Battle Honours - Iraq 2003

[Gweedo]

RAF squadrons awarded Battle Honour “IRAQ 2003” with the right to emblazon on Standards are:

No. 1(Fighter) Sqn, No3 (Fighter) Sqn and No IV (Army Cooperation) Sqn.

No. II (Army Cooperation) Sqn.

No. 7 Sqn.

No. IX (Bomber) Sqn.

No. 12 (Bomber) Sqn.

No. 31 Sqn.

No. 47 Sqn.

No. 617 Sqn.

No. 51 Sqn RAF Regt.

Squadrons awarded Battle Honour “IRAQ 2003” without the right to emblazonment are:

No. 8 Sqn and No 23 Sqns.

No. 10 Sqn and No. 101 Sqns.

No. 18 (Bomber) Sqn.

No. 33 Sqn.

No. 39 Sqn.

No. 43 (Fighter) Sqn and No. 111 (Fighter) Sqns.

No. 51 Sqn.

No. 120 Sqn and No. 201 Sqns.

No. 206 Sqn.

No. 216 Sqn.

No. 1 Sqn RAF Regt.

No. II Sqn RAF Regt.

No. 16 Sqn RAF Regt.

No. 27 Sqn RAF Regt.

[GazelleWake]

In addition,

845 Naval Air Squadron
847 Naval Air Squadron

have been awarded the Battle Honour "AL FAW 2003" for their vital role in the conflict.:D

[kippermate]

Well done, all.

kipper

:ok:

[StopStart]

Yes jolly good show and all that :ok:

Just out of interest, what dictates which sqns get Battle Honours (emblazoned or non-emblazoned)? Is it based on entries in the sqn 540s? Action in theatre/over the FLOT etc etc?

:)

[Climebear]

StopStart

RAF Website states: (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/news_0506_05.html)

RAF squadrons which were required to operate under constant threat of attack and had demonstrated gallantry and spirit under fire during the campaign over Iraq and Kuwait or on the ground in the same territories have been awarded the Battle Honour ‘IRAQ 2003’ with the right to emblazon the honour on their Standards. Other squadrons which participated in the air and ground campaigns, albeit at a slightly lower level of danger, have been awarded the honour ‘IRAQ 2003’ without the right to emblazon the honour on their Standards.

I believe you are correct in both parts - Sqn action and participation is key but relies on the evidence laid out in the Sqn's F540 (operational record book). Hence the importance of getting someone reasonably able to write to compile it (especially on ops). Cr*p in, Cr*p out.

[StopStart]

Climebear, thanks for that :) thought that might be the case!

I can only imagine then that the other Lyneham Sqns must have had their relevant 540s written in crayon by the local primary school or something, for them not to feature in the second list....

:hmm:

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

I did hear that some EGDL sqn's were turned down for Iraq battle honours due to late submissions of 540's. Not sure how true this is, though.

[StopStart]

lol! :D :D Tell me that's not true??????? Someone!

Defeated by paperwork once again! Makes the world go round though I guess :rolleyes:

[Green Bottle 2]

I can only assume the 18 (B) Sqn standard is full (I think it actually is) as they were based with 51 Sqn RAF Regt and flew sausage side under constant threat of attack. Also what about the attack on the Al Faw - hardly a trip to the shops.

What about 33 Sqn and 27 Sqn as well. All were out there under the same threat, in the same area.

GB2:(

[4fitter]

GB2
Have to agree with your logic. First thing that crossed my mind was what about the other SH sqns. I dearly hope it is a case of crap 540 ( then end of career for the author !) because if it isn't then somebody is re-engineering the history I lived through.
4f

[6foottanker]

I guess the powers that be have forgotten the amount of effort the boys on 99 put in, both in the Gulf and in Afghanistan. Without the enablers, no-one else can do the warry stuff, and win the acclaim, just remember that B liar.

[AsleepByMidhurst]

One might think that those who demonstrated gallantry and spirit under fire would not then be required to blow their own trumpets in order to gain battle honours or medals. It would be nice if one of the pencil pushers could do that from the comfort of their air conditioned office at HQSTC. And can we have batting staff back while we're at it?:ooh:

[animo et fide]

Having been one of the crew members for the Al Faw job, it is disappointing to see that we haven't been given the right to emblazonment for either Iraq or Al Faw. We didn't do the job for the glory but surely deserves some recognition for the forst helo assault since Suez:sad:

[pigsinspace]

it seems the RAF website cannot even find a Pic of one of our tankers (either vc10 or T*).. they publish a pic of a kc10...

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/images/news_0506_05_6_t.jpg

[Talk Reaction]

animo,

I would suggest to you that as Strike didn't think we even deserved water as we weren't part of the raf det might provide an answer.

Absolutelty no wish to knock any other involvments but I think SF escape the non RAF umbrella of JHC.

In agreement with you, 3 sqns who lived in Iraq and never flew anywhere else with plenty of contacts oh and the triffling matter of invading a country under fire.......... Well it was all in the 540s!