Quite obviously, now, it seems that I never got the ‘squadron’ thing nor did I ever get the ‘tradition’ thing either. As for the equation of squadrons being similar to regiments – that merely emphasises the navy’s accusation of RAF bad habits rather than traditions.
On none of the several squadrons I worked on did I ever get the feeling of history or tradition, of binding into a brotherhood or even bond with the winged warriors, most of whom remained cocooned in their crewroom’s or special little hidey-holes on exercises.
Though I did enjoy detachments/exercises and inter-squadron banter and beers, it was because of my mates and colleagues on other squadrons.
To most RAF techies “squadrons” are just another place of work; a handy title for another hangar; an area of the camp where some more mates worked; or where I had to go to do something.
Even as a ‘bit of a spotter’, not once in 24 years did anyone that I knew prattle on about a history or tradition to do with a particular squadron except to say that in 19-hundred-and-blasted–to-death something stupid happened or the ruddy crew flew off and left their ‘support’ behind, again.
Not once in that time did I even think of visiting or even finding a squadron (or station) history room/museum.
The recent trend of rejecting techies as part of ‘squadrons’ emphasises yet more of the great divide between the strata of military life and its so-called tradition. Rejecting the lower ranks of “Squadrons” is like not having squaddies in “regiments”. So much for that equation.
It takes more than a few artefacts to make a squadron, and a good squadron is only a good squadron because of the personnel on it, of all types and trades, those that make it tick.
If you rely on history you will hardly ever make it.
The people I worked with made history, not the squadrons we were on. The squadron’s just got a band on a flag.
You should worry about people and aircraft, not numbers.
Rigga