Talk:British Armed Forces

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): National militaries task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

Requested move - 2005

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to British Armed Forces

Military of the United Kingdom → British armed forces – {Seems a much more common name; would agree with United States armed forces; 'British armed forces' sounds more natural, and in my personal experience is the term used in real life} — Ashley Pomeroy 23:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support. 'British armed forces' is the commonly used term. 'Military' used as a noun would be regarded as a bit of an Americanism by most Britons. -- Necrothesp 20:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Strongly. See Category:Militaries The vast majority of the countries military pages are titled "Military of <country name>" Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So, for apparent dogmatic reasons you advocate using a term that is never used? I really don't see any point in that. -- Necrothesp 21:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I live in the United Kingdom and the term "military" is very rarely used when describing the British armed forces. Spending on the armed forces is "defence spending" and compulsary service is known as "national service" not "military service". Please can we change the article's title to reflect these facts. Military of the United Kingdom should redirect to the British armed forces page and the title, but not the article, needs changing. David.
• Oppose. Armed Forces and Military are synonyms, and unless "Armed Forces" is the term officially used, it is better to stick with what the vast majority of other articles use. srs 18:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Move shouldn't be stopped simply to conform with other articles. SoLando 15:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support move to fully-capitalised form (British Armed Forces) - this is a proper noun. James F. (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. violet/riga (t) 10:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support as proper noun (British Armed Forces). Dragons flight 17:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Support proper noun. "Military" is the de facto standard in Wikipedia for non-English-speaking countries' articles. Otherwise, local custom should prevail, unless you propose to move Soccer in the United States to Football in the United States for the sake of the "standard" in Category:Football (soccer) by country. Joestynes 07:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I believe Armed forces is how the "Military" would translate from an official designation in most native languages. The latter is more like a slang word that became de-facto standard for the sake of simplicity. DmitryKo 19:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Strongly Lolly 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Not sure where this concept of Naval Service = Royal Navy AND Royal Marines comes from. The Royal Marines is part of the Royal Navy. There is no common usage of any 'Naval Service' phrase. Maybe in some context unknown to me (ex-RN) that phrase means something. Strongly suggest that specific contexts be avoided in this global encyclopædia. Googling 'Naval Service' certainly doesnt give you links to do with the Royal Navy or Marines. Will amend (v slightly) to read this way if okay. Facius 11:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

See: Talk:Military_of_the_United_States#Requested_move that article has recently been moved (26 Mar 2005) from United States armed forces → Military of the United States to fit in with the standard -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Category:Militaries The vast majority of the countries military pages are titled "Military of <country name>" Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, for apparent dogmatic reasons you advocate using a term that is never used? I really don't see any point in that. -- Necrothesp 21:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not dogmatic but a standard for the category. The page its self can have any text which is appropriate (as it does), and redirects take care of the rest. Philip Baird Shearer 21:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it not dogmatic when a 'standard' is used which is not the name by which the organisation is actually known? Is that normally the policy we have on Wikipedia? I think not. -- Necrothesp 00:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would support "British Armed Forces" if that's the official name (like Australian Defence Force for the Military of Australia) but I won't support "British armed forces" which I find inferior to the "Military of..." format. The article seems to suggest there are a number of alternate names so unless one of those is paramount, I think "Military of the United Kingdom" is an adequate compromise. So based on that, I don't really know which way to vote... Geoff/Gsl 01:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link to the MOD's website in which it quite clearly and consistently uses the capitalised term "Armed Forces" to refer to them. And to answer srs's claim above, it is completely untrue that "military" and "armed forces" are synonymous. They may be in the USA, but in Britain "military" only tends to be used as an adjective, and in most cases technically only refers to the Army and not the other services (Military Secretary and Military Attaché, for example, which only refer to army appointments - Naval and Air are used as the adjectives for similar appointments in the other two services). I would say that to use an artificial term that is not actually used in the country of origin just for consistency's sake is inappropriate and is in complete contradiction to the idea of an encyclopaedia. Do we artificially name other articles just so they look pretty in category lists? I've not noticed it. So why here particularly? -- Necrothesp 00:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• What about General Motors Astra? Seems like there was a good fight between Opel Astra and Vauxhall Astra... DmitryKo 19:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The OED [1] disagrees with the assertion that Military is not synonymous with Armed Forces. It, and the MOD website, also refute the notion that "Military" only refers to the "Army". srs 02:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most people in Britain would not use "Military" as a synonym for "Armed Forces", despite what the OED says. It would be looked on as an Americanism. And you will note that I used the terms "technically" and "in most cases" when describing the use of "military" as an adjective within the Armed Forces. Outside the Armed Forces it is naturally used as a basic contrast to "civilian". It is also used as an adjective to refer to the Armed Forces in general terms (as in "military aircraft") where a more specific term does not exist (obviously, since "armed forces" cannot be used adjectivally). That does not change the fact that as a technical term it refers in the UK to the Army (otherwise the Military Secretary would work for the whole Armed Forces, whereas in reality he is an Army officer and the Naval Secretary and Air Secretary are his equivalents in the RN and RAF respectively) and as a noun it is rarely used at all. I also note that you do not answer my point that the MOD website quite clearly uses Armed Forces consistently to refer to the British Armed Forces, which, without obfuscation, is actually the point at issue here. The Times Style Guide also says that Armed Forces should be used capitalised, incidentally. -- Necrothesp 15:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A google search shows the following results:

