Lucky Number (a question about RAF Squadron "re-branding")

[gingerbob]

Hi all,

 

Something that has somewhat puzzled me for a long time.

 

Is there any "logic" behind the not-infrequent re-numbering of squadrons?  For example, there was a rash of it after the Second World War.  So, for example (and I'm pulling numbers out of the air) "The Squadron formerly known as 43" (currently in 2TAF, Germany) is suddenly decreed to be No.16 Squadron, while on the same day the squadron formerly known as 16 (in England) is henceforth to be known as 121 Squadron.  (You see, old boy, there used to be a 121 Squadron, but it got disbanded a while back...)

 

I mean, I can understand wanting to preserve particularly legendary, illustrious ones... say, 633 Squadron.  But it seems to me that I'd have trouble working up pride in being a member of 633 Squadron if I knew that until a couple of months ago it was the vaunted 111 Squadron, and had never had any connection with the 633 of yore before this.

 

bob

 

[Rob G]

I believe that (amongst other reasons) it has something to do with the concocted idea of 'seniority', in that one cannot allow younger squadrons to age faster than the originals (ie be active for a longer elapsed time), as if they did they'd be more senior and thus out of their place. Which just isn't cricket, old boy. 

 

Other reasons too, probably to do with shifting money around to confuse either the treasury or the public, but I'm sure I shall be corrected in due course.

[RAF4EVER]

Before the creation of the RAF, you had the RFC [Royal Flying Corp], and the RNAS [Royal Naval Air Service],so you had No. 1 Sqdn RFC, and No. 1 Sqdn  RNAS, after the creation of the RAF[1 April 1918], all RNAS squadrons were prefixed by 200, so No.1 Sqdn RNAS became No. 201 Sqdn RAF,and No. 1 Sqdn RFC became  No.. 1 Sqdn RAF. So  the RFC squadrons had seniority over the RNAS squadrons. As for squadrons 300 and higher it was down to the Air Ministry[now MOD] to allocate squadron numbers.

 

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjf3eiG1eD6AhUK66QKHbTRBOwQFnoECAgQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_Royal_Air_Force_aircraft_squadrons&usg=AOvVaw0f5bkNB6RHmrey7ZVq0hWs

 

Hope this helps.

Edited October 14, 2022 by RAF4EVER
Add Comment

[XV107]

Numbering is dependent upon seniority - apart from for 120 and 617 Sqns, which received their squadron Standards ahead of the 25 year qualifying time as a mark of esteem from George VI. This means that they are treated as special cases and, were the RAF to go down to two frontline squadrons, the chances are they'd be 617 and 120. 

 

This underpinned the reumberings in 1945 to ensure that numberplates with greater seniority continued in service as it reduced in size. 

 

There was another wave of renumbering in the 1950s as the Sandys review slashed the size of the RAF. This meant that more junior numberplates were sacrificed to keep senior ones going. The most obvious example is 3 Squadron, which was on Hunters in 1957. Then when the RAFG Hunter force was reduced in the aftermath of the 'Sandystorm' and because it's one of the most senior squadrons (2 and 3 Sqns still argue which was the first to fly, and the 3 Sqn badge and motto reflect this), there was no question that it would survive. The question wasn't 'how?' but 'which extant squadron takes on the numberplate?'

 

Thus, 96 Squadron was renumbered as 3 Sqn on 21 Jan 1959 and 3 Sqn became a Javelin unit - with the personnel who until 2359hrs on 20th January had been members of 96 Squadron. This, however, took place against a backdrop of decisions about the force structure of RAF Germany, which saw a reduction in the number of fighter squadrons. This meant that 3 Squadron's Javelins were no longer needed - so... 59 Squadron, flying Canberra B(I)8s was renumbered as 3 Squadron. (88 Squadron became 14 Squadron at the same time, again to preserve the senior numberplate).

 

This, though, was noted to cause some resentment amongst personnel who had to adopt the identity of a brand new unit with which most of them felt little, if any, affiliation. The Air Council thus decided that renumbering would only occur in exceptional circumstances.

 

The rules - in general terms are now:

 

1/ No squadron numberplate in use will be transferred to a newly-formed squadron, or replaced by that of a more senior unit which has recently disbanded on a type which has just been retired

2/ New squadrons will take the most senior numberplate available, but...

3/ ... 'role association' may trump this - so if a new fighter squadron is to form on a new type, if the most senior available numberplate is associated with (say) the maritime patrol role and the one after that is a fighter squadron, the new fighter squadron will get the numberplate of the senior fighter squadron. This doesn't always happen - see IX(B) moving from Tornado the Typhoon and 74 Squadron reforming on the Phantom when it ought to have been 39 or 45 Squadron; Jeff Jefford, the historian of squadrons (and squadron numbering) is late 45 Sqn and makes pointed remarks about 45 being a fighter squadron and thus an entirely legitimate choice for the Phantom unit (45 on F-4J(UK) and 74 as the TWCU numberplate would, Jeff contends, have been more appropriate).

