41(F) Sqn Disbandment
 

41(F) Sqn is planning its disbandment for 24-26 Mar 06. Details of the celebrations are still to be finalised but it will be a historic event and a party to remember. All ex-41(F) Sqn members (of all ranks) are invited to register their contact details at www.41sqn.org

Moderators, would you please make this a sticky to help us build our database.

I'd like to express my thanks to 41(F) for years of distinguished service, for setting an example of excellence and elan (under some superb bosses, such as Billy P, Harps and Graham W), and for its sacrifices and hard work. It would be a disgrace if the most distinguished squadron of the Battle of Britain period were to disappear altogether when it discards the Jaguar.

Let's see the first Typhoon ADX squadron being called something different (a Wing, perhaps, since its CO will be a Wing Commander), with it's A Flight taking on No.3 Squadron's mantle, and B Flight becoming No.41 Squadron.

I hope it's a great party.

Jacko, you're not suggesting that a Sqn Ldr leads a sqn are you?

Now there's an idea to rationalize personnel and make sure that our short-lived history doesn't get flushed down the toilet of obscurity! You could probably get away with a lot less air rank officers then as well. Bean counters are you listening???

...and FLIGHT lieutenants command sqn flights.

And warrant officers become Eng Offs.

And FLIGHT sergeants run eng flights.

And... [must stop thinking logically - it does not make sense]

"Make sure that our short-lived history doesn't get flushed down the toilet of obscurity!"

That would never do, I'm sorry. Though it's only what the Army have done with cap-badged battalions and what the French Armée de l'Air do. Perhaps Grey Funnel Lines could put one name on one side of the boat, and another on the other.......

Let's not demean our Air Force by minimising it's longevity. It was, after all, the first independant air force and could hardly have been formed much earlier; it also has a well-earned reputation for excellence, particularly in the thoroughness and professionalism of its' training.

Squadron numbers are important but it is, in my opinion, a mistake to try to hang onto a numbered squadron by calling either a training outfit or a small flight a squadron. An operational unit is known as a Squadron and a number of squadrons is known as a Wing - let's keep it that way and retain what little tradition we have.

Soddim, I'm not trying to demean what has been achieved in such a short period of time. Believe me, I'm as proud as anyone. But if we're going to have large sqns, with maybe 2 flts of 8-10 ac, why not split them up into sqns, with a Wg Cdr in charge of 2 Sqns and call it a Wg? From an eng point of view it needn't make much of a difference, but it will mean that the famous sqn number plates remain!

Audax:ok:

But when you call a flight a squadron does it not cause those who served on that squadron to feel that it is no longer a real squadron? And when you call an OCU or training unit a squadron perhaps it becomes just a paper number?

Please let's preserve what little tradition we have.

How I long for traditon! (Not that we in the RAF have much, according to our dark blue and wiffy mates). In my 'Defence' organisation, a sqn ldr commands a group!

If you called what are now Flights 'squadrons' you could preserve historic numberplates without resorting to using such numberplates for OCUs and FTSs. No.19, for example, might still be flying fighters, rather than Hawks.

As to what people who served with a unit might think, I can tell you that my old Dad would be much happier to see 206 still in existance than disbanded, and there seems to be no reason at all that the Nimrod force should be using only two numberplates.

I'm quite sure that most of those now on 41 would also like to see their old unit continue in service, whether with eight or 16 jets.

So, we would have an air force with lots of flights called squadrons and each would have the administrative infrastructure of an independant unit? Quite an overhead.

Our squadrons are already a mere shadow of their former size and even putting three together hardly forms a wing let alone a cohesive fighting unit.

One step forward three backwards - been doing it for years.

"......each would have the administrative infrastructure of an independant unit?"

No. It's just that A Flight of 6 would be called 6, and B Flight would be called (say) 54. Squadron Leader Bloggs would be OC 6 Squadron, and Squadron Leader Smythe would be OC 54. They'd share a crewroom, and the jets would have 6's markings on one side of the fin, and 54's on the other.

In the same building, the ultimate boss would still be Wing Commander Brown, though he'd now be OC No.5 'Neville Duke' Wing (or No.5 'Granby' Wing, or No.5 'Hornchurch' Wing, or just plain No.5 Wing), with the Ops clerks and Adj et al still reporting to him.

And would the aircrew wear the 6 sqn badge on one sleeve and the 54 sqn badge on the other?

