Talk:British Army/Archive 1

message: Are there any campaigns to raise the age that you are allowed to join the armed forces? Personally, I think you shouldn't be allowed to go on active service in a war zone until you are 21 atleast. You can't drink in some states until 21, so why should you be allowed to murder 'the enemy' at 16? Ethoen 18:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recruitment Age

message: Am i being daft here? surely it's Lieutenant?
: Correct, of course it's Lieutenant. Rob cowie 16:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The confusion no doubt arising because it's pronounced Leftenant in the UK (gotta love our archaic pronounciation) Gemnoire 12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not archaic, it's the proper way to pronounce it!Traditional unionist 12:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Leftenant"

message: Is there a source for the assertion about the reason for
the lack of "Royal" in the name of the British Army? - Khendon
:Have a look at this. charlieF 10:31 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unclear :-)  The *current* assertion is based on
the very URL you quote; I changed the article to reflect it 
shortly after I made the above Talk comment. - Khendon
I had always believed that the British Army had no 'Royal' prefix as it has fought against the King in the English civil war? SGoat 05:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fallacy, although a very common one. There wasn't a standing army until Parliament created the New Model Army, so the army didn't have a chance to fight against the King, since it didn't actually exist at the time. Several of the regiments descended from the New Model Army do have the "Royal" prefix. Added to which, the Royal Navy did mostly fight for Parliament, and that kept its "Royal" prefix. -- Necrothesp 21:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Royal?"

message: Is this section really necessary? It's incredibly subjective. All units are notable to those who served in them. The Black Watch, for instance, is actually no more or less notable than any other infantry regiment. It just happens to have been in the news recently. -- Necrothesp 21:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable units of the British Army

message: I am working on various issues, please do not subst the template, I dont have time to explain all details, just leave it alone, thank you. -- Cat chi? 11:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: I note no mention of the commonly held belief that its not called the  Royal Army because there was one and it lost.  Yearly renewal shows this is a Parliamentary Army! ;) Morwen - Talk 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal 

message: I stumbled across FV109 Workhorse today, an APC that seems only to exist as a vague comment here and on a lot of our mirrors. Paper sources don't mention it. Anyone have any ideas? Shimgray | talk | 01:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, does anyone know if these designations should be "FVxxx" or "FV xxx"? We seem to be half one, half the other... Shimgray | talk | 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FV 109? 

message: The United States Army recently changed the restrictions on tattoos to increase recruitment numbers. What are the restrictions for joining the British Army, are soliders allowed to have tattos? How about if they are on prescription drugs, one of my friends was told he couldn't join the US Army why he was still on ritalin for his ADHD, is it the same in the UK? Edward 10:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: British soldiers are not only allowed to have tattoos, there are few British soldiers who do not have tattoos (by the time they've been in a while anyway). The TV series Soldier Soldier actually employed a makeup artist just to apply tattoos to the actors every day! There have been rumbles about excessive tattoos from on high (there was once a proposal to ban tattoos, but it was ridiculed by everybody and never got anywhere), and tattooing above the collar would be out, but generally tattoos are standard in all the British Armed Forces (even Edward VII and George V got tattoos done when they were princes serving in the Royal Navy). What are the rules on tattoos in the US military then? Were there restrictions? Tattoos can be more of an issue in the British police, incidentally, particularly since many police officers are ex-military, but as long as they're not offensive and not above the collar they're tolerated. -- Necrothesp 16:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4859478.stm says: 'Soldiers can now have tattoos on their hands and back of the neck as long as they are not "extremist, indecent, sexist or racist," army officials say. Women recruits can also wear permanent eye-liner, eyebrows and lip makeup, although it must "not be trendy".' Edward 17:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the story, I assume that it wasn't that they now allow tattoos, but that they changed the rules to allow tattoos in more places than they use to... so they never had them banned per se. Shimgray | talk | 17:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the restrictions on joining the British Army? 

