AHC: American Airborne-Mechanized Infantry

So, how do we go about it? There have been plenty of bits of ket developed for that purpose, the M551 Sheridan, the successor M8 Buford, the M56 Scorpion... And for a while, the US Army was playing with air-dropping Stryker variants.
The US seems to keep trying... but never quite getting there with a true, dedicated Mechanized Airborne unit. Not to say the 82nd and 101st aren't plenty capable; they are.

Likewise, the Russian VDV are plenty capable of doing what they were meant to do (at least, they've got the dropping the troops along side their equipment part down pretty well...).

But what would it take to get a dedicated unit into US service? What would it look like? Where and how might it be used?

Give the US Airborne enough combat drops during WW2 and Korea to demonstrate that the 'light infantry' ethos results in dead paratroops against any kind of stiff resistance. Probably wouldn't hurt to get airborne forces transferred to the USAF in 1947 (using the argument that the Navy has Marines, so the Air Force should get the Airborne), but that's not essential.

Initial equipment is probably the M56 anti-tank gun, with the M113 not too far behind. Demands for a light tank lead to the T92 entering service, with the M551 replacing both it and the M56. Some of the lightweight M551 derivatives (chiefly the mortar vehicle and IFV) might well follow it into service. As the M113 gains weight, the airborne units will fight a battle to keep its' weight down while the rest of the Army wants to pile equipment (and weight) on; this could well lead to the M551-derived APC or IFV seeing service.

The Soviet system of drogue chutes to allow jumping from the aircraft's forward doors whilst equipment is dropped from the rear ramp is likely to see use; I don't think the US would tolerate the risks involved with dropping crews in vehicles. You may actually see greater emphasis on heavy lift rotorcraft, since one of the roles of the big Soviet helicopters was to deliver and support mechanised air assault forces.

As to combat employment, probably not that different to OTL. Vietnam didn't really lend itself to airborne operations; the capability would be useful in the Latin American interventions of the 1980s but not overwhelmingly so. In TTL's Desert Storm, assuming something similar comes along, there may be a brigade strength jump, possibly divisional at the very most, to seize key objectives in advance of the ground assault. It's one of the dirty secrets of even mechanised airborne forces that they need rapid relief by ground forces else they'll be eliminated. They'd be more relevant in the 1990s, allowing a more robust rapid reaction to crises. Hard to think of any fights that the US would get into that it didn't in OTL,

Oh, and Mike Sparks goes from being a raving lunatic with a few good points, to just a raving lunatic.

You'd probably have to have lighter equipment.

Rumsfeld was really pushing for lighter, quick response abilities, but the 'Future Combat System', I think it was called, was firstly way over budget and late, so much so that it was cancelled, but also turned out to be not useful in Iraq, where IEDs meant massive uparmouring was needed.

So if Rumsfeld, or equivalent, pushed through such a development, and if the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict had not happened, and if the developers had been on time and on budget (ha, ha, OK within standard Pentagon reach thereof), THEN you'd probably have what the OP asks for.

That concatenation of events is pretty darn improbable, but should be theoretically possible.

Dumb question:

If you cannot make a fighting vehicle that is both light and able to go nose-to-nose with tanks, can you make a light vehicle with a Kevlar/composite skin that is bullet/shrapnel resistant AND have it lighter than the Aluminum armored vehicles? Regardless if they are gun or personnel carriers. Or, nowdays, can you make a vehicle that the armor can be functionally built up in layers? I'm thinking of variants on both reactive armor, or the side plates as the Germans used in late WW2. Or, does the whole IED world make all of the above just moot points?

