Talk:History of the British Army

History of the British Army received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Military history: British / European C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Las Anod#Diiriye Guure|Diiriye Guure]] The anchor (#Diiriye Guure) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Mar 2005

I'm not sure if the article is too large (I personally don't think it is). I incoroprated some text from the British Army article and did my best to keep the article size to a reasonable size. The article still needs more photos', something in the region of one to two photos per section/sub-section, just like History of the Royal Navy. Sorry if I screwed up anyones intention of creating this article. I just thought it really needed to be created, and at least people with much better knowledge than me now have an article to improve :-) SoLando 07:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFC AIRCRAFT STRENGTH IN 1918

Is there a source for your claim that the RFC numbered 4000 aircraft at the end of 1918? I've seen many places that the number was several times that figure.

1989 Defence Review

It seems Alan Clark did an unofficial Defence Review in 1989 (which wasn't put into practice); if anyone's interested, here's the introduction from the MOD and the actual paper. Not very long, but some pretty provocative ideas for the time - BAOR to one division! - that might be worth mentioning as a counterpoint. Shimgray | talk | 15:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean War - Operations

How can the Crimean War be described as the first war in Europe for over 50 years? Waterloo wasn't fought until 1815, and they were vairous conflicts in Spain and Portugal after this (some of which involved small numbers of British forces). David Underdown 10:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of clarity, it should be amended to say that the Crimean War was the first major conflict the British Army had fought in since Waterloo. Saying that, however, the entire article desperately needs a rewrite. SoLando (Talk) 21:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State of article, 10/04/07

I have just completed several copyedits, and added information up to the start of the "Operations" section of World War II. (I have also left the "Operations" of World War I alone). I ought to stop at this point and let other contributors review and improve my edits. I have endeavoured to keep matters general except where necessary. For example, I believe it worth mentioning the circumstances in which the Parachute Regiment and REME were established, but not that 2/KSLI were stationed in the West Indies in 1939. I believe that the various operations of WW2 can be reduced in size; I see no reason to keep a section on the British army rifle, with POV comments, but leave it to others to decide. HLGallon 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Period of service during the reign of Queen Victoria

In regards to this "Soldiers enlisted either for life, or for a period of ten or twelve years, at the end of which most soldiers were so little skilled for civilian life that they immediately re-enlisted. The long-term effect of this was to produce regiments with a large number of veteran soldiers, but no reserves which could be called upon to reinforce the regular army. At the same time, the system of Sale of commissions (and abuses of it) worked against either the proper training of officers or any rapid turnover."

Actually the enlistment in the Regulars was voluntary for at least three years, with either reenlisment or transfer to the Reserves for a further obligation of nine years service. Optionally the individual could transfer tot he Militia, Yeomanry or Volunteers. Desertion rates in the late 1870s stood at 31%. The British land forces are as folows for c.1880:
Regulars 200,000
At home 91,421
In Colonies 32,744
In India 67,639

Army Reserve 1st Class 16,651
2nd Class 22,021

Militia 113,484
Yeomanry 10,508
Volunteers 206,265
Total 560,733

Source
Universal Geography by Elisee Reclus, edited by E.G. Ravenstein, F.R.G.S., F.S.S., etc., J.S. Virtue & Co., London, c.1880

Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk) , September 9, 2007

Impeccable source for numbers; but note that they (and the three-year initial enlistment) apply to the situation after the Cardwell Reforms. The reference to enlistment for twelve years or life describes the pre-Cardwell situation. The article should make this clear. HLGallon 03:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, I should have also pointed this out. However the article was there first, and did not mention the change although the impression is tha this applied through to the First World War.--Mrg3105 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION

The British Empire at its peak had half a billion of people. Indians, Canadians, australians, egyptians etc. they were all part of it. So what was there status in british army. What percentage did they have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.29.253 (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of lack of citations

This evening I wrote the following ^{[citation needed]} notes into one short paragraph of this article. In this quote of my edits to one narrow section of the article, I'm highlighting a problem of much of the article, by breaking the lines -- and in so doing, demonstrating the problem:

Since the late 1990s^{[citation needed]},

the British Army has been gradually moulded^{[citation needed]}

into an increasingly expeditionary-based force^{[citation needed]}

in anticipation^{[citation needed]}

of further small-scale wars^{[citation needed]}

against terrorist organisations^{[citation needed]}

like Al Qaida^{[citation needed]}

and so-called "Rogue states"^{[citation needed]}.

Every. single. line. quoted directly above is open to question.

No proof is provided anywhere in the article that any of these assertive descriptions are the actual stated or implied goals, the directions, the achievements, or the official policies of the British Army. None.

I could just as easily write "Since the late 1970s, the British Army has been gradually moulded into an increasingly drug-based force, in imagination of further small-scale expeditions to bars like the Nag's Head and so-called "chip trucks".

Wikipedia deserves better. So does the British Army. Someone... please, please rewrite and restate this overblown, pompous and biased section. With citations to something approaching believable.

