22 Crews, 2 Sqns At Kinloss!!!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: desert mostly
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And why exactly would CXX be the right choice to go? I suggest you research the situation regarding the disbanding Sqn, a little more. It has nothing to do with what is easiest!
Why? Because, in my view, the policy of giving certain squadrons 'sacrosanct' status for one very brief episode in their history (as was given to 617 and CXX) is mistaken. Moreover, while I wouldn't want to do diminish what 120 achieved, I don't think that it did any more than the other Nimrod units.
Because, in my view, certainly 206, and probably 201 as well, are more 'worth saving' than CXX on the basis of their service record over the years.
Because I'm entirely biased, and several of the best men I know served with 206 on Libs during 44-46. Including my Dad.
Why is keeping 120 the 'easiest' option? Because spineless, know-nothing blunt bureucrats have already made their decision (on largely specious and spurious grounds), and have already consigned the RAF's most distinguished and historic maritime unit to the rubbish bin. These are the same people who thought that Strike Command's three Groups should be named as No.s 1, 2 and 3, and that retaining historic identities like 8, 11, 18, or 38 was unnecessary! The same tw@ts who have given us a frontline without 19, 92, 56, 74, and 111 Squadrons.
Because, in my view, certainly 206, and probably 201 as well, are more 'worth saving' than CXX on the basis of their service record over the years.
Because I'm entirely biased, and several of the best men I know served with 206 on Libs during 44-46. Including my Dad.
Why is keeping 120 the 'easiest' option? Because spineless, know-nothing blunt bureucrats have already made their decision (on largely specious and spurious grounds), and have already consigned the RAF's most distinguished and historic maritime unit to the rubbish bin. These are the same people who thought that Strike Command's three Groups should be named as No.s 1, 2 and 3, and that retaining historic identities like 8, 11, 18, or 38 was unnecessary! The same tw@ts who have given us a frontline without 19, 92, 56, 74, and 111 Squadrons.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't normally read a Kipper thread but its a slow news day!
Jacko - last time I looked 111(F) Sqn was still flying F3 from Leuchars.
Archimedes you're almost right but seniority of squadrons doesn't start from the award of a Standard. Although you're right about the seniority required to receive a Standard. The seniority issue is worked out on total, accumulated active Service. Active in this case means on the active list rather than the reserve list such as the OCU squadrons like 42(R) or disbanded no matter how temporarily. Thus II(AC) steal a few months on 1(F) who were disbanded for a very short period. Some other anomolies are also thrown up such that 25 Squadron is quite senior because it lingered on as a Bloodhound unit quietly gaining seniority when lower numbers such as 11 did not.
As to which Kinloss Squadron should go - under current regulations it should be the most junior (cf accumulated seniority) - whicever that is. There is also a little appreciated point that the RAF should retain a proportion of 2xx squadrons that have their routes in the RNAS as they formed a proportion of the new Service when the RAF was formed.
For an up to date list on squadron seniority try the Air Historical Branch and for policy on how disbandment decisions are taken ask Director Air Staff in MOD. From 1 Jan 05 they have to tell all under the Freedom of Information Act ................
Jacko - last time I looked 111(F) Sqn was still flying F3 from Leuchars.
Archimedes you're almost right but seniority of squadrons doesn't start from the award of a Standard. Although you're right about the seniority required to receive a Standard. The seniority issue is worked out on total, accumulated active Service. Active in this case means on the active list rather than the reserve list such as the OCU squadrons like 42(R) or disbanded no matter how temporarily. Thus II(AC) steal a few months on 1(F) who were disbanded for a very short period. Some other anomolies are also thrown up such that 25 Squadron is quite senior because it lingered on as a Bloodhound unit quietly gaining seniority when lower numbers such as 11 did not.
As to which Kinloss Squadron should go - under current regulations it should be the most junior (cf accumulated seniority) - whicever that is. There is also a little appreciated point that the RAF should retain a proportion of 2xx squadrons that have their routes in the RNAS as they formed a proportion of the new Service when the RAF was formed.
For an up to date list on squadron seniority try the Air Historical Branch and for policy on how disbandment decisions are taken ask Director Air Staff in MOD. From 1 Jan 05 they have to tell all under the Freedom of Information Act ................
