Talk:Polish Land Forces

Well, it's at stub status now at least. I rendered some of the Polish names into their more traditional Anglo-American English equivalents. The translations and pictures on the Polish Army website were my only guide, since I know almost zero Polish! --Jpbrenna 23:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to Polish Land Forces. It would be more correct in English, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No objections here - unless - is there an official translation?--Jpbrenna 00:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

see: http://www.army.mil.pl/strona_en/home/home.htm (Official Website) --Witkacy 00:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move away then. --Jpbrenna 1 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)

the article states: 118,000+ 50,000 makes 168,000 So, which on of these three numbers is wrong in the article??? noclador 11:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Image:PZA Loara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Who is changing the designation of KTO Rosomak - to XC-360P??? This is not a designation of Polish Army, and I asume that we are using Polsish Army designation (for exemple BWP-1 instead of BMP-1). The numbers are also wrong, planes have changed since 2002 r. --156.17.233.11 (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

All I'm doing is using sourced information. If you have better sources than show them but don't remove sourced information (like about the T-72M1Z MBTs).

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Then give me a source naming Rosomak-ADV, or polish source using name XC-360P? Army does not care if PT-91 is a newly build or upgraded - those tank are recognized as a one type of vehicle (or give me a source proving that this is otherwise). And I have posted rferences on KTO Rosomak nad WR-40 Langusta.--156.17.233.11 (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

We aren't in the army. We're on Wikiepdia. WE CARE if it's a PT-91 or T-72M1Z. Its the same way with Old Iraqi Army and T-72M and Lion of Babilon tanks. They didn't care but WE DO.

As for that Rosomak designation it seems to be used not only towards Polish vehicles. However I don't have time to research it further right now.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is specified in the article about PT-91, if you think that you are wiser then army - your problem. You are nor relaying on the sources but posting some your imaginations. --156.17.233.11 (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

And stop posting "Nowa Technika Wojskowa" as an reference, you should specify an issue and article name. I have a time. --156.17.233.11 (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that I'm wiser than the army but I'm saying that if we want to make a list of AFVs used by Polish army on Wikipedia than we can't make simplifications like this.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Update: the source you put out there isn't a professional website in any way, shape or form. It's just a Wikipedia based mini-encyclopedia which means that it can't be used as source because like Wikipedia it can be changed by anybody. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Update II:Even if the edit option was turned off for that article we still have no proof that Mr./Mrs Corran has professional knowledge of the subject therefore the article still can't be used as a reference. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Update III:I found that the PT-91 article on Militarypedia mentions the exactly the same number of T-72M1Z as the one that I added therefore if you use the Militarypeida to back up your informations about the Rosomak than we should also include it as a source for the number of T-72M1Z tanks. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

First of all - Special Operacions Forces - not Special Forces, second - SOF are not part of the Land Forces so weapons used by SOF shouldnt be listed in this article.

• Special Forces Firearms
  •   Glock 17 (Semi-automatic pistol)
  •   Heckler & Koch USP (Semi-automatic pistol)
  •   Heckler & Koch Mark 23 (Semi-automatic pistol)
  •   Beretta 92 (Semi-automatic pistol)
  •  /   Switzerland SIG P226 (Semi-automatic pistol)(Used only by FORMOZA)
  •   Heckler & Koch MP5 (Submachine gun)
  •   FN P90 (Submachine gun)
  •   M14 rifle (Automatic rifle)(used only by FORMOZA)
  •   M4 Carbine (Assault rifle)
  •   Heckler & Koch G36 (Assault rifle)
  •   Heckler & Koch HK416 (Assault rifle)
  •   Remington 870 (Shotgun)
  •   Heckler & Koch PSG-1 (Sniper rifle)
  •   SR-25 (Sniper rifle)
  •   M21 (Sniper rifle)
  •   Remington 700 (Sniper rifle)
  •   Mauser SP66 (Sniper rifle)
  •   Mauser 86 (Sniper rifle)
  •   Barrett M82 (Anti-material rifle)
  •   FN Minimi (Light machine gun)
  •   H&K AG36 (Grenade launcher)
  •   H&K MZP-1 (Grenade launcher)
  •   M203 (Grenade launcher)

I created and added today a graphic of the structure of the Polish Land Forces, but there are some Brigades about which I could not find any information! If someone has information about the missing units, please tell me and I will update the graphic immediately. thanks, --noclador 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• These are the Brigades of which I could not find any information and therefore they are only in the graphic with the Brigade icon and all their units are missing.
  • 1 Warszawskiej Brygady Pancernej
  • 3 Brygada Zmechanizowana Legionów
  • 34 Brygada Kawalerii Pancernej
  • 2 Brygada Zmechanizowana Legionów
  • 12 Brygada Zmechanizowana
  • 36 Brygada Zmechanizowana
  • 9 Brygada Kawalerii Pancernej
  • 16 Pomorsko-Warmińska Brygada Zmechanizowana
  • 20 Bartoszycka Brygada Zmechanizowana
  • 1 Mazurska Brygada Artylerii
  • 1 Brzeska Brygada Saperów
  • "2 Mazowiecka Brygada Saperów" doesn’t even have a homepage…
  • 10 Opolska Brygada Logistyczna
  • 15 Sieradzka Brygada Wsparcia Dowodzenia

