|
Archie,
>Well ofcourse it would be the Aussie Squadrons to go
>normal seeing they were smart
The British Administration which was supplying the logistical support for the AFC squadrons was smart too, it decided to slot the AFC squadrons sequentially into the RFC structure. So the "First Flying Squadron Australian Flying Corps" was recorded by the RFC as 67 Squadron RFC. The Australian Government got mad that their AIF nomenclature was being overridden, so the RFC called 1 Sqn, 67 (Australian) Sqn RFC, the Australian Government got mad again, so the RFC recorded them in their record keeping as 67 Sqn AFC.
Finally the War Office relented to Australian Government pressure and finally recorded the AFC squadrons by their Australian Imperial Force nomenclature. By accounts C.E.W. Bean wasnt too happy about it either.
It gets worse for 2 Squadron AFC, as the Second and Third Australian Flying Corps Squadrons were raised about the same time as each other, one in Melbourne and the other in Egypt, the RFC got them confused, on the 2 Squadron founding pilots, their service records read, 2 Squadron AFC, 69 Squadron RFC, 68 Squadron RFC and then onto the 68(A)RFC to 68(A) AFC to 2 Sqn AFC again.
Richard Williams wrote that the War Office and RFC had as much right to call the AFC squadrons by British nomenclature as they had to call the 17th Battalion AIF the Royal Middlesex Battalion. In other words they didnt. It also makes it confusing for those not deeply into the Australian Flying Corps, it also means that most references written outside of Australia, especially those that use the PRO resources as the primary resource get the AFC nomenclature wrong and write about the AFC in British terms rather than Australian.
cam
|