Impiger, sorry, obviously didn't make myself clear. The point about the standard is that a decision was taken in 1968 (ish) that squadrons that hadn't been awarded their standard would not be considered for reformation in future (although the policy did not apply to OCU/TWU plates). However, the documentation is equally clear that the early award of the standard to CXX and 617 had an interesting effect on the way in which their seniority was regarded.
CXX & 617 effectively overcame their lack of reckonable front line service by the early award of their standard - I have read several bits of documentation in the PRO in which very senior officers produced words to the effect of:
'Normally, 120/617 Squadron would be the unit to disband under this round of cuts, but as they were awarded their standard early for distinguished service in WW2, we are exempting them from the normal criteria of seniority, and the next most junior unit will be chopped'.
As a result, they've both gained what appears to be 'protected' status where they alone don't have to meet the criteria of reckonable service.
I haven't got it to hand at the moment, but IIRC, 120 were due to disappear with the Shackleton (42, 201, 203, 204 and 206 being the preferred candidates if my memory serves), but suddenly re-emerged as candidates after the 'rule' was pointed out; likewise, when the time came to disband one of the Scampton Vulcan B2 units, 617 were cited in the documentation as being the most junior numberplate, but it was 83 Sqn that got the chop!
That was the point I was trying (but clearly failed) to make.
CXX & 617 effectively overcame their lack of reckonable front line service by the early award of their standard - I have read several bits of documentation in the PRO in which very senior officers produced words to the effect of:
'Normally, 120/617 Squadron would be the unit to disband under this round of cuts, but as they were awarded their standard early for distinguished service in WW2, we are exempting them from the normal criteria of seniority, and the next most junior unit will be chopped'.
As a result, they've both gained what appears to be 'protected' status where they alone don't have to meet the criteria of reckonable service.
I haven't got it to hand at the moment, but IIRC, 120 were due to disappear with the Shackleton (42, 201, 203, 204 and 206 being the preferred candidates if my memory serves), but suddenly re-emerged as candidates after the 'rule' was pointed out; likewise, when the time came to disband one of the Scampton Vulcan B2 units, 617 were cited in the documentation as being the most junior numberplate, but it was 83 Sqn that got the chop!
That was the point I was trying (but clearly failed) to make.
lazy fairweather PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Forres,Scotland
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tescoapp,
Yup, thats me. Halved my wages and my MOA in one fell swoop (never was that bright but had a killer back-hand lob). Love the new job and am indeed doing a few more hours than I was on Kippers but the rations suck!
navoff,
No, no. YOU check YOUR private messages (I insist)!
Yup, thats me. Halved my wages and my MOA in one fell swoop (never was that bright but had a killer back-hand lob). Love the new job and am indeed doing a few more hours than I was on Kippers but the rations suck!
navoff,
No, no. YOU check YOUR private messages (I insist)!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard a rumour
One morning in Star Chamber after morning prayers, a dice was thrown and turned up 3
If your number plate added up to 3 you were ok, viz: 120, 201
Very unlucky 206
Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe
One morning in Star Chamber after morning prayers, a dice was thrown and turned up 3
If your number plate added up to 3 you were ok, viz: 120, 201
Very unlucky 206
Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: desert mostly
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" My dad was on it", "probably worth saving more because of their service over the years".....no more of an argument than keeping a number plate due to it's outstanding achievements during the Battle of the Atlantic.
Maybe if you were a little closer to the action at the moment you would see that 206 were always the obvious choice to go (even to their CO!), away from this blunty conspiracy idea you have.
Maybe if you were a little closer to the action at the moment you would see that 206 were always the obvious choice to go (even to their CO!), away from this blunty conspiracy idea you have.
Difar,
Whether or not my Dad flew with 206 is, of course, immaterial to the argument. I've tried not to let it influence me too much
, and to examine CXX's claims with as close to objectivity that I can manage. You should try putting aside your own affiliations and do the same. 
Who knows, if they disband 120 you might get lucky and end up with an Octopus on your arm.
The idea that CXX's service in the Battle of the Atlantic was any more "outstanding" than 206's is both highly subjective and a little offensive. CXX did have a brief period when, because they were the only Liberator unit, they did make an outstanding contribution, but equally, for much of the war, they were a standard VLR mob operating from Iceland and Ireland. Tough work, to be sure, but work which allowed the removal of the mid-upper turrets. What does that say about the threat?
