Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Air Board (Australia)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Biblioworm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Air Board (Australia)

 * Nominator(s): 

Back for my first ACR in a while, this is sort of a follow up to RAAF area commands in that a) it deals with the higher (in this case the highest) command of the Royal Australian Air Force and b) there’s no comparable detailed history of the entity that I’m aware of (although the Air Board at least scores a brief entry in the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History). Given the Air Board essentially ran the RAAF between 1921 and 1976, a highly detailed history would amount to a de facto history of the service for that period, so I’ve tried to restrict the information to origins, purpose, changes in composition, major or representative decisions, and dissolution, as well as highlighting those times (inevitably during international conflict) when the Air Board did not exercise complete control of its assets. I’d like to take this to FAC pending a successful result here so pls consider in that light as well -- tks in advance for your input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Support: I recently reviewed this for GA and have reviewed the changes made since then. I believe that the article is up to snuff for A-class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Great work as usual Ian. I have the following comments and suggestions: Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "it was composed of senior RAAF officers as well as some civilian members" - perhaps note here or in the next para of the lead that each of the members had a different responsibility/speciality, reflecting their role as head of that element of the service?
 * Tweaked.
 * "the newly raised Air Force Headquarters located in the Department of Defence" - this reads as saying that the headquarters was part of the Department: is this correct? (or perhaps tweak it to "the newly raised Air Force Headquarters located alongside/with the Department of Defence..."?)
 * Tweaked.
 * What was the relationship between the Air Board and Air Force Headquarters? Was the headquarters effectively the secretariat for the board, or did it have a separate role? (or both!)
 * Heh, that's the question I half-hoped no-one would ask! It's the anomalous relationship between the two that led to AFH's dissolution in the 1950s -- details of which I've now added. Personally I think AFH was like a glove, and the Air Board was the hand within the glove, but none of the sources I've seen appear to make it that clear.
 * Was the lack of control over RAAF personnel and units posted to Europe the fault of the Air Board, or the Government? At the moment the text implies it was all the Air Board's fault, when I think that the Government was also to blame.
 * Yes, more the govt I think, will see if I can put something in to that effect.
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "was the source of acute personal tension" - this might be understating things, given that the tensions led to serious command and control problems for the entire service - and contributed to 1 TAF being sidelined as noted in the next para.
 * I was consciously avoiding the middle section becoming an "RAAF command problems in WWII" article but I agree we could expand on this a little -- let me think about it.
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest noting that the 1973 changes formed part of the establishment of the Australian Defence Force, with the CAF becoming formally responsible to the Chief of the Defence Force.
 * The current sources refer to CDF (or CDFS as it was initially) explicitly but not the ADF, but I can probably find something tying it all to the ADF.
 * Mentioned CDFS and recast things to I think better explain the logic. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to add more material reflecting on the relative efficiency of the RAAF's administration following the abolition of the Air Board? While Rowland may have been unhappy with this change, the service seems to have performed well since the 1970s (with somewhat more rational aircraft selection and organisational changes and an impressive improvement in flying safety, for instance), and a greater emphasis on "jointery" eventually paid dividends.
 * Yes, that'd be useful and I have a couple of sources to check that might go into it, but no promises they'll explicitly tie it to post-Air Board command arrangements... ;-)
 * I was hopeful that Stephens' The Royal Australian Air Force (2001/2006) and Power Plus Attitude (1992) might make a clearer distinction between the Air Board era and after but there doesn't seem to be much there; OTOH I was able to add a bit balancing Rowland's wariness of the new arrangements... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough: it's a bit like proving a negative. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Tks very much for those comments, Nick -- I'll get onto the second half of the list soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I've covered everything now in some fashion, Nick -- let me know your thoughts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That all looks good Ian, and I'm pleased to support this nomination Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments from Hawkeye7
 * You say that the CAS was known as the First Air Member. Were the others known as the Second, Third Air member etc? Was there a First Civil Member?
 * There was definitely a Second Air Member at once stage, I'll check on the rest and see about working it in...
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To what extent was the organisation of the Air Board influenced by its Naval and Military counterparts? And by that of the RAF?
 * Re. first part, aside from noting that the concept of a board was shared with the Army and Navy I don't think the sources say much. Re. second part, I think Ashworth says something about the similarity of the board's 1940 re-organisation to the RAF's (hardly surprising as Burnett had just taken over) so can try and work that in.
 * Actually I'm not sure the comparison with the British Air Council in 1940 adds much as the latter seemed to change fairly soon after anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Following objections by Britain's Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Hugh Trenchard" What were his objections?
 * The Canadians had apparently just adopted the RAF ensign and he thought it would be a fine idea for all the Dominions to use it -- can add.
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Link Royal Australian Air Force Ensign. (And the 1948 design looks to me exactly like the rejected 1921 one.)
 * I don't think they are identical -- the 1921 proposal apparently superimposed the Southern Cross on the RAF roundel rather than placing it to one side. I can link the RAAF ensign article rather than just ensign though.
 * Linked RAAf ensign article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "According to a statement by the Prime Minister" Was this Bob Menzies?
 * Probably, it just didn't seem to be explicit in the source.
 * Hmmm Melville Langslow has no article. How odd.
 * Job opportunity, mate!
 * Any idea who the FiM and BuM were in 1940? And the Minister for Air?
 * The first two are in the Membership table. Would you like me to mention in the text the first MfA? (Fairbairn I think...)
 * What was the division of responsibility between the AMSE and AMEM. Was the former responsible for procurement while the latter handled supply and maintenance?
 * Hmm, I thought the titles made things reasonably clear but I can see if the sources spell it out. It'd be interesting to know if AMSE was responsible for all equipment, even that used by Engineering / Technical Services Branch (in other words if Engineering did any of its own ordering or got it all through Supply Branch) but would have to check if the sources make that clear.
 * I think the article already says as much as the sources afford. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * SWPA was abolished on 2 September 1945.
 * I was just saying the war ended in August and SWPA was dissolved afterwards.
 * What was the Interim Air Force?
 * Worth an article is what it is/was, but I have one or two to get to before that... ;-) I can see if I can put it into a sentence for this article if you like...
 * Surprisingly Stephens never clearly defines the term in either of his two RAAF histories so I think I'd prefer to leave as it is, unless you think I should simply remove the term from this article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a bit about teh tasking of various units in Vietnam, but not No. 9 Squadron.
 * Yes, I probably should add that.
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In the membership table, I think a "To" column would be useful.
 * It would indeed but annoyingly the main sources (Clark, Ashworth, Stephens) don't say in all cases -- generally the implication is of course that one incumbent's term finished when another's started, but that doesn't help when an entire position has been discontinued, and even checking Trove for Gazette and newspaper reports haven't filled in all the gaps. I have noted in the text when particular positions were dissolved to try and improve it.
 * Happy New Year  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You too -- tks Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I've done as much as I can for now, Hawkeye, pls let me know what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Article looks good. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers Hawkeye! Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review All images appropriately licensed with appropriate captions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.