Talk:Infantry/Archive 1

Superfluous link

The US army link seems superfluous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chadloder (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 January 2003.

Apparently, this link has since been deleted. -- Centrx 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

More than just riflemen

"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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.185.138.253 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 May 2005.

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. -- 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? - Centrx 19:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In the Canadian Army, the Infantry Branch is one of the official branches.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. 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? -- 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". - 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.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. —Centrx→talk • 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.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. 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. 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 --203.88.90.202 (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As an Army Infantryman who has a brother who was a Marine Infantryman I can tell everyone as a fact that at least in the U.S. Military that Marines are NOT Soldiers, they are Marines! If anyone in my presence ever called a Marine a Soldier, I would be insulted just as that Marine would be insulted and the offender would find out the hard way just how insulting it was - from both of us! Army is Soldiers. Marine Corps are Marines. Air Force are Airmen, and Navy are Sailors! How the *expletive* is this so hard for people to understand? Solri89 (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2015 (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?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. —Centrx→talk • 08:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The historical section is too long in any case 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". 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. 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.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. —Centrx→talk • 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. :) 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? 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. --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. 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). 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.--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.)

--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.

--74.166.39.15 (talk) 07 April, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

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?

--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. 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lixy (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with children beyond that a non-crown prince from medieval Spain was titled "Infante" as in "son of the monarch". The article "history of infantry" explains this best.

Along these same lines I was wondering where the etymology of the Latin word "infantera" came from. According to this article this Latin word is the origin of the modern word "infantry." I could not confirm this anywhere and I learned something completely different. In Ancient Rome a foot soldier was not called "infantera" but "peditatus". It seems that the origin of infantry does originate with sixteenth century Spain and the Infante. Is this correct? Does anyone have more information to confirm or clarify? If what I learned is correct than the article should be corrected or clarified. Solri89 (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2015 (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? 71.202.97.96 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hitler Youth

There is already a page on the Hitler Youth - the descriptive paragraph here seems out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.95.172 (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.143.214 (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2007 (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. 71.100.218.218 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was definitly infantry, but neither highly disciplined nor trained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.186.42 (talk) 1:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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! 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. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet Strangly enough British spechial forces(SF) would rather recruit from non- infantry units because the combat tactics are so diffrent in SF units and it's hard for an Infantryman to forget the skills and drills that have been drumed into him.

Also Infantry doesn't mean any foot soldiers. "Infantry- Soldiers or military units that fight on foot....." (dictonary.com) Therefor any other member of an army that works on foot but does mot fight is not a member of the Infantry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.114.16 (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Reformatting

This page could do with reformatting - there are large gaps in pages and the images are quite badly positioned. 84.12.145.214 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonicTruism (talk • contribs) 08:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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. 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.93.43 (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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 neologism, then it should indeed be discarded. I myself have never seen the word except for here.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.58.176 (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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 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. Parsecboy (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it from the article. 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. Parsecboy (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot provide any sources for your number 3 above and I apologize for that. Also since I am male I cannot comment about how female Soldiers are trained. But as a former Soldier who was at first M.I. for four years then became an Infantry Mortarman, I can attest that male non-Infantry Soldiers are trained as Riflemen first. That's what Basic Training is after all. You don't learn your specific job you enlisted for until you get to Advandced Individual Training (A.I.T.)

Now to provide further insight as only I can provide: Let's put it this way, there's a difference between a basic "Oh Shit! We're under fire" "rifleman" and an Infantry Rifleman who would more appropriately say "It's about damn time I get to kill these bastards!" Got it? So if an Engineer ever called himself a rifleman he would be pummeled by us because he is NOT a rifleman but only has been trained in the very basics as one.

