Wikipedia

Talk:Structure of the British Army

(Redirected from Talk:Administrative structure of the field forces of the British Army)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Buckshot06 in topic Vote on bringing over sandbox information
Learn more about this page

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Administrative structure of the field forces 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

FOIA Orbat edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/615377/2017-02130.pdf

Some more open access informationJessPavarocks (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Administrative structure of the field forces 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Further British Army Field Army restructure edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

(see also long thread at User_talk:Noclador#Latest British Army restructure, began 31 July 2019.) Buckshot06 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/army-restructures-to-confront-evolving-threats

BlueD954 (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the original source is gone but there's a mirror here https://www.miragenews.com/army-restructures-to-confront-evolving-threats/

BlueD954 (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'll post unit changes here now starting with 2 and 8 Rifles shifting to 51st Brigade from 38th and both R IRISH battalions moving to 11th Infantry and 1 and 6 RFILES moving from 160th Brigade to 7th Infantry, see [1] but not sure if this is a verifiable wiki source. BlueD954 (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
So 102nd Brigade, once destined for disbandment circa 2018, lives [2]. BlueD954 (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
160th Infantry Brigade is now 160th (Welsh) Brigade but not via a verifiable source. https://twitter.com/ArmyComd160X/status/1158777241305866240 BlueD954 (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/594331/response/1418165/attach/3/20190819%20FOI09043%20Lai%20102%20Log%20Bde%20Response%20Letter%20ArmySec.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 Edit to above. New FOIA confirms 102nd Logistic Brigade will still disband as planned. BlueD954 (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/field_army_restructuring_battlio#incoming-1430033 Already posted just FYI. BlueD954 (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 18 August 2019 edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus. The RM has been relisted once, and there doesn't seem to be any agreement on any chosen title. I suggest those who participated in the RM see if they can come to any agreement, and then bring back an alternative title in a fresh RM if they wish.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply


Administrative structure of the field forces of the British Army → Operational Structure of the British Army – Clearly from the information here, this is hardly the Administrative structure of just the British Army's Field Army. Administrative forces are like Guards Division, Scottish, Welsh and Irish Division, King's Division etc. There is already Structure of the British Army which details changes of the British Army over time due to reforms. So I suggest a title like 'Operational Structure of the British Army' BlueD954 (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Or you could suggest a more appropriate name? @Dormskirk:, @Noclador:, @Buckshot06:, @Thx811: @Nick-D: and others.

