Jump to content

Talk:Infantry: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(69 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=Start|Science=yes
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|Science=yes
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
Line 12: Line 13:
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5= yes}}
|B-Class-5= yes}}
}}


== Air force and naval infantry ==
==Reformatting==
This page could do with reformatting - there are large gaps in pages and the images are quite badly positioned. [[Special:Contributions/84.12.145.214|84.12.145.214]] ([[User talk:84.12.145.214|talk]]) 15:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Regarding that section of the article, it currently mentions particular air force infantry forces. Considering that they and others are already listed in the [[Air force ground forces and special forces]] article, keeping them in this article is not necessary. I suggest removing them. [[User:Dreddmoto|Dreddmoto]] ([[User talk:Dreddmoto|talk]]) 03:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


qw333 [[Special:Contributions/158.51.92.155|158.51.92.155]] ([[User talk:158.51.92.155|talk]]) 21:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
==First Sentence==

The first sentence says infantry are "very highly disciplined and trained soldiers". Does a soldier really have to be highly disciplined and trained to be an infantryman? Seems like anyone on foot is infantry. [[Special:Contributions/71.100.218.218|71.100.218.218]] ([[User talk:71.100.218.218|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I agree. I was definitly infantry, but neither highly disciplined nor trained.

I second this notion. This section strikes me as very "hoo-ah." All of my family are military, so I do appreciate the rigors, but there's no need for hero-worship. For one thing, even if this description applies to the infantry in most developed countries, it certainly does not to irregular infantry, or most pre-modern infantry. And indeed, "infantry" truly means any foot soldiers, though this first section seems to describe modern infantry exclusively.
As a wiki-noob, I hesitate to try rewriting this section, but if anyone has comments, please share.
Hooray for Wikipedia, what the Internet was meant to be! [[Special:Contributions/69.180.230.102|69.180.230.102]] ([[User talk:69.180.230.102|talk]]) 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you are Infantry, you have no clue what we are. No one else goes what we go through nor can handle what we deal with on a daily basis. Thats why most of our Special Forces and Special Operations come from the Infantry. In the conventional world, we are the best. [[User:Justin.blodgett|SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman]] ([[User talk:Justin.blodgett|talk]]) 01:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

==Wrong date in caption?==
The caption below the men carrying bikes on their backs states that they are bersaglieri and that the photo was taken during World War I. It then states that the photo predates 1911. Obviously, one of these two assertions is wrong, but I don't know which one so I didn't change it. Does anyone know the provenance of the photo? [[User:71.202.97.96|71.202.97.96]] 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


==Old discussion==
The US army link seems superfluous. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Chadloder|Chadloder]] ([[User talk:Chadloder|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chadloder|contribs]]) 21:02, 24 January 2003.</small>
:Apparently, this link has since been deleted. -- [[User:Centrx|Centrx]] 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"In the modern period, the term "infantryman" is reserved for the most basic of infantry troops, the rifleman." Within the Army, at least, that's not the case, even if you only thought of the 11b's as infantry. there's a lot more to the infantry than just the rifleman. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:64.185.138.253|64.185.138.253]] ([[User talk:64.185.138.253|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/64.185.138.253|contribs]]) 14:31, 4 May 2005.</small>

:In the US Army and the US Marine Corps, "Infantry" is considered a "Career Group", and there are a whole brace of seperate "Career Specialties" or "Military Ocupational Specialties" that are subheaded under "Infantry". Indeed, in the Marine Corps, they go further than that by stating that ALL marines are Infantry first, and another specialty second. For example, they remain the only service that trains its aircraft pilots by first teaching them how to be Riflemen, and then how to fly aircraft. -- [[User:CORNELIUSSEON|SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired)]] 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

==Marine as soldier==
Regarding Necrothesp's recent revert:

* How are marines not soldiers? They are combatants in military service with a body of men armed for war. A marine is a special kind of soldier, but nevertheless a marine falls into the larger, inclusive class of soldiers, and a reference to "soldier" is a reference to all of the members of that class.

