Talk:British Army/Archive 2

"South Africa considered to be a prosperous nation?"[edit]

When reading about recruitment and where the British Army recruit from, I read a line which says that people join even from more prosperous countries such as New Zealand, Ireland and South Africa. I'm wondering if South Africa can be regarded as 'prosperous' when around 85% of the South African population live in dire poverty. Even of the roughlyunsigned comment added by 86.134.255.252 (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity[edit]

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)[reply]

86.42.205.184, you are correct. 'Public schools referred to here are private, fee-paying institutions. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of information about an important subject[edit]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

Recent and current conflicts[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The new great game?[edit]

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category nominated for deletion[edit]

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

GA fail[edit]

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)[reply]

British forces Germany[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Snatch Land Rovers[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Officer Commissions[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

George Dick[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Chinooks[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Sas badge.png[edit]

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)[reply]

The Official Army Flag[edit]

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)[reply]

(Historical) Ranks[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Incorrect sorry, RQMS is a WO2 appointment. See here. Chachu207 ^{talk to me} 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the rank of Corporal of Horse from the Household Cavalry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.49.72 (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Engagements[edit]

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

Numbers, Strange terms and a picture[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the 1st paragraph, It is said that " The British Army is the third largest army in the European Union" without giving any references (as it is common in this artice) and without saying how it is clasified (per weapons, number of soldiers...).

It is generally accepted that The British Army is the first or second largest army in the European Union with the French Army as it is said here : http://www.dirjournal.com/info/top-ten-armies-in-the-world/. We should at least give some evidence of this ranking. Phil of Bristol 17:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil of Bristol (talk • contribs)

I have removed the sentence which does look wrong. Dormskirk (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Army Man Power[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Equipment[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

Army Reserves forces[edit]

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)[reply]

No offense meant to Cadets (I was one!) but in the end, they aren't properly trained soldiers (they're pretty good, but not that good) and they would never be called on to fight, so i'd advise against including their numbers in with the count of soldiers and territorials. RWJP (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say Include them. But make sure you make a point of saying that they are not professional military personel.

To be honest alot of the Cadet force is made up of x Army officers and trainers so not all are kids

cadet ages range from 12 - 18 and by law in a world war scenario a cadet at the age of 16 can be sent to war, a cadet at the age of 15 years and 9 months is allowed to join the army for professional training before being sent of to war.....but i dont think its moral, we need more people to express their view before any decision or action is made Rademire (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not part of the reserve force so shouldn't be included, the provision is managed through the reserves organisation, but that's about it.

ALR (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second largest army in Europe[edit]

According to the intro, "The British Army is the second largest army in the Europea, second only to the French Army and Turkish Army.". A) How mathematically can Britain be second, if two other countries have larger armies. B) Why the typo for Europea, its common name is Europe. I presumed it was referring to some type of unknown to me, organisation, like NATO. C) Russian land forces are quoted as 395,000. Which is larger than any of the aforementioned countries. And if Turkey is included within Europe, why not Russia. --217.171.129.72 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it back to normal. Some turkish person changed it trying to make Turkey seam powerful and make turkey look like a European nation.

The Fact is Russia and Turkey are not in Europe and therefore are not included.

Largest armys in europe
1 France 157,000
2 Britain 150,240
3 Spain 118,000
4 Greece and Italy 109,000
5 Germany 103,500

Thats the Facts.
Russia has 390,000 and Turkey has 240,000 however neither are european. Rademire (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the most recent bout of nationalistic bickering, it read "The British Army is the second largest army in the European Union, second only to the French Army", which makes a lot more sense and neatly avoids having to define "Europe". Fixed, though why we need it I'm not sure. Shimgray | talk | 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reserve personnel figure[edit]

The infobox includes a reserve personnel figure of 207k, this significantly overstates the strength of the reserve force since it conflates the regular reserve and the "volunteer reserve". I'd suggest that we restrict the figure to the volunteer reserve, at c34k since this is really the available manpower for deployment. Members of the regular reserve can volunteer for deployment but they're not in the main going to be recalled and outside the instance of total war are in a pretty fair position to appeal a recall in most cases.

