This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The continued use of "No.68 Squadron RFC" or (even stranger) "No.68 Squadron RAF", for No.2 Squadron AFC, even in an historical sense, seems to be (forgive me) pure Pommy arrogance/ignorance (there should be a portmanteau word for that, shouldn't there?) Even disregarding the fact that the AFC was officially founded in 1912(!) and all its units were numbered from their foundation with numbers independent of the RFC/RAF series - the "RFC" numbers for AFC squadrons were only in force (even in official RFC parlance) for a few months. The AFC and its units were all recognised, even by the "Colonel Blimps" of the RFC high command, some months before the formation of the RAF. On a par with the Royal Australian Navy being called the "Royal Navy's Australian division" (as it was in some quarters well into the nineteen twenties and even later). We've had "Dominion Status" (i.e. been independent) since 1901 you know. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
