Talk:Infantry tactics

Limited scope
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

i second your sentiment.

Perhaps opening paragraph can deal with timeless principles: weapon, movement, organization, supply.

By world war II there was enough similarities in tactics that we can give a summary of organization and tactics, and then briefly give unique elements in different combatants: Germans, Soviets, Japanese, etc. Centurion216 (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.204.166 (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I also point out that the Romans did not remain unconquered for more than two millennia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.42.143 (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A short list of inaccuracies:
 * Gustavus Adolphus did not equip his entire army with wheel-locks - the wheel-lock was not widely used on infantry muskets by anyone, because it was too expensive to manufacture. The wheel-lock was confined to hunting weapons and pistols, wheel-lock pistols being standard equipment for cavalry in the 30 Years War Period;
 * Next, Arquebusiers were not "usually formed up in three lines"; A Spanish Tercio, in use until the end of the Thirty Years War, would rank Musketeers 25(!) deep, whilst the Dutch Battalion ranked them 10 deep, and the Swedish Brigade ranked them 4-6 ranks deep - the latter being a such a radical change that it was revolutionary. Musketeers did not widely form up in three ranks until the (very) late 17th century, and by the early 18th century it was standard practice.
 * Regarding Maurice of Nassau - he did not invent drilling, obviously, but he did popularize the concept of strict discipline, and he created many innovative drill-methods and patronized cutting-edge drill-book writers. This, I can only assume, is where the author got the notion.
 * Someone mentions in this talk page a line which seems to have been deleted, "In addition, Gustaf was one of the first (if not the first) to rely on patriots, rather than mercenaries, forming arguably the first national army." - Gustavus Adolphus did not "rely on patriots rather than mercenaries," obviously, but he did set up the first truly effective system of conscription in post-Medieval Europe, which most European nations modeled their own systems of conscription upon and which the Swedish military used into the 20th century.
 * Napoleon is under "Renaissance Warfare." Do I need to say more than that? I will any way. For some reason this article then goes on to refer to "Early Modern" - which should begin somewhere in the early 17th or late 16th centuries and end somewhere in the late 18th or early 19th - as if it were the post-Napoleonic/Victorian period, which it is not.
 * It is rather incoherent to have discussions of Japanese "renaissance" infantry tactics mixed in with European when the two systems had very little in common and did not come into contact with eachother - the article on "Infantry" breaks up the discussion by region, which makes it more coherent.
 * And on that note, this article seems a bit redundant when compared to the aforementioned "Infantry" article - and this article is definitely of lower quality. These are my thoughts at least. It looks like it has been improved significantly since it was first written, but it is still embarassingly inaccurate. 74.166.39.15 (talk) 7th April, 2010

Absolutely right! This whole piece is absolute rubbish, full of nonsense that has no place in a comic book, let alone a scholarly article.

I cut out the worthless nonsense about Vietnam and inserted some info on jungle fighting out here in Asia (I am from Singapore). Good luck cleaning out the rest of this trash.

Contact me at slryan@singnet.com.sg if I can help further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.69.16 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Credit
The article says, "Napoleon Bonaparte did many things to change the nature of warfare. Entrenching was one of his innovations." Dupuy, p.142, records Louis XIV's dragoons carried entrenching tools. So much for Napoleon.

Also, I'd add, "In addition, Gustaf was one of the first (if not the first) to rely on patriots, rather than mercenaries, forming arguably the first national army. " if I was sure it wasn't OT. If it's appropriate, add it? If not, add it someplace else?

Finally, I've seen the "streamlining reloading" someplace, that Gustaf reduced the total number of steps required; this may be a product of adopting wheellocks as much as a change in training (to which it was attributed). And I can't find the source for it... TREKphiler  hit me ♠  13:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that the Romans would be suprised about Napoleon inventing Entrenching as well!Nigel Ish (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm less sure legionaries actually entrenched in the modern sense. They built walls. (Geez, how'd you like to do that for every RON? ;D)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  23:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Article structure
After some significant editing I still think this article is nowhere near what it should be. Some points below --mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because infantry tactics changes over time, the article needs to start with some enduring basics like attack and defence, flanking and ambushes, and then address changes period by period
 * It seems to me that each period section should start with the influence made on the infantry tactics by the changes in weapons used by the infantry
 * It is unproductive to examine infantry tactics based on discussion of specific wars and campaigns. Jungle warfare was not invented in Vietnam, and neither were guerrilla tactics. Colonial warfare was first tried by the Assyrians I think.
 * It seems to me that some space needs to be devoted to command in infantry tactical combat
 * I also think that the mater of cohesion, morale or psychology (all mean the same) of infantry tactics are important enough to be included
 * Lastly infantry tactics have on occasions in history included some fairly large groups of troops, entire corps during the close order formation period, and massive ancient armies that were used tactically, so these should be mentioned also

Good points. Centurion216 (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Platoon
While I understand improvements in lethality, mobility, & communications led to increased dispersal & (generally) decreased casualties taken, I'm less clear how the building block changing from division to platoon is important. I imagine it's driven by the improvements, but a little more clarity would be welcome Also, "Lessons learned" implies (to me, anyhow) they weren't applied til after Vietnam, clearly not the case, given the date of formation of SF. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  01:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In truth what changed was the increasing nature of war to tend towards the irregular type. Of course the French used very much similar tactics during the Napoleonic wars in Spain, Tyrol and Italy, but it was not the dominant form of tactics until the decolonisation, so the platoon tactics as an independent unit became far more widespread in practice of combat.