Can you help? thanks, --noclador 16:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

10 Brygada Kawalerii Pancernej   Done

Judging from this link, the brigade has:

* Tank Battalions 1 & 2

* Mechanised Dragoons Battalion 10

* Command Battalion

* Self-propelled Artillery Battalion (Or so. I know Russians call an artillery battalion "divizion" - not to confuse with "diviziya", which is Division. Maybe the Poles do the same?)

* Air Defence Battalion (same as above)

* Reconnaissance Company

* Sappeurs/Combat Engineers Company

* Supply company

* Maintenance Company

* Medical Company

Russoswiss 01:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help Russoswiss :-) --noclador 09:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your graphic should look something like this: http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2662/polandlandforcesri8.png --Corran.pl (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

My take on the situation is that people are getting CARRIED AWAY with pictures, the page clearly lacks any meaningful narrative, yet it is full of pictures, many which are duplicates. I believe that we should revert back and exercise some moderation in this situation, lets not make the page sloppy and cluttered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.97 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's not sloppy and cluttered though. It's convenient if anything. 71.229.241.228 (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion there are to many pics, looking at other military pages this one looks incomplete with no text, all these silly tables, and bad pictures which clearly belong on the "Equipment of the Polish Army" page. Last time someone tried to add army rank images even though there is a whole page devoted to "Polish Armed Forces rank insignia". Everyone should exercise common sense and not add junk on the page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.201 (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Again, someone just comes in and adds a tone of pictures and new charts without considering that the page is getting cluttered. Please take this into consideration, Wiki is not a photo album we still need a lengthy narrative on that page not more pics... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.91.34 (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Pictures can be removed but not the CORE information of the article. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh and another thing: Why are you removing --> SOURCED <-- information? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey SuperTank17, let me clue you in on a few things... there are people including myself who were maintaining this page for months before you came in (a couple of weeks ago)... now you think you own this page. 1. you entered so many excessive pictures I had to edit a few, so you got mad a got rid of them all... 2. your tables created a mess and another user had to fix them...

If you don't learn to use commonsense and moderation I will take this argument to the page administrator you can't just come in and run this page like you are the only person in charge of editing, this site is used by so many people and you have to use constructive editing to make this page clear, and easy to use... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.91.34 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

First of all I never once said that I own that page. Second, there's a good reason for deleting these photos. The article doesn't need them. Having them only makes the article: 1. bigger and 2. more of a mess. Also here's what YOU posted a month ago: "Again, someone just comes in and adds a tone of pictures and new charts without considering that the page is getting cluttered. Please take this into consideration, Wiki is not a photo album we still need a lengthy narrative on that page not more pics...". Has the article became uncluttered in the meantime? Have I missed something? Also you still haven't told me why were you deleting sourced information (look here if you forgot: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_Land_Forces&diff=288795790&oldid=288794395). Also I just checked the history record of this article and I counted five contributions of yours to this article which consisted of very small edits, additions of pictures and deleting sourced information. I wouldn't exactly call it "maintaining" this article. - SuperTank17 (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

SuperTank17... please note other Polish military pages, that are maintained by myself and few others for some time now... like the "Polish Navy" or "Armed Forces"... there is a balance between the articles and pics... this makes the page simple yet informative... this is the Wiki standard... also, note other foreign military pages that follow this format... this is what we are going for... people made changes to these pages, but no one went crazy and just started adding "stuff" just because they could, you are welcome to add info, just consider the overall format...

How about including pictures but in a gallery format. Instead of making the pictures screw up the equipment tables you could just make an expandable gallery on the bottom or the top of the table. There's also a possibility of adding a slightly smaller version of the picture into the table the same way it is done for example in the Afghan National Army article.

Oh and you still haven't explained that deleting of sourced information. And BTW what's with all those triple dots in your messages? Why not just make normal singular dot when you're ending a sentence? - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

SuperTank17... please note other Polish military pages, that are maintained by myself and few others for some time now... like the "Polish Navy" or "Armed Forces"... there is a balance between the articles and pics... this makes the page simple yet informative... this is the Wiki standard... also, note other foreign military pages that follow this format... this is what we are going for... people made changes to these pages, but no one went crazy and just started adding "stuff" just because they could, you are welcome to add info, just consider the overall format... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.91.34 (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you have a good idea that will work, than use it. But, keep this in mind... we are trying to have an organized page... what we don't want is something like the "PL Air Force" that's primarly run by some other people. That page has so much "stuff" and it's so disorganized that it's not even displaying correctly when viewed. If you a couple of "good" pics that will help to ilustrate the overall text than add them, but don't just add a ton of pic just because you found them in Wiki Commons... the "gallery" concept is good if maintained properly... an EXECELLENT example of this is the "PL Border Guard" page... [[1]]

As for the deletion of sourced information... that was an error... what was initially noticed was the number of excessive pics and the page was "undone".

