From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.


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

First Sentence[edit]

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. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 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! (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....." ( 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 (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Old discussion[edit]

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

Apparently, this link has since been deleted. -- 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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. —Centrxtalk • 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. 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. 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 -- (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


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. —Centrxtalk • 08:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The historical section is too long in any case (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


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, 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. 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. —Centrxtalk • 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[edit]

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.
-- (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)


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[edit]

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


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 (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am the Superfluous Section[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 08:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits[edit]

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 (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.
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.

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)


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

Early Modern[edit]

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? (talk) 07 April, 2010


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 (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Summarization of Infantry History and an issue with ClueBot...[edit]

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[edit]

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.--MFIrelandTalk 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

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.

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?[edit]

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=[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koakhtzvigad (talkcontribs) 01:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

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)


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 (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. (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Daily life" section[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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)