22 Crews, 2 Sqns At Kinloss!!!!
Difar,
I have admitted to some partiality on this issue, but believe that even when one leaves aside subjective factors, it's clear that No.206 has a greater claim on continued existence than CXX. It's a tough call, and it's a shame (and perhaps unnecessary) that any of the current Nimrod units should disappear.
But let's look at the facts.
Ignoring the RFC/RNAS period, when I believe that 'Naval Six' had longer service than 120, the two squadrons have both amassed a proud record.
I'm not claiming that No.120 had it 'easy' (easier than 206 perhaps), only that their wartime service was significantly shorter, and certainly worth no more than that of No.206.
Since 1 April 1918, No.120 Squadron's accumulated service has been broken by a 21 year and seven month period (ending in June 1941) and by a 16 month period from June 1945. That's 22 years and 11 months.
No.206's breaks were 16 years and four months from 1 February 1920, from April 46 to November 47 (19 months) and from February 1950 to September 1952 (two years and seven months). That's 20 years and six months.
No.206 Squadron thus has seniority over 120, and this was indicated when 206's numberplate was retained after VE Day while 120's was not.
For 120 to be retained instead of 206, one would have to assert that No.120 Squadron's 46 months of wartime service were worth much MORE than 206's 68 months, thereby compensating for its shorter accumulated service, and for the fact that it was never operational before June 1941 (whereas 206 saw active service on the Western Front and during the interwar years).
I'm not seriously claiming that No.206's WWII record is MORE distinguished than No.120's - only that it is no LESS distinguished, and that seniority should thus be the deciding factor. I'm not going to sit here and dishonour 120 by suggesting that their contribution was somehow worth less than 206's - though you are doing exactly that to 206.
I have admitted to some partiality on this issue, but believe that even when one leaves aside subjective factors, it's clear that No.206 has a greater claim on continued existence than CXX. It's a tough call, and it's a shame (and perhaps unnecessary) that any of the current Nimrod units should disappear.
But let's look at the facts.
Ignoring the RFC/RNAS period, when I believe that 'Naval Six' had longer service than 120, the two squadrons have both amassed a proud record.
I'm not claiming that No.120 had it 'easy' (easier than 206 perhaps), only that their wartime service was significantly shorter, and certainly worth no more than that of No.206.
Since 1 April 1918, No.120 Squadron's accumulated service has been broken by a 21 year and seven month period (ending in June 1941) and by a 16 month period from June 1945. That's 22 years and 11 months.
No.206's breaks were 16 years and four months from 1 February 1920, from April 46 to November 47 (19 months) and from February 1950 to September 1952 (two years and seven months). That's 20 years and six months.
No.206 Squadron thus has seniority over 120, and this was indicated when 206's numberplate was retained after VE Day while 120's was not.
For 120 to be retained instead of 206, one would have to assert that No.120 Squadron's 46 months of wartime service were worth much MORE than 206's 68 months, thereby compensating for its shorter accumulated service, and for the fact that it was never operational before June 1941 (whereas 206 saw active service on the Western Front and during the interwar years).
I'm not seriously claiming that No.206's WWII record is MORE distinguished than No.120's - only that it is no LESS distinguished, and that seniority should thus be the deciding factor. I'm not going to sit here and dishonour 120 by suggesting that their contribution was somehow worth less than 206's - though you are doing exactly that to 206.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
Whats make you such an expert on Kipper Fleet ops? From what I believe, you were a UAS cadet and haven't even served let alone been frontline aircrew and you're arguing with guys currently serving on the Kipper Fleet!!
If you knew anything about telic ops you'd realise how stupid your comment about detcoms was.
Stick to poring over history books mate not advising Fleets how to organise themselves.
Whats make you such an expert on Kipper Fleet ops? From what I believe, you were a UAS cadet and haven't even served let alone been frontline aircrew and you're arguing with guys currently serving on the Kipper Fleet!!
If you knew anything about telic ops you'd realise how stupid your comment about detcoms was.
Stick to poring over history books mate not advising Fleets how to organise themselves.
