![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Would this page not be more appropriately moved to British Armed Forces? I have never heard the term Military of the United Kingdom (for a start, in Britain 'military' tends to specifically refer to the Army, not the other forces), but British Armed Forces is commonly used. United States armed forces is the title of the article about the US military (which ironically is a term that is commonly used). -- Necrothesp 13:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move to British Armed Forces
Military of the United Kingdom → British armed forces – {Seems a much more common name; would agree with United States armed forces; 'British armed forces' sounds more natural, and in my personal experience is the term used in real life} — Ashley Pomeroy 23:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not sure where this concept of Naval Service = Royal Navy AND Royal Marines comes from. The Royal Marines is part of the Royal Navy. There is no common usage of any 'Naval Service' phrase. Maybe in some context unknown to me (ex-RN) that phrase means something. Strongly suggest that specific contexts be avoided in this global encyclopædia. Googling 'Naval Service' certainly doesnt give you links to do with the Royal Navy or Marines. Will amend (v slightly) to read this way if okay. Facius 11:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
See: Talk:Military_of_the_United_States#Requested_move that article has recently been moved (26 Mar 2005) from United States armed forces → Military of the United States to fit in with the standard -- PBS 21:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See Category:Militaries The vast majority of the countries military pages are titled "Military of <country name>" PBS 21:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would support "British Armed Forces" if that's the official name (like Australian Defence Force for the Military of Australia) but I won't support "British armed forces" which I find inferior to the "Military of..." format. The article seems to suggest there are a number of alternate names so unless one of those is paramount, I think "Military of the United Kingdom" is an adequate compromise. So based on that, I don't really know which way to vote... Geoff/Gsl 01:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here's a link to the MOD's website in which it quite clearly and consistently uses the capitalised term "Armed Forces" to refer to them. And to answer srs's claim above, it is completely untrue that "military" and "armed forces" are synonymous. They may be in the USA, but in Britain "military" only tends to be used as an adjective, and in most cases technically only refers to the Army and not the other services (Military Secretary and Military Attaché, for example, which only refer to army appointments - Naval and Air are used as the adjectives for similar appointments in the other two services). I would say that to use an artificial term that is not actually used in the country of origin just for consistency's sake is inappropriate and is in complete contradiction to the idea of an encyclopaedia. Do we artificially name other articles just so they look pretty in category lists? I've not noticed it. So why here particularly? -- Necrothesp 00:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The OED [1] disagrees with the assertion that Military is not synonymous with Armed Forces. It, and the MOD website, also refute the notion that "Military" only refers to the "Army". srs 02:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A google search shows the following results:
Don't want to repeat what's already been said, but the use of "British Armed Forces" is the most predominant term in the UK for the military. The official title is, however, Armed Forces of the Crown but meh. SoLando 15:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My personal view is that the term "Armed Forces" is a somewhat more passive and euphemistic term for "Military". It seems to me that its always our "Armed Forces" versus their "Military", hence my preference for some uniform naming (whether it be armed forces or military). Granted, that it's not likely that everybody else shares my perception of these words, but it does look odd when only the USA and UK pages are titled "Armed Forces" with the vast majority of the rest of the countries following the "Military of" format. I would much rather the official title is used (and if it's Armed Forces of the Crown, then so be it), and failing that, I would think that "Armed Forces of the United Kingdom" would be preferable as the country page is at United Kingdom, not Britain. srs 05:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Would this give the reality check about the "professional forces" best in europe?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11567729
hope it help, i regard brits as highly prepared and professional personels , no doubt about that, but in term of real force they lies behind france in every departments, the french being as professional and trained! no offence, i always love our "rules britania" cousins across the pond! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.162.75 ( talk) 12:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
HI mates i have a question to ask that i want to find an answer to for my articale.
and i hoped i can find it over here.
who can enlist to the british armed forces?
can non uk citizens can join in and how?
please answer me on my discssion page.
Oraien
I think the move should go ahead but would like to ask if people think it is a proper noun or not. Please decide between the following two options:
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Proper noun British Armed Forces. violet/riga (t) 12:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The statement that this is the official name has been tagged as needing a citation. If this is successfully sourced as being the official name, shouldn't we move the article there?
Yorkshire Phoenix
12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the exact number of personel in the regular forces as of 2007? It's been changed to 187,000 but I thought it was still around 195,000?
This article claims the UK has the second highest spending of any military in the world. The CIA World Factbook, [ [2]], places it at fifth, far below China, which it places second. Could someone enlighten me and resolve this discrepancy? If it's a matter of different definitions or something, the statement should still at least be qualifed. Mycroft7 00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Come 2011 the MoD budget will be US $74 billion, not sure how that compares to China but it is an official figure.