As for the "..." it a an informal way of writing, this way you're not too concerned about sentence structure... you just get the point across. But, what does this have to do with editing a Wiki page... it's very childish to include this in a discussion about Wiki content, but then the "17" in SuperTank17 probably stands for your age 17 year old. LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.91.34 (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Then I will try either concept.

Look at your talk page for my opinion about your little comment. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why in the name of all that's holy and sacred would anyone put "Żuk" and "Nysa" under military vehicles? Well might as well put all the limos that minister and generals use going with that... seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barciur (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Where does it say MILITARY vehicles? I don't see that anywhere. Oh and comparing limos used by generals to vehicles that ARE ACTUALLY USED FOR LOGISTIC DUTIES (limited because of their small capacity (up to 4 tonnes of cargo) but still).

Also here's a little quote from "List of military vehicles" article:

Military vehicles include all land combat and transportation vehicles[...]

Well I think that Żuk and Nysa vehicles fit that description perfectly. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok in that situation I suggest we make a distinction between combat vehicles and other vehicles because in my opinion tanks and żuks shouldn't be in the same category Barciur (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to split the vehicles list into different categories of vehicles (MBTs, IFVs, APCs, recon vehicles, trucks etc.) but it proved to be an extremely troublesome task. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, guys, just would like to say that this "vans" are out of place here, therefore back all previous opinions up! Thank you Ulan76 (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Those equipment lists should be removed to a sub page. The polish army army article should include information on deployments, history, training, oath of allegiance and things that really matter to the polish army. The polish army has a long history, from ww1 - ww2, operations in afghan, and 100s of years in the medieval age. I am going to put the equipment infmation on a sub page. Recon.Army (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well done mate Ulan76 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is this page a suitable place to cover the history of the Polish forces that escaped to France and then to Britain in 1939-40 and played an important role in defending Britain from 1940 until their deployment in Normandy? I'm writing a book about the defence of Scotland in 1940-41, and Poles were responsible for defending Fife and Angus. Happy to start a new page if not appropriate. If there is a more suitable page please advise. Thanks. Gjbarclay (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The page you want is Polish Armed Forces in the West. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

No one is censoring your work, so please stop accusing me, or anyone else of doing that. The issue here is that you keep adding a picture that has little connection to the text (it is a static photograph that lacks a historical setting in the background). You can add hundreds of pictures of soldiers, but they are not pictures of historical events, and since images on a wiki page are to be kept to a minimum, they have to be more than a portrait photo. Yet you keep adding this file to every page you edit. --76.118.227.161 (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

4th Regiment of Chemistry, Brodnica<---- 4th Chemical Regiment, Brodnica ; Wojska Specjalne Polish Special Forces are not part of Wojska Lądowe, but one jpg. from WS is on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.126.226 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This page states that Michał Jach is Polish Minister of Defence. It's clearly not true - Antoni Macierewicz is. Michał Jach is head of Sejm (Parliament's) Defence Comission (I don't know if that's correct translation). I don't have any Wikipedia editing experience, so somebody please correct it. -Mateusz Duchalski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.130.28 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please remove map with locations of Polish Armed Forces bases. There is a map below the article. It may be used by the potential enemy. That kind of information should never be in public web site like wikipedia.org Jacek Zaycev (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Buckshot06:, does this page still need protection? I don't see any recent persistent incidents. Regards, LukeA1 (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

We cannot properly judge, because the vandals are sometimes deterred by not being able to vandalize without getting a username, but I agree, no particular recent incidents. Let me ask a third opinion of Nick-D and then if he says yes too, we could remove the protection. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's probably safe to remove the protection. Articles on the militaries of developed economies don't tend to be subject to a high risk of persistent vandalism (charmingly, the vandals tend to focus on those of developing countries). Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Buckshot06, I'll give you a call if the situation starts to get out of hand. Regards, LukeA1 (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Buckshot06:, I urge you to remove the protection since unregistered editors are seeking changes to this article (see the section below this one). LukeA1 (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have unprotected. Let's see how this goes then...happy to reprotect if problems recur. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you LukeA1 (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

My apologies LukeA1 - busy IRL; but somebody helped you, I see. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's OK! :) LukeA1 (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

EasonChiu610 (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 15:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, current strength listed is inaccurate, as of March 2020, Strength of Land Forces is 108,000. This is my first discussion, so apologies if I have messed something up here. If someone who has edit permissions could adjust this number listed in infobox, it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemelass (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply