Talk:Mechanized infantry

Merge
Rather than slap on a whole slew of merge tags, I'll just comment here: there are three closely related stub articles, to wit: Obviously there are differences in definition, but those are in any case covered here (or certainly could be) dealt with here. So what say just merge and redirect them all here? Alai 23:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * mobile infantry
 * mechanized force
 * motorised infantry

A purist would say that they are different. 145.253.108.22 09:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

256th Brigade
Why is the 256th Brigade mentioned here? Is it somehow more important than any other mechanized brigade? 145.253.108.22 09:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed the 256th Brigade link. From the article, it does not appear to be equipped with anything that would constitute mechanised - it seems more like a motorised infantry brigade, using trucks instead of IFV's. 84.13.38.104 14:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

POV discussions
"For nearly 45 years the US/NATO and the USSR/Warsaw Pact readied themselves for a war that never came. Today's hi-tech IFV's, MBT's, and Mechanized/Armor units that employ them, are a direct result of that Cold War "arms race." It is argued by some that the organizations for existing mechanized and armored formations will have to be realigned to face 21st Century warfare, and that the 60-ton main battle tank should be replaced by fighting vehicles based on the IFV." This is severely opinionated, especially the "are a direct result of that Cold War "arms race."" bit.

NOTE: effective this date, May 2009, it appears that that highly opinionated theory of the conventional 60 ton Main Battle Tank is being phased into the background...in favor of a more 21st century practicle IFV; that is to say, air transportable, air drop capable, and otherwise highly deployable, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.49.119 (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the paragraph (which originally looked as if it was lifted directly from some published but uncredited source), along with some "See Also" references which do not have links and are not readily available outside the USA. I have also removed some unnecessary headings. HLGallon 08:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the concept of 'mechanized, armoured infantry' was implimented earlier than the battle Amiens 1918. See URL:http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Canadian_Machine_Gun_Corps The Canadain Machine Gun Corps was mobilzed in Canada in 1914 complete with armoured Autocars (which seem an awful lot like IFV/APCs) and were used through to 1918 for deploying and transporting infantry and thier machine guns.

Debatably, the Rolls Royce armoured car 1914 could also be considered an IFV/APC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Armoured_Car

Krustymaggot 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

English: British or American?
This article has quite a mishmash of British and American english usage, often within the same sentence. I suggest we make it consistent one way or the other. Since the article name uses American english I suggest that is the path of least resistance. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the article was much closer to American than British usage so I've made it consistently American. This should include everything except proper names of formations when those formation titles should be British english. For example, we would write "...some armored brigades..." even if they are British (or Canadian or ....). However, we would write "Nth Armoured Brigade" if we were naming a particular British unit. Likewise, an article written in British english should use "...some armoured units...." consistently but "Nth Armored Division" when naming an American unit. Hope this is clear. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wheeled APCs
In the second paragraph the article implies armoured wheeled vehicles are soft skinned, and aren't mechanised infantry. The British Army classifies wheeled armoured infantry battalions as mechanised battalions.--Mongreilf (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A definition based entirely on American usage was added on 24 March by anon IP 71.197.120.23. It should perhaps be removed if only the American army used (or uses) the term "motorized infantry" to define infantry in wheeled armoured APCs. HLGallon (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mechanized vs Armoured Infantry
The British Army distinguishes between Mechanized Infantry (who use APCs) and Armoured Infantry (who use the Warrior IFV) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_of_the_British_Army#Types_of_infantry. However, "Armoured Infantry" just redirects to this article. Should there be separate articles for Mechanized and Armoured infantry (or at least a section about the differences here)? Or is this distinction just a quirk of British Army doctrine and most other armies consider the two to be basically just two varieties of the same thing? 86.179.239.198 (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with UK or US usage but I can explain South African Army terminology: Mechanised infanty use IFVs, Motorised infantry use APCs and Light infantry use soft skinned trucks - or aircraft, as airborne (parachute) and airmobile (heliborne) units are also Light infantry. Most of South Africa's military structures, traditions and terminology are based on the British model due to the colonial history of SA.


 * That rather highlights just how much the terminoligy can vary - even being based on the British model, that would mean SA Mech Inf = UK Arm Inf and SA Motor Inf = UK Mech Inf. Light infantry in UK usage generally means travelling on foot - I think technically in the UK system if they were moved by truck then they'd be motorised. Jellyfish dave (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do British Light Infantry really march hundreds of miles over hill and dale to get to their battles? Surely they do use some form of vehicle as primary transport.


 * See Falklands War. HLGallon (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh get real! The Falklands was a very exceptional situation - they simply were unable to bring fleets of their usual vehicles along.
 * I'm quite sure the Cold War battle plans did not include having "Regiments of foot" arranged neatly in square company formations, marching all over the plains and forrests of Germany and Poland. Next you'll be telling us they still use muskets and wear red coats! What does the NATO specifications say about the different unit types? Roger (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly a light infantry unit may well be moved by all sorts of means - boat, helicopter, truck, etc, however if using those methods to get directly into battle then they'd be considered amphibious, air assault, motorised etc. If they were being dropped off a few miles away and waking in, then they be considered light inf. Light infantry will often operate in the jungle or in the mountains, where they would walk everywhere. Clearly hundreds of miles wouldn't be the norm though! Jellyfish dave (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Falklands land campaign was fought on the British side by two formations specifically required to fight without any "usual fleets of vehicles", in theatres (NATO's northern flank and out-of-NATO-area) where it was foreseeable that they could not be brought. HLGallon (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As Jellyfish dave says - Light infantry is brought to the "edge of the battle" in various vehicles. Any army that puts troops in unarmoured trucks directly "in harms way" is insane! Light infantry enter the fight on foot but they don't cross continents on the march. Again I can only speak from my knowlege of the South African Army, during their involvement in northern Namibia and Angola they had a "redline" which was literally a line on the map that defined the forward limit for unarmoured vehicles. Beyond the redline only "MRAP" or heavier vehicles were permitted - even light infantry units transferred to Buffel APCs. Roger (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Comparison Chart
Quite aside from the fact that the comparison chart seems to be a copy direct from a non-free use source, it also seems slightly dubious - I can't believe that a truck uses 368 litres per passenger per day. It seems more likely that the figure is for the whole vehicle, but that is not made clear. Jellyfish dave (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim that infantry on foot can travel 40 km per day is also highly dubious. That is a "reasonable" distance only if walking is all they do for an entire day, no interruptions for any actual combat or other activities. Futhermore it will only be achievable over easy terrain in good weather and won't be repeatable the next day! Roger (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In fairness, the 40k figure seems to fit with the other figures, which would also imply no interuptions, good weather/terrain, etc. I am confused as to why mechanised infantry is shown as having just 60% of the per-day range of motorised - a wheeled APC shouldn't be much different to a truck in terms of possible distance.Jellyfish dave (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A commercial website selling "military bikes" is not, in fact, a reliable source for this context. I've removed the comparison chart from this and every other article it appears in. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)