CIA is incorrect and out of date, and it is biased to the USA
Why is this even an issue? what problem do people have with Britain being the second highest spender? My issue is having the MOD's budget being interpreted as the collective budget of the Services. Remember that the MOD employs 90,000 civilian staff. Which is why the 33bn figure should be in the MOD's article.
The 'second highest spending' claim is based on figures officialyy announced by different countries' governments. In these Britain does come second, but a number of nations (probably including China, Iran etc) state their military spending as far below the reality (China is purported to spend three times more than its official figure, for example) for purposes of national security, top secret research and development programmes (sometimes illegal), etc.
172.141.130.245
17:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Why should the CIA, which states that France spends 2.6 % of GDP as opposed to the UK's 2.4% of GDP, be biased against Britain? Please note that France now has a higher GDP. I have edited accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.19.172 ( talk) 07:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This is stupid. The very source itself shows Britain has the fourth military spender after the US, China and France. Stop this stupid POV, 4th is a good place enough, be honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.28 ( talk) 14:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Between the introduction to the British Armed Forces section and 'current strength' the UK moves seamlessly from third highest defence sepending to fourth. Firstly that is a clear inaccuracy in the text and secondly those figures need clarification i.e. percentage GDP or total spending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.131.81 ( talk) 19:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The article states that "Gays and lesbians have been allowed to serve openly since the change of the Millennium. The British Army participates in Gay Parades and actively recruits this demographic." Seems a little non-politically correct, to say the least. Maybe, since 2000 sexual orientation has not been a factor considered in recruitment? FeralWolf 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The top right hand side info box is riddled with Americanisms that need changing. Anyone know how to customise these infoboxes ? e.g. 'active personnel' should read 'regular personnel', 'manpower' might be better described as 'personnel', and 'fit for military duty' is wholly ambiguous: how is the 'fit for' defined - it is not a British concept - and 'military duty' - is this for the army, as opposed to for naval or air force duty ? Points for pedants, perhaps, but I suppose it might as well be done correctly. Defining an infobox wholly loaded with Americanised terms does seem to introduce more systemised bias in favour of US English terms, although I'm sure it's not intentional.-- jrleighton 21:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello all! I was wanting to add a small paragraph, or even a single sentence explaining that as of this month all Armed Forces personnel perform their administration, and are paid via the Joint Personnel Administration system. Anyone fancy a stab at it? Any suggestions?! Cheers! -- LookingYourBest 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
-- LookingYourBest 12:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The British Armed Forces however have the second highest expenditure (only behind U.S.) of any military in the world and this high spending on (relatively) small numbers of personnel, research, design and procurement of defence equipment means that they are one of the most powerful and technologically advanced forces in the world.
This sentence is jumping from two sourced facts (2nd highest expenditure and 22th highest size) to an unsourced conclusion ("one of the most powerful and technologically advanced forces in the world"). I'm looking to remove the last part of this, unless someone can provide a source. Stymphal 20:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It has been suggested that the above stub should be merged with this article. I agree and beleive it should be added to the 'personnel' section. Does anyone have any different views? LookingYourBest 06:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of the Falkland War in the history section, i think its kind of worth mentioning, being one of the major conflicts during the Cold War era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.247.202 ( talk) 08:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 06:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Triserv-600.jpg 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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 18:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
425,500 men in 2006 is wrong. Also, there is no such thing as regular reserve and volunteer reserve, there is only one type of reserve. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am quite certain there are more around the number of 200,000 men in the forces and that the regular reserve should be deleted as it does not exist. What I think has happened is that regular reserve is supposed to be the number of reserves and regulars added together, but that someone has taken it to be an entirely seperate force and has therefore doubled the number of men in the armed forces from 200,000 to 400,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.143.127 ( talk) 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Highfield1730 ( talk) 20:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)The volunteer reserves comprise the Territorial Army, the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marines Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the active Royal Air Force Reserve. The Regular Reserves are made up of former Regular Service personnel who retain a liability to be called out for operations if required. Reserves perform a variety of different roles in the Armed Forces. Some like doctors, nurses and linguists have specialist skills, whilst others supplement general military capabilities.
