# 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron Is Reborn



## MCpl Burtoo

Rumour has it that the new CH-147 Sqn will be 450 Sqn,  which was a originally allocated to the Royal Australian Air Force in World War II. Canada received permission to adopt the number and the Squadron was formed at RCAF Station St. Hubert on 29 March 1968 (moved to CFB Ottawa in May 1970) and was disbanded on 25 June 1996 at 1 Wing St. Hubert .
 I understand the rational of  standing up a previous Chinook Sqn,  but I believe that we should stand up a Sqn that has Battle Honours. Those Battle Honours should be flying proudly again in a new unit . Having a new unit stand up, and reform a Sqn that had World War Two service and post - war service,  will give the new Squadron members a feeling of pride. The new unit  will be able to foster the customs and traditions of a proud war time Squadron, such as being affiliated with Canadian City's  (No. 401 "City of Westmount" Squadron RCAF , No. 411 "City of York" Squadron RCAF, No. 416 "City of Oshawa" Squadron RCAF, No. 418 "City of Edmonton" Squadron RCAF, No. 420 "City of London" Squadron RCAF).  Out of the twelve Squadrons listed, three have been previous Tac Hel Sqns ( 401, 411, 422) and two ( 401,411) have animals in the Squadron Crest, keeping with the rest of 1 Wing Sqns.
The  Army has esprit de corps with their Regimental system and when you are part of a Regimental system, you developed sense of belonging to a Regiment. The same can be said with the Squadron system. There seems to be a greater feeling of pride since we went back to calling ourselves the RCAF.  Being part of a Squadron that has war time history will instil greater pride and belonging to something with history and traditions. This creates a link to our proud past  and legacy and traditions to hold onto for a future. MND Hon Peter MacKay said it best when he restored the RCAF.  > " An important element of Canadian military heritage was lost when these three former services were required to relinquish their historic titles. Restoring these historic identities is a way of reconnecting today ' s men and women in uniform, and the proud history and traditions that [they] carry with them as members of the Canadian Forces.


 Role:
 Fighter and Tactical Helicopter and Training Squadron.
 Motto:
 MORS CELERRIMA HOSTIBUS
(Very swift death for the enemy)
Badge:
 A Rocky Mountain sheep's head Sable horned Or caboshed
Battle Honours:
Battle of Britain 1940, Defence of Britain 1940-44, English Channel and North Sea 1942, Fortress Europe 1941-44, Dieppe, France and Germany 1944-45, Normandy 1944, Arnhem, Rhine

 411 "County of York" Squadron

 Role:
 Fighter and Tactical Helicopter Squadron
 Battle Honours:
 Defence of Britain 1941-44, English Channel and North Sea 1942-43, Fortress Europe1941-44, Dieppe, France and Germany 1944-45, Normandy 1944, Arnhem, Rhine
Motto :
 INIMICUS INIMICO
 (Hostile to the enemy)
Badge:
Argent a bear rampant Sable armed Or

 415 Squadron 
Role:
Torpedo-bomber, bomber and Maritime Patrol Squadron
Motto:
AD METAM
(To the mark)
 Badge:
 Argent a swordfish proper variant
 Battle Honours:
 Atlantic 1942, English Channel and North Sea 1942-44, France and Germany 1944-45, Biscay Ports 1944, uhr 1944-45, German Ports 1944-45, Normandy 1944, Rhine, Biscay 1942-43

416 Squadron
Role:
 Fighter and Air Defence Squadron
 Motto:
 AD SALTUM PARATUS
 (Ready for the leap)
 Badge:
Argent in front of a maple leaf Or a lynx proper leaping downwards
 Battle Honours:
 Defence of Britain 1942-44, English Channel and North Sea 1943, Fortress Europe 1942-44, Dieppe, France and Germany 1944-45, Normandy 1944, Arnhem, Rhine, Gulf and Kuwait