There was an issue of armor magazine where a captain or major examined the UK CVR range as one solution, however you have the NIH syndrome so no chance. However it could have worked out. Baseline vehicles would have been Scorpion with it's 76mm or possibly even a smoothbore 90mm (the Cockerill gun was mounted in one version), the Spartan (which has mounted an MG turret and is now the baseline vehicle of Scimitar2), Samson ARV, Sultan ACV and Samaritan ambulance. US wouldn't have needed Striker having Spartan with TOW instead. So how would it work out c1984?
How's about:

Airborne mech inf bn,
Bhq, 3 Sultan ACV, 1 Samaritan, 1 Samson, couple Spartans, etc.
3 or 4 companies each HQ det with 2 Sultan ACV, 1 Samaritan, recovery det with1 Samson, 1 baseline Spartan for recovery team with added dozer blade, 3 platoons each with 5 Spartan each Spartan with a 50cal (each Spartan carrying 3 vehicle crew and up to 5 dismounts). FS platoon with more Spartans with Dragon teams and 81mm mortars.
1 FS Company with same HQ elements, plus 6 Scimitar (US version with Bushmaster turret instead of Rarden), 6 Streaker (flatbed version) mounting the heavy mortar OR a new version looking to something like the German Wiesal mortar carrier, plus Spartan mounting TOW missiles.

Airborne tank bn
HQ element as infantry bn, but each tank company with 2 Sultan ACV and 2 Scorpion at the HQ (etc) and 4 platoons with each platoon having 4 Scorpion and 2 TOW Spartan.

airborne recce battalion or cavalry squadron.
Well I supoose if you wanted one then it could have lots of US variant Scimitar and an ACAV style Spartan? Although a dismounted close recce unit might be better?

Airborne mech engineers, give them specialised Spartans, buy the Fv180 CET, give them the Streaker flatbed mounting mine laying systems and so on.

Airborne artillery, earlier buy of the M119 Light Gun. Perhaps also invest in the Centaur half track as a towing vehicle.

I would also add an NBCD company using the basic Sultan hull but with all the comms gear ripped out and replaced with something like that used by the German Fuchs. Again add more Streakers for smoke generators and decontamination kit.

So there you are I've mechanised your airborne forces for you in full.

If you want to do a similar thing today using modern kit then I would go M8 and Wiesal2.

KillerT said:

If you want to do a similar thing today using modern kit then I would go M8 and Wiesal2.

Click to expand...

Vickers actually developed an entirely modernized range of CVRT vehicles based on the upgraded Stormer chassis during the 90s, that the British Army took a pass on.

The Stormer 30 in particular looks like quite a tasty airborne scout vehicle;
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16498755@N07/5838906562/in/photostream/

Alongside this were the Stormer APC, Stormer HVM AA vehicle, and Shielder minelayer. No doubt there were command, medical, and engineering versions as well.

For direct fire support a Cockerill 90mm or maybe even Denel GT7 105mm (using the turret from the Rooikat), and for indirect fire perhaps a Patria NEMO turret could be fitted.

What if the M551 Sheridan had been built with a more conventional main gun? Its rifled 152 mm M81E1 main cannon had issues with barrel wear from guidance slots cut into the barrel for the MGM-51 Shillelagh missile. There were also issues with firing conventional shells, as they used caseless ammunition which imposed a bottleneck on the firing rate due to the need for a compressed air venting cycle to prevent embers from prematurely igniting a round.

There's another option as well. The T92 light tank was a more conventional predecessor to the M551 and the intended replacement for the M41 Walker Bulldog. It had some good design features for crew survivability, such as a forward engine compartment. However, the Soviet PT-76 was developed while the T92 was being tested, and the project was canceled when it was realized the T92 couldn't be redesigned for amphibious operations.

The AFVs are the least of the problem, how is the USAF going to deliver the logistical tail of hundreds or even a thousand wheeled vehicles that even the lightest armoured unit requires? How is the USAF going to keep these trucks full of fuel, ammo and parts to sustain what even the lightest armoured unit goes through in a day of combat?

Riain said:

The AFVs are the least of the problem, how is the USAF going to deliver the logistical tail of hundreds or even a thousand wheeled vehicles that even the lightest armoured unit requires? How is the USAF going to keep these trucks full of fuel, ammo and parts to sustain what even the lightest armoured unit goes through in a day of combat?

Click to expand...