I think that all of the above should be specified in the article. Say how many members are active and how many can be called upon to augment this number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.143.127 ( talk) 17:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Is the garrison in Belize really there still? What seems to be a reasonable source [3] suggests it was withdrawn in 1994.-- Glaucidium ( talk) 14:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
can anyone advise me please can an ex forces person get mobility allowance after 65 years of age —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kengord ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This statement seems false, or at least unsupported. There are two citations, the first one says :
"The Royal Navy ended the Twentieth Century more powerful relatively than it had been for some time and perhaps second only to the United States Navy in its ability to project power around the world. ".
I think the "perhaps" is important here, but the fact that this article only compares the navy, and not the whole armed forces, is even more. The second source doesn't even compare the ability to project power to other armed forces. I will remove the statement until someone finds either a better wording or an other source, because the two sources doesn't support that statement at all. --
zorxd (
talk)
14:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am aware that this article does not consider the legal foundations of the British military, but Imaybe I'll be able to add it sometime. Could somebody point me to any laws or articles about what the legally defined mission of the British Armed Forces is (as I am editing the German-language version)? The difficulty I am experiencing is the lack of a codified constitution which I could just look up, and the subsequent body of more precise definitions in subsequent laws, like in the US or Germany. Help would be much appreciated. -- Kriegslüsterner ( talk) 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was no consensus. @ harej 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
British Armed Forces →
British armed forces — More accurate name & stand per
United States armed forces.
Shadyaftrmathgunit (
talk)
18:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Why would this be "more accurate"? As far as I am aware, this is a correctly capitalised proper noun and the uncapitalised version was rejected in a discussion above. In the name of "standardisation", why should this article move and not the United States one? I honestly can't see what this would achieve. Knepflerle ( talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have stated that the BAF's expenditure is 3rd in the world, the link provided shows how much is spent on the forces in the UK through HM Treasury, this is also seen on the Expenditure list, as of 2009 it is the third highest in the world by number if compared to the top 5 in the links provided in the Expenditure list which has been check through the latest currency exchange rate, the Stockholm figures are out of date by a year (stated as 2008), please refer to Expenditure list for further details, also it would be more official if people who edit this page have an account or be logged in before changing the Wiki page of HM forces, thanks. -- SuperDan89 ( talk) 17:47, 06 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the title should be "Military of the United Kingdom." Two reasons. 1) Standardization. Consistency with other articles. and 2) Title objectivity. The "Military of..." suggests that other countries may have a military as well. "British Armed Forces" makes it sound like only the British have one. I agree that the current way is more stylish ( WP:MOS). Nevertheless, I think that titles should be less Anglicized, and more (uh) French, with the adjectives last, main object first.
For editors who have been through this before and are wincing, I am not officially proposing a move. Please contact me the next time someone does. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 19:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Will there be information added to the page for the recent UK spending review when it is released. Because information such as the removal of Ark V and the reduction in Challenger II and Heavy Artillery numbers should be added, as it was confirmed by the government (source: Metro newspaper) -- Heatedpete ( talk) 20:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to introduce a section about British military crimes as that would add a bit of balance to this article.The British army do have a documented history of crimes or alleged crimes and I think that needs to be covered.It would be an improvement for wikipedia I believe. Owain the 1st ( talk) 10:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Dervish State be addedd. Because it waged the longest colonial war against Britain and Italy. And the British used for the first time in Africa aeroplanes. 86.80.208.136 ( talk) 17:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the history section of this article is incomplete; there does not appear to be anything before the cold war. Why is this? I was under the impression that the history of the current British Armed Forces extends way back to the restoration. Many thanks for an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.54.67 ( talk) 22:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It is plain ridiculous to have the Queen listed as the Commander in Chief without any further explanation. It is very misleading indeed, as it gives readers the false assertion that the Monarch has a role similar to that of the U.S. President: which she most definitely has not. The Prime Minister, who by constitutional convention exercises the Royal Prerogative Powers, should be listed as de facto commander in chief, while the Queen should be listed as de jure commander in chief. RicJac ( talk) 06:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Not to explain why someone would change this article to explain why it should contradict Naval Service (United Kingdom), obviously. -- 91.10.10.224 ( talk) 00:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Please Update