* In what military is the infantry is a special "branch" of service, and how is this "branch" any different than a unit of infantry that is already described by the description of the term "infantry" itself? - [[User:Centrx|Centrx]] 19:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
::In the Canadian Army, the Infantry Branch is one of the official branches.[[User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]] 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
:: In the Royal Netherlands Army the Infantry is an official branch refered to as: "wapen" (weapon) alongside with cavelry, artillery and signals. [[User:Brisbane2000|Brisbane2000]] 11:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Marines do not appreciate being called soldiers. They are marines. Soldiers are members of the army. You wouldn't call sailors or airmen soldiers would you? In most armies the infantry is a branch of service, just as the cavalry, artillery, engineers etc are branches of service. What is so controversial about that? -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 21:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
: * That many or most marines do not appreciate being called soldiers does not mean that they are not soldiers; the meaning of the word is independent of the particular wishes of a particular group of people at a particular time. That the marines wish to distinguish themselves as more elite than the grunts of the Army does not mean that they themselves are not part of ''an'' army: a land force, armed for war; and it does not mean that men who generally fight as they do were not called soldiers 100 years ago or 100 years hence, and even now by some. As for sailors and airmen, by some definitions they do qualify as soldiers, but there I defer to the expert lexicographers at the OED and Webster. For the meaning you refer to, airmen and sailors are not land forces and some may not even have a sidearm.
: * The term "branch" of a military usually means Army, Navy, etc. It is at the very least unclear to say that the infantry is a branch of a military. Further, are these Infantry Divisions and Engineer Brigades any different from being divisions of infantry and brigades for engineering? If not, then the terms "Infantry" and "Engineer" of these units are simply adjectival uses of the same "infantry" meaning we already have in the article here. We don't need to say on the article for "fighter" that "fighter" or "fighter wing" is a branch of the military, nor for "medical" or "support". - [[User:Centrx|Centrx]] 02:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

::Incorrect. In Canada, the Army is a colloquial term for "Land Force Command", the Air Force a term for "Air Command", etc. The Infantry Branch is one of many branches. As far as US military terminology, you seem extremely muddled. I suggest you look up the definition of "formation" which is what a division is. An Infantry Division actually has units from several branches, infantry included.[[User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]] 05:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
:::The term "branch" usually means ''on the order'' of Army, Navy, Air Force. There are infantry divisions ''within'' the Canadian Land Force, but the branches of the Canadian military are not Infantry, Armoured, Bombers, etc. etc. An infantry division has non-infantry units, but the role of those non-infantry units is to ''support'' the primary brigades that is the core of the division and the reason it is maneuvered. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']]&nbsp;&bull; 07:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

::::I really have no idea what you are talking about. What are "Bombers"? The Infantry Branch is the official title. I personally belong to the Logistics Branch but belong to an infantry regiment, which is part of the Infantry Branch. It is an administrative entity; tactically and operationally we belong to a Brigade (a formation). But the Infantry Branch oversees training throughout the branch. It used to be called the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps (and may still be), which is not the same as a formation of the same name (corps). You're confusing administrative entities with tactical formations.[[User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]] 03:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::Can you substantiate the claim it's a Branch and not a Corps? I'm tempted to take the Infantry School's claim of training a corps over your claim it trains a branch. I can find no Internet-based evidence of a Royal Canadian Infantry Branch (but I can find the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps). I don't have access to anything beyond the Internet presently, so can't go beyond that. [[User:Kenny.am|Kenny.am]] 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::I doubt Canadian watering down of a title extends to the rest of the world. It's not unlikely other countries have retained the title of Infantry Corps. [[User:Kenny.am|Kenny.am]] 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont know about the canadian army but in the u.s. army there is a branch (army, army reserves,army national guard) then corps ( infantry, engineers, medical ect. ect.) then division, bragade, battalion, company, platoon, squad, and team. for example (from lowest to highest) 2ed sq 1st plt 1434th eng. co./ 101st eng. bn. /16th eng. bge. /1st cav. div. /corps of enginers, /army national guard. i dont know if this will help but i hope it does
--[[Special:Contributions/203.88.90.202|203.88.90.202]] ([[User talk:203.88.90.202|talk]]) 22:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