 418 Squadron
 Role:
 Intruder, Fighter-Bomber and Transport and Rescue Squadron
Motto:
 PIYAUTAILILI
 (Defend even unto death)
Badge:
 Argent an Inuit on an ice floe holding a harpoon proper
 Battle Honours:
 Defence of Britain 1944, Fortress Europe 1942-44, Dieppe, France and Germany 1944-45, Normandy 1944, Rhine

420 Squadron
 Role:
 Bomber, Fighter and Maritime Patrol Squadron
Motto:
 PUGNAMUS FINITUM
 (We fight to the finish)
 Badge:
 Argent a snowy owl wings elevated and adorsed proper
 Battle Honours:
 English Channel and North Sea 1942-44, Baltic 1942, Fortress Europe 1942-44, France and Germany 1944-45, Biscay Ports 1942-44, Ruhr 1942-45, Berlin 1944, German Ports 1942-45, Normandy 1944, Rhine, Biscay 1942-43, Sicily 1943, Italy 1943, Salerno

 422 Squadron
Role:
 General Reconnaissance and Tactical Helicopter Squadron
 Motto:
 THIS ARM SHALL DO IT
 Badge:
 A cubit arm adorned holding in the hand a tomahawk head Gules handle adorned
 Battle Honours:
 Atlantic 1942-1945, English Channel and North Sea 1944-1945, Normandy 1944, Biscay 1944-1945, Arctic 1942

 428 Squadron
 Role:
 Bomber and All-Weather Fighter Squadron
Motto:
USQUE AD FINEM
(To the very end)
 Badge:
 Argent in a shroud Sable a death's head (or skull) Argent.

Battle Honours:
 English Channel and North Sea 1943-1944, Baltic 1944, Fortress Europe 1943-1944, France and Germany 1944-1945, Biscay Ports 1943-1944, Ruhr 1943-1945, Berlin 1943-1944, German Ports 1943-1945, Normandy 1944, Thine, Biscay 1943-1944

 432 Squadron
 Role:
 Bomber and All-Weather Fighter Squadron
 Motto:
 SAEVITER AD LUCEM
 (Ferociously towards the light)
Badge:
 Argent in front of a full moon Argent a Cougar leaping downwards Sable armed and langued Gules.
 Battle Honours:
 English Channel and North Sea 1943, Fortress Europe 1943-1944, France and Germany 1944-1945, Biscay Ports 1944, Ruhr 1943-1945, Berlin 1943-1944, German Ports 1943-1945, Normandy 1944, Rhine, Biscay 1943

 433 Squadron
 Role:
 Bomber and Tactical Fighter Squadron
 Motto:
 QUI S'Y FROTT S'Y PIQUE
 (Who opposes it gets hurt)
Badge:
Argent in front of a hurt porcupine Or.
 Battle Honours:
 English Channel and North Sea 1944-1945, Baltic 1944-1945, Fortress Europe 1944, France and Germany 1944-1945, Biscay Ports 1944, Ruhr 1944-1945, Berlin 1944, German Ports 1944-1945, Normandy 1944, Rhine, Biscay 1944

 434 Squadron
 Role:
 Bomber, Fighter, Strike/Attack ,Tactical Fighter Operational Training Squadron and Combat Support Squadron (EW)
 Motto:
 IN EXCELSIS VINCIMUS
 (We conquer in the heights)
 Badge:
 Argent upon waves of water Azure representation of the schooner Bluenose proper.
 Battle Honours:
 English Channel and North Sea 1943-1944, Baltic 1943-1944, Fortress Europe 1943-1944, France and Germany 1944-1945, Biscay Ports 1944, Ruhr 1943-1945, Berlin 1943-1944, German Ports 1944-1945, Normandy 1944, Rhine

 441 Squadron
 Role:
 Fighter, Strike/Attack and Tactical Fighter Squadron> Motto:
 STALK AND KILL
 Badge:
 Argent a silver fox's head affronté caboshed proper.
 Battle Honours:
 Defence of Britain 1945, Fortress Europe 1944, France and Germany 1944-1945, Normandy 1944, Arnhem, Walcheren


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The idea of historical connection to battle honours is always good, but isn't it a little inappropriate when all the battle honours you seek recognized in a Helicopter Squadron are from fixed wing squadrons and a time when no helicopters operated, other than a token number taken on at the end of WWII (1945 only) for the purpose of developing instructors, should their widespread use be required before the end of the war - a scenario that did not come to pass?


