Good article. As you allude to with the anecdote from the First World War, another issue is that infanteering is a specialism in its own right; while all soldiers learn the basics, you can't carry out proper infantry tasks without people specifically trained in detail to undertake them.
That’s a really great post, top to bottom. Especially the commentary on modern analysts focusing on disruptive innovations that cause us to lose track of fundamentals…keep ‘em coming
The individual replacement concept believed that new men integrated with experienced men would be the best way to go. This is not the best solution. Units that train together and stay together and are then introduced to combat perform better. On the individual level and small unit level infantry combat is exceedingly complex. It requires continual coordination, tenacity, physical fitness, trust and mental and emotional resilience. That is not found in the average man and requires considerable screening and training to achieve. Ultimately, the enemy has a say as well. Liddell Hart best describes the characteristics of the best infantrymen and their leaders.
Thanks for the comment. I think every major study of the WWII system concluded it was flawed and probably shouldn’t have been used. Unfortunately, the U.S. army had the absolute minimum number of infantry divisions required with the belief that any more would takes away from the wartime economy. Also in WWII, the infantry usually got the low quality recruits compared to the other services. I couldn’t integrate it into my research but the Marines had ample rest periods between operations thus giving them time to integrate replacements and usually had a better performance as a result.
You are correct. The USMC and the Wehrmacht, until the middle of the war, used unit replacement. The Army and Marine Corps both used individual replacements in Vietnam to their great sorrow. Should never be done again. Ukraine should learn.
Thoroughly enjoyed this article. A problem that needs to be solved and I totally agree that for all its innovative new tech, the Ukraine War clearly demonstrates that infantry are required as much today as they ever were.
I think the answer to the central question is that being in the infantry is terrible (based on the casualty rates in your article).
The common social solution is to attach high social prestige to high risk positions, but social prestige is in part driven by relative scarcity.
To use a modern analogy, everyone is impressed by a Navy Seal or Green Beret, but most people aren’t particularly impressed by an army infantryman (no more so then the base rate of social prestige being in the military).
This combines to create an adverse selection bias. If you end up in the infantry, the assumption is you couldn’t have gotten anything better, which further degrades perceptions of social prestige. This gets accentuated in knowledge based economies.
Thank you for a thoughtful and well researched article.
I feel as though there is still prestige to be found in the Infantry but not enough to encourage more people to enlist in its ranks and incur the risk personally. As our culture continues to soften there are less and less willing to endure the hardships over rear-echelon positions, magnified by overall recruitment numbers being down by double-digits.
As former Canadian infantryman I would agree with everything in this article. The problem is made worse as the world continues its move towards automation. Drones, sensor platforms, and other technology brings its own problems as well - a larger logistics train. We also need to remember that technology is fallible, and when that fancy tech won't work it falls back on the Poor Bloody Infantry to get the job done.
Keeping the Logistics train together in the age of drones, satellites and AI will require massive deception and cloaking software. I'm not sure that Naval ⚓surface warfare⚔️ is survivable, land warfare without VERY SWIFT➡️ dynamic advance can't be sustained. (smart mines🚦& sensors 😬🤕⚠️💥💀) There can be no Red Ball Express 🚛🚚🛞🚛🚚🛞🚛🚚🛞🛢️⛽🛢️⛽ in the age of drone/satellite warfare. It's a whole new knew now. 🛰️🤖📡👨🏼💻🎯⚡⚰️🪦⚰️🪦⚰️🪦⚰️❤️🩹
Why would you want to be an infantryman if there's a near 100% chance of death before you finish your deployment in some conflicts?
When your prospects of seeing your family again are lower than that of a Warhammer 40k guardsman, then you won't jump at the opportunity to throw away your life.
It's also unsustainable because no population can sustain enough growth to replace all the men thrown away, let alone make more for the meat grinder. Once they're gone, they're gone.
Good article. As you allude to with the anecdote from the First World War, another issue is that infanteering is a specialism in its own right; while all soldiers learn the basics, you can't carry out proper infantry tasks without people specifically trained in detail to undertake them.
Absolutely agree. Infantry 'all arms training' does not produce specialist infanteres, a very important point.