== Quotations ==

The quotations seem meaningless and unnecessary for leading readers to a truer understanding of infantry - is there really a strong case to be made for their inclusion?[[User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]] 00:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think there is, though some are better than others and are fairly good at conveying an impression. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']]&nbsp;&bull; 08:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The historical section is too long in any case [[Special:Contributions/66.57.225.84|66.57.225.84]] ([[User talk:66.57.225.84|talk]]) 05:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

==Infanteer==
The term "infantryman" is itself a gender-neutral descriptor, so stating that "infanteer" is somehow more "gender friendly" is erroneous. The term "infantryman" is applied equally correctly to both men and women. I've removed the reference to this term not because it is not true that the term is in use, but because there is no source as to how common it is. The subject is one of hot debate at, say, [[army.ca]] as many seem to prefer the traditional name "infantryman". [[User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]] 00:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This debate extends beyond one website and its usage beyond the CF. Kindly keep your comments to the realm of, say, mature. [[User:Kenny.am|Kenny.am]] 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:If you have evidence that the debate extends beyond one website, then do feel free to present that evidence here for discussion. Also avoid the use of personal attacks, and remember to sign your comments.[[User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]] 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::I think he must mean the more general "politically correct" use of "congresswoman", "congressperson", "policewoman", etc. I don't see any reason to use these terms, as "-man" and "man" have well-attested use referring to humans of either gender or in general, but "infanteer" seems to be an especially non-standard use, whereas at least the -person and -woman formations are rather common nowadays. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']]&nbsp;&bull; 05:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I have never heard the term "Infanteer" used in the US military. To me it seems a weak attempt to apply a "PC" comment to an essentially-male profession. Female members of the United States Armed Forces are prohibited from joining any of the Combat Arms branches. I believe this rule extends to all the military forces in the world (save for, perhaps, certain units in the Red Army where women were utilized in a combat role). Infantry is a occupational speciality in the armed forces, and despite claims that, say, Marines are riflemen first (and, therefore, women are "riflemen") this does not mean women are members of the infantry. So... the term "infantryman" is probably still safe from politically-correct verbal blitzkriegs. :) [[User:BRGillespie|BRGillespie]] 21:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
:I am surprised that even in such a broad-minded community, such as Wikipedia, attempts at fostering neutrality, inclusiveness and greater equity, are shot down as "PC verbal blitzkrieg". But, so be it. I am here more interested in the etymology of the word infantry, which bothers me more. If my Greek ad Latin rudiments serve me right, it comes from "children soldiers". right? [[User:Themalau|Themalau]] 20:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::This debate of he "correct" term is immaterial. Remember [[WP:NOR]]; Wikipedia must only collect information, not create or promote information. Wikipedia should use the term "infanteer" if it is in common English usage, and should not otherwise. --[[User:A D Monroe III|A D Monroe III]] 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Infanteer is the formal British army term (although infantryman has always been as common), it has been since before the USA existed, it has nothing to do with men or women since British infantry is all-male. [[User:Mesoso2|Mesoso2]] ([[User talk:Mesoso2|talk]]) 09:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Australian 3rd Brigade Forces Command website (official) states in its Glossary of Terms under the word '''Infantry''' - ''Foot Soldiers. The derivation of the word is said to come from the French word for children; enfants. This term alluded to manner in which the foot soldiers walked behind the mounted officers, similar to a line of children. The French word for Infantry is Infanterie, and sometimes an '''Infantryman''' is still called an "Infanteer"''. In other words, ''infanteer'' is a corruption of the French word for the common term - Infantryman... which also comes from the French (at least, that's what I read). [[User:Dragases|Dragases]] ([[User talk:Dragases|talk]]) 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

==This artcile is too [[eurocentrism]]==
The author seems to prefer the eurpean words like [[Knight]] instead of [[Heavy cavalry]],[[Phalanx formation]] instead of [[Heavy infantry]],[[Roman legion]] istead of [[Light infantry]].--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]] 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

:I agree that it's Eurocentric, but it isn't just in the words. The whole sections tracing infantry through [[Classical antiquity]] and [[Middle Ages]] are based on European history. Rather than change words, we need new data. If you have any good information on Asian or other non-European infantry development, please add it.

