Talk:List of equipment of the British Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Future equipment[edit]

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)[reply]

C8 SFW/L119A1[edit]

Why no mention of it? Spartan198 13:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean apart from here? TangoSixZero (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Javelin Wrong?[edit]

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?

It's right. Javelin SAM is gone now and been replaced with Starstreak, and the FGM-148 has been adopted. King nothing 17:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, we still have Malkara, SS11 and Swingfire listed as ATGM and I doubt any of those are still kicking about either so confusion is inevitable. If we're going to have historical missiles in one catefory, perhaps we should note them in others... 62.196.17.197 (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

L85A2[edit]

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)[reply]

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?

Wetman

Light support weapon[edit]

"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)[reply]

GPMG[edit]

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)[reply]


Does the Minimi light machine gun need two men to man it if you are using the belt feed. 12 June 2006

No King nothing 14:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cadets[edit]

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 recruitment134.36.93.46 (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Should we create a Specification Template?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Helmets as Small Arms?[edit]

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)[reply]

Question on HK MP5s?[edit]

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)[reply]

Cougar/Mastiff[edit]

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)[reply]

Revision of Article[edit]

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)[reply]

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?[reply]

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).

  1. ^ |THE DEFENCE SUPPLY CHAIN MANUAL JSP 336 (3rd Edition) VOLUME 12 PART 3 PAMPHLET 5 SECTION 4 COMBAT SOLDIER 95 (CS 95) Dated 1 Sep 2004
  2. ^ |THE DEFENCE SUPPLY CHAIN MANUAL JSP 336 (3rd Edition) VOLUME 12 PART 3 PAMPHLET 5 SECTION 4 COMBAT SOLDIER 95 (CS 95) Dated 1 Sep 2004

H&K Grenade Machine Gun[edit]

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)[reply]

New equipment unveiled-Update needed[edit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1057767/Revealed-British-soldiers-return-wearing-Tommy-helmet-Army-unveils-new-equipment-infantrymen.html

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)[reply]

Modern ?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

UAVs?[edit]

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)[reply]

Equipment tables[edit]

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)[reply]

I have rolled back the article to previous state and brought the table here for discussion.

Artillery and Air defence[edit]

Name Origin Type Number [1][2] Photo Notes
Artillery
AS90  United Kingdom 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  United Kingdom 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  United States Rocket artillery 42
File:MLRS 05.jpg
 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  United Kingdom 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  United Kingdom 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  United Kingdom 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  United Kingdom Mortar 470
Total Artillery pieces and Mortar 3,112


First thoughts it looks good but it would have to incorporate all the equipment. I would have put the Mortars with the Infantry equipment. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is equipment tables for almost all main weapons of the British army. Mortars are a type of artillery aren't they? This was just a taste to see if it suited the article. Recon.Army (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mortars in the British Army are an infantry weapon, but as above looks good see what other editors think. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


84mm AT Gun[edit]

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)[reply]

Why nothing on hand grenades?[edit]

Why nothing on hand grenades?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger 2 notes[edit]

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)[reply]

HK417[edit]

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)[reply]

Buffalo?[edit]

The British Army website states no vehicle called the Buffalo.Phd8511 (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffalo is a well known specialist armoured vehicle in service with the British Army. A simply google search will clarify this. I added a citation for Buffalo.Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a picture of the UK variant of Buffalo showing the typical modifications for service in Afghanistan.Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But not listed in Army Webpage.Phd8511 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not every vehicle is listed on the British Army webpage, not every vehicle is listed on this article (PLANT and C vehicles for example). Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glock 17 4th Generation replacing the Sig[edit]

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))[reply] 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543694/MoD-spent-millions-pounds-6-000-pistols-ditched-just-five-years.html

Restated vehicle numbers?[edit]

The citation found here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140212/text/140212w0003.htm#140212187000022

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Nice edits, I think you have made the right decision to use the most recent figures from the Hansard Parliamentary publication. Keep up the good work! Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Integration for Royal Marines equipment?[edit]

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)[reply]

Rename the Landing Craft page and a complete revamp. Gavbadger (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an idea, although I have no idea how to go about renaming a page entirely. I could quite happily organise its contents afterward though. Although some numbers would be hard to come across given the specific nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/watchkeeper/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/springer-all-terrain/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/machine_guns/fnherstal/press32.html
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If 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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

Outdated References[edit]

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)[reply]

There are many examples of kit that was used in the Falklands that are still used today. Land Rovers, CVRT, RFA Argus, Invincible Class Carriers, Seawolf, FV432, M2 Browning, L16 Mortar, L118 Light Gun, Rapier, Lynx...the list only goes on. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Stinger ever left service from the confirmed and referenced entry into service that it had. I already asked that you didn't turn this into an edit war but you've already insisted on that. Discuss it here first before going to alterations and clogging the page. Until evidence emerges that proves otherwise to the known entry into service, no assumptions should be made. Additional source was found picturing Stinger crates on Gulf War Land Rovers.

