This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Australian Army article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Question. Why doesn't the Australian Army have the Royal prefix like the Navy and Air Force? - Penta 06:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Question. Why doesn't the Australian Army have the Royal prefix like the Navy and Air Force?
The Answer-
The answer lies in the fact that the Navy and the Air Force are homogeneous bodies whilst the Australian Army is an elemental organization made up of a number of corps, services and departments. Our Defence Force is based on the British system where a person can enlist straight into either the navy or the air force but one cannot join the ‘army’. In the United Kingdom a person is enlisted straight into either a regiment or a corps (eg. the Royal Regiment of Artillery, the Grenadier Guards, or the Royal Corps of Transport)and recruit training is carried out by that formation. No one joins the ‘Army’ as such.
We really need details of 1916-18 battles, and of campaigns other than Gallipoli and the Western Front, including German New Guinea and the Middle East, if anyone would like to help with this. Cheers Grant65 (Talk) 13:09, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
The page is looking good, well done. Most of the significant battles are now there. I'll be too busy with other things to do much with it in the near future. Grant65 (Talk) 12:23, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
Compare Modern equipment and uniform of the British Army. Alphax τ ε χ 07:17, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
The section under infantry says that the RAR is one large regiment of six battalions. This is a bit misleading as the infantry regiments aren't the same as other regiments. I'm not sure how to word this.
Brettr 08:52, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
Simply mention that the Australian Army is modelled after the the British system, so that infantry regiments contain multiple battalions but that armour, artillery, engineer, special forces, etc 'Regiments' are the size of a single battalion. LamontCranston 04:31, 2005 Aug 20 (UTC)
Why does this article mention a possible increase in the number of Australia's Bradley armoured fighting vehicles? I am sure the Australian Army never had any, nor does it currently have any plans to acquire them.
Please do not fill the article with html comments. Comments should be made on this page.
This section is a mishmash of corps and units. Are the terms "combat support arms" and "Combat Service Support" (used under the heading "Units of the Regular Army") part of army doctrine. The terms I was taught are simple combat arms (inc sigs, sappers and aviation) and service corps. These terms sound very dubious to me, I can't imagine labelling the new attack helicopter units as "combat supprt".
Yes, they are... for example "10 FSB" (10 Force Support) "3 CSSB" (3 Combat Service Support Battalion). Also, 5/7 RAR is becomming demalgamated.
To back up the last note, yes the terms "combat support" and "Combat Service Support" are officially used as part of army doctrine. As for saying that you cant see the new attack helicopter as being "combat support" its not. I have it on good authority that Aviation is now designated as a combat corps. However, relegating the Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery as "combat support" Figure that one out!
To whoever (IP 203.16.225.80) keeps changing the statistics to only 71 Leopard tanks, the ADF has 90 Leopard gun tanks. Or at least the Anzac Steel page on the Leopard thinks so: http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/leopardph_1.htm
As does several other sites such as Defense Industry Daily: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/gd-receives-final-416m-delivery-order-for-australian-m1a1-tanks/index.php
and a couple of more important pages like the Australian Army's own newspaper: http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1060/topstories/story11.htm
and the Australian National Audit Office: http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/Publications/555F03062BE2B6B7CA25700B0077785A see under Section 4 "Track Manoeuvre Systems Program Office" which incidentally also indicates only 59 M1s are being bought.
The ADF has 71 Leopard 1 Main Battle Tanks, the other 19 are recovery vehicles or something. Everything I've read says 71 Main Battle Tanks, not 90. Suck shit.
ROE people!!! be nice. im going with 90 Eevo 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick have your bloody 90 Leopards I don't really even care!
Look I'm sorry for the harsh language, I was a bit pissed off being challenged about my knowledge of the Australian army. Its just everything I've ever read said 71 Leopard tanks, but it looks I was wrong. Lets move on.
Yeah, well where getting rid of them now, we should of got Leopard 2's in stead of Abrams. And besides, why did we only buy 59 Abrams?