Besides, one should be proud of what they are. As I was a Mortarman not a Rifleman. Solri89 (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. Military has light and mechanized Infantry. Solri89 (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and also Airborne Infantry. I apologize to the 101, 82nd and Venchenza (sp?) and others I may not know about. Solri89 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Infanteer

Infanteer is the standard term used in the infantry of the British Army. 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? 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.121.138 (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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? 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. (Hohum ^@) 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 similar comparison table used on other military articles is the one use to compare modern wheeled APCs, ICVs and IFVs.--MFIreland • ^Talk 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. 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. Fucking Cunt is not really approriate terminology for another editor in any civil discussion. 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. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.14.247 (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The template is not properly sourced, it uses a commercial website selling "military bikes". I'm removing it and if any edit wishes to use it again they need to supply a reliable source. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me your removal of the template is not warranted. The template has been expensively modified for use in Wikipedia. The data taken from the commercial site is unsourced, but seem to me to be reliable. The commercial website need not be used in the article as a reference Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think if an editor has concerns about information and the reliability of the sourcing then they are right to remove it pending resolution of the problem. Something needs to be used in the template to reference the information presented, and the current source does have limitations (as I noted previously, the lack of sourcing of their info) perhaps the biggest of which is a COI in presenting the bicycle in a good light. This means it probably wouldn't pass as a Reliable Source. In the case of disputed material, the onus is usually on the includer to source it satisfactorily. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's entirely warranted. To echo GraemeLeggit: If you want to make an assertion in Wikipedia (particularly one with as many contentious stats as this) you need to supply a reliable source to back that assertion, even in a template. The citation in this template is a commercial website with no indication of where or how they came up with these (obviously bogus) numbers. As per policy do not re-add this template without a reliable source. Also, I'm unsure what it is you mean by "expensively" modified. Did you mean "extensively"? If so, I sympathize with the work put into the template but that's not the paramater for inclusion. I would also recommend moving any further discussion to the template's talk page. TomPointTwo (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the template as it exists does not qualify for inclusion in the article -- it fails WP:NOR and WP:RS. In fact, gonna take a look at the template now because it probably should just be deleted. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Motorcycle infantry?

Which army had those?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 40-41Koakhtzvigad (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 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?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.

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?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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.181.157 (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I find this article extreamly biassed. If a professional army in america does some this in certain way, a conscript, irregural or militia -style force may not. Infantry training might be as simple as handing a rifle or some other weapon to a peasant and telling them to shoot bad guys.

Daily life -section has no place here. Daily lifes of infantry depend on country and time.

Most of this material should rather be on some US army recruitment site rather than in global encyclopedia. The article currently fails to mention or even consider third world or ancient oriental infranty practises. 94.237.72.140 (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Daily life" section

It seems like an odd header, considering the contents say nothing about daily life (expect perhaps mentioning danger), and is more about the risk of death. Perhaps "Dangers and dedication to duty" would be better, if a bit long. Huw Powell (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

how to join

i am Renard Paul from the commonwealth of Dominica i got a great interest in your organization i would be happy if you could give me some information on how i can join — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.217.240.28 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by your organization, this is not a military organization, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Dominican Army202.123.130.53 (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Infantry

Cyberbot II has detected links on Infantry which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.robertankony.com/lurps-gallery/

  Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.robertankony.com/publications/twenty-second-and-last-patrol/

  Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Etymology of Latin "Infanteria"

The article tells where the modern usage of the word infantry comes from (Spain in the 16th century) but it doesn't say anything about where the original Latin word of Infanteria derives. Does anyone know and could you provide sources? Solri89 (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. The correct spelling of the Latin word according to the article is "Infantera". But the question still stands. Thank you. Solri89 (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Modern Types of US Army Infantry, et al

The US Army currently employs six types of infantry. The infantrymen themselves are essentially trained, organized, armed, and equipped the same, save for some having airborne and/or Ranger qualification(s), the primary difference being in the organic vehicles (or lack thereof) assigned to the infantry unit, or the notional delivery method (i.e., parachute drop or heliborne)employed to place the infantryman on the battlefield. All modern US Army rifle platoons contain three nine-man rifle squads, with each type of infantry having a discrete TO&E. All light infantry units (light, airborne, and air assault), except Ranger infantry, have essentially the same battalion, company, and platoon organization, with minor differences primarily in the battalion headquarters. Ranger infantry has a somewhat modified TO&E compared to other light units, which makes their companies and battalions even "lighter" (viz., smaller) than other light infantry units. Stryker and mechanized unit's TO&Es obviously must allow for additional manpower and equipment to man, maintain, and service their respective vehicles.

