Talk:Infantry tactics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Contents 1 Limited scope 2 Does Iraq Insurgency belong? 3 Cleanup 4 Inaccuracies abound 5 Re: Inaccuracies abounc 6 Re: Re: Inaccuracies =

[edit] Limited scope

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

This article does not even begin to cover this vast subject. Its content is highly myopic: Euro/USA centric and gives undue attention to recent developments. Gaius Cornelius 18:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, rather a difficult topic to cover though. Scoo 05:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The spelling and grammatical errors are horrendous. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.230.200 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 1 March 2006

[edit] Does Iraq Insurgency belong?

Does the section dealing with Iraqi insurgency even belong in this section? That's much closer to terrorism than infantry in my view. -- appleciders 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Infantry and other forces tend deal with one an other so it is difficult to make a section on infantry tactics that talks purely about infantry. I don't believe I covered the terrorism that is occuring in Iraq as much as terrorist like attacks used against coalition forces. In a way, suicide bombers are a type of infantry the insurgents are using just like soldiers armed with AK-47s and RPGs. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggressive pacifist2 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 5 June 2006

[edit] Cleanup

Well, I edited a good chunk of this article, but I'm still only half done as the grammar and spelling are absolutely abysmal! I got up to World War II, so if anyone has time to do the rest that would be appreciated. I also found I had to edit for neutrality (the "U.S. - Iraq conflict" used to be called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - very biased indeed!) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokkshaa (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 September 2006

I'll start by deleting the whole of the introduction and the next paragraph, which don't mention infantry tactics at all! A general history of warfare has no place here, nor should the article start with a discussion of chariots. Cyclopaedic 17:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies abound

My god, this is utter rubbish. When I have some time next month I'll break out some manuals and historcal texts and rewrite this videogame interpretation of "infantry tactics". I got up to WW2 before my incredulous meter broke. My first major observation is that this article should be entitled something like "small unit tactics" since even company sized "infantry units" have organic artillery in their to&e., too many errors to list, any recomendations on how this article should be written is welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.204.166 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 31 October 2006

Yeah, I care little about this website but seeing some German-American nerd give his interpretation of history at every other country's expense is quite irritating. Storm-troopers were not the first iteration of genuinely modern tactics, mainly because they didn't employ modern fire and movement. Rather, they were similar to Italian Arditi who were no different to ad hoc, lightly-equipped units who have existed through out history. I would put my money on the British Army being the true origantors of modern small unit tactics beyween 1900 and 1918 and then again in the Far East during the Second World War. I say this with confidence because the work done on British military history is inherently more accurate than that done on Continental armies, which is mainly an extrapolation of theorists' ideas from over a century ago. You'll find that as far as offensive tactics go, through the twentieth century the British Army was the most innovative and had the most practical effect. Credit goes to the Germans in the Second World War, but not as much as is thought by the majority of "military historians" on this site. I also don't like the way Russian tactics are treated. They didn't wait until the 1990s to adopted Wetsern practices and, in theory any way, it is safe to assume that they had developed their own unique, but no less effective tactics since the Second World War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.214.77 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Inaccuracies abounc

Agreed. Not really sure where to start, but the first thing that comes to mind is the presense of the Chinese Human Wave myth in this article. I appreciate the effort to write a Small Unit Tactics page on Wikipedia, but complete fabrications like this can't be included. Template:Commander PoppinFresh

[edit] Re: Re: Inaccuracies =

I hav started with the changes. Kindly comment on my section on "ADVANCE" 61.0.150.168 (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Hrishikesh