Military Review

Landing records: the largest Soviet and foreign amphibious operations

60

Military история knows many interesting examples of airborne operations. Some of them can rightfully be called record: both in terms of the number of airborne personnel and the number of airborne military equipment.


As you know, the landing of 12 armed pilots near Voronezh, carried out on August 2, 1930, became the starting point in the history of the Russian airborne troops. It took the Soviet paratroopers only ten years to go from this experiment to a full-fledged operation to capture the Shauliai airfield in 1940. 63 paratroopers parachuted to the airfield from 720 aircraft, seizing a strategically important object. The first large-scale landing operations took place later - during the Great Patriotic War. Both Soviet paratroopers and Allied troops during the war with Nazi Germany carried out a number of impressive operations.

Landing in Normandy


Perhaps the largest airborne landing in the history of the airborne assault was the airborne part of the famous Normandy operation on June 6, 1944. Within just one hour, from 1:30 am to 2:30 am, American, British, Canadian and French paratroopers landed. 2395 aircraft and 847 gliders participated in the support of the landing. They managed to land 24 424 paratroopers, 567 vehicles, 362 artillery pieces, 18 tanks... Approximately 60% of the troops landed with parachutes, the remaining 40% were delivered by gliders.

Rhine Airborne Operation


On March 24, 1945, the Rhine Airborne Operation was carried out. It was decided to undertake it to help the Allied forces cross the Rhine. To participate in the operation, 1595 aircraft and 1347 gliders were allocated, following under the cover of 889 fighters.

At 10:00 on March 24, 1945, the landing itself began. In two hours, the Allies landed 17 paratroopers, as well as military equipment and weapons - 000 armored vehicles, 614 artillery pieces and mortars, ammunition and food. The paratroopers captured settlements in the area of ​​the city of Wesel. In general, the tasks assigned to them by the command were completed.


Vyazemsk airborne operation


One of the most powerful Soviet airborne operations was conducted from January 18 to February 28, 1942, with the aim of helping the forces of the Western and Kalinin Fronts to encircle a large part of Army Group Center. During the operation, a total of more than 10 thousand Soviet paratroopers, armed mainly with small arms, were parachuted behind enemy lines. weapons.

Despite the superior enemy forces and certain miscalculations in the organization of the operation, the Soviet paratroopers in June 1942 managed to break through the front line and get out of the encirclement. And this for all the complexity of the operational situation in this area! Interestingly, the 250th Infantry Regiment, which took part in the operation, was landed by landing method - the Red Army men jumped without parachutes from low-flying aircraft.

Dnieper airborne operation


To help the troops of the Voronezh Front in crossing the Dnieper from September 24 to November 28, 1943, the Dnieper airborne operation was carried out. 10 thousand paratroopers took part in it, about 1000 anti-tank guns and machine guns were also parachuted. However, the paratroopers found themselves in a difficult situation - the rear of the enemy, significantly outnumbering German troops, and a lack of ammunition.

In addition, the paratroopers were armed with small arms, in contrast to the enemy armed with heavy weapons. However, this did not prevent the Red Army from inflicting very significant damage to the enemy. So, as a result of the landing operation, 3 thousand German servicemen, 52 tanks, 227 vehicles and 18 tractors, 6 self-propelled guns, 15 echelons with various cargoes were destroyed. The enemy was forced to divert rather large forces to fight the landing.

Panjshir operation


Large-scale amphibious operations also took place during the Cold War. Suffice it to recall how in May-June 1982 Soviet troops, operating in Afghanistan, took control of most of the Panjshir gorge. In the first three days of the operation alone, over 4000 airborne troops were parachuted from helicopters into the combat zone, while the total number of Soviet servicemen of various types of troops involved in the operation was about 12 thousand people.

Recently, however, more and more military analysts, especially foreign ones, have argued about whether it makes sense today to conduct large-scale amphibious operations. For example, American expert Matt Kavanagh calls them a pointless risk, especially if they are carried out against an enemy with an advanced air defense system. Another author, Mark De Voor, at one time argued that large-scale amphibious operations in the past were much less successful than they usually say.
Author:
Photos used:
Twitter / Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation; Victory Museum
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 25 September 2020 06: 06
    27
    And why did the author not consider the capture of the island of Crete by Hitler's paratroopers?
    And the "records" are somehow poorly disclosed. The concept of a record implies the numbers "most, most".
    1. riwas
      riwas 26 September 2020 05: 56
      +1
      And why did the author not consider the capture of the island of Crete by Hitler's paratroopers?

