This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of equipment of the British 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 List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should the Future equipment section include equipment that has been/is being trialled, as I'm sure the Army trials hundreds of different things? I think it should just include equipment that has been ordered/planned to be in service. BritishSpaniard ( talk) 03:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Why no mention of it? Spartan198 13:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You mean apart from here? TangoSixZero ( talk) 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The page lists the "FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank weapon", but when you click the link the page for that says "For the British Javelin missile see Javelin surface-to-air missile." So either somebody has put the wrong Javelin down on this page, or the British Army uses the American missile as well and the page needs to list both. Which is it?
If I'm not mistaken, current uniform was modified in 2000 and is known as Soldier 2000. The DPM remained the same. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Rob cowie 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Not last time I checked. What's your source? The entire uniform section is really in need of a clean up and perhaps a separate page. Currently it reads like part promotional brochure, part enthusiast's ramblings.
For example: "At least six different disrupted pattern materials (DPM) are in use by British Armed Forces." This is completely untrue and the source cited is an airsoft enthusiasts' website.
Soldier 2000 is a fiction drempt up by surplus stores and Airsofters [1] note the document's date.
Soldier 2000 is a name used by shops, its not an actual official british army system. 134.36.93.46 ( talk) 15:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It says here that it is regarded as the least reliable, when it contradicts it with saying the 62,000 rounds were fired without a stoppage?, the mood from most people who have fired it and the previous models is that it is very reliable when compared withe the L85A1. King nothing 13:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?
"the L86A2’s LSW's accuracy is so great that it’s primary role within many infantry sections has shifted to that of a marksman's weapon"
yeah its true. It was never a good LSW anyway, but the heavier barrel and weight in particular makes it much better as a designated marksmans weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 ( talk) 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of this section reads: "The General Purpose Machine Gun can be used as a light machine gun (bipod) or heavy machine gun (tripod)". The first sentence of the next section states: "The heavy machine gun of the British Army is a version of the M2 Browning".
This is obviously contradictory.
I would suggest changing the sentence to something like: "The General Purpose Machine Gun can be used as a light machinegun (with bipod), or medium machine gun (with tripod) - known as the 'Sustained Fire'(SF) role in modern parlance".
84.130.74.226 22:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Does the Minimi light machine gun need two men to man it if you are using the belt feed.
12 June 2006
Why is there jibberish about Cadets after a few of the Weapon descriptions. The Article is about the British Army, not about untrained civilian Cadets.
Because the cadets are run and funded by the TA, which is the army - for the purpouse of army recruitment 134.36.93.46 ( talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Run and funded by the TA? where did that gem of wisdom come from? RFCAs (ex TAVRA) support the real estate for both organisations but TA budgets are nothing to do with the cadets. Cadet officers hold TA Gp 'B' commissions - the same as UOTCs - separate from real TA with no callup obligation and no MATTs requirement, nothing to do with the TA chain of command. NetherSarum ( talk) 16:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I am more than happy to create a specification template so that each weapon/item could be grouped?
Whats the watches thoughts on this? " TheNose | Talk" 16:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If each weapon already has a main specification page then why not just link to that? This page can then include only the use/role within the British Army? -- Mlongcake 11:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Why are we including Helmet Mk6 under Small Arms and Support Weapons?
Also, is a Four-man fire team really a weapon? -- Mlongcake 11:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I've heard that they were made Royal Small Arms. Are they being made by BAE Land Systems or are they being bought straight from HK? 70.68.55.148 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The Cougar and Mastiff point to the same page. Is this correct and should there be separate entries for both? Better to put Cougar/Mastiff or something? David.j.james 12:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm suggesting that we need to have a complete revision of this article and decide what template we wish to adopt and what range we want the subject to cover. I'd like to see the following points addressed - 1. Removal of withdrawn kit like RGGS and LAW80 - They're not used anymore and this is an article on modern kit. 2. Appropriate referencing - the British Army Website is not sufficient as this is badly out of date (still talks about Soldier 95 ffs.) 3. Creation of a Personal Equipment Section. To include clothing, helmets, CBA (+osprey/kestral), PLCE, etc. I know it's not as gucci as talking about the shiny guns and tanks, but it is one of the most vital. 4. Running out of ideas. Anyone else....