message: Currently, the equpiment section is a mess. It includes old equipment that is no longer in service, duplicates that are already described in the article on Modern Equipment and is missing some important stuff (NBC related equipment for example).
I propose that this page include only links to primary equipment such as the Challenger 2, the Warrior APC, the SA80, GPMG, LSW etc. and links to the Modern Equipment page and a Historic Equipment page.
It might also be worth displaying the equipment links in tables to reduce the length of the page. I've created an example here. The significant drawback with this is that maintaining tables is a good deal more difficult than maintaining lists.
Let me know what you think. Rob cowie 12:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I much prefer the tables layout to a list. Is it worth including Plce!PLCE in there, too? Also i think the MILAN and LAW, amd possibly mortars, want a mention. Though i'm not sure what to call the section they'd go in? -- Lordandmaker 13:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - an Anti-armour weapons section might be useful as well as a 'Personal Equipment' section to include PLCE, helmet, body armour etc. I can't do it now - only have intermittent net access but I'll get on it when I have broadband again. Rob cowie 10:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equipment 

message: Does the rank of Private 4th class truly exist in the British Army?  And I don't think that Warrant officer class 2 conductor is a different Italic textrankItalic text from Warrant officer class 2.
: I'm not sure it does. I've certainly never heard it mentioned. Perhaps someone could look into it. Rob cowie 12:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never come accross it, nor seen it mentioned anywhere. Can't find mention of it anywhere except wikipedia. -- Lordandmaker 13:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A Conductor is a specialisation, as I recall it was Royal Corps of Transport, now Royal Logistics Corps, alongside a Master Driver.  I'm not sure that it's still extant though.ALR 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranks of The British Army 

message: The article attributes the taking of Bagram Airbase to the S.A.S., an army regiment.  I understood it to have been taken by the S.B.S., a marine (and hence naval) unit, e.g. see Wikipedia articles on the S.B.S and Bagram. --Countersubject 21:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taking of Bagram Airbase

message: The Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy, and are not just 'considered' to be so.  So why include one of their campaigns in an article on the British Army? That said, it might be a good idea to have a short paragraph on infantry units that are not part of the army (Royal Marines, SBS, RAF Regiment), with links to the appropriate articles.  Countersubject 13:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq War and Afgahnistan

message: The Bell 212 does serve with the Army in the army flight in Brunei. Who ever is deleting this should stop and look at the army website where the aircraft is listed. King Konger 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bell 212

message: I'm no historian, but is it correct to refer to William and Mary as "usurping" the English throne?  According to Wikipedia's William and Mary page, "they were called to the throne by Parliament, replacing James II, who was 'deemed to have fled' the country in the Glorious Revolution of 1688."  To use the word "usurp" implies that they seized power without legal authority.  Whether it was legal is admittedly debatable; but it was Parliament that put them there, and not William & Mary themselves.
Haydn01 15:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: William & Mary's "usurpation"

message: The recent conflicts section is pretty garbled, the various headers don't seem to bear much resemblance to the content.  I'll tweak with it a little but the following points apply:
:*Gulf War - For starters this appears to refer to GRANBY, ie the liberation of Kuwait (leaving aside how we number the UKs involvement out there over time), that needs to be clear, it was only 15 years ago but thats ancient history to some readers who don't realise that TELIC was just the latest instalment.  The section also doesn't really talk much about it, the majority is related to Options for Change and the corresponding force reduction, it needs to talk more about the Op in more detail as a summary of the corresponding article, and should probably link there.
:*Balkans - I appreciate that the article is about the Army, but the RN and the RAF were deployed there as well, indeed as I recall the RN were first out there dealing with the refugee situation in the Adriatic.
:*Afghanistan - At the moment most of this talks about the RM component not the Army contribution.  Also wasn't the deployment as 16 Air Assault rather than 1 Para as Spearhead Battalion?  If it was a spearhead deployment then that should be mentioned, plus the follow on force.
:*Iraq (current) - The section shouldn't really discuss the political issues associated with the legality of the intervention, that's discussed at length elsewhere, and could be linked to as appropriate.  Also isn't the UK actually Commander MND(SW) rather than just the majority presence?  Surely this should be mentioned.
:*Sierra Leone - The section talks mainly about the SAS!  This section should discuss Op PALLISER which was initially a Spearhead intervention with one of the Para Battalions, I can't remember which one.  There was also an Amphibious Task Group involved.  The SF activity was just one small part of the whole operation.
:*NI - The section lacks focus or effectiveness as a summary of the situation.ALR 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was 1 PARA in Op Palliser. - Lordandmaker 23:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent conflicts 