Phd8511 ( talk) 11:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a contradiction between article and infobox: The article says that the BAF consist of "The Armed Forces encompass three professional uniformed services: the Naval Service ([...]), the British Army and the Royal Air Force.", the infobox lists "Royal Navy (including Royal Marines)[,] British Army [and] Royal Air Force". (The info box is wrong anyway in that the Royal Marines are not part ("including") of the Royal Navy.) -- 193.254.155.48 ( talk) 17:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Some evidence:
Another source: "Comprised of the the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, establishing a naval force has lead UK to its greatness even until today." -- 193.254.155.48 ( talk) 15:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, legally there are four regular armed forces in the UK. Look up the legislation. — Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 18:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone changed Royal Marines with this edit comment: "They're under the full command of of CINCFLEET", which not really supports the case for these reason:
Two potentially relevant documents from royalnavy.mod.uk; The Royal Marines Vision states 'Throughout our almost 350 years of history we have remained a vital, lean and versatile part of the Royal Navy' while this Royal Marines information leaflet states 'The Royal Marines are the UK’s Commando Forces and the Royal Navy’s own amphibious troops'. IxK85 ( talk) 14:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that opinion, GregJackP. As to the Royal Marines Vision, it's rather tragic that the Commandant General of the Royal Marines doesn't know his corps' history. I've sent an email to the helpfully supplied address in the document asking why they think that the Royal Marines have been part of the Royal Navy for 350 years. — Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 20:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I would view a statement by the commandant-general of the Royal Marines in a formal document as definitive unless countered by something even more definitive the other way. The other quotes above are circumstantial at best. It's perfectly possible to refer to three things "A, B and C" even if C is a part of B. Therefore merely a list of military forces is not definititive unless the source specifically says that C is not part of B. In summary, I would go with the opinion of the commandant-general. Thom2002 ( talk) 21:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I tried to use the contact form on www.royalnavy.mod.uk, but have no response whatsoever at the moment. Does anyone know of any other way to get an official org chart? -- 193.254.155.48 ( talk) 15:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
As in many cases, the extent to which one organisation is considered part of another may depend on context, but in BR 3, for example, ( http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-events/reference-library/~/media/files/navy-pdfs/news-and-events/naval%20publications/br%203/br3book/ch01.pdf) the wording used is "Throughout this publication, “Naval” refers to the Naval Service, comprising the Royal Navy (including QARNNS and Chaplains), Royal Marines, Maritime Reserves and the Naval Careers Service." - David Biddulph ( talk) 15:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
So we have two official documents, the Armed Forces Act 2006 and the Queen's Regulations for the Royal Navy 1997 which support the case that RM and RN are different entities.
Again, does anybody have a way to ask the Fleet for an official org chart? -- 193.254.155.48 ( talk) 14:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
193.254.155.48 ( talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Here in this article under the "Today" section, there is a paragraph that quotes a statement made by professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute in his 2011 briefing paper "Looking into the Black Hole: Is the UK Defence Budget Crisis Really Over?". It reads: "planned levels of defence spending should be enough for the United Kingdom to maintain its position as one of the world's top military powers, as well as being one of NATO-Europe's top military powers. Its edge – not least its qualitative edge – in relation to rising Asian powers seems set to erode, but will remain significant well into the 2020’s, and possibly beyond."
Recently (4 January 2014) Gus Lubin the deputy editor of Business Insider ran an article entitled: PROFESSOR: Here's Why Britain's Military Could Beat China. In the article he mentions how he contacted professor Malcolm Chalmers regarding the above statement in the 2011 briefing paper and asks if Chalmers could elaborate on it. Chalmers reply is as follows: "I think my 2011 comment remains valid. If you take individual elements of front line military capability – air, sea, land — the UK armed forces continue to outmatch those of China in qualitative terms by some margin. The UK also has greater capabilities for getting the most out of these forces, through key enabling capabilities (command and control, intelligence, strategic transport).
Not least, the UK has greater capability than China for operating at range. China (and even more so other Asian powers) remain focused on their immediate neighbourhoods, with limited capabilities for power projection. This is likely to change over the next decade. For now, though, China would still be out-matched qualitatively in a ‘straight fight’ with the UK in an equidistant location (the south Atlantic? The Gulf?), and would be unable to mobilise a force big enough to outweigh this quality gap. China's quantitative advantages would come into play in the event of a conflict in its own neighbourhood – and its qualitative weaknesses would be less important, though still significant. So my statement was never meant to imply that the UK could outmatch China off the latter’s own coastline."
What I think is important here, is these are the words of a professor of the Royal United Services Institute. But is it notable? And if so, does it merit mention on this article or another? Perhaps at the Power projection where it could serve to illustrate? 109.78.105.40 ( talk) 01:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Having an editor conflict with David Biddulph, editor has not responded to any discussion but only undid my edits to British Armed Forces [6], I edited twice and he reverted back for no reason, then editor says I am a vandal here [7] [8].