• "British Armed Forces" 61,600 results
• "HM Forces" 33,800 results
• "Her Majesty's Forces" 6,840 results
• "Armed Forces of the Crown" 4,340 results
• "Military of the United Kingdom" 3,580 results (many of which come from Wikipedia and its mirrors)

Don't want to repeat what's already been said, but the use of "British Armed Forces" is the most predominant term in the UK for the military. The official title is, however, Armed Forces of the Crown but meh. SoLando 15:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My personal view is that the term "Armed Forces" is a somewhat more passive and euphemistic term for "Military". It seems to me that its always our "Armed Forces" versus their "Military", hence my preference for some uniform naming (whether it be armed forces or military). Granted, that it's not likely that everybody else shares my perception of these words, but it does look odd when only the USA and UK pages are titled "Armed Forces" with the vast majority of the rest of the countries following the "Military of" format. I would much rather the official title is used (and if it's Armed Forces of the Crown, then so be it), and failing that, I would think that "Armed Forces of the United Kingdom" would be preferable as the country page is at United Kingdom, not Britain. srs 05:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Would this give the reality check about the "professional forces" best in europe?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11567729

hope it help, i regard brits as highly prepared and professional personels , no doubt about that, but in term of real force they lies behind france in every departments, the french being as professional and trained! no offence, i always love our "rules britania" cousins across the pond! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.162.75 (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

HI mates i have a question to ask that i want to find an answer to for my articale. and i hoped i can find it over here. who can enlist to the british armed forces? can non uk citizens can join in and how? please answer me on my discssion page. Oraien

Proper noun

I think the move should go ahead but would like to ask if people think it is a proper noun or not. Please decide between the following two options:

British Armed Forces

1. This one. James F. (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
2. User:Dragons flight (from comment above).
3. Yes, it's a proper name. -- Necrothesp 11:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

British armed forces

Decision

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Proper noun British Armed Forces. violet/riga (t) 12:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Armed Forces of the Crown

The statement that this is the official name has been tagged as needing a citation. If this is successfully sourced as being the official name, shouldn't we move the article there? Yorkshire Phoenix 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the official name - there is no one official name - it's just a very formal name used for the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom. David 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of Personel

What is the exact number of personel in the regular forces as of 2007? It's been changed to 187,000 but I thought it was still around 195,000?

"Second highest spending?"

This article claims the UK has the second highest spending of any military in the world. The CIA World Factbook, [[2]], places it at fifth, far below China, which it places second. Could someone enlighten me and resolve this discrepancy? If it's a matter of different definitions or something, the statement should still at least be qualifed. Mycroft7 00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Come 2011 the MoD budget will be US $74 billion, not sure how that compares to China but it is an official figure.

This still needs to be resolved. I cant see any different definitions. Perhaps go ahead and change it. Jamierc 05:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

CIA is incorrect and out of date, and it is biased to the USA

Why is this even an issue? what problem do people have with Britain being the second highest spender? My issue is having the MOD's budget being interpreted as the collective budget of the Services. Remember that the MOD employs 90,000 civilian staff. Which is why the 33bn figure should be in the MOD's article.

