What makes good infantry?

[Klausewitz]

What makes good infantry?
What should it have, what shouldn't it have?
What should it be able to do without?
What should it be able to do?

 

[Cavalry]

infantry's weapon is the men itself.
Throughout history, the best infantry is recruited from free farmers: Roman, Chinese, Vietnames..
Nowadays we can probably add heavy industry factory workers.

 

[Klausewitz]

infantry's weapon is the men itself.
Throughout history, the best infantry is recruited from free farmers: Roman, Chinese, Vietnames..
Nowadays we can probably add heavy industry factory workers.

And why is that?
Why free farmers and heavy industry workers and not redheads and kilt-wearers?

 

[Pyoro]

Are we talking about modern armies?

Then you want a bunch of properly equipped, properly trained, well disciplined, well motivated elite troops, who preferably are not made up of stupid idiots ... and everybody else can be cannon fodder and get shot to pieces by artillery striking from miles away or air-to-surface strikes or missile attacks or ...

Well, that's what they told us during our military training anyway.

 

[Klausewitz]

Well, that's what they told us during our military training anyway.

US Army or French Army?

Then you want a bunch of properly equipped, properly trained, well disciplined, well motivated elite troops, who preferably are not made up of stupid idiots ... and everybody else can be cannon fodder and get shot to pieces by artillery striking from miles away or air-to-surface strikes or missile attacks or ...

What is 'properly equipped'?
What is 'properly trained'?
What constitutes 'well disciplined'?
What are 'elite' troops?

 

[Pyoro]

US Army or French Army?

Ha. German.

Admittedly one of our instructors was American. And the other one was this super-polite, always-smiling Indonesian. Then there was a German guy who had watched too many US movies. Oh, that guy was ... it was all a bit hard to take seriously, to be honest. ^^

What is 'properly equipped'?
What is 'properly trained'?
What constitutes 'well disciplined'?
What are 'elite' troops?

It really all depends on the scenario we're talking about. Is this about a potential Russian invasion into Europe? Or another Western adventure into the jungles of Vietnam? Might have different requirements ...

Which is why "proper" equipment means that they basically would have everything at their disposal, so "suitable" choices can be made, flexibly for different scenarios. Everything modern weapon and support technology offers (and has some use) should, under perfect circumstances, be available.

Properly trained then means that they can use that equipment. It's unrealistic to expect that everyone can do everything, and to some sort of insane level of proficiency, but since those should be professional soldiers and not do anything else with their life and training shouldn't just be a few months but rather longer (and continuing whenever not in mission) there's got to be some expectations on that.

Getting reasonably proficient with rifles and such isn't all that difficult (seriously, movies and novels always go on about how those "elite" soldiers dismantle their weapons quickly, but it's so stupidly easy - they're made to be that way after all! - that that's probably the least impressive thing one can do ^^) but training for specific tasks like, say, urban warfare is something else entirely. Some sort of squad-level training and then perhaps for larger formations would be necessary, too, instead of just training a bunch of individuals. Ideally.

"Well disciplined", well, give them a mission and they'll attempt to do it and stick to it, even when things go wrong. The "not stupid" part though should imply that they don't waste themselves on impossible goals that earn nothing. ^^

Elite, well, compared to the cannon fodder you use for mundane tasks, whatever they are. Guarding a fortified position (that'll then get bombed) or some random supply convoy behind your own lines (that'll then get bombed). That sort of thing you don't waste them on, of course.

Obviously, if we're just talking about wishlists, then there's no reason you can't wish for every soldier to be "elite" (which would make them normal but let's not play semantics). But it's a bit too unrealistic to believe, I'd say. ^^

 

[Cavalry]

As men are infantry weapon themselves, we can put aside weapon. there are factors to consider: motivation, leadership, training.

Motivation: do they fight to protect their country, or to secure cheap gas price...
Training: these also a sign of leadership. We can learn from legendary general like Suvorov, Yue Fei.. the training should be dominant activities, and in real conditions and high budget, and lead by the top commander himself, and better have some real casualties to prove it! (Tip for businessmen: training should be in near real life condition and led by the top too, before sending recruits to their work positions!)

 

[CruelDwarf]

The main quality of the infantry is actual motivation to fight. All other things are secondary to it.

 

[Sanny]

Roman Legionnaires with Rommel's Infantry Tactics. End of discussion.

 

[noobermenschen]

What makes good infantry?
What should it have, what shouldn't it have?
What should it be able to do without?
What should it be able to do?

What makes good infantry?