I placed a consensus for such reasons to alert of editor abuse. Can editors write or can they not? I made minor changes[ [9], and no edit was undone for no reason.-- 50.60.135.101 ( talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Would this page not be more appropriately moved to British Armed Forces? I have never heard the term Military of the United Kingdom (for a start, in Britain 'military' tends to specifically refer to the Army, not the other forces), but British Armed Forces is commonly used. United States armed forces is the title of the article about the US military (which ironically is a term that is commonly used). -- Necrothesp 13:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move to British Armed Forces
Military of the United Kingdom → British armed forces – {Seems a much more common name; would agree with United States armed forces; 'British armed forces' sounds more natural, and in my personal experience is the term used in real life} — Ashley Pomeroy 23:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not sure where this concept of Naval Service = Royal Navy AND Royal Marines comes from. The Royal Marines is part of the Royal Navy. There is no common usage of any 'Naval Service' phrase. Maybe in some context unknown to me (ex-RN) that phrase means something. Strongly suggest that specific contexts be avoided in this global encyclopædia. Googling 'Naval Service' certainly doesnt give you links to do with the Royal Navy or Marines. Will amend (v slightly) to read this way if okay. Facius 11:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
See: Talk:Military_of_the_United_States#Requested_move that article has recently been moved (26 Mar 2005) from United States armed forces → Military of the United States to fit in with the standard -- PBS 21:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See Category:Militaries The vast majority of the countries military pages are titled "Military of <country name>" PBS 21:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would support "British Armed Forces" if that's the official name (like Australian Defence Force for the Military of Australia) but I won't support "British armed forces" which I find inferior to the "Military of..." format. The article seems to suggest there are a number of alternate names so unless one of those is paramount, I think "Military of the United Kingdom" is an adequate compromise. So based on that, I don't really know which way to vote... Geoff/Gsl 01:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here's a link to the MOD's website in which it quite clearly and consistently uses the capitalised term "Armed Forces" to refer to them. And to answer srs's claim above, it is completely untrue that "military" and "armed forces" are synonymous. They may be in the USA, but in Britain "military" only tends to be used as an adjective, and in most cases technically only refers to the Army and not the other services (Military Secretary and Military Attaché, for example, which only refer to army appointments - Naval and Air are used as the adjectives for similar appointments in the other two services). I would say that to use an artificial term that is not actually used in the country of origin just for consistency's sake is inappropriate and is in complete contradiction to the idea of an encyclopaedia. Do we artificially name other articles just so they look pretty in category lists? I've not noticed it. So why here particularly? -- Necrothesp 00:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The OED [1] disagrees with the assertion that Military is not synonymous with Armed Forces. It, and the MOD website, also refute the notion that "Military" only refers to the "Army". srs 02:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A google search shows the following results:
Don't want to repeat what's already been said, but the use of "British Armed Forces" is the most predominant term in the UK for the military. The official title is, however, Armed Forces of the Crown but meh. SoLando 15:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My personal view is that the term "Armed Forces" is a somewhat more passive and euphemistic term for "Military". It seems to me that its always our "Armed Forces" versus their "Military", hence my preference for some uniform naming (whether it be armed forces or military). Granted, that it's not likely that everybody else shares my perception of these words, but it does look odd when only the USA and UK pages are titled "Armed Forces" with the vast majority of the rest of the countries following the "Military of" format. I would much rather the official title is used (and if it's Armed Forces of the Crown, then so be it), and failing that, I would think that "Armed Forces of the United Kingdom" would be preferable as the country page is at United Kingdom, not Britain. srs 05:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Would this give the reality check about the "professional forces" best in europe?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11567729
hope it help, i regard brits as highly prepared and professional personels , no doubt about that, but in term of real force they lies behind france in every departments, the french being as professional and trained! no offence, i always love our "rules britania" cousins across the pond! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.162.75 ( talk) 12:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
HI mates i have a question to ask that i want to find an answer to for my articale.
and i hoped i can find it over here.
who can enlist to the british armed forces?
can non uk citizens can join in and how?
please answer me on my discssion page.
Oraien
I think the move should go ahead but would like to ask if people think it is a proper noun or not. Please decide between the following two options:
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Proper noun British Armed Forces. violet/riga (t) 12:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The statement that this is the official name has been tagged as needing a citation. If this is successfully sourced as being the official name, shouldn't we move the article there?
Yorkshire Phoenix
12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the exact number of personel in the regular forces as of 2007? It's been changed to 187,000 but I thought it was still around 195,000?
This article claims the UK has the second highest spending of any military in the world. The CIA World Factbook, [ [2]], places it at fifth, far below China, which it places second. Could someone enlighten me and resolve this discrepancy? If it's a matter of different definitions or something, the statement should still at least be qualifed. Mycroft7 00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Come 2011 the MoD budget will be US $74 billion, not sure how that compares to China but it is an official figure.