The 'second highest spending' claim is based on figures officialyy announced by different countries' governments. In these Britain does come second, but a number of nations (probably including China, Iran etc) state their military spending as far below the reality (China is purported to spend three times more than its official figure, for example) for purposes of national security, top secret research and development programmes (sometimes illegal), etc. 172.141.130.245 17:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should the CIA, which states that France spends 2.6 % of GDP as opposed to the UK's 2.4% of GDP, be biased against Britain? Please note that France now has a higher GDP. I have edited accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.19.172 (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is stupid. The very source itself shows Britain has the fourth military spender after the US, China and France. Stop this stupid POV, 4th is a good place enough, be honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.28 (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Between the introduction to the British Armed Forces section and 'current strength' the UK moves seamlessly from third highest defence sepending to fourth. Firstly that is a clear inaccuracy in the text and secondly those figures need clarification i.e. percentage GDP or total spending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.131.81 (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Gays and lesbians"

The article states that "Gays and lesbians have been allowed to serve openly since the change of the Millennium. The British Army participates in Gay Parades and actively recruits this demographic." Seems a little non-politically correct, to say the least. Maybe, since 2000 sexual orientation has not been a factor considered in recruitment? FeralWolf 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt really seem that bad to me, however be bold and edit it yourself if you have a problem!--NeoNerd 22:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

The top right hand side info box is riddled with Americanisms that need changing. Anyone know how to customise these infoboxes ? e.g. 'active personnel' should read 'regular personnel', 'manpower' might be better described as 'personnel', and 'fit for military duty' is wholly ambiguous: how is the 'fit for' defined - it is not a British concept - and 'military duty' - is this for the army, as opposed to for naval or air force duty ? Points for pedants, perhaps, but I suppose it might as well be done correctly. Defining an infobox wholly loaded with Americanised terms does seem to introduce more systemised bias in favour of US English terms, although I'm sure it's not intentional.--jrleighton 21:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

JPA

Hello all! I was wanting to add a small paragraph, or even a single sentence explaining that as of this month all Armed Forces personnel perform their administration, and are paid via the Joint Personnel Administration system. Anyone fancy a stab at it? Any suggestions?! Cheers! --LookingYourBest 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I created the JPA page, so I guess I have a vested interest in getting people to see *my* page! lol! --LookingYourBest 14:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that in the grand scheme of things it's not that significant, although I acknowledge your fondness for it.

OTOH the article page is probably notable enough but it'll need some work to bring it up to scratch.

ALR 15:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to all this, so I was hoping other people would look at the page and add and amend it as happens with all wikipedia pages. I acknowledge it isn't that brilliant yet.

I'm not greatly fond of the system itself, but I think it's highly significant. If for no other reason than for the first time in it's history the Armed Forces administration has been centralised. I can't think of anything else that they do that's so unified?

--LookingYourBest 12:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm a bit pushed for time at the moment, but I'll add it to my watchlist and support where I can.

In principle the AF pay system has been centralised for some time, although AFPAA were working with three different pay and allowance systems. Nightmare for someone writing reports on personnel from all three services tbh.

What JPA has done is forced the three services to rationalise their business systems and in that sense is significant, but then so was the merger of DPA and DLO, or the formation of the DCSA.

ALR 14:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this violate WP:SYN?

The British Armed Forces however have the second highest expenditure (only behind U.S.) of any military in the world and this high spending on (relatively) small numbers of personnel, research, design and procurement of defence equipment means that they are one of the most powerful and technologically advanced forces in the world.

This sentence is jumping from two sourced facts (2nd highest expenditure and 22th highest size) to an unsourced conclusion ("one of the most powerful and technologically advanced forces in the world"). I'm looking to remove the last part of this, unless someone can provide a source.Stymphal 20:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom Military Oath of Allegiance Merge

It has been suggested that the above stub should be merged with this article. I agree and beleive it should be added to the 'personnel' section. Does anyone have any different views? LookingYourBest 06:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support So long as the entirety of the actual wording of the oath is moved. LordHarris 11:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the concept, it's very stubby and doesn't have much potential at present. Needs references for the Army and RAF usage, and clarification that RN don't use it, though.ALR 12:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Against Why shouldnt it have its own article? I bet the U.S Armed Forces has an article like it thats just as short, slipping it in in the middle doesnt realy help if your searching for it. I think if the article can be expanded it should be left alone. --Climax-Void ^{Chat or My Contributions}

