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

Discussion in 'Airborne' started by mahross, Aug 11, 2006.

?

Were airborne forces effective?

  1. Very effective

    2 vote(s)
    9.1%
  2. Effective

    5 vote(s)
    22.7%
  3. Comparitively effective

    9 vote(s)
    40.9%
  4. Not at all effective

    6 vote(s)
    27.3%
  1. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    But - and maybe I'm wrong here - weren't they more stringent about applicants? Wasn't there an attempt to actually make them elite at that time?
     
  2. Steve Mac

    Steve Mac Very Senior Member

    No doubt they had a job specification and qualification, but why ‘elite’? Are they more elite than, say, a pilot, or an Infantryman with a chest full of campaign and bravery medals? Is the Airborne mascot handler more elite than a submariner? I just don’t get it...
     
  3. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    I may be confusing the airborne forces with commandos, but weren't they (airborne) subject to higher requirements of physical fitness than ordinary soldiers? Did they undergo the same intensity of training or greater?

    If their requirements were higher then it does suggest the term "elite", even though that may - I agree - do a disservice to the training that regular infantry (for instance) did receive.

    But I think it's more about the units than the individuals.
     

Share This Page