Talk:British Army

"British Army"

When was it first refered to by this name? Ive looked around and the many early references refer to: Her Majesty's Land Forces, Kings army, and some even say the Royal army. Ben200 (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:

The British Army was orginally formed by its name in 1707 following the conglimation of the English Army, the Scottish, Welsh and Irish Armies. In general the British Army is parlimentary and not crown (English Civil War) like 'The Royal Navy' etc (hense no 'royal' in its name, however it does include some crown regiments).

The British Army, and previous English Army, did fight for His/Her Majesty but also for parliment and population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flosssock (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

27 March 2009

There has never been an "english army". I find it hard to justify the opening sentence which says the British army cam into being in 1707 with the unification....

That to me is shocking. How can that be justified? the armies of the British isles served the crown as seperate regiments. the only really unifted force was the New Model army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.255.252 (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Concerning the following paragraph:

Junior officers in the army are generally known as 'Ruperts' by the Other ranks. This nickname is believed to be derived from the children's comic book character Rupert Bear who epitomises traditional public school values.[8]

It is my understanding that 'public school' in Britain refers to what would be called 'private school' in international English. My question is this: Does 'public school' in the quoted sentence above refer to school payed for from the country's taxes or school directly payed for by citizens? I think it is important to clarify this point as even though I am from a neighboring country I am a little uncertain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.205.184 (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of information about an important subject

I have not fully examined this article, but I noticed that it was missing detail about an important subject: what the composition of the British army has been throughout history. I think it would be good to know: from where were the men for the army drawn in the 18th century, 19th century, and 20th century, from what class, etc. Also, has the composition changed over time? Given that groups that were afforded rights in Britain have differed throughout time, I might think the classes that composed the army as well as the ability of different classes to rise through the ranks must have different at some point. Is there any one more informed on this topic that can add to this article, even if it is just a note saying that the class composition has remained about the same? - Nikurasu (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have surfed the pages of a few of the units in the army and I am of the opinion that,(in the size line) too many of them tell you how many units are in thoose units, (battalions in regiments etc.) I think it would be a better method if it told you the strenght of the unit, (no. of soldiers, heavy equipment etc.) in addition to the above if necessary.--217.42.190.13 (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC) RS 19/07/09

Recent and current conflicts

Why does this article only have "Recent and current conflicts" in it? That doesn’t really give much depth to the article considering the amount of conflicts the British Army has been in. --Climax-Void ^{Chat or My Contributions}

British Army Trades and Qualifications

As the British Army has over 200 different roles and responsibilities,Army Jobs would it not be a suitable Wikipedia topic to Have /List_of_Trades_in_the_British_Army ?? Individual unit / sub-unit pages could then have a Unit Trades section?
I don't want to create an Advertisement for the Armed Forces, but an understanding of an individual soldiers role, is worthwhile. After all, while soldiers are infantry soldiers first and foremost, it is important to understand what they do. I don't believe this will compromise OpSec --Jezarnold (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is already done in the individual corps see RLC Trades as an example Boooooom (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

mmmm While I see ONE link to Ammunition_Technician, the rest - - Driver . Port Operator // Seaman . Navigator // Marine Engineer // Supplier // Chef // Driver // Driver . Radio Operator // Driver . Air Despatcher // Movement Controller // Postal and Courier Operator // Pioneer // Petroleum Operator // Photographer // Rail Operator - - All of these trades mean something to people, and some are obvious.. But some people may NOT know what a Movement Controller or Air Despatcher is? There are a lot of other trades in other units that are just as mysterious??? Perhaps they should have there own links, and the one we have Ammunition_Technician could be British_Army_Ammunition_Technician ???? --Jezarnold (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The new great game?

This paragraph…

As with its return to Afghanistan in 2001 reflecting previous involvement in The Great Game, the British Army's current return to Iraq in Operation Telic also reflects a tradition of interceding in the region, which included the Mesopotamian Campaign of the Great War, the Anglo-Iraqi War of 1941, and the Gulf War fought to liberate Kuwait (referred to as Operation Granby).

…causes me some concern. Making a link between the current deployment in Afghanistan, and the imperial aspirations of the Great Game is not neutral. It may be valid, it may not be. It might be worth commenting that Britain had been in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past. But the phrasing makes a link between past imperialism and current operations. That may not be the intent, but it can be read that way. Chwyatt (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

- As with ww1 AND it's return to Afghanistan in 2001 reflecting previous involvement in The Great Game, the British Army's current return to Iraq in Operation Telic also reflects a tradition of interceding in the region, which included the Mesopotamian Campaign of the Great War, the Anglo-Iraqi War of 1941, and the Gulf War fought to liberate Kuwait (referred to as Operation Granby). The UK planned to anex Basra to Kuwaite after WW1, but it never came to fuition.--86.25.53.84 (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst the Army may be going to places they have been before, it is pure WP:POV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to suggest that there are parallels between the deployments on a motivational level (indeed, if you want to discuss that, I'd suggest that way back then, we were pursuing OUR imperial goals, whilst now we are pursuing somebody elses imperial goals) Mayalld (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Category nominated for deletion