Foxache,
When you're a bit more open about who you are, then, and only then, should you be making comments about my expertise, or otherwise. Even then, with just seven posts to your credit, and seven months behind you, you might consider whether you've been here long enough to learn the etiquette of the forum. Most here can at least dress up the abuse in what passes for banter.
Moreover, this particular issue is all about history (and not about current or recent ops), and the interpretation of the arcane rules and regs lying behind the concept of squadron seniority. I do have some limited expertise in this particular area.
Finally, while I don't have any frontline experience, and have never pretended to any (and I am completely open as to what I am on here and in my profile, unlike you) I am at least an amatuer pilot, and admit to having a licence of some description. I do speak regularly to many people who are 'at the coalface' including some who have put in more time there than most people here, and have done so for more than 20 years.
But rather than hurling silly personal abuse, and rather than playing another rivetting round of 'kick the journo' why not acquaint yourself with these facts:
Fact: 206 has greater accumulated service than 120, giving it seniority.
Fact: 206 served throughout WWII. 120 missed the first 22 months.
Fact: 206 saw active service in the Great War, 120 did not.
Archimedes pointed out that: "206 was senior to 120 in 1973 (from when the last open documentation on this comes) and remains so." Thus 206 should not be the unit disappearing. This isn't rocket science.
Also please permit me to counter the ridiculous and offensive assertions suggesting that 120's Wartime achievements were somehow greater or more valuable than 206's - even if such assertions are being made by current Kipper mates. I know several wartime 206 blokes, and have interviewed blokes who flew Libs from Nutts Corner, Ballykelly and Reykjavik with a number of units, including 120. I think that people who actually flew Libs with Coastal know more about wartime ops than those who merely fly in the same role today. I will react angrily to any suggestion that 206's wartime aircrew were any 'lesser' than 120's.
You say: "If you knew anything about telic ops you'd realise how stupid your comment about detcoms was." I merely said that "206's postwar record has been exemplary - and the Squadron has led the way in recent ops" - a bit cheeky, a bit of a stretch, a bit silly even, but hardly a terribly outlandish or offensive claim in the context of arguing for 206's survival. I suggest you re-read what I said, and especially the comment: "that the claim that 206 led the way is forgivable, even if it's slightly misleading."
Those who suggest that 206's recent record has somehow been such that they "were always the obvious choice to go" should perhaps substantiate their insinuations, back up and detail their assertions, or apologise and then shut up.
Save the Squid!
When you're a bit more open about who you are, then, and only then, should you be making comments about my expertise, or otherwise. Even then, with just seven posts to your credit, and seven months behind you, you might consider whether you've been here long enough to learn the etiquette of the forum. Most here can at least dress up the abuse in what passes for banter.
Moreover, this particular issue is all about history (and not about current or recent ops), and the interpretation of the arcane rules and regs lying behind the concept of squadron seniority. I do have some limited expertise in this particular area.
Finally, while I don't have any frontline experience, and have never pretended to any (and I am completely open as to what I am on here and in my profile, unlike you) I am at least an amatuer pilot, and admit to having a licence of some description. I do speak regularly to many people who are 'at the coalface' including some who have put in more time there than most people here, and have done so for more than 20 years.
But rather than hurling silly personal abuse, and rather than playing another rivetting round of 'kick the journo' why not acquaint yourself with these facts:
Fact: 206 has greater accumulated service than 120, giving it seniority.
Fact: 206 served throughout WWII. 120 missed the first 22 months.
Fact: 206 saw active service in the Great War, 120 did not.
Archimedes pointed out that: "206 was senior to 120 in 1973 (from when the last open documentation on this comes) and remains so." Thus 206 should not be the unit disappearing. This isn't rocket science.
Also please permit me to counter the ridiculous and offensive assertions suggesting that 120's Wartime achievements were somehow greater or more valuable than 206's - even if such assertions are being made by current Kipper mates. I know several wartime 206 blokes, and have interviewed blokes who flew Libs from Nutts Corner, Ballykelly and Reykjavik with a number of units, including 120. I think that people who actually flew Libs with Coastal know more about wartime ops than those who merely fly in the same role today. I will react angrily to any suggestion that 206's wartime aircrew were any 'lesser' than 120's.