BlueD954 (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Comment: First: thank you BlueD954. The title of this article is erroneous and it is time we move it to a more appropriate title. As for me: I would prefer that this article be moved to Structure of the British Army as:
  • it definitely is not the "Administrative structure" and
  • as all other current structures of armies can be found at "Structure of the (German/French/Italian etc.) Army".
And then I would move the current article at Structure of the British Army to Administrative Structure of the British Army and then add the regional commands. If that is not feasible I am in favor of moving this article to Operational Structure of the British Army. noclador (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I would support moving this article to Structure of the British Army to replace the article that is currently there. Dormskirk (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
That structure details the changes over time which I believe has value. As Noclador says, first rename that to the administrative forces, then name this to something more appropriate since it covers (almost) the full structure and change the heading paragraphs to state so.
Oppose. This pages does *not* list anything much to do with *operations*!! An operational structure would start from DCMO, then PJHQ with or without Joint Forces Command, then the individual named operations in Afghanistan, Iraq etc etc etc, under the two-star in PJHQ that deals with operations. I have just re-added the operations-at-home chain of command running to SJC (UK), another hat for Commander Home Command.
This is an administrative listing of forces under their home commands (yes, a bit more operational that divisions of infantry, but still not operational)!! Also, I would strongly disagree with trying to merge it with 'Structure' which has much more contextual detail. The reason we have two pages for the British Army while other armies have one is that we have a much greater developed set of English-language resources on the British Army. We should be moving towards more detailed listing on the British model for other armies, not trying to straitjacket the greater amount of data available on the British Army into the non-English languages model!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Joint Forces Commmand does not direct forces neither does PJHQ - those are allocated to any on-scene commanders. Neither CJO or DCDS (Mil Strate and Operations) direct forces either. None of these are adminstrative forces; these list almost all the British Forces from the two main commands, Field Army and British Army. The other page Structure of the British Army is a long history of the changing forces under commmands and corps, and is more about 'administrative' moves, detailing not just Army 2020/Army 2020 Refine, but previous defence reforms. This thus isn't 'Adminstrative' at all. If not 'Operations' suggest another name. BlueD954 (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Further comment: - This British Army graphic exctly reflects what this page states--the structure of the British Army from Field Army and Home Command, except it erroneously states Army Recruting Training Division which is now 'Army Recruiting and Initial Training Command'. Structure of the British Army gives a long-winded historical list of Commands, Corps, Regiments of the British Army and how it changes with the defence reforms. BlueD954 (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
The 'on-scene commanders' report to the Chief of Staff (Operations), the two star in PJHQ that is "responsible for the planning and execution of operations". Fourth paragraph under 'our execution and responsibilities'. Think about it- the on-scene commanders have to report to someone in the British Isles, yes? The COS (Ops) is that person. The COS (Ops) reports to CJO, and CJO to JFC, JFC to CDS. For more about the history of that structure before PJHQ, see Beevor, 'Inside the British Army'; for the tangles in PJHQ trying to run operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, see Elliott, 'High Command' sample link suggesting PJHQ should be merged back into MOD main building, or Ledwidge, 'Losing Small Wars.'
But renaming this page? List of field forces of the British Army? Just do not put 'operations' anywhere near this page, unless you want me to remove the 'Army forces under joint commands' at the bottom. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with you over the commands of the forces but hate debating. Have not checked who added the forces under joint commands here and again the exact on-scene commanders are debatable. Have changed the introduction to indicate this list units (not forces!) under the two main 'commands'--field army and home command. By all means, and others please comment, remove the joint commands but put them here on the talk page. I don't agree with the title 'field forces' - this includes home command units -- so no to that name. Can others please join in? BlueD954 (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
As this article contains all the actual combat formations of the British Army (and not its complicated administrative organization) I want this article renamed. And the new name should be begin with "Structure". So for me: "Structure of the British Army" would be ideal... if that is not an option then: "Structure of the British Field Army" or "Structure of the of field forces of the British Army" would do. (Although the later is unwieldy long). noclador (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Noclador is correct - this is a List of combat formations of the British Army. Can you explain why it has to have the word 'Structure' in it? But yes I'd be happy with Structure of the field forces of the British Army. BlueD954, I'll post on your talkpage regarding operational command chain, and yes, I added the forces under joint commands; it's a side issue to what most are interested in here, clearly. (I do find this baffling, because CJO & COS (Ops) *manage the wars* for the Army!!). Buckshot06 (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I say again I hate arguing to death over who does what. I'm not going to agree with you. But clearly from the start, I fail to see this as Administrative. All the arguments after was pedantic and not helpful at all. I will let others choose the title but the current title is clearly inappropriate for along period of time. If you believe command A belongs to A, why wasn't this changed long ago? Reply here, not on mine please.BlueD954 (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
The issue is that at this level of detail, there is (a) the 'administrative' corps/regiments of the British Army - the divisions of infantry that you correctly identified; (b) the formations of the British Army, yes, operational in chunks - individual brigades and if maybe the Russians invade Estonia & Latvia, maybe even 3 Div, but not overall, because Commander Field Army will not deploy (thus my justification for using the term administrative), and (c) the fully operational side in which CDS directs JFC directs CJO directs COS (Ops). So that was my justification for moving the page to it's current title.
Why haven't I created Operational structure of the British Army? Because I've never thought of it, and it would be too much work. It would be two chunks : Standing Joint Commander (UK), with hardly anyone under his command most of the time; and CJO, with the list of named operations; eg Shader; Resolute Support Mission; the British Army deployment in S/Sudan; and all the other minor missions. But much of the data is not public, and is constantly changing. Many missions also would have RAF or RN commanders.. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
My reason to have this article renamed to an article beginning with "Structure of the " is that all other structures / order of battles of current armies (except for the Polish Army) also begin with "Structure of the ". (btw. Operational structure of the Polish Land Forces will have to be renamed as well as soon as the announced reform is being implemented). noclador (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Structure of the British Army will be renamed first. Usrs should not assume the high ground. 05:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)BlueD954 (talk)
I have said above "Also, I would strongly disagree with trying to merge it with 'Structure' which has much more contextual detail. The reason we have two pages for the British Army while other armies have one is that we have a much greater developed set of English-language resources on the British Army. We should be moving towards more detailed listing on the British model for other armies, not trying to straitjacket the greater amount of data available on the British Army into the non-English languages model  !!" The model for the other non-English armies does not apply here!! Quit trying to stick it into a straitjacket that does not properly apply!! Buckshot06 (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Why don't you quit trying to veer of debate? Clearly to average reader, none of this is administrative!!! BlueD954 (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I am not particularly wedded to 'administrative'; 'routine' was one of the alternatives I was wondering about. If Noclador wants everything to start with "Structure", maybe the alternative, if I am the only one holding out for a more complicated title, is to rename Structure of the British Army to 'Organisational hierarchy of the British Army' or some such, freeing that title, Str of the British Army, for this page.
I'm not particularly concerned with what the pages are named apart from avoiding any connotation that this whole article lists operational battle, command, arrangements; only the listings under Joint Forces Command are like that. So if we avoid 'operational' and we don't remove information from the encyclopedia by getting rid of the other page(s), I would be happy.. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

