Jump to content

Talk:Shropshire Yeomanry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The first link (to http://www2.army.mod.uk/royalsignals/1sigsqn/history/rby.htm) is no longer valid. And I can't find a suitable replacement on that website for the information that it's being used to cite. --Ambulnick (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Shropshire Yeomanry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shropshire Yeomanry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WW2 Artillery Equipment

[edit]

Despite what the british army website says, I doubt that these regiments used 4.5" howitzers.

As far as I'm aware, the only 4.5" howitzers to see RA service in WW2 was the Ordnance QF 4.5" Howitzer, which was a pre-WW1 design that equipped Field Artillery units along with the (more numerous) 18pdr Field Gun. While both saw service in WW2 (with Field Regiments RA), they were gradually replaced by the 25pdr Field Gun - the wiki article on the 4.5" howitzer mentions that it was last used operationally (by the British) in Malaya in 1942.

The principal weapon of the RA Medium regiments during WW2 was the BL 5.5" Medium Gun (despite its name, this was really a howitzer), which was introduced in 1941 as a replacement for the WW1 era 6" Howitzers. Some Medium Regiments had one of their two batteries equipped with Guns, principally the BL 4.5" Medium Gun, which entered service in the 1930s, although the pre-WW1 Ordnance BL 60-pounder was still knocking about at the start of the war.

Even though I think the British army website is a poor source (at least in this matter), it trumps me having no source. Accordingly, I see no point in amending the article at present. However, if someone has access to a better source ...Glevum (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]