I've recently reread the Thrawn Trilogy(Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, The Last Command) and found something interesting. In The Last Command, Niles Ferrier, a renowned ship thief, tips off an Imperial Garrison that Talon Karrde and other smugglers would be meeting on the planet Trogan. Despite direct orders from Thrawn, the commander of the garrison, Lieutenant Kosk, led a raid that resulted in the deaths of "four Imperial Stormtroopers and thirty-two Imperial Army Troops..."

Despite the Legends classification of the EU, the Thrawn Trilogy was the start of a new era of EU works. And while not considered canon in the film sense, it is/was very much considered canon among the works of the EU.

The graphic novel of The Last Command also clearly depicts Stormtroopers and the Army Troopers as two distinct types that Thrawn had spoken of, the black/dark grey clad troops with clamshell-like helmets fighting alongside the Iconic Stormtrooper. The link of the page in the graphic novel is here: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Ambush_on_Trogan?file=Ambush_on_Trogan.jpg

I think this provides the greatest evidence that Stormtroopers exist alongside regular Army troops as a separate division. This may have been influenced by WEG but the fact that the concept of Army Troops exist in the novel in writing and as images in the graphic novel implies there was some approval given by Lucas or someone regarding it.

And another thing to ponder regarding the new Canon and the films. Since the Republic became the Empire, it stands to reason that a volunteer/conscript corps could also be created to serve as local garrisons to keep valuable combat Stormtroopers from getting complacent on guard duty (with the exception of Very Important Locations). It is very possible that this volunteer/conscripted corps could be called Imperial Army Troops.

I know you've already acknowledged it, but that doesn't make it any less true. All of the sources you mention are not canon. They're spin-off material in a time when Star Wars media wasn't being produced or properly organized.

Regarding local planetary armies, I talked about this myself earlier. There very likely are such things - it's an Empire, not a single state. Therefore subject systems will likely have local forces. These might be used on behalf of the Empire so there is that. They aren't really part of an "Imperial Army" though, at least no more than the British Indian Army I talked about earlier, was part of the British Army.

No army may cling tighter to what we see on screen, but I firmly feel that WEG had a more thought-out model than Lucas.

I said all this with far more detail earlier so it's not worth repeating the whole thing with supporting background. But in a setting where the primary way of exerting force is naval and ground forces are heavily mechanized, what infantry there is will be overwhelmingly highly trained / special forces, rather than mass regular army. Even in our own world today you see that nations which assume air superiority and highly mechanized forces (e.g. the USA) focus on smaller numbers of highly trained troops than any historical armies. You don't need swarms of infantry marching across a battlefield anymore. You need highly trained elites who can work on a street level where helicopters and tanks struggle.

Basically, it makes sense in the huge majority of circumstances that there only be elite troops, not massed regulars. Yes, very occasionally that means you have elite troops guarding a checkpoint, but on the whole the Empire will focus on its stormtroopers and leave local law-enforcement or planetary armies (in rare / extreme cases) to handle such things.

The Imperial Army would have control over planetary shields and gun batteries (like the ion cannon seen on Hoth) so they are certainly essential to protecting Imperial worlds. Additionally, massed infantry are still going to be in use in Star Wars since much of the setting is based upon WWII conflicts.

The Imperial Army would have control over planetary shields and gun batteries (like the ion cannon seen on Hoth) so they are certainly essential to protecting Imperial worlds.

These are not infantry, which is the point. We see lots of imperial army that are not stormtroopers. What we don't see is infantry that are not stormtroopers. That's the argument.

Additionally, massed infantry are still going to be in use in Star Wars since much of the setting is based upon WWII conflicts.

Massed infantry in a scenario where you have orbital bombardment and personal air-travel is a commodity is a nonsensical anachronism. Aside from the all the reasons this is logically true, you can see it in our own world today with modern Western armies. The US defence budget allocates just 25% of its annual budget to personnel. And that's not all infantry, that's everybody from senior officers to military police to coastguard to, as far as I'm aware, support staff. And that figure has been dropping as a proportion of spending since 1976! Conversely spending per soldier on training and equipment, has risen and continues to do so. Modern warfare certainly uses infantry. But infantry is no longer used as a basic element of force, it's used for special operations.