From Administrative to Operational Command edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There has to be a clarification. This title is 'Administrative structure of the field forces". Then the lead contains a huge explanation of PJHQ and Home Command more than that of 'field forces' which correctly is the Field Army. Make up your mind. Is this administrative? Dealing with budget, personnel, welfare? Is this operational? Why must there be a huge section on PJHQ explaining who commands what? It is getting ridiculous.

BlueD954 (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

How about adding how these 'administrative forces' are also delegated to NATO operations instead of PJHQ? BlueD954 (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ambigious edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"It may not always be apparent as to which Headquarters a given unit is working to, and care should be taken to establish the correct chain of command for any engagement."

So why then list Division-Brigade-Command? Might as well not which higher command they report to in their individual wikipedia pages. "Working to?" "and care should be taken to establish the correct chain of command" ? So basically, this statement says the whole list of units below is incorrect.

BlueD954 (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, the brigades/military districts, or these new Colonels NE/NW, could be reporting to Home Command / SJC (UK) - for home defence or foot & mouth - or Commander Field Army - individual/collective training.
Thank you for inserting the NATO Military Command Structure, not a PJHQ function.
The principle ambiguity is the brigades/districts while in garrison status; for switchover of forces to SJC (UK) for homeland security / defence functions, there's no guarantee that this transfer will be made public.
Each of the brigades / districts, or units within them, could have the whole org or bits of them reporting to one or both at the same time, probably promulgated by signal.
Maybe I should have written this all out a bit clearer. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
To use the Second World War terminology, there's GOC Home Forces for training for overseas (Commander Field Army), there's a second and additional GOC Home Forces for homeland operations (SJC UK / ComHC), and then there's the overseas commands (only one - CJO & PJHQ). Buckshot06 (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

New name is almost close to the Units of the British Army and suggestions edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

1) This new name is better than 'Administrative Structure of the Field Forces...' so good work.

2) But it is still close to the Units of the British Army page/article.

3) Work needs to be done to improve the lead sections/paragraphs of both pages. Ideally, they should be shorten, not give a thesis on how the British Army is commanded. This is Wikipedia, not the MOD Military Strategy and Operations Directorate.

4) Again, if you want to be pedantic over command structure and say no unit is never under one higher command any fixed command and any time, I suggest to move that information to the Permanent Joint Headquarters and British Armed Forces pages. Army 2020 or Army 2020 Refine contains information of future detailed structure. This page ideally should complement it, detailing at best battalion-level forces, not explain who commands what and no unit is under XYZ higher command due to ABC. If need be, remove the end sections of units under joint command. Those units have inidividual wiki pages detailing which joint command they fall under anyway.

