They are flying militia. You are going to get a copy and pasting for this.

I hate people who suggest militia. No on understands how crap it would be.

I have been reading up on the history of paratroopers from 1914-1945 for some reason, I do not know why, and the success of an airborne invasion depended not on the weather, as you would expect, but on who you were fighting against. I have only finished the part on German paratroopers in WWII, Italian and British joint-ops in WWI and some Russian operations in WWII. I will go into detail about these below.

In WWI, paratroopers were mainly Italian spies dropped by the British behind enemy lines. They would drop up to five men in one go, I think, and then drop bombs on the way back for an alibi in case they were shot down. The spies would then gather info and wreak havoc.

Then we go into German airborne operations during WWII. They were initially used to try and bring down part of the Maginot line or some heavy duty forts in Maastricht in Belgium, I am not sure, and secure some bridges and make sure that the bridges were not destroyed as someone had placed explosives on them. The Germans were dropped in by parachute and gliders from a JU-52. This did not go well. Some JU-52's were shot down(I think), some gliders were shot down or crashed on landing but the normal paratroopers who had 'chutes were okay. I think some planes had to turn back and I know that the tow ropes on some of the JU-52's snapped, causing the glider to fall short. Despite these setbacks as well as some troopers getting blown off course, the invasion went okay. Some troops had to disable a fort by landing on top of it and clearing it from top to bottom. This went wrong as wind caused the troopers to land in the wrong place. The had to climb up to the top of the fortress, under enemy fire, and blow a hole in the roof, which they were meant to do anyway. This worked well enough. When they had done this, they were after disabling the AA's on the roof and securing the forts top floor. They had lost the element of surprise while climbing up and could not secure the rest of the fort and took heavy casualties. They had to wait for reinforcements to arrive. When they finally did, most of the men were dead, injured or exhausted, including the CO who had been killed/wounded, not too sure. They successfully took the bridges with minimal casualties, but did not have time to remove the bombs, only to defuse them. When the enemy counter-attacked, they accidentally blew up one/two/all of the three bridges during the firefight from stray bullets hitting the bombs. This slowed the invasion down. Some other stuff happened too but I am not searching through the book to look for it. The invasion went well but there were a lot of casualties. They fought the French, British and Belgians here I think.

During the German invasion of Norway, the paratroopers did a great job capturing airfields, especially when paired up with some Bf 110's. The Bf 110's would land sometimes land at an airfield(that was already in enemy hands) and use their waist gunner to shoot at ground forces on the field, wreaking havoc. Then the paratroopers would come in. When the paratroopers tried to capture a bridge leading to the capital, which was on an island, they failed. When they were sent to capture the town, they failed again. On those two occasions they had been fighting Brits while at the airfields they were fighting Norwegians.

Then we have the final time that German paratroopers were used against the Brits. This was the invasion of Crete. This really is a funny story, you should read about it in full detail. I will run through it quickly to get on to the Russians. Basically, the battle lasted a week or so, I believe. After bombardment from some Stuka's and strafe runs from Bf 110's and 109's, I think. Then the funniest invasion I have ever read about was launched. Their was a few divisions, 4-5 I think, involved. The first wave was all either shot down, shot while parachuting down, blown of course or crashed on landing. Their first objectives were to disable enemy AA's and capture an airfield. They did not succeed and took heavy casualties. Whenever reinforcements arrived, the same thing would happen. They spent most of the time running from the Greek, Aussie and British forces. Eventually after heavy casualties and a failed seaborne invasion which had been sunk by the British, they took they island. The results of this was the destruction of any ground unit which had been involved in the invasion, any survivors being transferred to another unit and German never again mounting an airborne invasion against the allies.

For the Russians, basically the suffered heavily enough casualties but Russia always has more men so more men were trained and sent to the unit that needed them. They were a lot more successful than the Germans because instead of being used against the frontline troops, they were deployed behind German lines to kill retreating men and capture airfields. The main reason this was successful was because they always had armies pushing ahead to meet up with them.

Now that we have learnt a little about airborne units, let me point out some things. Paratroopers cannot be deployed in cities, mountains or forests, so you could only use them one terrain ingame. They are easy to defend against by digging ditches and putting up poles where they could actually land. When they are on their way to the dropzone, while landing and for a few minutes afterwards when they are finding their weapons, they would be vulnerable to attack unless you have them a fighter escort on their way and bomber protection while landing and getting their guns, which in turn would need another escort. When all is said and done, it would most likely be quicker and cheaper to build a BB with some tanks and infantry.

Paratroopers are over exaggerated and would be a waste of res. They have little or no heavy weapons. The heaviest vehicle support they could get dropped in was a light tank. There was no heavy arty or heavy AT guns that could be moved. Everyday that ground forces weren't there, they took high casualties. Normandy could've still been done without paras. Arnhem was awful, just a load of dead and not much else. When used in the Battle of the Bulge, all they did was die and retreat. They really are just flying militia, they are alright against normal inf but once something a bit heavier than rifles and MG's comes along, they are screwed. Even a couple of half tracks on a bend in a road would put them to bed. They don't even have to be half tracks, any old MG sitting on the roadside would do the trick.

I have a better idea that might seem more appealing to all of us. I hate the thought of dropping militia behind enemy lines to die, but more than just inf was dropped in the war. Tanks, arty and AT guns were dropped too. Here is what I propose.

We are able to drop militia, any light tank and special types of arty and AT guns behind enemy lines via airdrop. The AT and arty will be weaker than normal since it is smaller but the militia is fine with the LT at half(or three quarter) strength.

It takes three runs to drop the full unit and until all the units are dropped they can only stay put and defend. There is a 2 minute drop time and a 5 minute time once they hit the ground where they have no strength since they need to get their gear. They go as fast as normal strat bombers but have less health and cannot defend themselves at all. You can combine them with other aircraft too.

I like the dropping of tanks and arty. How does that sound?

They were rarely moved by air.

Flying militia would be a deadly weapon BBB and I see you already shaking in fear knowing that it will make you invest more in defending your tasty empty back yard Which will make you think twice before expanding everywhere....

Paratroopers had a role in WW2 and you cant call them a failure, if they were a failure then why do modern armies -Britain included - still use them?

yes for Para Yes for Paratroopers

Phara, they would either get bombed to hell or rolled over by my tanks. Anyway, I always have reinforcements coming in and I just realised that I should probably not do anything when these aren't implemented :3

They use paratroopers nowadays because you can deploy a small force stealthier. Modern troops will be dropped in small troops and they deploy their 'chutes from very low down. They do nothing on the carpet bombing like use of paras in WWII where it was a small price to pay when you lost a couple thousand men.

Armatus, you just started the biggest argument we've had in this forum all over again. I am for paras, but a few skeptics like Butter Ball Bill and the mods don't want them. I fully support your idea.

My version of it is better. Why the hell does everyone want flying casualties?

I have put this idea down twice before, think I should start keeping a tally?

We do not need a debate, it is just taking it too far. We have one type of militia, we don't need another type that falls to their doom. Which would you prefer, flying militia or aircraft carriers?

I agree completely with you, but the developers don't want them, and as the community is divided on this topic, they're not going to introduce them
We already had. It took ages to end it.

And I won it! Kekeke...

Armatus, here's the thread: Paratroopers.

You did, but only because you had CzarHellios' support. yiipieyak and me fought hard for one of the things that this game needs (apart from better commandos).

Just noticed this Armatus. Have you watched Band Of Brothers?