theresponseblog:

kontextmaschine:

talkinggorillabutler:

kontextmaschine:

You know if you think of military helicopters as air cavalry (and “Geronimo!” paratroopers as mounted infantry) the American practice of naming them after Amerindian tribes does have a neat continuity to it.

I understood that was explicitly the doctrine

Well but armor got called cavalry, and then there was the Airborne/Air Assault distinction (my father was activated as 82nd Airborne, so that’s my bias) which I now realize was an artifact of post-Nam SpecOpization x post-Cold War drawdown pressure to justify yourself by reference to like, Lebanon

I think the US Army made a distinction between cavalry, which deployed from their vehicles directly into an assault and had the vehicles as close support, and mechanized infantry, who dismounted before entering combat. Both of these types of unit had armor as an integral part of the TOE but used them differently (cavalry had armor as the shock troop, whereas mech infantry had the armor follow behind to reduce strongpoints and destroy enemy vehicles.)

Yes exactly, they transposed mounted onto mechanized

The Soviet attempt with helicopters that carried their own squads got tied up in other stuff about fire support and the specificity of Afghanistan

The only people doing it right were those South Africans that would have two paratrooper sticks and a helicopter on alert for bandits