5) Consider again a better name for this page or further rename the 'Units of the British Army' page. I support keeping both but clearly they provide ambigious and sometimes outdated information.

BlueD954 (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

People come here to look at not just the list of units, but where they fit into the overall structure. PJHQ would simply not be appropriate for the information about SJC (UK). In essence, we disagree about the reason for the page. I have noted with some disagreement your intense trimming of pages elsewhere, and I would much like to seek others' third opinions before any further changes of that type. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have just reverted BlueD954's unilateral removal, in the face of my opposition, of these command-and-control specifics. I have asked him to follow the normal WP:DR process and seek others' third opinions before doing so. @Dormskirk:, @Noclador:, @Kges1901:, @Thx811: @Nick-D: @Hawkeye7: what do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for raising a slightly different issue but I doubt that 3 Commando Brigade should be on the list: it is not an army unit - whether under joint command or otherwise. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Not sure I can be of much use here - the structure of the British Army (be that operational or administrative) isn't something I would consider myself to be especially knowledgeable on, it seems particularly complicated and full of unusual quirks. I would agree though that deciding what the page is actually meant to be showing would be a good start and then taking it from there. I don't see any problem with including army units which are under the command of others or joint units as long, as that is made clear that that is what they are. To miss them out doesn't really make sense. Thx811 (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

PJHQ PJHQ or List of units of the British Army edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Why dont we remove the whole orbat and rename this page as 'PJHQ commands the British Army'? Or is this a list of units?

Hell bent on ermanent Joint Headquarters ? Then edit there.

Reply here, rather than my talk page.

@Dormskirk:, @Noclador:

BlueD954 (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I would leave "Army units under joint commands" off the list completely. Dormskirk (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
BlueD954's statement is incorrect and incomplete; PJHQ is one of only three key three-star commands, which I explained a couple of sections above. I continue to wonder why BlueD954 is opposed to a couple of paragraphs without which one would not understand how the commands flow down the chain!!
Dormskirk's opinion however goes to the heart of the question - what do we want this page to be for? Noclador started it out as 'Operational Structure of the British Army', but listing only the brigades and their subordinate units in their garrison configuration. I added the 'Army units under joint commands,' which would tend to fit with the original title of the page - very definitely operational. I have tried twice to come up with a title that matches the garrison configuration that Noclador originally created, but been criticized several times for it.
We need to have an idea on what we want the page to list; then we can pick an appropriate title. The problem with 'Army units under joint commands' being removed is that one in doing so would remove the full listing of all Army units - some would be left off. Noclador's lists generally try and include *all* the particular army's units.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
When I do a list of an army, be it its command structure/ OrBat / etc. then I include ALL units of said army, even if they are detached to other commands/branches. The British Army is a tricky one... because some units are permanently detached to other commands (i.e. 29 Commando Regiment) and even the unit's name has lost the usual army nomenclature. If possible I would list these units under their higher army command (i.e. the Italian Army's 11th Transport Regiment "Flaminia" is permanently detached to the Defense General Staff, but I list it under the army's Central Logistic Grouping as that is the army unit responsible for keeping the regiment operational). But in the British case I have no clue under which army command falls i.e. 29 Commando Regiment, therefore the best case for me would be to create a section titled "Army units assigned to other branches" and under that list the relevant army units. noclador (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
"Army units assigned to other branches" is practically my "Army units under joint commands" though we may need to do some rewording. 29 Commando Regiment and the Commando Engineers are permanently operationally attached to 3 Commando Brigade; for army administration purposes the RA and RE arms directors are probably the points of contact - dealing mostly with personnel postings etc. Things however can always be reshuffled in a crisis - in the Falklands, two Para battalions of 5 Brigade were attached to 3 Commando Brigade before they shipped out, answering ultimately to Admiral Fieldhouse as the Task Force Commander. Joint commands again.. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I still disagree with this title edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

and say so.BlueD954 (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sub-structures edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do you think it would be ok if I added the sub-structures for the reserve units ie; 106 (West Riding) Field Squadron and 1 (Royal Buckinghamshire Hussars) Signal Squadron? MHist01 (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think that that would make it too busy - and would be a massive undertaking for all units. Dormskirk (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have added more sources to prove it is 25 CS Engineer Group edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

and not HQ Engineers, 3rd Division or any such name. Just because the source is dated does not mean it is accurate. BlueD954 (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you trust social media, look at this verified account. https://twitter.com/field_army/status/1156963119459184640 BlueD954 (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