The regular reserve is those ex-regulars still liable to a recall commitment.

Grateful for thoughts?

ALR (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reserve man power here includes only the regular reserve and the Army cadets which added togeather total 207k....the Territorial Army is added in the Active man power along side the regular man power.

The regular reserve are often called up for service in the FTRS about 1,000 each year, so the regular reserve are very much availiable for deployment.

In my understanding the Cadets shouldnt be added in the reserve power, we had a discussion about all this already, but no one has come to a decision yet

Rademire2 (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Cadets, I think it's pretty clear above, they shouldn't be included. Lets face it, we're not in the business of employing child soldiers. Regular soldiers under 18 aren't deployed, they can only be trained and employed in garrison. I have serious misgivings about the fact that it's not yet been amended. There is a very clear majority opinion that they shouldn't be included. You also have some points of detail wrong, at 15yrs 9 months a potential recruit can start the process of applying, they cannot start training until their 16 and cannot be deployed until 18.

I would dispute the suggestion that 1000 FTRS in any one year indicates that the regular reserve is available for deployment, a great many will not reach the required fitness or medical requirements, many will have legitimate appeals. I do know that huge numbers have successfully appealed over the last few years. FWIW many of those FTRS will be Volunteer Reserves not Regular Reserve, for example many linguists are TA on FTRS. FWIW at the moment the FTRS requirement can be filled entirely by volunteers, there are enough of them that there is no need to compulsorily mobilise anyone from the regular reserve.

What you say about adding the TA to the regular numbers is also a concern, that has a huge impact on the headline figure and is deceptive. TA have only a small number of training days each year and in accordance with the Reserve Forces Act are only available for deployment for 12 months in 36, so essentially reducing the available numbers to one third of the total.

It may be useful to articulate what figures are associated with each heading here so that we can get some clarity.

ALR (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the article it already mentions 114,000 regulars + 35,500 territorials = the available man power of the British army at 150,000. The info box on the right hand side of the page is just to give a brief run over the British army's man power status, the actual article goes into it in much more detail.Rademire2 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s I think including The TA and Regular man power as the British army's active/available man power is OK, as unlike the Reserves and Emergency reserve, the Territorial army and Regular army are both intertwined into the British army's deployable combat units and quick notice, plus according to UKIP over 900 personnel deployed in afghan are territorial soldiers. (also most TA soldiers are X Regulars). Note the British army says its self "one army regular and territorial" and territorial soldiers form entire battalions in British army regiments, such as the rifles regiment has some 5 regular battalions and 2 territorial battalions.

So we agree that the infobox is wrong, but the substantive text of the article is reasonably accurate, notwithstanding the challenges of actually making a significant proportion of the TA deployable.

Can I ask where you're getting your information from? Reading through this the various categories are becoming very garbled, and I'm starting to question where you're deriving your understanding from.

The One Army tagline is intended to indicate that TA soldiers and regular soldiers are virtually interchangeable. That's somewhat overstating it, but it makes a point. I also think that you're not really grasping how territorials are deployed, they rarely deploy as formed units, particularly from Battalions such as the Rifles. We tend to use TA as individuals, except in very specific areas, predominantly logistics related.

The TA is the volunteer reserve. Some TA are ex regular, but in my experience by far the majority are not.

There is no such thing as an emergency reserve. The regular reserve provides a pool of manpower that could be called on. Recent retirees do provide some source of mobilisation, although most are voluntary. again in my experience the current utilisation of FTRS is easily filled by volunteers, there is no requirement to mobilise anyone on a compulsory basis.

I would agree that about ten percent of the currently deployed force is reservist, most of those being voluntary reserve from all three services. It's not particularly important given that we're trying to discuss the fact that the infobox significantly overplays the available numbers.

