Dambusters latest
Thread Starter
Dambusters latest
Just spotted this in the Torygraph. I wonder if it improves the chances that JSF will enter service ?
Dambusters saved from axe to fly new fighter - Telegraph
Smudge
Dambusters saved from axe to fly new fighter - Telegraph
Smudge
The picture heading the Telegraph article actually shows Gibson, with his two flight commanders, when he was CO of 106 Sqd. Neither of his companions, to the best of my knowledge, ever flew with 617.
That picture is in John Searby's book "The Everlasting Arms"
That picture is in John Searby's book "The Everlasting Arms"
I wonder if it improves the chances that JSF will enter service ?
Last edited by diginagain; 3rd Mar 2013 at 17:32.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
It was in the Sunday Times too, except they were too lazy to use a picture of Gibson, they used a publicity still of Richard Todd in the film - perhaps they thought the actor & the film would be more familiar to Joe Public than the real fellow & the actual sqn.
The basic rule is that an RAF Sqn has to have 25 years of service before it can be awarded a Standard. That rule has only been broken twice to my knowledge - a Standard can be awarded sooner if the Sqn in question has earned the monarch's appreciation for outstanding operations.
One of the exceptions was 617 Sqn (hence the privileged status?), the other Sqn was disbanded as part of the 2010 SDR and it's nameplate hasn't been preserved by being passed on to a training/support Sqn as is often the case these days.
Which equally privileged Sqn is/was it that simply disappeared? Answers on a postcard - or since most of my posts on pprune are ignored, maybe no answers at all......
One of the exceptions was 617 Sqn (hence the privileged status?), the other Sqn was disbanded as part of the 2010 SDR and it's nameplate hasn't been preserved by being passed on to a training/support Sqn as is often the case these days.
Which equally privileged Sqn is/was it that simply disappeared? Answers on a postcard - or since most of my posts on pprune are ignored, maybe no answers at all......
Not really surprising that you knew - with a name like akula!! 
For anyone interested:
Royal Air Force Kinloss Station Website : Squadrons : RAF Kinloss Squadrons : 120 Squadron History
see paragraph eight!
For anyone interested:
Royal Air Force Kinloss Station Website : Squadrons : RAF Kinloss Squadrons : 120 Squadron History
see paragraph eight!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've have never understood the logic for 617 or 120 Sqns often quoted 'protected' status. I understand they got given their standards before the usual 25 years in recognition of WW2 service, but wasn't this a reward for junior Squadrons to put them on a level with Squadrons that already had a standard, not a higher award to mark these as more important Squadrons.
What am I missing that they did that makes them more significant than many other distinguished Squadrons?
What am I missing that they did that makes them more significant than many other distinguished Squadrons?
Thread Starter
Maybe it sounds a bit "corny" as the cousins would say, but, whilst squadron numbers may identify noble deeds collectively, a squadron comprises a number of aircrew, and occasionally ground crew. With the greatest respect to the crews who flew the dams raids, a number hardly justifies their individual bravery. I think Gibson and his crews would be happy to know that they did their bit!
I've have never understood the logic for 617 or 120 Sqns often quoted 'protected' status. I understand they got given their standards before the usual 25 years in recognition of WW2 service, but wasn't this a reward for junior Squadrons to put them on a level with Squadrons that already had a standard, not a higher award to mark these as more important Squadrons.
What am I missing that they did that makes them more significant than many other distinguished Squadrons?
What am I missing that they did that makes them more significant than many other distinguished Squadrons?
At the time, it wasn't seen - at least from the documentation I've seen - as bringing them up to a level with squadrons with a standard, but as a sign of particular distinction: think of it as being along the lines of, but perhaps not identical to, a US Presidential Unit Citation for a USAAF formation, or the conferring of a high award upon a body/institute (akin to the GC to the RUC and Malta).
Early award of standard shouldn't mean that a sqn is 'superior' to other sqns that already had standards. If a sqn already has a standard, it is not eligible for the special distinction of early award... so how else can it be recognised? If by the award of a higher honour, then why didn't 617 or 120 get that higher honour?
ES - You'll need to ask that question of several long-dead senior officers and one deceased Head of the Air Historical Branch... That's how it was interpreted, that's all I'm saying - my attempt at illustrating the idea of there being some special distinction by applying something tangible to illustrate it when the idea appears intangible may not have helped...
It's always been the case when it comes to cutting back on squadron numbers that 617 and 120 have been preserved (as long as there is an aircraft type for them to move on to, of course).120 were junior when the Shackleton was retired and replaced by a smaller number of Nimrod units, but the documentation clearly shows that the early standard award gave special status and the squadron reformed on Nimrods at the expense of (IIRC) 204 Squadron which came higher in the list of seniority than 120; 83 went instead of 617 when the Vulcan force was cut back in the late '60s, and there was, from what I can ascertain, some discussion of ensuring that 617 re-equipped with the Tornado rather than disbanding when the Vulcan was retired, again on the basis of the early standard award.
It's always been the case when it comes to cutting back on squadron numbers that 617 and 120 have been preserved (as long as there is an aircraft type for them to move on to, of course).120 were junior when the Shackleton was retired and replaced by a smaller number of Nimrod units, but the documentation clearly shows that the early standard award gave special status and the squadron reformed on Nimrods at the expense of (IIRC) 204 Squadron which came higher in the list of seniority than 120; 83 went instead of 617 when the Vulcan force was cut back in the late '60s, and there was, from what I can ascertain, some discussion of ensuring that 617 re-equipped with the Tornado rather than disbanding when the Vulcan was retired, again on the basis of the early standard award.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What does it matter? There's only going to be six FJ squadrons (per AVM Bagwell), so their identities are really by-the-by. May as well call them 801-806 Naval Air Squadrons, and put the other few ISTAR, AT & SH squadrons in the Army and have done with it.
Even as an ex-soldier, it gives me no pleasure to point this out, but really, what's the point of it all? The viability of the RAF as a stand alone force is rapidly diminishing, and the headshed doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it.
Even as an ex-soldier, it gives me no pleasure to point this out, but really, what's the point of it all? The viability of the RAF as a stand alone force is rapidly diminishing, and the headshed doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does it matter? There's only going to be six FJ squadrons (per AVM Bagwell), so their identities are really by-the-by. May as well call them 801-806 Naval Air Squadrons, and put the other few ISTAR, AT & SH squadrons in the Army and have done with it.
Even as an ex-soldier, it gives me no pleasure to point this out, but really, what's the point of it all? The viability of the RAF as a stand alone force is rapidly diminishing, and the headshed doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it.
Even as an ex-soldier, it gives me no pleasure to point this out, but really, what's the point of it all? The viability of the RAF as a stand alone force is rapidly diminishing, and the headshed doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it.
It will also remain larger than the Royal Navy; however, you don't appear to question the viability of that Service.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SPECIAL SQUADRONS
As I recall, in 1945 the Commands were asked to nominate their most distinguished unit to be kept in being. Bomber Command chose 617, Transport Command chose 511 and Coastal Command chose 120 Sqn. That list must have fallen by the wayside or C-17s would be flown by 511 Sqn rather than 99 Sqn. The Air Historical Branch keeps a list of squadrons with points awarded for longevity, number of VCs, service in the Battle of Britain etc. But all these procedures and lists went out of the window when 74 Sqn was re-established instead of 45 Sqn because the ex-74 Sqn air rank mafia made such a fuss. Expect the same sort of undercover lobbying when the next Tornado squadrons have to be retired.