Talk:South African Army

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

Distrust of large standing armies[edit]

Who says this: "reinforced by the Afrikaners' historical distrust of large standing armies"? Evidence please! Paul Beardsell 09:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Information: The statement was made in the Library of Congress Country Studies. Elf-friend 13:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I see that source quoted here also: http://www.photius.com/countries/south_africa/national_security/south_africa_national_security_early_development_of~2500.html But note the disclaimer at the bottom of the page: Accuracy is not claimed! And I know of at least one other flaw in that article. It was quite possible to be called up for National Service before one's 18th birthday. So we are using questionable material here. Paul Beardsell 21:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, the impression I get from that site is that they're just issuing a disclaimer for their use of second-hand info, and directing any queries to the authors of the LoC Country Studies and CIA:WF material. It doesn't however say anywhere that the material from both those sources is unreliable.... Impi 22:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, Paul, if you see any factual errors in an article, please fix them. That's one of the advantages of Wikipedia - anybody can edit. And I don't see why one factual error would neccessarily cast doubt on the whole source. Elf-friend 11:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ratel variants[edit]

I find it quite hard to believe that over 1500 ratel varients are operated by South Africa, is this figure true? 23 Jan 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.83.53 (talk • contribs)

You're right, there's actually around 1,200 of them in service, as per the following article (in Afrikaans) Denel, EADS se Opvolger vir Ratel Oor 3 Jaar Gereed. Impi 15:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Graphic of the Army Structure[edit]

I'm currently working on a project to create graphics of the structure of some Armies. i.e. France. I want to make also a graphic of the South African Army, but the information at this point is not sufficient, as on the official homepage of the Army under the link “Structure” nothing can be found! Does anyone have information how the South African Army is structured? Thanks noclador Noclador 02:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badger IFV[edit]

Hoefyster was the name of the procurement project for the new vehicles, not the vehicle name. Instead, the SA Army will give the new vehicle the name of Badger[1], following on from the Ratel (which means Honey Badger in Afrikaans). All SANDF equipment procurement projects receive a name (for eg, the Valour-class frigates were procured under Project Sitron), but it's never retained. Impi 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox[edit]

According to a PDF I have of the Defence Review 1998, 8 SAI were motorised, the only mechanised units were 61 Mech and 1 SAI.

Full listing SA Infantry Formation (Full Time force)- 61 Mech Inf Bn Group (gone?) 1 SAI Bn - Tempe 4 SAI Bn - Middelburg 6 SAI Bn - Grahamstown 5 SAI Bn - Ladysmith 7 SAI Bn - Phalaborwa 8 SAI Bn - Upington 9 SAI Bn - Wynberg/Youngsfield 10 SAI Bn - Mmabatho 14 SAI Bn - Umtata 115 SAI Bn - Wonderboom/Wallmanstad 116 SAI Bn - Messina 118 SAI Bn - Ellisras 121 SAI Bn- Mtubatuba

I'm not sure if this is 100% accurate, it is based on that Defence Review, some issues of SA Soldier, and other stuff on the net. 3 SAI are not listed because they are now the army's basic training unit for all non-leader group personnel (leader group does basics at the SA Army Gymnasium). I've not listed the Parabats either. 61 Mech apparently was disbanded last year, 12 SAI (specialist infantry-motorcycles, horses, dog handlers, trackers) went a while back too. 1 SAI are mech infantry, the rest light or motorised. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=64954&page=27—Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs)

8 SAI was converted to a mech unit sometime after the Def Review, but sometime during 2006/2007 it was merged with 61 Mech and lost its old identity. Thus the SA Army currently has two Mech units, 1 SAI and 61 Mech. Impi 22:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to prevent confusion: During the merger between 61 Mech and 8 SAI it was 61 Mech that lost its identity and not 8 SAI, which remains active. — Impi (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me help: From inception in 1973, 8 SAI was a mechanised training institution, it was designed to be a training wing and a operational wing. The main feeder unit for 8 SAI's trained infanteers was 61 Mech (Alpha and Bravo companies). During times of war, the rest of 8 SAI's companies would be readied and renamed 63 Mech and attached to the 61 Battle Group. 8 SAI has only been a motorised Battalion for a very short time in its history from about 1994-1998. After the Defence Review it became mechanised again. 61 Mech has always been associated with 8 SAI. The reason for the disbanding of 61 Mech is speculative. 61 Mech was a unit that was meant to be in constant readiness for conventional war and this was deemed prohibitively expensive. The other side of this coin was political, 61 Mech had a fearsome reputation in the Border War and may have fallen victim to the new dispensation because of that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caracal Rooikat (talk • contribs) 06:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soltam M-65[edit]