206 did their share of the gruelling VLR sorties out into the Atlantic when flying Forts out of the Azores, but also had their moments flying Ansons and Hudsons (and flying Ansons as a frontline type required heroism of a very high order) and flew their Libs out into the Bay of Biscay from St Eval and out to the Norwegian Coast from Leuchars - both areas that were crawling with enemy fighters. 206 attacked a U-Boat on the first day of the war, and lost the first British PoW of the war. Dunkirk? 206 were there. First Coastal unit with ASV radar? 206. D-Day? 206 was there. Arctic Convoys? Ditto. Operating in the Baltic (the enemy's backyard)? Ditto. First with LABS? 206.
120 did NOTHING during the Great War, forming as part of the Independent Force but disbanding without leaving the UK.
120 did NOTHING during the interwar period, not reforming until the Summer of '41, and then operating at a very low tempo initially (lack of aircraft).
206 has a distinguished Great War record, and operated from June 1936. By the time 120 formed 206 had been fighting for 22 months (in a 68 month war!). Put another way, 120 were absent for nearly one third of the War - they were almost as late to the Party as the Americans were!
206's postwar record has been exemplary - and the Squadron has led the way in recent ops. What will count against it will be the fact that it was inactive from April 1946 to November 1947, and from February 1950 until September 1952, while 120's service has been unbroken since October 1946.
In the gap between the end of the War and 120's reformation, 206 flew clapped out and weary Libs in the transport role, and sustained many casualties while doing so. It was about as close to wartime flying as you can get, without being shot at, and the Squadron's performance impressed enough to be kept on in a smaller Transport Command with Yorks before it returned to the Maritime World in '52.
The impartial, informed observer would acknowledge that if distinguished service is the yardstick for keeping a Squadron, then the decision as to which unit to disband should be between 120 and 201. If it's length of service, then 120 are the obvious casualty.
At the end of the day, No.51 Squadron exists to fly just three Nimrods. With 12 or 16 aircraft and 22 crews in the Kipper Fleet there ought to be scope to keep four numberplates going - perhaps even more - they could even be commanded by Squadron Leaders!
Whether or not my Dad flew with 206 is, of course, immaterial to the argument. I've tried not to let it influence me too much
, and to examine CXX's claims with as close to objectivity that I can manage. You should try putting aside your own affiliations and do the same. Who knows, if they disband 120 you might get lucky and end up with an Octopus on your arm.The idea that CXX's service in the Battle of the Atlantic was any more "outstanding" than 206's is both highly subjective and a little offensive. CXX did have a brief period when, because they were the only Liberator unit, they did make an outstanding contribution, but equally, for much of the war, they were a standard VLR mob operating from Iceland and Ireland. Tough work, to be sure, but work which allowed the removal of the mid-upper turrets. What does that say about the threat?
206 did their share of the gruelling VLR sorties out into the Atlantic when flying Forts out of the Azores, but also had their moments flying Ansons and Hudsons (and flying Ansons as a frontline type required heroism of a very high order) and flew their Libs out into the Bay of Biscay from St Eval and out to the Norwegian Coast from Leuchars - both areas that were crawling with enemy fighters. 206 attacked a U-Boat on the first day of the war, and lost the first British PoW of the war. Dunkirk? 206 were there. First Coastal unit with ASV radar? 206. D-Day? 206 was there. Arctic Convoys? Ditto. Operating in the Baltic (the enemy's backyard)? Ditto. First with LABS? 206.
120 did NOTHING during the Great War, forming as part of the Independent Force but disbanding without leaving the UK.
120 did NOTHING during the interwar period, not reforming until the Summer of '41, and then operating at a very low tempo initially (lack of aircraft).
206 has a distinguished Great War record, and operated from June 1936. By the time 120 formed 206 had been fighting for 22 months (in a 68 month war!). Put another way, 120 were absent for nearly one third of the War - they were almost as late to the Party as the Americans were!
206's postwar record has been exemplary - and the Squadron has led the way in recent ops. What will count against it will be the fact that it was inactive from April 1946 to November 1947, and from February 1950 until September 1952, while 120's service has been unbroken since October 1946.