      In May 1941, Germany carried out the largest airborne operation "Mercury" to capture the island of Crete. The island was defended by about 40 thousand soldiers and officers of the British crown. The victory was given to the Germans hard. Only more than 4 thousand paratroopers were killed. The British suffered even greater losses - they were able to evacuate only 16,5 thousand of their people and 2 thousand Greeks. Hitler considered such losses unacceptable and banned large-scale airborne operations.
      Subsequently, the German Airborne Forces were used as elite infantry and for the acquisition of sabotage and reconnaissance units. At the beginning of the war with the USSR, these paratroopers, often dressed in Soviet uniforms (often the NKVD) and with Soviet weapons, successfully conducted an aircraft landing, seized bridges, carried out reconnaissance, destroyed headquarters, destroyed communications, etc.
      American General George C. Marshall assessed the results of the operation in Crete differently. He considered them positive. This served as the impetus to accelerate the creation of the American Airborne Forces.
  2. infantryman2020
    infantryman2020 25 September 2020 06: 16
    28
    In the article:
    1) only selected episodes are given, the author's logic is not clear;
    2) from what is given, the facts are distorted: both Soviet landings are failures, to a greater or lesser extent (if we use the concepts of "tasks" and "efficiency", and not "courage" and "heroism");
    3) about landing without parachutes: the author cited frank historical game. For a long time everything was sorted out on the Web.
    The quality of the article is so low that it makes no sense to analyze it in detail.
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 25 September 2020 17: 31
      +2
      Read the articles by Ilya Polonsky.

      This author writes about quantity, not quality.
      So the next time you see who the author of the article is, then don't read any further and don't waste your time.
  3. Undecim
    Undecim 25 September 2020 07: 03
    18
    Another somewhat cobbled together article. If the author wanted to cover large-scale airborne operations, then it is necessary to start with the German airborne operation in May 1940 with the aim of the early capture of Holland. The operation was attended by the 22nd Airborne Division in full strength and the first and second parachute regiments of the 7th Aviation Division with a total strength of 12500 people.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 25 September 2020 07: 12
      13
      The next major airborne operation is the Cretan one. The total number of airborne troops landed by the Germans is 15, of which 000 were by parachute.

      It should be noted that despite the miscalculations and losses, both German operations were successful.
      1. mr.ZinGer
        mr.ZinGer 25 September 2020 20: 15
        -1
        Or "Knight's move" on the head
  4. Undecim
    Undecim 25 September 2020 07: 29
    19
    To help the troops of the Voronezh Front in crossing the Dnieper from September 24 to November 28, 1943, the Dnieper airborne operation was carried out. 10 thousand paratroopers took part in it, about 1000 anti-tank guns and machine guns were also parachuted. However, the paratroopers found themselves in a difficult situation - the rear of the enemy, significantly outnumbering German troops, and a lack of ammunition.
    The author wrote a complete nonsense. In the extremely unsuccessful Dnieper airborne operation, less than 5000 people were involved, and the artillery was not thrown out at all. The paratroopers found themselves in a difficult position solely because of the completely unsatisfactory preparation of the operation.
    The author did not mention the airborne assault during Operation Danube in August 1968.
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 25 September 2020 08: 08
      11
      The Dnieper landing operation was unsuccessful due to the fact that the landing force landed just on the reserves of the Germans. As a result, the combat mission of the landing was not completed, but the Germans also lost their reserve. Later, in combat conditions, there were no such large-scale landings. And the lack of mention of the 1968 operation "Danube" is generally incomprehensible. The article is hacky.
  5. Blacksmith 55
    Blacksmith 55 25 September 2020 08: 06
    10
    The landing method is to jump without a parachute, from a low-flying aircraft. What is it like ? If this is possible, then it would be necessary in more detail.
    About the Normandy landing it was necessary at least to mention that many planes "got lost" and landed troops in a completely different place. Almost all of them died.
    The article is highly condensed.
    1. Reviews
      Reviews 25 September 2020 08: 38
      +6
      Quote: Blacksmith 55
      The landing method is to jump without a parachute, from a low-flying aircraft. What is it like ?

      Outstripped. :) "White rabbit of black color".
      But, of course, this is all nonsense. Copied from Max Kalashnikov ("The Broken Sword of the Empire") or a similar author.

      (+)
      But about the landing of the 250 regiment:
      For the landing, the 250th airborne regiment was formed from the rifle units of the front. According to the plan, the number of the landing group was 1200 people, armed with 380 rifles, 646 PPSh, two 45-mm guns, 40 light and 28 heavy machine guns. For the landing, 21 PS-84 (Douglas) civil aviation aircraft and three TB-3s from the 23rd Air Division, concentrated at the Vnukovo airfield, were allocated.

      The landing began on the morning of 18 January. From 5.00 to 9.00 in the Znamenka area, 462 people were landed by 16 PS-84 forces. However, the 1st battalion could not be completely disembarked, and the landing continued on January 19. A total of 642 people [113] were landed with 256 rifles, 325 PPShs, 33 light machine guns, 5 anti-tank rifles and 10 mortars. On January 18, the landing of the landing group was also prepared. On the outskirts of Znamenka, four PS-84s boarded and landed 65 people, including 15 people from the launch team. Since there was deep snow on the field, one of the planes could not take off and was subsequently burned.

      At the same time, Captain Surzhik was preparing a site for receiving a landing force near the neighboring village of Plesnevo. He involved about 400 partisans and local residents to clear the site from snow. The 20th airborne regiment was taken to this site on January 21, 23 and 250. In total, 1011 people were landed, armed with 308 rifles, 492 PPSh, two 45-mm guns, 40 light and 31 heavy machine guns, 6 PTR and 24 mortars. [114] The landing cost the loss of four PS-84s from enemy fighter attacks and anti-aircraft artillery fire, as well as two PS-84s and one P-5, lost for technical reasons.