CIA is incorrect and out of date, and it is biased to the USA
Why is this even an issue? what problem do people have with Britain being the second highest spender? My issue is having the MOD's budget being interpreted as the collective budget of the Services. Remember that the MOD employs 90,000 civilian staff. Which is why the 33bn figure should be in the MOD's article.
The 'second highest spending' claim is based on figures officialyy announced by different countries' governments. In these Britain does come second, but a number of nations (probably including China, Iran etc) state their military spending as far below the reality (China is purported to spend three times more than its official figure, for example) for purposes of national security, top secret research and development programmes (sometimes illegal), etc.
172.141.130.245
17:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Why should the CIA, which states that France spends 2.6 % of GDP as opposed to the UK's 2.4% of GDP, be biased against Britain? Please note that France now has a higher GDP. I have edited accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.19.172 ( talk) 07:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This is stupid. The very source itself shows Britain has the fourth military spender after the US, China and France. Stop this stupid POV, 4th is a good place enough, be honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.28 ( talk) 14:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Between the introduction to the British Armed Forces section and 'current strength' the UK moves seamlessly from third highest defence sepending to fourth. Firstly that is a clear inaccuracy in the text and secondly those figures need clarification i.e. percentage GDP or total spending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.131.81 ( talk) 19:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The article states that "Gays and lesbians have been allowed to serve openly since the change of the Millennium. The British Army participates in Gay Parades and actively recruits this demographic." Seems a little non-politically correct, to say the least. Maybe, since 2000 sexual orientation has not been a factor considered in recruitment? FeralWolf 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The top right hand side info box is riddled with Americanisms that need changing. Anyone know how to customise these infoboxes ? e.g. 'active personnel' should read 'regular personnel', 'manpower' might be better described as 'personnel', and 'fit for military duty' is wholly ambiguous: how is the 'fit for' defined - it is not a British concept - and 'military duty' - is this for the army, as opposed to for naval or air force duty ? Points for pedants, perhaps, but I suppose it might as well be done correctly. Defining an infobox wholly loaded with Americanised terms does seem to introduce more systemised bias in favour of US English terms, although I'm sure it's not intentional.-- jrleighton 21:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello all! I was wanting to add a small paragraph, or even a single sentence explaining that as of this month all Armed Forces personnel perform their administration, and are paid via the Joint Personnel Administration system. Anyone fancy a stab at it? Any suggestions?! Cheers! -- LookingYourBest 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
-- LookingYourBest 12:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The British Armed Forces however have the second highest expenditure (only behind U.S.) of any military in the world and this high spending on (relatively) small numbers of personnel, research, design and procurement of defence equipment means that they are one of the most powerful and technologically advanced forces in the world.
This sentence is jumping from two sourced facts (2nd highest expenditure and 22th highest size) to an unsourced conclusion ("one of the most powerful and technologically advanced forces in the world"). I'm looking to remove the last part of this, unless someone can provide a source. Stymphal 20:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It has been suggested that the above stub should be merged with this article. I agree and beleive it should be added to the 'personnel' section. Does anyone have any different views? LookingYourBest 06:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of the Falkland War in the history section, i think its kind of worth mentioning, being one of the major conflicts during the Cold War era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.247.202 ( talk) 08:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 06:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Triserv-600.jpg 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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 18:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
425,500 men in 2006 is wrong. Also, there is no such thing as regular reserve and volunteer reserve, there is only one type of reserve. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am quite certain there are more around the number of 200,000 men in the forces and that the regular reserve should be deleted as it does not exist. What I think has happened is that regular reserve is supposed to be the number of reserves and regulars added together, but that someone has taken it to be an entirely seperate force and has therefore doubled the number of men in the armed forces from 200,000 to 400,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.143.127 ( talk) 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Highfield1730 ( talk) 20:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)The volunteer reserves comprise the Territorial Army, the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marines Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the active Royal Air Force Reserve. The Regular Reserves are made up of former Regular Service personnel who retain a liability to be called out for operations if required. Reserves perform a variety of different roles in the Armed Forces. Some like doctors, nurses and linguists have specialist skills, whilst others supplement general military capabilities.