:(BTW, Roman Legionaires where ''not'' Light Infantry.)

:--[[User:A D Monroe III|A D Monroe III]] 16:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

:Nor are Knights synonymous with Heavy Cavalry - or Men at Arms, and a Phalanx has to involve pike- or at least spear-armed troops, whereas heavy infantry most assuredly do not have to use pikes or spears. Obviously, as Monroe points out, Legionaires were not Light Infantry either. Unless the article uses "Legionaires" to describe anything other than troops that refered to themselves as Legionaires, the original contention is ridiculous. It is also common practice in military history to use the term "Knights" to refer to Islamic or Asian heavy cavalry, because they also had a knight-like code of honour and aristocratic background, and Phalanx to refer to any Phalanx-like close-order spear-formation, simply because these words are familiar to English speakers. Since the article is written in a European language, the use of European words is to be expected.
:--[[Special:Contributions/74.166.39.15|74.166.39.15]] ([[User talk:74.166.39.15|talk]]) 07 April, 2010 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 23:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Not only that, under 'modern' it makes the claim that massed formations of infantry have fallen into disuse since World War II. Hello? What about the [[Iran-Iraq War]]? Or perhaps the [[Korean War]]?

--[[User:Agent of the Reds|Agent of the Reds]] 17:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

:: I think that they may have meant the practice of massing troops to mass fire as one would in Colonial or Civil War Era. After the coming of the repeating rifle, units no longer had to mass their troops (in effect, ranked firing lines) and instead would employ a single firing line spreading the soldiers much further apart while still achieving a greater sustained rate of fire. On the ground today, when one says "massing" of troops, they may mean 5 or 10 soldiers in close proximity (which typically precedes a grenade attack). When clearing buildings and such, it is not uncommon to see a squad (9 soldiers in the US Army) all fairly close together preparing to enter a room or building. [[User:Tigey|Tigey]] ([[User talk:Tigey|talk]]) 19:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

==Etymology==

Watching "[[Blood diamond(film)]]", I picked up a line by the samaritan where he says that infantry originates from "child soldier". It made sense, yet I couldn't find any reference to it. Anyone care to share his/her expertise?

== Hitler Youth ==

There is already a page on the Hitler Youth - the descriptive paragraph here seems out of place.

== Women ==

The beginning of this article states that women are not allow to be in the infantry. This is not correct for all countries. Canada is a good example of this being untrue. As far as I know there is no position in the Canadian Forces that a woman can not hold. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.236.143.214|99.236.143.214]] ([[User talk:99.236.143.214|talk]]) 04:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==I am the Superfluous Section==

Why on earth do we have a whole section devoted to a poem that the US infantry have written about themselves? It doesn't tell us anything about infantry, it doesn't add to our understanding of the topic, it doesn't fit with the style of an encyclpedia.

It should be deleted. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:DemonicTruism|DemonicTruism]] ([[User talk:DemonicTruism|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DemonicTruism|contribs]]) 08:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Recent Edits==
I've attempted to cut out a lot of the "grunt cruft" from this article, but it's still not in great shape. Much of this article is unsourced, and could use a thorough copyediting. Another issue is that it remains a target for "go edit your own MOS" editors, which usually leads to unproductive edits like the above mentioned "I am the Infantry". Remember, we are building a scholarly encyclopedia, not a tribute page to infantrymen; there's plenty of space on the rest of the [[internets]] if that's your intention, just not here. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

-----


This article stood for many many months untouched and unedited and was viewed many many times by many many people yet it has been only recently that it has had it's introduction gutted and reworded with gross inaccuracies and out right fables by seemingly one individual.


In the introduction alone 3 glaring inaccuracies exist...

1. Infantry is NOT divided into light, medium and heavy Infantry based on the weapons they carry. I've never heard of medium infantry. Is there an XXX large infantry too? I can picture the generals calling up fort drum and saying, I'll take a medium infantry and a small tanker to go please.
2. Infantry is not only a branch of Armies. There is also Naval Infantry.