----------



## aesop081

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> but isn't it a little inappropriate when all the battle honours you seek recognized in a Helicopter Squadron are from fixed wing squadrons and a time when no helicopters operated,



Several current RCAF helicopter squadrons have battle honours that were earned when they were flyign fixed-wing aicraft and at a time when no helicopters were flying.

423 Sqn, 443 Sqn, 403 Sqn, 408 Sqn.........


----------



## Strike

Although 450 may not have battle honours it still has a very proud history, of which at least one member of this forum could attest to.

Why start up a brand new Sqn with no recent history or take a number of a unit that was disbanded only a short time ago when you can use a number that was directly associated to Chinooks?


----------



## George Wallace

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The idea of historical connection to battle honours is always good, but isn't it a little inappropriate when all the battle honours you seek recognized in a Helicopter Squadron are from fixed wing squadrons and a time when no helicopters operated, other than a token number taken on at the end of WWII (1945 only) for the purpose of developing instructors, should their widespread use be required before the end of the war - a scenario that did not come to pass?



I suppose you would apply the same to a Fighter Sqn accepting/perpetuating the Battle Honours of a Bomber Sqn (which we no longer have any of).  Most, if not all, of our Sqns have flown a wide variety of aircraft types and roles.

All the Sqns in the RCAF have seen the type of aircraft that they have flown over the years change.  Why would you think this would be any different?


----------



## MCpl Burtoo

Strike said:
			
		

> Although 450 may not have battle honours it still has a very proud history, of which at least one member of this forum could attest to.
> 
> Why start up a brand new Sqn with no recent history or take a number of a unit that was disbanded only a short time ago when you can use a number that was directly associated to Chinooks?



I think I said it all in my post. I don't want to start up a brand new Sqn, I would like to see an old one reformed that is not 450 Sqn. I just think that using an RAAF Sqn in present day doesn't make sense when we have several that have been stood down that have more of a connection with the RCAF. I understand when 450 Sqn stood up, not much choice was out there as all the War time Sqns were activated and 450 and then 447 (not a war time sqn either) were used. I just feel that with the choices we have from stood down sqns that it would be far better to choose one with Battle honours and have that historical link with our RCAF past.  IMHO


----------



## Loachman

RedSash said:
			
		

> I just feel that with the choices we have from stood down sqns that it would be far better to choose one with Battle honours and have that historical link with our RCAF past.



Tac Hel's true "historical link" is not "RCAF". The first Tac Hel units were 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon RCASC (flying Voyageurs), the RCHA aerial observation post (AOP) flights, and the helicopter troops of RCAC recce squadrons, so it makes no difference which 400-series Squadron number is selected.

Regardless, the decision has been made. The CF's first Chinook Squadron will be ressurrected.


----------



## BillN

I think RedSash misses the boat here.  One of the things that the ex-members of 450 Sqn were very proud of was the fact we were NEVER an RCAF Squadron  :warstory:  Our customs and traditions came to us from the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps through 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon (1THP).

As I wrote a while ago on this site:

"When the 400 series was first used back in WW2, 400 to 449 went to the RCAF.   Scoot forward now to 1968 when 1THP was informed that it was to become an air force squadron, the CO of the day requested that a number not previously used by the RCAF be 'issued'.  

This was done because it was felt it was very important that the RCASC traditions of 1THP be kept alive and not swept under the carpet. And that the customs and traditions of a former RCAF squadron, now to be stood up in 1THP's place, would not be allowed to take priority.

As we now know DHist, not doing any proper research into the matter, assumed that 450 had never been used, and so it came to be that 1THP became 450 Sqn.  