The best raw material for good infantry usually means:

- Ideally between 20 and 30 years of age. Teenagers could usually use a little more impulse control and muscle mass. Soldiers well over 30 are less able to endure the constant physical and mental exhaustion associated with combat operations and are more likely to fall victim to a type of combat fatigue known as "sergeant's disease".

- In excellent - not good, excellent - physical shape. There are marathoners and power lifters in every unit and as useful as these types are (especially the strongmen), infantry needs a broader physical regimen of both endurance and explosive strength. Training will take care of much of this but a malnourished or sedentary childhood makes this ideal more difficult to achieve. Women's relative lack of upper body strength compared to men is also a complication.

- Of at least average intelligence and possessing a decent education through grade 12. Training can provide a lot of remedial workarounds but literacy and familiarity with a classroom make training much easier, and just consider how many situations where a working knowledge of the laws of physics can keep you out of trouble.

- No chronic psychological or legal troubles. Simple issues such as ADHD, Tourettes and the usual young person's proclivities for trouble can be handled by training and discipline. Serious mental health issues and weapons are of course a lethal combination, and any chemical addiction or pathological history of petty crimes such as truancy, theft or fighting is usually continued and magnified in military service.

- Single, as in UNmarried with a capital UN. A soldier receiving a Dear John letter from his girlfriend can usually have his broken heart healed by some contraband alcohol, a heart to heart talk from his sergeant some cheerfully misogynist support from his squadmates. A soldier with marital trouble or a suffering spouse is an immediate and serious morale issue.

Hope this helps, I'll take a stab at the other questions later.

 

[Klausewitz]

PYORO

Ha. German.

Admittedly one of our instructors was American. And the other one was this super-polite, always-smiling Indonesian. Then there was a German guy who had watched too many US movies. Oh, that guy was ... it was all a bit hard to take seriously, to be honest. ^^

I'd never guessed that i had the 'elite' German experience... we still learned maneuver, suppression fire and don't trust the artillery ("Wer trifft immer punktgenau?" "Als ob!").

It really all depends on the scenario we're talking about. Is this about a potential Russian invasion into Europe? Or another Western adventure into the jungles of Vietnam? Might have different requirements ...

Well, since armies mostly, to quote a rather infamous secretary of defense, "go to war with the army they have, not with the army they wish they had" i am going for an as unspecialised and as universal as possible tack.

Which is why "proper" equipment means that they basically would have everything at their disposal, so "suitable" choices can be made, flexibly for different scenarios. Everything modern weapon and support technology offers (and has some use) should, under perfect circumstances, be available.

Well, we can set limits.
Is the 'Infantrist der Zukunft' or similar programms with roughly 12 kgs of comat weight and 20 kgs of electronics 'proper' or is rather a guy with a 5 kg rifle, 3 magazines and 3 hand grenades?

Properly trained then means that they can use that equipment. It's unrealistic to expect that everyone can do everything, and to some sort of insane level of proficiency, but since those should be professional soldiers and not do anything else with their life and training shouldn't just be a few months but rather longer (and continuing whenever not in mission) there's got to be some expectations on that.

So 'properly trained' is mostly (only?) the ability to chuck the hand grenade and keep the rifle running?

Getting reasonably proficient with rifles and such isn't all that difficult (seriously, movies and novels always go on about how those "elite" soldiers dismantle their weapons quickly, but it's so stupidly easy - they're made to be that way after all! - that that's probably the least impressive thing one can do ^^) but training for specific tasks like, say, urban warfare is something else entirely. Some sort of squad-level training and then perhaps for larger formations would be necessary, too, instead of just training a bunch of individuals. Ideally.

What is priority though:
Match and mix of highly trained specialists who have never seen each other or the idea of a squad?

"Well disciplined", well, give them a mission and they'll attempt to do it and stick to it, even when things go wrong. The "not stupid" part though should imply that they don't waste themselves on impossible goals that earn nothing. ^^

Is 'well disciplined' code for 'obedience' then?

Elite, well, compared to the cannon fodder you use for mundane tasks, whatever they are. Guarding a fortified position (that'll then get bombed) or some random supply convoy behind your own lines (that'll then get bombed). That sort of thing you don't waste them on, of course.

Who does that though?
Some non-infantry guy? 'Nonfantry'?


CAVALRY

As men are infantry weapon themselves, we can put aside weapon. there are factors to consider: motivation, leadership, training.

Okay, lets take that as the premise.

Motivation: do they fight to protect their country, or to secure cheap gas price...

