The whole business of squadron numbers is a dog’s breakfast IMHO.
I accept that an arrangements needed to be made but whilst the principle of low numbers can be accepted, once one started to make exceptions, the line was difficult to hold. There are very many squadrons, some in the high numbers, whose squadron achievements can be matched to those currently in use. Two issues come into play. First, if you keep the low numbers as at present, they will de facto become the longest serving units with the passage of time. Second, the policy means that squadrons whose lineage is – say – bomber, suddenly become a transport unit. This loses any sort of corporate history. One must also allow that those in the current and future service will only have any knowledge of the sqns currently around and so will have no interest in the rich history of the RAF.
The great pity is that many distinguished units will never be reformed.
I proposed about thirty years ago that the OCUs should be renumbered as squadrons and when my proposal was aired in Air Clues, there was considerable opposition, some of it bordering on abuse and I thought the idea would die. However, Air Marshal Sir John Curtiss championed the idea and it happened, with the Reserve squadrons as we have now.
The only way that squadrons might be resurrected is with something like the parts of a station organisation being given numbers. So, for example, the base support wing at RAF ‘X’ becomes: 194 (Support) Sqn. It might be that the School of Recruit Training has – say – two training squadrons and these might be numbered 103 (Recruit Training) Sqn and 110 (RT) Sqn. These pseudo units would acquire all the remaining memorabilia, silverware – if it hasn’t already been stolen from the store – and the squadron standard. In my view it might help inculcate some pride in the organisation. Certainly for my part, I still feel proud of the squadrons on which I served but have little affinity with being part of the Admin Wg at RAF Much Binding in the Marsh.
Old Duffer