During my time on the Sqn in the mid-1980's contact was made with 450 Sqn RAAF Association, who were thrilled to find out that 'their' Sqn had been reformed.  In fact many of them made a trip to Canada when our first Sqn Colour was presented.  I know the CO during my time, LCol David 'Doc' Purich - now sadly passed away, requested to DHist that 450 CAF be allowed to carry the battle honours won by 450 RAAF.  This was turned down, even though the Aussie's agreed to it."

I was extremely pleased to be told a month ago by members at 1 Wing HQ, that an application had been made to 1CAD for the Squadron then known a "4 Double X" to be officially named 450 Squadron.  

450 Squadron's history, customs and traditions, are as unique as any RCAF squadrons.  In fact some of us think more so.

"By Air To Battle"


----------



## Loachman

450 Squadron's badge has been appearing on 1 Wing HQ CUB slides and other presentations, along with the Wing's other Squadron badges, for a while now.


----------



## MCpl Burtoo

Loachman said:
			
		

> Tac Hel's true "historical link" is not "RCAF". The first Tac Hel units were 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon RCASC (flying Voyageurs), the RCHA aerial observation post (AOP) flights, and the helicopter troops of RCAC recce squadrons, so it makes no difference which 400-series Squadron number is selected.
> 
> I believe this is called semantics, but  I agree with you on  "Tac Hel's True Historical Link".  The RCHA aerial observation post (AOP) flights were RCAF Sqns manned by Royal Canadian Artillery and Royal Canadian Air Force personnel and were under Army Co-operation Command (No. 664 Sqn RCAF, No.665 Sqn RCAF, No.666  Sqn RCAF).  We can all so talk about  No. 10 Army Co-Operation Squadron  that was formed in 1932 and renumbered No. 110 "City of Toronto" Army Co-Operation Squadron in 1937. It become No. 400 Sqn RCAF Army Co-Operation Squadron in 1941 when it deployed overseas as part of No. 39 (AC) Wing (RCAF) and now of course we know it as 400 THS.  The other two Sqns to form the Wing were 414 and 430 Sqns. When the Command was disbanded the three Sqns become part of 2nd Tactical Air Force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think RedSash misses the boat here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I missed the boat. My point was that I would like to see a Sqn with Battle Honours and connection maybe with a "City" that was a RCAF Sqn.  I think it is great 450 Sqn carried on the customs and traditions of 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon and I hope that the Sqn will continue do so, since Loachman says "Regardless, the decision has been made. The CF's first Chinook Squadron will be ressurrected". My post was simply to put forth that 450 Sqn was a RAAF Sqn during the war and not a RCAF. Maybe 664, 665 and 664 would have been better choice, who knows? If we have 103 Sqn, why couldn't we have had 666 Sqn again. I hope the request to carry the battle honours of 450 RAAF will be asked again and not be turned down. Regardless, BillN I thank you for the history education on 1 THP and wish more info was out there about this unit.  Just as a side bar....455 Sqn RAAF crest looks very much like 450 Sqns crest.  Any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...


----------



## Loachman

RedSash said:
			
		

> The RCHA aerial observation post (AOP) flights were RCAF Sqns manned by Royal Canadian Artillery and Royal Canadian Air Force personnel and were under Army Co-operation Command.



Not during the time leading up to unification and the first few years beyond. Note the "ARMY" painted on the side of the L19 at http://www.warbirdalley.com/l19.htm. Scroll down on http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/RCAF_10261_10287_detailed.html until you see references to "Army Aviation Tactical Training School at CJATC, Rivers Camp, Manitoba" and "Royal Canadian Armoured Corps (RCAC) Helicopter Troop in Germany in 1962". These were Army-owned aircraft, operated and maintained by Army personnel, wearing Army uniforms and their Regimental or Corps cap badges (RCEME in the case of the maintainers) and the Commonwealth/British Army wings. After unification, these aircraft plus the Kiowas and Twin Hueys that replaced them, were owned by Mobile Command (Army) until Air Command was formed in 1975.