Is that really 'with' the soldier or does that depend on how well internal propaganda works?

Training: these also a sign of leadership. We can learn from legendary general like Suvorov, Yue Fei.. the training should be dominant activities, and in real conditions and high budget, and lead by the top commander himself, and better have some real casualties to prove it! (Tip for businessmen: training should be in near real life condition and led by the top too, before sending recruits to their work positions!)

So ideally somebody should die in training?

Also i am still interested why exactly free farmers and heavy industry workers make the best infantry?!
I am not disagreeing but i'd like more specifics, explanation if you will, instead of just a statement that i can take or leave but don't understand.


noobermenschen

- Ideally between 20 and 30 years of age. Teenagers could usually use a little more impulse control and muscle mass. Soldiers well over 30 are less able to endure the constant physical and mental exhaustion associated with combat operations and are more likely to fall victim to a type of combat fatigue known as "sergeant's disease".

Okay, i see the reasoning.

- In excellent - not good, excellent - physical shape. There are marathoners and power lifters in every unit and as useful as these types are (especially the strongmen), infantry needs a broader physical regimen of both endurance and explosive strength. Training will take care of much of this but a malnourished or sedentary childhood makes this ideal more difficult to achieve. Women's relative lack of upper body strength compared to men is also a complication.

Also agreed. How important would you rank that though?
What place would this point take?

- Of at least average intelligence and possessing a decent education through grade 12. Training can provide a lot of remedial workarounds but literacy and familiarity with a classroom make training much easier, and just consider how many situations where a working knowledge of the laws of physics can keep you out of trouble.

- No chronic psychological or legal troubles. Simple issues such as ADHD, Tourettes and the usual young person's proclivities for trouble can be handled by training and discipline. Serious mental health issues and weapons are of course a lethal combination, and any chemical addiction or pathological history of petty crimes such as truancy, theft or fighting is usually continued and magnified in military service.

- Single, as in UNmarried with a capital UN. A soldier receiving a Dear John letter from his girlfriend can usually have his broken heart healed by some contraband alcohol, a heart to heart talk from his sergeant some cheerfully misogynist support from his squadmates. A soldier with marital trouble or a suffering spouse is an immediate and serious morale issue.

This helps quite nicely.
How would you rank those though?
Which is most importnat?
If you could only have one, which would it be?
In which would you be most willing to compromise if circumstances demand, etc.?

 

[Cavalry]

Is that really 'with' the soldier or does that depend on how well internal propaganda works?

So ideally somebody should die in training?

Also i am still interested why exactly free farmers and heavy industry workers make the best infantry?!
I am not disagreeing but i'd like more specifics, explanation if you will, instead of just a statement that i can take or leave but don't understand.

If you trained the troop like Suvorov train his troops using bayonet, with two formations run against each other with real bayonets; then casualties is inevitable!

Propaganda only works if there is true reason to propaganda!

Professional full life solders may be good, but they are few and in most of the history they are not infantry!
Free farmers is best soldiers is from my own observation of Roman, Chinese compared to the pathetic Medieval Europe armies; and also from some quotes. You can check in your country too.

Quote is time consuming to find now but just from Roman time Cato in this book, at the end of the page: "(c). farming, however, is both profitable and approved by tradition because it produces the best soldiers"

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=v2vefi2_ojYC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=roman+the+best+soldier+come+from+farmer&source=bl&ots=27RueXeGkS&sig=tnwxjm3AT7VO2FaFJwp-nKnxM7g&hl=vi&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYhPeArtDRAhVDkJQKHYq9BXwQ6AEIPDAF#v=onepage&q=roman the best soldier come from farmer&f=false

Free farmers mean a free citizen work his own farm or land leased from the Government. So he is not under pressure from his land lord. He is his own boss, has his own enterprise, is a man with good fit, train and lead his family... So he already has the virtue of a good soldier, and fight to protect his farm, his family and his own free! And he is not too rich, don't have many distraction like Art...so professional soldier careers is still attractive to him!

I also read Carnegy prefer farmers to be his steel workers because they have the needed virtues. The factory workers also learn to obey and live in organization, teamwork...

 

[Klausewitz]

Free farmers is best soldiers is from my own observation of Roman, Chinese compared to the pathetic Medieval Europe armies; and also from some quotes. You can check in your country too.

Quiet a few of the 'pathetic' Medieval Europe infantry were free peasant though.

Free farmers mean a free citizen work his own farm or land leased from the Government. So he is not under pressure from his land lord. He is his own boss, has his own enterprise, is a man with good fit, train and lead his family... So he already has the virtue of a good soldier, and fight to protect his farm, his family and his own free! And he is not too rich, don't have many distraction like Art...so professional soldier careers is still attractive to him!