Hello everybody! I just complete the above article and was wondering if South African Army is still fielding the Soltam M-65 120mm mortar as of today or has it been relegated to storage or other duties? Thanks and appreciate if anybody with that information can help me with the above-mentioned article. --Dave1185 (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I would appreciate if anyone could also give me a hand for the following articles,
  1. Soltam M-66 160mm mortar,
  2. Soltam M-68 155mm 33calibre howitzer,
  3. Soltam M-71 155mm 39calibre howitzer,

with regards to their usage or operational status by the South African Army. Thanks again in advance. --Dave1185 (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RHIP?[edit]

Can somebody include the rank structure? And does SAA use Eng or Afrikaans rank IDs? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 11:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Projects[edit]

Hi, can someone kindly attribute the projects to a source? The list looks much like the list I compiled from SA DoD annual reports and Parliamentary qustions and published at http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=320

You may also want to post a list of chiefs of the Army, here. Available at http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=667&Itemid=362

Oh,the SA army rank structure is available on the Army website at http://www.army.mil.za/aboutus/uniform/rankinsignia.htm Archived 2020-10-20 at the Wayback Machine

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerbet (talk • contribs) 11:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're right, the Projects section is a direct copy of the content from your site and should have been sourced. I have gone ahead and added a reference to the original DefenceWeb page as an interim solution until we can figure out what to do with the section. However, before we decide on what to do with it, I need to ask if you, as the Editor of DefenceWeb.co.za, are ok with your content being included in Wikipedia articles on the SANDF. If not, I'd be happy to remove the content and replace it with a more generalised and watered-down version referencing the content on DefenceWeb. But as the content is under copyright, we cannot continue to feature it without your explicit permission. — Impi (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leon Englebrecht has since passed away. From discussions I had with him before he died, he would be quite happy for what he wrote in the fact files to be used. BoonDock (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Small Divisions"[edit]

The text "From the early 1990s (after 1992) to 1 April 1997, the SA Army maintained three small divisions, the 7th, 8th and 9th......." refers. I never knew there were "large" and "small" divisions! Always thought a division consisted of three brigades plus division troops, making it the first formation level which is equipped to operate autonomously? Perhaps the text "under-strength divisions" would be better? Farawayman (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were they 'under-strength', or were they intended to be small? It's not set in stone that divisions need to comprise three brigades with nine maneuverer battalions, support units, etc. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm fairly certain that they were "paper divisions" with an HQ staff and designated units who would mobilise to form the actual division in time of conventional war. So, "small divisions" as well as "under-strengh devisions" are both incorrect. Perhaps the text should read "From the early 1990s (after 1992) to 1 April 1997, the SA Army maintained the headquarter staffs of three conventional divisions, the 7th, 8th and 9th......." Views? Farawayman (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing that text from my notes on the original JDW article, I used the term 'small' because they indeed had six rather than nine/ten ish manoeuvre battalions. Remember that both the Brits used 'five battalion' divisions in BAOR in the 1970s, from the 60s to the 90s the French used four-to-five battalion divisions, and the Pentomic organisation had five oversized battalions (much like the Brits later). I don't think the term 'understength' would be correct, because they were designed to be that size. Should we put small in commas ('small') with a footnote explaining that generally, divs have three/four bdes/regts and roughly 9-16 (16 being yon Sov MRD/TD) battalions? My information indicated that the 7th was regular or virtually all regular, and the 8th and 9th were comprised of reserve units. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 11:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian Army's divisions also only had five manoeuvre battalions (plus an armoured regiment) under the Pentropic organisation. In this instance, why not explain what the South African divisions' structure was? Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I included a detailed list of component units in the main article. Is it not clear? Buckshot06(prof) 12:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post 94 ranks[edit]