I believe that the regular reserve numbers should be deleted from the infobox, can we focus on that please?

ALR (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These figures come from the MoD. Reserve forces such as the Regular reserve are numbered by the MoD because in times of emergency the regular Reserve will be mobilized for war. So yes the regular reserve is available man power. For example some 1,000+ regular reserves are re-called every year as part of the FTRS. So I don't see your point. The Regular Army and Territorial Army proved the UK with relatively available and ready troops. (But obviously the Regulars more so than the TA). It is OK to include both as active available forces. The only numbers I don't agree with including here is the Army cadets, they aren't real reserve forces. No one has agreed yet what to do. I just don't think any one has been bothered yet, and as such no one has come to an agreement. This discussion is normally dead. The info box should read 150,000 active personnel and 120,000 reserve personnel (regular reserve). (last time I looked the regular reserve was around 120,000). Other than that the info box is just a quick over look. All the vital little bits of info is in the actual article.

Emergency reserve isn't an official force, but is often mentioned by the MoD as being x regular reserves who are no longer within age limit to re-call but can in case of national emergency.(as remember the regular reserve are only x regular troops who are young enough to re-call). Emergency reserve has also been mentioned by the MoD as being Cadet instructors who are X British Army and cadets who are 16.9 months years+ and can quickly be trained in the Army (don't ask for source, its been a long time since I found it). But to sum it up, the emergency reserve isn't a reserve force, just a society of people who have a connection with the British Army which in a world war situation can be easily trained and mobilized. Just as in WW2 cadets of legal age were later deployed after sufficient training. The MoD has also mentioned that firefighters, police officers, coast guard and other civil service forces where fitness is a general quality of its employees are also a type of emergency reserve.

Rademire2 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, if you don't mind I'll reflect that back. Your knowledge comes purely from a reading of the figures themselves in post analysis reports from DASA. You're not suggesting that you have any practical knowledge of the process of employing servicemen or of how reservists, whether regular or volunteer, are mobilised?

You seem to have acknowledged that the information in the infobox is at best inaccurate, if not deceptive. I agree, and have now agreed several times, that the cadet figure should not be reported. Since you appear to have ownership of the statistics can you crack on and remove them please.

I've already highlighted above that the vast majority of FTRS are not regular reserve, a great many are TA and given current numbers all are volunteers. Being in the regular reserve does make FTRS available, but we're not trawling for people to fill the jobs. Manning are turning people away in droves.

I'd suggest that you cease trying to justify your use of emergency reserve, it has no basis in law so doesn't exist. The relevant items of legislation are the Armed Force Act and the Reserve Forces Act. Neither of them make reference to anything other than a volunteer reserve and a regular reserve. Any national service or conscription model would require primary legislation to be passed through Parliament. Ex regular cadet instructors are still regular reserve and liable to mobilisation based on that obligation. The RFA also limits how long and how frequently both volunteer and regular reserves can be mobilised; no more than 12 months in any 36. There are discussions ongoing about the 36 month cap, with some suggestions that it should be extended to 60 months. Personally I'm quite hostile to that as it would make life very difficult for the reserve units that I use to fill the required capacity. The legislation that relates to the use of personnel in the blue light services in an emergency is owned by Cabinet Office, as part of the Civil Contingencies component of their work. Given that blue light services are an essential element of any response they would not be used militarily. They may be passed into military command and control, although again that would require the implementation of a couple of items of legislation that would require parliamentary oversight. In general it would be the other way round, some military force elements could be allocated to civil C2, and have been on a reasonably regular basis in the last few years; Op Fresco for example.

FWIW, as a relatively senior officer I'm unconvinced by any of your arguments. The infobox is wrong, and should be changed. I'm reluctant to do so because I note that you're likely to revert any change, so I've tried to address the issue here.

