Talk:Burma Rifles

Restoration of deleted material
An anonymous editor 70.234.227.152 has just deleted recently added material from this article relating to the history of the Burma Rifles from 1917 to 1938. This was done with the comment "removed a great deal of both unsourced and incorrect information". This material was in fact drawn from detailed coverage of the regiment contained in John Gaylor's authoritative history of the Indian and Pakistan Armies from 1903 to 1991 "Sons of John Company". The source reference to this book was deleted by the anonymous editor with the comment "nothing to do with the Burma Rifles". I do not want to get into an edit war over a non-contentious subject like this but I will restore the deleted material unless a reasonable argument is made for leaving it out. Buistr 06:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I saw the deletions and did something about it before I saw your Talk note. Totally agree with you but I have gone past the point of just reverting (have added more stuff too). I'd be grateful if you would run your eye over it and adjust as appropriate. Regards Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 13:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for tidying up the article. It looks very good now. I have only made a couple of minor changes re BMP and the full dress uniform. Thanks also for your excellent contributions to other WWII articles - especially those relating to the East African Campaign. Regards.Buistr 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. John Gaylor's books, though of use, are not authoritative. There are full of inaccuracies and misinformation. The book is especially of little use with regard to the Burma Rifles of which Gaylor knew very little. I removed a great many things yesterday including a citation of Frank Bonham's book which has nothing to do with the subject. There are limits to what I can contribute before crossing the original research line. Some of my edits were aimed at removing factually incorrect statements in favor of saying nothing at all in areas in cases where I know Rothwell or Gaylor is inaccurate. I had hoped to put references for better sources up, but it has not happened yet. 70.234.221.75 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think that all the editors involved in contributing to this article share a genuine interest in the subject and a desire to see as accurate and detailed an end-product as possible. The complexities of Indian Army (and successors) history make this field a fascinating and sometimes infuriating one - with apparently contradictory sources having to be evaluated against each other.


 * Three footnotes probably not worth including in the main article:
 * - the military historian John Keegan in his massive work "World Armies" refers to a six battalion strong Burma Rifles still forming part of the Army of Burma as it existed in 1979. A direct modern descent of the WWII Burma Rifles or just another regiment that happened to share the same name?
 * - the soldier/writer John Masters in his book "The Road Past Mandalay" when describing a victory parade in 1945 expresses particular admiration for the men of the Burma Rifles who had remained loyal through the terrible retreat: "they could not have known until now that they had chosen the winning side" (I quote from memory).
 * - between the wars most regiments of the Indian Army only retained full dress uniform for officers to wear when serving as King's Indian Orderly Officers in London; at levees, weddings etc in India; and sometimes (at regimental expense) for bands and mess orderlies etc. However W.Y. Carman does describe the rifle green and scarlet uniform of the Burma Rifles in some detail and I have seen a colour picture (not a photo) of it. It seems the rew regiment did go to the trouble of having this order of dress authorised even if the opportunities for wearing it were rare. The official Dress Regulations (India) only gave details of mess uniforms but full dress was not abolished. Buistr 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Burma Rifles after Independence


 * This is a long subject. The short of it is that the Burma Rifles battalions did exist for decades after independence. The question of when exactly the regiment (not the battalions) ceased to exist is much more complicated. The post-independence history of the Burma Rifles is a subject all to itself. But it would fail original research on Wikipedia.


 * Dress Uniforms


 * I'm very doubtful that a dress uniform for the Burma Rifles ever existed. I'll have to check Carman's description against other sources. The problem I have is that if one existed, he would have to have had a source for it. But I'm not sure what that would be if not the dress regulations. I'd like there to be one, but I've never seen any evidence for one.
 * 70.234.247.204 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Carman did prepare his two volume (respectively infantry and cavalry) work on the uniforms of the Indian Army at a time (1969) when there were still a number of retired officers available to consult directly on the often obscure question of to what degree full dress was retained between 1919 an 1939. In the case of the 6th Rajutana Rifles for example he quotes "as fully as possible" from correspondendence with a former colonel of the regiment "to indicate what might have happened in other regiments". There is no such helpful detail of primary source in respect of the 20th Burma Rifles and he acknowledges with other units that for the Coronation Parade in London (1937) "many Indian garments were improvised withut any good foundation. Be that as it may, they were worn and they made a fine impression". This is just conjecture on my part but the Coronation Parade (where small representative detachments of all Indian Army regiments as they existed in 1937 attended in full dress) could well be the source of the description of the Burma Rifles full dress that appears on page 231 of the Infantry volume of the Carman work. Unfortunately it is not one of the group regimental photographs appearing in the same book.Buistr 18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nicely put Buistr. The problem we have is that a number of the " wrong facts" have specific published references and to comply with the no original research rule they can only be rebutted with specific references to other authoritative published sources. Clearly IP 70.234.221.75 is very knowledgeable and should be a great help in raising the quality of this article but needs to back up his changes quoting "chapter and verse" of his sources. In Wikipedia you can't just change something in an article which is supported by a published reference by saying it is wrong, you have to quote contra sources.


