelevant and misleading, it disguises the true fact that this was the first combat insertion. It undermines the information and military history available to us by studying the facts. Furthermore it detracts and confuses the articles that should be separate notably: air cavalry, airmobile and airborne which are all great branches of western military history and deserve a proper and correct representation. I am celarly not the first person to raise this point. Why is it continually being ignored? Lastly the claim that US troops conducted the first helicopter-borne air assault is not true since air assault requires an assault manoevre by definition. These troops were transported, and were air mobile but not conducting air assault. http://www.marines.com/main/index/winning_battles/history/innovations/operation_summit which specifies air assistance toa ground assault. There is also http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/korea/chron51b.htm which specifies "mass-helicopter resupply" and "helicopter borne landing of a combat unit"

Bunnyman78 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I also wish to improve this page by making a clearer distinction between airborne, airmobile, air support and air assault. Mention of Britain's 16 Air Assault Brigade might be useful "16 Air Assault Brigade was formed on 01 September 1999 following the Strategic Defence Review. It was born of an amalgamation of elements of 5 Airborne Brigade and 24 Airmobile Brigade, bringing together the agility and reach of airborne forces with the potency of the attack helicopter." http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/12409.aspx As well citing the US 101st Division that was origingally airborne, was airmobile and is now air assault. Bunnyman78 (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

from VfD:[edit]

I'm no military buff, but surely this tiny squib of stuff is wrong-headed, and the real thing is covered elsewhere?? — Bill 19:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, the article is pretty sparse, but unfortunately not covered anywhere that I see. In my research through the military terms, I saw several air assault (linking each term separately). This is a REALLY bad thing. Sigh. Another entry on my to-do list. -Vina 21:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but expand enough for a worthwhile stub. Impi 21:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Current contents are minimal but technically correct (per the US usage of the term - I believe the UK uses the term to describe a different operation). I will also add it to my to-do list. Rossami 22:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important concept, organizes unit design. --Improv 22:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge into airborne forces. Air assault simply describes a function of the airborne. TDC 02:57, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I have to dispute the recommendation to merge. In the US forces, at least, Airborne specifically refers to parachute-deployable troops. Air assault troops are not necessarily so deployable. Rossami
  • Keep. Important classification of Airborne. Training and mission is distinct from the others. SWAdair | Talk 04:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mark Richards 17:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

I recommend merging the content of this article with Air cavalry, because both deal with helicopter-assisted assaults, but Air Cavalry is more detailed and references historical battles where helicopters played a key role. Discuss. 128.100.109.2 18:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Air Cavalry is only used as an expression by US forces. Air assault is the term used by most other military forces in the world. Air assault troops are light infantry ground troops taken into and out of battle by helicopter. Cavalry refers to Armoured, Tank, units, previously Horse Born troops, and Airborne relates solely to troops dropped into battle by parachute (NB: I serve in an air assault infantry regiment). 86.2.136.146 22:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

From my own esperience in the development period from 1967 through 1993, I can say that two things are important to this disscussion. First of all, the concept of "Air Assault" is NOT the same as "Air Cavalry", nor is it close to the original "Airmobile" concept. The Vietnam-era 1st Cavalry Division was a unique unit that has absolutely no currency today. Today's 1st Cavalry Division is NOT "Airmobile", but is "Air Assault", and the key to that is the fact that 1st Cav has "Air Cavalry", "Air Assault", and "Armored Cavalry" units in its TO&E.

Today, "Air Cavalry" refers to units that are equipped with AH-1 Series or AH-64 Series Gunships, and they perform what is essentially an "Aerial Artillery" role, providing Air Support to ground troops. This is a copy of the Marine Corps Air Support concept, and the role of the 9th Air Force in Europe during World War II. In essence, the Air Force has been relieved of this responsibility, and the Army provides its own Air Support.

"Air Assault" today is closest to the original "Airmobile" concept, since here is where you find the units where the troops are transported by helicopter almost exclusively to and from the battlefield. I say "almost exclusively" because they do use other means to travel.

The other part of the 1st Cavalry is all "Armored Cavalry", and they specialize in using the M-3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle, the M-1 Series Tank, and other Armored vehicles.

Actually, there are no "Straight Leg" Infantry Divisons in the Army or the Marine Corps today. They all are at least mechanized, which makes the separate use of that term unnecessary. Yes, they fight dismounted, but they ride to and from the battle.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit unit identification & made "Today" section[edit]

I saw a mistake in that Lt Col. Hal Moore commanded the 7th Cavalry regiment. It was 1st Battalion/7th Cavalry Regiment. Have edited it. Today the unit is known as 1st Squadron/7th Cavalry Regiment of the 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division.

Added some useful info at the "Today" section.

I do recommend that this article shoud be merged into the Airborne Forces or Airborne Warfare article.

Tomcat200 31 May 2006

Britain[edit]

What about the British 16th air assault brigade?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.2.176.26 (talkcontribs) 00:44, 23 July 2006.

If you ain't Air Cav, you ain't shit[edit]

Shouldn't there be at least one mention of the air cav's most famous motto? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.206.249 (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

No, and, traditionally, the saying doesn't include "Air". --Born2flie 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fireforce[edit]

Maybe this article could do with a further mention of the Fireforce tactics used in the Rhodesian Bush war rather than under the R.L.I topic?