That’s a really great post, top to bottom. Especially the commentary on modern analysts focusing on disruptive innovations that cause us to lose track of fundamentals…keep ‘em coming
Thank you, appreciate it!
The individual replacement concept believed that new men integrated with experienced men would be the best way to go. This is not the best solution. Units that train together and stay together and are then introduced to combat perform better. On the individual level and small unit level infantry combat is exceedingly complex. It requires continual coordination, tenacity, physical fitness, trust and mental and emotional resilience. That is not found in the average man and requires considerable screening and training to achieve. Ultimately, the enemy has a say as well. Liddell Hart best describes the characteristics of the best infantrymen and their leaders.
Thanks for the comment. I think every major study of the WWII system concluded it was flawed and probably shouldn’t have been used. Unfortunately, the U.S. army had the absolute minimum number of infantry divisions required with the belief that any more would takes away from the wartime economy. Also in WWII, the infantry usually got the low quality recruits compared to the other services. I couldn’t integrate it into my research but the Marines had ample rest periods between operations thus giving them time to integrate replacements and usually had a better performance as a result.
You are correct. The USMC and the Wehrmacht, until the middle of the war, used unit replacement. The Army and Marine Corps both used individual replacements in Vietnam to their great sorrow. Should never be done again. Ukraine should learn.
Thoroughly enjoyed this article. A problem that needs to be solved and I totally agree that for all its innovative new tech, the Ukraine War clearly demonstrates that infantry are required as much today as they ever were.
I think the answer to the central question is that being in the infantry is terrible (based on the casualty rates in your article).
The common social solution is to attach high social prestige to high risk positions, but social prestige is in part driven by relative scarcity.
To use a modern analogy, everyone is impressed by a Navy Seal or Green Beret, but most people aren’t particularly impressed by an army infantryman (no more so then the base rate of social prestige being in the military).
This combines to create an adverse selection bias. If you end up in the infantry, the assumption is you couldn’t have gotten anything better, which further degrades perceptions of social prestige. This gets accentuated in knowledge based economies.
Thank you for a thoughtful and well researched article.
Thanks for the comment, those are all good points, be sure to subscribe!
I feel as though there is still prestige to be found in the Infantry but not enough to encourage more people to enlist in its ranks and incur the risk personally. As our culture continues to soften there are less and less willing to endure the hardships over rear-echelon positions, magnified by overall recruitment numbers being down by double-digits.
This just popped up in my feed.
As former Canadian infantryman I would agree with everything in this article. The problem is made worse as the world continues its move towards automation. Drones, sensor platforms, and other technology brings its own problems as well - a larger logistics train. We also need to remember that technology is fallible, and when that fancy tech won't work it falls back on the Poor Bloody Infantry to get the job done.
Keeping the Logistics train together in the age of drones, satellites and AI will require massive deception and cloaking software. I'm not sure that Naval ⚓surface warfare⚔️ is survivable, land warfare without VERY SWIFT➡️ dynamic advance can't be sustained. (smart mines🚦& sensors 😬🤕⚠️💥💀) There can be no Red Ball Express 🚛🚚🛞🚛🚚🛞🚛🚚🛞🛢️⛽🛢️⛽ in the age of drone/satellite warfare. It's a whole new knew now. 🛰️🤖📡👨🏼💻🎯⚡⚰️🪦⚰️🪦⚰️🪦⚰️❤️🩹
*[not even mentioning chem-bio-nuke 👹]
Well written. If anything, recent developments have been infantry enhancing and made them more important.
Yes I agree, thanks for the comment and be sure to subscribe!
Excellent article. Thanks for the read.
Thanks for the comment!
Excellent History
Always appreciate the Footnotes!!!!
Thank you for this post.
Thank you! If you enjoyed be sure to subscribe!
Great piece! Subscribed!
Why would you want to be an infantryman if there's a near 100% chance of death before you finish your deployment in some conflicts?
When your prospects of seeing your family again are lower than that of a Warhammer 40k guardsman, then you won't jump at the opportunity to throw away your life.
It's also unsustainable because no population can sustain enough growth to replace all the men thrown away, let alone make more for the meat grinder. Once they're gone, they're gone.
Ours not to reason why, ours but to do and die.
Great article, but perhaps is important thinks about demografics and the future of a population if chosse send very young people to the grinder
Great essay.