Special forces weapons[edit]

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)[reply]

Another thing, is that some of the weapons listed under the special forces section are also used by other units in the British Army, such as the L119A1 which are used by some units in the Parachute regiment and the ARWEN 37 which is also used by the regular army for riot and crown control. So some of these weapons should be merged with the other tables as they are not exclusively used by the UKSF. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the Special Forces weapons into the existing tables for assault rifles, shotguns, sniper rifles etc. Best to keep weapon types in their respective categories, especially since some weapons like the L119A1 or the HK417 are used by regular army units as well as special forces.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the folding them in like that, as you are correct that some of them aren't UKSF in use. I think so long as we have plausable information of them having been in use it's worth keeping around, but they aren't massively important. No-one really uses wikipedia to look for special forces rumours after all. You mentioning this does remind me that I have to readd the HK53 at some point, as I found numerous photographic proofs of it in use with Close Protection Teams. Just yet to get around to it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TPz Fuchs[edit]

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)[reply]

The Fuchs is still with the Army though. This article misreads the numbers (They say 2 of the 9, it's really 2 in testing, 9 in storage) but it has the story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10123657/Defence-chiefs-to-reverse-cuts-to-meet-Syrias-chemical-weapons-threat.html) After Syria, the cut was reversed. They're considered a minor specialist vehicle though, which is why it's not on the British Army site, same reason that the Minewolf, HMEE and suchlike aren't on it. CBRN isn't a job they like to advertise too much because of its "unpleasant" implications to potential recruits. (Which in the end, is all the website is). I think it's absolutely worth keeping them alongside a note saying that they were cut to storage but are being looked at again in light of events. That at very least is known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense, thanks for explaining that to me TheFuzzyOne. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, thanks for chatting it out. Better than some random edit wars I've seen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne (talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fuchs was removed but supposedly now reninstated. https://www.oppex.com/notice/TED_2f5391193cb9dd3553e346fd887941a5

Phd8511 (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no more Alvis Shielder in service[edit]

Alvis Shielder is no longer in the ORBAT. That document is oudated. And no that parliamentary info is only in 2010Phd8511 (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Shielder has been removed[edit]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381064/MOD_AR13-14_webversion.pdf

See page 158.

Phd8511 (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least reference from official sites[edit]

and not blogs!

Phd8511 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Numbers[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Warthog please[edit]

http://www.janes.com/article/58712/british-army-ditches-warthog-armoured-vehicle

News says British Army has ditched the Warthog.

Viking[edit]

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)[reply]

Tables[edit]

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)[reply]


Reference[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100310/text/100310w0010.htm
  2. ^ http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0002.html

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 19:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hornet Nano[edit]

Why nothing on the Black Hornet Nano? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessPavarocks (talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.janes.com/article/72202/british-army-retires-black-hornet-micro-uav Black Hornet retired anyway. JessPavarocks (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 10:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 01:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L110A3 and L130A1 light machine guns?[edit]

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)[reply]

Removing the LMG[edit]

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)[reply]

AX-50[edit]

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)[reply]

Challenger 2 numbers[edit]

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2018-06-11/152074/

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)[reply]

UK doesn't use White White phosphorus smoke grenades[edit]

L84 White phosphorus smoke grenades

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/574700/response/1363563/attach/4/20190510%20FOI2019%2005357%20Lai%20L84%20White%20Phospherous%20Grenades%20response%20O.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

BlueD954 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MAMBA LCMR sought[edit]

https://ted.europa.eu/TED/notice/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:307119-2019:TEXT:EN:HTML&WT.mc_id=RSS-Feed&WT.rss_f=Materials+and+Products&WT.rss_a=307119-2019&WT.rss_ev=a

BlueD954 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Updates[edit]

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)[reply]

Are you still working on verifying information? I just noticed that the Glock is being mentioned as a double action pistol which is technically incorrect and I was wondering if this is coming from a source or not. One of the sources immediately following that statement does not support that particular detail and the other does not seem to be available online.
2A02:8388:C80:6280:B003:8309:5FBB:B60D (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_equipment_of_the_British_Army&oldid=1208232913"