Category:Footballers who served in the British Army - Template:Lc1

The above category was nominated for deletion. Does anybody here have any opinion on subject Djln --Djln (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

I'm sorry to inform you that I am quickfailing this article due to inadequate in-line citations. There are just not enough footnotes for the amount of text present. Please fully source the article before renomination. Thanks. Nikki311 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

British forces Germany

In the British army article, the total number of Challenger 2's is said to be at 386. However British forces Germany's article claims that the BFG has 300 Challenger 2's.

Is this statistic accurate or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.53.221 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Its correct BFG (British Forces Germany) has 300 Challenger 2 the other 86 Challenger are in the UK and Canada, I dont know where the ones in Iraq are drawn from but I would suspect they are part of the 300 assigned to BFG Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Snatch Land Rovers

In the list of vehicles the British Army uses, the Land Rover Wolf is cited as the main light transport vehicle. But recently, there has been much talk in the news about the Snatch Land Rover, but I cant find it in this list. Is there a difference? Or is this list incomplete? Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question... The Nouv (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Its the same vehicle just modified with blast proof armour and a hatch in the roof for "Shotgun Sentrys" developed during Operation Banner Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Officer Commissions

I know that in the British army up until the late 1800's you had to buy your officers commision, which basically reserved the officer corps for the rich gentry. I know that a ensign commision cost 400 pounds but besides that I'm not sure. This seems noteworthy to me but I'm not well informed enough to add it to the article. Can anyone shed some more light on the subject and make the addition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.153.150 (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no set amount for example in the more fashionable regiments Grenadier Guards etc, they cost more then a county regiment Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

George Dick

I'd appreciate it if someone would add the relevant British Army category to the above's article. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Rockybiggs (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinooks

Just a quick point. The British Army is making use of RAF and RN Helicopter assets in theatre. That includes RN Seaking and RAF Merlin, Puma and Chinook. While the army is meant to use them, they are not part of the British Army's inventory or the Army Air Corps'. Please don't keep adding them to that part of the article, it is misleading. 84.68.118.62 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You may well be right, but you must supply a source to prove your point--Rockybiggs (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the burden of proof is on those adding info to the article, not those removing it, per WP:V and WP:RS policies. If someone believes that the Army or AAC own Chinoks, it is up to them to provide reliable sources to prove it - BillCJ (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Put a citation first then ! --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

fwiw, for something as bleeding obvious as this it's reasonable to just crack on and get rid of it. The sideways-shufflers own and operate the Chinooks, the AAC don't.

ALR (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Sas badge.png

The image File:Sas badge.png 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. --20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Official Army Flag

I have uploaded the official Flag of the British Army but am having trouble replacing the current hand drawn version. Dredwerkz (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(Historical) Ranks

Ranks like the Lance Sergeant and Lance-Corporal of Horse (Household Cavalry) is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The real Marcoman (talk • contribs) 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because they're not ranks but merely appointments of corporal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats not true, they may equate to the rank of corporal but are distictly different ranks. Lance-sergeants for example use the sergeants mess, whereas a 'corporal' may not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.127.47 (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

True Lance Sgts use the Sgts mess but they are paid as a Cpl which is a bit hard when it comes to mess fees --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite correct (but they should be on fewer points) and don't forget they don't get the new SNCO clothing grant. Where did this tosh about it not being a rank come from? Tragino (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the key point is whether they have any authority over other Cpls? The acceptable references for that would probably be QRs.

Having never worked in that area it's not something I'm sighted on, but it's not really worth getting worked up about.

ALR (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at QRs when I get a chance. However I disagree about your 'key point'. Mine is that it is (in its contaeporary usage) a rank peculiar to a number of Regiments in that same way as the variations on Pte are (or indeed Bombadiers and CSgts), not that it is a separate rank between Sgt and Cpl. CSgts pay slips (at least when I last saw one pre JPA) showed their rank as SSgt - I don't think many would let you get away with saying that it was an appointment not a rank (albeit that it started that way). Tragino (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the distinction here between ranks and titles, although to an extent I agree with the point about appointment, that's the job one is posted into and may require one to hold a rank, whether substantive or acting.

The way to deal with it may be the same as is used for the multitude of titles for Ptes, as you highlight. The rank is Cpl, also known as ..... etc

ALR (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Tragino (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In the ranks section, the rank of quarter master sergeant is incorrect. It should read Regimental quartermaster sergeant (RQMS). It is also incorrectly classed as warrant officer class 2 when it is in fact class 1, usually written as "WO1 (RQMS)". this should be changed. Acorn897 (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Engagements

There are only a handful there. Why? Flosssock1 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Numbers, Strange terms and a picture

Some of the numbers in this article look rather suspect. e.g. In the 'Iraq' section it mentions "sending 46,000 personnel to the region"; elsewhere the army's total strength is noted as 112,000. Does this mean that 1 in 3 British soldiers were serving in Iraq in the middle of this decade? I would think that 46,000 has one too many noughts in it. Also, I'm sure that the strength of the British army has struggled to get over the 100,000 mark in the last few years. Indeed, the 25,000 recruitment figure has not been reached in recent times.

