Talk:Mechanized infantry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mechanized infantry article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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)