      In the rear of the German troops, a handful of fighters were landed, armed mainly with small arms. In addition to the traditional task of holding the landing area, G.K. Zhukov assigned the paratroopers the task of blocking traffic on the highway from Vyazma to Yukhnov and facilitating the advance of P.A.Belov's group with a blow from the rear.


      The usual amphibious operation. Parachutes and landing method. "sorry for the bird" (burned "Douglas").
      1. Lewww
        Lewww 25 September 2020 09: 16
        12
        Soviet paratroopers in June 1942 managed to break through the front line and get out of the encirclement. And this for all the complexity of the operational situation in this area! Interestingly, who took part in the operation 250 Rifle Regiment dropped off landing method - the Red Army jumped without parachutes from low-flying aircraft.
        I would like to ask the author where he got this information from.
        According to https://pamyat-naroda.ru/warunit/250%20sp/, the combat path of the 250th cn begins on June 17.06.1942, 18, how could he participate in the landing operation conducted from January 28 to February 1942, XNUMX?

        Landing by landing method is when the landing is disembarked from a landing aircraft (helicopter).
        I have never heard of a parachute-free landing from airplanes to land. I read that after the war, experiments were carried out on parachute-free landing of combat swimmers on the water from low-flying aircraft, but later this method was recognized as inexpedient due to the high risk of injury, which made it impossible to complete the combat mission.

        Therefore, I look forward to the author's response and links to the source of information.
        1. Reviews
          Reviews 25 September 2020 09: 25
          +3
          Quote: Lewww
          the combat path of the 250th cn begins on June 17.06.1942, 18, how could he at the same time participate in the landing operation conducted from January 28 to February 1942, XNUMX?

          It is not clear why the question was asked to me, but since ... Apparently, a regiment with this number was formed twice or there was an error on that site. Above, I quoted the "militer". Now I have in front of me a book entitled "Landings of the Great Patriotic War" (Morozov, Platonov, Goncharov) and it says "The 250th rifle regiment with a total strength of 1425 people was previously part of the 82nd rifle division that arrived from Transbaikalia. (...) consisted of three battalions, a separate battery, a mortar company, a platoon of 45-mm anti-tank guns. In mid-December 1941, the regiment was renamed as an airborne regiment, but in fact it remained a rifle regiment. The regiment fighters had no experience in parachute jumping. " ...
          End of quote.
          So, everything is in order there with January-February-42. :)
          1. Lewww
            Lewww 25 September 2020 10: 22
            0
            Above, I quoted the "militer". Now I have in front of me a book "Landings of the Great Patriotic War" (Morozov, Platonov, Goncharov) and it says "The 250th rifle regiment with a total strength of 1425 people was previously part of the 82nd rifle division that arrived from Transbaikalia.
            And this is what I see (wikipedia):
            17.06.1942 year based on the 64th Marine Rifle Brigade directly at the positions at the turn of Yegoryevskoe, Butovo, Kuchino (on the approaches to Gzhatsk south of Red Hill) 82nd Infantry Division was formed... On the basis of the 1st rifle battalion of the brigade, the 210th rifle regiment was created, on the basis of the 2nd battalion - the 250th rifle regiment, based on the 3rd rifle battalion - 601st rifle regiment.
            Consequently, 250 cn arose after the formation of 82 cn, i.e. after 17.06.41 or a little earlier, but not earlier than 9.6.42 when com. ZapF issued an Order on the formation of the 82nd Rifle Division.
            So the author has some kind of obvious confusion with the episode - he could not airborne 250 cn 82 sd in January 42
            1. Reviews
              Reviews 25 September 2020 10: 33
              0
              No, well, if "wiki", then "tadykanechna ...". :)

              But I, pachimuta, come across other sources:
              http://10otb.ru/content/army/division/82_streldivision.html


              https://personalhistory.ru/papers/082sd.htm

              I am not a historian, so I see no reason to measure the authority of the links. But Isaev and the collective author of "Landings ..." are quite a reliable source for me.
              1. Lewww
                Lewww 25 September 2020 13: 56
                0
                Well, it's clear that he is not a historian.
                According to your link, it is written that By March 10, 1940, by the directive of the NKO of the USSR dated January 15, 1940, No. 0/2/103687, by the directive of the GShKA dated February 7, 1940, and by the order of the Military Council of the 1st Army Group dated March 3, 1940 No. 0029, the 82nd Infantry Division from 3 to 10 March transferred to the state motorized rifle division, that is, it began to be called 82 MSD.
                And her 250 joint venture began to be called 250 MSP - motorized rifle regiment.
                In this composition, 82 mechanized infantry division and arrived at the ZapF.

                And the author of the article writes about the 250th SMALL regiment, which was formed in June 1942 as part of the newly formed 82nd rifle division.
                Feel the difference.