 * Lessons learned is the US Army phrase, but of course armies and infantry in particular had been learning lessons for a while beforehand :) The British are likely to put it as "The new instructions for the infantry based on the experiences in the recently foregone campaign in Crimea".


 * Thank you for you edits. I basically just thought I should keep editing and do a second pass later, so it is appreciated. I will change the tunnel combat to the subterranean qualifier though as the passage of mountain tunnels require use of very different tactics, given the light one may see shining at the other end is likely to be a train and not a flash light :)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever actually changed, I think the reason is important to include, for those of us less specialist in the area than you appear to be.  Casey Jones   put your lips together & blow  05:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

red links
Too many of em' thus this page is a shambles --Deadlyfish (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to write the missing articles--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A good source of citation for the early modern section, particularly the bits about Maurice of Nassau would be The Military Revolution by Geoffrey Parker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.207.169 (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro
Going to rewrite the intro one paragraph at a time, because at the moment the first paragraph is full of meaningless jargon.IxK85 (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Going to condense the intro further - at the moment there's too much that ought to be in the main body of the article. Will excise the current paras here for reference. -- Infantry tactics are the oldest method of historical warfare, and span all eras. In ancient armies, infantry tactics were used to fight large battles, often involving tens of thousands of troops. Over time, the combat troop density decreased as the infantry were forced to spread out over the terrain to present a less concentrated target for increasingly more effective weapons such as (artillery and, for a time, rifles). By the mid-19th Century, infantry tactics were applied to divisions of 10-20,000, though by the First World War this had been reduced to battalion-size units. With increasing lethality of weapons such as artillery, and the growing use of aircraft in ground combat, the dominant unit of infantry tactics became the company. During the Cold War, European armies fighting post-colonial wars, United States forces fighting in Vietnam, and Soviet and Russian Armies fighting in Afghanistan and Chechnya, all found the platoon to be the basic building block of infantry combat.

At various times in military history, infantry were predicted to be made obsolete by the introduction of armoured knights, artillery, rifles, machine guns, tanks, aircraft, nuclear weapons, and computers. However, at the dawn of the 21st Century, most warfare is still conducted using infantry. Because no other combat arm can operate independently of the infantry, infantry tactics form the basic body of knowledge for all military officers regardless of the armed services branch they serve in.