Vance2038 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
195.128.251.55 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)sy philis - should we be removing mention of northern ireland operations from this page as they are now offically over?
Vance - Combat Soldier 95 is still current for Numbers 8 and 9 dress [2]. Soldier 2000 is a surplus store and Airsoft term for some of the new/revised items (eg the new field jacket).
I have read the British Army has purchased about 150 of these for Afghanistan ,they are also using R.N. phalanx CWIS foR anti rocket defence . As I am new to this forum can anyone add this to the item or expand on it ? Jamessweney ( talk) 09:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a new uniform being issued to soldiers of the British army. All info on that weblink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.186.58 ( talk) 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The title gives the expectation of an explanation or a list of modern equipment but it appears to be about Current equipment of the British Army which is not the same thing. Should it be moved? MilborneOne ( talk) 19:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
good point. modern would suggest weapons used in the modern era, contemporary or current is better. 71.194.44.209 ( talk) 05:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the UAV section could use some clean up, and perhaps verification of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.134.51 ( talk) 01:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I added a section of a detailed equipment table found from the history of the British Army article. It was suggested that the table be incorporated into this article and not the British Army article. I added only a small section of it to give an idea of what it would look like. Any thoughts? Recon.Army ( talk) 12:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Name | Origin | Type | Number [1] [2] | Photo | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Artillery | ||||||
AS90 | ![]() |
Self propelled 155mm howitzer | 116-134 | AS90 is a 155mm self-propelled gun that equips six Field Regiments of the Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Artillery. | ||
L118 Light Gun | ![]() |
Towed 105mm howitzer | 138 | ![]() |
The versatile 105 mm Light Gun is used by the Parachute and Commando Field Artillery Regiments of the British Army. | |
MLRS | ![]() |
Rocket artillery | 42 | The state of the art Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS), nicknamed the '70 km Sniper', provides pinpoint accuracy delivering a 200 lb high explosive warhead to its target, with twice the range of other artillery systems used by the British Army. | ||
Rapier FSC Missile System | ![]() |
Surface-to-air missile | 24 | ![]() |
Rapier Field Standard C is a technologically advanced Short Range Air Defence System (SHORAD) and is in service with the Royal Artillery | |
Starstreak HVM | ![]() |
High Velocity Missile | 229 | ![]() |
The Starstreak HVM (High Velocity Missile) is designed to counter threats from very high performance, low-flying aircraft and fast 'pop up' strikes by helicopter attacks. | |
L16 81mm Mortar | ![]() |
Mortar | 2,093 | ![]() |
Mortar is a Battlegroup level indirect fire weapon which is capable of providing accurate High Explosive, smoke and illuminating rounds out to a maximum range of 5,650m | |
L9A1 51 mm Light Mortar | ![]() |
Mortar | 470 | |||
Total Artillery pieces and Mortar 3,112 |
In the 'Infantry Section Equipment' section under 'Weapons', the 5th entry mentions an '84mm Anti-Tank Gun'. It is not included further up the article, so unless it is another type of '84mm Anti-Tank Gun, this weapon was replaced by LAW 80 in the er, 80s, I don't think it should be here at all.
RASAM ( talk) 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Why nothing on hand grenades? Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 14:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added extra info stating that there is a 400 strong fleet of challenger 2's, but the other 173 are on reserve or storage. Yes, i know there is no additonal link to a resource because my resource was military programme, which obviously you cant link to. would appreciate it if this was kept as it is info people should know.
Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.172.141 ( talk) 16:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The entry for this weapon references an article which states that it was beaten in the competition to meet the Sharpshooter requirement (LEI weapon now known as L129A1 won) so in no way confirms the HK417 is in UK service. There are other references elsewhere that at least back up the entry but I do not rate 'mainstream media's' ability to correctly identify weapons. A lot of 'sources' on UK HK417s come back to Wikipedia so does anyone have more convincing evidence? Really needs an 'L' number quoting (L119A1 for C8 SFW so there should be one if true) otherwise it's straying more towards wishful thinking IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.118.199 ( talk) 21:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The British Army website states no vehicle called the Buffalo. Phd8511 ( talk) 21:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Should there be an update of how the Sig pistols are being replaced by the Glock 17 4th generation? Thank you ( TheGreenwalker ( talk) 10:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC))
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543694/MoD-spent-millions-pounds-6-000-pistols-ditched-just-five-years.html
The citation found here:
States that certain vehicles have more than are currently included on the page. These could easily be updated however there is a degree of unsureness to this. The numbers in the link are "purchased since 2006" while our current most used link is "numbers as of September 2013."
So on one hand it could be seen as "we acquired X many since 2006 and as of Sep 2013 the numbers dropped to what we have now" or it could be "We had this many in Sep 2013 but have since purchased more to bring up to the numbers in the most recent source."
My gut tells me that it's perhaps best to keep the numbers as they are right now. As the "since 2006" isn't accounting for any vehicles lost over that time or simply put out of service for spare parts, but I felt it best to check regardless on what everyone else thinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE - In hindsight, I have rethought about this and come to the conclusion that the numbers in the above citation SHOULD be used when thinking about it from a wikipedia standpoint. The latest source says (for example) "450 Mastiffs" as being purchased. The last known amount on September 2013 was 442. While we can ASSUME that they PROBABLY didn't buy more since then and 8 were MAYBE put out of service...we cannot KNOW this, if you follow me. By wikipedia, we must operate with the most up to date cited knowledge. If the numbers are indeed lower (as they probably are, we just can't prove it) then we will no doubt know very soon next time the Parliment Publications come around. Until then we have to work with what we've got that is most recent in leu of up to date knowledge. I have edited the article as such, although it is not exactly a large change anyway. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheFuzzyOne (
talk •
contribs)
20:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
A thought had occured to me. The Royal Marines have a page for their landing craft; however they have no page for their unique weaponry such as the Fighting Knife, AW-50 anti-material rifle, ski-dos and (I suspect) the Hippo vehicle recently added onto this page.
A small section at the bottom of this could integrate it in? Or perhaps a fully new page? Maybe even completely edit the Landing Craft page to include ALL Royal Marine equipment? That latter one would be my biggest idea.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 February 2014 (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 blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\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 11:50, 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
19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This page is about modern equipment of the British Forces, not that from the era of the SLR and SMG, references provided should reflect this. 80.1.107.208 ( talk) 16:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include the special forces weapons? I ask this because there are almost no reliable sources on the net which provide accurate information on UK special forces weapons. The bulk of special forces equipment is classified and highly secretive, therefore we will never know the full extent of their armouries. In my opinion, I think we should stick to the standard issue weapons that are used by the regular forces and not mention speculation about special forces weapons. What do you guys think? Antiochus the Great ( talk) 13:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the British Army's TPz Fuchs and the Joint CBRN Regiment were disbanded, with the RAF taking complete control of the UKs Chemical and Biological warfare department. The TPz Fuchs is also no-longer listed at the official British Army website. I think it is about time we remove the vehicle from the list. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 13:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Phd8511 ( talk) 10:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Alvis Shielder is no longer in the ORBAT. That document is oudated. And no that parliamentary info is only in 2010 Phd8511 ( talk) 10:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC).
See page 158.
Phd8511 ( talk) 12:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
and not blogs!
