Talk:Heavy infantry

message: To link between the Middle Ages and the Modern Age: Regular Infantry (British redcoats, etc), though unarmored, would have been considered heavy infantry, in contrast to skirmishers or light infantry. 
The only link to the modern era except for mech infantry would be the development of powered exoskeletons, although such has seen only fictional military use, some promising DARPA projects notwithstanding.--Sergeantgiggles
The use of the term being limited to pre Gunpowder does not actually seem to be the case, Napoleonic Troops seem to be described as light and heavy as a matter of course. Even if the post gunpowder claim (I say claim as it seems to lack citation) is accurate it would seem to be against popular consensus. -- Jadrax  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.252.214 (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is my unmderstanding that heavy infantry is often confused with heavily-armored infantry.  When historians talk about heavy infantry they are talking about units that fight in a tight formation, heavily-armored or not.  For instance, most greek hoplites could not afford any body armor, but since they fought shoulder to shoudler, the "weight" of their unit was greater, i.e., it hit with more force on a charge (which for hoplies was probably a slow trot) and was harder to move when it was charged against.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoutrto (talk • contribs) 04:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Classical "Medium infantry" might perhaps consist of such creatures as ekdromoi, theurophoroi, thorakities (my spelling may stink) or Roman Antesigni - men equipped and trained to fight in close order but also trained for skirmishing. The classic role=/=equipment is the "peltast" units deployed by some of the Hellenistic diadochoi states that consisted of heavily armoured assault infantry who still rated as light troops (peltasts) because they fought in open order rather than being part of a phalanx. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disconnect between heavy as in formation, and heavy as in armor 

message: Or is someone just very confused?  The last para of "The Industrial Era and Beyond" needs a re-write to be clear what the author means.  After several re-reads, sense eventually breaks through, but there's still an orphaned reference to Russians that makes it look like they were part of the Iraq Coalition. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Did the Russians really convert tanks to APCs in "post invasion Iraq"?

message: Even now, 'heavy infantry' has been used to refer to troop formations intended for a more defensive role.  They might operate closer to supplies at hand, carry more support weaponry (grenades, heavy machine guns, mortars, light artillery, etc.), and are basically there to hold territory.  Light infantry on the other hand is still a term used for troops that range far ahead with less supplies on hand and fulfill all the roles that light infantry have essentially done since ancient times.  
Light infantry are usually more conservative with ammo; they only carry some, since their focus is on movement day after day through whatever terrain is presented to them.  
Heavy infantry on the other hand are there to break the enemy's will to fight in areas that the enemy clearly occupies; essentially by pounding the crap out of them with as much ammo as they've got, and can be resupplied with.
Heavy infantry are naturally, used in more conventional warfare, where the enemy is a known force that to be met in the open (eg. WW1 and WW2).  Conventional wars being a lot more rare in the post-vietnam era could explain why the term has seen less use.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impfireball (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy infantry term still used in modern era