Against The oath could be put on this page, but there's no reason to move it from the Oath of Allegiance article. Unless there are proposals to merge all the oaths on that article to their respective country/military pages? 81.96.205.240 (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg

Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This image is on wikipedia under the fair use guidelines. Under these guidelines the image cannot be reasonably used in this article. As such it has been removed from this article. Do not re-add it here without discussion. Thanks. Woodym555 22:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Falkland War

There is no mention of the Falkland War in the history section, i think its kind of worth mentioning, being one of the major conflicts during the Cold War era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.247.202 (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact it was in the Cold War era was rather irrelevant, but yes I think it should be included on the basis of it being the latest major war in which Britain was the sole participant on it's side and thus helped to establish the relevancy of the British military today, ie proving it's not a useless post colonial nation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Focus on Euope" :
  • [http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/F21E81DC_E902_D3CE_488720FE8488434D.pdf Focus on Europe], raf.mod.uk
  • [http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/F21E81DC_E902_D3CE_488720FE8488434D.pdf Focus on Europe], raf.mod.uk, p15-16

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Triserv-600.jpg

The image Image:Triserv-600.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Manpower drastically wrong.

425,500 men in 2006 is wrong. Also, there is no such thing as regular reserve and volunteer reserve, there is only one type of reserve. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am quite certain there are more around the number of 200,000 men in the forces and that the regular reserve should be deleted as it does not exist. What I think has happened is that regular reserve is supposed to be the number of reserves and regulars added together, but that someone has taken it to be an entirely seperate force and has therefore doubled the number of men in the armed forces from 200,000 to 400,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.143.127 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you base the above on but your contention that there is only one type of reserve is blatantly incorrect. If you wish to read around the subject might I suggest you start with this url: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ReservesAVitalPartOfUkDefenceCapability.htm which includes the following:

The volunteer reserves comprise the Territorial Army, the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marines Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the active Royal Air Force Reserve. The Regular Reserves are made up of former Regular Service personnel who retain a liability to be called out for operations if required. Reserves perform a variety of different roles in the Armed Forces. Some like doctors, nurses and linguists have specialist skills, whilst others supplement general military capabilities.

Highfield1730 (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that all of the above should be specified in the article. Say how many members are active and how many can be called upon to augment this number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.143.127 (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Garrisons

Is the garrison in Belize really there still? What seems to be a reasonable source [3] suggests it was withdrawn in 1994.--Glaucidium (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceFor/ServiceCommunity/Hive/Overseas/BelizeHive.htm would indicate some troops are still in Belize. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

can anyone advise me please can an ex forces person get mobility allowance after 65 years of age —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kengord (talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not really the place to ask questions, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities may be a better place. A lot of information can also be found to the http://www.dwp.gov.uk/ website and at http://www.veterans-uk.info/ MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

their ability to project power globally is considered second only to the United States Armed Forces

This statement seems false, or at least unsupported. There are two citations, the first one says :
"The Royal Navy ended the Twentieth Century more powerful relatively than it had been for some time and perhaps second only to the United States Navy in its ability to project power around the world. ".
I think the "perhaps" is important here, but the fact that this article only compares the navy, and not the whole armed forces, is even more. The second source doesn't even compare the ability to project power to other armed forces. I will remove the statement until someone finds either a better wording or an other source, because the two sources doesn't support that statement at all. --zorxd (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal foundations

Hi, I am aware that this article does not consider the legal foundations of the British military, but Imaybe I'll be able to add it sometime. Could somebody point me to any laws or articles about what the legally defined mission of the British Armed Forces is (as I am editing the German-language version)? The difficulty I am experiencing is the lack of a codified constitution which I could just look up, and the subsequent body of more precise definitions in subsequent laws, like in the US or Germany. Help would be much appreciated. --Kriegslüsterner (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. @harej 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

---

British Armed Forces → British armed forces — More accurate name & stand per United States armed forces. Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Military of France → French armed forces
• Armed Forces of the Russian Federation → Russian armed forces

