Watching Band of Brothers–I know it is old. But I am trying to understand the reason for sending these small groups of paratroopers into fighting land battles.
I get the D-Day invasion. We dropped these guys behind the lines to destroy bridges and other infrastructure to make it harder for the Germans to resupply and reinforce the troops defending the beaches to give us a better chance of getting a foothold there. Got it.
But the stuff after that confuses me. Like at Bastogne. First, the Army is wasting their skill at parachuting. Second, why have these 100 plus guys go into town to raid it in order to accomplish a seemingly minor objective. Why not shell the hell out of it and then send in infantry and armor?
What was the purpose of these little raids and thereby endangering specialty troops that trained to parachute?
While airborne troops might travel by plane and parachute, they would fight as light infantry once they arrived. So it wasn’t too strange to deploy them as light infantry without dropping them out of planes first. They fought just as well when they were truckborne as they did when airborne.
That said, they weren’t sent into just any battle because it was recognized they had a special role and nobody wanted to use them up on regular battles and not have them available when their special uses were needed. But sometimes they were sent into combat because an unexpected battle had begun and paratroopers were the best reserves who were readily available.
It wasn’t “100 plus” guys, it was thousands. It was an airborne division. Bastogne was important because all of the major avenues crossed through that town.
In addition to that division of infantry, the Army sent a division of tanks which arrived later. So to answer to “why not send infantry and armor” is, “they did”.
As for the little groups of paratriopers (LGOPs), they were not really supposed to fight like that, and they were not specially trained to fight in that manner. They trained to fight as regular infantry. The problem was that, for various reasons, they were airdropped all over the place and scattered everywhere. It wasn’t intended. They were supposed to assemble as full companies on the ground. Once they realized it was going to be impossible, the scrounged up whatever LGOP they could, and carried out the mission to the best of their ability.
The thing about Airborne, or one thing, is this. When an infantry unit loses 10% of its personnel in an operation it’s usually withdrawn for replacements and rehab. When an Airborne unit leaves on an operation what with troopers injured in the landing, dropped in the wrong place, aircraft colliding with each other, enemy AA gunfire, etc, the planners would generally count on 25% losses by the time the troopers have taken off their chutes and gathered in their platoons.
Remember that the battle of Bastogne was part of the German Ardennes offensive, and early on the Germans looked likely to be able to break through and splut the Allied forces. Therefore, the 101st Airborne, as one of the few “reserve” units available relatively nearby, were sent in as a stop-gap measure to hold the line until more substansial (armoured and infantry) reserves could be brought in. Also, after the failure of Market-Garden in September 1944, Allied planners did not foresee any more large scale airborne operations, and as such, the paratroopers were more likely to be deplyed as regular light infantry.
Airborne troops tended to be a lot better quality than regular infantry. Better soldiers are initially selected, harder training, etc.
So sending in such a group into a desperate battle makes a lot of sense. Even if they are relatively lightly armed.
Note that on D-Day blowing up bridges was often not the priority paratroopers and glider forces. Many bridges were targeted to be captured and held. Another common objective were crossroads.
And, as mentioned, the 82nd weren’t dropped into Bastogne to raid it. It had been in US hands for a while and they were driven there to reinforce it. And it was far from a minor objective. It turned out to be the key crossroad in the Battle of the Bulge.
Why not shell Bastogne? Because you’d be shelling your own troops!!!
You do understand that the Belgians were on our side, right? The objective was to free the country, not wage war against it. “Shell the hell out of it” is a tactic used against enemy cities.
But they mostly tried to avoid doing so in the parts being held by friendly troops at the time - the US troops were the ones besieged at Bastogne, so shelling Bastogne would have been a little counterproductive.
With regards to Band of Brothers I think he is actually talking about Foy. That was just after Bastogne and when they started back on the offensive.
As for “shell the hell out of it,” that was a tactic that was used many times. It was never as effective as they hoped. It always took actual troops on the ground to take the real estate.
The actual objective of that particular mission was relief of the Allied forces in Bastogne, which was at major risk of being enveloped and overwhelmed by the German army.
The Allies had few scruples about shelling or carpet bombing cities, even ones they wanted to liberate. They stopped largely because it didn’t work very well, not because they were worried about preserving either lives or infrastructure.
Shelling the city, as mentioned a few times above, would be counterproductive to the mission at hand.
Though I admit, the Germans would probably never have seen it coming
ETA: Ah, not Bastogne, then. But still, shelling cities from a distance never worked as well as war planners hoped.
