25 September 2012

Sound Off! Cav vs Airborne

The more obnoxious branch in self-promoting their obvious superiority to the rest of the Army:

-- CAV! "If you ain't cav, you ain't shit!"

-- AIRBORNE! "There's only two kinds of people in this Army: legs and men!"

your obnoxious self-promoting opinions below!

By: Brant


Anonymous said...

Airborne is far, far more obnoxious. The Cav at least has a real mission these days. Who the hell needs to parachute an entire division into battle any more? Yet they walk around like they're God's gift to the Army.


Matt Purvis said...

They ARE God's gift, not to the Army, but the world.

All trash talk aside,

The force projection capability of an airborne division is still very valuable. Take a look at Panama. The ability to put thousands of boots on the ground in minutes is invaluable in any age.

Scott T said...

Panama? You can't honestly call that a modern conflict.

Guardian said...

I was with the 82d Airborne Division HQ at Bagram in 2002-2003 (before Bagram became the most distant suburb of Washington, DC) and saw a great piece of graffiti in one of the porta-latrines.

"Only bird shit and idiots fall from the sky."

"Chicken shit stays on the ground."


Matt Purvis said...


What is your definition on modern conflict? Modern warfare includes a wider spectrum, in my opinion. Plenty of conflict spots in the world that will require rapid deployment and force projection. That was Panama, right? There could easily be action in the Sinai Peninsula, sub-Saharan Africa, and the list goes on.
In your opinion, what aspect of modern warfare precludes the practicality of airborne forces?

Anonymous said...

Cav has millennia of history, Airborne has a few decades of war stories.