 * By the way, there's no rule against anonymous editing of articles but it is considered poor etiquette to engage in a Talk page discussion anonymously. C'mon 70.234.221.75, don't be shy!! Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 23:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried very carefully not to violate original research. That is why I was removing material rather than making corrections. It is usually a good idea to remove suspect material even if comes from printed sources. Its usually better to say nothing than to say something that while printed in a book is wrong. There is no rule that says that factually incorrect material in Wikipedia is immune to editing regardless of how or where it was published. I've already spent a great deal of time improving this article. But I'm really unsure about spending a great deal of time proving to myself essentially with sources none of you are going to have access to that I am correct. I mean if I start quoting the Indian Army Lists, who out there is going be checking that?


 * For example, if I were to prove that the 11th Burma Rifles was actually raised in 1921 (not 1922) as the 1st (Territorial) Battalion, 70th Burma Rifles by Citing the April 1922 edition of the India Army List p. 1470, it proves the fact itself. But doesn't it also raise questions as to if the published sources used are really authoritative? How many factual errors do I have to prove before the source is no longer authoritative? For example, against on of my edits someone cited Steve Rotwell's web pages. The specific page was full of completely wrong information. It got the year of an uprising in India wrong. It got the date of the Burma Rifles being in Egypt wrong (before 2nd battalion was even raised) and it attributed things to a battalion (2nd Burma Rifles) that did not do them. Is a website that gets basic facts wrong an authoritative source? 70.234.247.204 00:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that an encyclopedia should be definitive. If there is information in the current article based on published sources that are mistaken this should be addressed directly rather than just erased. Doing the latter means that in say ten years time when this debate here is archived and long forgotten, someone will find the Rothwell source and and make the same mistakes all over again and edit the article to reflect the Rothwell view. Why not quote the Indian Army List? You can't get a more definitive source. It may not be available at my local bookshop but if someone really wants to check it, it's possible. Frankly, if you reference a fact as being from a particular page of a particular volume of the army list, then I'm not going to argue - it trumps any other source. I have taken to doing the same in other articles using the Official London Gazette (but this is easier because it is available on line). In my view, you would be doing great service if you put some backbone into the article quoting specific references. This may seem tedious but I think it is desirable in this case to be this precise in order to address the long-term issue of conflicts between sources. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 10:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Errors in the article
A running list of errors:

"An existing gendarmerie unit, the Burma Military Police, was converted to become the 85th Burman Rifles in July 1917."


 * This is incorrect. No unit was "converted". The Regiment was recruited from the BMP, but no single unit was converted.


 * The title "85th Burman Rifles" is an error picked up from the Indian Army lists. The regiment was initially raised as "the Burma Battalion". At some point before September 1917, it change to the 85th Burmans. By December of 1918, it had adopted the name 85th Burma Rifles. This information comes directly from the war diaries of the unit.

"Burmese of all racial groups were recruited for these units."


 * This is not accurate. I would suggest removing the statement.

"and both battalions served in the Middle East in 1918-20"


 * The years are incorrect. I would suggest removing the years.

"Two more battalions were raised during 1918, one of which saw service in suppressing the Moplah Rebellion"


 * This is wrong. The number of battalions raised is not correct. The unit that served in India was not a Burma Rifles battalion and it was not raised in 1918.

"70th Burma Rifles and the 85th Burman Rifles were merged to form the 20th Burma Rifles."


 * This is incorrect. According to the Indian Army Liniages, the 70th Burma Rifles were renamed the 20th Burma Rifles and the single battalion 85th Burma Rifles were brought into the regiment.

"A new battalion, the 11th (territorial) battalion was also formed in 1922."


 * This is incorrect. The year of formation is wrong and the name it was formed under is wrong.

"The Burman element in the regiment was mustered out after 1927."


 * The date given is wrong.

"in 1940 Burmese were again recruited."


 * The date given is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.221.75 (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"The intention was for officers to be drawn from the British Army. However the majority of the British officers already serving with the regiment chose to remain with their units on secondment from the British Indian Army."


