Why didn't neither side drop paratroopers behind the trenches to eliminate artillery?

Why didn't neither side drop paratroopers behind the trenches to eliminate artillery?

Other urls found in this thread:

theaerodrome.com/aircraft/statistics.php
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Lack of suitable aircraft to transport a large enough amount of troops. Churchill had the idea of them and the Americans planned to do it, but the war ended before it could take place.

Well, for starters, in WW1, you didn't have many planes, they didn't fly very high, and they crashed all the time; and most importantly, you didn't have actual dedicated transport planes.

theaerodrome.com/aircraft/statistics.php

I suppose you could try for something with zeppelins, but even so, actually delivering say, a division by air would be well outside the capabilities of anyone to do so in the Great War.

Then you have all the practical problems. This almost has to be done in conjunction with an assault somewhere. If not, you've just delivered your paras behind enemy lines where they'll be killed. And those guns are not unguarded, so you're betting their lives that they'll make enough of a difference to pierce the trench line and be able to link up with friendly forces.

The same reason they didn't just laser guns and nukes...

While didn't they drop bombs? The same reason why they didn't drop men: lack of large and safe planes. And bombs are far less valuable yet they still didn't risk it.

What are you talking about? People dropped bombs from planes in WW1.

>Then you have all the practical problems. This almost has to be done in conjunction with an assault somewhere. If not, you've just delivered your paras behind enemy lines where they'll be killed. And those guns are not unguarded, so you're betting their lives that they'll make enough of a difference to pierce the trench line and be able to link up with friendly forces.
Monty did this in Market Garden
Paratroopers are a meme

because parachute assault is a tricky operation to pull off even without the extreme constraints (such as safe, reliable, tested means of delivery of troops equipped with parachutes) of ww1

And yet you had successful operations in Weserubung, the seizure of Eben Emael, the same Market-Garden style seize the bridges in the invasion of the Netherlands, and of course Mekur on Crete. On the Allied side, you had Husky, which had effective paratroop usage even when dropped off their target zones, and you know, the whole Normandy invasion thing.


They're not a meme, dumbass.

Excelent Joke, faggot. You derseve this (you).

>Churchill had the idea of them
Suppose there's a good reason behind it not happening then.

top kek

Dear God, are you seriously?

>small plane
>easy target
>problem to transport ammunition
Even strategic attacks were a problem.

And yet they did so. They were sufficiently desperate or experimental enough to take those small, slow, low-flying targets, load them up with bombs, and try to drop them on enemies. All the major powers in WW1 operated some kind of airframe bomber. The Gotha G5, the DH9, the Lebed 12, the Voisin 5, the Ca.3, etc.

Were they very good? Of course not, especially not in comparison to later designs. But they existed, and such the statements in are simply wrong.

>But they existed, and such the statements in are simply wrong.
Fuck no. Compare WW2 strategic aircraft used for airborne operations and imagine just how fucking many of those WW1 planes you would have to use.

I'm not going to argue that WW1 bombers were nowhere near as effective as WW2 bombers, or even interwar bombers.

But the claim made in post Was

>And bombs are far less valuable yet they still didn't risk it.

And

>While didn't they drop bombs?

(which I presume is a typo and asking "Why didn't they drop bombs".)


They did drop bombs. Claiming that they dropped less than WW2 is true but irrelevant. It's why the amount of tonnage of bombs dropped in WW1 by aircraft (not zeppelins) was something like 500, and in WW2 it was in the millions. That doesn't change that they dropped bombs.

Fuck me, sorry, my mistake. I thought the subject was still paratroopers. They did indeed drop bombs as you say.

Np. Sorry if I wasn't clearer.

My fault for not following the chain. I'm not the guy you're talking with.

Didn't the assault on Crete only barely succeed?
After Crete Hitler lost faith with his paratroopers and mostly used them just as better trained infantry.

It did, but the relegation of paratroopers to light infantry functions had less to do with Hitler's loss of faith in them and more to do with them losing air superiority over most of the places they were fighting over. Paratrooping is dangerous enough when you do have the enormous air advantages they enjoyed in the Low Countries in 1940, or the Allies enjoyed in late 1944, getting into Ju-52s into the teeth of air parity, or even worse air inferiority is asking to get all those guys killed en route.

Could they even drop working radios with them?
Could they effectivelly locate artillery?
How hard was arty guarded?

>REMEMBER GOYIM, WHEN YOU'RE UNDER HEAVY KRAUT MACHINE GUN FIRE, IT WON'T BE YOUR DAY, YOUR WEEK, YOUR MONTH OR EVEN YOUR YEAR, BUT I'LL BE THERE FOR YOU AS I'VE BEEN THERE BEFORE
no wonder they mutinied against Captain Sobel he was as incompetent as he was insane

I will never be able to comprehend the deep well of unbridled autism of someone that tries to force memes.