Well I guess we'll have to wait and see. Besides, Tanks are expensive to run, seeing as the amount of fuel they consume. Apparently Abrams take 40 litres of fuel to start up. Won't be to good when fuel becomes really expensive.
In regards to the bit about recruiting in the main article. Despite the media beatup about falling recruitments the facts are that recruitment is falling in PROFESSIONAL occupations in the Army, like Doctors, Nurses, Dentists etc They are still recruiting the dumb ones ;)
Numbers especially for infantry are that large that the School of Cool, aka the School of Infantry is actually full and that Diggers are getting their IET training directly at the Battalions now. I'd suggest checking this fact out and amending your article :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.215.163 ( talk) 16:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
I believe the start class and low importance ratings of this article should be re-evaluated. Especially the low importance rating, considering articles such as Fremantle Prison, 2006 Australian Grand Prix and 2006-07 Australian Capital Territory budget are rated high importance.
Totally agree! The Bryce 11:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"Regular Force" is the templates name given to the link to the basic article "Australian Army" which is misleading; as the article (as it should) gives an overview of both Regular Army and Army Reserve elements.
If some regular member is keen to create an article specifically on the ARA (excluding the reserve elements) in addition to the overall "Australian Army" that would be good. Linking the entire army, under a reg only link is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TInTIn ( talk • contribs) 06:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Where?-- mrg3105 mrg3105 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nick that the common forms (eg Lt Gen) should be used not the official military abbreviation (eg LTGEN). I've never seen the latter used in non-military publications. I don't think the argument that the military abbreviation is more correct is valid, perhaps in an article about ranks. Brettr ( talk) 06:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Rising sun version 3.gif 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
In the article, size is listed as "26,611 (regular) 15,892 (reservists)". http://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/defence_security.html says this; [quote]There were more than 51 500 permanent full-time military personnel in the ADF in 2006-07 and over 19 500 Reserve military personnel.[/quote] That's quite a difference in numbers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.140.145 ( talk) 04:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Just from an old digger - Military comes from militia meaning ground forces, not Navy or Air force so when referring to the army they are military. Also HRH Queen Elizabeth is the Commander of the Australian Army and the entire defence force through the Governor General.
Under Section 68 of the Constitution, the Governor-General is the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force, although in practice he or she acts only on the advice of Ministers of the Government. The Minister for Defence is responsible for Australia’s defence policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.187 ( talk) 13:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Although a small error, the FN Minimi is actually referred to as the F89 Minimi in the Australian Army, although practically the same thing. [2] JTod94 ( talk) 01:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just finished updating the graphic commons:File:Australia Land Forces.png to reflect the 2010 reorganization. Two question remains tough:
thanks in advance, for answer to these two questions. -- noclador ( talk) 15:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraphs from the article for now, as an article of this prominence is ill-served by the inclusion of un-sourced material. I agree that such information is important as it adds some context to the article, and I am happy for it to be included if reliable citations for it are provided. As a suggestion this could probably be included in a section on capabilities.
The Australian Army is oriented toward low- and medium-intensity operations against symmetric and asymmetric enemies. The Army has traditionally been structured as a light infantry force. This has changed somewhat in recent years, with an increased emphasis on motorised and mechanised forces. In the next few years, two of the seven regular infantry battalions will be mechanised (using the upgraded M113 APC) and two will be motorised (using the Bushmaster). Nevertheless, the motorised and mechanised battalions still train with an orientation toward operations in close combat and have a high emphasis on patrolling and other dismounted operations, thus maintaining the traditional Australian skill set.
Until recently, the main area of operations has been Asia, particularly South East Asia and the Pacific, so the light infantry orientation has not been a hindrance. In fact the Australian Army is known to produce troops and units with a very high standard of jungle warfare, patrolling, ambushing and other infantry skills.