ALR (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't include emergency reserve, because it doesn't exist. I think I only brought it up to show the only figures I or any one have put onto wikipedia have came from the MoD. And none of the figures are wrong. I think where the understanding is all messed up is what category do you Put the TAs? Do you put them as relatively available man power, or do you include them as pure reserves like the Regular reserve? Ever since this article was first made the TAs and regulars have made up the available man power of the British Army. I am aware of the system in place of how long TAs and the rest of the Volunteer reserves can be mobilized. The Regular Army, TA, and Regular reserve are the British army's man power, and all should be included. Every other army article on wikipedia includes reserves, so why not the british army? Are the reserves no longer reserves? I will remove cadets, I don't agree with them being here. Rademire2 (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of sections[edit]

This article covers a lot of content, is very large, and I believe it to be fairly unwieldy. I struggle to see how a list of vehicles is more important/relevant/useful than the basic structure of the British Army. I propose that the bulk of the equipment lists (in "Today's Army") are moved to a sub-page. The other sections contain vital basic information about the British Army, and having a huge vehicle and equipment list taking up a third of the page detracts from that. Gerard^talk 14:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried putting the equipment of the British army on a sub page, it lasted 10 minutes before some wikipedia Nazi selected it for deletion. So I had to blank the page and bring the article back here. I think we should put it near the end of the article, so it doesn't over shadow the rest of the article. Rademire2 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The equipment of the British Army already has a sub-article at Modern equipment of the British Army. It didn't need another one at Current equipment of the British Army. If there's a consensus that the information on this page is too much, then consider moving it over to the sub-page which already exists. And Rademire2, no, I'm not a Nazi, no, you didn't have to blank the page and yes, if you continue to engage in personal attacks in any way, your account will be permanently blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I've removed the equipment tables, since there is a good summary already in the article, and a clear link to the main article about equipment. I don't think there's any need for another sub-page, however that equipment page would be better as a table. I've also reordered the page to compensate for this removal - the TOC seems a lot more logical to me now, and the page is much more readable. However, the "Recent and current conflicts" and "Current deployments" sections are similar, duplicate information, and should be merged into one. Gerard^talk 16:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a long time to set up those equipment tables, It wasn't easy sourcing all those numbers trying to get it as accurate as possible. As far as I can see there is no other British Army related article that can account for almost every major vehicle in the British army and give an accurate number of them in service. aha well. Rademire2 (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested, try working to improve the existing Modern equipment of the British Army article rather than create another one which would contain virtually identical material. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this same problem on the Polish Land Forces page. Had to move the large equitpment lists on to a sub page. Shame to put these ones for our own British Army at waste. Lets do what The Rambling Man says. Put them on the Modern equipment of the British Army page. The list is alreay made, its worth using. Recon.Army (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third largest army in NATO[edit]

See discussion section on second largest army in EU, and its mention of Turkey.

As I write this the article contains the claim that the British Army is the 'third largest in NATO'. Perhaps the writer forgot that while Turkey is not in the EU it IS in NATO, or alternatively it was written before France rejoined NATO. Either way I think the statement is wrong and the British Army comes fourth after the United States, Turkey and France in NATO army size.

I'm not sure whether the article needs to refer to relative size at all, and the way it does so at the moment is in a mini section that unnecessarily makes the article more 'bitty'. That's a seperate point though and I mainly wanted to point out the innaccuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.217.102 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well actualy the British Army is some 2,000 troops larger than the French Army. See source http://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/decouverte/chiffres_cles/effectifs/les_effectifs_de_l_armee_de_terre

As you can see, the French Army numbers some 112,800 troops with 16,000 part time reserves. British Army has some 114,400 troops, with 35,000 TA part time reserves. British army is therefore the largest in the EU and 3rd in NATO Recon.Army (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've slightly missed my main point. That is: by describing the British Army as the second largest in the EU and also as the third largest in NATO, the article is inconsistent. Your answer would require you to change the statement on size relative to other EU member state armies, which you have not done. It would also require ammendment of this other Wikipedia article [[2]] which hasn't been done either.