It really looks odd to have only outdated rank information in this article. The current system can be found here - http://www.dod.mil.za/ranks/ranks.htm Archived 2011-09-06 at the Wayback Machine I'm unfortunately not skilled at tables or graphics so I'm hoping someone will take up this issue and add the relevant information. Roger (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody interested? Roger (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problem might be that the link above does not seem to respond . --NJR_ZA (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a temporary server problem. Ping resolves the IP sucessfully (DNS is working) but the pings timeout (web server is down). Unreliable servers seems to be a common problem with SA government websites in general - with the exception of SARS and StatsSA. I don't know how they expect us to maintain articles about them if they have such rubbish servers! We'll just have to try again later... Roger (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a "fact file" on DefenceWeb with the relevant info - http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?view=article&catid=79%3Afact-files&id=7118%3Afact-file-comparative-military-and-civil-service-grades-&tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=&option=com_content&Itemid=159
The rank insignia displayed on the page were only in use between 1961 and 1994. Before becoming a republic in 1961 South Africa was a British Commonwealth realm and the South African Army used the same ranks and insignia as the British Army. I believe after a certain point (1950s?) the South African Army warrant officers switched to the South African coat of arms instead of the Royal coat of arms for rank insignia but I could be wrong. 24.46.236.67 (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roger - I will tackle the ranks at some stage. I seem to recall a page of ranks, linked from the SA Navy page, but it seems to have been deleted Gbawden (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:SA-Army-badge.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:SA-Army-badge.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks[edit]

Referring to the request below i need some input on how you'd like the Post 1994 ranks to be portrayed I see 2 ways of doing this - having all 3 branches on one page (which I have worked on) or duplicating the army component onto this page which will make the page considerably longer

(I have put in some Warrant Officer ranks so you can see what I mean) Your comments? Gbawden (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation box[edit]

At the top of the page is a box stating: This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

Its been there since Jan 08 - can we remove it? I am assuming someone forgot to remove it after tidying up Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbawden (talk • contribs) 11:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks - include?[edit]

I have updated the page South African military ranks with the new army rank insignia. Should we use the rank tables on this page or simply link to the page? your comments? Gbawden (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SA Armoured Corps[edit]

Technically the SA Armoured Corps is now the SA Army Armour Formation. Should we create a new page for the Formation or modify the SAAC page? Gbawden (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regiment Hillcrest[edit]

From Facebook: "..During the November / December 1993, and January 1994 period, our Regiment Hillcrest also completed a 4 month border duty at Group 29, Ellisras and SMG, Messina with 2 full Battalions. Regiment Hillcrest were then part of 73 Brigade, and 73 part of Far North Command, Pietersburg." Buckshot06 (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References etc[edit]

  • Can we Please get concensus on the structure/choice between References, Bibliography, Notes and Further Reading'? This has changed more than once in the last while. I did a bunch of cleanup on the references recently but it's just irritating to have these sections change all the time. Thanks BoonDock (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS:APPENDIX is the standard I'm working to, which dictates 'Notes' (footnotes), 'References' (bibliography), and then 'Further Reading' and finally 'External links'. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec):Until recently this article used only inline citations with the {{reflist}} under the heading "References" - that method has been stable for years. I see no reason to change it. At various times recently the heading of the reflist had been changed to "Notes" and a new "References" section containing a few redundant duplications of already existing inline citations was added. This has been correctly reverted. All new references should be added only as inline citations. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


7th and 8th Divisions, early 1980s[edit]