Due to Australia's small population, the Army will always make up only a statistically small role in coalition operations. Successive Australian governments since 1989 have deployed components of the ADF with specific skill sets, so that the Australian contribution is always of greater significance than raw numbers of troops would suggest. Often this has taken the form of the deployment of special forces, though this has changed in recent years, for example in Afghanistan. Australian forces have always trained with and maintained close relationships the US and British forces and are now being equipped to better interoperate with US/British/coalition forces. The defence relationship with US forces is probably now closer than it has been at any point since the Vietnam war, especially at a working level.
Happy to discuss. Cheers. Anotherclown ( talk) 13:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
While SVG is a preferred format on the Wikimedia projects, SVG images should be the same as the original however this SVG image is not the same is not the same as the original Rising Sun. In the Australian military it is offensive to recreate an historic image which isn't the same as the original and also goes against what Wikipedia is about. Bidgee ( talk) 04:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to re-open the issue of the recruiting section of the article. From reading the discussion page I surmise that much content that was on the main page has been moved to more appropriate sections, or has been expanded into an article of their own, as more information has been added over time. IMO this has made this page informative and concise, providing basic information while acting as a "portal" linking to more specialist pages. I think that this has left "Current recruiting issues" in the Personnel section as a problem for several reasons:
Although I hesitate to cite the Chicken Little-like incompetence of The Australian on defence issues:
I would suggest that the section is deleted and replaced with a smaller one addressing recruiting issues as they are now and not 4-5 years ago. If the information it currently contains is deemed useful if not crucial and needs to be retained, then perhaps a linked article that addresses recruiting and retention issues in the ADF, or even one with a historic perspective (recruiting and retention issues for the ADF is not a new phenomena). This is almost the exact same issue that was raised on the Discussion page four years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113727b ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
When you click on the highlighted text "Forces Command", it links you to the US Army Forces Command page instead of the Australian Army Forces Command page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.137.2.8 ( talk) 00:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the second time I have had to remove the bulk addition of images to this page. Per the BOLD, REVERT and DISCUSS cycle this needs to be discussed BEFORE being added again (see WP:BRD). Whilst I have no issue with adding a few additional images indicative of the history of the organization care needs to be taken not to add too many as it causes overcrowding of the (limited) text. That said my main concern is that several of these images are non-free and need a fair use rationale if they are going to be used. These images are currently used on other articles and have an FUR for that use but not for this article. I believe it would be fairly difficult to sustain an FUR for this article as they are mainly being used decoratively and as such adding them here is only likely to draw the crabs (i.e. image police) and will result in their inevitable deletion and loss to the encyclopedia. Pls acquaint yourself with our image use policy before adding images in the future. Anotherclown ( talk) 02:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
scale down regular.
ASG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.222.110 ( talk) 16:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The command in chief of the naval and military forces of Australia is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative.