1) Light Infantry (primarily foot-mobile, usually transported by motorized assets, capable of air assault operations).

a) Light Infantry ("standard" light infantry not otherwise designated or qualified as either airborne, air assault, or Ranger).

b) Airborne Infantry (Parachute qualified).

c) Air Assault Infantry (assigned to units w/ associated Army Aviation elements, w/ both the infantry and aviation elements specifically trained and organized to perform the air assault mission, however all light infantry are capable of performing the air assault mission when transported by appropriate aviation assets).

d) Ranger Infantry (Parachute qualified and trained and designated for special operations missions).

2) Stryker Infantry - equipped w/ M1126 Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles (while technically a form of mechanized infantry, because of their namesake wheeled mounts, nominally this would be the "medium" infantry, while not designated as such, their equipment/armament is "heavier" than light infantry but not as robust as "mechanized" infantry).

3) Mechanized Infantry- equipped w/M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles (nominally this would be the "heavy" infantry, historically designated as "armored" infantry, because they are trained, organized, and equiped to operate in conjunction with tanks).

In addition to the six types of US Army infantry, described above, the US Marine Corps has it own version of infantry. Marine infantry is essentially heavily manned (e.g., a Marine rifle squad having 13 members, vice only nine) and supported (with field artillery, armored vehicles, reconnaissance, and combat engineers organic to reinforced infantry battalions) light infantry. While primarily trained, organized and equipped to be foot-mobile, it is of course, prepared to execute amphibious operations, either by amphibious assault vehicle, LCAC, conventional landing craft, or rigid rubber boats, etc. In addition, all Marine infantry units are prepared, and regularly train, to perform heliborne, or "vertical envelopment" (i.e., air assault) and mechanized operations (when supported by attached amphibious assault vehicle units). Furthermore, while not designated as special operations forces, deployed Marine Expeditionary Units (containing a heavily reinforced Marine infantry battalion, designated as a Battalion Landing Team) are certified as "special operations capable" (SOC). In addition to significant differences between Marine infantry and their US Army counterparts in training and organization, there are some differences in individual weapons, equipment, and vehicles, as well.

Now, as to whether or not Marines are soldiers. Yes, in the highly generic sense of being members of an armed force, Marines are indeed soldiers (with a small case s). In fact, one of our (I am a retired Officer of Marines) hallowed nom de guerre, along with "Leathernecks," and "Devil Dogs," is "Soldiers of the Sea," or its variant "Sea Soldiers." Now, in practice, it is considered poor form to address, or refer to, Marines, either individually, or collectively, as "soldier(s)." It also, of course, depends upon the speaker/writer and the context and intent of the use of the term soldier. So, in the broadest context, a member of the Navy or Coast Guard may be considered a "soldier" (as a member of an armed force), but he or she may actually be an "airman" (the correct rate title for an E-3 in an aviation rating). Would anyone condemn the use of the term soldier, vice calling them airman, when referring to a member of a USAF security squadron or special operations squadron conducting ground combat operations? I have even heard Navy SEALs refer to themselves as a soldier.

Yes, the proper title for one who has earned the "Eagle, Globe, and Anchor" (EGA) is "Marine," because unique among the US Armed Forces, "Marine" is considered as an earned title, not simply a general descriptor for a member of the Marine Corps. One may enlist (or in previous times, be drafted) as a member of the Marine Corps, but one does not truly become a Marine until earning their EGA. Collectively, along with our brothers (and in some cases, sisters) who are "Rangers," "Green Berets," "Combat Controllers," "PJs," and "SEALs," among many others, we are also "soldiers." Save the animosity for the enemy - cooperate, collaborate, and conquer! CobraDragoon (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

In your last paragraph it is the same in the U.S. Army. At least in my time (the 90's) you were a trainee until you've completed A.I.T. and have at least six months in. Only after you have completed that can you call yourself a Soldier. Solri89 (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, however, only the Marine Corps (and perhaps, to a somewhat lesser degree, the Coast Guard, in its current "Coast Guardsman Ethos" focus, replacing its former "Guardian Ethos") awards its initial training graduates with a title eponymous with the name of its Branch of Service (viz., Marine or Coast Guardsman), as opposed to the more generic "titles," of soldier, sailor, airman of the Army, Navy , and Air Force, respectively. Although, certain other military units within various branches, such as "Ranger," "SEAL," and perhaps USAF "PJ" (Pararescue Jumper) training graduates do earn a title identical to the official title of their organization. CobraDragoon (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Correcting an old entry

• On another issue, even though its rather old, I must correct the following entry (posted above under "Marine as soldier"):

"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 --203.88.90.202 (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)"

1) The "army, army reserves,army national guard (sic) are components not branches. (See Structure of the United States Army under "Active and Reserve").