Phd8511 ( talk) 19:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/50-million-armoured-vehicles-fleet-support-contract-awarded
Challenger 2: 227
Challenger Recovery Vehicle: 75
Bulldog: 880
Warrior: 781
Panther: 398
Trojan: 33
Titan: 33
CVR(T): 654
Phd8511 ( talk) 17:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Modern equipment of the British Army. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
http://www.janes.com/article/58712/british-army-ditches-warthog-armoured-vehicle
News says British Army has ditched the Warthog.
is only in service with the Royal Marines not the Army anymore. Warthog, as per parliamentary Q&A, has been withdrawn from the BA's service.
Cantab1985 ( talk) 08:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I made some extensive changes (i.e clean up) to the vehicle tables in an attempt to bring them more inline with the guidelines at WP:MOSFLAG, MOS:TABLES and MOS:LIST. I also brought the aircraft table fully inline with WP:AVLIST. Cheers. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 18:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Modern equipment of the British Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://ttps%3a//data.gov.uk/data/contracts-finder-archive/download/1343331/7f65635d-4400-4a15-bdf7-1a9294429f9c%20%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dsg{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/10/11/uk-army-extend-life-challenger-2-new-tank-too-costly/73410010/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Why nothing on the Black Hornet Nano? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessPavarocks ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of equipment of the British Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of equipment of the British Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I was looking at the list of British weapon L numbers and noticed that "L130" is "missing" (there are others, but that's beside the point). For whatever reason, I looked it up, and found this and this, which lists an "L110A3 Light Machine Gun" and an "L130A1 7.62 mm Light Machine Gun".
Obviously, the L110A3 is a 5.56 mm Minimi Para variant, though what's different about it, it doesn't say, and I couldn't find anywhere else (although it is listed on this very article). I did find this, which lists upgrades to the L110A2: Savit collapsible buttstock, Picatinny rails on the top cover and handguard, et cetera. It doesn't, however, mention a different designation (which could be because it's from 2012). (There is also this Arma 3 mod that lists an L110A3 (with similar upgrades), but whether they've assumed it has a separate designation, have insider info or what, I don't know.)
As for the L130A1, I also couldn't find anything on which 7.62 mm light[weight] MG it is, but the one that comes to mind is the Minimi 7.62, which is in service with the army.
If anyone has any definitive sources, it would be great to hear it. Thanks in advance, RadiculousJ ( talk) 18:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
http://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/2980-precision-vs-suppression.html
PRECISION VS SUPPRESSION The British Army has dropped the 5.56mm x 45mm Light Machine Gun (LMG) from the infantry section, pending confirmation from the Army Headquarters later in the year, a senior source has disclosed.
Addressing delegates at the Future Soldier Technology conference in London on 13 March, Lt.Col. Nick Serle, Commanding Officer of the British Army’s Infantry Trials and Development Unit (ITDU) explained how the LMG was being replaced with an L85A2 or A3 assault rifle, also in 5.56x45mm calibre. The news follows consideration of multiple methods to suppress targets in a firefight over the past two years.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 11:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone got a better source for the AX-50 being adopted? Because the one provided keeps pinging my antivirus' web shield. LostCause231 ( talk) 13:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The Ministry of Defence has purchased 386 Challenger 2 tanks plus 22 driver training tanks based on the Challenger 2 chassis. Of these, 80 have been disposed of through commercial means.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 06:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
L84 White phosphorus smoke grenades
BlueD954 ( talk) 10:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
BlueD954 ( talk) 15:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
It is about time that this article had a good scrubbing and was really bought up to quality. Currently there is a lot of statements that have no source (apart from personal experience), or dodgy sources (e.g. Daily Star). These are not compliant with Wiki policies and really need to be fixed. I'm also re-scrubbing the main British Army page to ensure it stays as GA level and it would be good to have this page compliment the main one. I intend to cut out anything unverifiable and try to cite references for personal experience - this may mean some things get moved/changed and differ from what serving members see day to day. Please discuss any issues here and we can discuss what is and is not included. Stingray Trainer ( talk) 16:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of equipment of the British 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 List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should the Future equipment section include equipment that has been/is being trialled, as I'm sure the Army trials hundreds of different things? I think it should just include equipment that has been ordered/planned to be in service. BritishSpaniard ( talk) 03:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Why no mention of it? Spartan198 13:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You mean apart from here? TangoSixZero ( talk) 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The page lists the "FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank weapon", but when you click the link the page for that says "For the British Javelin missile see Javelin surface-to-air missile." So either somebody has put the wrong Javelin down on this page, or the British Army uses the American missile as well and the page needs to list both. Which is it?
If I'm not mistaken, current uniform was modified in 2000 and is known as Soldier 2000. The DPM remained the same. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Rob cowie 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Not last time I checked. What's your source? The entire uniform section is really in need of a clean up and perhaps a separate page. Currently it reads like part promotional brochure, part enthusiast's ramblings.
For example: "At least six different disrupted pattern materials (DPM) are in use by British Armed Forces." This is completely untrue and the source cited is an airsoft enthusiasts' website.
Soldier 2000 is a fiction drempt up by surplus stores and Airsofters [1] note the document's date.
Soldier 2000 is a name used by shops, its not an actual official british army system. 134.36.93.46 ( talk) 15:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It says here that it is regarded as the least reliable, when it contradicts it with saying the 62,000 rounds were fired without a stoppage?, the mood from most people who have fired it and the previous models is that it is very reliable when compared withe the L85A1. King nothing 13:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?
"the L86A2’s LSW's accuracy is so great that it’s primary role within many infantry sections has shifted to that of a marksman's weapon"
yeah its true. It was never a good LSW anyway, but the heavier barrel and weight in particular makes it much better as a designated marksmans weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 ( talk) 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of this section reads: "The General Purpose Machine Gun can be used as a light machine gun (bipod) or heavy machine gun (tripod)". The first sentence of the next section states: "The heavy machine gun of the British Army is a version of the M2 Browning".
This is obviously contradictory.
I would suggest changing the sentence to something like: "The General Purpose Machine Gun can be used as a light machinegun (with bipod), or medium machine gun (with tripod) - known as the 'Sustained Fire'(SF) role in modern parlance".
84.130.74.226 22:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Does the Minimi light machine gun need two men to man it if you are using the belt feed.
12 June 2006
Why is there jibberish about Cadets after a few of the Weapon descriptions. The Article is about the British Army, not about untrained civilian Cadets.
Because the cadets are run and funded by the TA, which is the army - for the purpouse of army recruitment 134.36.93.46 ( talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Run and funded by the TA? where did that gem of wisdom come from? RFCAs (ex TAVRA) support the real estate for both organisations but TA budgets are nothing to do with the cadets. Cadet officers hold TA Gp 'B' commissions - the same as UOTCs - separate from real TA with no callup obligation and no MATTs requirement, nothing to do with the TA chain of command. NetherSarum ( talk) 16:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I am more than happy to create a specification template so that each weapon/item could be grouped?
Whats the watches thoughts on this? " TheNose | Talk" 16:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If each weapon already has a main specification page then why not just link to that? This page can then include only the use/role within the British Army? -- Mlongcake 11:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Why are we including Helmet Mk6 under Small Arms and Support Weapons?
Also, is a Four-man fire team really a weapon? -- Mlongcake 11:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I've heard that they were made Royal Small Arms. Are they being made by BAE Land Systems or are they being bought straight from HK? 70.68.55.148 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The Cougar and Mastiff point to the same page. Is this correct and should there be separate entries for both? Better to put Cougar/Mastiff or something? David.j.james 12:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm suggesting that we need to have a complete revision of this article and decide what template we wish to adopt and what range we want the subject to cover. I'd like to see the following points addressed - 1. Removal of withdrawn kit like RGGS and LAW80 - They're not used anymore and this is an article on modern kit. 2. Appropriate referencing - the British Army Website is not sufficient as this is badly out of date (still talks about Soldier 95 ffs.) 3. Creation of a Personal Equipment Section. To include clothing, helmets, CBA (+osprey/kestral), PLCE, etc. I know it's not as gucci as talking about the shiny guns and tanks, but it is one of the most vital. 4. Running out of ideas. Anyone else....