3. Wrong, In America, only the Marines train ALL of their service members to be infantry first. Even that is a misnomer because of the gender physical testing inequalities and training standards that are so much lower. The US army has never intended to train every soldier as an infantry first if it has, please direct me to your citation/

4. Infanteer has been debated and basically it was the concensus of the contributors of this article that the term should not be used and has been recently proposed on wiki as a new slang word for someones self promotion.

The original introduction may have been poorly worded but it was a better reflection of what the infantry is and does.

Infanteer? again, I picture a general calling up benning and saying, Can you send over the 3 infanteers? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.223.93.43|69.223.93.43]] ([[User talk:69.223.93.43|talk]]) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Yes, as I said, the article is still not in great shape. Just because an article is stagnant for a long time doensn't mean it's good, or even approaching good. To address your arguments, I'll reply in the same numbered format.

:1. This article is not solely about 21st Century infantry, which I think many people who've edited this page believe. It ''has'' been divided between light, heavy, and medium infantry for thousands of years; this needs to be addressed. Also, the US Army currently ''does'' have all three; Heavy infantry = Mechinf, Light Inf = Airborne, 10th Mountain, etc., and Medium = Stryker brigades. The marines also have medium infantry.

:2. [[WP:SOFIXIT]]

:3. No, the US Army stole the "every soldier a rifleman" idea from the Marines a few years ago; that's why everybody, even the cooks and mechanics, have to qualify at least as a marksman in basic, and periodically qualify with their assigned weapons.

:4. If infanteer is a [[WP:NEOLOGISM|neologism]], then it should indeed be discarded. I myself have never seen the word except for here.
:[[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 13:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

-----

Good points that I can agree with except 3. If 3 were correct every gun owner in America could claim to be an infantryman.
The concept of infantry revolved around fire and maneuver not only on an individual basis but in a team/section/platoon/company/battalion/brigade. In essence, Infantry is small unit tactics employed by individuals against armed enemies. This is where the extreme discipline and cohesion come in. Without which there are serious problems.

As far as the infanteer thing, someone is obviously trying to get their own invention publicity and coin a phrase.

:Well, yes, the noncombat MOSes do various combat maneuver drills such as moving and shooting as a team, conducting dismounted patrols, etc. (and this is what I did 4 years ago, I've heard that they've added cqb/room clearing drills to noncombat basic); my old unit, the XVIII ABN corps HQ, was doing convoy live fire drills before deploying, even though most soliders in the unit [[Fobbit|won't ever leave the base]]. As for infanteer, I'd have no problem with removing it from the article; as I said above, I've never seen it anywhere else. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 01:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

:I went ahead and removed it from the article. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

::Another issue I'm thinking about right now is that the article doesn't mention World War I at all. I'm too tired to work out a paragraph about it at the moment, perhaps in the morning I'll take care of it. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

==Infanteer==
Infanteer is the standard term used in the infantry of the British Army.
[[User:Stroganoff|Stroganoff]] ([[User talk:Stroganoff|talk]]) 22:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

==Early Modern==
I have added to the Early Modern section, and tried to shift things around within that section to make more sense and be more accurate, without actually cutting or mangling what was already there - as such, the line "In the beginning of the 17th century line infantry appeared and quickly became the main and most common type of infantry in the European countries. Line infantry was armed with smooth-bore muskets with bayonets. In the 18th century, light infantry appeared." Which is both poorly worded and, in my opinion, inaccurate, has been left alone (although I put in a citation needed).

The term "Line Infantry" is problematic. "Line Infantry" assuredly did not come into being in the early 17th century. Nor, really, did light infantry "appear" in the 18th century, as foreign irregular infantry from violent border territories were used going back to the medieval era, and the light infantry of the 18th century were often recruited from hunters who already used rifles every day (hence the German term for light infantry, "Jaeger" - i.e., "Hunter") which is also why rifles were used at all - the hunters would bring their own when conscripted.
I can rewrite that if no one objects? Or put my suggested rewrite on this page for approval? It kind of seems like writers have really focused on the modern era, and left the abominably written and organized Early Modern section suffering from neglect - it would also make sense to have a "Renaissance" section. The Early Modern period and the Renaissance overlap, as do the Renaissance and Medieval periods, but Renaissance warfare does not really fit into one or the other.

