Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John McCauley (RAAF officer)


 * 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.


 * Promoted AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

John McCauley (RAAF officer)

 * Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a remarkable series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of Duntroon&mdash;that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force. They were Air Marshals McCauley, Scherger, Hancock and Murdoch. Frederick Scherger went through ACR/FAC a while back, and now it’s time for the rest. Among my earliest articles on senior RAAF commanders, John McCauley, Val Hancock and Alister Murdoch have been B/GA-Class till recently (all are GA now), so I decided to expand and improve them in tandem, given the additional sources that have come my way since I created them. It therefore seemed appropriate to put them up for ACR at the same time and, given their similarities, you might like to review them in tandem as well... ;-)

Seriously, it shouldn’t be too bad: after Duntroon, they all joined the RAAF before World War II, saw action during the war, and went on to higher command and eventually the top of the Air Force in the 1950s and 60s. McCauley’s and Hancock’s tours as Chief were separated by Fred Scherger. Comparing those three, McCauley could be seen as the most reserved and cerebral, Scherg as the most dynamic and forthright, and Hancock somewhere between those two poles. Murdoch was the last of the quartet and somewhat the odd one out, not graduating from Duntroon as an Army officer and then volunteering for the RAAF like the others, but entering the college under an RAAF cadet scheme and transferring services before graduation due to economic cutbacks. Plus his legacy is generally considered a negative one for the Air Force, blamed as he is for the service losing its control of battlefield helicopters to the Army in the 1980s. His predecessors are remembered more positively, McCauley for focussing on Australia’s northern defences, Scherg for carrying that a step further by initiating a string of ‘bare bases’ up north and also for ordering the Mirage fighter, and Hancock for picking the fledgling F-111 as the top bomber of its era. Anyway, enough of the intro – thanks in advance for your input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Do RAAF officers have service numbers?
 * 2) *Yes.
 * 3) McCauley's experience kept him in Australia on training assignments Which experience?
 * 4) *Basically his seniority and training qualification -- will reword a bit.
 * 5) McCauley was in charge of RAAF units under Britain's Far East Air Force. As station commander at RAF Sembawang in north-east Singapore from August 1941 So he was not in change of RAF units?
 * 6) *None of my sources say he led the RAF flying units, they just mention RAAF units and the base as a whole.
 * 7) The British had actively sought him for this particular appointment based upon his work in Malaya? (I note that he served for six months in a top job in NW Europe and all he gets for it is the France and Germany Star)
 * 8) *Only one source aludes to why, stating the RAF sought both McCauley and Frank Bladin after they'd "demonstrated outstanding command capabilities" -- thought it was a bit vague to highlight but I could if you think it's worthwhile.
 * 9) Add "Occupation of Japan" to the infobox
 * 10) *Tks, will do.
 * 11) How could he have been CoS to Northcott, when Northcott returned to Australia in June 1946?
 * 12) *Good catch! Checking the source again, it was actually Red Robbie by then, eh...?
 * 13) **I double checked. It was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Who was responsible for the purchase of the UH-1s?
 * 15) *Don't think I refer to choppers in this article -- does this belong in the Murdoch ACR? Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support This is a comprehensive and well written article which I think meets the criteria. I do have a few suggestions for how it could be further improved though:
 * "he personally supervised the training and operations of Nos. 1 and 8 Squadrons, flying Lockheed Hudson light bombers, and warned higher command of the weaknesses of the Allied air defences" - this is a bit awkward as it covers two quite different topics. I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences (and expanding the material on his warning/s if possible)
 * I'll see what I can do.
 * How did McCauley escape from Palembang?
 * Nobody goes into detail except Gillison mentioning that they "marched out" of P.2 and were picked up by "motor vehicles" a few miles later; nothing about whether they returned to Australia by air or by sea.
 * Do we know why the British wanted McCauley for what seems like a key position in 2TAF in Europe? This doesn't seem obvious from his previous service record.
 * See response to Hawkeye.
 * "McCauley commenced the redevelopment of RAAF Base Darwin" - 'ordered the redevelopment' perhaps - the current wording implies that he was personally in charge (also, would it be appropriate to link to No. 5 Airfield Construction Squadron RAAF here? - I'd say yes, but I'm probably a bit too close to that article!) Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, will reword. As to 5ACS, I suppose I could work them in there -- knowing full well that your next suggestion will be to mention them in connection with RAAF Learmonth in the Hancock article... ;-) Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Another one? You have been busy! Again with the postnoms and the sandwhiching of the text between the first image and the infobox, but other than that, support. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - looks good only a few minor comments:
 * In the info box you list one of McCauley's units as this: "2nd TAF RAF (1945–45)" should this be 1944–45 instead?
 * I think the grammar here might be slightly off: "the final arrangements for demolition of equipment and departure of staff", should this be "the final arrangements for the demolition of equipment and departure of staff"?
 * Maybe a word missing here: "as a labour force on Sumatra, arranging their transport as a unit to Batavia" should this be "as a labour force on Sumatra, instead arranging their transport as a unit to Batavia."
 * I know this is a quote but is there a typo here: "no RAAF officer of sufficient age, or operation experience, to take", specifically should it be "operational experience"?
 * Citation a bit out here: "Helson, Ten Years at the Top, p. 238–239", should be pp as it is a page range. Anotherclown (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for reviewing and for finding those things -- oddly enough, "operation experience" is the exact rendering of the quote in one source, which is why I'd left it, but not in the one I ended up using now I look at it again, so I can safely change it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - looking good. I've just found one thing that perhaps needs expanding; WW2 section mentions Sembawang was "the busiest airfield on Singapore island", with two Dutch Glenn Martin bomber squadrons ..., is it known which type of Glen Martin aircraft they were flying?  There were several types of Glen aircraft operational at the time. NtheP (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did look, and tried to put a model name to them, but no luck I'm afraid. Thanks for your review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A look at Royal Netherlands East Indies Army Air Force suggests that the only Glen aircraft used by the Dutch was an export version of the Martin B-10. Might be worth following up. NtheP (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


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