Talk:RAF Bomber Command

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RAF Bomber Command article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

"Bomber Command's other main function was to provide tanker aircraft to the RAF." Are we sure about this? While the aircraft were ex-bombers, are we sure refulelling wasn't the job of one of the other Commands? DJ Clayworth 06:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-British/non-RAF

"Many of Bomber Command's personnel and squadrons during the war were neither British nor part of the RAF; a large proportion came from Commonwealth countries, or occupied Europe." Is this misleading? Whilst there were certainly many squadrons from overseas, the fact that their members wore RAF uniforms, flew aircraft with RAF markings, were under RAF operational command and their squadron badges bore the words "Royal Air Force" would seem to make one think they were part of the RAF. Greenshed 22:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The same point can be made without employing the "neither/nor" approach.--Buckboard 06:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. But Greenshed's reasoning is incorrect: wearing uniforms which resembled RAF uniforms is not the same thing as wearing RAF uniforms. Using "RAF markings" and being under RAF operational command was simply a practical matter. And No. 6 Group, as an RCAF unit, certainly had a degree of operational autonomy.

During 1943-45, No. 54 Squadron RAF was based in Australia, its Spitfires had Australian identifiers and it was part of No. 1 Fighter Wing RAAF. It still wasn't an RAAF squadron. Grant65 | Talk 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Further to that, RAAF uniforms resembled RAF uniforms only in the insignia and general design; they were a different colour, being a kind of royal blue, rather than the blue-grey of RAF gear. (The RAAF did use grey-blue for a period after the war.) And during the war, King George VI held the ceremonial rank of Marshal of the RAAF (a post now held by the Duke of Edinburgh). Grant | Talk 05:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a common misconception that Commonwealth air force units had some sort of independence of action during WW2. They did not; the RCAF squadrons for administrative simplicity were collected together into one group (6 group) but were still very much an integral part of Bomber Command and under Harris' guidance and overall command. Harris did not have to defer to any equivilant line of RCAF staff command- this would have made operations exceedingly complicated. Similarly with the appropriate fighter units and RAF fighter Command, and 2 TAF. Harryurz 20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. 6 Group was not "attached" to Bomber Command as if it were a completely separate entity; it was as much a part of Bomber Command as any other Bomber Command group. The paragraph describing 6 Group should be reworded a bit.--BC 21:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are both overlooking the political level, which is always superior to operational control. Since 1931, the Dominions have shared the same head of of state as the UK, but the UK has had no control over the foreign policy of the Dominions, let alone political control over their militaries. Dominion air force units, and personnel were part of the air forces of sovereign powers and were part of RAF formations like Bomber Command and the Desert Air Force only for operational purposes (as were USAAF and even Soviet units on some occasions).

Under Article XV of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (1939), which was essentially a mutual defence treaty between sovereign powers, separate squadrons were supposed to be formed in the UK from Dominion air force personnel. Operational needs meant that many personnel served with units which which were technically part of other air forces. So that in an RCAF Lancaster crew, you might well find three RCAF guys, one from the RAF, one RAAF and a Pole. The fact that the Dominion governments did not enforce the legal requirement for their personnel to serve only with the air force of their own country, reflected the good relations between the Commonwealth countries (including the UK) and not some mythical ability of the RAF to do as it pleased with essentially foreign personnel.

They means 6 Group was not "as much a part of Bomber Command as any other Bomber Command group". Because the Canadian government could have withdrawn it at any time it pleased. The non-Canadians serving with 6 Group would have to have been transferred to other units. Grant | Talk 00:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Grant, thanks for the background. I realize that the group had a degree of autonomy and that since it was Canadian it obviously was not the same as other groups. It was still, however, part of Bomber Command rather than merely being "attached". By definition, Bomber Command consisted of several groups, and 6 Group was one of them. Even Air Vice-Marshall G.E. Brookes (Air Officer Commanding 6 Group) said: "We are proud to be part of Bomber Command and will do our utmost to maintain its high tradition".--BC 03:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to how you understand "attached". I am not implying that Brookes and 6 Grp developed and implemented their own operations, independently of Harris and more senior commanders. Brookes' role was the same as any other group commander; but he answered to the Canadian government, which could certainly have a vetoed use of the group, a squadron or an individual member of the RCAF.

As an illustration of how the independence of Dominion personnel and units could play out, RAAF doctrine in 1939 largely dismissed fighter squadrons (as opposed to bomber, "army co-operation" and maritime strike/reconnaissance roles), which explains the eccentric spread of RAAF personnel/squadrons in the various RAF commands throughout the war. This doctrine was the cause of a disagreement between the British authorities and the RAAF over the operational role/training and equipment of No. 451 Squadron RAAF, which the RAF wanted to convert from army co-op to a fighter unit. A stand-off resulted and the squadron sat non-operational in the Middle East for all of 1942, until the RAAF relented. Perhaps Japanese raids on northern Australia had impressed on them the need for fighters by that time ;-) Grant | Talk 05:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)