message: Would someone be able to adjust the formatting so that the pictures in the "flags and ensigns" section do not overlap the table below? I would do it myself but I am too stupid to work out how :)
130.246.132.26 15:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap of Sections 

message: "The British Government's attempt to mollify the Natives by delineating the Appalachians as the westward limit for European settlement was the primary motivator of the American colonies in launching the secessionist American War of Independence."
...This is not what they teach us in the States.  An attribution would be appropriate.
:It's an overstatement.  It would be fairer to say that the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which attempted to restrict colonial expansion beyond the Appalachian Mountains, was one of the causes of the revolution, along with others like 'no taxation without representation', and concerns about slave property rights.  It's no coincidence that the American Indians tended to side with the British or remain neutral. Countersubject 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "primary motivator for secession" 

message: I see the BV206 has been added to Equipment section.  I didn't know the army had this vehicle.  The Royal Marines have recently deployed a variant, the Viking (BVS10).  Does anyone know if the army has the 206 or one of its variants? Countersubject 18:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Countersubject 21:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BV206 

message: The article states that the British Army has its roots in the armies of England and Scotland.  It would be good to have something on Irish and Welsh regiments, especially since up to 1801 Ireland was a seperate Kingdom.  Countersubject 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish and Welsh Regiments

message: "From the late 18th to the mid 20th centuries, the United Kingdom was one of the major military and economic powers of the world. "
:Britain emerged from the War of the Spanish Succession as the leading military power in Europe. That was at the beginning of the 18th century. During the Nine Years War at the end of the 17th century it already had the most powerful navy in the world.
:Secondly, the UK is still a major military power. It is a nuclear power and is a permanent member of the UN security Council.
:Thirdly, currently, at the beginning of the 21st century, the UK's is the 4/5th most powerful economy in the world. 
I think some clarification is required. Raymond Palmer 21:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The introduction states:

message: Hi, in several articels about different units you can see a Tactical Recognition Flash, but there is no article about what it mean or what it is good for. would be nice to read something about it. cu AssetBurned 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical Recognition Flash 

message: Why this article just talk about the military victories of UK and not their losses.
Surely the Troop numbers in Iraq need amending- they are currently around 5000 and due to fall to 3500 at the end of this year. Rob 11:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question

message: Territorial Army soldiers are known as Terriers or "weekend warriors", STABS or the SAS (saturdays and sundays).
I've removed the above statement as it is inaccurate and more than a little insulting. Territorial Soldiers go by the same nicknames as their Regular conterparts. The only exception is to sometimes label them as "Territorials" and Regular soldiers as "Regulars" (strange that) when differentiating the two. "Terriers" is an historical nickname and hasn't been used for years.
However, the nicknames do exist, but are used in an insulting context. Perhaps the place to put them would be in an Army Insults section including other phrases such as ARAB, REMF, Them, Biff, etc. Or perhaps not.
Vance2038 14:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tommy Atkins and Other Nicknames 

message: I heard new APCs were being bought from the Americans called 'Mastiffs'. Could someone who can edit well research and correct, please?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Racooon (talk • contribs) 09:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New APC; Mastiff 

