Talk:Rifleman

Unrelated paragraph to delete ?

The following paragraph has IMO nothing to do PRECISELY with this current article. I moved it here so that it can be discussed.

Traditionally, the United States Marine Corps is a Rifleman Corps. As modern conflict revolutionized the role of the individual soldier in combat, the Corps undertook changes to its organisation. However, in basic training, U.S. Marines learn the proper use and care of the rifle. Their entire training regimen and soldier's philosophy is based on the rifle and its every function, from ceremonial duty to discipline to direct warfare. The Rifleman's Creed is an important facet of the United States Marine Corps philosophy. Major General William H. Rupertus, who served in World War II, is at the origin of the Creed. Even nowaday the creed is taught to every recruit. The creed was famous source material for a memorable scene of Stanley Kubrick's 1987 film Full Metal Jacket, where marines recruits learn and recite the words. A similar scene with a shortened version of the creed is explored in 2005's Jarhead.

breversa 09:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A few observations

1st picture

This photograph seems to show somebody wearing WWII vintage US army uniform but carrying a No 4 .303" British Lee Enfield rifle! Can't a better picture be found? The tents in the background don't do much to enhance it, either.

Modern tactics

This section has such terms as "gunman" and "sub machinegunner"; they sound (a), gangsterish and (b), out of date. I don't think there are any armies in the world who still use SMGs in their 'modern tactics', (if they ever did).

There is also a part which made me laugh out loud, ie "the terms 'Automatic Rifleman' and 'Assistant Automatic Rifleman' are used "to describe a soldier who carries a Light Support Weapon (or services and reloads it for the shooter)" (my emphasis). By who? I've never heard of these terms, (which not surprisingly, are both red-linked). As for "services and reloads it for the shooter", come on, - the article will be saying next that the soldier must also address his colleague as bwana !!

I think the best thing for this section is that it is completely rewritten. What do others think? RASAM (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It even begins wrong with the title of the section being 'modern tactics'. I myself see no tactics being described here, only a list of variations on a theme more akin to a list of trivia. Some of the content is alright, but most is based on amateurish assumptions. I couldn't truly find references to most of this material anywhere. At this point, I would advise complete removal (barring the citing of genuine sources - military/paramilitary training manuals and the like, which might do the trick) or complete rewrite.

I did, however, find the two terms (Automatic Rifleman and Assistant) in the Fireteam entry under USMC (which only mentions that the Assistant carries extra ammunition).What we have in this article is a bit hazy. As for the other terms, I can kind of see where he's getting at, but it seems more of an uninformed attempt at expanding the article in areas that it needs not cover. Braindance 1:40, 13 October 2009 (EDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.167.253 (talk)

Spaniard "Cazadores"...

This Spanish term in the 19th century referred after the Napoleonic Wars to the light infantry battalions, for instance "Cazadores de Segorbe". In the Napoleonic Wars the title Cazadores (Cazadores a Caballo) was used by the ligt cavalry rather than by the infantry, for instance the "Cazadores de Olivenza". In 1808-1814 there were Spaniard infantry units called "Tiradores" -for instance the "Tiradores de Cantabria", not to be mistaken with the Cantabria Line Regiment-, a term that basically amounted to the English "Rifles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Title

Perhaps this article should be renamed something like Emergence of riflemen by country. As the term has changed over time and means different things in different places. There is a lot of historical stuff in here which would be very good starting point this article. Any suggestion? Mootros (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong classification

I'll say about the country I know better, but the other are probably wrong too. Caçadores were not riflemen, they started as the light company of the regiments and later were battalion size formations with just one company using rifles at all. I don't remember English having a word for the light company as in other countries, but they should be considered a light infantry as mush as the rifle's, fusilies chasseurs or anything else. I will try to fix this when I have time. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleting huge blocks of text is niot the same thing as "fixing this when I have time." You need to verify that the others are wrong, too.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose wrong things stands to be corrected, not perpetuated, and I didn't delete them, I moved them to the appropriate place. Despite they being unsourced. BTW, do you have any content problem here or it's the usual "don't mess with unsourced nonsense added five years ago by some random ip"? AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You might try brionging this to the attention of the comunity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. A lot of problems can get solved there.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

By WP:USI and WP:INACCURATE they should be removed right now. Again, why do you think they should stay here and not on light infantry? AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: If it is deemed that cazadores do not belong here, then the main picture needs to be removed. StAnselm (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

All light infantry since the mid-1800s used rifles; rifles are older than that, so some light infantry used rifles 100 years earlier. Some of the info being removed even uses the term "Rifles" for the units mentioned. I see nothing to justify this mass delete. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

None of them uses the term "Rifles" for the units, simple because this is a Anglicized word used with its historical context in English speaking countries, some of those units even predated the "Rifles" itself. And there wasn't any content deleted, it was moved into light infantry AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It's deleted from here. Still no consensus for mass delete, even if called something else. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

BRD for "Rfn" at start

It's nice that it's sourced, but having "Rfn" right at the start of the article isn't helpful. Rfn is an abbreviation for a specific rank in a few modern armies; the article covers riflemen well beyond that; it doesn't apply to anything in 90% of the article. Even our articles specifically on ranks don't usually bother with abbreviations. It's simply not relevant. Maybe a place could be found for this somewhere down in the article, but not in the lede. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was basing it on other articles on rank - e.g. Gunner (rank), Trooper (rank), etc. StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is not a rank; it's a type of armed infantry. We don't even have a section on the rank. If we had one, it could go there, but then would still not go in the lede. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Created a section for rank, and moved "Rfn" there. A bit more could be added. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)