And drop the damn puffery. Please.

cheers, Madmagic (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, citation could be much improved, but your example is actually a single sentence, more than one tag on it is simply ridiculous and weakens your point by over emphasis. David Underdown (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple tags were added to the single sentence for the reasons stated above. You're welcome to your opinions on whether multiple tags should or shouldn't be added to a single sentence, but name-calling my actions proves nothing.

cheers,
Madmagic (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPLIT WW1 OR WW2 - or both

There is alot more than can be added to these sections and maybe these should have seperate pages. any thoughts--Rockybiggs (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably sensible, similarly British Army during the Napoleonic Wars has alreadyu been started, so could be added as a main for that period in this article. David Underdown (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this point as no further comments have been made, i give notice that i will split the sections shortly; no objections raised.--Rockybiggs (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WW1

Done --Rockybiggs (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Army in the Victorian period

I am tempted to hive off the British Army in the Victorian period also, as this covers a large part of the article. HLGallon (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would treat the Victorian period as ending with the end of the Second Boer War. The British Army that served in WWI was built following the experiences of the Boer War. hench the perios as I see them :

Victorian era & Boer War
Post-Boer War reforms & WWI : 1902-1918 are all one period : put another way, 1914 & 1915 only make sense in the context of 1902-1914
Injterwar years
Rearmament & WWII

Rcbutcher (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky ascended throne 1837, died 1901. Boer War ended 1902. I'll throw Boer War into Victoria's reign, it's not worth a separate title for the sake of a few months. Work in progress, will take a few days. HLGallon (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts would be to leave the post-South Africa reforms in the main article, rather than incorporating them into the WWI article - it's going to get rather long anyway. But I like these divisions - perhaps also a post-war and/or Cold War section? Shimgray | talk | 17:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some work on this proposed article. It can be viewed at User:HLGallon/WIP. I am still working on references and citations. Comments welcome. HLGallon (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Cringe

This article is suffering from a bad case of the 'Irish Cringe'. The section on the history of the British army does not mention the wars in Ireland (the Nine Years War (Ireland) & the Eleven years war) which played a part in the development of British tactics in future centuries. These developments are described in a book called 'An Apprenticeship in Arms: The Origins of the British Army' by the historian Roger Manning. For some reason unknown to me, popular British histories (i.e Osprey) almost completely ignore the history of the British army in Ireland, never mind that British soldiers have had a continuous presence in Ireland for 800 years. Inchiquin (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English Army

"English Army" redirects here, however there is almost no information on the actual English Army, i.e. the British Army's predecessor. This is extremely annoying, as I need information on the organisation and history of the English Army between 1066 and 1707.--78.35.237.120 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be because there never really was a standing army before the New Model Army (C 1645)

Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

As can be seen in the section that immediately precedes this one when the sections Origins was developed there were no article on the English Army. There are now articles English Army and Royal Scottish Army that cover the events prior to the formation of British Army, so I suggest that the sub-sections under Origin are scaled back to a simple summary style and concentrate on the period from the start of the War of Spanish Succession (1701–1714) which is not mentioned in this article at all and is where the British Army first won renown when commanded by the Duke of Marlborough. -- PBS (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Some of the section on Tudor and Stuart organisation should be moved to the article on the English Army, as necessary background. HLGallon (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I think treating the Acts of Union 1707 as the date of formation of the British Army is a mistake. Yes, after 1661 some regiments were raised on the English establishment and some on the Scottish, but this only determined who paid for them and they weren't really an "English Army" and a "Scottish Army": some of the Scottish regiments were stationed in England, some regiments were raised from Scotsmen but on the English establishment, some regiments were transferred from one establishment to the other, and they were all in the service of a single monarch. Similarly there were separate establishments for Great Britain and for Ireland right up to 1801, but it would be silly to claim that the Inniskilling Dragoons or the 18th (Royal Irish) Foot were not British Army regiments until that date. Opera hat (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved some of the text from this article into the English Army article, I have copied some text from the English article into this one. While I take your point Opera hat about the difficulty of a precise date, there is one and that is the date that the British Army came into existence. I would suggest that the information before the Glorious Revolution (such as the Monmouth revolt) and those internal Three Kingdom wars (such as fought by William in Ireland) do not belong in this article (only that information such as the Mutiny Act does as it still affects the British Army's position within the constitution). However I would agree that there is a case for having a section on the armies' campaigns on the continent, in particular the War of Spanish Succession (1701–1714). -- PBS (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping up to date

The current state of play in the Special Forces is that we have three clear levels of competence: Regular SAS/SBS are the top level, supported by the Special Forces Support Group (basically 1 Para, RAF Regiment and RM Commandos), handled by the Special Reconnaissance Regiment (the enlarged 14 Intelligence Company, in close collaboration with the MI units). The remaining élite units, such as the other Parachute Battalions, Royal Marines, and the 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Intelligence Brigade, as well as the parachute-specialist support units of the other speciality arms, particularly Royal Engineers and Artillery, form a clear third rank. It is to be noted that 1 ISIB includes the TAVR SAS regiments, demoted as units after failures in recent combat, but which provide reinforcement to the Regular forces as normal in the revised TAVR role. Another consideration you should find ways to express are the highly flexible formats of attachments and detachments in all units which has applied since the 1980s, providing far closer integration of speciality skills in the front line than was previously the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.253.85 (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation date

Contributions would be welcome at Talk:British Army#British Army was founded in 1707. Opera hat (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of the British Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of the British Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Army 2020 writing date

"Produced in 2011, following the outcomes of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (and working within substantial financial constraints), Army 2020 was the British Army’s plan to make itself both more useful and more ready." (https://wavellroom.com/2022/02/02/more-range-or-more-rangers-the-fight-for-the-future-of-the-british-army/). Buckshot06 (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly biased in selection of topics

One battalion at Tzintao is mentioned while Fall of Singapore, which Churchill called the greatest disaster in British history, is totally ignored.2400:4050:95C3:2B00:D4E4:4A63:EC43:A1E1 (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not biased. It is just incomplete. Feel free to expand if you want to. Dormskirk (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a constructive suggestion: if someone with more free time than I wants to improve this C-quality article, pick a general work on military history, such as Oxford Companion or Dupuy & Dupuy, and follow its selection of topics. Can't be very wrong.2400:4050:95C3:2B00:C5E7:37A6:4344:3782 (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]