During the invasion phase of Gulf War Two Britain did deploy over 45,000 mainly front line military personnel. It's worth noting that of the actual fighting forces that demolished Iraqs army the UK's contribution to the Anglo American alliance was far greater than most people are aware of. The size of the British force was rapidly reduced once the British held area around Basra was deemed secured. The size of the UK standing army at just over 110,000 means that sustained deployments, such as Afghanistan can only be held at a single division (c.10,000). Other sustained deployments around the World amounting to around 15,000 (not including Germany) means that a quarter of the army is always deployed and that the remaining three quarters is available for reserve and rotation. There's no doubt that the British army is held at very high standards of training and individual capability due to its relatively small size, unprecedented ratio of investment per head and another factor not yet mentioned in this article or discussion, the elemental nature of Anglo-Celtic fighting cultural heritage upon which the army depends. To bring this into a more meaningful context, consider the more than three million British personnel deployed during WWII when the population was just two thirds the size of the UK’s current population. The British reserve army known as the TA (Territorial Army) is disproportionately large compared with the regular force. The TA, currently being much used, is comparable in effectiveness with many regular forces of other countries and should be counted as every bit a part of the fighting force available to the British Army.82.26.188.125 (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In the 'Lynx' section it states that one of its tasks is "armed escort". What is meant here? I have never heard of this term.

The photograph about 3/4 of the way down is still showing a SA 80 A1. The box showing standard weapons has (quite rightly), the SA 80 A2. Can a more up-to-date picture be found? RASAM (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

British Army Man Power

Just to Update the Man power section.

1st of October monthly man power figures = 115,500 Regulars (rounded to nearest 100), plus 35,500 Territorials (rounded to nearest 100).

total 151,000

look at following link for more info.

[1]

Agreed? if not please feel free to express your concern. Bro5990 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the figure may be too high - not all the "Full Time UK Non-Regular Forces" are Army. And I think you've put a too high a figure for the Gurkhas..? From the table you've presented I get:

Regular Army (Trained and Untrained) = 108,920

Gurkhas (Trained and Untrained) = 3,760

Total (not including the non-Gurkha "Full Time UK Non-Regular Forces" which we don't know from which service they count towards) = 112,680

I will try to find a better source of information. David (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... seems that the Monthly Digest of Statistics for November a) only has data for the 1st September and not the 1st October and b) has the same lack of detail regarding the "Full Time UK Non-Regular Forces". Not very useful!

See page 29/Dataset 3.5 David (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point, well done for pointing that out!! I didnt see this.

regular 108,920 + gurkhas 3,760 = 112,680. so we are agreed with this.

However I have found this, and sorts the list of Gurkhas, etc etc and Non-UK regular forces.......

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/apps/publications/pubViewFile.php?content=170.121&date=2009-11-26&type=html&PublishTime=09:30:01

puts UK regular army at 113,980 (114,000) which was quite close to my calculated figure of 115,000 any way.......

so 114,000 + 35,500 = 149,500 (150,000) we will change the gurkhas as well to the 3,700, i just over counted. Bro5990 (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Equipment

There is a conflict between the table and the added pictures. I'm not familiar enough with formatting to sort this. Can someone have a look at it? (The table is overlapping the pictures) _Will^Dow 10:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdow (talk • contribs)

British Active Army Man-Power

Latest avaliable man-power figures.

Regular Forces 1st of November 2009.

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/apps/publications/pubViewFile.php?content=160.11&date=2009-12-16&type=html&PublishTime=09:30:00

British Army includes UK Regular Forces (108,980) and Full Time UK Non-Regular Forces (3,760 Gurkhas + 2,000 FTRS*) British Army also Includes the (35,500) Territorial Army forces.

Total 150,240

• (FTRS*) if you take into account the Army takes majority via Afghan war

194.46.164.132 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Army Reserves forces

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/index.php?searchterm=reserves+forces&page=45 Click on the link for "TSP 7 - UK Reserves and Cadets Strengths"

Army Regular reserves and Army Cadets Total 206,670 according to the MoDs latest figures. However I am thinking twice about keeping the Cadets in this artical as part of the Armys reserve man power.......I know the MoD classifies the Cadets as a reserve force and hence DASA.MOD.CO.UK (the statistical wing of the MOD)includes them in military man power.......

Im looking for peoples views and a decision on should they stay included or should we romove them?

Bro5990 (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)