In the gap between the end of the War and 120's reformation, 206 flew clapped out and weary Libs in the transport role, and sustained many casualties while doing so. It was about as close to wartime flying as you can get, without being shot at, and the Squadron's performance impressed enough to be kept on in a smaller Transport Command with Yorks before it returned to the Maritime World in '52.
The impartial, informed observer would acknowledge that if distinguished service is the yardstick for keeping a Squadron, then the decision as to which unit to disband should be between 120 and 201. If it's length of service, then 120 are the obvious casualty.
At the end of the day, No.51 Squadron exists to fly just three Nimrods. With 12 or 16 aircraft and 22 crews in the Kipper Fleet there ought to be scope to keep four numberplates going - perhaps even more - they could even be commanded by Squadron Leaders!
Last edited by Jackonicko; 13th Dec 2004 at 11:20.
I suppose someone ought to note that AOC-in-C Strike is late of 206 to inject the appropriate note of cynicsm...
I did hear rumours that someone very senior wished to do exactly as JN suggests - namely turn the flights into squadrons. The precedent for this <pulls on anorak yet again> is 84 Sqn with Wessex. It was agreed that a sqn could form with as few as three aircraft, since it was felt to be important to preserve sqn number plates of more historic units.
Despite the gap at the end of the war for 206, it's service overall that counts. 206 was senior to 120 in 1973 (from when the last open documentation on this comes) and remains so.
I did hear rumours that someone very senior wished to do exactly as JN suggests - namely turn the flights into squadrons. The precedent for this <pulls on anorak yet again> is 84 Sqn with Wessex. It was agreed that a sqn could form with as few as three aircraft, since it was felt to be important to preserve sqn number plates of more historic units.
Despite the gap at the end of the war for 206, it's service overall that counts. 206 was senior to 120 in 1973 (from when the last open documentation on this comes) and remains so.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: desert mostly
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, thanks for your somewhat patronising lecture. I too could post a long " why CXX should live" novel on this thread but I won't. You are right that 206 has a long and distinguished history, but length isn't everything! What about U-boat score? CXX also flew off fighter infested Norway (as the graves of ex Sqn members at Narvik testify. Are you arguing that because of the the lack of fighter cover CXXs job was less dangerous? The losses tell a different story. I am sure we could both quote stats and history all day to justify why each Sqn should live on. You did lose credibility with "206 has led the way in recent Ops". No single MR2 Sqn can claim to have led the way during the recent (post Sep 11th) Ops. All have proudly played an equal role (FACT-the force structure doesn't allow one single Sqn to lead the way).
You also make the assumption that i wear an 'orrible green & yellow badge.
You also make the assumption that i wear an 'orrible green & yellow badge.
Difar,
Not a patronising lecture, just countering your preposterous and empty claim that 120's "outstanding achievements during the Battle of the Atlantic" were somehow greater than 206's.
And yes, I am suggesting that the lack of enemy fighter cover did make 120's job in the mid Atlantic less hazardous than 206's.
And in view of Andy Flint's part in recent ops, I think that the claim that 206 led the way is forgivable, even if it's slightly misleading. He led the Telic Det, after all and was OC 206.....
Not a patronising lecture, just countering your preposterous and empty claim that 120's "outstanding achievements during the Battle of the Atlantic" were somehow greater than 206's.
And yes, I am suggesting that the lack of enemy fighter cover did make 120's job in the mid Atlantic less hazardous than 206's.
And in view of Andy Flint's part in recent ops, I think that the claim that 206 led the way is forgivable, even if it's slightly misleading. He led the Telic Det, after all and was OC 206.....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: sunny england
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So by that argument 120 led Gulf War 1 because OC 120 led the detachment, set up the whole show and got a medal for it, as well as a love for fruit, at least according to his leaving do!!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not try opposing the cuts, instead of accepting them and worrying about which unit will go?
If the big cheeses at the top of the pile have done sweet fook all about it what hope do us coalface workers have? It would have been nice to see some Air Officers being more openly against these CUTS and seen a few resignations offered. Surely those on high can see that, at least in kipper fleet, we will not be able to carry on as we are now? Either they will have to cut our commitments (I'd love to see that bun fight - all those wanting our services fighting over who gets them and who doesn't in the future!) or accept that many will walk as the life gets even more s#!t
MadMark!!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: desert mostly
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, you seem to assume (where has all your MR2 experience come from all of a sudden?) that because OC 206 was detcom on a certain det, that means 206 led the way by default? Do me a favour! GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.......