Doesn't the closeness in size of the British and French armies combined with the complications of how you count reservists etc illustrate how statements about nth largest in this or that category are unhelpful in a Wikipedia article unless these are a durable ranking (ie Liberal Democrats are long time third largest party in British politics). I'm really trying to address people who may be interested in editing this article. That's why I mention consistency in use of statistics, rather than trying to get into an argument abut what the figures are.

Im confused now. Any-way, the article reads correctly now. Mate the list of countries by number of troops article includes Navy, Air Force and Army man power. So whats your point?

British army is 114,400 strong, France is 112,800 strong, therefore the British Army is larger part time active reserves or not. Recon.Army (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dhofar Rebellion[edit]

Perhaps the Dhofar Rebellion should be mentioned? 77.103.5.197 (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QEII and the British Army Website[edit]

You know, I went to the British Army Website and couldn't find anything about the role of the Queen in the army. Is the Queen the commander-in-chief of the army? When I did a search of her in the seach site option, she doesn't seem to make any kind of mention at all on the website.

Do UK army soldiers swear allegience to the Queen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.235.214.66 (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is the Head of the Armed Forces [3].

We have to pledge the oath of allegiance as below.

"I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me." _Will^Dow (Talk) 08:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a cool oath and all, but the British Army website doesn't really mention the monarchy at all, not on the main page (not even a link to the British Monarchy website) and doesn't list the monarch as part of the higher command, nor mentions the role of the monarchy in the Honours and Awards section. I have no real point except I wonder if the army in fact knows its in the service of the monarch♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know why, but not a huge deal is made of it anymore. When I joined, there was a brief section about it on the recruitment page but that was it. The only time I found out about the oath of allegiance was in the careers office when an appointment was being made for me to pledge, and my family to witness it. We learnt about the monarchy in brief, and its role in the Armed Forced during Basic Training at an ATR in the classroom. Other than that (apart from ceremonial stuff), its just down to bare training and the monarchy isn't mentioned. (Think its more Military History now where its taught) _Will^Dow (Talk) 08:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a note, I think the way the Monarch is the Head of the armed forces, is more just ceremonial now. In the old old old days, I spose the King would have been leading his troops in to battle and all that. But now, it's just officers, who get their orders from the MOD, who get their directions from the government. The Monarch doesn't [i think] have any say in what the Armed Forces do. I note that the Queen is also head of the Australian armed forces in the same way that she is the head of state. But she doesn't have any say over how Australia is run. Just a ceremonial position really. Do we even need a Queen anymore? Or is that just for the tourists...? _Will^Dow (Talk) 08:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Do we even need a Queen anymore? Or is that just for the tourists...? " Well, I'm not English so that is a question you will have to answer for yourself. Though I do like the idea of a constitutional monarchy and can understand why it is a valid choice of government (for example, a clear and defined line of succession for the position of head of state and commander in chief). The King of Spain has a far more important role in that country, including the military, then does the Queen in England. Even in Luxembourg the Grand Duke is mentioned on their military website. I think the idea of fighting for 'king and country' is intriging is all. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other nations sadly do not suffer from being governed by those who hate our country, its history and traditions. We go out of our way to appease the haters, we wouldnt want to offend anyone. It is all part of a disease known as Political correctness. And of course if we became a republic, they are the sort of people who would become our President and be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of tension around the monarchy's role in modern British society in recent times, which has only really started to cool down a bit. I suppose the low level of 'involvement' may purely be for 'diplomatic' reasons. Some people still don't like the idea of us having a monarchy still.--Topperfalkon (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we even need a Queen anymore? Of course we do. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the idea of having a monarchy, and the idea of royalty, but for what they do I'm not sure of the justification of taxpayers money, especially during times of such a budget deficit and public cutbacks. Their involvement in the armed forces is now purely ceremonial, apart from of course, the two princes who are actively serving. The running of the country is down to parliament, the running of the armed forces is down to parliament (apart from decelerations of war which must be from the head of state), taxes, laws, the budget, all government responsibility. The Queen travels to see, and receives, foreign heads of state with her husband who usually is responsible for making the amusing racist jokes which nobody dares correct him about(!) Oh, and for sending out the all important birthday cards to people who reach their 100th birthday :) I really wish there was more for the royal