Attached, Detached and Posted?

[HighTow]

Can any of you military guys help me understand the difference between being "attached", "detached" and "posted" to a unit?

I'm doing some research with some old RAF operational record books and keep coming across the three terms with regards to personnel movements. I'm guessing it's a difference between a permanent and temporary transfer?

Thanks in advance.

/HT

[Tigger_Too]

"Attached to"; "detached from"; both temporary. "posted to/from" = change of parent unit.

... but I defer to the scribblies for a fuller answer!

[Pontius Navigator]

attached and detached are from different sides of the coin. Attached from and detached to. Both are indeed temporary but temporary itself is undefined.

A person might be attached to a staff college for a year or more (typically as a student). A posting means the person joins the established strength of a unit.

There are also adminstrative differences affecting allowances one may claim as these may vary between personnel attached and those that are posted. The attached personnel, for instance, may be given warrants to visit home.

In an historical context the detailed rules have been changed constantly so there is no point in expanding using today's criteria.

Att and Det also appliy to units or parts of units. A sqn might setup up a Det at a different station or base or theatre. The Det is a sub-unit of its parent with the main HQ remaining at the permanent station. It is not only flying units that set up Dets. A permanent Det may also be given flt status. A flt may be a small unit in its own right and not a sub-unit of a sqn.

The helicopter flight at Akrotiri used to be 1312 Flt until it was amalgamated with the RAF UN flight in Cyorus and became 84 sqn. Note the flt nmber is in the 1000s. OTOH the UK based sqns 22 and 202 have flts around the country; these are unnumbered flt and thus 22 Det etc.

Trust that serves to confuse.

[Tigger_Too]

Ah, PN. Now we've opened a can of worms between us. So, is it "attached to", or "attached from". I definitely defer to the scribblies at this point!

[Pontius Navigator]

ROFLOL,

I guess it depends on who you ask. If you ask the adjt of the receiving unit the Prune is attached (to -assumed) from . . . however Prune will tell you he is attached to . . . (and detached - assumed) from . . .

At home Prune will have been detached to . . .


Aaaagh

[HighTow]

Apologies for not replying sooner with thanks for the explanations!

The attached/detached thing is still causing me some headaches with regard to the "direction" of the movement. To illustrated, I quote from the units ORB:

* P/O Harrison and P/O Smith posted to No.2 GTS.* P/O Albertini posted from R.A.F. Valley for Duty Pilot duities.
* F/O Simmons detached to R.A.F Kiddlington.
* P/O Barwood attached to R.A.F Stannington for Admin. Course.

Not sure what the difference is between being detatched and attached to another unit could be?

Thanks for any clarification.

[Green Flash]

Harrison, Smith and Albertini moved permanently without any expectation that they would return and were 'owned' by their new units. Simmons and Barwood went somewhere for a specific task/course/whatever but remained the 'property' of their home unit and were expected to return at some point.

[teeteringhead]

HighTow

I suspect that the confusion existed even in 19?? in the records that you are using.

There was probably no difference in the status of Simmons and Barwood, maybe just the quirk of the clerk wot wrote it.

Even now, common useage would not see a difference between attached to and detached to, or it may depend on whose records they are, ie: detached to you, attached to me.

Alternatively, it may have been the practice to use different terms for courses (Barwood) rather than other duties, but that's just speculation.

As we're not talking current practice, maybe AH&N might be helpful?

[Dundiggin']

If I remember my 'blunty theory' from some 45 yrs ago - eek! - 'attached' is for a short time, 'detached' is for a longer time and 'posted' is for 2yrs. I think it was whether you were put on the receiving units' ration strength or not ergo if you were attached you weren't but if detached/posted then you were. Piece of p@ss really.....

[HighTow]

Thanks for the clarification chaps. For my purposes the general of "posted" means pack your bags and "attached/detached" means we'll keep your dinner warm. :)

[FCWhippingBoy]

If you DETACH something, it leaves something ...

If you ATTACH something, it joins something ...

Therefore, transferring this logic to temporary duties, you DETACH from your home unit, and you ATTACH to the receiving unit.

Therefore, if I was to go to RAF Boulmer for a course, I would be detached from RAF Scampton and attached to RAF Boulmer both at the same time!

As for the wording, it depends on whose point of view and how they wish to state it ....

RAF Scampton could say "attached to RAF Boulmer" or "detached to RAF Boulmer" the operative word being "to".

RAF Boulmer could say "detached from RAF Scampton" or "attached from RAF Scampton" the operative word being "from".

I guess I just succeeded in confusing myself now :}

[HighTow]

Thanks for all the pointers chaps, but here's another one to give you a migraine! :D

"F/Sgt. Short was posted to No. 5 G.T.S supernumerary"

According to my dictionary definition "supernumerary" means be part of another unit/organisation without actually being a part of it. So based on our previous definition that being posted means your permanently attached to that new unit, this contradicts that by meaning it's no permanent - so isn't that same as being detached to it? :ugh:

Oh I love RAF English sometimes...

[artyhug]

Ah now you just can't beat Service writing, or is it Defence writing now? Or has it really all been cancelled? Who knows.

Anyway, bored as I am I thought I'd try to lend a helping hand HighTow. 'Supernumerary' at least in the sphere of the RAF in which I work is generally used to mean 'You're there in an official capacity but not exactly required'. ie Supernumerary Crew on a Herc, for example, count as crew rather than pax but aren't involved in making the turny things turn or the flappy things flap or indeed the pax behave.

I'd suggest he was posted in to No. 5 GTS as a Flt Sgt without portfolio, but then that just raises another RAF term you may not understand.....

:}