74 Squadron. Reality Check

[Bruce Lander]

Hi

I have just finished the new book on Peter StJohn "Salute to One Of The Few" and it made me think about the way things were presented in the early days.I first read about the merry scamps of 74 in Taffy Jones' book "Tiger Squadron" back in 1954 and as times moved along realised that while it was interesting in its own way that it really was very unreliable. Then along came "Sky Tiger" and "I Fear No Man" which while far more accurate still depicted the Squadron as a "Happy Ship". When Bob Spurdle's memoir came out in the 80's I began to see that his was not the case but as he seemed to be a prickly character maybe it was just his personal opinon. However recent books - "Hornchurch Scramble" "Tigers" and Johnny Freeborns "A Tigers Tale" underline what miserable unit it really was. The first C.O. White was held in contempt by his flight commanders (Malan especially) something which filtered down through the Squadron.Malan himself was determined to run 74 himself and his part in the Barking Creek episode leaves a nasty taste and led to his split with Freeborn. On the famous "Sailors August 11th" they overclaimed to an amazing degree,and Freeborn himself casts doubts on claims by Malan,Mungo-Park and Stephen who he obviously disliked intensely. As C.O. Malan's insistence on close formation flying seems to have led to several accidents and fatalities during training.
It also appears that the so called ragging (bullying)of junior pilots by Chesters and his gang was totally ignored by Malan who seems to have remained aloof from most of his men. Even St John had a lot of reservations about the state of things in 74 So all in all not a happy Squadron - all brave men but not a band of brothers.

Bruce Lander

[Franek Grabowski]

But what is the question? Doug Tidy should be somewhere around, so likely to explain some things.

[lingodog]

I agree with Bruce. The early post-war accounts were highly sanitised, and that was the fare we were all brought up with. There was a most unfortunate gulf between the officer and NCO pilots and the ground-crew were all but ignored. I suppose the services provided the last gasp for the class divide.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by lingodog

I suppose the services provided the last gasp for the class divide.

Last gasp? That's not my impression of life in "modern" Britain!

[Andy Saunders]

I don't think things on 74 Squadron were unique to that squadron. If you scratch beneath the surface of many operational squadrons of the period you start to unearth the reality of how things often were. Going through some notes on 234, 257 and 611 Squadron the other day (from interviews in the 1970's) it was clear that they had certain "issues", too. And they were certainly not alone or unique in that respect.

[northeagle]

I think Andy has made a fair point there. Many, if not the majority of fighter squadrons had their differences and internal conflicts. The Auxiliary Squadrons were mainly the exception as most of the personnel came from the same area sharing similar interests.
Even the Auxiliary Squadrons were to change from around early 1940 with the influx of regular RAF Officers: the differences being mostly in the area of part-timers and regular RAF aircrew.

Best Wishes.
Robert.

[Bruce Lander]

Hi
Thanks Gentlemen for your input on this, I agree totally with the points made.
Squadrons such as 234,242,253 & 257 have been well covered on the problems of poor leadership. Many pre-War career RAF officers found themselves fish out of water when War came as C.O's of Fighter units - the pre-War RAF was seen by many of its officers as an exclusive flying club and the influx of a large number of newcomers did not sit well with them.
It does seem though that the Hornchurch Squadrons 54,65 and especially 74 being a very close knit bunch took this harder than most and that a lot of problems with them already existed even before the War.
Thanks again , these are just observations rather than questions.

Cheers

Bruce Lander

[lingodog]

[quote=Nick Beale;85454]Last gasp? That's not my impression of life in "modern" Britain!


Oh, don't say that Nick, please!
I've been having battles on this very point on another forum whose members ideas of Britain come from films (they call it movies!) and television. Perhaps they want to believe the Brits live a) in stately homes or
b) picturesque villages
in some unspecified period where you can tell at a glance a persons status/worth to the community.

[Nick Beale]

[quote=lingodog;85658]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

Last gasp? That's not my impression of life in "modern" Britain!


Perhaps they want to believe the Brits live a) in stately homes or
b) picturesque villages
in some unspecified period where you can tell at a glance a persons status/worth to the community.

Rather than in a country where practically all of the senior politicians went to fee-paying schools that 93% of children don't go to, where we still confer hereditary titles, where the head of state is always drawn from one family and where bishops sit in Parliament making laws. Mediaeval, us?

[lingodog]

[quote=Nick Beale;85660]

Originally Posted by lingodog

Rather than in a country where practically all of the senior politicians went to fee-paying schools that 93% of children don't go to, where we still confer hereditary titles, where the head of state is always drawn from one family and where bishops sit in Parliament making laws. Mediaeval, us?

You are quite right. I shall go to a nearby bishops house and horse-whip him to within an inch of his life. It shall make me feel better. Bit too late for me at age 69 to attend a fee-paying school I'm afraid, but I shall put myself up for Emperor should the position become vacant. I'm positive I could do a better job than Charlie boy. On second thoughts I probably won't, as I lack ambition!