 * This should be removed as it is inaccurate. There was no intention to provide Burma with officers directly from the British Army. And even before 1937, there were many officers (as in many parts of the Indian army) were were serving on secondment from the British Indian Army.

"The remaining highly weakened battalions were disbanded although many of the non-Burmese nationals (Indians and Gurkhas) from them went to form battalions of the Burma Regiment created in September 1942."


 * First, to say that Indians and Gurkhas who lived in Burma and were recruited in Burma were "non-Burmese nationals" is offensive. Second, the men being discussed were sent along with many others from many sources into the pool of men who became the Burma Regiment but they did not "form battalions" of it in the sense of suggesting that entire battalions were formed from the men of the Burma rifles.

"A full dress uniform in the same colours is described in W. Y. Carman's "Indian Army Uniforms" but appears to have been worn on only a few occasions."


 * Full dress uniforms for infantry battalions were abandoned after the first world war. No specification of a full dress uniform for the Burma Rifles ever appeared in a published copy of the dress regulations for India as far as I know. The nature of full dress can be speculated or derived from the 10th Gurkha Rifles/1st Burma Rifles. Examples of real mess uniforms have appeared over the years, but there has never been the slightest indication that a dress uniform for the Burma Rifles ever existed.

"As a result, for the 1943 Chindit operation, the battalion was expanded and broken down into platoons to provide reconnaissance sections for the Chindit columns[2]. In 1944, the battalion was broken down into sections among the Chindit force."


 * This is mostly wrong. In 1943, the 2nd Burma Rifles were reorganized into an HQ and 8 recon platoons. They were not "expanded" in 1943. They did not form "reconniassance sections" (they were platoons). After the 1943 operation, in the fall of 1943, the battalion was expanded and broken down into recon sections assigned to columns.

"the regimental badge was a Burmese peacock over a title-scroll in white metal"


 * Not quite the whole truth. "A" regimental badge of the Burma Rifles would be more accurate.

70.234.221.75 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Links to 10th Gurkha Rifles
"This regiment should not be confused with an earlier regiment with a similar name, 10th Regiment (1st Burma Rifles) Madras Infantry, which was not a precursor regiment of the Burma Rifles"

If this article is on the Burma Rifles, it should include the all the incarnations of units that used that title. And to say that there was no link is incorrect. After the reorganization of the Indian Army, the old Madras battalions were given regimental numbers in the Indian Army equal to 60 plus their old number under the Madras Army. 60+10 = 70. They were made rifles specifically because of the association to the old 10th Madras and their predecessors in the use of the name. The Indian Army created around seven Burma Battalions but only one Burma Rifles.

I mean what exactly is the logic of removing a section that described the situation and replacing it with sentances that try to claim that the Burma Rifles are not the Burma Rifles? 70.234.221.75 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My thought is that there is a continuous direct lineage between the 10th Madras Infantry and the 10th Gurkhas. There is no direct lineage to the 1937 Burma Rifles, which is the subject of the article. There undoubtedly should be reference in the article the the 10th (as there is, although you may not like the wording) but not as part of the regiment's origin - more as an interesting aside? By the way, could the confusion over the 2nd bn BR being in the Middle East be because the 2nd bn 10th Gurkhas fought in Egypt, Gallipoli and Messopotamia at that time? Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 23:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont want to make it part of the lineage. But it needs to be mentioned. For example, there is a company that sells toy soldier Burma Rifles which turn out to be the 10th Gurkha version. There are also a couple musical numbers that have Burma Rifles in the name (the Burma Rifles quickstep) that are really part of the 10th Gurkhas. If I moved the original long explaination down the article and left the 1917 founding alone, would you or anyone object?


 * The lineage of the 10th Gurkha Rifles is a really complicated issue. The 10th Madras was one of the very oldest regiments in the Indian Army and the 10th Madras that became the 10th Gurkha Rifles is not quite its linear successor. The old 10th Madras was disbanded to a man and took its colours back to India. The new 10th Madras (Burma Rifles) was created from a Burma Military Police formation. They were explicitly not given the precidence of the 10th Madras at the time. However, whenever they folded the 10th Gurkha Rifles into another regiment (1980s/1990s), a little while before the british army made the decision to give them the precidence of the 10th Madras.