And what about poor old 41 - would they have to muck in with strangers?

Even NATO would notice that it was not a real squadron.

1) Why would it make any difference to NATO? There'd still be a unit the same size as any othe NATO Squadron, it's just that the individual flights would have squadron identities - just like the French!

2) A Flight aircrew would wear one badge, B Flight the other.

3) 41 would be an identity for A Flight of another fighter squadron, perhaps with 92, or 74, or one of the other otherwise lost units.

Even with the present tiny force structure, we could have all of the major Battle of Britain and interwar fighter units back in the orbat.

I'm with Jacko on this. We can preserve our heritage, with no real change as to how we do business. Otherwise, squadrons like 54(F), the highest scoring sqn in the Battle of Britain, are never going to re-appear. Unless as a UAV sqn-heaven forbid.

I'm really having trouble seeing what the problem is soddim. Does anyone else have any views on this, or is it just Jacko and me?

No real change in how we do business indeed - just how when why and where did you do the business?

When I did it on several famous squadrons we were able to raise more than two four-ships at once and we didn't have another squadrons badge on our aircraft. Our groundcrew belonged to our squadron and we were self-contained for admin and fully deployable as a fighting unit to a bare base. In short we were a squadron - not a flight.

If you want to pretend we still have a particular squadron in service, that's up to you, but I would rather my old squadrons had their silver, standards and reputations in storage just in case our country gets the urge to defend itself properly again. In the meantime I don't want a bunch of pretenders wearing the crown.

Come on Soddim, I'm not suggesting that I have 'done the business' you can see my place in the food chain by looking at my profile. (However, as an aside, plenty of controllers are and have been in places that are a lot less safe than a UK tower over the last 4 years. Nowhere near as dangerous as running at AAA at 500kts at 100', but it is being done!)

Anyway, as Jacko says, rather than have an A Flt and a B Flt, you could have a 41(F) sqn and a 54(F) sqn, with a Wing Cdr as OC. A station could have a couple of Wings. The ground crew would belong to the wing, serving both Sqns.

As far as the silver, colours and standards are concerned, there is no way that this country could mobilize itself again, as we have in the past, and reform old Sqns. So we either find a way of preserving the heritage that we have, or we leave it as part of our history and move on.

Let's just preserve our history and traditions rather than degrade our famous squadrons as you suggest.

Yes, it would be nice to see all our longest serving squadrons still in the front line but not as you and Jacko suggest. If you had your way then very soon each would be identified as just a flight and not long after they would be remembered as such - their reputations ruined forever.

As an example, the reputation of 19 Sqn was earned as a front line Fighter Command squadron. What is the current identity in the minds of those who have trained on 19 in the last few years and what is its' reputation in their eyes? How many of them know anything about the history that made its' name and how many care? Do they even consider themselves as ex-19 Sqn members in the same sense that those who served when it was a front line unit?

At the moment it looks like we will preserve 6 Sqn as a real sqn and it will continue its' unbroken service. Let's not ruin that opportunity by a half-baked effort to preserve two squadrons and end up with neither.

Sod,

We agree on one thing. Calling what was once No.4 FTS No.19 squadron is an insulting farce.

But there's a HUGE difference between using a squadron numberplate in that way and using it to describe a real operational frontline unit - and one which, in size, wouldn't be appreciably smaller than units were for much of the interwar period.

Such a unit could even add to a Squadron's record and reputation, and not just keep it active.

I'm interested that you should choose No.19 as an example, because, by coincidence, I have spoken about this to two of the Squadron's old boys from the very period to which you refer - when the squadron was at Duxford with Spitfire Is, fighting the Battle of Britain.

Wing Commander Gordon Sinclair (who died a few weeks ago, but who was one of my best friend's uncle) and Sergeant George 'Grumpy' Unwin certainly both felt that the French had it right and would have preferred to see 19's identity being used by one flight of a real frontline fighter unit than being used by a training unit or comms flight, or being consigned to oblivion.

Jack,

I'm glad we have some common ground. Very interesting that your ex-19 wartime contacts feel that way. My service was all essentially peacetime despite invasion of Cyprus, Falklands war and Gulf wars. However, I would not like to see my old squadrons preserved at all costs if that meant losing their independant unit status and their effective operational capability.

Horses for courses maybe but I guess their lordships are supporting present policy so don't hold your breath for two sqns in one.