Talk:Infantry tactics

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, rather a difficult topic to cover though. Scoo 05:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Limited scope

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: 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)
thread_title: Inaccuracies abound

message: 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)
thread_title: Re: Inaccuracies abounc

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

message: 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.Dyer, p.61; Dupuy, p.134." 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)
replies: text: I'm sure that the Romans would be suprised about Napoleon inventing Entrenching as well!Nigel Ish (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Credit 

message: After some significant editing I still think this article is nowhere near what it should be. Some points below
* 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
--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Your new intro is excellent. Great job! --Lendorien (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro  

message: 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)
thread_title: Lacks worldwide scope

message: 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)
thread_title: Urban tactics

message: 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)
thread_title:  Retrench warfare? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blitzkrieg? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rewriting the “platoon” paragraph 

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