This should be said clearly that the actual commander is the English queen or king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.232.161.164 ( talk) 22:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I have retooled this section in accordance with the British Army article, with all existing information being moved to the introduction. I may have gone too far by adding specific theatres in the world wars. This is meant to be a summary unlike the dedicated article. Again if anyone wants to revert this fine by me, after all I have haven't provided the sources, it is barebones and anyone will have better editing experience than me. IronBattalion ( talk) 04:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
i think the rank section needs to be retooled into something like this:
Rank group | General / flag officers | Senior officers | Junior officers | Officer cadet | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australian Army
[1] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Field marshal | General | Lieutenant general | Major general | Brigadier | Colonel | Lieutenant colonel | Major | Captain | Lieutenant | Second lieutenant | Officer cadet | Staff cadet |
Rank group | Senior NCOs | Junior NCOs | Enlisted | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australian Army
[1] |
No insignia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regimental sergeant major of the army | Warrant officer class 1 | Warrant officer class 2 | Sergeant | Corporal | Lance corporal |
Private (or equivalent) |
it is much easier to digest than text IronBattalion ( talk) 20:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I have a conundrum, recently I have changed the section to include Corps and Regiments. While they deserve a mention in this page, I am starting to doubt that they should be included proper. The current information that I have inserted is as much as I could think to add. Also the references should be either replaced or additional ones added due to the lack of veracity of them. I am hesitant though, any opinions? IronBattalion ( talk) 09:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I am suggesting that the Aircraft will be merged into the Equipment Section and that the Future Procurement will be transitioned to the Equipment page. The latter would need extra work in transferring the references, we could even merge everything I'm suggesting into that page. This is to reduce unnecessary repetition of sections and provide opportunities to enter the club of 'plunging down Wikipedia's wombat hole' via the potential increase in information. IronBattalion ( talk) 10:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying to add conscription to the Article as a pervasive history throughout the years, and definitely deserves a better mention than being in the 'See also' section. Any thoughts/ideas? Thanks, IronBattalion ( talk) 20:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm wondering when does this page come out of Start-class; what issues does it have, if any? This is a) to get me more used to Wikipedia and b) allows me to possibly fix any issues I'm unaware of. Thanks. IronBattalion ( talk) 05:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@ IronBattalion: G'day, thanks for your work on this article. I have a few suggestions for further improvements: AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Great work, cheers. I can't really assess it, though, formally as I am probably too involved. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
IronBattalion - Not found in any competent dictionary and not suitable for an encyclopedia. The correct spelling is 'earned'. Neils51 ( talk) 23:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Please stop the changes to the service numbers outside of the figures listed in the government reports, it's not funny when they're edited to millions of people or "about 7". Thank you Seannie4 ( talk) 05:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Nick-D Can you please explain the revert of rank abbreviations? If this is a page of the Australian Army why are the rank abbreviations not those used by the Australian Army? Currently, it's US Military rank abbreviations. Seems for the purpose of an encyclopedia, and a page about the Australian army should have the Australian Army Abbreviations. KarmaKangaroo ( talk) 06:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Australian Army article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Question. Why doesn't the Australian Army have the Royal prefix like the Navy and Air Force? - Penta 06:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Question. Why doesn't the Australian Army have the Royal prefix like the Navy and Air Force?
The Answer-
The answer lies in the fact that the Navy and the Air Force are homogeneous bodies whilst the Australian Army is an elemental organization made up of a number of corps, services and departments. Our Defence Force is based on the British system where a person can enlist straight into either the navy or the air force but one cannot join the ‘army’. In the United Kingdom a person is enlisted straight into either a regiment or a corps (eg. the Royal Regiment of Artillery, the Grenadier Guards, or the Royal Corps of Transport)and recruit training is carried out by that formation. No one joins the ‘Army’ as such.
We really need details of 1916-18 battles, and of campaigns other than Gallipoli and the Western Front, including German New Guinea and the Middle East, if anyone would like to help with this. Cheers Grant65 (Talk) 13:09, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
The page is looking good, well done. Most of the significant battles are now there. I'll be too busy with other things to do much with it in the near future. Grant65 (Talk) 12:23, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
Compare Modern equipment and uniform of the British Army. Alphax τ ε χ 07:17, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
The section under infantry says that the RAR is one large regiment of six battalions. This is a bit misleading as the infantry regiments aren't the same as other regiments. I'm not sure how to word this.
Brettr 08:52, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
Simply mention that the Australian Army is modelled after the the British system, so that infantry regiments contain multiple battalions but that armour, artillery, engineer, special forces, etc 'Regiments' are the size of a single battalion. LamontCranston 04:31, 2005 Aug 20 (UTC)
Why does this article mention a possible increase in the number of Australia's Bradley armoured fighting vehicles? I am sure the Australian Army never had any, nor does it currently have any plans to acquire them.
Please do not fill the article with html comments. Comments should be made on this page.
