Talk:Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I removed this as I think it is a wrong interpretation:
- Also gone is the philosophy of always taking care of the wounded. Rather a Kevorkian method of killing the weak is instituted (Example: There is a scene in the movie where a flying bug carries off an MI and the platoon leader takes a sniper rifle and shoots the captured soldier. He then adds piously "I'd expect you to do the same for me").
I believe the interpretation is that capture by the bugs is a 'fate worse than death'. Wounded or not wounded, a soldier captured who cannot be rescued is killed - not because they are weak or have failed in anyway, but because they are better off. DJ Clayworth 22:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you to whoever wrote: "There is also a clear lack of military tactics, the favoured approach being to run toward or away from the Arachnids spraying bullets with reckless abandon; this led to unnecessary losses." SPOT ON analysis (it mirrors mine).
I'd also add that 'fleet tactics' (movie version) seem to dictate that you come into orbit around a planet, and then clump up all your starships into the densest possible formation. Make sure that you do not disperse into the almost infinite amount of space you have. Make sure that you present "one big-humping target" to the Arachnids.
Rebuttal to Mercy-Killing Comment.
It should be noted that in the original novel, a Mobile Infantryman is mortally wounded in the first chapter. He was so badly hurt that he could not be removed from his extremely heavy Powered Suit, so two of his mates decide to haul him back to the Dropship (Suit and all). Sadly, the pick-up was all for nothing for the poor guy died on the way back to the Troop Transport. Whereas in the movie, the poor schmuck caught by the flying bug could have easily been saved by his mates. He may have been wounded, but he would have lived. Thus I agree with the Kevorkian observation.
Second Rebuttal The way I saw it, Lt. Rasczak killed him was because if he hit the bug, it would have crashed on him. Maybe he also thought he the communications officer had become shocked from his experience.- B-101 17:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Disambiguation
I think there should be a disambiguation for this article and the other Mobile infantry article.--Kross 00:13, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edit Note
I've edited the part which reads "The Mobile Infantry is the primry combat branch within the Army". It is mentioned in the book that the Mobile Infantry is a small force compared to the rest of the Terran Military. The idea of the MI as the Main Fighting Force may have been taken from Paul Verhoeven's film adaptation wherein hordes of "MI" charge at the Bugs. Whereas in the book, the MI acts more like the Marine Corps.
I don't remember there ever being a mention of any fighting force other than the MI in the book. They were small, but they still did all the fighting. They were the ONLY combat branch.Sadaukar 01:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
That is like seeing Full Metal Jacket and assuming that the Marine Corps is the ONLY branch of the military.
They are, aren't they? Seriously though, let me check. I'm pretty sure he actually said they did all the fighting. Sadaukar 05:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
THe novel also mentions that Combat Engineers also wear Powered Armor and do some fighting, although they aren't as skilled at it as the Mobile Infantry. The K-9 Neodog corps are also deployed in combat zones as scouts. Presumably, all the various ground branches are set up similarly, with power armor and dropship transports. The Mobile Infantry are the tip of the spear.
From what you said, I still feel confident saying that the MI was the combat branch. The others would fight if forced to, but it was not their primary occupation. For the MI, it was.Sadaukar 15:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the Navy was also considered a combat branch, as the naval ships could and did often sustain heavy losses and operate in very dangerous space battles -Manuelomar2001 7:11pm 1-16-2006
There is no Marines/Navy, this is an entirely fictional story/movie. The mobile infantry is neither marine nor navy, but could be easier classified in our terms as one or the other because that is what they most resemble. Also, the MI might not clearly be the only infantry in the book, but they sure are in the movie. Its more of an Army than a marine corps.
I've been trying to figure this out but just can't: what is the organisation for squad-section-platoon in the MI?
The MI is like any light infantry force (in the book). The Terran Federation has two military branches: an Army and a Navy. The MI is part of the Army. I think Heinlein wanted the MI to be like a mixture of many different types of infantry.
The MI is a mix. They operate out of ships, assaulting planets, making them a Space Marine Force. However, they are referred in the book as "the Army" and the method they employ to take a planet resembles an airborne operation more than a beach assault. Their organizational structure is more like an Army considering they have a rank of Sky Marshal, which is similar to Field Marshal, but Army and Navy ranks are pretty much the same anyway. The tactics they employ, particularly the first chapter, remind me of Army Ranger's (MEU/SOC Marine units are similar) operations, mainly the seizing of objectives by massed Airborne assaults and quick raiding. I think any mention of a modern comparsion should draw on both the Army and Marines, because MI tactics are similiar to both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.90.157 (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Uchu no Senshi.gif
Image:Uchu no Senshi.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:UCFMI.gif
Image:UCFMI.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pro-book tone
The section on the MI of the film has an overwhelming pro-book tone. This should be fixed. This isn't a "differences between the MI of the book and the movies" section, it is (or it should be) a description of the Mobile Infantry of the film. If you want to note the differences, make a differences section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.32.188 (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