I think that all of the above should be specified in the article. Say how many members are active and how many can be called upon to augment this number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.143.127 ( talk) 17:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Is the garrison in Belize really there still? What seems to be a reasonable source [3] suggests it was withdrawn in 1994.-- Glaucidium ( talk) 14:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
can anyone advise me please can an ex forces person get mobility allowance after 65 years of age —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kengord ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This statement seems false, or at least unsupported. There are two citations, the first one says :
"The Royal Navy ended the Twentieth Century more powerful relatively than it had been for some time and perhaps second only to the United States Navy in its ability to project power around the world. ".
I think the "perhaps" is important here, but the fact that this article only compares the navy, and not the whole armed forces, is even more. The second source doesn't even compare the ability to project power to other armed forces. I will remove the statement until someone finds either a better wording or an other source, because the two sources doesn't support that statement at all. --
zorxd (
talk)
14:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am aware that this article does not consider the legal foundations of the British military, but Imaybe I'll be able to add it sometime. Could somebody point me to any laws or articles about what the legally defined mission of the British Armed Forces is (as I am editing the German-language version)? The difficulty I am experiencing is the lack of a codified constitution which I could just look up, and the subsequent body of more precise definitions in subsequent laws, like in the US or Germany. Help would be much appreciated. -- Kriegslüsterner ( talk) 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was no consensus. @ harej 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
British Armed Forces →
British armed forces — More accurate name & stand per
United States armed forces.
Shadyaftrmathgunit (
talk)
18:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Why would this be "more accurate"? As far as I am aware, this is a correctly capitalised proper noun and the uncapitalised version was rejected in a discussion above. In the name of "standardisation", why should this article move and not the United States one? I honestly can't see what this would achieve. Knepflerle ( talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have stated that the BAF's expenditure is 3rd in the world, the link provided shows how much is spent on the forces in the UK through HM Treasury, this is also seen on the Expenditure list, as of 2009 it is the third highest in the world by number if compared to the top 5 in the links provided in the Expenditure list which has been check through the latest currency exchange rate, the Stockholm figures are out of date by a year (stated as 2008), please refer to Expenditure list for further details, also it would be more official if people who edit this page have an account or be logged in before changing the Wiki page of HM forces, thanks. -- SuperDan89 ( talk) 17:47, 06 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the title should be "Military of the United Kingdom." Two reasons. 1) Standardization. Consistency with other articles. and 2) Title objectivity. The "Military of..." suggests that other countries may have a military as well. "British Armed Forces" makes it sound like only the British have one. I agree that the current way is more stylish ( WP:MOS). Nevertheless, I think that titles should be less Anglicized, and more (uh) French, with the adjectives last, main object first.
For editors who have been through this before and are wincing, I am not officially proposing a move. Please contact me the next time someone does. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 19:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Will there be information added to the page for the recent UK spending review when it is released. Because information such as the removal of Ark V and the reduction in Challenger II and Heavy Artillery numbers should be added, as it was confirmed by the government (source: Metro newspaper) -- Heatedpete ( talk) 20:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to introduce a section about British military crimes as that would add a bit of balance to this article.The British army do have a documented history of crimes or alleged crimes and I think that needs to be covered.It would be an improvement for wikipedia I believe. Owain the 1st ( talk) 10:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Dervish State be addedd. Because it waged the longest colonial war against Britain and Italy. And the British used for the first time in Africa aeroplanes. 86.80.208.136 ( talk) 17:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the history section of this article is incomplete; there does not appear to be anything before the cold war. Why is this? I was under the impression that the history of the current British Armed Forces extends way back to the restoration. Many thanks for an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.54.67 ( talk) 22:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It is plain ridiculous to have the Queen listed as the Commander in Chief without any further explanation. It is very misleading indeed, as it gives readers the false assertion that the Monarch has a role similar to that of the U.S. President: which she most definitely has not. The Prime Minister, who by constitutional convention exercises the Royal Prerogative Powers, should be listed as de facto commander in chief, while the Queen should be listed as de jure commander in chief. RicJac ( talk) 06:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Not to explain why someone would change this article to explain why it should contradict Naval Service (United Kingdom), obviously. -- 91.10.10.224 ( talk) 00:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Please Update