Why would this be "more accurate"? As far as I am aware, this is a correctly capitalised proper noun and the uncapitalised version was rejected in a discussion above. In the name of "standardisation", why should this article move and not the United States one? I honestly can't see what this would achieve. Knepflerle (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not move: United States armed forces is under discussion, too, so that example will be outdated and irrelevant if that move is secured. Any way, the present name was chosen after heated debate (see above). Can't see anyone overturning that! Jubilee♫clipman 23:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't understand the rational for such request. Why not change it to the Military of Britain or the Military of the United States for example? As already mentioned the US page already seem to have an ongoing discussion about the name, (so I am not sure why anyone should follow their discussion that only applies to their very specific case). The British Armed Forces already had quite a lengthy discussion and there seem to be no need/want to move the Military of France or the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. One could argue that the proposed names are just as wrong as the current ones. FFMG (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: No real rationale for the move. --Igor Windsor (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak support, to produce correct capitalisation. The discussion in ?2005 was concerning 'armed forces' vs. 'military'. It was alleged that British Armed Forces is a proper noun (that is, the official name). I would be surprised if anyone can produce a source for that. It is a description not a name. But it is a very unimportant change as long as the article can be found. Sussexonian (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Support as "British Armed Forces" does not seem to be a proper noun and is thus inappropriately capitalised.  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

UK Expenditure

I have stated that the BAF's expenditure is 3rd in the world, the link provided shows how much is spent on the forces in the UK through HM Treasury, this is also seen on the Expenditure list, as of 2009 it is the third highest in the world by number if compared to the top 5 in the links provided in the Expenditure list which has been check through the latest currency exchange rate, the Stockholm figures are out of date by a year (stated as 2008), please refer to Expenditure list for further details, also it would be more official if people who edit this page have an account or be logged in before changing the Wiki page of HM forces, thanks. -- SuperDan89 (talk) 17:47, 06 November 2009 (UTC)

The Treasury source that you provided does not say anywhere that the UK has the 3rd highest military expenditures in the world. Claiming so without a source backing it is essentially WP:Original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. The SIPA source, on the other hand, clearly says that the UK has the 4th highest military expenditures in the world. 92.154.20.218 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

SIPA is outdated and therefore needs to be changed, I will find another source to back my claim which is the truth (and on the expenditure list). Glad to see you took my advisement and logged in. -- SuperDan89 (talk) 00:43, 07 November 2009 (UTC)

SIPA was published this year, it is not outdated. Please stop with that silly jingoistic editing. Wikipedia is not a place for pushing a chauvinistic agenda. 92.154.20.218 (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This coming from someone who stays hidden only posting with there IP, rather deceitful really. You should really look at yourself before talking about me, your the one trying to push the 'French' agenda. The figures were released early this year however are made up of figures in '2008' which I don't know where you are was LAST Year, this is out of date as the budget as of November 2009 which for me is the PRESENT year, shows it is third in the world for military expenditure compared to the figures in the Expenditure list. The only jingoistic behaviour I see is from you, I want to have the article with the most updated information, not stuff in 2008 which you want to serve your childish chauvinist nature. -- SuperDan89 (talk) 06:02, 07 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming

I agree that the title should be "Military of the United Kingdom." Two reasons. 1) Standardization. Consistency with other articles. and 2) Title objectivity. The "Military of..." suggests that other countries may have a military as well. "British Armed Forces" makes it sound like only the British have one. I agree that the current way is more stylish (WP:MOS). Nevertheless, I think that titles should be less Anglicized, and more (uh) French, with the adjectives last, main object first.

For editors who have been through this before and are wincing, I am not officially proposing a move. Please contact me the next time someone does. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed the previous discussion too. The term "British Armed Forces" (with full initial caps) is used on the official MOD site, as "British+Armed+Forces" this search shows, thus it is a term in formal usage by the MOD. As far as standardization, the standard should be the actual name used by the organization, not some artificial format based on style only. I have no idea how "British Armed Forces" makes it sound like only the British have one! It is normal English language usage, as you even pointed out, and, coincidentally enough, this is the English language WP. The French have "influenced" the English language enough already since the Norman Invasion! Let's keep French on the French WP, where it belongs. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Student7's logic is as sound as a Christian's.... --Kurtle (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent spending review

Will there be information added to the page for the recent UK spending review when it is released. Because information such as the removal of Ark V and the reduction in Challenger II and Heavy Artillery numbers should be added, as it was confirmed by the government (source: Metro newspaper) --Heatedpete (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Alleged crimes