You clearly know that it makes little sense to have massed ranks of infantry in a Star Wars setting, instead arguing that there are regular armies because "Star Wars is based upon WWII conflicts". Is it? I dispute that. Of course there are similarities in places. There are also similarities in places to the Vietnam war, or the American invasion of Iraq! I see no case that there should be a regular army (which we never see) because Star Wars is "based on WWII". Most of the battles I see in Star Wars are Space battles. When Hoth is attacked, I don't see a battle like the Somme. I don't even see a battle like the D-Day landings which would be the most obvious parallel military engagement of WWII (sudden surprise attack on fortified position with ground troops establishing beachhead and advancing). The D-Day landings had huge numbers of infantry. Here's the Battle of Hoth:

Note, no advancing imperial infantry, just fleeing rebel gunners.

Even the direct ancestor of the modern Imperial forces - the Clone forces in TCW cartoon, I don't recall any WWII style epic infantry battles. Advancing ranks of droids, yes. But the Republic (later Imperial) never fought as massed infantry forces. They were doing city engagements, guerrilla raids... The only two instances of infantry being used as a primary force that I can think of in canon, are the invasion of Umbara which was definitely an elite troops engagement, mostly surprise raids, and the return to Geonosis episodes which were something of an exception. Even there, they were mainly focused around tanks.

Basically, you're arguing that there must be a regular imperial army because Star Wars is like WWII. Which is ultimately a fallacious argument - "we don't see the things that make it like WWII but they must be there, because it's like WWII".

The Imperial Army would have control over planetary shields and gun batteries (like the ion cannon seen on Hoth) so they are certainly essential to protecting Imperial worlds.

These are not infantry, which is the point. We see lots of imperial army that are not stormtroopers. What we don't see is infantry that are not stormtroopers. That's the argument.

Additionally, massed infantry are still going to be in use in Star Wars since much of the setting is based upon WWII conflicts.

Massed infantry in a scenario where you have orbital bombardment and personal air-travel is a commodity is a nonsensical anachronism. Aside from the all the reasons this is logically true, you can see it in our own world today with modern Western armies. The US defence budget allocates just 25% of its annual budget to personnel. And that's not all infantry, that's everybody from senior officers to military police to coastguard to, as far as I'm aware, support staff. And that figure has been dropping as a proportion of spending since 1976! Conversely spending per soldier on training and equipment, has risen and continues to do so. Modern warfare certainly uses infantry. But infantry is no longer used as a basic element of force, it's used for special operations.

You clearly know that it makes little sense to have massed ranks of infantry in a Star Wars setting, instead arguing that there are regular armies because "Star Wars is based upon WWII conflicts". Is it? I dispute that. Of course there are similarities in places. There are also similarities in places to the Vietnam war, or the American invasion of Iraq! I see no case that there should be a regular army (which we never see) because Star Wars is "based on WWII". Most of the battles I see in Star Wars are Space battles. When Hoth is attacked, I don't see a battle like the Somme. I don't even see a battle like the D-Day landings which would be the most obvious parallel military engagement of WWII (sudden surprise attack on fortified position with ground troops establishing beachhead and advancing). The D-Day landings had huge numbers of infantry. Here's the Battle of Hoth:

Note, no advancing imperial infantry, just fleeing rebel gunners.

Even the direct ancestor of the modern Imperial forces - the Clone forces in TCW cartoon, I don't recall any WWII style epic infantry battles. Advancing ranks of droids, yes. But the Republic (later Imperial) never fought as massed infantry forces. They were doing city engagements, guerrilla raids... The only two instances of infantry being used as a primary force that I can think of in canon, are the invasion of Umbara which was definitely an elite troops engagement, mostly surprise raids, and the return to Geonosis episodes which were something of an exception. Even there, they were mainly focused around tanks.

Basically, you're arguing that there must be a regular imperial army because Star Wars is like WWII. Which is ultimately a fallacious argument - "we don't see the things that make it like WWII but they must be there, because it's like WWII".

I suppose thats why Infantry in the US still out number any combat arms career in the military? I had Airmen, yes, Airmen form the USAF that worked for me augment the Army Infantry on deployment, going out and doing patrols with the infantry. BTW the Airmen that worked for me were not trained infantry men but aircraft mechanics. They went through a short training session so they could keep up.