Phd8511 ( talk) 11:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a contradiction between article and infobox: The article says that the BAF consist of "The Armed Forces encompass three professional uniformed services: the Naval Service ([...]), the British Army and the Royal Air Force.", the infobox lists "Royal Navy (including Royal Marines)[,] British Army [and] Royal Air Force". (The info box is wrong anyway in that the Royal Marines are not part ("including") of the Royal Navy.) -- 193.254.155.48 ( talk) 17:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Some evidence:
Another source: "Comprised of the the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, establishing a naval force has lead UK to its greatness even until today." -- 193.254.155.48 ( talk) 15:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, legally there are four regular armed forces in the UK. Look up the legislation. — Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 18:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone changed Royal Marines with this edit comment: "They're under the full command of of CINCFLEET", which not really supports the case for these reason:
Two potentially relevant documents from royalnavy.mod.uk; The Royal Marines Vision states 'Throughout our almost 350 years of history we have remained a vital, lean and versatile part of the Royal Navy' while this Royal Marines information leaflet states 'The Royal Marines are the UK’s Commando Forces and the Royal Navy’s own amphibious troops'. IxK85 ( talk) 14:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that opinion, GregJackP. As to the Royal Marines Vision, it's rather tragic that the Commandant General of the Royal Marines doesn't know his corps' history. I've sent an email to the helpfully supplied address in the document asking why they think that the Royal Marines have been part of the Royal Navy for 350 years. — Simon Harley ( Talk | Library). 20:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I would view a statement by the commandant-general of the Royal Marines in a formal document as definitive unless countered by something even more definitive the other way. The other quotes above are circumstantial at best. It's perfectly possible to refer to three things "A, B and C" even if C is a part of B. Therefore merely a list of military forces is not definititive unless the source specifically says that C is not part of B. In summary, I would go with the opinion of the commandant-general. Thom2002 ( talk) 21:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I tried to use the contact form on www.royalnavy.mod.uk, but have no response whatsoever at the moment. Does anyone know of any other way to get an official org chart? -- 193.254.155.48 ( talk) 15:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
As in many cases, the extent to which one organisation is considered part of another may depend on context, but in BR 3, for example, ( http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-events/reference-library/~/media/files/navy-pdfs/news-and-events/naval%20publications/br%203/br3book/ch01.pdf) the wording used is "Throughout this publication, “Naval” refers to the Naval Service, comprising the Royal Navy (including QARNNS and Chaplains), Royal Marines, Maritime Reserves and the Naval Careers Service." - David Biddulph ( talk) 15:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
So we have two official documents, the Armed Forces Act 2006 and the Queen's Regulations for the Royal Navy 1997 which support the case that RM and RN are different entities.
Again, does anybody have a way to ask the Fleet for an official org chart? -- 193.254.155.48 ( talk) 14:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
193.254.155.48 ( talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Here in this article under the "Today" section, there is a paragraph that quotes a statement made by professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute in his 2011 briefing paper "Looking into the Black Hole: Is the UK Defence Budget Crisis Really Over?". It reads: "planned levels of defence spending should be enough for the United Kingdom to maintain its position as one of the world's top military powers, as well as being one of NATO-Europe's top military powers. Its edge – not least its qualitative edge – in relation to rising Asian powers seems set to erode, but will remain significant well into the 2020’s, and possibly beyond."
Recently (4 January 2014) Gus Lubin the deputy editor of Business Insider ran an article entitled: PROFESSOR: Here's Why Britain's Military Could Beat China. In the article he mentions how he contacted professor Malcolm Chalmers regarding the above statement in the 2011 briefing paper and asks if Chalmers could elaborate on it. Chalmers reply is as follows: "I think my 2011 comment remains valid. If you take individual elements of front line military capability – air, sea, land — the UK armed forces continue to outmatch those of China in qualitative terms by some margin. The UK also has greater capabilities for getting the most out of these forces, through key enabling capabilities (command and control, intelligence, strategic transport).
Not least, the UK has greater capability than China for operating at range. China (and even more so other Asian powers) remain focused on their immediate neighbourhoods, with limited capabilities for power projection. This is likely to change over the next decade. For now, though, China would still be out-matched qualitatively in a ‘straight fight’ with the UK in an equidistant location (the south Atlantic? The Gulf?), and would be unable to mobilise a force big enough to outweigh this quality gap. China's quantitative advantages would come into play in the event of a conflict in its own neighbourhood – and its qualitative weaknesses would be less important, though still significant. So my statement was never meant to imply that the UK could outmatch China off the latter’s own coastline."
What I think is important here, is these are the words of a professor of the Royal United Services Institute. But is it notable? And if so, does it merit mention on this article or another? Perhaps at the Power projection where it could serve to illustrate? 109.78.105.40 ( talk) 01:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Having an editor conflict with David Biddulph, editor has not responded to any discussion but only undid my edits to British Armed Forces [6], I edited twice and he reverted back for no reason, then editor says I am a vandal here [7] [8].
I placed a consensus for such reasons to alert of editor abuse. Can editors write or can they not? I made minor changes[ [9], and no edit was undone for no reason.-- 50.60.135.101 ( talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)