Is it true that 75% of the current British Army is made up of Scottish soldiers?
Not even close. It is however very hard to say who is and who isn’t Scottish. The only stats than would give an indication are those based on where a soldier was recruited. These show that typically 10% - 11% of the Army are recruited in Scotland (but there was a dip down to just 6% in 2008). What percentage of the armed Forces were recruited in Scotland - a Freedom of Information request to Ministry of DefenceNow there may be a disproportionate amount of Scots who are recruited in England (or anywhere other than Scotland) and these stats don’t include the last 5 years - but you’re still not going to get anywhere near 75%.Note that the population of Scotland is 8% of the population of the UK as a whole so 10% to 11% of the armed forces being recruited in Scotland means they are punching above their weight but not by a particularly remarkable amount at all (before looking at the stats I wouldn’t have been surprised had they been 15% to 20% but obviously nowhere near 75% of the Army).
Was CURRY invented by the British Army?
No. People on the Indian subcontinent have been using spices for years and had terms like Kari, with various spellings to describe some spiced dishes. The Briitsh Army adopted Indian cooks and called any spiced meat/poutlry dish a curry. A British Raj style of cooking developed with some English principles and some Indian. Kedjeree with smoked fish egg and spices is a good example of Raj cooking, popular as a breakfast dish. The traditional Indain Kitcherree was a spiced rice and lentil dish. My family were born in India back in the 1930's so I know what I am talking about even if my Indian spelling isn't great.
Why is a huge majority of the British Army white?
The UK armed forces are about 6–9% non-white.The army have the highest number of personnel from ethnic minorities at 9.4% in 2010 whereas the number is much lower in the naval services at 3.4% and the royal air force at 2.1%That compares to roughly 15% non-white in the wider UK population.Why is there a discrepancy? I would say that the armed forces are very traditional and “old-school”, so they change slower than the general population.The demographic makeup of the British Isles is changing rapidly, the proportion of non-white and non-english-as-first language people in our country has chnaged hugely in the last 20 years.The armed forces as a government organisation are very keen on representing that population, they have enough trouble recruiting enough young men and women of acceptavle quality without being picky about skin colour!The Army’s challenge is to overcome the immigrant predjudice against it as a “white” organisation, to overcome its own tendency to revert to type as a traditionalist organisation, attract the “New British” to join its ranks and do all of that without sacrificing operational efficiency. Not easy.
Name two advantages the British had in the war and two that the Continental Army had.?
First off the British Army had the support of the Royal Navy. They also had the manpower edge, and more money to wage the war. Also they had a proffesional military which was one of the finest in the world. The Continentals were fighting on their home field. That made logistics way easier. They also knew for a fact they could not give up, as there actions were treason against the crown. As such they had more desire to win. Finally England had several enemies who came to the Colonial's aid, namely France.
What is the current standard loadout for the british royal army?
assault rifle pistol machine gun submachine gun no i didnt get this from a video game im writing a report and yes i know they dont use them all at the same time
Is it true that the British Army during the WW1 and WW2 constituted the majority of Indian soldiers?
No it’s not true, but the Indians did make a massive contribution in both world wars, and economic as well very large numbers of men serving. Particularly with the Bengal famine in ww2 Indian civilian suffering and deaths were very high.(these stats are provided with a disclaimer that various figures I found do differ, but the rough numbers agree so I do not claim these are definitive figures, but should be roughly about right, anyone with better stats feel free to correct me in the comments and I’ll update it)Roughly 20% of British Empire & Commonwelath forces in ww1Roughly 30% of British Empire & Commonwealth forces in ww2.Indian service in world war one ,1.780,0000 served (UK 5.7 million , British Empire Overall 8.6 million)1,000,000 served overseas74,187 died (UK 704.805 , British Empire Overall 956,703)67,000 woundedIndian Service in world war Two2.5 million served (8.5 Million Total British Empire)87,000 died (383,700 British Empire overall)35,000 wounded (376,000 British Empire overall)67,000 prisoners of warwebsite with details of numbers served from various British Commonwealth countries, and casualties.Some British Army statistics of the Great War
Why did the British Army Redcoats (1700's) carry a Halberd?
It was not symbolic, and even during this period would have made for an excellent melee weapon. Armies did not just exchange volleys of fire on the battlefield. What usually happened is that one, perhaps two, volleys would be exchanged and then one side or both would close to melee combat. The melee is what would usually decide the battle. In some cases, one side might fight primarily with archaic weapons, such as the Scot Highlanders during the rising of 1745. They would line up and charge against ranks of musketeers with swords and shields, winning two remarkable field victories at Prestonpans and Falkirk this way - although they were also severely defeated using this method at Culloden. Over one hundred years later in 1879, primitive Zulu warriors armed only with shields and spears annihilated a British column with state of the art firearms at Isandlwana. Even as late as WW2, banzai charges, although generally suicidal, could be surprisingly effective. On Saipan in 1944, about 3,000 Japanese soldiers and civilians charged, many with only archaic weapons like bamboo spears, against American positions and were able to cause hundreds of casualties, although they were annihilated in the process. At any rate, a halberd would be a useful weapon to have during hand to hand combat, and would be especially effective against cavalry, who were still routinely employed as a shock force and carried hand weapons. They were generally only carried by sergeants, however, and therefore would not have been used en masse. In the 19th century, halberds were replaced with the pike.