Talk:No. 485 Squadron RNZAF

485(NZ) Squadron or 485 Squadron RNZAF?
This has been written about at length in the discussion pages under 486 Sqn and Hawker Tempest.Minorhistorian 00:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo of 485 Sqdn Spitfire Vbs at?
Can anyone confirm the location of this photograph? Is it Kenley? Thanks Snapper five (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Snapper five, Yep it was a photo taken at Kenley during a visit by an RAF photographer. Somewhere there is a sequence of them, some of which I may be able to findMinorhistorian (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in No. 485 Squadron RNZAF
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of No. 485 Squadron RNZAF's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Halley 1988": From No. 487 Squadron RNZAF: Halley 1988, p. 531. From No. 490 Squadron RNZAF: Halley 1988, p. 533. From No. 488 Squadron RNZAF: Halley 1988, pp. 531-532. From No. 489 Squadron RNZAF: Halley 1988, p. 532. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Name
Thanks GraemeLeggett, Minorhistorian and Dl2000, for alerting me to the peculiar "loop" problem that I inadvertently created – and fixing it.

My intention in the move was consistency, i.e. four of the six NZ Article XV squadrons were at pages with the style "No. 4__ Squadron RNZAF".

With regard to their long term locations, it seems to me that the simplest form of the common name "4__ (NZ) Squadron" may be the best option for these pages? Personally I would avoid including "RAF" because the terms of Articles XV–XVII of the Ottawa Agreement, the squadron emblems etc make it clear that none of the Article XV squadrons was officially part of the RAF.

To me, the prime evidence are the official, gazetted squadron emblems, which really could not get it wrong. Compare, for instance, the subtle difference between (on one hand) the emblems of 75, 125 and 237 Squadrons, and (on the other) those of 401, 450 and 485 Squadrons: Note that neither 75 Sqn, 125 Sqn, nor 237 Sqn were covered, at least technically, by Article XV.
 * 75 (New Zealand) Squadron RAF
 * 125 (Newfoundland) Squadron RAF
 * 237 (Rhodesia) Squadron RAF
 * 401 Squadron RCAF
 * 450 Squadron RAAF
 * 485 Squadron RNZAF

As I have said in my last edit to Article XV squadrons, the New Zealand government and senior RNZAF commanders in New Zealand appear to have waived their authority over those six squadrons, virtually without exception. (Conversely, although the RAAF and RCAF Article XV squadrons were usually financed and controlled operationally by the RAF – in accordance with the Ottawa Agreement – their respective governments and senior staff officers chose to exert greater control of their personnel and operational use, as well as financing them in some cases. In general, the RAAF and RCAF seem to have been slightly more "independent" of outside control than the Royal Australian Navy or Royal Canadian Navy, but perhaps less independent than the Australian Army and Canadian Army.)

Anyway, I will abide by consensus in the naming of the article. Thanks.

Grant &#124;  Talk  04:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Grant; it would seem that even 70 odd years later the official status of the New Zealand manned Article XV squadrons is still uncertain! As Grant has stated, the New Zealand government and the RNZAF relinquished all control of the squadrons to the RAF so, although none were officially supposed to be part of the RAF, according to the Ottawa agreement, to all intents and purposes they were controlled directly by the RAF: all command appointments (eg: at first, not all Squadron leaders/Wing Commanders were New Zealanders, although the RAF was open to promoting New Zealanders into lead positions), pay, administrative support and equipment came directly from the RAF (albeit, some Spitfires were at least partly funded by subscriptions raised in NZ), while the majority of the flying personnel were New Zealanders who had joined the RAF, rather than being New Zealanders who were members of the RNZAF. Most of the rest of the personnel, such as ground crews, administrative staff, WAAFs etc were part of the RAF; by far the majority of these people were British and members of the RAF: thus, it could be said that New Zealanders were a minority in the Article XV New Zealand squadrons – albeit they were the flying personnel at the "sharp end".