I'm no expert on modern warfare stuff, but I was thinking what about gliders! They worked for lifting heavy loads in WW2 including light tanks weighing 10t. Couldn't a modern version be designed to deliver a larger payload say 40t? If so not only light MBT's could be delivered to the LZ but also the large logistical tail such units require.

Riain said:

The AFVs are the least of the problem, how is the USAF going to deliver the logistical tail of hundreds or even a thousand wheeled vehicles that even the lightest armoured unit requires? How is the USAF going to keep these trucks full of fuel, ammo and parts to sustain what even the lightest armoured unit goes through in a day of combat?

Click to expand...

The Army or Air Force would have to procure STOL tactical airlifters and/or large cargo helicopters. The airlifters would have to be something akin to the Antonov An-72, Boeing C-14, or McDonnell Douglas C-15. The helicopter would be somewhere in the class of the Mil Mi-26, or an enlarged Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion. A hybrid approach similar to that employed by the Fairey Rotodyne, Mil V-12, or Kamov Ka-22 could also be employed.

Developing the capabilities wouldn't be impossible. The Soviet Union was able to do it on a massive scale with the VDV. Developing and employing very large aircraft could be more problematic though.

Riain said:

The AFVs are the least of the problem, how is the USAF going to deliver the logistical tail of hundreds or even a thousand wheeled vehicles that even the lightest armoured unit requires? How is the USAF going to keep these trucks full of fuel, ammo and parts to sustain what even the lightest armoured unit goes through in a day of combat?

Click to expand...

The only way this makes sense is if the US adopts something similar to the Russian/Soviet approach of using airborne forces to seize a position in advance of a ground force, so that they don't have to operate independently for an extended period.

Riain said:

The AFVs are the least of the problem, how is the USAF going to deliver the logistical tail of hundreds or even a thousand wheeled vehicles that even the lightest armoured unit requires? How is the USAF going to keep these trucks full of fuel, ammo and parts to sustain what even the lightest armoured unit goes through in a day of combat?

Click to expand...

RLBH said:

The only way this makes sense is if the US adopts something similar to the Russian/Soviet approach of using airborne forces to seize a position in advance of a ground force, so that they don't have to operate independently for an extended period.

Click to expand...

I think that would be the preferred case. Go back to the build up before the Persian Gulf. The US was caught so flat-footed from a preparation standpoint that it took weeks to months to get sufficient heavy forces into the area.

Delta Force said:

What if the M551 Sheridan had been built with a more conventional main gun? Its rifled 152 mm M81E1 main cannon had issues with barrel wear from guidance slots cut into the barrel for the MGM-51 Shillelagh missile. There were also issues with firing conventional shells, as they used caseless ammunition which imposed a bottleneck on the firing rate due to the need for a compressed air venting cycle to prevent embers from prematurely igniting a round.

There's another option as well. The T92 light tank was a more conventional predecessor to the M551 and the intended replacement for the M41 Walker Bulldog. It had some good design features for crew survivability, such as a forward engine compartment. However, the Soviet PT-76 was developed while the T92 was being tested, and the project was canceled when it was realized the T92 couldn't be redesigned for amphibious operations.

Click to expand...

The T-92 could have been a very useful vehicle in it's own right, especially in the airborne support role, and may have been adaptable for other purpose too.

Driftless said:

If you cannot make a fighting vehicle that is both light and able to go nose-to-nose with tanks, can you make a light vehicle with a Kevlar/composite skin that is bullet/shrapnel resistant AND have it lighter than the Aluminum armored vehicles?

Click to expand...

Well once you have decent SACLOS anti-tank missiles from about the mid-1960s it at least gives them a fighting chance against tanks, conversely they're going to be vulnerable to weapons like the RPG-7 that was showing up at roughly the same time.

I would think something along the lines of an improved M113

There is a Turkish built M113 clone that is amphibious and has a varient can mount a BMP3 turret (30mm Autocannon/100 mm he and missile gun/coax MG).

The Aussies used a similiar varient mounting the scorpion CVRT turret with its 76mm gun in Vietnam.