This section is a mishmash of corps and units. Are the terms "combat support arms" and "Combat Service Support" (used under the heading "Units of the Regular Army") part of army doctrine. The terms I was taught are simple combat arms (inc sigs, sappers and aviation) and service corps. These terms sound very dubious to me, I can't imagine labelling the new attack helicopter units as "combat supprt".
Yes, they are... for example "10 FSB" (10 Force Support) "3 CSSB" (3 Combat Service Support Battalion). Also, 5/7 RAR is becomming demalgamated.
To back up the last note, yes the terms "combat support" and "Combat Service Support" are officially used as part of army doctrine. As for saying that you cant see the new attack helicopter as being "combat support" its not. I have it on good authority that Aviation is now designated as a combat corps. However, relegating the Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery as "combat support" Figure that one out!
To whoever (IP 203.16.225.80) keeps changing the statistics to only 71 Leopard tanks, the ADF has 90 Leopard gun tanks. Or at least the Anzac Steel page on the Leopard thinks so: http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/leopardph_1.htm
As does several other sites such as Defense Industry Daily: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/gd-receives-final-416m-delivery-order-for-australian-m1a1-tanks/index.php
and a couple of more important pages like the Australian Army's own newspaper: http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1060/topstories/story11.htm
and the Australian National Audit Office: http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/Publications/555F03062BE2B6B7CA25700B0077785A see under Section 4 "Track Manoeuvre Systems Program Office" which incidentally also indicates only 59 M1s are being bought.
The ADF has 71 Leopard 1 Main Battle Tanks, the other 19 are recovery vehicles or something. Everything I've read says 71 Main Battle Tanks, not 90. Suck shit.
ROE people!!! be nice. im going with 90 Eevo 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick have your bloody 90 Leopards I don't really even care!
Look I'm sorry for the harsh language, I was a bit pissed off being challenged about my knowledge of the Australian army. Its just everything I've ever read said 71 Leopard tanks, but it looks I was wrong. Lets move on.
Yeah, well where getting rid of them now, we should of got Leopard 2's in stead of Abrams. And besides, why did we only buy 59 Abrams?
Well I guess we'll have to wait and see. Besides, Tanks are expensive to run, seeing as the amount of fuel they consume. Apparently Abrams take 40 litres of fuel to start up. Won't be to good when fuel becomes really expensive.
In regards to the bit about recruiting in the main article. Despite the media beatup about falling recruitments the facts are that recruitment is falling in PROFESSIONAL occupations in the Army, like Doctors, Nurses, Dentists etc They are still recruiting the dumb ones ;)
Numbers especially for infantry are that large that the School of Cool, aka the School of Infantry is actually full and that Diggers are getting their IET training directly at the Battalions now. I'd suggest checking this fact out and amending your article :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.215.163 ( talk) 16:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
I believe the start class and low importance ratings of this article should be re-evaluated. Especially the low importance rating, considering articles such as Fremantle Prison, 2006 Australian Grand Prix and 2006-07 Australian Capital Territory budget are rated high importance.
Totally agree! The Bryce 11:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"Regular Force" is the templates name given to the link to the basic article "Australian Army" which is misleading; as the article (as it should) gives an overview of both Regular Army and Army Reserve elements.
If some regular member is keen to create an article specifically on the ARA (excluding the reserve elements) in addition to the overall "Australian Army" that would be good. Linking the entire army, under a reg only link is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TInTIn ( talk • contribs) 06:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Where?-- mrg3105 mrg3105 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nick that the common forms (eg Lt Gen) should be used not the official military abbreviation (eg LTGEN). I've never seen the latter used in non-military publications. I don't think the argument that the military abbreviation is more correct is valid, perhaps in an article about ranks. Brettr ( talk) 06:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Rising sun version 3.gif 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
In the article, size is listed as "26,611 (regular) 15,892 (reservists)". http://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/defence_security.html says this; [quote]There were more than 51 500 permanent full-time military personnel in the ADF in 2006-07 and over 19 500 Reserve military personnel.[/quote] That's quite a difference in numbers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.140.145 ( talk) 04:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Just from an old digger - Military comes from militia meaning ground forces, not Navy or Air force so when referring to the army they are military. Also HRH Queen Elizabeth is the Commander of the Australian Army and the entire defence force through the Governor General.