2) The "branches" of the army are listed in the same article under Branches.

3) There are two types of "corps" in the US Army, branch and tactical. Some branches (see 2, above) are styled as "corps" (e.g., Adjutant General's Corps and Corps of Engineers). Maneuver and Fires Branches (Armor, Infantry, Aviation, Field Artillery, and Air Defense Artillery) are NOT entitled as "corps." Tactical "corps" consist of a corps headquarters, at least two army divisions, and other units (separate commands, brigades, regiments, and battalions) reporting directly to the corps headquarters. Current US Army Corps are: I Corps, III Corps, and XVIII Airborne Corps.

4) Understanding that "2ed sq 1st plt 1434th eng. co./ 101st eng. bn. /16th eng. bge. /1st cav. div. /corps of enginers, /army national guard" (sic) is a fictional organization created for illustrative purposes only, some notes /corrections are in order.

a) Rarely would one officially identify an Army unit below company level and usually only combat service support (viz., Force Sustainment Branches such as Transportation Corps and Quartermaster Corps) companies would have a discrete number as they would not normally be organic to a battalion but rather "separate" companies, as in 1434th Truck Co.

b) Under both the old U.S. Army Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS) and the newer (1981) United States Army Regimental System (USARS), most "line" companies/batteries/troops of battalions/squadrons affiliated with a regiment are designated by a capital letter, as in "Company C, with the battalion and regiment both having numerals, as in 2nd battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment. In abbreviated form, levels of command are indicated by a "/" except when the battalion's lineal parent regimental headquarters is not currently established (as the case with virtually all current US Army regiments, the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and the 75th Ranger Regiment being notable exceptions), in which case a "-" separates the battalion and regiment designation. (Examples 1/75 Rangers and 2/3 ACR, but 3-2 Infantry and 7-1 Cavalry, as for the latter two examples no regimental headquarters currently exists.) A complete designation would then be: B/1/75 Rangers for Company B, 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, or A/7-1 Cavalry for Troop A, 7th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment.

c) While an engineer brigade has numbered battalions, a division would not have an engineer brigade. Maneuver and fires battalions comprising brigades will have a regimental affiliation as described in b) above, so an infantry battalion organic to a brigade combat team would be designated something such as 2-1 Infantry, 2nd Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.

d) A division does not report to a branch-type “corps,” such as the Corps of Engineers, but rather to a "tactical" corps, such as XVIII Airborne Corps, or directly to a higher headquarters.

e) Army branches are not segmented by, nor do they report to components (see 1 above), rather the branches report either directly to Headquarters, Department of the Army, or to United States Army Training and Doctrine Command. CobraDragoon (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Infantrymen do not use infantry "support" weapons.

To state that Infantrymen use Infantry "support" weapons is to imply that the Infantry is supporting a non-Infantry unit. That is completely backwards of reality. Every single type of non-Infantry military unit out there supports the Infantry. Everyone supports the Infantry, not the other way around. The whole purpose of a military is to ultimately control land and it is the Infantry that does so. That means that even the Navy and the Air Force support the Infantry. As in the Navy protecting shipping routes so that inevitably whatever cargo they are protecting reaches the grunts in the field. Or the Air Force bombing an enemy defensive perimeter to support the Infantry that is about to attack. It is completely impossible for an Infantry unit to use an Infantry "support" weapon.

In the U.S. Army (at least during my day) there are three basic types of units. 1. Combat Arms - as in the Infantry, Armour, Artillery, etc. 2. Combat Support - as in M.I., Signals, etc. and 3. Combat Service Support - like Cooks, Personnel, etc. (Notice which one of the three does NOT include the word "support".)