MSgt, E-7, USAF

IMO, storm troopers are infantry, the reason I say that is that there are more elite storm troopers that would be considered Spec Ops. Dark Troopers are the SEALS and the Scout Troopers are Rangers, Snow Troopers are the 10th Mountain and so on. Just remember the Empire is under basically martial law so that justifies having the infantry storm troopers patrolling everywhere. I can see Imperial Army Soldiers as support troops for them. In RoJ the AT-ST pilots are not dressed up like the AT-AT pilots in ESB. Also you have the ground gunners that, supply, armorers, and ground vehicle pilots. All of this is feasible until cannon comes out about them

My reasons for pointing out Imperial Army control over planetary shields and gun batteries are twofold. First, it shows one place where Imperial Army would be found (unlike the Stormtrooper Corps, the Imperial Army is not all infantry) and second, those assets counter the threat of planetary bombardment and force the attacker to use ground forces (note no TIE bombers were sent to make short work of the generators on Hoth). When ground forces are employed, there will always be a high demand for infantry.

I suppose thats why Infantry in the US still out number any combat arms career in the military?

And the number of mine-sweeper vessels in the US navy outnumber the aircraft carriers too, but only an idiot would argue this meant minesweepers were more of focus of modern warfare than carriers. I grasp the point you're trying to make - US army is a bigger number by personnel than other groups such as air force, ergo there is a large regular army. But that's flawed in many ways. Firstly, it's an inappropriate comparsion. The US soldier of today is FAR more trained and has FAR more invested in him or her than the US soldier of WWII era - and relevantly, they make up a FAR smaller proportion of the US armed forces. Even in as recent as the WWII era, the main body of the US army was its infantry. Naval forces made up a smaller proportion and a very large part of its role was to deliver those infantry where they were needed as well. Air force was a tiny proportion of the USA's military capability and was just coming into its own.

That is what you need to compare with, not whether there are more US army personnel than air force personnel - that's not comparing like for like. What we're interested in is whether air superiority (and orbital capability for the next level) changes the need for an infantry-focused army. And clearly by comparing modern armies with their forebears, we see that this is the case. As well as it being pretty obvious just by thinking about it.

Nothing you said in any way implies a non-Stormtrooper infantry.

I had Airmen, yes, Airmen form the USAF that worked for me augment the Army Infantry on deployment, going out and doing patrols with the infantry. BTW the Airmen that worked for me were not trained infantry men but aircraft mechanics. They went through a short training session so they could keep up.

And the reason for that is that the US government has long ago ploughed most of their budget into things other than infantry - cruise missiles, fighters, bombers, carriers so that the air power can be projected further, carrier groups to protect the carriers whilst they do that... The role the US infantry play today is not one of basic force projection - that is done by bombs and missiles and a dash of tanks. There are only two roles remaining to the modern US soldier - elite actions (lightning raids, extractions, close city fighting) and population control (civilian interactions, visible presence, base defence).

The equivalent of the former is stormtroopers. The latter could justify a regular army, but we never see any sign of such a thing and it's a legacy role when the Empire can simply bomb people from orbit and we're talking about an Empire willing to actually destroy planets wholesale so that approach is acceptable to them.

Once a nation reaches the state of having cost-efficient mechanized ground forces and air-superiority, it focuses its infantry only on elite forces, as the USA has done. All of its infantry are elites by any historical standard (or comparison to most non-western nations). Orbital capability ratchets that tendency up even higher as does the commoditization of armed air vehicles. These are simply inescapable facts both logically and by observation. Ergo, it's entirely plausible for the Empire to have only elite stormtroopers as its infantry.

Which

My reasons for pointing out Imperial Army control over planetary shields and gun batteries are twofold. First, it shows one place where Imperial Army would be found (unlike the Stormtrooper Corps, the Imperial Army is not all infantry) and second, those assets counter the threat of planetary bombardment and force the attacker to use ground forces (note no TIE bombers were sent to make short work of the generators on Hoth).

Sure, but no-one is arguing with you over this. No-one says there aren't army personnel who aren't stormtroopers. The question is whether stormtroopers are the only infantry. Obviously there must be someone serving food in the mess hall and equally obviously they're not going to be wearing white laminated armour while they do it unless food fights get REALLY serious in the Imperial military.

When ground forces are employed, there will always be a high demand for infantry."