You say: "If you knew anything about telic ops you'd realise how stupid your comment about detcoms was." I merely said that "206's postwar record has been exemplary - and the Squadron has led the way in recent ops" - a bit cheeky, a bit of a stretch, a bit silly even, but hardly a terribly outlandish or offensive claim in the context of arguing for 206's survival. I suggest you re-read what I said, and especially the comment: "that the claim that 206 led the way is forgivable, even if it's slightly misleading."
Those who suggest that 206's recent record has somehow been such that they "were always the obvious choice to go" should perhaps substantiate their insinuations, back up and detail their assertions, or apologise and then shut up.
Save the Squid!
No not at all. Having a PPL or being current aircrew has nothing to do with this subject. I have always admitted to my inexperience in my profile and on these boards, and to being a journo whose experience of the RAF is limited to growing up with an RAF Dad, and to three years of undistinguished VR service on a UAS, very, very many years ago. Whereas from your profile and posting record you could be anything from OC 201 down to the lowliest clerical assistant.....
But at least I'm addressing the issue, rather than (OK, OK, as well as...) engaging in dim-witted and bad-tempered abuse (clever witty abuse would fine, but you don't seem capable of that). Just continue to take cheap shots from your empty and anonymous profile, and take no notice of the nasty civvy when he says that with your complete lack of facility when it comes to either courtesy or banter, he suspects that you're not proper aircrew yourself.
When the subject is arcane interpretation of history, then surely someone who's into that, and who has interviewed survivors of the period in question may have some small contribution to make.
This is the one time when "poring over history books" is likely to give some limited insight into the case for and against.
But rather than discussing the issue (206 Squadron's greater claim to continued existence) or addressing the arguments (I find your inability or unwillingness to do so interesting), do feel free to continue with your boring game of 'bait the civvy'. Forgive me if I don't continue to respond in kind. I'm not inclined to continue a battle of wits with you, since I was taught that it was bad form to attack an unarmed man.
I should perhaps be more gracious, since a member of Guernsey's Own is bound to be bitter and twisted when No.206 is being discussed. Twas ever thus, I'm told.
How else would you expect a member of Accrington Stanley to behave when the conversation involves Manchester United and Portsmouth......
But at least I'm addressing the issue, rather than (OK, OK, as well as...) engaging in dim-witted and bad-tempered abuse (clever witty abuse would fine, but you don't seem capable of that). Just continue to take cheap shots from your empty and anonymous profile, and take no notice of the nasty civvy when he says that with your complete lack of facility when it comes to either courtesy or banter, he suspects that you're not proper aircrew yourself.
When the subject is arcane interpretation of history, then surely someone who's into that, and who has interviewed survivors of the period in question may have some small contribution to make.
This is the one time when "poring over history books" is likely to give some limited insight into the case for and against.But rather than discussing the issue (206 Squadron's greater claim to continued existence) or addressing the arguments (I find your inability or unwillingness to do so interesting), do feel free to continue with your boring game of 'bait the civvy'. Forgive me if I don't continue to respond in kind. I'm not inclined to continue a battle of wits with you, since I was taught that it was bad form to attack an unarmed man.
I should perhaps be more gracious, since a member of Guernsey's Own is bound to be bitter and twisted when No.206 is being discussed. Twas ever thus, I'm told.
How else would you expect a member of Accrington Stanley to behave when the conversation involves Manchester United and Portsmouth......
Terrible news about 206.
Still, when's the party?
Jacko - I know you've had a rough time and, having read your posts, a lot of it is not deserved (I can't believe I'm siding with a journalist); however I have to say that someone with the name Foxache Radar must be aircrew. In fact I can probably guess who taught him on the BPRT at Finningley.
So, as usual, no-one with any power has listened to anybody anyway so we might as well send off 206 in a way that is befitting its history and contributions to the service and defence of this country.
Still, when's the party?
Jacko - I know you've had a rough time and, having read your posts, a lot of it is not deserved (I can't believe I'm siding with a journalist); however I have to say that someone with the name Foxache Radar must be aircrew. In fact I can probably guess who taught him on the BPRT at Finningley.
So, as usual, no-one with any power has listened to anybody anyway so we might as well send off 206 in a way that is befitting its history and contributions to the service and defence of this country.
Thanks! Much appreciated.
