Talk:No. 75 Squadron RNZAF

Untitled

You would "merger" 75 Squadron's history over my dead body—and those of a hell of a lot of RNZAF personnel! It is quite plain in the No. 75 Squadron RNZAF's story that its origins are in the RAF, and that there was a good reason for it to be transferred to the RNZAF. It is up to the RAF types to make their history prior up to RNZAF's period obvious and clear.

Bugger about with the RNZAF at your peril, mate.

Lin

Sorry to have to correct the English in the history details shown, but it refers to the Royal Air Force. This is quite wrong, it is the Royal Air Force and it's derivatives are similarly designated Royal New Zealand Air Force etc. I should be grateful if the text could be corrected.

Flt Lt Gary Vickers No. 4624 Sqn Royal Auxiliary Air Force Royal Air Force Brize Norton Oxfordshire England

Merger and correction

No idea why you are apologising well done for fixing it. Merger strikes me as a good idea Winstonwolfe 23:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why?Moriori 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Because they are, at least in legal fiction, the same unit.

More realistically, the two articles clearly cover the same ground - and bizarrely, the RNZAF version has more information about the 1st World War 75 Squadron RFC/RAF, (that's my fault, I wrote it without knowing there was a 75 squadron RAF version :-).

Obviously the title would be a problem RFC, RAF, (NZ) RAF and RNZAF all being appropriate at different times.

Incidentally I talked to two 75 Squadron Wellington pilots last week - they had some fascinating stories. Winstonwolfe 05:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WTF is "legal fiction"? Also, merge what with what? Moriori 08:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merge Suggested merge is with No. 75 Squadron RAF, (go to the top left of this page, click on article, see the merge box at the top of the article - these boxes will always have a link to the suggested mergee).

Legal Fiction To quote Wikipedia, "In the common law tradition, legal fictions are suppositions of fact taken to be true by the courts of law, but which are not necessarily true", for example that a corporation is a person, or in this case, that a squadron number always represents the same unit - in fact squadrons are frequently "disbanded" and then "reformed" as a new squadron with a different number, despite most or all of the men and machines remaining the same. By custom, and if you think about boundary issues, common sense, unit histories follow the squadron number not the men - so the wikipedia entry about 488 (NZ) Squadron RAF jumps from Singapore to Europe, with completely new dramatis personae) - though some explanation of the previous unit is often given, (so for example the Wikipedia article about 14 Squadron RNZAF includes discussion of 488 Squadron RAF/RNZAF in Singapore, because many of the men were the same).

This article As far as this article is concerned, there are two articles both covering the same ground; No. 75 squadron RAF and No. 75 squadron RNZAF. The other 6 "NZ" squadrons of the Royal Air Force are listed as "No. x squadron RNZAF" and later a redirect placed on "No. x Squadron RAF", with a cumbersome note about "RAF and RNZAF" designations. This system was adopted by accident without any real thought on the part of the ignoirant newbie author who originally did the stubs (me), but doesn't seem controversial. Unfortunately before redirects were sorted on this separate articles appeared.

Are they really the same unit? WTF? A summary of the complex reality is 75 Squadron Royal Flying Corps flew in World War I. When the Royal Airforce was created it became 75 squadron Royal Airforce. It was disbanded at the end of the war. A new squadron of the same name was formed just before world war II. It was renumbered in 1939. The New Zealanders in the U.K. to collect Vickers Wellington Bombers became 75 (NZ)squadron Royal Air Force (some times called 75 squadron Royal New Zealand Air Force, but controlled and equipped by the Royal Air Force, though for most of the war, it was largely manned by New Zealand aircrew. In 1945 this squadron was disbanded. The British then offered the squadron colours and number to the RNZAF. In New Zealand another squadron was renumbered 75 squadron. So, like many ships or army units, 75 squadron has served two masters, (three if you count the RFC). Incidentally, some of the opponents of scrapping of New Zealand's combat force suggested the colours and number should be returned to the RAF so the squadron traditions could be continued.

Winstonwolfe 04:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's December and this hasn't been discussed in two months, and the article itself has been up for merger for almost a year without any apparent concensus being reach. Looks like this attempt died off. I'm removing the tags. -Warhorus 07:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No complaints from me Winstonwolfe 07:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

75 Squadron Association, (Moved from Article)

Re Squadron History in preparation - "To ensure the history has everyones story and data contact the secretary". Winstonwolfe (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ref needed for deployment to Darwin in 1999 during East Timor crisis

Is there a ref available for them being deployed to Darwin in 1999? AFAIK there were some RNZAF A4Ks on exercise in Malaysia at the time but I can't find anything to support them being deployed to Darwin so I'm not really certain this is accurate. Anotherclown (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D: and @Buckshot06: - do you guys know if this is accurate by any chance? There is also this [1] which confirms some A4s were on standby but it doesn't give enough details to confirm or deny the information here IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not accurate, and I've removed it. No. 75 Squadron was placed on alert, and was held at RAAF Base Amberley for a few days on its way back to NZ from Malaysia but wasn't sent to Darwin. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. For the record: a book by Jim Winchester here [2] mentions them being in Malaysia at the time (and returning via Amberley). There is also an OAG issues paper here [3] which mentions that the "Skyhawks were withdrawn from training exercises in Malaysia to be available for air support, should it have become necessary." Anotherclown (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyhawks: The History of the RNZAF Skyhawk by Don Simms and Nick Lee-Frampton says that they were stranded in Malaysia for two weeks as the RNZAF transport aircraft needed to support their return home were needed for the East Timor operation. They continued training with the RMAF during this period, and the RMAF eventually provided Hercules to help get the Skyhawks back to Australia and then NZ (which involved a very circuitous route to avoid Indonesian air space). Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Nick has confirmed with sources what I knew. It was 82 Wing that was providing the heaviest metal waiting at Tindal... Buckshot06 (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for confirming this gents. Anotherclown (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)