Talk:Cavalry regiments of the British Army

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

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 not met

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

Correction needed to table

In the (excellent) table showing the amalgamation of cavalry regiments from 1922 to 2015, the 9th/12th Lancers appears in the table as having amalgamated in 1922. It amalgamated in the 60s. Would love to help but out of my technical depth!

Fixed it. Thank you very much for pointing out the error! noclador (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CAVALRY REGIMENTS

There are only 9 Regiments the RTR were never cavalry but they are of course part of the RAC Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering about this. They were never horsed cavalry, certainly, and they "developed" from an infantry unit - until the 1930s, they used battalion/company terminology rather than regiment/squadron. But there were six "real cavalry" regiments which only ever had a mechanised existence, and we certainly count them as cavalry - the 22nd Dragoons through to 27th Lancers, all WW2 wartime formations.

But after the formation of the RAC (or possibly a little later - I have a vague memory saying 1943?), the RTR seem to have been treated as cavalry units on a par with all other "cavalry"; note that they're listed in the cavalry order of precedence, for example.

I'm not too keen on the current wording - I think it's a bit confusing. Not sure how best to do it, though... Shimgray | talk | 17:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you asked any member of the Royal Armoured Corps if they were cavalry the ex cavalry regiments would respond yes, I remember it being drummed into me during training , like wise the RTR lads would look down their nose at being refered to as cavalry they were tank regiments .

The 22nd - 27th were formed from cardres from the cavalry regiments and kept their traditions see 23rd Hussars its even more confusing if you consider that Dragoons were mounted infantry who have been for hundreds of years been considered part of the cavalry Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

I have completed the B class checklist and believe that this article is a Start class article. It could be improved by adding in more in-line citations and more sources or references, as well as the addition of some supporting materials such as an infobox or some pictures. Just a few ideas. If you would like more in-depth comments, please list the article on WP:MHPR for peer review. Once you think it is ready for re-assessment, please add it to the list at WP:MHA. Hope this helps. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need editing

Especially with the plan of Army 2020.Phd8511 (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Cavalry regiments 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]