I bow to your superior knowledge as to Foxache's aircrew status, though I did qualify it by doubting that he was 'proper' aircrew .... (two wings, not one!)
In 36 years my Dad served with a host of units, but 206 was always the one Squadron he seemed most proud of. What a slap in the face to him and his squadron mates - made worse by the fact that the old mob has gone despite its seniority. Still, at least he can take comfort in the fact that 120, with its greater and more distinguished wartime achievements, has been saved. Perhaps Difar would like to tell him, or maybe Foxache would like to explain how justice has been done.
I guess that now is the time for 206 to take my old man for a final flight. The old bug.ger is still as fit as a flea, and has just celebrated (with two of the five survivors of his wartime crew) the 60th anniversary of 'squeaking home' as far as Sumburgh after being shot up by three Bf 110s, with one gunner badly wounded and another dead. Lucky he wasn't with a unit that really saw action.....
Interestingly (and terrifyingly at the time) their Dak pilot for the journey back to Leuchars (they left the Lib at Sumburgh Cat 5) was one Pilot Officer Prune....
I bow to your superior knowledge as to Foxache's aircrew status, though I did qualify it by doubting that he was 'proper' aircrew .... (two wings, not one!)
In 36 years my Dad served with a host of units, but 206 was always the one Squadron he seemed most proud of. What a slap in the face to him and his squadron mates - made worse by the fact that the old mob has gone despite its seniority. Still, at least he can take comfort in the fact that 120, with its greater and more distinguished wartime achievements, has been saved. Perhaps Difar would like to tell him, or maybe Foxache would like to explain how justice has been done.
I guess that now is the time for 206 to take my old man for a final flight. The old bug.ger is still as fit as a flea, and has just celebrated (with two of the five survivors of his wartime crew) the 60th anniversary of 'squeaking home' as far as Sumburgh after being shot up by three Bf 110s, with one gunner badly wounded and another dead. Lucky he wasn't with a unit that really saw action.....
Interestingly (and terrifyingly at the time) their Dak pilot for the journey back to Leuchars (they left the Lib at Sumburgh Cat 5) was one Pilot Officer Prune....
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think squadron history had anything to do with the decision - they're just disbanding the squadron with the oldest, fattest and ugliest guys on it! Just glad it wasn't the mighty Flying Boat Sqn.
As regarding 206 leading the way in recent ops: In the initial stages of Telic, we weren't being led at all due to the very fact that OC 206 was the Det Com, what an a##e. Good job the Dep Det Com was 201!!
Joking aside, it is sad to see.
As regarding 206 leading the way in recent ops: In the initial stages of Telic, we weren't being led at all due to the very fact that OC 206 was the Det Com, what an a##e. Good job the Dep Det Com was 201!!
Joking aside, it is sad to see.
"Interestingly (and terrifyingly at the time) their Dak pilot for the journey back to Leuchars (they left the Lib at Sumburgh Cat 5) was one Pilot Officer Prune...."
One wonders whether the Rental Air Farce of today would spare one of its precious corgi-carriers to recover a stranded crew from Sumburgh to Leuchars?
Sorry to hear about 206!
One wonders whether the Rental Air Farce of today would spare one of its precious corgi-carriers to recover a stranded crew from Sumburgh to Leuchars?
Sorry to hear about 206!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see, clever and witty banter like "lowliest clerical assistant" and "proper aircrew". Nice one. How would YOU know anything about the behaviour of a member of the above 'teams' having never been one? One more question, do you actually have a life outside the internet? I'll bet these interviews have all occurred in some seedy chatroom with Kevin from Sutton Coldfield (pretending to be ex-206).
Foxache,
Now that's more like it! The "Kevin from Sutton Coalfield/get a life" jibe was a masterstroke - nicely observed and well expressed. I withdraw my criticism of your bantering skills, and grovel in abject apology at ever having doubted you. I do resent the implication that I've never been a lowly clerical assistant, however. Don't you know what the word journalist means?
I am, however, going to bore you. Most of the wartime survivors I've met don't use e-mail, so fortunately it has to be face-to-face (always a privilege, often an honour, sometimes priceless!), and occasionally just over the phone. The scary thing is how quickly they are dying off. I wrote a book about the Sunderland only a couple of years ago, and three of the wartime chaps I interviewed for it have since shuffled off this mortal coil.
