Talk:Mechanized infantry

message: Rather than slap on a whole slew of merge tags, I'll just comment here:  there are three closely related stub articles, to wit:
*mobile infantry
*mechanized force
*motorised infantry
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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  256th Brigade 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POV discussions

message: 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)
thread_title:  English: British or American?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wheeled APCs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Comparison Chart