I would like to introduce a section about British military crimes as that would add a bit of balance to this article.The British army do have a documented history of crimes or alleged crimes and I think that needs to be covered.It would be an improvement for wikipedia I believe. Owain the 1st (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The article you linked British war crimes is almost unreferenced, and makes dubious suggestions. Like The British maintained concentration camps in the Boer War. true yes a war crime ? there is some content but very little detail and its neutral POV is in doubt.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not start that article but now I am improving it so that it is factual and well sourced.As for the concentration camps, yes a war crime.To round up tens of thousands of women and children and place them in a concentration camp where some 27,000 died is a crime against humanity.When I have improved the article I want to link it to the British Armed Forces page as it is their history.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(E/C) I don't. Copying over the lead that gives a rather basic and simplistic generalised description of war crimes, without describing any war crimes committed by the British adds nothing to this article. Given that the Iraq War incident is the only incident on that separate page that comes under the purview of this page, I really don't see why it should be included. It is something that could perhaps be discussed for Military history of the United Kingdom or other associated pages such as the army one. Personally, I adhere to the principle that criticism should be integrated into the article text rather than separate sections. Woody (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to have the history and criticism of the UK armed forces.They did what they did, it is well documented. I can see no reason for it not to be included.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I can. I've explained the issues in my reply above here. Did you read the link? I can also think of neutral point of view and Verifiability as well. By all mean, bring the British War Crimes article up to scratch, source it, add in neutral commentary, opposing view-points and debate about the legality/morality of those actions in a time before the Geneva Convention. That is for that article, not this one. Woody (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason when it is brought up to scratch to not have a link to the British armed forces page.It is their history.It will have a neutral point of view as far as it can when talking about war crimes and it will be verifiable as it is well documented in all good history books about the subject.I do not see any other reason that it should not have a link.The Israeli defence force article has one and so does the US Military and we are going to leave out the British for what reason?Owain the 1st (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just like to say the statement doesnt actually say anything about the British Armed Forces so it adds no value to this article. The linked article has some serious POV issues but that is not for this page as per Woody. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not? I have changed the lead that was on the British armed forces page.I have already discussed the POV issues, they can be addressed.I see no other reasons to not include it.It is their history.No one has given a good enough reason why it should not be included when it it revised as far as I can see.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A section on to use your heading alleged crimes, would add undue weight to an article on the present British Armed Forces - unless you are also going to add a section of all the good things they have achieved or done over the last 300 years. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A section could be added reflecting the good they have done, I have no problem with that.I am just talking about a few lines and link to the other pages and I think that is not too much to ask.Is there a wiki page with all the good things the British Army have done? Owain the 1st (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You have already been told why not, three different editors have told you why not giving links to appropriate policy pages. If you choose to ignore those then that is your issue, but don't claim that no one has given you a good enough reason. WP:V and WP:NPOV are non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia.

That is not to say that this article should be a whitewash, but putting undue weight on one issue is wrong. Integration is the key. Woody (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What undue weight? Having a few lines and a link to the British army being involved in war crimes is not undue weight.It is a fact of their history.You have posted up WP:V which I have already covered and WP:NPOV which I have also already covered.If those are the only reasons that you have then I can see no reason why is should not be included frankly. Owain the 1st (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You are rewriting history To round up tens of thousands of women and children and place them in a concentration camp where some 27,000 died is a crime against humanity - yes it was deplorable but it was not a war crime at the time and is possibly OR. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually under the Hague convention of 1899 you had to treat civilians humanely and as they did not as 27,000 of them died that is against the laws of war at that time I believe.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Owain the 1st's desire to create a "War Crimes" section is driven by the rather obvious agenda he wants to push. This can be seen by reviewing his recent edit history. 86.154.7.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

Please could you read WP:TALK and comply with it, thanks. I reverted you edits, not because I disagree with them, I didn't look at the content in detail. It's just that you removed at least one reference that was being used and damaged text through careless editing. Can you be a bit more careful please. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sean he is just chasing me around the board.He started on the idf talk page with an unsigned comment that I and you deleted and then he has obviously checked my edit history and turned up here to have a dig at me and mess up this article.The guy has not been on here for nearly 4 years then all of sudden this.Sockpuppet I think Owain the 1st (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is BT Central pool IP address. The odds of it being the same person editing now as 4 years ago are very long. There is a good chance however of it being an ediotr editing whilst logged out, possibly to avoid scrutiny. The essence of their argument is still correct though, no matter how they put it forward. You have a particular editing pattern, espousing a certain POV to the utter disregard of any others. Woody (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes my editing pattern to introduce factual information into articles, some people have a problem with that it seems. Owain the 1st (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dervish state

Shouldn't the Dervish State be addedd. Because it waged the longest colonial war against Britain and Italy. And the British used for the first time in Africa aeroplanes.86.80.208.136 (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The history seems incomplete.