1st Military Police Brigade position. edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I keep seeing the reference 'from FOI' or that sort that 1st Military Police Brigade has moved or will move to Regional Command. This must stop unless the full FOI is released online like others eg [3] or on verfiable websites. Stop shifting it. At best, is the British Army's website. Yes, 1st MP Brigade is dubious, but shfiting it to Regional Command is even weirder and wrong without any source or better sources.

BlueD954 (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Permanent Joint Operating Bases edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was about to commend BlueD954 for his move of British Forces Brunei to the listing under JFC, using references saying it is a PJOB, but it's a complicated question: in essence, as far as I am aware, PJOBs include the Falklands, Cyprus, and Gibraltar, but *not* Brunei, partially because the Sultan of Brunei pays for the upkeep costs of the Gurkha battalion there. However, it's a very logical assumption to make, and I will not roll it back; I'm just not sure it's right. Anyone who can crystal-clear clarify the command status of the Brunei garrison, or it's status as a PJOB, would be greatly welcomed!! Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I do not agree that Regional Command commands the BF Brunei Garrison. It says 'The Army’s 2* HQ enabling the delivery of a secure home front that sustains the Army, enables training for and deployment on operations, its personnel, their dependants in the UK, Nepal and Brunei and ensures the support of the public.' On first glance, one will take it as commanding UK units, those in Nepal and Brunei. But! Continue reading the website. Where does it list those units? It gives -UK Operations and Resilience, Civil Engagement and Army Welfare Service. None of which mention Brunei, Nepal or UK units. Conversely, we have [4] where GOC Regional Command is 'provides the necessary support to the successful delivery of both UK and overseas operations, and achieves the specified tasks in support of the achievement of Firm Base Outputs whilst managing the drawdown in Germany." Then we have [5] Chief of Staff JFC - 'Coordinates the outputs of the organisation and acts as TLB focus for Permanent Joint Operating Bases, and is the Senior Security Risk manager and the JFC member of the Defence Environment and Safety Board.' also mentioned on Joint Forces Command. Tell me how GOC Regional Command 'commands' BF Brunei. Not forgetting the controversial lead paragraph, and quote 'Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) plans and executes UK-led joint and multinational operations, including those involving British Army units, and operationally commands UK forces assigned to multinational operations led by other nation-states.'

BlueD954 (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that reply. We are actually talking past each other about two separate things. I am agnostic about which British Army command might be administratively responsible for Brunei. As I have said before, Regional Command will have control of units when they are conducting civil assistance & national defence; in other circumstances they may remain under Commander Field Army. Nowhere have I found a specific up to date reference about which British Army command is responsible for Brunei for administrative purposes.
But that was not my point. My subject was the *operational* side - that British government websites list the PJOBs as Falklands, Gibraltar, Cyprus, and Diego Garcia/BIOT. [6] That does not include Brunei. The JFC Chief of Staff *might* still be operationally responsible for Brunei; it just may not have the designation of a PJOB. Hope this clarifies rather than confuses. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why not include this in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force future forces? Why this special line edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

"Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) plans and executes UK-led joint and multinational operations, including those involving British Army units, and operationally commands UK forces assigned to multinational operations led by other nation-states.[1] For example, during Operation Telic, the Chief of Joint Operations at PJHQ directed Major General Robin Brims, the UK Land Contingent Commander, through the UK National Contingent Commander, Air Marshal Brian Burridge.[2]

British Army forces may also be deployed to NATO operations, which then are delegated by North Atlantic Council or other NATO bodies to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe who delegates the operation to relevant headquarters. PJHQ may still be involved.[3]"