 * The fact that authority was waived suggests that the New Zealand government recognised and accepted that for all intents the Article XV squadrons were part of the RAF, thus, the titles of the articles should reflect the fact that "although the squadron badges carried the name Royal New Zealand Air Force ... 485 Squadron was referred to informally as 485 (New Zealand) or 485 (NZ) and never as 485 Squadron, RNZAF (italics added). If it was good enough for the Squadrons to refer to themselves in this way 70 odd years ago, it should be a convention followed by Wikipedia. BTW - found an interesting website which has some good clear images of unit crests: http://www.airforcebadges.ca/raaf2%20-%20sqns.html  ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   10:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Air of Authority website has the NZ squadrons badges as well. eg http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn485-490.htm
 * I wonder if part of the problem lies that although the squadron badges say "Royal New Zealand Air Force", at the time for most administration purposes, since there was no overlap on numbering, it was sufficient to write 24 Sqn, 495 Sqn etc and it was more useful to spend effort writing out the type of squadron "110 (Bomber) Sqn", "230 (Fighter) Sqn" than bothering with the national makeup of the unit which was likely in most cases to mixed anyway. But that's just a thought. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My intention in beginning the move from 4XX Sqn RNZAF to 4XX (NZ) Sqn RAF was as a result of it appearing that the historical consensus (which I verified with RNZAF Museum officials) was that these squadrons were known almost exclusively as RAF squadrons and operated as such. The people keen to enforce a rigourous adherence to the badge (which as far as I can see is the only evidence standing against the tide) seemed to have gone away, and thus I initially moved 485 Sqn, and then 486 Sqn, hoping to carry out the switchover slowly, and without dramas. I wholely support a revision to the style 4XX (NZ) Sqn RAF, though it may be better for wikireasons to keep the pages at, for example, No. 489 Squadron RAF. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My main objection to "RAF" being used in the title is that it obscures the similar historical origins, political status and other links between the NZ Article XV units and their RAAF and RCAF counterparts – as well as conflating them with a quite different kind of "New Zealand" unit, i.e. 75 Sqn RAF.


 * See also Footnote 4 from Article XV squadrons: "The Chancellor of the Exchequer [Lord Simon] was gloomy, pointing out to the War Cabinet that he had sent no congratulatory telegrams after the signing of the [air training] agreement. He had not agreed that Canada could insist on unlimited units of the RCAF being provided at the expense of the United Kingdom taxpayer (p 50)." (Bryce, 2005; Canada and the Cost of World War II, pp. 47–51.) Whether Lord Simon or Churchill agreed it to it or not, the Ottawa Agreement did give Canada, Australia and NZ the ability to create an "unlimited" number of "RCAF", "RAAF" and "RNZAF" squadrons financed by the British government. Strange but true!


 * While WP encourages us to use common names (e.g. "485 (NZ) Sqn") there are exceptions, such as where the common name is ambiguous, controversial, overly long etc. Grant  &#124;  Talk  02:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to go with "485 (NZ) Squadron" or "485 (New Zealand) Squadron" - the introductory paragraph(s) can be used to clarify their status within the RAF's structure. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   08:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support either one of Minorhistorian's suggestions; the intro para suggestion to clarify status is a great one. Manybe however the first one (485 (NZ) Sqn), because I've never ever in twenty years seen any of these squadrons rendered as 4XX (New Zealand) Sqn; always the (NZ) without full reference. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I suppose I can live with "4__ (NZ) Squadron".


 * BTW, Minorhistorian, you say that "the majority of the flying personnel were New Zealanders who had joined the RAF, rather than being New Zealanders who were members of the RNZAF". That suggests that most of the personnel in 485–490 Squadrons were people who travelled directly to the UK before joining up, rather than BCATP/EATS recruits who went to Canada etc before the UK for training? Do you know of statistics on the numbers of "New Zealanders who joined the RAF" during 1939–45, as opposed to "RNZAF personnel posted to Europe, the Mediterranean, Africa etc"? If that is what you meant, I would be interested to know why it happened that way. By contrast, I know that the number of individual Australians who joined the RAF was small, at least relative to the number of RAAF personnel posted to RAF or Article XV squadrons (who were distinguished, among other things, by the colour of their uniforms – a midnight blue, rather than the lighter blue-grey shared by the RAF, RCAF and RNZAF at the time, e.g. see this comparison of RAF and RAAF forage caps.) Grant  &#124;  Talk  10:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Grant, what I meant by the statement about NZers who were members of the RAF rather than RNZAF is that some New Zealand pilots and crew were enlisted in the RNZAF, meaning that they were given RNZAF service numbers; many of them did at least some of their flight training courses in NZ,before heading overseas. Even when serving in the RAF they retained their RNZAF service numbers and wore RNZAF insignia (one such pilot was the late Evan Mackie http://muse.aucklandmuseum.com/databases/Cenotaph/120503.detail Serial No. NZ41520 [this was his RNZAF no.]). Other pre-war pilots and aircrew from NZ joined the RAF in Britain and continued their service in the RAF eg: Al Deere started his career in the RAF in 1937 ( http://muse.aucklandmuseum.com/databases/Cenotaph/18382.detail?keywords=Deere%20Alan%20Christopher%20World%20War%20II,%201939-1945 Serial No. 40370 [RAF]): James Edgar "Cobber" Kain enlisted in the RAF in 1936 http://muse.aucklandmuseum.com/databases/Cenotaph/27847.detail?keywords=Kain%20Edgar%20James%20World%20War%20II,%201939-1945) Not quite sure why more New Zealanders joined the RAF than RNZAF - at a guess the RNZAF couldn't expand fast enough to cater for large numbers of recruits and (possibly) the fact that New Zealanders still felt that they were British at heart, whereas the Australians and Canadians had had more time to develop a sense of nationhood and more independence from the Empire. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   00:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What I think is important here is to correctly represent the subject in the article title. NZ was an exception of the Article XV squadrons : these were officially RAF Squadrons, known generally as e.g. No. xxx (NZ) Squadron RAF. They were crewed predominantly by New Zealanders, but also RAF and RAAF crewmembers. It is both inaccurate and misleading to imply in the article name that they were RNZAF Squadrons, but the subtleties should be explained in the articles. I suspect there may have been administrative issues and everybody was more interested in winning the war and going home than arguing over the official squadron names. While morally these were RNZAF squadrons, and it's sad they weren't given that dignity, nobody called them that at the time. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Rcbutcher, it is correct that: (1) some of the most significant provisions of the Ottawa Agreement and BCATP were not upheld in exactly the way that they were supposed to work (sometimes by agreement) and; (2) in this respect, the experiences of individual New Zealand, Canadian and Australian personnel and Article XV squadrons differed slightly from each other.