But wouldn't a citizen who is reliant on the government make for a much better soldier?
After all the Roman army after Marius was effectivly just Plebeians, citizens reliant on the grain dole from the state.
And how again is a farmer fit to be a soldier?
He has little in the way of weapons knowledge (unless we are talking an area with a strong tradition of hunting which then would make the live of a free farmer much less tenable since that would mean lots of woods and little in the way of ploughable fields) he is unused to obeying or cooperation (exempt for blood relatives), might desert when the time of the harvest comes, has a strong incentive not to die since that would most likely mean the death of his family.

I also read Carnegy prefer farmers to be his steel workers because they have the needed virtues. The factory workers also learn to obey and live in organization, teamwork...

Are we talking about this Carnegie?
Also, isn't the steel worker quite different from the farmer?
The farmer is free and can live of his land while the steel worker is utterly dependent on his employer and support services to keep himself fed. The farmer most often works a farm in a small group of blood relatives while the steel worker has to obey not just to man but to a 'plan' he might very well not understand while working as a single little cog in a BIG machine.
Or are you operating on the idea that the steel worker was formerly a farmer?
But how do leading and being independent and following and being dependent together?

 

[Jos de trol]

Quiet a few of the 'pathetic' Medieval Europe infantry were free peasant though.

it helps when you've got more equipment than a felt ca and a pitchfork

Ha. German.

Admittedly one of our instructors was American. And the other one was this super-polite, always-smiling Indonesian. Then there was a German guy who had watched too many US movies. Oh, that guy was ... it was all a bit hard to take seriously, to be honest. ^^

I think we've all seen the youtube clip

 

[Klausewitz]

it helps when you've got more equipment than a felt ca and a pitchfork

So we'd want parity as far as protective and offensive gear goes with possible adversaries?

 

[Cavalry]

But wouldn't a citizen who is reliant on the government make for a much better soldier?
After all the Roman army after Marius was effectivly just Plebeians, citizens reliant on the grain dole from the state.

if the land is from government the farmer just pay a fair amount, like a tax. and he can buy the land later after saving.

The landlord is totally different. He will bully and screw you for profit. He will want to sleep with your daughter or even your wife. He will be happy to turn you into his slaves if you cannot pay his debt.

If you strongly resent him you may lost the land and become a mobber. If you accept then you become less "free man". You can see movie "300" to have an illustration of free soldier vs slave soldiers!

And how again is a farmer fit to be a soldier?
He has little in the way of weapons knowledge?

that's the job of training. In old time even the generals often didn't learn to read and write, so no problem for a peasant to learn to use a pointy stick.

 

[Klausewitz]

You can see movie "300" to have an illustration of free soldier vs slave soldiers!

Yes, i know the slaveholding Spartans lost while the Persian army mostly consisting of free subjects won.
What was your point?

 

[Cavalry]

Are we talking about this Carnegie?
Also, isn't the steel worker quite different from the farmer?
The farmer is free and can live of his land while the steel worker is utterly dependent on his employer and support services to keep himself fed. The farmer most often works a farm in a small group of blood relatives while the steel worker has to obey not just to man but to a 'plan' he might very well not understand while working as a single little cog in a BIG machine.
Or are you operating on the idea that the steel worker was formerly a farmer?
But how do leading and being independent and following and being dependent together?

Yes probably that Carnegie. He like to put the steel mill where he can find farmers to work in it.
The steel workers and farmers share the same virtues: rise up early, working hard, do manual labor, live simple without luxury, less talk more work...

The workers are free if you live in a Workers' State! Soviet Russia depended on them to win the civil war.

In a modern industrial country with few farmers, who do you think who will be better soldier: rapper, salesmen, bank clerks or steel workers?

 

[Cavalry]

Yes, i know the slaveholding Spartans lost while the Persian army mostly consisting of free subjects won.
What was your point?

No you didnt see the movie clearly. In the movie the Spartans say they are free and the Persian are slaves. This is just an illustration that it is common to believe freemen are superior than slave.

 

[Anatur]

At the bare minimum it would be ideal if a soldier was self sufficient in the wild,had reliable equipment which he could use proper,was willing to follow orders to the death and not do silly stuff like disembowling civilians.

But a soldier can only go so far.

If the people giving the orders arent doing their part then all his ability is wasted.

Likewise a genuis commander can make a peasant rabble devestating.