Post Script: There doesn't seem to be a page on the "Skirmish Formation" - the primary infantry formation from the late-19th century through to World War I. The section in this page on the "Modern" period completely neglects to mention the evolution of Napoleonic formations, still used in the American Civil War, into the "Skirmish Line," the formation used by all infantry between the 1880s (or earlier) and World War I - essentially the final stage of linear infantry formations. Suggestions?
[[Special:Contributions/74.166.39.15|74.166.39.15]] ([[User talk:74.166.39.15|talk]]) 07 April, 2010

== Post-Modern ==


It is crucial to note under the post-modern headline a key specialized type of infantry was left out. Airborne infantry should be included under that header as we still have the 173 Airborne and the 82nd Airborne Division with 3 airborne infantry brigades. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.140.121.138|70.140.121.138]] ([[User talk:70.140.121.138|talk]]) 06:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Summarization of Infantry History and an issue with ClueBot... ==

First paragraph is a good summarization. However, ClueBot doesn't seem to like mass deletion for summary, and thus reverted my edit. Anyone else like to try to summarize it for me? [[User:Werefaw|Werefaw]] ([[User talk:Werefaw|talk]]) 05:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

== Efficiency table ==

Two editors are in disagreement over inclusion of [[:Template:Infantry Comparison Of Efficiency]] in this article. Instead of reverting each other, I encourage them, and others to explain their opinions. ([[User:Hohum|<font color="Green">'''Hohum'''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Hohum|<font color="Red"><sup>@</sup></font>]]) 16:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I added the template as I believe its interesting and adds to the article. I created it as a template for ease of editing and adding to other articles. It compares in a easy to understand manner the mobility and logistical support for the individual infantry type. Im hoping to add more sections to the template for airbourne type infantry, (para, helibourne, glider etc) if I can find the data to go with it. A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker#Comparison_with_contemporary_vehicles similar comparison table] used on other military articles is the one use to compare modern wheeled APCs, ICVs and IFVs.--'''''[[User:MFIreland|<font color="008000">MFIreland</font>]]''''' • [[User talk:MFIreland|<font color="FFA500"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 18:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

: You think you're god or something. Using that template in one article is enough. Additionally, you have 2 failed recent submissions to administrators' noticeboard, you are abusing warning templates, and fail to know what non-free content is. [[User:Quantumor|Quantumor]] ([[User talk:Quantumor|talk]]) 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

:: Whilst not perfect it does add information and certainly does not require the sort of comment that you left on MFI's talk page. [[Fuck|Fucking]] [[Cunt]] is not really approriate terminology for another editor in any [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] discussion. [[User:Brookesward|Brookesward]] ([[User talk:Brookesward|talk]]) 21:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

:::It does add info but my current concerns are over the reliability of the content. The methodology of the source is also open to question as to whether apples are being compared to apples. In the period when mounted infantry was chiefly in use, mechanised (and even motorized) infantry were largely in the future. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 14:01, 20 December 2010

infantry can move much longer distances, even on foot, look at units like the sas who can go 120 miles to get to an objective, just to point that out.

==Motorcycle infantry?==
Which army had those?[[User:Koakhtzvigad|Koakhtzvigad]] ([[User talk:Koakhtzvigad|talk]]) 05:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
:Ok, the Germans for about four years, and the British experimented, while the Soviets never quite got it going in 40-41[[User:Koakhtzvigad|Koakhtzvigad]] ([[User talk:Koakhtzvigad|talk]]) 11:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

==A few things missing from article===
*Infantryman (basic) since there is a redirect
*Unit communication
*Unit leadership
*Battle Drills/Formations
*Infantry tactics (Operations section, except Operations is something else!)
*Combined Arms role
*Vehicle Usage by Infantry

I suggest the Daily Life section is removed for now because its an embarrassment

The article does not mention squad, platoon, company, battalion or regiment, the basic building blocks of Infantry formations for the past 400 years. (not really in History article either)

The article mentions the rifle once, but no musket! No mention of APCs or IFVs.