                That is why I wrote that I could not have landed 250 sp of air in January, and nothing is said about the fact that 250 sp are parachuted in your link.
                In my opinion, the author, before posting an article on this authoritative site, first needed to understand the reliability of the information he used in order not to replicate misinformation.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 25 September 2020 12: 11
            +2
            Quote: Avis
            Now I have in front of me a book entitled "Landings of the Great Patriotic War" (Morozov, Platonov, Goncharov) and it says "The 250th rifle regiment with a total strength of 1425 people was previously part of the 82nd rifle division that arrived from Transbaikalia. (...) consisted of three battalions, a separate battery, a mortar company, a platoon of 45-mm anti-tank guns. In mid-December 1941, the regiment was renamed as an airborne regiment, but in fact it remained a rifle regiment. The regiment fighters had no experience in parachute jumping. " ...

            The problem is that in the ZabVO at the beginning of the war there was no 82nd rifle division. Moreover, from March 1940 to June 1942 g. rifle division with number 82 was not in the Red Army at all.

            Where did the 250th come from? airborne (not a rifle) regiment? Everywhere it is mentioned that it was either formed at the base, or simply renamed from the regiment of the 82nd division, which arrived from the ZabVO. And there really was a division with such a number near Moscow - but not a rifle division.
            - 82nd Rifle Division of the first formation, a participant in Khalkhin-Gol, from March 3 to 10, 1940 was reorganized into the 82nd Motorized Rifle Division.
            - In March 1941, the 82nd Mechanized Infantry Division was reorganized into the 82nd MD and became part of the 29th MK.
            - On July 22, 1941, 82 md was reorganized into 82 mechanized rifle divisions (this is such a pendulum), together with the 210th and 601st mechanized rifle divisions, the third ISD was included - the newly formed 250 MSP.
            - In October, the 82nd Motorized Rifle Division (without the 82nd otbt) is transferred to Moscow (near Dorokhovo).
            - In January, the 82nd Mechanized Infantry Division includes only two SMEs: the 210th and 601st SMEs. There is no 250th MSD in the 82nd MSD.

            So the only candidate for reforming in the 250th airborne the regiment is the 250th motorized rifle regiment of the 82nd motorized rifle division.
            1. Lewww
              Lewww 25 September 2020 14: 23
              0
              Apparently this was the case, since starting from 21.12.1941/250/82 XNUMX MSD is no longer mentioned in the XNUMX MSD operatives, apparently he was removed from the 82nd mechanized infantry division on 20.12.41
      2. Lewww
        Lewww 25 September 2020 09: 28
        +2
        For the landing, the 250th airborne regiment was formed from the rifle units of the front. According to the plan, the number of the landing group was 1200 people,

        This landing is described in detail in the notes to this book https://knygy.com.ua/pix/57/80/3b/57803bf68431aad4e0fabed80776f936.jpg

        As far as I remember, the landing was carried out by parachute, but the operation was extremely unsuccessful. the planes were fired upon from the ground and landed an assault force where it was ordered, and wherever it was. Most of the landing force was landed near a village occupied by a large enemy military unit, surrounded and almost completely destroyed in battle. Many small groups were also hunted down by the Germans and destroyed.
        There was no benefit from the landing - in vain people were killed
        1. Reviews
          Reviews 25 September 2020 09: 34
          +2
          Quote: Lewww

          As far as I remember, the landing was carried out by parachute, but the operation was extremely unsuccessful. the planes were fired upon from the ground and landed an assault force where it was ordered, and wherever it was. Most of the landing force was landed near a village occupied by a large enemy military unit, surrounded and almost completely destroyed in battle. Many small groups were also hunted down by the Germans and destroyed.

          Damn it ... Once again:
          The landing began on the morning of 18 January. From 5.00 to 9.00 in the Znamenka area, 462 people were landed by 16 PS-84 forces. However, the 1st battalion could not be completely disembarked, and the landing continued on January 19. A total of 642 people [113] were landed with 256 rifles, 325 PPShs, 33 light machine guns, 5 anti-tank rifles and 10 mortars. On January 18, the landing of the landing group was also prepared. On the outskirts of Znamenka, four PS-84s boarded and landed 65 people, including 15 people from the launch team. Since there was deep snow on the field, one of the planes could not take off and was subsequently burned.

          At the same time, Captain Surzhik was preparing a site for receiving a landing force near the neighboring village of Plesnevo. He involved about 400 partisans and local residents to clear the site from snow. The 20th airborne regiment was taken to this site on January 21, 23 and 250. In total, 1011 people were landed, armed with 308 rifles, 492 PPSh, two 45-mm guns, 40 light and 31 heavy machine guns, 6 PTR and 24 mortars. [114] The landing cost the loss of four PS-84s from enemy fighter attacks and anti-aircraft artillery fire, as well as two PS-84s and one P-5, lost for technical reasons.