Why this only for Army 2020 Refine? Does PJHQ and NATO not control deployed Royal Navy and Royal Air Force units? Why this paragraph again? If no opposition, I will propose to cut and paste this in the Future of the Royal Navy and Future of the Royal Air Force. If not, I again feel it has no value. BlueD954 (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Will remove the above line if no objection by Friday. BlueD954 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
As above. PJHQ, before Army 2020 Refine and Army 2020, was already directing UK joint operations drawing British Army, Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Royal Air Force, MOD and other government assets for all operations besides and with NATO. That is noted on its page and others pages/articles yes. The above line is relevant to any UK plan/doctrine, not just Army 2020 refine, not just the British Army's. Unless the line appears in all articles like Future of the Royal Navy, List of active Royal Navy ships, Future of the Royal Air Force or any such future or current or past plans like List of British Army Regiments (2008), I argue the above is not relevant for this page. We know PJHQ and NATO commands. This page just list the possible units under Army 2020 Refine - data is still very sketchy and not released to the public domain. This page isn't about command structure. Unless you paste the above in all post 1996 UK defence ORBATs, I do not see any need for its special position here. It can rest here in the talk page. As I repeat, this is such about a future British Army's ORBAT, not its command structure. There is not need to say who commands who in operation unless you cut and paste that line in all British defence ORBATs, after when PJHQ was formed. BlueD954 (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Regional Command edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Most of these are units which are sub unit commands (SUCs) whic h are not really relevant to an orbat. And most of them lack sources and use dubious references. Come on! BlueD954 (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think you forget, that this page is not titled 'Order of Battle of the British Army', because it is not an ORBAT- it is a list of units and formations, like the title suggests. And therefore, these units should be included. SmartyPants22 (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Don't mess with my mental health by saying 'I think you forget' stop all your irrational reverts. BlueD954 (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Stop edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@BlueD954, can you stop removing things off of this page, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or even worse- because you specifically do not know what they are! First of all, this edit; why are you removing these things? The UOTCs, RFCAs, GSUs, and Regimental HQs, are all relevant units that fall under 38th Bde, you have no reason to remove them, except for the fact that you don't agree with them being there. May I add that you don NOT own this page (however it seems as if you feel this way), and should gain consensus before making such edits. Secondly, this, the bands most certainly do to be included, as they are not 'sub-units' or whatever you think they are- they are bands within their own right; the British Army Bands ....... format is merely an administrative grouping and the bands are still individual entities. And again, this is NOT and ORBAT, it is a 'list of units and formations. I suggest you head over to ORBAT and read the opening paragraph; Then you'll hopefully realise that this is not an Order of Battle. Finally, and this is the one that shocked me the most: you removed something off of the page, and then put in the edit summary 'What is that?!' I do apologise, but not knowing what something is, is not grounds for removing it from the page. Please, please, please gain some consensus before the next time you purge through the list, removing anything that you don't like. SmartyPants22 (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

You stop. I will not remove unless there are reliable sources. I have knowledge and you do not. This is a threatening comment. How dare you. BlueD954 (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@BlueD954, I do apologise, if you perceived my comment in a way that it was most definitely not intended (no belittlement, or anything else was intended), and I know that you do put in a lot of work into this page, and the Military side of Wikipedia, and I appreciate that; however it was quite frustrating when you purged the page, removing a lot of correct and relevant information, instead of simply looking for references for those units, and adding them in. Please, contact me next time, and I will happily source some references. :) Best wishes. SmartyPants22 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with you. BlueD954 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Strike Experimentation Group status edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see the response to this FOI.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/strike_experimentation_group#incoming-1657084

BlueD954 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

11th Signal Brigade edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/3rd-united-kingdom-division/ Now shifted back under 3rd Division.