Under Section 68 of the Constitution, the Governor-General is the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force, although in practice he or she acts only on the advice of Ministers of the Government. The Minister for Defence is responsible for Australia’s defence policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.187 ( talk) 13:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Although a small error, the FN Minimi is actually referred to as the F89 Minimi in the Australian Army, although practically the same thing. [2] JTod94 ( talk) 01:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just finished updating the graphic commons:File:Australia Land Forces.png to reflect the 2010 reorganization. Two question remains tough:
thanks in advance, for answer to these two questions. -- noclador ( talk) 15:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraphs from the article for now, as an article of this prominence is ill-served by the inclusion of un-sourced material. I agree that such information is important as it adds some context to the article, and I am happy for it to be included if reliable citations for it are provided. As a suggestion this could probably be included in a section on capabilities.
The Australian Army is oriented toward low- and medium-intensity operations against symmetric and asymmetric enemies. The Army has traditionally been structured as a light infantry force. This has changed somewhat in recent years, with an increased emphasis on motorised and mechanised forces. In the next few years, two of the seven regular infantry battalions will be mechanised (using the upgraded M113 APC) and two will be motorised (using the Bushmaster). Nevertheless, the motorised and mechanised battalions still train with an orientation toward operations in close combat and have a high emphasis on patrolling and other dismounted operations, thus maintaining the traditional Australian skill set.
Until recently, the main area of operations has been Asia, particularly South East Asia and the Pacific, so the light infantry orientation has not been a hindrance. In fact the Australian Army is known to produce troops and units with a very high standard of jungle warfare, patrolling, ambushing and other infantry skills.
Due to Australia's small population, the Army will always make up only a statistically small role in coalition operations. Successive Australian governments since 1989 have deployed components of the ADF with specific skill sets, so that the Australian contribution is always of greater significance than raw numbers of troops would suggest. Often this has taken the form of the deployment of special forces, though this has changed in recent years, for example in Afghanistan. Australian forces have always trained with and maintained close relationships the US and British forces and are now being equipped to better interoperate with US/British/coalition forces. The defence relationship with US forces is probably now closer than it has been at any point since the Vietnam war, especially at a working level.
Happy to discuss. Cheers. Anotherclown ( talk) 13:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
While SVG is a preferred format on the Wikimedia projects, SVG images should be the same as the original however this SVG image is not the same is not the same as the original Rising Sun. In the Australian military it is offensive to recreate an historic image which isn't the same as the original and also goes against what Wikipedia is about. Bidgee ( talk) 04:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to re-open the issue of the recruiting section of the article. From reading the discussion page I surmise that much content that was on the main page has been moved to more appropriate sections, or has been expanded into an article of their own, as more information has been added over time. IMO this has made this page informative and concise, providing basic information while acting as a "portal" linking to more specialist pages. I think that this has left "Current recruiting issues" in the Personnel section as a problem for several reasons:
Although I hesitate to cite the Chicken Little-like incompetence of The Australian on defence issues:
I would suggest that the section is deleted and replaced with a smaller one addressing recruiting issues as they are now and not 4-5 years ago. If the information it currently contains is deemed useful if not crucial and needs to be retained, then perhaps a linked article that addresses recruiting and retention issues in the ADF, or even one with a historic perspective (recruiting and retention issues for the ADF is not a new phenomena). This is almost the exact same issue that was raised on the Discussion page four years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113727b ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
When you click on the highlighted text "Forces Command", it links you to the US Army Forces Command page instead of the Australian Army Forces Command page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.137.2.8 ( talk) 00:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the second time I have had to remove the bulk addition of images to this page. Per the BOLD, REVERT and DISCUSS cycle this needs to be discussed BEFORE being added again (see WP:BRD). Whilst I have no issue with adding a few additional images indicative of the history of the organization care needs to be taken not to add too many as it causes overcrowding of the (limited) text. That said my main concern is that several of these images are non-free and need a fair use rationale if they are going to be used. These images are currently used on other articles and have an FUR for that use but not for this article. I believe it would be fairly difficult to sustain an FUR for this article as they are mainly being used decoratively and as such adding them here is only likely to draw the crabs (i.e. image police) and will result in their inevitable deletion and loss to the encyclopedia. Pls acquaint yourself with our image use policy before adding images in the future. Anotherclown ( talk) 02:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
scale down regular.