  • The Quote box titled 7th and 8th Divisions, early 1980s is highly problematic for me. I cannot access the reference cited because it has no URL, but it mentions 1 AND 2 Durban Light Infantry as part of 84 Brigade (for example) which as I understand it is impossible. 1 RDLI and 2 RDLI existed during WWII, but not from shortly thereafter. Also, it speaks of "Division Troops" and includes UMR (Armour) and two Artillery units. That's just wierd. It doesn't include the other units in the division which is also strange. Without seeing the reference, I would remove this whole box. If the reference actually says these things then it's uninformed and not reliable. BoonDock (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, the use of 1st, 84th etc aren't correct. It was 8 Armoured Division for example. BoonDock (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Keegan World Armies except used was sourced from a Naval Postgraduate School paper whose reference is at Orange Free State Command. Pull that down and you'll be able to read exactly what I was working off. Aware that there may be problems with Keegan's research - his OOB seems to make no mention of 44 Para Bde, for example - but you'll be aware of his reputation, and at the time that book would have been the epitomy of a WP:RS. I have been looking for months for an OOB of 7 and 8 Divs, and this is the first one I've found. His full OOB has other gaps as well. Suggest you pull the paper, and then we talk further. If you can find a better OOB of 7 and 8 Divs, please, put it in!! And by all means remove the --ths which are British - Keegan - and not seemingly SA practice. Cheers and best Buckshot06 (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at it. The data was taken from "Table 9" http://archive.org/stream/southafricandefe00orba/southafricandefe00orba_djvu.txt. It is riddled with errors. Not just the obvious spelling ones, also factual errors such as where the unit is headquartered. I see absolutely no reason to trust that particular table at ALL!!! BoonDock (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know where I got it from! ;) Are you sure that the locations are not correct for 1979-80 when Keegan was writing? He was describing the org 35 years ago. Secondly, books such as 'World Armies' are the epitome of what WP considers a reliable source. I understand your concern, but what sources have you got that contradicts the table? Anyway, what I reproduced the table for was the assignment of battalions to the six brigades of the two divisions. I'm not so worried about the unit locations. Also I'm confused about why you say an armoured car regiment and artillery are 'weird' to have as divisional troops. Seems pretty standard to have a reconnaissance regiment of some type and artillery....
Honestly, you're in South Africa, right? Can't you go to the library/ies and find us a better OB? In NZ the books simply aren't accessible. Otherwise, in the absence of contradictory information, I would have to argue that this should stand... Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I've with regret had to reinsert 2 DLI (and fix the subordination level of 8 Div Troops). If you take 2 DLI out you are starting to distort the Keegan quote, and it would become WP:OR. It is a WP:RS - either leave it, or replace it with something better. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if you leave it in, then you are blatantly leaving in something that is obviously and patently untrue. There was NO such things as either 1 RDLI or 2 RDLI in 1979. The Royal title had been dropped in 1961 when South Africa became a republic. That's the simplest fact to check. As I said before, there are MANY errors with this. I don't care how good a historian Keenan is reputed to be, he must have been drunk when he put this together. Frankly, I'm tempted to just be bold and delete it completely. BoonDock (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'm a serving Officer (Reserve) with a unit in Durban, housed in the Old Fort base. It's the old 84 Bge HQ and most of the units are ex 84. They include DLI (just down the road), DR, 84 Sigs, 15 Maint, 19 Field and NFA. There are a number of the guys who were serving then who are still around. I have a photo of an 84 WO get together which I can send you which might give a better idea. I'll also see if I can find some references. BoonDock (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: For 71 Brigade, try Col Lionel Crooke's book 71 Motorised Brigade.
  • If you can find them, then try the following:
    • Paratus, (Official periodical of the SA Defence Force), Pretoria. June 1971, Feb 1973, June 1974, Sept 1977, Sept 1981, Nov 1981, Mar 1982, Aug 1982, Nov 1982, Dec 1983, Sept 1984, Jan 1985, June 1985, Aug 1985, Sept 1985, Apr 1986, May 1986, June 1986, Apr 1987, June 1987, Aug 1987, Nov 1987, Dec 1987, Feb 1990, Nov 1990.
    • Militaria 6.1,1976, 6.2,1976.
    • Crescendo (71 Infantry Division), June 1987
    • Commando (Official periodical of the SA Defence Force), Apr 1951, Nov 1951, Dec 1951, Apr 1952, Oct 1957, Jan 1959, Sept 1960, Nov 1961, May 1966, Jul 1967, Mar 1968, May 1968, Jan 1969.
    • Infantry in South Africa 1652 - 1976 (Documentation Service Publication No 5), Pretoria, 1977.
    • Cape Times, Cape Town, 2.4.1897, 27.6.1989.
    • Die Burger, Cape Town, 14.3.1983, 30.4.1983, 5.3.1984, 3.4.1984
    • The Argus, Cape Town, 5.12.1988.
    • The Star, Johannesburg, 31.3.1947,1.4.1947.
    • SA Panorama, July 1981.
  • Not sure if you have consulted "Tylden, G The Armed Forces of South Africa 1659 - 1954"
  • The Cape Town Highlanders 1885 - 1985 (The Cape Town Highlanders History Committee), Cape Town, 1986.