As for my preposterous & outrageous claims (none of which were directed at 206), CXXs contribution to the Battle Of The Atlantic was outstanding, sorry to break it to you, and as a result the Sqn was awarded it's standard early(or was that another conspiracy?). Your claims that CXX had it easy are an insult to those that never made it back, and far more outrageous than any comment I have made so far. You come across as remarkably subjective and in my opinion (am I allowed one?) patronising. No more to be said.
As for my preposterous & outrageous claims (none of which were directed at 206), CXXs contribution to the Battle Of The Atlantic was outstanding, sorry to break it to you, and as a result the Sqn was awarded it's standard early(or was that another conspiracy?). Your claims that CXX had it easy are an insult to those that never made it back, and far more outrageous than any comment I have made so far. You come across as remarkably subjective and in my opinion (am I allowed one?) patronising. No more to be said.
Last edited by difar69; 14th Dec 2004 at 10:44.
Difar,
Of course in ALL recent war ops, Dets have usually been the bast.ard children of many fathers - whatever the label attached to them, and whatever the affiliation of the CO. In Granby, for example, it was rare for even one squadron to form the majority of a det. We all know that. Claiming 'leadership' by one unit is thus dodgy, and has been since sometime after Pete Squire took No.1 Squadron to the Falklands. I thought that my comment: "I think that the claim that 206 led the way is forgivable, even if it's slightly misleading." made that pretty clear.
And when we leave behind the numberplate 'willy waving' it's pretty clear that it's very sad to be being faced with the prospect of squadrons that have seen near constant service since 1945 are now faced with the axe, and that all three units have long and proud traditions and histories.
It's especially sad because with a bit of administrative tinkering (like the Army's cap-badging) Flights could easily become Squadrons and we could be saving these numberplates and traditions. It's especially stupid since in these unpredictable and unstable post Cold War days, with the long and tedious deployments and frequent wars, we actually NEED our conventional armed forces like never before, though cynical politicians continue to raid the Defence piggy bank to fund tax cuts and to deliver up the peace dividend expected by an ignorant, uncaring, gullible public.
But that said, lots of people have already written off No.206 as the obvious choice of units to lose, and have done so on spurious, specious or shaky grounds. In terms of wartime service and seniority, 206 deserves to be the last to go, and not the first, and in terms of length of service, the second.
Save the Squid!
Of course in ALL recent war ops, Dets have usually been the bast.ard children of many fathers - whatever the label attached to them, and whatever the affiliation of the CO. In Granby, for example, it was rare for even one squadron to form the majority of a det. We all know that. Claiming 'leadership' by one unit is thus dodgy, and has been since sometime after Pete Squire took No.1 Squadron to the Falklands. I thought that my comment: "I think that the claim that 206 led the way is forgivable, even if it's slightly misleading." made that pretty clear.
And when we leave behind the numberplate 'willy waving' it's pretty clear that it's very sad to be being faced with the prospect of squadrons that have seen near constant service since 1945 are now faced with the axe, and that all three units have long and proud traditions and histories.
It's especially sad because with a bit of administrative tinkering (like the Army's cap-badging) Flights could easily become Squadrons and we could be saving these numberplates and traditions. It's especially stupid since in these unpredictable and unstable post Cold War days, with the long and tedious deployments and frequent wars, we actually NEED our conventional armed forces like never before, though cynical politicians continue to raid the Defence piggy bank to fund tax cuts and to deliver up the peace dividend expected by an ignorant, uncaring, gullible public.
But that said, lots of people have already written off No.206 as the obvious choice of units to lose, and have done so on spurious, specious or shaky grounds. In terms of wartime service and seniority, 206 deserves to be the last to go, and not the first, and in terms of length of service, the second.
Save the Squid!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In the sandy places
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ArmyBarmy
If it's true it still hasn't filtered out to those of us in the sandy places. When was it announced and by who???
Out of sight and out of our minds
Just heard - Its 206!
Out of sight and out of our minds