Add slat armor (with Reactive armour?) and you have the template for a family of vehicles that can make the unit very mobile and largely RPG 7 Proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slat_armour

http://s39.photobucket.com/user/fikays/media/M113slatarmor.jpg.html#!

2 M113 chassis can fit into an older C130 and 1 + a Humveee can fit into a modern one.

So a new build (mid 80s) M113 - 1 in 5 is a turreted varient with a 25mm Bushmaster and tow launcher (a lighter Bradley turret) and reduced passenger compartment.

Look up ACV-15 for an idea of what could be acheived

The remaining units retain the passenger compartment but gain a .50 cal / 40mm GMG turret like the USMC AMTRAK

Some M113s instead are only armed with a pintle .50 and are used as weapon carriers - 107mm and 81mm Mortars.

Towed Artillery (105mm) will be truck*/Humvee towed

If in the 80s 152mm gun armed M551 Sheridan tanks are probably still available (not sure if the shillelagh missile ever worked?) - these are also able to be carried and dropped by a C130.

*Trucks probably not in the first wave/first Echelon

Alternative / additional vehicles could be the British CVRT family (Scorpion/Scimiter/Samaritan/Swingfire etc) - highly mobile and very light.

There are probably better systems available if you throw $ at it and dont mind that it probably wont ever be delivered but the above M113/Humvee/M551 Sheriden based org would work and be easy to budget for and delivered with little issue.

There is an argument that you cannot send an IFV (Infantry fighting vehicle) to take on tanks (and they would be right) etc but then I always say dont take a knife to gun fight - send a heavy Division and not a light Mech one if you are expecting a peer armoured opponent (T55/T64/T72/M48/Centurion).

Airborne will always be Light Infantry. The problem is not their staying power but how it takes for conventional forces to link up with them.
If you want the Air Force to have them, use the PENTOMIC TO&E, add more infantry, use the proposed ONTOS family of afv's. That way you have five independent Battlegroups as maneuver elements. Increase light artillery assets, better tac air support and dedicated aerial supply. Throw in a battery of Davy Crockets for spit and giggles.
The Army can create TRICAP divisions to act as a breakthrough unit to link up with it. This is a division with a Mech Inf Bgde, a Tank Bgde and a Aero-Rifle Bgde(heliborne).

Take these fifty, sixty and seventy-era concepts and use modern tech and it might work.

I don't think the Air Force would be interested in taking on the provision of ground forces for sustained ground combat. Apart from the German Fallschirmjager and Luftwaffe ground units (which were essentially units with Luftwaffe personell), air forces don't tend to take on such roles. However, something similar to the current German Air Force Regiment might be possible, with the USAF having forces that can help establish and defend air bases. While it has combat capabilities, USAF Security Forces are primarily military police.

Delta Force said:

However, something similar to the current German Air Force Regiment might be possible, with the USAF having forces that can help establish and defend air bases. While it has combat capabilities, USAF Security Forces are primarily military police.

Click to expand...

IIRC the USAF has switched over to something along the lines of the RAF Regiment in places in recent times, I'm fairly sure they have one of their base defence groups set up to actually go in and help capture enemy airfields.

Technical problems aside, I'm not sure USA would be interested in mechanization of US airborne troops. They already had a strong force with significant armour support and still capable of quick transport to any area of American interest. Unites States Marine Corps.
Personally I always considered Soviet VDV (airborne forces) as a kind of equivalent of USMC. Yes, I know that technically Soviet equivalent of USMC was the Naval Infantry. What I mean is both USSR and USA had a large force of elite troops, capable of quickly arriving to their destination and doing any job they needed to do. When USA had a problem, what was usually the answer? "Send the Marines!". Soviets sent "desantniki" (paratroopers). Since US Navy dominated the oceans, Americans used the USMC. USSR, as much more land-oriented power with limited force projection ability on the sea, but an impressive air force, used airborne forces. I think it is one of the reason they were mechanized - to allow them to operate with speed and strength light infantry would be unable to achieve.
BTW, IIRC VDV since 1964 is a separate branch of service - just like USMC. Meanwhile the Naval Infantry is still a part of the Russian Navy.