Talk:Structure of the British Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

I'm preparing to split away much of the discussion of active divisions, brigades etc into a Land Command article, leaving this page with 'what a corps is, what a division is' etc.. Thoughts? Buckshot06 03:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If the regiment is the largest permanent structure, does that mean that regiments are periodically moved between brigades, and brigades between divisions, and divisions between corps? Do regiments ever stand "free" of being part of a "temporary" brigade, or are they always part of one or another? This page would be improved by further clarification here.

Contents 1 The King's Own Fusiliers 2 We have a problem here 3 Right of the line - with guns 4 Minor units 5 Tidy up

[edit] The King's Own Fusiliers

Given the large list of regiments on the page, not to mention the large number of historical regiments, should we really be mentioning a fictional regiment from a television show? I removed it once but it has reappeared. Cjrother 20:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] We have a problem here

I'm not a big expert on military structure, but I do know that in the British Army some regiments consist of several battalions. For example the Parachute Regiment as several battalions - during World War II it had many more. A quick search reveals many references to "the 6th Battallion of the Queen's Regiment" and such like.

Also I think you will find that a regiment is commanded by a full Colonel, at least if it has more than one battalion. For example you will find that "Lt. Colonel H Jones" was in command of the 2nd Battalion Parachute Regiment when he was awarded his VC. It is unlikely that he had the same rank as the regimental commander. DJ Clayworth 15:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The infantry regiment is purely an administrative and ceremonial formation. It has no commander. Every battalion is an independent tactical unit commanded by a lieutenant-colonel (always known within the battalion as "the Colonel"). A full colonel is usually a staff officer and rarely holds any command of his own. All British Army infantry regiments are composed of battalions. Even in single-battalion regiments (currently most of them) you will have, for instance, 1st Battalion, The Black Watch. Regiments in the cavalry and other corps are battalion-sized units and are likewise commanded by lieutenant-colonels. The article is correct. -- Necrothesp 00:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Right of the line - with guns

I've heard it said that if the whole British Army were to parade at one go ( presumably on the M1, if that were long enough ) that if all artillery units have their guns on parade ( and other units do not have their colours on parade ) then artillery units take precedence as parading on the "right of the line" - i.e. to the right of all other units on parade. Is this correct does anyone know ? Perhaps something to this effect could be written under the "precedence" section.JRL 05:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That is correct. The Royal Artillery Regiment is the oldest and most senior of all British Regiments and there for has the honor of being at the far right of the line. Marc 11 Aug. 2005

Actually, it is the Royal Horse Artillery that parades at the Right of the Line with its guns, otherwise it comes after the Household Cavalry. Hammersfan 30 Aug 2005, 11:35

[edit] Minor units

Where's all the stuff about companies and platoons and sections? --Khendon 18:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Look at military unit...Buckshot06 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy up

For a start this article is ******* huge and needs some serious work to bring it up to scratch. I've done what I can do the regulars and pulled training out, it was incongruous suddenly appearing half way down a list of units. I think some of the corps could do with fleshing out a little.

Before I go on I'm not convinced that the regular/ TA split is appropriate. Given the deployment cycle at the moment we have reservists full time, indeed I've worked with a couple of reservists who've spent more time in uniform than me. I'd recommend just listing the units under the parent and identifying them as TA in sequence. We also don't need the rant about restructuring at the bottom, we can reflect the realities of restructuring within the main body, to that end I'm about to weed the cr*p from that section.

I've also gone some way to redressing the rather obsessive use of bolding, bulleting and italicising that had gone on.

ALR 20:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As a TA soldier serving in Iraq I agree with you about the regular/TA split: TA units are often completely forgotten in he tally of a particular formation due to the way they are considered separate.

They are, however, certainly different and I'm not sure how this could be shown. For example listing 101 (Northumbrian) Regiment RA(V) alongside 39 Regiment RA as a General Support (MLRS) regt would be quite misleading. This is because 39 Regt has an RHQ, workshops, etc and is structured to deploy as a formed regiment. 101 Regt, on the other hand, has no RHQ and its workshops are being reduced to a LAD due to its role in providing individual reservists or detachments for service in 5 Regt or 39 Regt in the STA and MLRS roles respectively. 100 and 106 Regts are structured similarly for the same war establishment reserve role with paired regular regiments. I can't speak for the other TA regts. Yorkshire Phoenix 14:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that could be reflected by an overview paragraph about the TA, highlighting that some units deploy as formed and others provide personnel to a formed unit then after each one, where we have the information available, identify which it is.

ALR 14:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)