It seems that the history section of this article is incomplete; there does not appear to be anything before the cold war. Why is this? I was under the impression that the history of the current British Armed Forces extends way back to the restoration. Many thanks for an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.54.67 (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Commander in Chief

It is plain ridiculous to have the Queen listed as the Commander in Chief without any further explanation. It is very misleading indeed, as it gives readers the false assertion that the Monarch has a role similar to that of the U.S. President: which she most definitely has not. The Prime Minister, who by constitutional convention exercises the Royal Prerogative Powers, should be listed as de facto commander in chief, while the Queen should be listed as de jure commander in chief. RicJac (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Prime Minister is not even the de facto commander in chief - he 'merely' makes the political decisions whether to commit British troops, etc, or not. Actual command of HM Forces personnel is from the Sovereign, via his/her officers, of which the Prime Minister is not. (The PM for example is not saluted by armed forces personnel, unless he/she is actually an officer, which in modern times is very rare.) The PM is not in the chain of command, though clearly is involved in decision making. David (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is your point that is moot. The Prime Minister, and below the Secretary of State for Defence through the defence council, exercises, by longstanding customs/delegation Royal Prerogative Powers, which is derived from the power that Parliament recognizes as vested in the Crown. That does give them real and almost unlimited power to direct the armed forces. You have to separate the legal fiction from facts of reality. No one serious minded would ever expect the Queen to overrule her ministers or to act without their advice. Wheatear or not uniformed personnel render hand salutes to the PM is irrelevant in the big picture and does not change the facts as outlined above. RicJac (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I distinguished the political power to make decisions as to the use of the armed forces and the authority of officers to command armed forces personnel. There is clearly a difference there. The Prime Minister cannot order soldiers, officers, etc, about. He has the political authority however to make decisions as to the use of the armed forces.

I would like to see a credible source showing that the Prime Minister is in any way the "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces. Indeed, a recent debate on the control of the UK's nuclear weapons led to an interesting comment by a retired senior officer stating that there was a simple fail-safe to a nutty Prime Minister ordering the use of nuclear weapons: the officers simply can ignore him and appeal to higher authority (the Queen). No, of course, the Queen would never go against advice/would always seek advice, but that advice does not necessarily come just from the Prime Minister (he is her first advisor, but by no means her only advisor). In certain circumstances (such as there being a mad PM who wants to nuke Andorra because his ski trip didn't go well) the Queen would be in contact with her officers and they would make sure the PM's wishes were not followed. Who's the commander-in-chief? Not the PM.

Yes, in practice the Prime Minister makes many of the key decisions, but actual command of the armed forces and its personnel vests with Her Majesty and Her officers, and not with politicians. That is one of the fundamental aspects of the Westminster system. It is more than legal fiction - do you really think the officers and others in the armed forces have any allegiance to the Prime Minister or other politicians? Really?! I think you'll find that there is a strictly adhered to tradition of allegiance to the true constitutional authority - the Crown. David (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it HM Forces not PM's and all recruits swear allegiance to the monarch, when singing up. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jim. I will just add to my argument that the United Kingdom is a strict adherer to the rule of law and the law is very clear in this area: the monarch, as Sovereign, is the Head of the Armed Forces. Further, the Prime Minister is just another office which the monarch appoints. Yes it would be extra-ordinary but the monarch could sack the PM or go against his wishes (which would result in him resigning), but that is the whole point of reserve powers of the head of state. These powers are not just theoretical or something which perhaps existed in the past but no more - they are continually recognised by constitutional authorities. And they are certainly recognised by the officers of the armed forces. It is more than just legal fiction.

And again I wish to emphasize the distinction between political decision-making about deploying troops in theatre and the actual command of those troops. The first is a political decision, which is made in different ways in different countries. In the UK, by way of the Westminster system, it is a decision of the Cabinet. But the latter is actual authority to tell other human beings with the weapons to go out there and commit war. The Prime Minister cannot do that. He has de jure and de facto political power as to direction (ie the "use") of the armed forces. He has neither in command.

