Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Recruitment Age

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)

To the above statement. Can I please make the point that we are talking about the 'British Army", not the US Army. Therefore, the mention of states is irrelevant. The discussion page is also to debate how the information on the page can be made as accurate as possible, not to discuss opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treben (talk • contribs) 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure theres a campaign somewhere by someone to raise the joining age, but its definitely not in the public eye. You cant drink in some US states until 21, I think here in the UK its 18 everywhere, and IIRC you aren't sent into a war zone until you are 18. The youngest British soldier killed in Iraq so far has been 18, so I guess that might be true. See here RHB 19:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

He made the same offensive remakrs on the US army page, with the same bad info: You can't join the US army until 17 (with approval) or 18 (normally). ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Leftenant"

Am i being daft here? surely it's Lieutenant?

Correct, of course it's Lieutenant. Rob cowie 16:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
It's not archaic, it's the proper way to pronounce it!Traditional unionist 12:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Royal?"

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)

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)

Napoleonic Wars and the Crimea Expansion?

I know the history section is supposed to be concise and directs to a main article, but giving the Napoleonic Wars and the Crimean War less than two lines hardly seems proportionate considering their significance in the British Army's history. Also the Boer War doesn't even get a mention.

Notable units of the British Army

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)

I've moved the lists under "See Also", which I think is more appropriate; and also taken out the "Notable", which isn't really necessary. --Khendon 07:11, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we wait until it gets infeasibly big, and then hive it off to a "list" page --Khendon 17:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reworking

I re-wrote much of the article, as the old version was difficult to read, and widely inconsistent. Main changes are: - expanded history section based on definitive eras - added templates and images - added table of current deployments - added table on current manpower/weaponary - new structure section - link to a History of the British Army article, which would be useful to create Astrotrain 21:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Templates

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)

History

There seems to be some confusion here with regard to the history of the English army rather than the British army. The Bill of Rights is English statute passed by the English Parliament and had no bearing in Scotland at that time. The English & Scottish Parliaments ceased to exist in 1707 and the new British parliament took control of the army in England and Scotland i.e. the British Army.

Falklands picture

The picture showing the 'British army in the falklands' is actually of royal marines, who are not part of the british army!

Royal

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)

FV 109?

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)

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)

What are the restrictions on joining the British Army?

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)

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)
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)
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)

Equipment

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)

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)
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)

I have made a couple of changes to the equipment tables, however more work is needed. It seems to me that the simplest solution is to link it to the Modern Equipment page and work on ensuring that is up to date. Any thoughts?--Mlongcake 11:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ranks of The British Army

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)
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)

Worth mentioning the plethora of titles given to (to start with, anyway) the private soldier; Rifleman, Kingsman, Ranger, Guardsman, Gunner, Trooper, Private, Gurkha and so on and so forth. And that's before the whole Household Division thing with Lance-Corporals of Horse, Lance Sergeants and Foot Guards Lance Corporals wearing 2 chevrons from the off. --Thebigman 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Private 4th class doesnt exist. pay goes up in tandem with length service and/or promotion, so it is possible that one private could be paid more than another, but OR-1 and OR-2 are the same rank. I'm correcting this. Lots of Love, Tim

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)

It still is, its the most senior WO1 rank in the British Army; there are apparently 17 (as of 2003)TheMongoose

It was actually formerly an appointment within the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. -- Necrothesp 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell have the enlisted rankings been replace with Thai army enlisted rankings? I smell a bit of vandilism here.

The rank of grade 4 Private (referred to as grades rather than classes) did exist before Pay 2000 was introduced. There used to be 4 grades of private with grade 4 for a soldier in training, grade 3 upon completion of Phase 2 training, grade 2 12 months after completing phase 2 and grade 1 a further 12 months after that and upon completing a grade 2-1 cadre. As stated, this has been completely replaced with a new system which has 7 grades for private and is based on a time served approach for your grades. Please note that these were only used for pay purposes and not as a form of rank (although in many units you would only be eligible for promotion to LCPL if you were a grade 1 private. This no longer exists under the new system.) See here for the latest breakdown in pay for ORs. [1] Vance2038 15:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish-born in British Army today

Does anybody know how many members of today's British Army were born in the Republic and Northern Ireland respectively? El Gringo 18:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Defence Analytical Services Agency has a set of statistics here, but they don't seem to contain this information. I'm not sure if it's held at all, but might be worth dropping the MOD an email under FOI and asking. Shimgray | talk | 19:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
According to this article there are at least four hundred Irish citizens in the British Army, but it doesn't give a source so it might just be an educated guess. As for soldiers from NI, that would be more difficult to answer. It would include the vast majority of the personnel of the Royal Irish Regiment, which at present has four regular battlions.
As an addition, the rank table is rather off. US ranks and UK ranks do not directly correlate, for example a sergeant in the British army is normally a platoon second in command rather than a section leader (a job that is held by a coporal in the UK). Additionally a company commander in the British army is normally a major rather than a captain, this does significantly alter what the ranks mean in practical terms. (Packrat, 21:02, 12th May, 2006)

Taking of Bagram Airbase

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)

Iraq War and Afgahnistan

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)

Bell 212

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)

William & Mary's "usurpation"

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)

Recent conflicts

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)


It was 1 PARA in Op Palliser. - Lordandmaker 23:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Overlap of Sections

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) (alihaig))

Done Rob cowie 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"primary motivator for secession"

"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)

BV206

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)

Removed. Countersubject 21:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Army doesn't have any at present, but will operate a variant from about 2010 as transport for the Watchkeeper UAV. See:

At some point, it should probably be put back into the eqiupment section with appropriate caveat. Rob cowie 12:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish and Welsh Regiments

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)

The introduction states:

"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)

Tactical Recognition Flash

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)


"What it is good for" - Recognising units, tactically ;)TheMongoose

Question

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)

Tommy Atkins and Other Nicknames

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)

New APC; Mastiff

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)


Re-enactment photo

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)

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)
Real people who are not in the British Army. Jooler 23:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
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)

To Do List

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)

British Army Portal

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)

Army strength

Are the 2015 figures really the most recent ones for the strength of the British Army? JezGrove (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The infobox note says they are 2017 figures. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Currently the infobox says "891,712,768". Somehow I don't think that's right... Mr Larrington (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Corrected. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mr Larrington: Why go to the effort to post here instead just reverting obvious vandalism? - wolf 12:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Interwar years

Why are there no figures in the British Army strength table for the interwar years? SpinningSpark 16:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

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)
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)
Then put it there. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
More