Squadron Numbers

[AustralianAce]

As you know all squadrons are numbered e.g. Spa 59. But they all range differently from 1 to 200. How do they choose the numbers? Why dont they just go from 1,2,3,4,5....
Can you help?

Keep goiong, Arch. 6,7,8. They did in the AFC.


Vin

[PeterL]

When RNAS and RFC combined to form the RAF, RNAS squadrons added 200 to the existing number, naval 8 becoming 208 etc. AFAIK?

[AustralianAce]

Well ofcourse it would be the Aussie Squadrons to go normal seeing they were smart

[cam]

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

[gregoire]

Here is how france was doing
in 14 the unit were numbered from 1 to n with following nuber the letter before the number desinging the main plane that the unit was using (in fact the builder)
in 1915 the system was the same with a small exception some bomber unit were created and numbered with number above 100 and grouped in a GB (groupe de bombardement , bomber group) the GB being numbered from 1
a small exception was the GBM 5 it was the official appelation of GB 5 that was using Breguet Michelin bomber plane.
in 1916 see the apparition of figher group they were first named after the location of the airfield like the future GC 12 or groupe de cachy.
the figher groupe were to be numbered from the number 10, he ground based support unit (rear echelon mechanic parc ...) were numeroted like there group with the addition of 100 so the parc aeronautique 112 was the support unit and parc of reserve of GC12
still in 1916 it was decided that the fighter unit were to numbered from 1 to 99
the bomber from 100 to 199
and the SAL and army unit from 200.
in fact that numerotation was never to be fully used some unit changed there number to match the patern but not all of them for exemple the 1 unit have never been a fighter squadron and the spa 103 and 124 were fighter unit
in the air division the groupememt of GC and GB were named brigade with the name of the commanding officer Groupement Menard for exemple have an official appelation of 1st brigade of the divison aerienne but Menard was only a major at the time.

now post war the french air force have disbanded some unit and only keep the one with the best or most glorious tradition. then some new unit were added, some having the tradition of ww2 french unit like Normandie Niemen or even from the algerian war (for exemple the 3rd flight of the ER1/33 hve the tradition of algerian war unit having the St exupery petit prince as insigna.

sine the creation of the armee de l'air in the 30's the wing and squadron are made of a couple (3 nowdays) flight and it is those flight that have the tradition of ww1 even if they have not real existance. for exemple the EC1/2 us made of spa 3, spa 12 (with a modifed insigna that it never had before a version of the spa 103) and spa 103 and strangely its name is cigogne

[Graeme]

As far as the RFC/RNAS/RAF went, squadrons in the range 1 to 200 were basically RFC squadrons and numbers were assigned to regular units.

No 201 to 299 were regular RAF squadrons, many being old RNAS units. (Confusingly, ex-RNAS Wings had 60 added to their number, ie 1 Wing RNAS became 61 Wing RAF)

No 300 to 399 were allocated to Allied squadrons (Polish, Czech etc) but not all numbers were used and some numbers were allocated to outfits in India.

No 400 to 499 were RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF squadrons operating under RAF control.

No 500 to 599 were originally for Special Reserve squadrons.

No 600 to 699 were for Auxiliary Air Force squadrons but many numbers were allocated to wartime squadrons.

No 700 to 799 were Fleet air Arm second-line squadrons.

No 800 to 899 were Fleet Air Arm first-line squadrons.

No 900 to 999 were barrage balloon squadrons.

The sole exception was No 1435 Squadron which was created on 2 August 1942 at Luqa in Malta. The number had been used by and RAF Flight, also based in Malta but which had been disbanded and it seems that when a new squadron was formed using the Flight's Spitfires, they "inherited" the Flight number as well.

Source: The Squadrons of the Royal Air Force by James J Halley.

Graeme

[cam]

Graeme,

>No 400 to 499 were RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF squadrons
>operating under RAF control.

In Australia's case the 400 numbered squadrons were the Article 15 squadrons from the Empire Air Training Scheme. Canada added Article 15 to the EATS agreement as they were concerned that their manpower would be flowing to the RAF without any benefits to the RCAF. Their were seventeen 400 numbered RAAF squadrons including,

450 Kittyhawk/Mustang - North Africa/Italy
451 Hurricane/Spitfire - North Africa/Europe
452 Spitfire - Europe/South Pacific
453 Buffalo/Spitfire - South Pacific/Europe
454 Blenheim/Baltimore - North Africa/Italy
455 Hampden/Beaufighter - Europe
456 Beaufighter/Mosquito - Europe
457 Spitfire - Europe/South Pacific
458 Wellington - Europe/North Africa
459 Hudson/Ventura/Baltimore - Noth Africa
460 Halifax/Lancaster - Europe
461 Sunderland - Europe
462 Halifax - Europe
463 Lancaster - Europe
464 Ventura/Mosquito - Europe
466 Wellington/Halifax - Europe
467 Lancaster - Europe

452 RAAF and 457 RAAF along with 54 RAF joined the South pacific theatre under Clive Caldwell in 1943. They were all under RAAF control.



cam

[Graeme]

Cam

Thanks for the correction. Re-reading the entry in my reference work, it actually reads "Article XV squadrons of the RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF. Not all used and outside the scope of this volume."

"Article XV of the British Empire Air Training Scheme agreement catered for the provision of a certain number of squadrons manned by Canadian, Australian and New Zealand personnel to RAF Commands. These were squadrons of the RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF and so have been omitted from this volume of RAF squadrons. In addition to these 400-series squadrons, each air force had other squadrons numbered in its permanent air force series which duplicated RAF numbers. The South African Air Force did not participate in Article XV and numbered its squadrons from 1 upwards."

It looks like I took a comment about some RCAF squadrons being re-numbered in the 400-series to avoid confusion with RAF units, as being applicable to all article XV squadrons. My apologies.

Graeme

[cam]

Graeme,

Sorry this is all off-topic to the forum, but I guess there are enough aviation enthusiests here as well.

>each air force had other squadrons numbered in its
>permanent air force series which duplicated RAF numbers.

In Europe the RAAF had the regular squadron No.10 RAAF flying Sudnerlands and in the Middle East there was the regular squadron No.3 RAAF. They kept their RAAF nomenclature even though 1 Sqn RCAF got recorded as 401 Sqn RCAF in the RAF's book-keeping. Bit like the AFC in WWI, but you see prominent Australians like Williams and Bean complaining about it, but you dont see Canadians complaining about it occurring to them in WWII? In the end the AFC squadrons were recorded with their AIF nomenclature by the RAF due to Australian Government pressure.

The RAAF 4xx squadrons are a bit odd, 451 Sqn got a CO removed due to the squadron having low morale, 462 got disbanded in the Middle East and reformed in Europe because there was not enough RAAF members posted to it. The squadron was only 28% RAAF! The EATS caused some strage abberrations in RAAF history.

In the Pacific the RAAF had squadrons numbered 1 - 8, (9 Sqn flew with the RAN), 11 - 43, 66-67, 71-100, 102, 107 plus some of the 17 Article XV squadrons. 100 Sqn was named out of sequence in the South Pacific, and in honourof 100 Sqn RAF's effort over Malaya in their Vildebeast aircraft. The RAN named a ship the Bataan after the sacrifice of the American Army in the Phillipines as well.

All in all not bad for a minor power. Supposedly the RAAF was the fourth biggest Air Force at the Pacific Armistice after the US, Britain and Russia.




cam