Jump to content

Talk:British Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBritish Army 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 12, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 11, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 17, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
March 18, 2017Good article nomineeListed
April 21, 2017Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
May 24, 2017Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

British Imperial Army - not a word, let alone an article

[edit]

Every other imperial army has its own article, the British has none and isn't even mentioned on this page. Why? There is one on the British Indian Army, but what about all the others - AUS, NZ, etc.? At least during WWI they all worked as one, under British (English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish) top commanders. I am stunned that enWiki doesn't have anything at all about this. Anti-imperialism going wild and into ostrich mode? Arminden (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not a word (phrase). You might refer to lower-case "imperial forces", or "British Empire armies" but there was no single entity. The British Indian Army is Indian units from British India ("British Army in India" is used for British units). You'll notice there is no "New Zealand Army" by that name until after WWII, before then it's the "New Zealand Military Forces". The various military forces were pooled together under British command because that's what the Dominions agreed to (conscription for service abroad being an anathema and those fighting abroad being volunteers). Fighting as coalition under a primary partner similar to the US position in the Gulf War. In WWI the various nations kept their forces together and in WWII the RCAF insisted on its aircrew in UK being kept together in mostly Canadian squadrons under Canadian commanders. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't seem to care about that. If the topic has a logical definition and is of interest, whether with upper- or lower-case title, the article is created. Or at least a paragraph. But we don't have anything. The British Empire might have been slightly more "liberal" in its last half-century of existence, but you'd be surprised how little cohesion existed among any nation-wide army throughout history, let alone imperial juggernauts. I arrived here from Lions' Gate, see the 1920 photo, and the initial caption separated between "Indian" and "British" as if the two nations happened to have an alliance and came to Jerusalem separately, to see if they can get along. In the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, if Allenby said jump!, they jumped - Brits, ANZACs, Indians, it didn't matter. The rest is semantics. So yes, HM's army went to war as one big beast, it was the politicians' and administrators' job to make sure the "natives" got what they wanted in exchange for - their blood. There was very much an army of the British Empire, and exactly what you wrote here on the talk-page should be inside the article - plus a lot about how they made it work as one army when it came down to it. I don't know much about the Canadians in WWII, but if Monty said jump!, I guess they did't wait for confirmation from Ottawa either. So there you are. Arminden (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way the Dominion, UK and Empire armed forces worked together is suitable as a topic, but article title wouldn't be "British Imperial Army" because a single entity didn't exist. I can find books called "Manpower and the Armies of the British Empire in Two World Wars" and "Armies of empire : the 9th Australian and 50th British divisions in battle, 1939-1945"
I see no problem with an image caption referring to British and Indian because they are soldiers drawn from the British and Indian armies.
Canada took its interests seriously because there was a political element - see Conscription Crisis of 1944. Having heard him on a podcast, books by Marc Milner may be useful on how the Canadian forces fitted into the system.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idi Amin in the army

[edit]

Bilcat told me to talk about this here. Idi Amin was in Uganda, which was a British colony back then. He joined the army when it was still a part of the British Empire.49.178.131.33 (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has questioned that. Anyway, why does the photo need to be here? It's basically trivia, and he's not even mentioned elsewhere in the article. BilCat (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even a photo of him while he was in British Army service (assuming he was). That's what I expected when I saw that a photo of him had been added to the article. BilCat (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming??? He was. Not assuming. He was in the British Army, as Uganda did not have it's own military. If you look at the Infobox in his article you will see.49.178.131.33 (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was in the King's African Rifles, a colonial regiment which had similar relationship to the British Army as an Indian regiment such as 8th Rajputs. And inclusion in this article would be Undue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why the Infobox in his article have this " British Army (1946-1962) " and this " United kingdom ( Until 1962 ) "? 49.178.131.33 (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IP49: I wasn't taking a side in whether or not he was in the British Army, but recognizing that the claim is being disputed. It's still a trivial mention.in a top-level article about the British Army. Since the addition is contested, it's.up to you to persuade others that his photo is somehow relevant, which you have yet to do. BilCat (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of the British Army in Amin's infobox was just plainly false. The KAR was not part of the regular British Army, it was a separate branch. Applodion (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh uh! Can someone delete it then?49.178.131.33 (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did so already. Applodion (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial units

[edit]

There seems to be a concerted attempt by several editors to add extensive unsourced information to the section on "colonial units" in breach of WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. The new material is currently sourced to citations which were there before and do not support the additional material added. i.e. WP:HIJACK applies. Views welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have reviewed edits back to 16 May 2022 and agree with Dormskirk's assesment. Contributions from that point have been added (and re-added) without any clear supporting refs. The page has been taken back to it's last stable version, (aka WP:QUO) and the editors involved have been enccouraged to come to the talk page and discuss. - wolf 18:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British Army .

[edit]

The history of the last Solider be given a medal by her own hand Queen Victoria , What did this Solder do in the Bore War to win a medal . 49.3.81.66 (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything on marching music

[edit]

I was suprised, when reading this article, to see that there was no dedicated section for the many regiment’s marches (both quick and slow). Would this merit a section in this article? 82.2.122.20 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As in the marching songs themselves, or do you mean marching routine/drill procedures? Synorem (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that the right place for the "many regiments'" marches would be on the many different regimental pages. TomboPC (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gurkhas - implication they are not 'Regular' service personnel

[edit]

Might I suggest we improve the following? (I leave the dates and tallies as they show currently, for context.)

"As of 1 January 2024, the British Army comprises 75,166 regular full-time personnel, 4,062 Gurkhas, 26,244 volunteer reserve personnel and 4,557 "other personnel", for a total of 110,029.[7]"

The reference [7] is to the official governmental Quarterly Service Personnel Statistics which seem to introduce a distinction between "All UK Regular personnel and all Gurkha personnel".

Gurkhas are full-time regular service personnel. The distinction is that they are Nepalese citizens rather than British citizens. I think the current wording makes it sound like they are not regulars. Would something along these lines be clearer?

"As of 1 January 2024, the British Army comprises 75,166 regular full-time personnel, 4,062 regular full-time Gurkhas, 26,244 volunteer reserve personnel and 4,557 "other personnel", for a total of 110,029.[7]"

or

"As of 1 January 2024, the British Army comprises 79,228 regular full-time personnel (including 4,062 Gurkhas with Nepalese citizenship), 26,244 volunteer reserve personnel and 4,557 "other personnel", for a total of 110,029.[7]"

Hi - Thanks for that. I prefer the former of your two solutions as the figures match the published statistics. Dormskirk (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want British army Pauli’s fors 49.126.15.154 (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you clarify what "Pauli’s fors" means. Otherwise I fesr your post may get removed. Commander Keane (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Army&oldid=1252835551"