family to do; to have responsibility for so that they could be justified to the monarch-skeptics. (Do they have authority to clean up the honours list? Honestly?? Should footballers and celebrities be receiving OBE's and Knighthoods unless they've done something seriously amazing?? Let's remember where Knighthoods originated...) _Will^Dow (Talk) 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well its a tiny amount of money in comparison to overall government spending, its worth it to preserve a bit of British tradition. As a democracy it is right parliament/executive is responsible for policy, although personally id rather an even more active role for the monarchy. of course those who are sceptical of the monarchy would probably be the first to complain if they started making policy decisions, even if its clearly a big improvement. The executive does run the military, but it is Her Majesty's Government and Armed Forces. All members of parliament, the Army, the courts and other positions all take oaths to the Queen and her successors, not to the current resident of 10 Downing Street who no one but Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians need loyalty to. The Queen has the moral and legal authority to act in a crisis, thankfully as our constitutional monarchy is so stable, such problems do not come up. I agree on the knighthoods, they are issued to some questionable people sadly, it should have higher requirements, but sadly it is up to some committee to decide. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The problem with current government is that they only care about the short term. Having hereditary life-long governments requires them to focus on the long-term as well, as their actions will not only affect how the country turns out in the short term, but how their children's country will turn out. The stability of the country (or lack thereof, becomes part of that monarch's legacy. But alas, I fear we are straying into forumite territory here, and it would be a shame to lose this discussion. --Topperfalkon (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they are always interested in short term fiddling rather than seeing the bigger picture and the great threats that face the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, sadly mostly from within. But to get back on the issue, it does appear the army website, fails to make mention of the monarchy in detail, the same goes for the MOD website itself. However this really is not a surprise, it is beyond our government departments to even place a flag on their websites. They would not want to offend anyone. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Well quite a few of the older departments have their Coats of Arms (which most show on their sites I believe). Having a coat of arms and flag on the same website would be a bit odd I guess. Plus, it's an almost exclusively British site, so emblazoning it with British flags might seem slightly redundant. I dunno, but I'm trying to see it from their side as well. I do think its somewhat problematic though in regards to the monarchy. Almost as if gov't doesn't want people to know quite how much power her Maj actually still has.--Topperfalkon (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its all just a lack of patriotism, honour and respect for British tradition and culture. The only reason they hide anything is to avoid offending certain groups like republicans and separatists. Its pathetic, and there is really no excuse for it. But anyway, nice discussion. To sum up, just because incompetent people fail to put something important on the website such as flags/the monarch does not mean its not still important. =) BritishWatcher (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone like to carry this on, on their Talk Page? Or mine? As User:Topperfalkon said, I think we're heading towards forum stylee here :) _Will^Dow (Talk) 12:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a section of my talkpage available for this purpose. User talk:Topperfalkon#Discussion continuation from Talk:British Army--Topperfalkon (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YES the United Kingdom should never abandon the Monarchy, our armed forces are very loyal to the Monarchy. Is it not better to be serve in the name of the Monarch than a politician? It costs a small fortune for the tax payers to keep the Monarchy, but its worth every penny for what the tax payers get in return. They keep the worlds most powerful and renown monarchy on earth alive, they keep British tradition alive and also to an extent (though not so much any more) keep the Commonwealth realms united. But more importantly, what would 1,000s and 1,000s of British workers do if millions of people every year didn't visit London and spend their tourist dollars? Well they would no longer have jobs!!! and the UK economy would suffer. Members of the Royal family also act as trade delegates to foreign nations that other wise we wouldn't be able to trade with!!!! These ties generate billions of pounds every year and creates 1,000s and 1,000s of more jobs. Fact is for the few million in tax we have to pay for the Monarchy our country gains billions in return. If we abandon the monarchy we have to find other ways to replace those few 100,000 jobs and billions of pounds for our economy, and lets face it, there is no other way. People also say the monarchy is dated and of no use, err well our government (which relies on the monarchy) is one of the most modern institutions on earth which many nations world wide try to imitate. 194.46.236.77 (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British Army needs a monarchy because when it gets down to it you need some figurehead worthy of respect to fight for, and if necessary, die for, and the alternative of doing-so for some shuyster professional politician who got where he/she is today by greasing palms and backhanders is not something for proper soldiers used to fighting 'for Queen/King and Country' to contemplate.