Yes, obviously, it always works out (or has in recent times) that the Prime Minister wants to invade X, the Cabinet agrees, and the officers of the armed forces go about it. But that's because the officers have authority from their commander-in-chief - the Queen - to exercise their powers as the Prime Minister (who after all has the Queen's respect, even if only constitutionally, as Her chief minister) has deemed fit. Again, call it "legal fiction" all you like, but in a court it would easily be disseminated where authority came from. The Queen.

[Edit to add: And it would also be easy to disseminate who has command of armed forces personnel and - separately - who makes the governmental decisions. David (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC) ]

As for use of the Royal Prerogative - it is exercised in the name of Her Majesty. And with respect of the Armed Forces, both ministers and officers use the Royal Prerogative (though the provisions of the Armed Forces Acts have largely made officers' use of the prerogative redundant). Being able to use them is by virtue of holding an office granted by the Crown whereby the Crown has delegated the use of its powers. But the Royal Prerogative powers used by ministers is not that of command - they are not officers nor do they take on officer-like capabilities or authority when using the Royal Prerogative. Just like how officers do not take on political aspects! That is the important distinction which is vital in a Westminster system democracy like Britain. David (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The highest ranking "professional" chiefs of HM Forces are either Lords or Sirs, therefore they can answer only to Her Majesty. It would be impossible for the PM (yes even Churchill) to command the Armed Forces. It has been this way for centuries, long before any US President existed. The Professional Heads of the Armed Forces recognise only the authority given to the PM and government by the Monarch. It is after all Her Majesty's Government. Talk^Woe90i 15:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

On a point of detail the PM as all other of HM's ministers is saluted - at least if one is following QRs and the drill manual. Lloydelliot10 (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh and Woe90i's post above is utter claptrap. 'Lords or Sirs, therefore they can answer only to Her Majesty' which comic did that come from! Lloydelliot10 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? Charles Guthrie, Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank a recent former head of the British Army and Chief of the Defence Staff, would scoff at your comment! The professional heads of the Armed Forces only recognise the Monarch as the Commander in Chief. It would also be improper for any Officer with a title or peerage to answer to anyone except a higher ranking officer and ultimately the Monarch. Lord Jock Stirrup is another example of a former military head with a peerage, could you really see him salute the PM or any minister? Get real! The Armed Forces ONLY recognise the authority given to the PM and Government by the Monarchy, nothing more than that.Talk^Woe90i 16:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Having read into it a bit more I stand corrected re: saluting. Personnel may salute as a compliment those who have authority from the Crown - eg governors, ministers, etc, as well as members of the Royal Family (incl. those who are not officers - though most are). But this seems to apply to a good number of people, for example a minister in the Ministry of Agriculture.. ;) David (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As for PM's never being able to command - that's not strictly true. HM could appoint an officer to be PM, or appoint the PM to an officer rank. But that would be unconstitutional - a result of the clear division between the politicians in government on the one hand making governmental decisions, and officers in the armed forces on the other hand taking command of personnel and enacting those decisions. David (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It would not be unconstitutional as the British do not have a constitution. Field Marshal Wellesley was also Prime Minister at the same time. Winston Churchill was a Lieutenant Colonel and commanding officer of the 6th Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers (agreed not when PM) but he was colonel of both the 4th Queen's Own Hussars and the Queen's Own Oxfordshire Hussars, when in office. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course we have a constitution. David (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Read further on - Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. In this sense, it is said not to have a written constitution but an uncodified one. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to "read further on" thanks. I studied public law at university. David (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou David for your comprehensive elaboration of the constitutional background. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why these talk pages exist.

Not to explain why someone would change this article to explain why it should contradict Naval Service (United Kingdom), obviously. --91.10.10.224 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a limit to assumption of good faith, and the constant introduction of inconsistent material can only be seen as vandalism. A good hint the complete refual to enter a discussion here, on the article's talk page. --91.10.10.224 (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Royal Navy is the service within the Naval Service. The Naval Service exists only to serve the Royal Navy and was created to unify the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and other maritime structures with the Royal Navy. It is also important to note that the Naval Service falls under the command structure of the Royal Navy and is headed by the 1st Sea Lord. In effect the term Naval Service is merely used to "describe" the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Talk^Woe90i 01:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It also included several civilian branches, cite provided from the MoD, that directs to the service websites, Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)