Talk:Air assault

message: 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)
thread_title: Air assault or just hot air?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ''from VfD:''

message: 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)
replies: text: No, and, traditionally, the saying doesn't include "Air". --Born2flie 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you ain't Air Cav, you ain't shit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fireforce 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  USS Thetis Bay 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Air Cavalry 

message: 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)
replies: text: Airborne and air assault are two different concepts. Intothatdarkness 15:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  nothing said about USSR air assault forces, only referred to "Soviet threat" unspecifically. --213.172.123.242 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  US focus 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302081605/http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/12409.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/12409.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708122801/http://caseyfuller.com/Task_Force_Hawk.htm to http://caseyfuller.com/Task_Force_Hawk.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article states that air assault is not to be confused with airborne forces, stating that "airborne" involves parachuting. However, in Airborne forces, the distinction seems less clear-cut. I.e., that article seems to treat all troop transport through air as forms of airborne forces (which intuitively makes sense). Indeed, the US air assault division still has "airborne" in its name. The airborne forces article also states that parachuting is increasingly being replaced by helicopter transport, just like parachuting displaced glider operations under the (arguably) same airborne umbrella (pun intended). Air assault is claimed to crucially involve that the helicopters support the dropped forces from the air. If that is the case, then "air assault" is not entirely contained in "airborne", but I have trouble seeing that "airborne" excludes "air assault", as virtually all types of military operations will have certain tactics and force combinations connected to them. If I am right, the comparison to "airborne forces" should be modified to state that "airborne" specifies only the medium of transport (air), not the vessels or tactics, but that "airborne forces" usually refers to forces dropped with parachutes, at least in certain countries (including the US, judging from this talk page). Elias (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Airborne in the US air assault division's title is a legacy thing, like the 10th Mountain Division's name. Air assault means the troops are delivered and supported by helicopters, while airborne historically and specifically refers to troops dropped by parachute or using gliders. And parachutes didn't displace gliders: they were initially intended to exist in the same concept.Intothatdarkness 21:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air assault vs. airborne