Before I became an Infantry Mortarman I was previously in a tactical M.I. battalion. When I did that, I supported the Infantry. When I became an 11C, they (and everyone else) supported us. I know I have a high I.Q. but I truly don't get how difficult it is for some to understand the definition of the word "support" while used in a military context. SUPPORT MEANS TO SUPPORT ANOTHER UNIT.

Plus it is highly insulting to us Infantrymen to call us "support." A friend of mine is a Marine who was a member of F.A.S.T. (Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team). He recalled a story when some high up government official addressed them and called them Fleet Anti-terrorism Support Team. He then stated just how disgusted and insulted they all were until their C.O. later confirmed that he set the official right. If you don't believe that it's wrong and insulting to call Infantrymen "support", then I dare anyone to call us "support" at the local Infantrymen's watering hole. (I highly suggest no one take up that dare! But if you did, and if by some chance Soldiers and Marines were both patronizing the establishment, you would have the rare opportunity to see Soldiers and Marines cooperatively working together while on there on time to achieve an objective.)

We train much more and harder than other "non-elite" units so that we can take the brunt of an enemy. (I state this as a fact! Remember I did state above that I was M.I. before I became an Infantryman.)

It appears obvious that whoever keeps putting that misleading word in never served in the military or else he/she would get it, or they did serve but in a non-Infantry M.O.S. and are just jealous. Therefore, to show proper respect (as we all should) to my fellow Infantrymen I will always remove that misleading word whenever it appears. Thank you and Hoo-Ahh! (To our U.S. Marines: Ooh-Rah!)

P.S. Besides, correcting the phase by removing the misleading word "support" does nothing to change the overall meaning of the article. So by placing it back in there only shows intent to insult. Solri89 (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I would suggest that you read WP:BRD before proceeding with the what could potenitally be an edit war.

Note: "BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring. Avoiding edit warring is a policy that all editors must follow.

You have been Bold in removing the "support" word and you have been Reverted, so now time to Discuss.

As a result of your change, the text now reads employ crew-served infantry weapons or to put in the target article employ crew-served personal weapons Can you see how incorrect this is? Hamish59 (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Then the redirect needs to be changed. All infantry weapons are not "personal weapons." By definition a crew-served weapon is assigned to a crew (i.e., two or more men, based on the weapon system itself) not an individual (although the team, squad, or section leader - again dependent upon the weapon system itself - is ultimately responsible for the "care and feeding" of the subject weapon system). Each crewman will also have a "personal weapon," be it a pistol or a rifle/carbine, so the proper definition of "infantry weapons" is much broader than "personal weapons."

As regards the "support" issue - this is largely a matter of semantics and context. FM 3-20.90 in Chapter 1, under Introduction, states: "The mortar platoon's mission is to provide close and immediate indirect fire support [bold added] for manuever battalions and companies." Therefore, we can see that even though the mortar (in its current type employed by the US Army and USMC, a well as most, if not all, other modern militaries) is indeed an "infantry" weapon (there no longer being artillery mortars in common use), and that the mortar does provide "fire support" for other manuever units. One must also note that the term "manuever" units does not only mean infantry units. Even under the "combat arms" classification, manuever units includes not only infantry but armor/cavalry as well. So an infantry motar platoon may be tasked to provide "support" (viz., supporting fires) to a tank or armored cavalry unit. Furthermore, since combat enginneers and some elements of Army Aviation (e.g., attack helicopters) are also categorized as "combat arms," infantry mortars could be asigned a fire mission to provide support (e.g. laying smoke) to screen the ingress/egress of an attack helicopter unit or suppressive fire on an enemy position to enable a combat engineer mine clearing/laying evolution or a combat breeching mission.

Yes, in the final analysis, all military effort and organizations may be held to exist for the ultimate purpose of placing a rifleman on a piece of formerly contested ground, so all weapons systems from a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, and a strategic bomber, down to and including infantry crew-served weapons (including machine guns, rocket launchers, and anti -tank missiles) and yes, even mortars, exist to "support" the infantry (i.e., rifleman) even though some of those weapons are also operated by "infantrymen." Therefore, infantry mortars are infantry weapons, but what kind of infantry weapons? If one would stipulate that rifles/carbines are the "basic" or "primary" weapon of the infantry, then perhaps one would agree that all other weapons are either "secondary" (pistols, bayonets, knives, entrenching tools, fists, feet, teeth, etc.) used only when primary weapons/ammunition are either unavailable or inapproriate (e.g., killing an enemy listening post or sentry with knives at night so as not to reveal one's position) or "supporting" (including explosives and demolitions, individually carried rocket launchers, and crew-served infantry weapons, including infantry mortars).