Vance2038 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
195.128.251.55 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)sy philis - should we be removing mention of northern ireland operations from this page as they are now offically over?
Vance - Combat Soldier 95 is still current for Numbers 8 and 9 dress [2]. Soldier 2000 is a surplus store and Airsoft term for some of the new/revised items (eg the new field jacket).
I have read the British Army has purchased about 150 of these for Afghanistan ,they are also using R.N. phalanx CWIS foR anti rocket defence . As I am new to this forum can anyone add this to the item or expand on it ? Jamessweney ( talk) 09:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a new uniform being issued to soldiers of the British army. All info on that weblink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.186.58 ( talk) 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The title gives the expectation of an explanation or a list of modern equipment but it appears to be about Current equipment of the British Army which is not the same thing. Should it be moved? MilborneOne ( talk) 19:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
good point. modern would suggest weapons used in the modern era, contemporary or current is better. 71.194.44.209 ( talk) 05:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the UAV section could use some clean up, and perhaps verification of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.134.51 ( talk) 01:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I added a section of a detailed equipment table found from the history of the British Army article. It was suggested that the table be incorporated into this article and not the British Army article. I added only a small section of it to give an idea of what it would look like. Any thoughts? Recon.Army ( talk) 12:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Name | Origin | Type | Number [1] [2] | Photo | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Artillery | ||||||
AS90 | ![]() |
Self propelled 155mm howitzer | 116-134 | AS90 is a 155mm self-propelled gun that equips six Field Regiments of the Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Artillery. | ||
L118 Light Gun | ![]() |
Towed 105mm howitzer | 138 | ![]() |
The versatile 105 mm Light Gun is used by the Parachute and Commando Field Artillery Regiments of the British Army. | |
MLRS | ![]() |
Rocket artillery | 42 | The state of the art Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS), nicknamed the '70 km Sniper', provides pinpoint accuracy delivering a 200 lb high explosive warhead to its target, with twice the range of other artillery systems used by the British Army. | ||
Rapier FSC Missile System | ![]() |
Surface-to-air missile | 24 | ![]() |
Rapier Field Standard C is a technologically advanced Short Range Air Defence System (SHORAD) and is in service with the Royal Artillery | |
Starstreak HVM | ![]() |
High Velocity Missile | 229 | ![]() |
The Starstreak HVM (High Velocity Missile) is designed to counter threats from very high performance, low-flying aircraft and fast 'pop up' strikes by helicopter attacks. | |
L16 81mm Mortar | ![]() |
Mortar | 2,093 | ![]() |
Mortar is a Battlegroup level indirect fire weapon which is capable of providing accurate High Explosive, smoke and illuminating rounds out to a maximum range of 5,650m | |
L9A1 51 mm Light Mortar | ![]() |
Mortar | 470 | |||
Total Artillery pieces and Mortar 3,112 |
In the 'Infantry Section Equipment' section under 'Weapons', the 5th entry mentions an '84mm Anti-Tank Gun'. It is not included further up the article, so unless it is another type of '84mm Anti-Tank Gun, this weapon was replaced by LAW 80 in the er, 80s, I don't think it should be here at all.
RASAM ( talk) 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Why nothing on hand grenades? Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 14:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have added extra info stating that there is a 400 strong fleet of challenger 2's, but the other 173 are on reserve or storage. Yes, i know there is no additonal link to a resource because my resource was military programme, which obviously you cant link to. would appreciate it if this was kept as it is info people should know.
Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.172.141 ( talk) 16:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The entry for this weapon references an article which states that it was beaten in the competition to meet the Sharpshooter requirement (LEI weapon now known as L129A1 won) so in no way confirms the HK417 is in UK service. There are other references elsewhere that at least back up the entry but I do not rate 'mainstream media's' ability to correctly identify weapons. A lot of 'sources' on UK HK417s come back to Wikipedia so does anyone have more convincing evidence? Really needs an 'L' number quoting (L119A1 for C8 SFW so there should be one if true) otherwise it's straying more towards wishful thinking IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.118.199 ( talk) 21:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The British Army website states no vehicle called the Buffalo. Phd8511 ( talk) 21:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Should there be an update of how the Sig pistols are being replaced by the Glock 17 4th generation? Thank you ( TheGreenwalker ( talk) 10:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC))
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543694/MoD-spent-millions-pounds-6-000-pistols-ditched-just-five-years.html
The citation found here:
States that certain vehicles have more than are currently included on the page. These could easily be updated however there is a degree of unsureness to this. The numbers in the link are "purchased since 2006" while our current most used link is "numbers as of September 2013."
So on one hand it could be seen as "we acquired X many since 2006 and as of Sep 2013 the numbers dropped to what we have now" or it could be "We had this many in Sep 2013 but have since purchased more to bring up to the numbers in the most recent source."
My gut tells me that it's perhaps best to keep the numbers as they are right now. As the "since 2006" isn't accounting for any vehicles lost over that time or simply put out of service for spare parts, but I felt it best to check regardless on what everyone else thinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE - In hindsight, I have rethought about this and come to the conclusion that the numbers in the above citation SHOULD be used when thinking about it from a wikipedia standpoint. The latest source says (for example) "450 Mastiffs" as being purchased. The last known amount on September 2013 was 442. While we can ASSUME that they PROBABLY didn't buy more since then and 8 were MAYBE put out of service...we cannot KNOW this, if you follow me. By wikipedia, we must operate with the most up to date cited knowledge. If the numbers are indeed lower (as they probably are, we just can't prove it) then we will no doubt know very soon next time the Parliment Publications come around. Until then we have to work with what we've got that is most recent in leu of up to date knowledge. I have edited the article as such, although it is not exactly a large change anyway. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheFuzzyOne (
talk •
contribs)
20:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
A thought had occured to me. The Royal Marines have a page for their landing craft; however they have no page for their unique weaponry such as the Fighting Knife, AW-50 anti-material rifle, ski-dos and (I suspect) the Hippo vehicle recently added onto this page.
A small section at the bottom of this could integrate it in? Or perhaps a fully new page? Maybe even completely edit the Landing Craft page to include ALL Royal Marine equipment? That latter one would be my biggest idea.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 February 2014 (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 blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\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 11:50, 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
19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This page is about modern equipment of the British Forces, not that from the era of the SLR and SMG, references provided should reflect this. 80.1.107.208 ( talk) 16:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include the special forces weapons? I ask this because there are almost no reliable sources on the net which provide accurate information on UK special forces weapons. The bulk of special forces equipment is classified and highly secretive, therefore we will never know the full extent of their armouries. In my opinion, I think we should stick to the standard issue weapons that are used by the regular forces and not mention speculation about special forces weapons. What do you guys think? Antiochus the Great ( talk) 13:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the British Army's TPz Fuchs and the Joint CBRN Regiment were disbanded, with the RAF taking complete control of the UKs Chemical and Biological warfare department. The TPz Fuchs is also no-longer listed at the official British Army website. I think it is about time we remove the vehicle from the list. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 13:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Phd8511 ( talk) 10:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Alvis Shielder is no longer in the ORBAT. That document is oudated. And no that parliamentary info is only in 2010 Phd8511 ( talk) 10:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC).
See page 158.
Phd8511 ( talk) 12:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
and not blogs!