          "Not in the lottery, but in cards, not 100 rubles, but a bubble, not winning, but losing."
          1. Lewww
            Lewww 25 September 2020 14: 27
            +1
            Above, I described from memory the way the landing was described not by Isav, but in the comments to the collection of materials of the General Staff

            it is possible that memory fails in details, now there is no source at hand
      3. Pane Kohanku
        Pane Kohanku 25 September 2020 09: 50
        +5
        In the rear of the German troops, a handful of fighters were landed, armed mainly with small arms.

        I recognize the source. Isaev, "The offensive of Marshal Shaposhnikov". drinks
        1. Reviews
          Reviews 25 September 2020 10: 13
          +4
          Quote: Pan Kohanku

          I recognize the source. Isaev, "The offensive of Marshal Shaposhnikov". drinks

          Right.
          1. Pane Kohanku
            Pane Kohanku 25 September 2020 12: 05
            +4
            Right.

            I used to have this book in the car - the attendant, "to read". drinks Although in the chapter about the fall of Sevastopol, Isaev made a very big mess with one single sentence ... hi
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 25 September 2020 12: 18
              +3
              Quote: Pane Kohanku
              Although in the chapter about the fall of Sevastopol, Isaev made a very big mess with one single sentence ...

              He did a good job in the chapter "The Fortress Will Save the Troops" - to the delight of the flotophiles. wink
              I remember how Sir Znayka was teased on VIF2-NE after that.
              1. Pane Kohanku
                Pane Kohanku 25 September 2020 12: 49
                +3
                He did a good job in the chapter "The Fortress Will Save the Troops" - to the delight of the flotophiles.

                I don’t know about that. I didn't appreciate it, I guess.
                But when he wrote that on the first day the battleship "Paris Commune" was firing, and on the next - the second battleship, "Sevastopol" ... what This, you know, is not comme il faut! request Apparently, he relied on someone's memoirs, in which the dates of the names of the same ship were confused ...hi
                I remember how Sir Znayka was teased on VIF2-NE after that.

                I read some forum where they dipped him, and he responded. But, in any case, I think Isaev has done a great job. hi
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 25 September 2020 13: 04
                  +3
                  Quote: Pane Kohanku
                  But when he wrote that on the first day the battleship "Paris Commune" was firing, and on the next - the second battleship, "Sevastopol" ...

                  So this is it:
                  The fortress is saved by the troops
                  (...)
                  Since December 21 battleship "Sevastopol", the cruiser "Krasny Krym", the leader "Kharkov" and the destroyer "Bodry" began systematic support of the troops of the Primorsky Army with artillery fire, and since December 22, seven ships (two cruisers, two leaders, three destroyers) have been firing. a total of over 1600 shells. The ships were constantly replacing each other, since the main purpose of their arrival in Sevastopol was the delivery of ammunition. For example, on December 29, 1941, fire at the German troops led second battleship of the Black Sea Fleet "Paris Commune" and the latest light cruiser Molotov.

                  According to Isaev, "Seva" and "Parizhanka" are two different LCs. laughing
                  Quote: Pane Kohanku
                  But, in any case, I think Isaev has done a great job.

                  And here there is no dispute. Just the analysis of the Border Battle in the KOVO strip, Stalingrad and the Berlin operation are worth something.
                  1. Pane Kohanku
                    Pane Kohanku 25 September 2020 13: 10
                    +2
                    According to Isaev, "Seva" and "Parizhanka" are two different LCs.

                    Yes, yes, I mean this passage from memory. Although the historian should be uncomfortable - not to know this.
                    And here there is no dispute. Just the analysis of the Border Battle in the KOVO strip, Stalingrad and the Berlin operation are worth something.

                    At least the population will have less contamination with "myths" and "alternative opinions". hi And then a simple person will not know what to believe. First, they "ditched" the history of the war "by the leading role of the party" and by hushing up some aspects, then Suvorov-lickers came to this field with their claim to "knowledge of secret knowledge." Isaev, in fact, stopped work to destroy the minds of the population. soldier
    2. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 25 September 2020 13: 00
      +1
      Quote: smith 55
      The landing method is to jump without a parachute, from a low-flying aircraft. What is it like ? If this is possible, then it would be necessary in more detail.
      About the Normandy landing it was necessary at least to mention that many planes "got lost" and landed troops in a completely different place. Almost all of them died.
      The article is highly condensed.

      Almost all (Poles)? Died later - when they, the Britons (with the Canadians) and the Amers were landed in Holland. In D-Day, the landing party did not fulfill its task - but did something equally important - it made a very big mess and confusion before and during the direct landing from the sea.
  6. DDZ57
    DDZ57 25 September 2020 09: 17
    +2
    To help the troops of the Voronezh Front in crossing the Dnieper from September 24 to November 28, 1943, the Dnieper airborne operation was carried out. 10 thousand paratroopers took part in it, about 1000 anti-tank guns and machine guns were also parachuted. However, the paratroopers found themselves in a difficult situation - the rear of the enemy, significantly outnumbering German troops, and a lack of ammunition.
    In addition, the paratroopers were armed with small arms, in contrast to the enemy armed with heavy weapons.