I do not believe that anyone has any intention of slighting infantry mortarmen by positing that infantry mortars are "infantry support weapons" and thereby attempting to deneigrate the fact that those mortar crewman are indeed "infantry." After all, what is the definition of "infantry," other than troops and units that are trained, organized, and equipped, for the primary purpose of engaging the enemy on foot. Infantry motarmen certainly fill this requirement, so allowing that the weapon system itself is a "support weapon" in/to/for the infantry is no more of an insult than saying that an attack helicopter or a tactical fighter is an "air support" weapon. CobraDragoon (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry about the brd thing. I did not know what that meant. But huh? I never said anything about personal weapons. If you want to call mortars, tows, M-240B's, and the like crew served infantry weapons that's great because that is what they are. But now you are making me repeat myself! Please read the mortar article talk page that covers this same issue. I've already stated that yes mortars do support our riflemen and sometimes even others from other units in a necessary situation but that latter situation is rare. Remember riflemen support mortars also by providing perimeter defense. But we are all in the same unit. Therefore it is not considered support, it's considered part of the mission. Yes you are correct about how mortars provide support for riflemen so if you want to call it a rifleman support weapon then I guess technically that would be right but still not correct. I hope you realize what you wrote above and how truly wrong it is when you stated "and yes, even mortars, exist to "support" the infantry (i.e. riflemen)" because the infantry consists of more then just riflemen. But, I never said anything about being insulted as a Mortarman on this talk page, that was another page and that issue was resolved. In this article I'm stating that no infantry unit is ever considered a support unit even though it is possible for a infantry unit to support another combat arms unit but in every circumstance where that would be the case, the two units mutually support each other to achieve the objective because the mission is at the next higher level - in other words it's just one units part of the overall mission to ensure that the mission is successful. As in Mortarmen supporting our riflemen who mutually support the Mortarmen so we can both accomplish our specific parts of the mission. If you cannot sleep at night then I'll give you this: The infantry can support another combat arms unit if that unit is also mutually supporting them as well. But don't go running on that because then that would mean this infantry battalion is supporting that infantry battalion because the mission is at the brigade level. A brigade in which both battalions would belong. Even delta force supports the infantry. I.e. The task force that fought in Mogadishu on 3 October 1993 was called Task Force Ranger, not Task Force Delta. Now in reality Delta is much better trained and more "Hoo-Ahh" than rangers but still they are support. I'm sorry but no matter how hard one tries nor how one tries to confuse the public the fact is everyone supports the infantry. No two ways around it no matter how hard one tries to argue schematics. On a personal note I would never insult an air superiority jet fighter pilot by saying his specific mission to down enemy air superiority jet fighters is in a support capacity either. Even though in the broadest terms of holding ground, that pilot would be in a support role. As far as the attack helicopter analogy: an attack helicopter is the epitome of a support weapon!!!!!

Please once and for all let's stop splitting the split end of the hair already. Also even if one is not trying to insult infantryman the fact is that you are by ever stating that the infantry is in a support role. Like I said, try going to a bar at Benning and stating the infantry are in a support role and see what happens to you. To warn you though I've seen some bad bar brawls. In one case because some combat engineer who didn't realize infantrymen were in the establishment when he blatantly lied and stated that combat engineers move ahead of the infantry. He was trying to get laid but got laid out instead. He deserved it. Myself, I've been out for 18 years so I'm calm now but I really, really, REALLY warn everyone to NOT say something that stupid about the infantry being support in a room full of drinking infantrymen. You've been warned. I'm done with this except to tell all I've stated my peace so anymore talk of the infantry in "support" will be reverted to the truth. I hope that meets the brd requirements because if it doesn't I just don't really give a poop anymore. My mamma always told me it's pointless to argue with those who refuse to learn. Solri89 (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry i meant semantics above not schematics. I'm very sick and I just woke up to another insult to the infantry whether it was intended or not. You are forgiven. Solri89 (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Also I'm not going down the primary, secondary weapons argument because you could keep going about how this tree twig is my tertiary weapon system. Solri89 (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and mamma was correct...

