Ralph_S wrote:
Mike Weeks wrote:
Ralph_S wrote:
R Leonard wrote:


Is this anything new? While in my opinion it would make more sense for
them to try to revive the legacy of one of the former adversary units,
I really don't see the problem with this. I think it is great to see
The Sundowners name revived.

It's been done before. VF-2 (now VFA-2) harked back to the original
VF-2 that flew from the Langley, including using the so-called Langley
strips.

Please keep in mind that VF/VFA-2 did not attempt to use as the
official patch the original "Flying Chiefs" patch and in addition they
are officially called the "Bounty Hunters".

Using the Langley strips simply acknowledges that there was previously
another fleet carrier squadron Number Two.

The patch they used indeed wasn't that of the Flying Chiefs, but it
definately tied into the original VF-2 from the Langley (There's even a
biplane in there), as did the Langley stripes.

And the squadron doesn't claim to have been _that_ squadron, which BTW,
had more time on the old Lex then it did on Langley. g

Again, they aren't using the original VF-2 patch (or name), yet VFC-111
apparently is going to -- at least unofficially. Time will only tell
if it becomes official (the patch & name), which will be interesting to
watch what happens.



http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/cvw-2/cvw2squadrons.htm

VF-103 Sluggers became The Jolly Rogers when VF-84 was disestablished,
and that unit didn't have a direct lineage back to the original VF-17
either.

And that decision came from the very top. Instead of the CNO simply
keeping VF-84, VF-103 was _told_ they are to change patch and official
nickname. IIRC CNO ADM Johnson was quoted as stating in so many words
the Navy tracked its squadrons not on type and numbers, but by patchs
and nicknames. This of course is inaccurate.

Well, you had VF-17 Jolly Rogers. This was stood down. Some of it's
personel became part of a new unit, VF-84, which called itself the
Jolly Rogers as well.

VF-84 had as its patch a black wolf's head with crossed MGs. Some of
the orig. VF-17 guys did form as a core for VF-84, but it was never
official as to being the Jolly Rogers. Good press however ...

Around the same time, VF-17 is stood up gain
under the same name, gets renumbered as VF-5B and later VF-61. Now you
have two squadrons named the Jolly Rogers.

VF-17 was not disestablished during the war however. Between
deployments squadrons might lose all but one poor soul until a new set
of pilots reported aboard to start the new workup cycle. And the first
VF-84 went away on 08 OCT 1945. You had one squadron (VF-17) offically
the Jolly Rogers, one squadron (VF-84), unofficially in some circles as
the Jolly Rogers up to 08 Oct. 1945.

VF-84 is disestablished, while VF-61 remains. VF-84 is re-established

(actually another VF-84 is established -- as you know, squadrons are
not re-established up to a 1995 directive -- now a squadron, if in
existence in 1995, can be. The current terms are reactivated and
deactivated.)

as the Vagabonds. VF-61 is disestablished. VF-84 is once again named
the Jolly Rogers.

In this case, a core group from VF-61 (including the CO) formed up into
VF-84 because they were transitioning from the F3H to the F8U. And
officially the change over in patch/name was approved -- all in the
1958/59 period.

But the Navy only allowed VF-84 to trace its lineage back to 1955.
VF-84 could not, and I don't believe they did, claim their first
skipper as being CDR Tom Blackburn for example. g

VF-84 is disestablished. VF-103 becomes the Jolly Rogers.

As stated, they are _told_ to become the Jolly Rogers. The long
original history of 103 as the Sluggers, just wiped out ... g


This sort of thing really is only relevant to aviation geeks such as
myself and historians.

Given the history of the mess which constitutes NavAir policy to
squadron names & numbers one can allow for a certain amount of slack
thru the late 1950's and into the early 1960's. But not after that
period -- especially given the numerous directives and instructions
which were generated in an attempt to get a handle and to make some
sense of the mess created previously -- which of course aren't followed
by the very folks who not only created them, but who apparently don't
know they exist!

It actually should matter to those who run the Navy. Some in the Navy
try, but it's been an uphill battle to say the least.


The decision will simply add additional confusion to the proper lineage
history of former squadrons (such as what's happened w/ VF/VFA-11 "Red
Rippers", based on what had been the established rules, regs and
instructions.


While there may be official guidelines for this sort of thing, it
doesn't seem as though they are applied very consistently.

That's a fact! g