Besides, who would you toast - 'To the President!'? I can just see the average British Soldier doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.91 (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British second largest army in the European Union and the 4th largest in NATO ? But France too ?[edit]

There are a problem.

In this article, we can see that the british army is the second largest in the European Union and the 4th largest in NATO. But in the article of the french army we can see that there is the second largest in the European Union and the 4th largest in NATO too.

Where is the truth ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.45.204.9 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be clear on where we're taking figures from, and avoiding any OR in coming to conclusions about whose is bigger when they're laid out on the table...

Presumably NATO has a document that identifies the relative strengths of the contributing nations? That would seem to be the most authoritative source, rather than an editor coming up with it themselves.

ALR (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully, I'll start looking as soon as I have time. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

responsibilities of the army[edit]

What are the responsibilites og the Army? This is a question for a course I am doing and cannot find a good enough explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.8.189 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:MFIreland keeps adding bogus "Citation Needed" tags to recruitment[edit]

Citation for historical recruitment from Ireland is not necessary. It is common knowledge, repeated in a thousand books and sources. However a Professor Richard Holmes ref for Irish recruitment is added and the information is in the source. I could add a hundred more. Recruitment for WW1 is also in the source given. Seeing as MFIreland is incapable of looking it up. It is inside the book and even on the back cover, look here (USE look inside and skip to back cover): http://www.amazon.co.uk/Irish-Regiments-World-War

Please stop adding these tags without even reading the edit notes. 87.114.229.119 (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of England[edit]

Wales was part of the Kingdom of England. There for it was totally incorrect to say "Kingdoms of England & Wales and Scotland", and also rather confusing and messy. It simply needs to say Kingdoms of England and Scotland. Looking at the edit history, the reversions are simply unneeded, one claiming something was pointy when the change was factually accurate and then reverts suggesting it is uncited to remove uncited and blatantly inaccurate text. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boring[edit]

This article is extemely long. Many other countries have had a much longer historical prsence than the british army yet their wikipedia articles as much smaller. Theres no need to comment on every achievement or section of the british army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.237.239 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but none of them are as significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.91 (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did the British army exist before 1707?[edit]

English and Scottish regiments existed in cohesion as a standing army BEFORE 1707. The union of parliaments is largely irrelevent because the Scottish parliament was extremely weak compared to it's English counterpart. The birth year of the British army should be 1661 when Charles II issues a warrant for a standing army, and George Monck created a 7,000 strong BRITISH army. For example; English and Scottish regiments fought at Tangier in 1679, they weren't fighting separately, they were fighting as a single army/organization, the King's army - the British armyVoucherman (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But before 1707 there was no British state and no British government. English and Scottish regiments were indeed at English Tangier in 1679, and they were there as soldiers of the King, but not as British soldiers. Moonraker (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a paragraph needs to explain that. Because for example I am trying to clean up a biography on Robert Duncanson (1705) in February 1692 he was a major of Argyll's foot regiment pacifying the Jacobites in the Highlands (or doing some clan cleansing as Campbells and MacDonalds had been doing to each other for centuries) depending on the political POV. In 1695 he is with the King's army in Flanders and 10 years later was promoted to colonelcy of the 33rd Regiment of Foot (an English Regiment), before dying at the siege of Valencia de Alcantara in Portugal later that year in May 1705. How integrated was the King and Queen's army at that time? Who paid for the upkeep of Scottish regiments etc? What happened in practical terms when the British Army came into existence, were there any substantive changes to the armies in the field? -- PBS (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OC[edit]

