Talk:148 (Meiktila) Battery Royal Artillery

Military history: British / European C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Edits

I've slimmed down and restructured to improve readability as much as possible, some of the content needs verification, such as the number of patrols within the Battery, the use of M16 rather than SA80 and the continuation training aspect. Notwithstanding that I've left them in.

I'm not touching the history section but it needs work, there is nothing substantive post WWII, which needs filled out and the FI incident probably needs slimmed down. I'll add a little to the TELIC aspect.ALR 20:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the brigade recon and 148 recon use m16s still. I am not sure how you intend to verify this as there is no official TOE it's just tradition following the poor performance of the SA80 in cold and hot conditions (Turkey and Norway being training and operational areas). It all acts as a further way of indicating the specialised nature of 148, because like the SAS SBS etc 148 is allowed to choose their own weapons. The only way of getting actual verification is to phone the battery and ask (they are usually willing to answer non secret questions like do the boys use M16s or SA80s.)

I'd be interested to know where you get your info from. Recon is a US term, in the UK the abbreviation is Recce. 148 recon not a unit desigation that has ever been used in UK Forces. TOE is again a US term and BRF/BPT and 148 Battery have both unit establishments and Equipment Tables which set out their manning and equipment. UK personnel are not allowed to 'choose their own weapons'.Blackshod (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Fires

What the heck is "naval fires"? It doesn't mean anything. The correct term in this case is Naval Gunfire Support or naval gunfire. This is the ony verifiable term. See [1] . There is no point in directly contradicting the army website. Tashtastic 18:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naval fires is a term which encompasses the delivery of fire effect from maritime platforms, in the UK it includes Naval Gunfire Support (NGS), Tomahawk Land Attack Missile salvo, unguided and guided air delivered munitions and air delivered gunnery. The only one of those which 148 do not provide support to is TLAM Strike, whose mission is encoded in the weapon navigation system prior to launch, or in the case of TacTom (Block IV), through an in flight mission change command delivered over the Tomahawk Strike Network. In fact the NGS link underneath the term is inaccurate and as such I'll remove it an add some explanatory text.

As to the rest of your edits, the Army website, and indeed the Navy website, are woefully out of date. There are still references on both of them to planned deployments in 2005!ALR 19:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. The term is most commonly naval gunfire. "naval fires"? doesn't mean anything and is not commonly used. It's much clearer to keep things simple with the obvious and commonly-used terminology, not jargon or made-up/barely-used terms.

What's deployments got to do with the price of Beef? The information on deployments might be out of date, but the basic information does not date. ::If you are going to revert the text to change commonly-used and verifiable terms and unit component names to made-up/barely-used terms, then you must provide verifiable and serious evidence that they have officially been changed.

Do so, and your edits will be acceptable to include.

Otherwise your edits are un-supported opinion in direct contradiction to a verifiable source. Opinion is not good enough for an encyclopedia. Tashtastic 19:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this page, from September 05 which refers to a package of work related to Naval Fires.

Unfortunately, for WP purposes, my Staff Course notes don't constitute a sufficiently reliable source, since they're not easily accesible, and in some cases classified. However that website provides independent corroboration of the fact that the term is used. the term is normally applied to indirect rather than direct fire, meaning that it doesn't apply to line of sight weapons such as the .50 Cal.

I'm very conscious that much of your objection to my edits is probably vexacious, it should be pretty clear that I know what I'm on about here and whilst I can't cite my sources to the reliability required by WP, I'm more correct than most other editors.

ALR 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference for Naval Fires from the MOd list of military tasks.ALR 10:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]