BlueD954 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Move to: British Army organisation of forces edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A suggestion: would British Army organisation of forces be a better title for this article? I would like to hear other editors thoughts about a shorter name. Thank you, noclador (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps Structure of the British Army SmartyPants22 (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps Structure of the British Army 2025 since the Integrated Review will further change the British Army and wider British Armed Forces units. The IR will be posted in November/December 2020 or so, so we should only change what is known via Army 2020 Refine. The IR covers up to the perhaps 20234 UK General Election when a next review will occur so 2025 or 2024 should be the date. BlueD954 (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Regional Command edits edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_units_and_formations_of_the_British_Army_2020#Headquarters_Regional_Command

Seems like there are more units added than those under the Field Army and using sources that I find dubious. Checking those edits, they were made by J-Man11's clone. True, Regional Command has command over the Army Cadets. Is this page however entirely too long with all those edits by a blocked user? Do we need to know which units--and these aren't just Cadet units but MOD administrative assets, not British Army specific units--under Regional Command, a non-active force?

noclador Dormskirk

BlueD954 (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fine with me if you want to cull the lists to remove dubious entries, including cadet units and administrative units. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Royal Marines units edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Fleet Commander, Royal Navy edit

I would argue as they are titled, these are more under the Royal Navy, Royal Marines.

BlueD954 (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good point, but we cannot forget, that this isn't an ORBAT of the British Army per se; but a list of units and formations- of which these are. SmartyPants22 (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
This started and has continued to be an orbat. BlueD954 (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Joint Helicopter Command edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

82.23.124.195 has reverted JHC from CFA's command. Actually, the user may be right. See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/920219/20200922-How_Defence_Works_V6.0_Sep_2020.pdf page 30.

"Subordinate to CGS are two 3-star commanders and one 2-star commander: Commander Field Army, who is responsible for generating and preparing forces for current and contingency operations; Commander Home Command, who sustains the foundations of the Army’s fighting power; and Commander Joint Helicopter Command, who is responsible for the tri-Service (‘joint’) organisation that brings together all UK battlefield aviation."

I leave it to others to debate. BlueD954 (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 31 January 2021 edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply


List of units and formations of the British Army 2020 → Structure of the British Army – This isn't a list of units, as there are some British Army units under command of other organisations (Royal Navy, RAF, Strategic Command, etc) and some RAF units under the command of the British Army. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 05:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose a comprehensive article on structure would include the history of the structure. (t · c) buidhe 16:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Not necessarily– see Structure of the Australian Army, Structure of the New Zealand Army, Structure of the Canadian Army; an article titled History of the Structure of the British Army or the like, could be created. Point aside, this current article title doesn't describe the article. –SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 20:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Amakuru: Yes, the structure before the re-structure known as Army 2020 and Army 2020 Refine, are at British Army Structure In 2010, however I am in the process of merging this into Army 2020. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 20:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: I totally with Smarty on this, other nations (of course not all) have the title of 'Structure of the xx Army' or such. If this article was title as such like Structure of the British Army it would bring them all together and make them all be similar, while making the title simple. J-Man11 (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Support as the article is formatted in a structural way, also per consistency with similar articles. – DarkGlow • 18:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Support and if rewriting the article is necessary, then rewrite it Red Slash 17:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Types of Units edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At the bottom of the page I've added the unit types. This helps to reduced to equipment after every single unit. Therefore, you don't need to waste space with 'equipped with Jackals', etc. I understand if it should be removed as it doesn't have to do with the title 'List of units and formations', however it does work better if this article was 'Current structure of the British Army' or 'Structure of the British Army'. J-Man11 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Corps and ADMIN edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Recently SmartyPants22 (talk · contribs) has deleted a lot of stuff regarding the Royal Corps of Army Music, Infantry, and admin groups. I'm requested we keep these, as though they aren't combat units, they are part of the Army and deserve to be here as such. With regard to home headquarters and regimental headquarters, I received a lot of trash for adding them under regional headquarters, which I why I added them separately. Ideas and opinions (of course) welcome here.. A list of ideas:

  • Keep them under regional commands and such w/ refs to support these
  • Add them under separate corps as I had added them recently
  • Keep them on the main pages of their respective corps