Meh. The point is that ground forces are employed far, far less than they used to be and their role has changed from being "defeat the enemy army" to more specialized roles - rooting out hidden targets in urban areas, etc. None of this is making a case for there being some big regular army just out of sight somewhere that isn't stormtroopers.

All these quotes and you still misunderstood, the infantry out numbers any other combat arms in the Army, Rangers have one yes one unit, the infantry has way more than that, Ranger School is a leadership school where the students go back to their infantry unit and start to lead. All the airborn units are infantry, Rangers are infantry. Only someone uneducated in the US military would deny that. You talk about the reduced funding for the military as a arguement that we don't use infantry as much. LOL, the only place there are not reductions, or as much as the other branches is that the Army can not keep their people. There have been so many posts in this thread about what I just stated and now someone involved with a TOC in the military is an idiot.

I agreed that the imperial army is support. Everyone is compairing stormtroopers to the US Army period is not a good way to do it. Marines is more like it. BTW, no matter what job you get in the Army or Marines is an infantry person first. Thats why infanty schools proper name is Advanced Infantry School.

I put my hat in the arena that the Imp Army is all support. Kenner toys even has a black shirt figure. The AT-ST driver in Empire Strikes Back is another example. Please don't cherry pick from posts.

Air superiority no matter how good still needs an occupying force.

Air superiority no matter how good still needs an occupying force.

Yup. Aircraft and helicopters can't hold ground. That's the job of the Grunt/Dogface with the M-4 carbine.

All these quotes and you still misunderstood, the infantry out numbers any other combat arms in the Army, Rangers have one yes one unit, the infantry has way more than that, Ranger School is a leadership school where the students go back to their infantry unit and start to lead. All the airborn units are infantry, Rangers are infantry. Only someone uneducated in the US military would deny that. You talk about the reduced funding for the military as a arguement that we don't use infantry as much. LOL, the only place there are not reductions, or as much as the other branches is that the Army can not keep their people. There have been so many posts in this thread about what I just stated and now someone involved with a TOC in the military is an idiot.

I agreed that the imperial army is support. Everyone is compairing stormtroopers to the US Army period is not a good way to do it. Marines is more like it. BTW, no matter what job you get in the Army or Marines is an infantry person first. Thats why infanty schools proper name is Advanced Infantry School.

I put my hat in the arena that the Imp Army is all support. Kenner toys even has a black shirt figure. The AT-ST driver in Empire Strikes Back is another example. Please don't cherry pick from posts.

Knass and Osprey I think there is more agreement between you two then you think. Knass has been arguing that Stormtroopers are the ONLY infantry in the Imperial Army. Knass believes there is not a Stormtrooper MOS and an Infantry MOS, they are synonymous. So, pointing out that the modern US Army infantry (grouping all infantry-type MOS's into one) outnumbers all other jobs doesn't refute what Knass is saying.

Next, the idea that modern military forces are tending to use more and more combat support and less ground troops in the combined arms battlefield is not a new idea. Were you around just after the Gulf War? There were sweeping changes being made to the combined arms doctrine in the US Army (witnessed first hand). Do you recall what was happening to active Army infantry divisions in the few decades before 9/11? I think that was what Knass was speaking of. So, I wouldn't beat on Knass for suggesting infantry are becoming more elite and less in numbers even if some flack IS deserved for using "idiot" in the above post. I agree with Knass (not the idiot part) and come from a multi-generational US Army family, including myself.

All these quotes and you still misunderstood, the infantry out numbers any other combat arms in the Army, Rangers have one yes one unit, the infantry has way more than that, Ranger School is a leadership school where the students go back to their infantry unit and start to lead. All the airborn units are infantry, Rangers are infantry. Only someone uneducated in the US military would deny that. You talk about the reduced funding for the military as a arguement that we don't use infantry as much. LOL, the only place there are not reductions, or as much as the other branches is that the Army can not keep their people. There have been so many posts in this thread about what I just stated and now someone involved with a TOC in the military is an idiot.

I agreed that the imperial army is support. Everyone is compairing stormtroopers to the US Army period is not a good way to do it. Marines is more like it. BTW, no matter what job you get in the Army or Marines is an infantry person first. Thats why infanty schools proper name is Advanced Infantry School.

I put my hat in the arena that the Imp Army is all support. Kenner toys even has a black shirt figure. The AT-ST driver in Empire Strikes Back is another example. Please don't cherry pick from posts.

