Talk:History of the British Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: 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: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

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

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)

Contents 1 RFC AIRCRAFT STRENGTH IN 1918 2 1989 Defence Review 3 Crimean War - Operations 4 State of article, 10/04/07 5 Period of service during the reign of Queen Victoria

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)