4/ Previous rules that flying squadron numberplates would not be used by non-flying units have been discarded - thus 92, 19 and 20 Squadrons have no flying role; 23 Sqn is designated as the space operations squadron.  Cynics might suggest that this is the Air Staff trying clear out all the numberplates that sit ahead of 74 Squadron so they can have a fast jet Tiger squadron again (the problem is that 5 and 100 are both senior and recently disbanded, while 43 and 111 are ahead of 74 in the lists...)

 

Edit - should add that a squadron serving with a type which is to be retired and which the RAF wishes to keep going can re-equip; a squadron doesn't need to disband. 

This was done with the '(Designate)' squadron concept where the squadron continued to fly the type which was to retire while another squadron worked up on the new type: effectively two different squadrons, often at different stations. 19 Squadron serves as an example here: as the Lighting F2A fleet was being retired, 19 continued flying while a new squadron - 19 (Designate) Squadron worked up on the Phantom FGR2.  At 23:59;59 hrs on the designated day, 19 Squadron ceased to exist on Lightnings and 61 second later, 19 Squadron had re-equipped on Phantoms - even though none of the personnel were the same . We don't have the resources to do that any more,, though - a squadron may re-equip, even if there are a few months' gap between retirement of the old type and new pilots & personnel coming on stream.

Edited October 15, 2022 by XV107

[gingerbob]

Ah, so there IS some reasoning behind it.  Thank you!

 

bob

[KLN]

Nos. 1 to 200 Regular RAF Squadrons, many originally ex-RFC

 

Nos. 201 to 299 Regular RAF Squadrons, many originally ex-RNAS

 

Nos. 300 to 399 Allied squadrons (Polish, Czechoslovak, Dutch, Greek Belgian and Yugoslav) Not all used and a few numbers for RAF squadrons in India

 

Nos. 400 to 499 Squadrons of of the RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF

 

Nos. 500 to 599 Originally intended for Special Reserve squadrons but many numbers used for wartime units

 

Nos. 600 to 699 Originally intended for AAF squadrons but later numbers used for wartime units

 

Nos. 700 to 799 FAA second-line and catapult squadrons

 

Nos 800 to 899 FAA first-line squadrons

 

Nos. 900 to 999 Barrage balloon squadrons

 

Source Squadrons of the Royal Air Force - James J Halley

 

As a point of interest 633 Squadron was a fictitious squadron for the film of the same name and was never allocated.

 

Kev

[Graham Boak]

The missing bias is that very senior officers would hate to see their old unit disappear...

[gingerbob]

On 12/4/2022 at 10:24 AM, KLN said:

As a point of interest 633 Squadron was a fictitious squadron for the film of the same name and was never allocated.

 

Which is exactly why I chose to use it as an "example".

[XV107]

On 12/4/2022 at 3:31 PM, Graham Boak said:

The missing bias is that very senior officers would hate to see their old unit disappear...

 

They've been singularly unsuccessful in preserving them, though - I can think of a number of examples (79 Squadron being one) where a senior officer attempted to keep the numberplate of 'their' squadron going, only to be reminded of long-standing policy and politely invited to get back in their box. 

 

139 Squadron was, of course, 139 (Jamaica) Squadron, and the High Commissioner was brought into the fray as a former senior officer and the squadron association attempted to keep it on the books after the retirement of the bomber version of the Victor. The High Commissioner got a very polite letter, but was turned down flat (the promise that the number would be considered for the Buccaneer force was offered as a sop - it was, but behind [not in order] 15, 16, 45, 100, 208, 58 and , IIRC, 7.

 

I think that only 74 has really found itself being promoted by senior officer interference, but this was collective - the Air Staff collectively tried various wheezes to reform their fast jet Tiger Squadron after 1971 and on each occasion they were thwarted by the policy; on in 1984 when the F-4J(UK) came into service was there the opportunity to elbow 74 in ahead of the first available number (39 Squadron), which appears to have been shoved out of the way on the grounds - probably spurious at the time - that the numberplate was being saved for the post-Canberra photo-recce unit that would replace 1 PRU. This, of course, came to fruition, apart from the fact that the Canberras of 1 PRU were replaced by...er... Canberras of 39 (1PRU) Squadron...

[Graham Boak]

However, that's only in recent times.  Renumbering has been going on for a long time.