    This is how "about 1000 anti-tank guns and machine guns were also parachuted" and "the paratroopers were armed with small arms, in contrast to the enemy who had heavy weapons."
    Landing spacecraft in 2 MV failed. Their bloodiness, uselessness and mediocrity of leadership are shown.
    Everything has already been described VO -
    https://topwar.ru/99204-esche-raz-o-vyazemskoy-vozdushno-desantnoy-operacii.html,
    https://topwar.ru/37226-desant-nad-dneprom.html.
    In the landing in Panjshir, not only paratroopers took part, but also motorized riflemen.
    1984 and 1985. - was problematic for the SA.
    Landings without equipment.
    Even then, serious doubts arose about the effectiveness of large-scale operations on territory with a hostile population.
    After 1982 With at least four major operations still being carried out, Ahmad Shah never again allowed himself to be caught off guard and suffered such losses as in May 1982.
    Everything was also on VO - https://topwar.ru/20413-pyatyy-pandzhsher-may-1982.html.

    Nonsense, but it clearly shows the uselessness of airborne heavy weapons for the Airborne Forces, as well as the possibility of conducting large parachute landings with an adequate enemy.
    And about "Danube" - https://topwar.ru/32806-oni-shli-na-voynu.html
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 25 September 2020 09: 44
      +6
      Your comment once again shows the importance for any author of such a thing as HISTORIOGRAPHY. That is, what, who, and how he wrote before you. That is, before you open America or break into open doors, you should look, maybe America is already open, and the doors too. But unfortunately it is historiography that is not held in high esteem in our country, which leads to such results!
      1. DDZ57
        DDZ57 25 September 2020 10: 04
        -1
        You are talking about high matters, but you can also open the door in the direction where it does not open, i.e. breaking down the door. You can celebrate in different ways.
        1. Reviews
          Reviews 25 September 2020 10: 15
          0
          Quote: DDZ57
          You are talking about high matters, but you can also open the door in the direction where it does not open, i.e. breaking down the door. You can celebrate in different ways.

          Yes, it's worse if the door is revolving. He piled up, thinking that it was locked and ...
    2. Astra wild
      Astra wild 25 September 2020 14: 32
      +1
      Colleague DDZ, just read "Landing over the Dnieper", in fact, Zhukov, with his super-secrecy, framed the landing. And the commander of the ADD was unable to train aircraft and experienced pilots. What a landing in your rear is worth! Unfortunately, the author did not say what the consequences of such a landing were. After all, there are military units in the rear of the front and if they see that parachutists are falling on their heads ... it is not difficult to imagine what their reaction will be
      1. DDZ57
        DDZ57 25 September 2020 14: 42
        -1
        They not only saw, they waited.
  7. Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 25 September 2020 10: 41
    +5
    What is it, well, really quite scanty article .. what are the scraps from there, from here .. it's better not to publish this at all ... yes ... the site becomes smaller, it becomes smaller, if such material appears in this section more and more often
    1. moreman78
      moreman78 25 September 2020 11: 00
      +3
      I agree, a very crumpled article. Nothing about German amphibious operations in Gollpandia in 1940, in Crete, in Denmark and Norway in 1940! Only one Germans in the Second World War - you can write a huge article. But there were also allies - the United States and England, there was the USSR, there were landings after the war - in particular during the Vietnam wars - both French and American ...
      Here is an INSANE FIELD!
      1. Astra wild
        Astra wild 25 September 2020 12: 40
        +2
        Colleague Moreman, I was not interested in this topic, but I heard that in WWII almost all the landing operations of the Germans and Americans were successful. Is it true or not?
        1. moreman78
          moreman78 25 September 2020 12: 54
          +1
          In principle, yes - they fulfilled the assigned tasks. Yes, the landing on Crete - yes, they suffered heavy losses, but they completed the task. As for small landings - to Denmark and Norway, to Holland - everything is as if by notes.
        2. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 25 September 2020 13: 08
          -2
          Quote: Astra wild
          Colleague Moreman, I was not interested in this topic, but I heard that in WWII almost all the landing operations of the Germans and Americans were successful. Is it true or not?

          The Dutch Allied operation (more than 35 thousand paratroopers) was a failure. For the Germans, all large amphibious operations were + - successful
          In 1956, Anglo-French landings in the canal area and Israeli landings in Sinai for "seed" were successful. Since then, however, the Israelis consider the use of massive parachute landing unnecessary and unjustified. hi
          1. Astra wild
            Astra wild 25 September 2020 14: 47
            +1
            How can you explain the success of the Germans and the failure of the Americans? Like he's not frivolous people?
            Regarding the 1956 landing, I do not know anything about it, but I assume by logic that you then rushed to Egypt (war of 1956). I know that Arabs do not differ in military skill, this was more than once on the site
            1. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 25 September 2020 15: 04
              -1
              The Americans performed well there - all the British planned, Poles, Canadians and Britons were used. Poles had the greatest losses
              As for the Arabs, in Chechnya they were considered good fighters. The problem is in the general organization, but in 1948-49 the Jordanians, in 1973 the Egyptians and in some places the Syrians with the Iraqis performed very well. They are not whipping boys - definitely.
  8. iouris
    iouris 25 September 2020 10: 57
    +5
    There was one very successful airborne operation: the very first one that took Belgium out of the war. But the author, apparently, is not aware of it. All the rest are so-so.
  9. Astra wild
    Astra wild 25 September 2020 12: 33
    +1
    Quote: Andrey VOV
    What is it, well, really quite scanty article .. what are the scraps from there, from here .. it's better not to publish this at all ... yes ... the site becomes smaller, it becomes smaller, if such material appears in this section more and more often