Knass and Osprey I think there is more agreement between you two then you think. Knass has been arguing that Stormtroopers are the ONLY infantry in the Imperial Army. Knass believes there is not a Stormtrooper MOS and an Infantry MOS, they are synonymous. So, pointing out that the modern US Army infantry (grouping all infantry-type MOS's into one) outnumbers all other jobs doesn't refute what Knass is saying.

Next, the idea that modern military forces are tending to use more and more combat support and less ground troops in the combined arms battlefield is not a new idea. Were you around just after the Gulf War? There were sweeping changes being made to the combined arms doctrine in the US Army (witnessed first hand). Do you recall what was happening to active Army infantry divisions in the few decades before 9/11? I think that was what Knass was speaking of. So, I wouldn't beat on Knass for suggesting infantry are becoming more elite and less in numbers even if some flack IS deserved for using "idiot" in the above post. I agree with Knass (not the idiot party) and come from a multi-generational US Army family, including myself.

I know we are in agreement to a point and the word idiot did trigger my response, yes, I was around during both Gulf Wars, and I saw the military at it's largest since Nam. Since you were around the Army all your life then you know that the Army is the worst at retention and really doesn't get hit as hard as other branches during redux. Hell, they went to 2 year enlistments, and had a program called Blue to Green trying to get AF guys to cross over, to try and keep their numbers up.

Air superiority no matter how good still needs an occupying force.

With the tactical option of orbital bombardment, the notions of our modern military may not necessarily apply. To capture people, sure. To hold a particularly important facility, definitely. Everything else, the fear of an orbital bombardment would be real. Why commit ground forces if they are not needed? The empire, Tarkin in particular, seem to have the ideology that destroying something so your enemies can't use it is a viable option.

Air superiority no matter how good still needs an occupying force.

Who needs to hold ground when you can just threaten to Base Delta Zero the dissidents planet?

With the tactical option of orbital bombardment, the notions of our modern military may not necessarily apply. To capture people, sure. To hold a particularly important facility, definitely. Everything else, the fear of an orbital bombardment would be real. Why commit ground forces if they are not needed? The empire, Tarkin in particular, seem to have the ideology that destroying something so your enemies can't use it is a viable option.

We are talking about an oppressive government not a totally destructive one, the Death Star started out as a deterrent to prevent the rebellion from spreading, and the resources to keep short ranged fighters and bombers in an area on a star destroyer keeps a lot more troops in the area than is necessary, plus, what if the ships on site get called away from the area they are patrolling? Best to garrison troops on planet to do that.

Example, I am rolling through and taking over systems with my fleet, am I going to shed off my ships when I move to the next conquest? Nope, I will leave a frigate with a total of 12 TiEs there to patrol and a garrison planet side. Build a space station? Sure. Look at it this way, If I leave a ship or multiple ships there, It's still a garrison, if i build a space station in system (not the Death Star) It's a garrison. Your idea of air superiority is correct except one thing, it will still miss insurgents, they could tunnel. If I destroy everything, which would leave no one there to rule over then why am I trying to control the galaxy?

Are you talking about Tarkin, destroying the comm tower in Rebels? He destroyed the tower because it was compromised (could probably keep broadcasting the messages) and felt it was easier to destroy it than rebuild it the same again. The rebels weren't supposed to know about it, why repair it for the same function, when the rebs know where it is? Oh and BTW, that tower was garrisoned along with the planet.

Air superiority no matter how good still needs an occupying force.

Who needs to hold ground when you can just threaten to Base Delta Zero the dissidents planet?

With the tactical option of orbital bombardment, the notions of our modern military may not necessarily apply. To capture people, sure. To hold a particularly important facility, definitely. Everything else, the fear of an orbital bombardment would be real. Why commit ground forces if they are not needed? The empire, Tarkin in particular, seem to have the ideology that destroying something so your enemies can't use it is a viable option.

This simply isn't true in Star Wars. Planetary defenses can withstand and repel starships. Capital ships attempting to bombard a planet might just get themselves vaporized.

Look at Hoth. They didn't bombard because of the shield, and the Imperials didn't even try to use TIE fighters or TIE bombers. Instead, they used ground forces.

The assumption is that every planet will have a shield generator, and ion cannon. The rebels were expecting to be attacked. And I doubt the shield covered the entire planet.

I doubt most planets have shields that protect the entirety of the world.