J-Man11 (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

All of the bands are already in the main structure, so we don't need to repeat them. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 20:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes, however they don't report to regional headquarters, they report to the Corps of Army Music directly. J-Man11 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Oh ok, I was misinformed. I've re-added the bands. I agree that directly reporting units such as bands / specialist units should be added under their corps; however I see no need for RHQs. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 11:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Well, Regimental HQs and Home HQs I actually now agree with you on for separate, but what's your thoughts on having them under regional HQs? RHQs are important because they are the 'brain' of the regiment, and vitally important, and would be a shame to keep them out.. J-Man11 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hmmmm... however they don't come under Regional Points of Contact, as far as I'm aware. I'm not entirely sure what their subordination is. It could be HQ Infantry, or HQ King's/Queen's/SWI Division, or even something else. We should really be 100% certain what the command structure is first. Furthermore, due to amalgamation, most county line infantry regiments along with some of the cavalry regiments, now have multiple RHQ outstations within their recruiting area (for example the Duke of Lancaster's RHQ is in Fulwood Barracks, but then has outstations in Liverpool, Manchester, and Carlisle Castle), so we'd need to find the best way to present this. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 17:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ok, just found a ref to support my theory, see here. Explains the bands are under OPCOM of CAMUS, confirming they are not under regional headquarters. Also explains have the RHQs and are under Divisional Infantry HQs, and these all fall under HQ Infantry. J-Man11 (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Stop copying Military Wikia edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please stop copying from this website the links are incompatible with Wikipedia, it's incorrect, and it's just wrong to copy it. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 22:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Vote on bringing over sandbox information edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I've been working on the full structure of the British Army for a very long time now at my 2nd Sandbox, and I think I should transfer over lots of what is there. My reasoning is this current page is very out-of-date and lacking refs, and updated locations, and reporting forces. In addition mine gives a better overview of the Army along with unit structures, equipment, and commander appointments. @Dormskirk, @Buckshot06, @Noclador, and @Hammersfan. J-Man11 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Before brining the text in, you should deal with
the WP:DUPLINKing
overciting - if it takes 6 cites to say a unit is part of a bigger formation and that it's based at a certain barracks (eg "Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (SCOTS DG), at Waterloo Lines[46][47][48], Leuchars Station[30][42][49] (Light Cavalry)[49][34]" then somethings up.
Omit the Abbreviated names eg 'SCOTS DG' - they just add to the wall-of-text effect and Manual of Style is against ALLCAPS.
MoS on Italics - so don't use to identify units as Reserve, find a different means.
Cite formatting, eg 387 "Contact us - British Army Website". web.archive.org. 2017-11-12. Retrieved 2021-03-24." would be more accurately : " The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, British Army, 2017, archived from the original on 20 November 2017, retrieved 4 March 2021"
I'd also drop the use of stars to denote rank levels, just doesnt look right GraemeLeggett (talk)
Addendum: The Medical corps described as a "modern, inclusive, operationally proven organisation that is aligned totally with the National Health Service" - looks more like a ministerial statement than an encyclopedic text
Reduce length of pipes and hence amount of blue by replacing 36th Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers with 36th Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers (or 36th Engineer Regiment, RE)
Likewise, avoid including battalions in the piping of links, instead of 3rd Battalion, Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment have 3rd Bn Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment and avoid the redlink.
IMHO GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've always thought that in structure lists such as this the use of 'at' or 'in' to indicate the location of a unit doesn't help with the clarity, it just adds more words to what is already a lot of information. In similair lists I've previously used brackets (for example at 9th Reconnaissance Wing, though there's a lot less info to include there per entry than here) or perhaps an en dash to seperate the name of the unit and its location if brackets are being used to contain other information. Thx811 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: This is virtually exactly the same text that you tried to replace this article with on 19 March 2021, I reverted it, and multiple editors gave you points to improve on. It appears that you haven't taken any of them on board. I really don't see what the problem if with how the article is at the moment. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 22:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Oppose until you've dealt with all of the problems - amended the data in your sandbox, to the explicit satisfaction of all three of SmartyPants22, Thx811 and GraemeLeggett. You need to take heed of the suggestions you're being given, or you will be thrown off the site eventually. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Structure_of_the_British_Army&oldid=1205484717"