Talk:Australian Army Reserve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Good article Australian Army Reserve has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
May 14, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST 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.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Australia / Military history (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Australian Army Reserve is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.

Naming discussion[edit]

This article probably should be renamed Australian Army Reserve and the CMF stuff put in a History sub-section. --kudz75 02:02, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As you probabaly know, there is a redirect from "Australian Army Reserve". I thought long and hard about what to call the page when I wrote it, and decided that the CMF name lasted a lot longer. Also, who's to say the AAR will not get another, quite different name in the near future? Australian goverments are increasingly fickle about the names of govt organsiations. Grant65 (Talk) 03:05, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
Gotta love political correctness

Ares?[edit]

I was just wondering why the Army Reserve was listed under Ares (disambiguation) for "Australian Army Reserve, the reserve component of the Australian Army". I didn't find a mention of the word Ares in this article and I was wondering if it was some kind of mistake? Bongomanrae 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Ares or ARes is an abbreviation for Army Reserve.[1] Grant65 | Talk 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I can't believe I missed it being something so obvious. Bongomanrae 16:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Units?[edit]

Worth putting in the list of units? Jacketed 08:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow[edit]

This page looks so much better. It is much longer, with a ton more content and resources. Kudos to whoever fixed it, you did a wonderful job! thanks, Ono (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

T'was me that rewrote it, but I can't take all the credit. Others like Hawkeye7, David Underdown and the appropriately named Anotherclown helped with the MoS tweaking, fixing my shocking spelling and grammar and by adding a few points I'd missed. Cheers guys for all your help. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This has changed from being a poor article to an outstanding one - great work! Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo caption[edit]

I'm not comfortable about the citation provided for the photo (of regular soldiers) with the caption begining 'Australian infantry during Exercise Talisman Sabre 2007...'. A single Army Reserve battalion's official website is not a suitable source for such a big claim, especially as it isn't clear to me where on the website this is stated. Many expert reports over the past ten or so years have stated that Army Reserve units other than the RFSUs are the poor cousins of the regular units and the photo caption directly contradicts this (see, for example the 2008 ASPI report on the Army which states that the reserves don't have enough equipment to be fully mobilised and this 2003 news story which is already being used as a source which states that only 22% of one reserve unit's equipment was operational in 2003). I'd suggest that both this photo and its caption be removed from the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Nick. The image was only meant to illustrate the equipment and involvement in multinational exercises. It wasn't making any claims about the ability of Reserve units to be fully mobilised (which in my opinion will never be possible and I don't believe that it is now the role that the Reserve now has). As I was having trouble finding photos for this article it seemed to offer a good example of current equipment and training situations.
To an extent Reserve units are poor cousins, but when it comes to basic equipment, in my experience at least, they use the same as Regular units (i.e. small arms, uniform, basic combat equipment, etc.) although in some cases they are not issued to the same level (i.e amount), or get to train on them with as much frequency.
The citation to the 25/49 RQR History does mention the multinational exercises, but does not specifically mention Talisman Sabre, instead mentioning Suman Warrior (exercise with Malaysian troops as part of the RCB deployment) and exercises with New Zealand. I have not been able to find any reference to Reserve involvement in Talisman Sabre (although I know it to be true, having participated myself before crossing to the dark side). As such I have removed the photo, the caption and any mention to Talisman Sabre from the article and will salt the earth around it so it shall never grow again. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent artillery and cavalry changes[edit]

One topic the article should cover is the reserve artillery regiments being re-equipped with 81mm mortars and most of the cavalry/light horse regiments moving from an armoured recon/transport role to a light cavalry role by swapping their M-113s for land rovers and scout teams. I'd add this, but I don't have sources for either at hand. From memory, I've read that the role of the artillery regiments is now primarily to provide mortar teams and personnel to the reserve and regular infantry battalions, which seems probable. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard this too from people I know serving in these roles. I'll hunt around and see if I can find any sources. Army News might have something, not sure though. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This is correct (he says beginning to cry...) There are a few exceptions though off the top of my head: the reserve battery in 1st Field Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery still use guns (155mm in fact), while the 12th/16th Hunter River Lancers use Bushmaster and have seen a bit of operational service as a result (I believe they operate in a similar way to B Sqn, 3/4 Cav). There may be a few other exceptions for the artillery in particular that I'm not aware of though. Anotherclown (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WW 2[edit]

"while units of the Militia were used in garrison duties at home in Australia.[25]" Minor point of accuracy - garrison duty extended to New Guinea as well at this time.

15th Btn Detachment, renamed 49th Btn Details performed garrison duty in Port Moresby from 6 Jul 1940. The Detachment totalled 6 officers & 160 ORs. From 1 Aug 1940 PNG was incorporated into the Australian defence systems as 8th Military District.

[1] Cranston, Fred, "Always Faithful" The History of the 49th Battalion, 1983 124.187.214.117 (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)M. Rogers, Canberra

Hi, good spot. I believe I've corrected this oversight now. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • ^ Cranston, Fred, "Always Faithful" The History of the 49th Battalion, 1983