We're I a commander of a star destroyer, I would issue an ultimatum on every available channel, to a dissident population that I will destroy a non military target every hour until the actual dissidents surrender. I would start the countdown with a destruction of a target, chosen at random.

Make the world uninhabitable to organic life and send in droids to operate the machinery. You don't have to destroy the planet or infrastructure only the rebel population.

Most worlds are probably not even affected by the rebellion. The republic didn't have a standing unified army until the clone wars. I'm sure most planets defended themselves. It is likely that the empire doesn't bother garrisoning every world, hence the threat to Lando. If there are no problems the empire leaves it alone. Except for monitoring, which they will contract civilian outlets to do that.

Tactics in the galaxy far far away are hard to judge as we don't have the capabilities, and only judge what we see on screen.

Knowing what we donor the army structure from the prequels, in don't see it being different in the original trilogy timeline, that like the clone troopers, storm troopers are the prinary infantry force. The empire thrives on fear, and the ISB will monitor patterns and threats and try to snuff out any spark of rebellion however they can. Show the galaxy it is useless to resist by using ion disruptors on a planets population and others WILL stay in line.

All these quotes and you still misunderstood, the infantry out numbers any other combat arms in the Army, Rangers have one yes one unit, the infantry has way more than that, Ranger School is a leadership school where the students go back to their infantry unit and start to lead. All the airborn units are infantry, Rangers are infantry. Only someone uneducated in the US military would deny that. You talk about the reduced funding for the military as a arguement that we don't use infantry as much. LOL, the only place there are not reductions, or as much as the other branches is that the Army can not keep their people. There have been so many posts in this thread about what I just stated and now someone involved with a TOC in the military is an idiot.

I agreed that the imperial army is support. Everyone is compairing stormtroopers to the US Army period is not a good way to do it. Marines is more like it. BTW, no matter what job you get in the Army or Marines is an infantry person first. Thats why infanty schools proper name is Advanced Infantry School.

I put my hat in the arena that the Imp Army is all support. Kenner toys even has a black shirt figure. The AT-ST driver in Empire Strikes Back is another example. Please don't cherry pick from posts.

Perhaps we are violently agreeing with each other. What definition are you using for "infantry" because what I have been saying all along is that stormtroopers are the only foot-based combat units. I am excluding personnel who would typically provide support or are typically using vehicles (AT-ST drivers and gunners, etc.). I think it's been pretty clear that I am using "infantry" to mean "meant to fight on foot" and I'm pretty sure I've actually stated that so if this is the source of disagreement, simple clarification of terms would clear this up.

Sturn has pre-empted my response and accurately summed up my position and so far as I can see, it's pretty much the same as yours. You said in later posts that you were triggered by the use of the word "idiot". To be clear, I wasn't calling you an idiot, what I wrote was: "And the number of mine-sweeper vessels in the US navy outnumber the aircraft carriers too, but only an idiot would argue this meant minesweepers were more of focus of modern warfare than carriers." I can see how you read it that way. I didn't think (and don't think) that you consider minesweepers to more of a strategic focus than carriers, so didn't consider it to be calling you an idiot. Let's have peace - we're pretty much in agreement, I think.

To summarize, the modern US infantry is elite by any historical and most international standards. They comprise a smaller part of main military power than at any point in history and are far better equipped and trained than at any point in history. Elite is the new normal. This is a direct consequence of the rise of armoured vehicles and airpower. Star Wars has both of these things in abundance and it is therefore a good analogy (as well as making sense from logical analysis). Ergo, it is not only possible that stormtroopers are both "elite" and the only infantry type, it is probable. Of course the US army still has "elites" as well as its regular army, Special Forces units. But then so does Star Wars have Special Forces on top of the regular Stormtroopers, so the analogy is still good, imo.

EDIT: Regarding the "cherry-picking from your posts", this is just me selecting the parts I disagreed with. If I've omitted something, it's probably because I agree with it or see nothing to dispute.

All these quotes and you still misunderstood, the infantry out numbers any other combat arms in the Army, Rangers have one yes one unit, the infantry has way more than that, Ranger School is a leadership school where the students go back to their infantry unit and start to lead. All the airborn units are infantry, Rangers are infantry. Only someone uneducated in the US military would deny that. You talk about the reduced funding for the military as a arguement that we don't use infantry as much. LOL, the only place there are not reductions, or as much as the other branches is that the Army can not keep their people. There have been so many posts in this thread about what I just stated and now someone involved with a TOC in the military is an idiot.