message: I've removed this. I don't think its of much use on this particular page. On historical reenactment perhaps. For this page, a bunch of chaps dressed up in colonial era uniforms next to a a couple of people in modern dress just looks silly. Jooler 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least they are real people, I saw exactly zero illustrations on this page concerning the British Army in North America, that's what I get for trying to help. IvoShandor 23:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Real people who are not in the British Army. Jooler 23:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well when you get a photograph of real people in the British Army from the early 19th century, let me know. I don't care what you do, I am not vested in the article or the picture. IvoShandor 23:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-enactment photo

message: If there are no objections, I'm going to go through this article with a fine tooth comb.  For the record, it is at an OK standard, but contains very few reliable references, hence the addition of :refimprove by me.  In addition, it needs some more work on its grammar and spelling.  I would appreciate it if this didn't become a revert war - as so many military themed articles do on WP - assume good faith at all times. Gormenghastly 17:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Do List

message: Folks!  Jhfireboy is leading the work on the British Army Portal, which I think is extremely worthwhile stuff.  I will be canvassing offsite to round up some more serving soldiers to assist, and if you need to ask where I'm coordinating that then you shouldn't be editing this page!  :)
If anyone is genuinely interested in helping out with this, could they please let Jhfireboy know and we can start working towards FA and all those good things!  Cheers! Gormenghastly 20:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British Army Portal

message: Are the 2015 figures really the most recent ones for the strength of the British Army?  JezGrove (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox note says they are 2017 figures. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I was looking at the table in the 'Personnel' section, which gives the 2015 figures. Best wishes, JezGrove (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The figures in the table are only updated every 5 years, so are currently a little out of date. However, in the first paragraph of the Personnel section the text states the actual figures from Jan 2018 with source. Best Regards Stingray Trainer (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Currently the infobox says "891,712,768".  Somehow I don't think that's right... Mr Larrington (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Corrected. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  Why go to the effort to post here instead just reverting obvious vandalism? - wolf 12:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Army strength 

message: Why are there no figures in the British Army strength table for the interwar years? SpinningSpark 16:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic is covered in the related article History of the British Army. Perhaps something can be done to improve the linking. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That still doesn't explain why the figures are not in this article.  It's a very prominent omission from the table.  Is there some reason it was left out. As for History of the British Army, I'm not seeing the figures there either. SpinningSpark 19:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then put it there. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I would if I actually had the figures.  Why do you think I'm asking the question? That's what I came to this article for. SpinningSpark 23:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you got your answer. It's not my fault, or Wikipedia's fault, that you don't like the answer. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwar years 

message: as the commanders in the info-box. That's lovely. But there's now also Deputy Chief of the General Staff. Should he now also be added? Thoughts? @Dormskirk ?
Sammartinlai (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, there is a risk of cluttering the infobox. Dormskirk (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok so the list shouldn't change. Thanks. Sammartinlai (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  So we have CGS, Commander Field Army, Army Sergeant Major 

message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4iQ1Rgz850
If people think it is a reliable source (Good Morning Britain is a news series by ITV). Then you have as much answer as you want who  is the next Army Sergeant Major and it cannot and must not be still Glenn Haughton.
Sammartinlai (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are re-hashing an old issue. No one is trying to re-add Houghton as ASM. Another editor confirmed the twittr post as RS (despite your comments to the contrary), so this is all old news now. Let it go already... - wolf 16:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you are a  who started it. It was not a re-hash. Sammartinlai (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You posted here first, not me, on a page you know is on my watchlist, about an issue resolved days ago. You could've simply added the source, but there was no reason for this post, or the WP:NPA needless reply. You need to stop disrupting talk pages with this bizarre and hostile behaviour. - wolf 08:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  GMB youtube clip showing Army Sergeant Major G Paton 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:British Army is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:British Army until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sad to see it gone. BlueD954 (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:British Army]] for deletion 

message: I propose this following structural change: 
# History (stays the same)
# Structure (Stays the same)
# Personnel
## Strength
## Ranks and insignia
## Recruitment
## Uniforms
# Equipment (Stays the Same)
# Reserve Forces (Stays the same)
# Current deployments
This is to further standardise this article with others, and itemise the sections into common features. IronBattalion (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Restructuring