JAFO,
Excellent response. As long as you don't think I'm serious - though perhaps if its restored proper balance to the aircrew-journalist relationship......!
Mad Boom,
The exact opposite of what I'd heard, but with a ring of truth. How sad, if true.
Now that's more like it! The "Kevin from Sutton Coalfield/get a life" jibe was a masterstroke - nicely observed and well expressed. I withdraw my criticism of your bantering skills, and grovel in abject apology at ever having doubted you. I do resent the implication that I've never been a lowly clerical assistant, however. Don't you know what the word journalist means?
I am, however, going to bore you. Most of the wartime survivors I've met don't use e-mail, so fortunately it has to be face-to-face (always a privilege, often an honour, sometimes priceless!), and occasionally just over the phone. The scary thing is how quickly they are dying off. I wrote a book about the Sunderland only a couple of years ago, and three of the wartime chaps I interviewed for it have since shuffled off this mortal coil.
JAFO,
Excellent response. As long as you don't think I'm serious - though perhaps if its restored proper balance to the aircrew-journalist relationship......!
Mad Boom,
The exact opposite of what I'd heard, but with a ring of truth. How sad, if true.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jacko,
Mad Boom is 100% correct in his statement, and I don't just mean about 206 having the ugliest guys!!
It had to be 206. 201 visit Guernsey every year, 120 visit Kef, where did 206 have an affiliation with...... Nairn. Now who wants to go to bloody Nairn?
You may also notice my lack of posts etc. This, however, is because I can rarely be ar$ed to engage in slanging matches that are mostly name and faceless.
Ragards to all on 201. Was out in London yesterday (MARCOL)and met up with quite a few guys who've been posted away over the last 3 - 4 years. All doing well and not letting the side down when it comes to ale!!
Post all the 206 uglies to CXX(TS)!!!
Mad Boom is 100% correct in his statement, and I don't just mean about 206 having the ugliest guys!!
It had to be 206. 201 visit Guernsey every year, 120 visit Kef, where did 206 have an affiliation with...... Nairn. Now who wants to go to bloody Nairn?
You may also notice my lack of posts etc. This, however, is because I can rarely be ar$ed to engage in slanging matches that are mostly name and faceless.
Ragards to all on 201. Was out in London yesterday (MARCOL)and met up with quite a few guys who've been posted away over the last 3 - 4 years. All doing well and not letting the side down when it comes to ale!!
Post all the 206 uglies to CXX(TS)!!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
I think you've given a good account of 206 Sqn's claim to fame and I enjoyed reading your reasons why the sqn should be saved from the axe rather than CXX. Unfortunately, the RAF being a organisation with an objective and systematic approach to problem solving had to resort to the "Manual of RAF Simplicity and Painting by Numbers" rather than analysing the cumulative contributions by each of all 4 Nimrod MR2 sqns and then make a pragmatic and intuitive decision. We are in the wrong company for that approach to be taken up, though.
Don't let the other w'nkers wind you up. From an "non- real aircrew, ie without wings", kind of aircrew mate ;-)
I think you've given a good account of 206 Sqn's claim to fame and I enjoyed reading your reasons why the sqn should be saved from the axe rather than CXX. Unfortunately, the RAF being a organisation with an objective and systematic approach to problem solving had to resort to the "Manual of RAF Simplicity and Painting by Numbers" rather than analysing the cumulative contributions by each of all 4 Nimrod MR2 sqns and then make a pragmatic and intuitive decision. We are in the wrong company for that approach to be taken up, though.
Don't let the other w'nkers wind you up. From an "non- real aircrew, ie without wings", kind of aircrew mate ;-)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Up North (for now)
Age: 62
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure OC 206 wouldn't want his name on here, although it would have been in the Torygraph when he was posted to RAF Kinloss. His surname has a very Christmasy ring to it though!
Just in case the above is too tricky. What is wrong with this alphabet:
ABCDEFGHIJKMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ !!!
Just in case the above is too tricky. What is wrong with this alphabet:
ABCDEFGHIJKMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ !!!