I agreed that the imperial army is support. Everyone is compairing stormtroopers to the US Army period is not a good way to do it. Marines is more like it. BTW, no matter what job you get in the Army or Marines is an infantry person first. Thats why infanty schools proper name is Advanced Infantry School.

I put my hat in the arena that the Imp Army is all support. Kenner toys even has a black shirt figure. The AT-ST driver in Empire Strikes Back is another example. Please don't cherry pick from posts.

Perhaps we are violently agreeing with each other. What definition are you using for "infantry" because what I have been saying all along is that stormtroopers are the only foot-based combat units. I am excluding personnel who would typically provide support or are typically using vehicles (AT-ST drivers and gunners, etc.). I think it's been pretty clear that I am using "infantry" to mean "meant to fight on foot" and I'm pretty sure I've actually stated that so if this is the source of disagreement, simple clarification of terms would clear this up.

Sturn has pre-empted my response and accurately summed up my position and so far as I can see, it's pretty much the same as yours. You said in later posts that you were triggered by the use of the word "idiot". To be clear, I wasn't calling you an idiot, what I wrote was: "And the number of mine-sweeper vessels in the US navy outnumber the aircraft carriers too, but only an idiot would argue this meant minesweepers were more of focus of modern warfare than carriers." I can see how you read it that way. I didn't think (and don't think) that you consider minesweepers to more of a strategic focus than carriers, so didn't consider it to be calling you an idiot. Let's have peace - we're pretty much in agreement, I think.

To summarize, the modern US infantry is elite by any historical and most international standards. They comprise a smaller part of main military power than at any point in history and are far better equipped and trained than at any point in history. Elite is the new normal. This is a direct consequence of the rise of armoured vehicles and airpower. Star Wars has both of these things in abundance and it is therefore a good analogy (as well as making sense from logical analysis). Ergo, it is not only possible that stormtroopers are both "elite" and the only infantry type, it is probable. Of course the US army still has "elites" as well as its regular army, Special Forces units. But then so does Star Wars have Special Forces on top of the regular Stormtroopers, so the analogy is still good, imo.

EDIT: Regarding the "cherry-picking from your posts", this is just me selecting the parts I disagreed with. If I've omitted something, it's probably because I agree with it or see nothing to dispute.

Knass,, I agree with you on all accounts of what you have said with a minor exception, Stykers are mobile infantry units, the AT-ST, could be attach to said unit as a mobile command post and the AT-AT the Styker (bad example to a point) . I was pointing out with the AT-ST that they could be army, I didn't mean they were infantry, which was the original discussion of this thread. "If Stormtroopers aren`t Army, then who is?"

The Army still sends out the entire unit for deployment, and uses the smaller unit tactics when actually patrolling and fighting, but that has gone on for thousands of years. companies and squads still flank and so on. We just don't see a front line anymore with brigades moving on the front lines because there are no front lines. A basic US Army infantry man is still that, a basic infantry man. Still trained the same as all soldiers starting out. So, yes, elite compared to other countries infantry but not to the US infantry man trained the exact same in the same basic infantry unit (except the soldiers that have gone to Ranger School).

As far as the cherry picking comment, I stated that the Air Force augmented the Army infantry, I did not compare them is all. I think you may have read that statement wrong when I said that.

I tend to use Imperial Army as the prime occupying force on any planet with a detactment of Stormtroopers attached to be used as elite troops for problems that regular IA. The players have nick named the IA as the 'Greys' and the Stormtroopers as 'Hardshells'. While the players are smart, they tend to lean towards things that don't attract as much attention. When they finally managed to annoy the local imperial governor enough and the Troopers came in, they knew they had finally gotten someones attention in the worst ways possible

I tend to use Imperial Army as the prime occupying force on any planet with a detactment of Stormtroopers attached to be used as elite troops for problems that regular IA. The players have nick named the IA as the 'Greys' and the Stormtroopers as 'Hardshells'. While the players are smart, they tend to lean towards things that don't attract as much attention. When they finally managed to annoy the local imperial governor enough and the Troopers came in, they knew they had finally gotten someones attention in the worst ways possible

This tends to be my view as well. The Imperial Army in my campaign is an occupation and support force, made up of either locals, or shipped in batallions on worlds in revolt. Most are conscripts, trying desperately to finish their hitch and go home.