    I would venture to suggest that there are 2 reasons: a) there is a shortage of good authors and you have to make do with what you have; b) there are different levels of visitors on the site: there are naive and they admire the hack, but there are trained and they do not accept hack. And again we return to point "a"
  10. Astra wild
    Astra wild 25 September 2020 14: 55
    -1
    Dear colleagues, the author mentioned "Siauliai 1940", but I read in the history books that the people took power, which means there is no point in landing troops there? I would be grateful if you could explain on your fingers
  11. 3x3zsave
    3x3zsave 25 September 2020 21: 27
    +1
    Landing in Normandy
    Damn it! To the evil of the author, Operation Garden Market is considered the most unsuccessful in the history of the world airborne forces ...
    1. Liam
      Liam 25 September 2020 22: 22
      0
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      Landing in Normandy
      Damn it! To the evil of the author, Operation Garden Market is considered the most unsuccessful in the history of the world airborne forces ...

      Landing in Normandy - not Garden Market but Neptune
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 26 September 2020 00: 50
        +1
        OK. But I'm a club slob, and I'm not afraid to make mistakes laughing
    2. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 25 September 2020 22: 58
      -1
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      Landing in Normandy
      Damn it! To the evil of the author, Operation Garden Market is considered the most unsuccessful in the history of the world airborne forces ...

      Greetings Anton! hi Not at all - in the near rear of the Germans, she made a lot of rustling, did not allow them to concentrate reserves to strike at the main bridgeheads and introduced a serious confusion in the planning of the "mobile defense" of the coast. Another thing is that the tasks of the landing were different, but it played a positive role.
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 26 September 2020 00: 57
        +2
        Albert! Not a single massive airborne operation has achieved its objectives! No matter how much the representatives of these troops puffed up, they are all one, they will be sent to plug the traffic jams on foot.
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 26 September 2020 01: 48
          0
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          Albert! Not a single massive airborne operation has achieved its objectives! No matter how much the representatives of these troops puffed up, they are all one, they will be sent to plug the traffic jams on foot.

          I completely agree! Although Crete and Belgium and the Suez Canal area still showed some efficiency of parachutists
  12. Lewww
    Lewww 25 September 2020 22: 33
    0
    A little-known parachute landing on the Arabat Spit was successful
    On the night of January 1 to 2, 1942, the airborne assault, having completed the task, went over to the defense of the Arabat arrow and Ak-Monai. Earlier, on the night of December 30, 1941, the amphibious assault drove the enemy out of Kerch and, having captured the city, began to pursue the enemy, who began to withdraw from the Kerch Peninsula.

    After completing the task, the Soviet command prudently did not use the paratroopers as ordinary infantry, but, assessing the effectiveness of the action, returned the entire personnel to Krasnodar... After a while, the paratroopers were replaced by a rifle subunit of the amphibious assault, withdrawn from the battle and transferred by the Anatoly Serov motor ship to the Taman Peninsula.

    Source: https://gazetacrimea.ru/news/kypola-nad-ak-monaem-24815
    © 2000-2020 "Crimean newspaper"
  13. MA3UTA
    MA3UTA 25 September 2020 23: 17
    +2
    Interestingly, the 250th Rifle Regiment, which took part in the operation, was landed by landing method - the Red Army men jumped without parachutes from low-flying aircraft.


    it is absolutely not serious.
    neither on the combat path of the regiment - this is not
    and the immediate experts of that time are surprised.
    The head of the parachute service of the Western Front, Ivan Starchak, ridiculed the authors of the story about the jumps of his soldiers without parachutes
  14. riwas
    riwas 26 September 2020 05: 59
    +2
    Recently, however, more and more military analysts, especially foreign ones, have argued about whether it makes sense today to conduct large-scale amphibious operations.