Will keep looking. BoonDock (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BoonDock for all this. Good amount of stuff to work through. I've managed to do two things so far. Firstly I've gotten hold of World Armies, the 1983 edition, after searching thru two libraries here, and confirmed the listing in general terms. It does say what it says, including two battalions of the 'Royal Durban Light Infantry'. So we will have to find a better reference. Second I checked regarding getting hold of Paratus - the best source probably, given that it's SADF official - here. It seems that the only library listed as having it actually threw it out in a downsizing up to ten years ago. Even getting hold of the contents pages from the nearest available library, the National Library of Australia, will cost us $16 per contents page - never mind getting hold of the actual articles, and your listing doesn't do that. Given that it's much more likely to be readily available in South Africa, could you check if it's in any library in Durban or nearby?
  • No, I identified Tylden from the First Reserve Brigade (South Africa) article, but I have asked whether it is possible to interloan it.
  • Thirdly, I've been continuing to scan the net, and found in scientiamilitaria.journals.ac.za/ (Vol 23, No. 3, 1993) an article by Monick on the 'Forging of a Strike Force' which gives the structure of 72 Motorised Brigade in 1974: 1 Transvaal Scottish, SAIR, Johannesburg Regt, THA, 1 Lt Horse, 12 Fd Sqn SAEC, 72 Sigs Unit, 31 Fd Workshop, 7 Maintenance Unit. So that's a listing of two of the brigades of 7 Div, though at different times. What were the units of 84 Bde? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds good. I would hold off on spending money on Paratus. I'll see what I can source.
  • In the mean-time, Ken Gillings wrote a short history of 84 Mot about 20 years ago which I'm on track of as he no longer has copies. Depending on what it looks like, I'll consider updating and re-publishing it.
  • BTW, note the signals unit names. Seems they all kept their names from then, including 84 Signals Unit based in Old Fort literally right next door to my current unit's HQ building.
  • I have a copy of Tylden here. Just asked because it's taken as the definitive source for all the early history of most of the units. You'll see a bunch of that on my website at "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2021-04-11. Retrieved 2023-04-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

BoonDock (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thankyou Boondock - should say the site is quite impressive - you've set yourself a big target, but once complete it will be very very useful to all. I'm going back for another look...
    • Thankyou for looking into Paratus and the 84 Mot Bde history. Yes, the Sigs Units seem indeed to have kept all their names, which makes things slightly easier.
    • Will wait out on your further research re Paratus etc - thanks very much for this. What was your source for the Paratus and other newspaper listings?
    • Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ORBAT 71 Motorised Brigade[edit]

Here is the ORBAT as far as I can extract it from Col Lionel Crook's book 71 Motorised Brigade

  • Units assigned to 71 Motorised Brigade (Crook, Col (Rtd), Lionel (1994). Greenbank, Michele (ed.). 71 Motorised Brigade: a history of headquarters 71 Motorised Brigade and of the citizen force units under its command. Brackenfell, South Africa: Lionel Crook in conjunction with the SA Legion. ISBN 0620165243. OCLC 35814757. OL 913477M.)
    • Cape Field Artillery
    • Cape Town Highlanders
    • Regiment Westerlike Provincie
    • Prince Alfred's Guard
    • Regiment Oranjerivier
    • 3 Field Engineer Regiment
    • 71 Signal Unit
    • 4 Maintenance Unit
    • 30 Field Workshop
    • Cape Town Rifles (Dukes)
    • Regiment Boland
  • Units Attached To 71 Motorised Brigade Prior to Redesignation On 2 January 1992 As 9 S.A. Division

Feel free to use this BoonDock (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8 SA Division[edit]

  • DefenceWeb has what looks like a "proposed" ORBAT for [8 DIV]. Some units, for example 84 Signals Unit, still carry those names. BoonDock (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Defenceweb.co.za have these 'staff tables' orbats for both divisions. Most of the line regiments are placeholder identities for the real CF regiments, I think. The great strength of Keegan's orbat, as defective as it is, is that it actually gives the real regiments, not placeholder identities for wargames on staff courses. 05:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on South African 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 14:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_African_Army&oldid=1205371022"