So, now that we can apparently all agree that unless one is armed with a rifle/carbine with a bayonet on the business end; no matter what one's MOS is or what weapon system he is carrying, serving, riding in, or has strapped his backside into - from a battleship to a boxcutter - that he is providing support for that nineteen-year old PFC or LCPL who just ripped out the guts of the son of gun who was either on the piece of dirt that he now owns, or the dead man was trying to take his piece of dirt from him and died for his effort. We get it - infantry is dirty, brutal, bloody business. (Been there - done that.) Now, are we all satisfied with how the current article is written, including links/redirects? I am tired of chasing this infantry "support" rabbit. CobraDragoon (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Other infantry

The Other infantry section could do with some improvements. It does not need to list particular, air force infantry units. It currently mentions the Royal Air Force Regiment, Royal Australian Air Force Airfield Defence Guards, China's PLAAF 15th Airborne Corps, and United States Air Force Security Forces. This is unnecessary because a list of all such units is at the Air force infantry and special forces units article.

The text about air force infantry units in the introduction is long and detailed. Considering that it is in the introduction of the article, it does not need to be. It could be summarised and the majority of it could be moved to the Other infantry section. What do others think? --Dreddmoto (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but by listing some of the national types of "other infantry", it may help the reader to readily understand that these units are not infantry proper, viz. army (vice air force or naval/marine) troops. True "infantry" troops are trained, organized, equipped, and doctrinally purposed for dismounted ground combat to seize, hold, and defend terrain by fire, maneuver, and close combat in order to either kill or capture the enemy by employing man-carried weapons, including bayonets, knives, and bare hands. For example, while the USMC has "infantry" units, they are "Marine Infantry" a distinctly different type of infantry from U.S. Army Infantry. This is not just because they belong to a different branch of the U.S. military, but rather because their training, organization, some weapons and equipment, doctrinal purpose, and ethos are not the same as infantry proper (i.e., army infantry), even though USMC Infantry has often been used in "conventional" infantry roles. In the same fashion, USAF Security Forces share many similarities with infantry proper, but they are primarily security forces not infantry troops in primary mission and doctrinal purpose.

The reason the introduction re air force "infantry" is so detailed, is because of the rationale stated above. Recently, there have been some who have attempted to equate USAF Security Forces with true infantry both in this article and even by editing the Infantry Branch (United States) article to include USAF SF in the article as an "infantry" organization. I wrote the extended introduction in this article to disabuse any adherents of that erroneous opinion. I will note here that I also wrote the "Current Types of U.S. Infantry" portion of the Infantry Branch article and included a "U.S. Marine Corps Infantry" section. I did this because Marine Infantry are indeed infantry, albeit a "special" type of "light infantry", primarily as a "compare and contrast" piece, and secondarily because the USMC does not have "branches" as does the USA, or "warfare communities" as does the USN. (For all Marines the "branch" and "warfare community" are synonomous, viz., Marine Corps, in addition, all "Marine Aviation" personnel are "dual hatted" as members of "Naval Aviation"). Therefore, any reader desiring to learn the difference between the several different types of USA Infantry and USMC Infantry can find that information there. CobraDragoon (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@CobraDragoon: I see what you mean about the introduction. It's gone now, but, could be brought back to the Other infantry section. It was a helpful, brief description of air force infantry units and would add to the limited overview of such forces that has already been written there.

Regarding "infantry proper", many such air force units are considered to be infantry. While the USAF Security Forces may primarily be security/military police, other such forces in other countries have additional roles, including: air assaults, capturing air bases, infantry support to special forces and patrolling around air bases which involves engaging attackers primarily on foot. They are trained, armed and equipped as infantry. In this article, they should collectively be referred to as base defence and infantry units. --Dreddmoto (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Operations

The Operations section lacks any mention of infantry units tasked with special operations. This includes infantry support to special forces missions as well as other special operations. It is a major role of the American 75th Ranger Regiment and the British Special Forces Support Group (SFSG). Someone should add such information. --Dreddmoto (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent deletions, and rewriting the article