 * I think the misunderstandings about the 2nd Burma Rifles came from post-1942 Chindit officers who tried to write histories of the regiment and attributed everything the regiment (and more) had done to their battalion. It goes along with another myth that 2nd Burma Rifles came to India more intact than the other battalions. In their defense, they had access to almost no historical material. The 2nd Burma Rifles did end up in Egypt from May 1920 - May 1921 but of course that was long after the war. 70.234.247.204 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest the intro para might read something like: "The Burma Rifles was a regiment of the British colonial army in Burma. It was created in 1937 when the 20th Burma Rifles, a regiment of the British Indian Army was allocated to Burma when the country's administration was separated from that of India. The regiment's origins lie in the expansion of the Indian Army during 1917 but its traditions go back to the 10th Regiment (1st Burma Rifles) Madras Infantry, a regiment originally created in 1887 as a police force in western Burma and which became 10th Princess Mary's Own Gurkha Rifles in the 1903 reforms of the Indian Army."
 * What do you think? It's based on:
 * The history of the 10th Gurkhas, 10th Madras should be covered in their respective articles (although the latter does not as yet exist)
 * By an accident of history the article is titled The Burma Rifles not 20th Burma Rifles or 70th Burma Rifles so it relates to the regiment created in 1937. So that should be the starting point. Note that List of Regiments of the British Indian Army (1903) and List of Regiments of the British Indian Army (1922) list these other two regiments (red-linked) so it would be quite easy to create two other subsidiary articles which referred to this one. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 11:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wingate's comments
I'd really like to see this part of the quotation removed. While he did say it, I dont think its an accurate reflection of events during operations in Burma in 1943. Wingate said similar disparaging things about Gurkhas, Indians and British Soldiers that should equally be forgotten. The tone of the statement is that Burmese are suitable to fetch and carry but not to fight.

"He is not at all ideal in defence. He is not ideal if ordered to attack a strongly held position. But in carrying out rapid, bold and intelligent patrols in the face of the enemy, in obtaining local information, in making propaganda, in handling boats, in living off the country, and in loyal service to his officers he is without equal. This therefore is the use to which he should invariably be put. There appeared to be little difference between Karens, Kachins and Chins in general excellence, except in areas inhabited by their respective tribes."

70.234.221.75 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle Honors for the 2nd Battalion Burma Rifles
There is a great deal of misinforation about the "battle honors" of the 2nd bn, Burma Rifles.

- They were not in Egypt in 1917. They were not in the middle east during the first world war.

- They were not in India during the Moplah rebellion and the Moplah rebellion did not occur in 1923

- While they were involved in the Burma Rebellion of the 1930s, there were no particular battle honors given to the unit with regard to their participation.

These claims can be found in published sources, but they are not correct.

66.226.193.82 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted material
Anonymous editor 171529401 immediately deleted a one sentence addition that I made to the "Uniforms and Insignia" section of this article with the comment "vandalism". As the deleted entry comprised (i) a more specific reference for an earlier entry I had made myself and (ii) confirmation (which I have just come across) that W.Y Carman has sourced his description of the Burmese Rifles full dress to that worn by the Coronation Contingent in 1937, I fail to see how an innocuous piece of extra detail constitutes vandalism. Please reverse this revert or I will do so myself.Buistr 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at 129.130.202.43's edits at Special:Contributions/129.130.202.43, they are all reversions of claimed vandalism but looking through them they all look totally random and therefore are vandalism themselves. I'm reverting the edit. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 18:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah - what would Wikipedia be without its sad roving vandals :) . Many thanks Buistr 20:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

inaccurate information in the article
This article is full of inaccurate information sourced to Steve Rothwell's website. These citations should be removed and/or be replaced with real sources. 66.226.193.82 (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then put in corrections with supporting source references. Do not (as you have just done) remove a sourced statement (refering to the Moplah Rising) without explanation. "Sons of John Company" by John Gaylor also refers to the 3/70th Burma Rifles formed in April 1920 going to Southern India to suppress the Moplah Rising. Perhaps Rothwell and Gaylor both got it wrong. Perhaps the 2nd Burma Rifles never had the Moplah Rising as a battle honour as stated by an earlier editor. Please however produce evidence if you do not want your changes reverted.210.246.8.84 (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The 3/70th Burma Rifles were not formed in April 1920. The 3/70th Burma Rifles did not even return from Mesopotamia until late 1921. They were formed May 1918. See Distribution of the Army in India, dated the 15 Jun 1918. See List of units (Supplement to Order of Battle, India), 1 Nov 1921. Its unfortunate that unsourced random material from a website is treated as an impeccably accurate source while any attempt to remove such material because of its questionable nature requires a day of research on my part. The entire article is full of misinformation from bad sources. That bad information which only sources back to websites and thirdhand material like Gaylor should be removed. 66.226.193.82 (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)