''A clause existed in the Ottawa agreement ... specifying that once individual squadrons reached a predominant proportion of aircrew from a particular nationality, it would be designated as a RAAF, RCAF, or RNZAF unit. Under the so-called “Article XV” provision, or what was also known as the “Infiltration” scheme, it was accordingly expected that there would be twenty-five “Canadian”, eighteen “Australian” and six “New Zealand” squadrons...

''The problem was that in reality the proportion of nationalities within Article XV squadrons always remained so mixed, and also fluctuated, that the nominal identification with a particular Dominion was frequently a fiction. It is recorded, for example, that when 462 Squadron formed in September 1942, only one Australian aircrew member was in this so-called RAAF unit! The startling fact is that the majority of Australian airmen were not found in Article XV squadrons anyway, but were actually spread across the whole RAF. In May 1945, when Germany surrendered, thousands of Australians were still serving in the European theatre, in 220 different RAF squadrons![8]

''This situation was no different for the New Zealanders, who ended up having seven [sic] Article XV squadrons.[9] Canada, however, made a greater insistence on its airmen going specifically to RCAF operational units overseas, which ensured that the genuine identity of its national squadrons was preserved. It also allowed the Canadians to do something the Australians and New Zealanders did not achieve for their units serving in Bomber Command, which was to form their squadrons in January 1943 into a separate RCAF formation (No. 6 Group) commanded by a Canadian air vice-marshal. In contrast to this, very few Australians were given command of operational units, even of the nominally “RAAF” squadrons, and those that received such appointments often did so only after the Australian authorities protested at Australian candidates being passed over by more junior RAF officers. [emphasis added] (Chris Clark, "The Empire Air Training Scheme", 2003 History Conference – Air War Europe''; Australian War Memorial)

Clark possibly understates the extent to which RCAF personnel were posted to non-RCAF units; according to Canadian sources, 20–25% of all personnel serving with RAF and Article XV squadrons in WW2 were Canadian.

And so:
 * I think the evidence is clear the six squadrons in question were more than "morally" RNZAF Squadrons; they were also "officially" RNZAF Squadrons according to
 * (1) a law signed by the New Zealand and UK governments in December 1939 (i.e. the Ottawa Agreement) and;
 * (2) heraldry and regalia stating not the general "NEW ZEALAND", but the specific "ROYAL NEW ZEALAND AIR FORCE". The six squadron badges latter are strong evidence because all RAF and Article XV squadron badges followed a basic format set by the Air Ministry, which also vetted proposed badges, rejected some for various reasons (e.g. an early proposal by 455 Squadron RAAF was rejected merely because the motto was too similar to that of another squadron) it was known to reject and officially gazetted those it accepted.
 * for political and practical reasons, the RNZAF did not exercise the authority that it (automatically) had, as a result of the Ottawa Agreement of 1939, over its six squadrons in Europe and;
 * few New Zealanders or Brits at the time or since have referred to them as RNZAF squadrons, in spite of their official legal status.

In any case, the squadrons' official or moral status are not the issue we are trying to resolve here, which is which particular common name Wikipedia should use. Grant &#124;  Talk  07:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)