Currently the article says

English republican dictator, Oliver Cromwell's campaign was characterised by its uncompromising treatment of the Irish towns (most notably Drogheda)

During Cromwell's campaign in Ireland in 1649 and the first half of 1651, Cromwell was not a dictator. He may arguably be called that post his dissolution of the Rump in 1653, but not before, and certainly not before his victory at Worcester in 1651. -- PBS (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers[edit]

I've reverted the repeated deletion of Richard Holmes's 'Soldiers from 'Further Reading' he is a respected author and the book is highly relevant. This seems to be being done for reasons of a personal vendetta as per the edit summary 'I've removed the mention of the book by HarperCollins. Wikipedia isn't the place for adverts, especially from a company that employs arseholes'.

If there is a valid reason for not including it please discuss here 08:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Lloydelliot10 (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are a company that employs arseholes, however, this is still a case of removing bookspam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOOKSPAM#Bookspam

As for it being a repeated deletion, that's because you keep adding it back, giving no reason at all the first time, claiming that it was an unexplained removal the second time, and claiming to be reverting vandalism the third time. You're just looking for any excuse you can find to add it back. I therefore suggest that you are in some way involved with HarperCollins and so have your own agenda.

That reminds me of Bell Pottinger:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Pottinger#Criticism

212.139.222.206 (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"They are a company that employs arseholes," - I am rather inclined to rest my case for the motivation of your edits to this article. Did they reject a manuscript of yours? Lloydelliot10 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you could've just left it after someone else edited the article to add back in your precious book, but no, you had to argue more. Rather confirms my view that you have some link with HarperCollins, because as I say, they employ arseholes. And I have noted that you didn't reply to this: "however, this is still a case of removing bookspam". Would you now like to reply to it? Or would it be easier for you to ignore it again?

Also, you didn't have a single word to say about any of this: "As for it being a repeated deletion, that's because you keep adding it back, giving no reason at all the first time, claiming that it was an unexplained removal the second time, and claiming to be reverting vandalism the third time. You're just looking for any excuse you can find to add it back. I therefore suggest that you are in some way involved with HarperCollins and so have your own agenda." 212.139.222.206 (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase the guideline, Bookspam is the addition of a book to articles when the book does not add any useful or relevant information. Can you show this book is being added willy-nilly to articles (typical spam behaviour) or that it wouldn't add to a reader's understanding of the British Army? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bookspam - Sometimes Wikipedia sees bookspam, which is the insertion of text mentioning books to call attention to the books, rather than to contribute to the article. This often takes the form of inserting book listings into reference sections although the book is not used as the source of any information in the article. Bookspam is also seen as the addition of books to "external links", "further reading" or similar sections, although the books added do not add any useful and relevant information.

In what way does Richard Holmes's book fit the definition above? Lloydelliot10 (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you two really are determined that this book gets mentioned in this article aren't you. Out of all the hundreds of books that there must be out there on this subject, you two want this one, and previously only this one, to be mentioned. Well I would emphasise this part of the guideline: "This often takes the form of inserting book listings into reference sections although the book is not used as the source of any information in the article." This book does not appear to be used as the source of any information in the article. But nevermind, I give up. 212.139.222.206 (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:UK-Army-OF10-shoulder.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:UK-Army-OF10-shoulder.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?