ASG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.222.110 ( talk) 16:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The command in chief of the naval and military forces of Australia is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative.
This should be said clearly that the actual commander is the English queen or king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.232.161.164 ( talk) 22:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I have retooled this section in accordance with the British Army article, with all existing information being moved to the introduction. I may have gone too far by adding specific theatres in the world wars. This is meant to be a summary unlike the dedicated article. Again if anyone wants to revert this fine by me, after all I have haven't provided the sources, it is barebones and anyone will have better editing experience than me. IronBattalion ( talk) 04:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
i think the rank section needs to be retooled into something like this:
Rank group | General / flag officers | Senior officers | Junior officers | Officer cadet | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australian Army
[1] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Field marshal | General | Lieutenant general | Major general | Brigadier | Colonel | Lieutenant colonel | Major | Captain | Lieutenant | Second lieutenant | Officer cadet | Staff cadet |
Rank group | Senior NCOs | Junior NCOs | Enlisted | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australian Army
[1] |
No insignia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regimental sergeant major of the army | Warrant officer class 1 | Warrant officer class 2 | Sergeant | Corporal | Lance corporal |
Private (or equivalent) |
it is much easier to digest than text IronBattalion ( talk) 20:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I have a conundrum, recently I have changed the section to include Corps and Regiments. While they deserve a mention in this page, I am starting to doubt that they should be included proper. The current information that I have inserted is as much as I could think to add. Also the references should be either replaced or additional ones added due to the lack of veracity of them. I am hesitant though, any opinions? IronBattalion ( talk) 09:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I am suggesting that the Aircraft will be merged into the Equipment Section and that the Future Procurement will be transitioned to the Equipment page. The latter would need extra work in transferring the references, we could even merge everything I'm suggesting into that page. This is to reduce unnecessary repetition of sections and provide opportunities to enter the club of 'plunging down Wikipedia's wombat hole' via the potential increase in information. IronBattalion ( talk) 10:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm trying to add conscription to the Article as a pervasive history throughout the years, and definitely deserves a better mention than being in the 'See also' section. Any thoughts/ideas? Thanks, IronBattalion ( talk) 20:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm wondering when does this page come out of Start-class; what issues does it have, if any? This is a) to get me more used to Wikipedia and b) allows me to possibly fix any issues I'm unaware of. Thanks. IronBattalion ( talk) 05:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@ IronBattalion: G'day, thanks for your work on this article. I have a few suggestions for further improvements: AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Great work, cheers. I can't really assess it, though, formally as I am probably too involved. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
IronBattalion - Not found in any competent dictionary and not suitable for an encyclopedia. The correct spelling is 'earned'. Neils51 ( talk) 23:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Please stop the changes to the service numbers outside of the figures listed in the government reports, it's not funny when they're edited to millions of people or "about 7". Thank you Seannie4 ( talk) 05:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Nick-D Can you please explain the revert of rank abbreviations? If this is a page of the Australian Army why are the rank abbreviations not those used by the Australian Army? Currently, it's US Military rank abbreviations. Seems for the purpose of an encyclopedia, and a page about the Australian army should have the Australian Army Abbreviations. KarmaKangaroo ( talk) 06:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)