Phd8511 ( talk) 19:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/50-million-armoured-vehicles-fleet-support-contract-awarded
Challenger 2: 227
Challenger Recovery Vehicle: 75
Bulldog: 880
Warrior: 781
Panther: 398
Trojan: 33
Titan: 33
CVR(T): 654
Phd8511 ( talk) 17:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Modern equipment of the British Army. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
http://www.janes.com/article/58712/british-army-ditches-warthog-armoured-vehicle
News says British Army has ditched the Warthog.
is only in service with the Royal Marines not the Army anymore. Warthog, as per parliamentary Q&A, has been withdrawn from the BA's service.
Cantab1985 ( talk) 08:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I made some extensive changes (i.e clean up) to the vehicle tables in an attempt to bring them more inline with the guidelines at WP:MOSFLAG, MOS:TABLES and MOS:LIST. I also brought the aircraft table fully inline with WP:AVLIST. Cheers. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 18:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Modern equipment of the British Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://ttps%3a//data.gov.uk/data/contracts-finder-archive/download/1343331/7f65635d-4400-4a15-bdf7-1a9294429f9c%20%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dsg{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/10/11/uk-army-extend-life-challenger-2-new-tank-too-costly/73410010/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Why nothing on the Black Hornet Nano? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessPavarocks ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of equipment of the British Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of equipment of the British Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I was looking at the list of British weapon L numbers and noticed that "L130" is "missing" (there are others, but that's beside the point). For whatever reason, I looked it up, and found this and this, which lists an "L110A3 Light Machine Gun" and an "L130A1 7.62 mm Light Machine Gun".
Obviously, the L110A3 is a 5.56 mm Minimi Para variant, though what's different about it, it doesn't say, and I couldn't find anywhere else (although it is listed on this very article). I did find this, which lists upgrades to the L110A2: Savit collapsible buttstock, Picatinny rails on the top cover and handguard, et cetera. It doesn't, however, mention a different designation (which could be because it's from 2012). (There is also this Arma 3 mod that lists an L110A3 (with similar upgrades), but whether they've assumed it has a separate designation, have insider info or what, I don't know.)
As for the L130A1, I also couldn't find anything on which 7.62 mm light[weight] MG it is, but the one that comes to mind is the Minimi 7.62, which is in service with the army.
If anyone has any definitive sources, it would be great to hear it. Thanks in advance, RadiculousJ ( talk) 18:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
http://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/2980-precision-vs-suppression.html
PRECISION VS SUPPRESSION The British Army has dropped the 5.56mm x 45mm Light Machine Gun (LMG) from the infantry section, pending confirmation from the Army Headquarters later in the year, a senior source has disclosed.
Addressing delegates at the Future Soldier Technology conference in London on 13 March, Lt.Col. Nick Serle, Commanding Officer of the British Army’s Infantry Trials and Development Unit (ITDU) explained how the LMG was being replaced with an L85A2 or A3 assault rifle, also in 5.56x45mm calibre. The news follows consideration of multiple methods to suppress targets in a firefight over the past two years.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 11:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone got a better source for the AX-50 being adopted? Because the one provided keeps pinging my antivirus' web shield. LostCause231 ( talk) 13:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The Ministry of Defence has purchased 386 Challenger 2 tanks plus 22 driver training tanks based on the Challenger 2 chassis. Of these, 80 have been disposed of through commercial means.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 06:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
L84 White phosphorus smoke grenades
BlueD954 ( talk) 10:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
BlueD954 ( talk) 15:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
It is about time that this article had a good scrubbing and was really bought up to quality. Currently there is a lot of statements that have no source (apart from personal experience), or dodgy sources (e.g. Daily Star). These are not compliant with Wiki policies and really need to be fixed. I'm also re-scrubbing the main British Army page to ensure it stays as GA level and it would be good to have this page compliment the main one. I intend to cut out anything unverifiable and try to cite references for personal experience - this may mean some things get moved/changed and differ from what serving members see day to day. Please discuss any issues here and we can discuss what is and is not included. Stingray Trainer ( talk) 16:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)