I've recently deleted three entire sections of this article, Retractions to the infantry concept, Organisation and Doctrine, with basically the same comment: Delete section, unsourced (tagged for years); inaccurate, unclear on subject. The sections weren't large (about 100 to 500 words each), and all had no sources, and had been tagged as such for at least 2 years (from September 2015 to as far back as February 2012). To most editors, that alone justifies deletion. But, I'm not most editors; deleting swaths of text, even small ones, can be seen as making the article less, if not simply worse. Shouldn't we all work to improve what we have, not just demolish whatever we don't like? That's how I feel, so I'm compelled to add this section on Talk to explain why I did this, and warn about what I plan to do.

I long felt the whole article is inexcusably poor. It's incoherent, skipping randomly from point to point, with most "points" left insufficiently articulated, of doubtful importance, and, as far as I can tell with such vague points, inaccurate. Now, articles like this are, unfortunately, not rare on WP, but most are on kind of background subjects, either very narrow (a particular school district) or pretty vague (a hair style) or both (a purported breed of Medieval pony). If a reader gets to one of these and finds only random tidbits of doubtful significance with little organization, it's not that bad; the subject isn't critical to their greater knowledge, so trivia may be all they expected anyway. But I think readers should expect better for Infantry; it's about what makes up most of the world's military!

So, I've had this article on my to-do list... for years. The very long delay is because I'm a more of a WikiGnome -- not the type of editor to suddenly jump in and totally rewrite whole articles at one go. (I'm actually a little suspicious of anyone who attempts this; that's why I'm compelled to over-explain myself here.) So, after many long breaks and hundreds of distractions, I've finally come back here and started. First, I chipped away at the lede and the first couple of sections (Etymology and History), until they are pretty much entirely rewritten. Since the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article, the rest of the article should basically follow the flow of the lede. But the article followed no flow before, and certainly doesn't follow my new lede. I plan to fix that, by rewriting the whole article, one small step at a time. The section deletions I've done are the first steps, removing chunks that have absolutely no place in any future flow I can see. (However, parts of their supposed subjects, especially "Organization", will reappear, but owing nothing to their old literally pointless text.)

If you're in any way concerned about this, great! Just jump in and... well, do just about anything. It's hard to see how anyone with even a bit of skill or experience on this subject could make this article worse. But focus especially on the new lede, because otherwise the rest of the article will (not very soon) resemble a giant version of the lede (though, as is my style, I'll be constantly re-tweaking the lede myself over time, likely eventually rewriting it more than once).

If you're not concerned (which I figure is more likely), fine. Sorry for the ramble; I just felt I had to dutifully explain my deletions and my slow plan behind them. It helped me clarify my own plans, at least. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I just looked it over. Tried a few improvements but I reckon you can burn it all down and build it up again. Go for it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Security force is not a infantry

We had this discussion on the secfor page and now the admins have locked the infantry page so we cannot make the correct edits. Usaf secfor is not infantry Mrkoww (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

As per the discussion on the USAF Security Force Page, SecFor is not Infantry. Edits were made in regards to this, any changes should be directed in here. Mrkoww (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

We continue to have a problem of people adding USAF Security Force as Infantry. They are a Security Force/Military Police force and not Infantry. I have fixed this issue again. Can we get admins to lock this section?Cowsthatfloat (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Combat role section

The section Infantry#Combat role is very poor. It's small, has no focus, and no good sources.

It starts by defining infantry; this is redundant with the definition in the lede, and yet still manages to conflict with it.

It then goes to quote several WP:PRIMARY sources on the role of infantry. We shouldn't use primary sources if there are alternatives.

It then tosses out a random bit of the history of infantry, redundant with the history section, and as just a fragment, mostly inaccurate.

If finally goes into some tidbits of infantry operations, without sources. The very next section, Infantry#Operations, does a much more complete job of this. One or the other section is redundant, and the Operations section covers a much wider range of the subject.

Unless some notable reasons to keep this section are given here, I'll soon delete this section. I may move some small parts into other sections.

Comments? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

With no objections for a week, I've removed the section. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"Poor Bloody Infantry" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Poor Bloody Infantry. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#Poor Bloody Infantry until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)