Originally Posted by
Jackonicko
How can it be that 19 and 92, 56 and 74, 43 and 111, 41 and 54 are all moribund when the frontline includes the relatively undistinguished 1, II, 3, and 11, and 31?
Because the system, for all its faults, attempts to deal with the subjectivity highlighted in your analysis of 'relatively undistinguished'.
The counter to your argument - and before we start, this is Devil's Advocate time to highlight the point - would be this.
1 Squadron is one of the first three squadrons in RFC/RAF history. A highly successful fighter squadron in WW1, it served throughout the interwar period, was the RAF's most successful squadron in the Battle of France, fought through the Battle of Britain, had at worst a 'solid' record for the rest of the war (some historians would argue that even that's unfair), flew during Op MUSKETEER, introduced the Harrier, was particularly successful during CORPORATE (Julian Thompson is on record as saying that the Harrier attack at Goose Green was, in his opinion, the critical element in tipping the Argentines into surrender) and has been involved in every operation in which the RAF has sent FJ bar Granby.
2 Squadron - highly successful in WW1 (including first VC awarded to an aviator), served with distinction - and complication when it came to Ireland - in the interwar era and after the travails with the Lysander in 1940, became one of, it not the, premiere Fighter Recce squadron(s) with Mustang I/II and then Spits. Also notable because with
3 Squadron - flew the first ever sortie by the RFC when to avoid subsequent banter (failed) , the squadron OCs decided upon a pairs take off. Then very distinguished WW1 service, particularly in the A-G role in 1917; served throughout the interwar period. Again, like 1 Squadron, record in WW2 was at worst 'jolly decent'.
11 Squadron - the RAF's first fighter squadron and quite possibly the world's first dedicated fighter squadron. Record in WW1 includes flying FE2 and Brisfit with distinction; record in WW2 includes gallant efforts against Japanese (when squadron had Blenheims) and then actually fairly distinguished service in Burma on Hurricanes - but being in Burma, largely forgotten/ignored.
31 Squadron - more of a 'in right place at right time' for some of history one would accept, but operations in interwar period and against Japanese (and then in Indonesia in 1946) do help the squadron stand out rather more than people think.
On the flip side...
54 - Decent WW1 record and clear period of distinction in BoB. Then out to Darwin and Far East and a relatively speaking quiet war. Flew Atlantic in 1948, and then record of solid achievement throughout Cold War, into Granby, former Yugoslavia, etc. But more distinguished than 2 Squadron?
74 Squadron - formed late in WW1, did extremely well in short period of existence, then disbanded and reformed in 1935. Distinguished record in BoB (stand fast Battle of Barking Creek or similar blue-on-blue). Then out to Middle East doing canal defence and a period which was, to borrow a phrase 'relatively undistinguished'. Back to NW Europe on Spits for final combat operations. Successful in Fighter Command and distinction imposed upon it by selection as first Lightning squadron. Thence to Far East, solid service, disbanded and then victim of lack of seniority until reformation in 1984. More distinguished than 11?
Now, you can do the same for the other squadrons - the point is that you can take a squadron's record and describe it as distinguished or otherwise, depending upon how you tackle the history, the problem being that when you start comparing those histories, the subjectivity comes into play. The Air Staff and AHB recognised this in the post-war era and thus the system of seniority we have comes into play in a bid to remove that subjectivity. The correspondence in the PRO/National Archives about squadrons is interesting in that it rather gives the lie to the idea that a very senior officer will always interfere and a squadron will re-emerge at their whim - attempts at influence clearly happen (e.g. 139 Squadron where former members enlisted the help of the Jamaican government to try to keep it on the books as a Buccaneer squadron after the Victor B2 went), but the evidence suggests that they rarely succeed in the face of the (granted, with some flex) 'rules'
Originally Posted by
Jackonicko
Not for the first time, I'd strongly support an adoption of the French system, with individual Flights being given squadron identities, and with squadrons carrying one unit's markings on one side of the tail, and another unit's colours on the other. OC 'B' Flight on what is now No.3 Squadron might thus become OC 111 Squadron… a Squadron Leader commanding something called a Squadron. Twice as many squadron number plates in use and saved from oblivion. It will never catch on.
I believe that this was looked at. After a bid by a very senior officer to get 79 Squadron into the front line (on Typhoon, IIRC) had been dealt with by AHB, I believe that those responsible for the counting and allocation of beans concluded that while the idea was splendid in theory, there were some resource and budgeting implications which militated against doing this, and that the admin changes and implications (particularly in terms of the fact that you'd instantly have more people who'd done squadron command, which would, it was said, cause problems for Innsworth [as it was at the time]) were the final nail in the idea's coffin. I believe - from the horse's mouth, as it were - that at least one current senior officer is, metaphorically, poised with a crowbar to lever off the coffin's lid, but it's not the most important thing on his agenda.
The system isn't perfect, and there is a balance between wanting to preserve heritage (which is, in my experience observing this, the actual driver rather than attempting to con the public) and going too far - Trenchard would never have approved of the Grob Tutor being flown by a former front line unit, and the current set up with the Hawk T2 wouldn't have arisen, since they'd be operating with 4FTS and without any reserve numberplate as the great man argued that this was quite inappropriate.