I made them that way to add some moral quandries to my game. Stormtroopers fight and die without question or remorse. But will a bunch of scared kids do the same? Do they deserve the same fate as the Emperor's elite forces?

Have you guys been in the military? As an avid study of military history and an ex-service member, you are both getting to the exact same point but on slightly different paths.

The Storm Troopers as I understand have their own command and control outside the normal army that until about 10-12 years after Revenge of the Sith, because they age at 200% of the rate of a regular human. The Imperial Army and the Navy are made up of regular humans, not clones, though later the Storm Trooper started to include regular humans. There are a few way to think of the Storm Troopers inside the Empire, they any Moff to supplement the regular army and navy of the Empire. Think of Storm Troopers as the Samurai of the regular Empire, even though the Jedi and the Sith are there, they are not numeral enough to present that face, they are the warlords instead.

The regular Imperial army does have special forces as does the navy, and even the Storm Troopers have special forces as well. They both may report to the same leader in the end, however they are supplied and operate under their own rules of engagement. The mention of the German military machine during WW2, there were SS troops which were considered elite troops, however they are not necessarily the special forces of the German military machine during WW2. That was the Grenadiers and Panzer Grenadiers, these units were in the regular german army, not the SS. The SS did get priority in the supply chains normally. If you look at the propaganda the SS troops were the elite german citizen who were told by their leaders that they were the ultimate warriors and intellects on the planet. The germans had a number of specialised troop types during WW2 the airborne were considered an elite force and were regular army - Fallschirmjager, the mountain division who were trained to fight in rugged mountain regions and could ski, climb and had incredible outdoor survival skills, Gebirgsjäger another regular army troop type and considered elite.

I do not think that either the regular Imperial army and navy, nor the Storm troopers are to be trifled with. they both have excellent command and control structures and a great amount of resources. This should always be apparent to your players, you should plan on running your Imperial forces like a well greased wheel, when the players are laying waste to them, they should fallback to come at the players from a different angle.Then they can press the advantage and dictate the terms of engagement. If your Imperial forces are just getting blown away the players will never feel that their PC can be threatened by them and then you wonder why your bad guy goes down in one hit? The Imperial forces will fight as ruthless or more ruthless than the players. need I say more on the matter? If they happen take out some Imperial citizens while trying to get the players and this forces the players to run away, it will be the best thing! Then you can use the Imperial propaganda machine against the players because the players killed all those Imperial citizens in an attempt to flee with valuable Imperial property!

However this is a game and you can place whatever face of the Empire you like where it's needed, I would consider changing things up on your players to keep things fresh.

KSW

As a Imperial Commander, the Officer in Charge would have to know what sort of troop mix he had to deal with to get the job done. I think there would probably be a position in the ranks or at least a unacknowledged duty by the more loyal troops to....motivate the conscripts (Think Soviet Commisar).

There would also probably be a tag on each IA member's record with reliability ratings of the trooper in question and the Commander would probably mix and send his Forces depending on the rating of the troops, keeping the unreliable for duties where they could be trusted not to screw things up too much, while keeping the more loyal troops for the harder fighting or more important duties

As a Imperial Commander, the Officer in Charge would have to know what sort of troop mix he had to deal with to get the job done. I think there would probably be a position in the ranks or at least a unacknowledged duty by the more loyal troops to....motivate the conscripts (Think Soviet Commisar).

There would also probably be a tag on each IA member's record with reliability ratings of the trooper in question and the Commander would probably mix and send his Forces depending on the rating of the troops, keeping the unreliable for duties where they could be trusted not to screw things up too much, while keeping the more loyal troops for the harder fighting or more important duties

Why did you say this? To me it has no bearing on whether or not there is an Imp Army, which is the point of this post. I haven't read about a question of loyalty in the imp army. A need for a Commissar? I think Imp officers have this more than covered, with how they lead, questions of loyalty are dealt with swiftly and without remorse by them. Even a simple mistake's punishment is dealt with harshly.

Conscripts? There hasn't been anything said about conscripts. The consensuses of Imperial citizens is that the Empire is the greatest thing in the galaxy due to good propaganda. Where are you getting this stuff?