Fireforce is a very good example of vertical envelopment and were remarkable in their effective use of very limited resources and their tailoring to the african counter-insurgency environment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.232.128.10 (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Issues[edit]

As for the tagging with multiple issues: I generally hold the article for being of quite average quality though not completely irreparable. IMO it has a good formulated lead section, summarising the subject, but following sections are not so well written - e.g. the air assault is defined as "movement of ground forces ... to seize and hold key terrain which has not been fully secured and to directly engage and destroy enemy forces" and then there are described purely transport operations, and "Air assault should not be confused with an airborne assault" - but then the airborne operations of WWII are discussed in length. Both are surely important as for the historical development of the air assault concepts, but this should be somewhat better to distinguish this, put them in historical context, and put much less emphasis on the WWII airborne operations (it looks somewhat like "A Short History of WWII Airborne Operations") and first helicopter experiments, or unreferenced claims on such operations. I see the problem mainly in "History" section, as there appear many contradicting, often unreferenced claims. The "Vietnam War" and "Today" sections look much better to me, but these still sorely lack more references for verification. I don't feel myself being able to help beyond what I've already done, but I sincerely hope someone would be able to improve the article. --195.113.8.138 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

USS Thetis Bay[edit]

It seems that HMS Ocean (R68) and HMS Theseus (R64) have similar claim being first modified as helicopter landing carrier - served as helicopter carriers in 1956 Suez Crisis - though in case of HMS Ocean and HMS Theseus conversions seem to be equally rudimentary and it was perhaps only temporary reequipping with helos?--195.113.8.138 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Air Cavalry[edit]

If you're looking at the US model (and I'm ONLY talking about the US model here), air cavalry is actually a different concept from air assault. Air cavalry was a reconnaissance element, found as both air cavalry squadrons (separate and within the two Vietnam-era airmobile divisions) and air cavalry troops within armored cavalry units. While it might belong within an overall air assault article, it might be better on its own (much like ARA is currently). Thoughts? Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that all of us who have posted in the talk page are in agreement that there is a noted difference between airmobile and air assault. As far as I am aware the British have never used airmobile units unless you count airborne vehicles during World War Two which are almost limited to Operation Market-Garden. I believe we need to separate the article into two distinct articles. Both Encyclopedia.com and GlobalSecurity.org define the two principles and terms as distinct and separate, it seems strange that some wikipedia editors are intent on amalgamating the two. Bunnyman78 (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's wikipedia for you, though. They love creating their own reality and then trying to wedge actual reality into it. Air assault is really a term that warped from airmobility, which was the original concept. Air cavalry was a specific part of airmobile doctrine, and as far as I know it remained more or less specific to US operations. Other nations used both airmobility and helicopters for reconnaissance and attack operations, but I don't recall anyone following the serious air cavalry concept (South Korea might have to a degree, but even the former Soviet Union used it as attack aviation). Intothatdarkness 13:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

From the military and civilian dictionaries and encyclopedias I surmise that Air Cavalry has always been primarily a US concept and is now typically air support, but once was typically an element of Air Mobile forces. Air Mobile forces are also a US concept *originally, but not all US Air Mobile forces were or are capable of Air Assault. Equally Air Assault does not require units that are specifically given Air Support not are designated as Air Mobile. The confusion is likely to have come from the evolution of the different terms and unit designations mainly via the US and UK, IE> 101st Airborne Division which has in its time been bracketed as Airborne, Air Mobile and now Air Assault, as well as the British 16 Air Assault Brigade which is based around the main body of the Parachute <airborne> Regiment. If you are willing and able I would be happy to work on creating three articles defining these three terms. This allows us to give clearer definitions of course but also to make clearer distinctions between the military evolutions based on the fascinating history and experiences of the relevant units. Some of which are neglected elsewhere in wikipedia, and merit reference in how they contributed to the definition of these terms. Bunnyman78 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Air cavalry is an interesting concept, and airmobility in the US has an interesting history going back to the Howze Board. I can help with some of these articles, but my time is kinda limited. And airmobility in US use does not normally include airborne troops (it never did, actually). The 101st began as an airborne division, but was partly converted to airmobility during the Vietnam War. Even then it didn't quite have the same capability as the 1st Cavalry Division. We should just be prepared for the inevitable "this article is too US-centric" stuff when it comes to concepts (air cavalry being one) that are really only used in the US. Intothatdarkness 15:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

US focus[edit]

I have noticed that there is a very heavy bias towards the united states in this article. it seems to deal almost exclusively to the united states air cavalry and air assault units without discussing the use of these tactics with respect to other nations. for example there is no mention of the soviet unions airborne tactics, which if i remember were quite extensive involving the deployment of entire airborne divisions (which while not "hot" in a tactical sense, involved placing the division in direct conflict on the operational level) as well as the use of vehicles such as the mi-24 hind which was both a transport and a gunship.24.246.70.135 (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Airborne and air assault are two different concepts. Intothatdarkness 15:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Air assault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)