    The results of the experience of using airborne forces in World War II. The best results were achieved:
    1. When the enemy did not have enough strength to resist, or he preferred to surrender to avoid casualties and destruction.
    2. When the main forces of the enemy were busy repelling the offensive of the ground forces or (or better "and") the landing of the amphibious assault.
    3. When actions take place on their territory (help from the population, knowledge of the area, purely psychologically - houses and walls help) or on the territory of a friendly country.
    4. When landing in the rear of the retreating enemy, - weak resistance of the enemy.
    5. With a small depth of landing and a short residence time in the rear (lower risks), especially in combination with clause 2 or clause 4.
    6. When air superiority is won. On the one hand, the protection of the landing force in flight (in transport aircraft), during the landing and on the ground from the actions of enemy aviation, and on the other hand, its own aviation is actively "working" for the landing, striking the enemy ground forces.
    9. Under favorable weather conditions. In the bad, there is often a large scattering of paratroopers or being carried away to the side, for example, into the open sea, which leads to large casualties (Sicily). But the weather forecast is still unreliable. Again, you have to wait for good weather, but the war does not wait.
    10. At the closed theater of military operations (theater of operations): forest, jungle, etc. Good conditions for covert landing operations, but difficult for the effective use of heavy equipment and aircraft by the enemy. Although, of course, the landing on such a theater is problematic.
    11. And the main thing. When using small reconnaissance and sabotage groups instead of conducting large paratrooper operations. The larger the target, the easier it is for the enemy to detect and destroy it with the "heavy" means of ground forces and aviation. Well, and the landing, by virtue of its specificity, can only oppose this with light weapons.
  15. riwas
    riwas 26 September 2020 06: 06
    +2
    Vyazemsk airborne operation. The purpose of the operation was the seizure of the Vyazma-Bryansk railway and the Vyazma-Yukhnov highway. More than 27 thousand people were dropped in two stages from January 23 to February 9. With only light weapons, the paratroopers could not resist the Germans. Only about 3 thousand people remained in March. The landing force suffered greatly from the actions of enemy aircraft.
    This failure showed that the greatest chances of success behind enemy lines have small sabotage and reconnaissance groups, and not large landings. No wonder the paratroopers at the front were called "disposable soldiers". Therefore, in the summer of 1942, ten airborne corps were transformed into rifle corps. The Germans understood this even in Crete.
    A year and a half has passed. But as you know, Russians always step on the same rake twice. Dneprovskaya (Kanevsky landing) airborne operation in September 1943 4,5 thousand people were parachuted. between Cherkassy and Rzhishchev. Only about 1,2 thousand people. managed to break through to the partisans. Rather, the partisans, having made a raid at the request of the command of the Airborne Forces, "picked up" the surviving paratroopers.
    1. DDZ57
      DDZ57 26 September 2020 07: 02
      0
      What then is the point of having such a number of airborne forces as part of the RA with airborne lightly armored vehicles.
      Takes in order to swim in the fountains?
      And parts to assist the WG, if it does not cope with Khabarovsk. Suitable for this application.
      Displaced troops (from units deployed in the European part of the Russian Federation) into empty fields 10 km from Khabarovsk. And the BMD columns rush to support the WG. An example is the action of the Baku Airborne Forces.
  16. boris epstein
    boris epstein 26 September 2020 17: 13
    +1
    98 Hitlerite paratroopers captured Fort Eben Emael, which covered the bridge over the border river between Germany and Belgium, and threw explosives into the embrasures from the roof of the fort. The fort's garrison surrendered. The garrison of the fort was 1800 (one thousand eight hundred!) People.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 September 2020 11: 44
      0
      Quote: Boris Epstein
      The garrison of the fort was 1800 (one thousand eight hundred!) People.

      1200 in the state. In fact, at the time of the assault, there were 989 people in the fort. And not the best quality ...
      Of the 28 officers of the fort, 17 were reservists, the last of whom arrived only on May 2, 1940, a week before the assault.
      © Isaev
  17. raif
    raif 30 September 2020 17: 32
    0
    citizens are admins? do you even see through heresy and nonsense, which you then publish? I'm still polite.
    and the author - to throw a kick in the ass "without parachutes from low-flying aircraft."
  18. Skyscream
    Skyscream 8 November 2020 14: 09
    0
    Interestingly, the 250th Rifle Regiment, which took part in the operation, was landed by landing method - the Red Army men jumped without parachutes from low-flying aircraft.

    Sorry, I couldn't resist. Apparently, the practice of COPY-PAST completely turns off critical thinking!
    Author, did you jump with a parachute? Oh, WITHOUT? And what? This is a normal practice of the combat use of the Airborne Forces, according to your article! Unfortunately, I did not find the minimum speed of DC-3 at the ground (I do not think that PS-84 and LI-2 are very different). Found on AN-2, parachuting mode 70-90 km / h, (this is not the speed at which the parachutists jump, but the term that refers to the minimum speed at which the aircraft is still in the air and CONTROLLED). Will you leave at that speed, at least 5m high? And with a rifle on your back? In the army, we coached the landing from the side of the truck on the move. Max - 20 km / h. They were preliminarily practiced from a standing truck and without weapons and equipment, then with it, then gradually increasing the speed. Well, let's spit on conventions - we jump at a speed of 70 km / h from LI-2 from a height of 5 m into deep snow. Let's say 50% of the HP managed to land without injury or injury, how long will the fighters climb through the snowdrifts to the collection point? Again, from personal army practice: I pulled a connection (snow cover of a meter and a half, a coil with a "field worker", TA, automatic machine, "sidor", belt with pouches, MSL), the cable, of course, must be masked. I traveled about half a kilometer for at least an hour)) One thing is good - without the impact of enemy fire))) Ie. this method of landing - 100% loss of drugs, which happened without such "original" methods of landing. Approach the selection of material more responsibly!