Infantry tactics span the entire scope of military operations in all combat environments, including land warfare, amphibious and riverine operations, airborne warfare, special operations in support of intelligence warfare, and security operations in support of humanitarian relief operations. -- IxK85 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your new intro is excellent. Great job! --Lendorien (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Lacks worldwide scope
This article seems to focus on wester infantry tactics. Some effort needs to be focused on the east as certainly China and countries in that region had a significant impact on infantry tactits (gunpowder for one) --Lendorien (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No one cares about China though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Urban tactics
Aldough mountain and jungle tactics are described, urban warfare is not. Include or reformat the history section (to broaden the scope to not only include infantry but the change of tactics as a whole during history) and move to military tactics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.221.172 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrench warfare?
Since User:Keith-264 seems not to get it, I suggest he have a look at the discussion at trench warfare for what does, & does not, fit the description. He's now hit the 3RR, & I'm not got to bother rvg somebody so obviously bullheaded. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  20:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC) So have you but with less style. Please refer to the note below.Keith-264 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Post-1918 trench warfare
Entrenchment became the standard protection from mass firepower in the early C20th and has remained so. Try adding the number of weeks of mobile warfare in Russia 1941-45 or Italy 1943-45 or France 1944-45. Do the same for the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq-Iran or Tobruk 1941, Alamein 1942 and compare with the number of weeks the war/campaign lasted. It's a myth that the Great War was exceptional in this regard. The only Blitzkrieg the Germans tried to conduct was Operation Barbarossa, which ended with disastrous defeat and months of static warfare. The section in the article really needs a survey of the authorities on this issue, rather than bald assertion, which is why I added a cautious note not visible on the article page. I'd be grateful if it were left alone until consensus is reached. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Second Battle of Artois see here for the speed with which offensive tactics to overcome field fortifications in general and trench lines in particular [were formed]. Notice that the means to achieve it took much longer to accumulate. Keith-264 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Beyond this edit war and name calling, this statement in the article -- "Since trench warfare had been rendered obsolete by the tank" -- needs a source. If we don't have one, we should remove the statement and move on to something constructive.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a war, it was a full and frank exchange of views. I can't get to my library until tomorrow though.Keith-264 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * We would probably need several authoritative sources for such a broad, bold statement. If anything less is found, we'd need to reduce its breadth and scope of the statement, per WP:UNDUE.  According to Trench warfare, trenches were still prominent after WWII, and a big factor in the massive tank warfare at the Battle of Kursk; it's hard to see how we could imply trenches were "obsolete" after 1918.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I know we need sources but I didn't have time to do more than dig out Murray and Millett's Interwar. On a practical note, how many states could afford panzer armies after 1918? I don't suppose anyone remembers the writer who pointed out that about fifty of the 500 divisions raised by the Germans 1939-45 were armoured or motorised and that the other 450 must have been involved in the war?Keith-264 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't need a writer for that; simply counting German divisions and types would be okay without violating WP:SYNTH. It's well established that most were non-motorized.  But what's the point?  Are we attempting to say that Germany didn't practice armored warfare in WWII?  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, just that in areas where the armoured and mobile divisions weren't concentrated, there was a lot of trench warfare. Where they were concentrated, armoured manoeuvre warfare happened in the gaps between long stretches of trench warfare, with one or two exceptions.Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And were are, yet again, arguing that "entrenchment" (however extensive) ="trench warfare". It doesn't. And that is the whole point. Trench warfare is widely accepted (& certainly almost universally understood outside the professional or specialist community) to mean a condition of static warfare across most of (or all of) a battlefront for years at a stretch. Outside France 1914-8, where is that true? Nowhere. So "trench warfare" ended. QED.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you noticed that lots of armies involved in wars after 1918 couldn't afford tanks? Your definition of trench warfare is a tautology. Let's refer to sources instead of going round in circles.Keith-264 (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Found this "Dig for bloody victory" : the British soldier's experience of trench warfare, 1939-45 Author: Brown, G. D.

Most people’s perceptions of the Second World War leave little room for static, attritional fighting; instead, free-flowing manoeuvre warfare, such as Blitzkrieg, is seen as the norm. In reality, however, much of the terrain fought over in 1939-45 was unsuitable for such a war and, as a result, bloody attritional battles and trench fighting were common. Thus ordinary infantrymen spent the majority of their time at the front burrowing underground for protection. Although these trenches were never as fixed or elaborate as those on the Western Front a generation earlier, the men who served in Italy, Normandy, Holland and Germany, nonetheless shared an experience remarkably similar to that of their predecessors in Flanders, Picardy, Champagne and Artois. This is an area which has been largely neglected by scholars. While the first war produced a mountain of books on the experience of trench warfare, the same cannot be said of the second war. This thesis will attempt to fill that gap by providing a comprehensive analysis of static warfare in the Second World War from the point of view of British infantry morale. It draws widely on contemporary letters and diaries, psychiatric and medical reports and official documentation – not to mention personal narratives and accounts published after the war – and will attempt to interpret these sources in light of modern research and organise them into a logical framework. Ultimately it is hoped that this will provide fresh insight into a relatively under-researched area of twentieth century history. Keith-264 (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'd call that a reasonable source for stating that a style of warfare akin to trench warfare existed after WWI.
 * But I don't think the issue here is that complicated. My real issue is that we currently state tanks made trench warfare obsolete.  We don't have a source for that.  Since, as many references indicate (including the one just provided above), trench warfare continued in at least some form despite the tank, I say the statement is worse than merely unsourced; it's misleading, if not totally incorrect.  While it might be possible to narrow the technical definition of "trench warfare" to make this statement appear true, how does this help the reader?  (Plus, we'd supposedly have to change the Trench warfare article to match this narrowed definition; that isn't going to fly.)
 * I'm adding a "cite needed" tag to this statement in the article. Given that we started discussing this statement weeks ago, after a few more days, if no sources supporting this statement are provided, I'll remove the statement.
 * --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was disappointed to discover that the thesis wasn't on offer but it's better than nothing. There might be more in one of Keegan's books so I will look next time I'm home. Keith-264 (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * With no sources presented, I've reworded to remove the overreaching statement. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg?
Not according to Cooper: The German army, 1933–1945 (1978) and Frieser: The Blitzkrieg legend: the 1940 campaign in the West (2005). Frieser wrote that he found only three references to it in German professional literature and two of those were references to foreign press reports.Keith-264 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting the “platoon” paragraph
Building from smallest to largest element.

Right now it goes from describing squad tactics to not mentioning squads(using British terminology of sections) and referencing the company, which was not explained yet. Centurion216 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Ended up going through platoon, company, battalion, and regiment. Centurion216 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Mobile Infantry Tactics should be a subsection
Mobile Infantry Tactics should be a subsection In Modern Infantry tactics Centurion216 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)