h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You stated in the artical that German airborne operations on Crete proved their effectivness. This is wrong.
The airborne landings on Crete were a near disaster on the scale of Arnhem because british intelligence found out the German invasion plans. German paras found themselves landing on positions that were surrounded by machinegun positions and had been preplotted by artillery. Crete wasn't so much as taken by the Germans as given by the brittish because the General in charge of the defense didn't do everything he could have to defend it (For fear of forcing the Germans to face the security weaknesses in their comms.)
The german paras were only saved by the amphibous landings on the west of the Island.

Crete convinced the German High command that paratroopers were of at best dubious value and they were never deployed on large scale again.

Well then, the assualt on that whats it called Fortess in Belgium type thingy... where German Falschminger Jumped into and took without much fuss... would that prove the effectiveness of Airborne adventures? Also they were used in large scale in Norway, the low countries and in Russia. However some of these were as Penguins.

The point I was trying to make was that the article is inaccurate and should be corrected, your free to use other examples of course but you really should change things that are wrong. The recurring problem with airborne operations is that they are VERY risky. If one thing goes wrong - a change in the weather, cargo plane doors jam etc.- the entire operation is up the spout.
Also most countries these days have abandoned airborne operations in favour of air-mobile operations (That is using helicopters as opposed to air drop.)

Agrred, but in WWII, there were no Helicopters were they (Apart from expriemntal ones)? Airborne operations added a high degree of first hand mobility to Infantry troops, which had never before been used before. I am keeping Crete in the article, because it DID show the effectiveness of Air operations. The fact that an entire Island was taken, the first of its kind, regardless of whether it could have been a failure or not. Wars are won and lost on risks.

Operation Market Garden was a risky propsistion, but if completley successful, it would have ended the war by a much earlier date. Being Predictable in war is stupid, and so is being conservative.

Agrred, but in WWII, there were no Helicopters were they (Apart from expriemntal ones)? Also Air Mobile Operaions are even more risky than Airborne operations, due to Helicopters are more complex, more fragile, exposed to more fire and are used in risky areas. Even though 5 Abirone Brigade and 24 Air Mobile Brigade have merged into 16 Air Assualt, the Para's must still be able to parachute. The fact of the matter is, comparing today tactics to tactics used50 years ago is as stupid as comparing the tactics used at Waterloo. Compared to today, the Tactic of standing in a Line, firing lead shot into an oncomming french columun may be stupid now, but nonetheless is worked wonders then.

Actually helicopter operations are considerably safer than air drops because helicopters can fly beneath enemy radar. I wasn't trying to compare todays tactics to those fifty years ago just explaining that air-borne operations have been superceded.
Why you continue to defend Crete as an exapmle of the effectiveness of air-borne operations is frankly beyond me, as Crete is normally used as an example of their weaknesses.
As for Market-Garden... well I could go on all day as to why it was bad Idea from the outset. And there is nothing wrong with being completley predicatble in warfare, Montgomery used pretty much the same tactics through out the North Africa campaign. Just because your opponent knows what your going to do doesn't mean that he can stop you from doing it.

Well, tell that to the poor people in 1st Air Cav in Vietnam. Also Airbrone troops can be deployed over considerably greater distances, and even Herc's can fly under radar if not NOE. Also Air Mobile Are considerably more complicated, due to the increased maintaince, fuel and other costs. Air Mobile Operation though I agree more reliable, and quicker, but there is still a place for Airborne operations.

As for unpredictable actions... Blitzkreig? Germans advancing thorugh the Ardenne, instead of being predictable and trying to advance through the Maginot Line.

My point about crete was, that it was the first major use of paratroopers, and whatever else, it worked. And also, if it 'convinced' the german high command, then why did they use them in
Norway? However, I believe it could now be better phrased.

Operation Market Garden was a move at the unpredictable, and if the Garden part had worked. Let me give you no illusions that I think the Market was remotely successful, but even 2 PARA by themselves last longer than they would have been ever expect to. then the war would have been simpler. The Allies were unpredictable in the Normandy landing? The fact that if the allies were predictable and landed around Calais, how successful would have the D-Day Landings been?

Also I doubt the D-Day Landings wouldn't have been possible without the 1st Airborne, the 82nd and the 101st, dropping in to sercure bridges and the flanks of the Allies.

Starting with the invasion of Norway- It happened months BEFORE Crete! The Germans invaded it shortly after Poland where as Crete took place after the conquest of France. My point about Crete was that although it was the first large scale use of paras they had little effect on the result of the battle.(They would have been better used as amphibous troops.)

Surprise- Sure it can be a useful tool but thats all. The Dieppe raid was more of a surprise than Overlord but it was still a disaster, if you've got the forces, sticking to tried and tested tactics is best. Surprise (From a theory point of view) reduces the amount of forces needed to attain victory but at a greater risk of defeat.

The General Idea behind Market-Garden wasn't bad -airborne forces opening a corridor for the XXX Tank corps to drive through into Germany- but the military situation at the time made the plan completely infeasable.

So sorry, I was and have always been under the impression that Norway was invaded after crete... doh...

But, sticking with tried and tested tactics, means invetiably more troops will be killed and Battles will last longer. And in the present politcial climate thats all that matters. And whats Conflict without risks? Better you being unpredictable, than your enemy.

Operation Market Garden, might have worked... if there was more than one tiny road . But hey 2 out of 3 aint that bad...

Who said the Prophetic words, "I think we might have gone a bridge too far"?

Probably Urquhart or some unamed squadie.
FYI:- Order of the German Campaigns of World War 2
1939:- Poland
Norway
1940:- Low Countries
France
Yugoslavia
Albania
Greece
Crete
Russia
1940/41:- North Africa
1944:- Finland
Sicily
Italy
France
1945:- Hungary
Germany

Whoops! Made a mistake, the balkens and russia should all be under 1941 not 1940.Sorry.