History of Infantry article is clearly not encyclopaedic [[User:Koakhtzvigad|Koakhtzvigad]] ([[User talk:Koakhtzvigad|talk]]) 05:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

: is your concern about the [[History of infantry]] article itself, or the (not a) summary of it in this article?[[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 11:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

== Proportionality of infantry ==

This "Since the end of the [[Second World War]] the infantry has become a smaller part of armies of the [[Western world]], constituting typically between 10% and 30% of an army's personnel. Despite still often representing the largest individual arm, with the exception of logistics, this is vastly reduced from pre-war levels." seems to need a rewrite.

Infantry was becoming a smaller part of armies before the Second World War also. In fact it started pretty much with introduction of increasingly greater number of technology in about 1850s.

However, its a really general statement to say that they constituted 10% - 30% of the armies in the 'Western world' which since the Second World War was NATO. So where did these figures come from? The largest conflict engaged in by a single NATO member after 1945 was the Vietnam War, and there infantry was the numerically dominant arm despite the huge numbers of support personnel in the theater without which it couldn't have functioned.

Found the following on a Vietnam Vet site but not sure where it came from:
*The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years.
*The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Koakhtzvigad|Koakhtzvigad]] ([[User talk:Koakhtzvigad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Koakhtzvigad|contribs]]) 01:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

It seems to me that the Korean War was also largely fought by UN forces largely drawn from Western nations.

Even taking smaller post-1945 combatants, UK and France, both deployed infantry far more than any other combat or combat support arm.

Even if one looks at the 'Eastern' Soviet Army what was every bit as immersed in technology, maybe even more so, it too was forced to rely on infantry in Afghanistan as the numerically dominant arm.

So yes, statistically infantry has become smaller, but in terms of combat exposure it seems to me they remain proportionately fairly same since 1945. In fact many US non-infantry units, regular and National Guard, have been doing infantry-type service in both Iraq and Afghanistan simply because of the operational necessity.

In any case, the US Army is a very bad example because it has unique logistical challenges that most 'continental' armies don't have, hence greater numbers of support personnel. And then, how does one count the USMC rifle units?[[User:Koakhtzvigad|Koakhtzvigad]] ([[User talk:Koakhtzvigad|talk]]) 11:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

== Bias? ==

Hoo-rah for infantry and all, but this article reads like an infantryman's description of why infantry are awesome.

A few cases in point:
"they are the backbone of armies." (unsourced) (in the first paragraph)

"[lots of hard things that you can only do if you're a bad a--] are exemplified in the United States Army by an excerpt from the infantryman's creed

'In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous; Armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country's trust. Always I fight on: through the foe, to the objective, to triumph over all. If necessary, I fight to my death.'"

The huge "Historical descriptions" section, which has exactly two quotes that are not a machimisto glorification of Infantry. (Not to mention that one of the quotes is from ''Starship Troopers''... oh God, why...?)

Look, I've got no problem with infantry at all, and I agree with most of the things said in this article. But right now it feels like a recruitment brochure, and it needs to feel like, I don't know, an encyclopedia article.

On a seperate note, there needs to be clarification in the "Comparison of Efficiency" section: does one APC in a mechanized unit use 170 gallons of fuel per day? or 170 gallons per soldier? Or does an entire mechanized unit use 170 gallons per day? if so, what unit size? etc., etc. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.242.181.157|74.242.181.157]] ([[User talk:74.242.181.157|talk]]) 06:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== sex ==

do u like it?

== hey amber ==

i bet u like it 2!

== hey amber ==

i bet u like it 2! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.189.3.230|203.189.3.230]] ([[User talk:203.189.3.230|talk]]) 23:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Georgia Larsen ==

HI im georgia larsen, i LOVE having sex with hannah sexton... :) in fact i givwe her oral every wk/end!!! xx

Latest revision as of 21:46, 11 August 2024

Air force and naval infantry

[edit]

Regarding that section of the article, it currently mentions particular air force infantry forces. Considering that they and others are already listed in the Air force ground forces and special forces article, keeping them in this article is not necessary. I suggest removing them. Dreddmoto (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

qw333 158.51.92.155 (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Infantry&oldid=1239840679"