Had the travesty of unification not happened, there would be no discussion about linking Canadian Army Aviation units to RCAF Squadrons today.



			
				RedSash said:
			
		

> My post was simply to put forth that 450 Sqn was a RAAF Sqn during the war and not a RCAF.



Not _*our*_ 450 Squadron. There was an RAAF Squadron designated "450". There is no link between the two beyond the number. That number could also have been used in several other flying services around the world as well - so what?



			
				RedSash said:
			
		

> I hope the request to carry the battle honours of 450 RAAF will be asked again and not be turned down.



Why? There is no logical reason for this. 450 Squadron RAAF was not a Canadian unit.

401 Squadron was originally No 1 Squadron RCAF - there is, similarly, no logical reason for it to carry 1 Squadron RAF's battle honours.



			
				RedSash said:
			
		

> Just as a side bar....455 Sqn RAAF crest looks very much like 450 Sqns crest.  Any thoughts on that?



Well, it's got a crown on top, so I suppose, depending upon how much one wishes to stretch the rest that bears no resemblance.


----------



## my72jeep

Not during the time leading up to unification and the first few years beyond. Note the "ARMY" painted on the side of the L19 at http://www.warbirdalley.com/l19.htm. Scroll down on http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/RCAF_10261_10287_detailed.html until you see references to "Army Aviation Tactical Training School at CJATC, Rivers Camp, Manitoba" and "Royal Canadian Armoured Corps (RCAC) Helicopter Troop in Germany in 1962". These were Army-owned aircraft, operated and maintained by Army personnel, wearing Army uniforms and their Regimental or Corps cap badges (RCEME in the case of the maintainers) and the Commonwealth/British Army wings. After unification, these aircraft plus the Kiowas and Twin Hueys that replaced them, were owned by Mobile Command (Army) until Air Command was formed in 1975.

Had the travesty of unification not happened, there would be no discussion about linking Canadian Army Aviation units to RCAF Squadrons today

And that paragraph People, sums up loachman's views as to what is wrong with Canada's army.


----------



## Strike

my72jeep said:
			
		

> And that paragraph People, sums up loachman's views as to what is wrong with Canada's army.



Actually, knowing Loachman, those are his views of what is wrong with the RCAF.   ;D


----------



## Loachman

Actually, I have nothing against the RCAF at all.

Unless they were paying Hellyer.

As for the R**F, I would have nothing against it, either, if Tac Hel was put back where it belongs.


----------



## Danjanou

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not _*our*_ 450 Squadron. There was an RAAF Squadron designated "450". There is no link between the two beyond the number. That number could also have been used in several other flying services around the world as well - so what?



Which a quick use of Googlefu shows is the case including a USAF unit in Germany and an Air Cadet unit in the UK.


----------



## my72jeep

I hear you Loach.
A Griffin was in Wawa today and my 4 yo says "look daddy an army helicopter". I then say to her " no its an Air Force helicopter" to which she says" But it's green." now what do you say to that?


----------



## dapaterson

The 4xx squadron designations were used in WW2 by Commonwealth air units.  My understanding is that the various nations avoid duplicating sqn numbers as a courtesy.  When 450 (Canada) was created, the predecessor unit from the RAAF was overlooked initially, but later an agreement was reached between the RAAF and the CF.


----------



## Loachman

Yes - largely to avoid "who's on first" confusion, as every Commonwealth air force had a No 1 Squadron at the time.

Perhaps the UK Air Cadet Squadron would offer to share their battle honours.


----------



## aesop081

my72jeep said:
			
		

> now what do you say to that?



"Many Air Forces have green helicopters"


----------



## Infanteer

We should call it 1st Aviation Regiment and throw their wedgie hats into the furnace.... ^-^


----------



## Edward Campbell

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We should call it 1st Aviation Regiment and throw their wedgie hats into the furnace.... ^-^




Actually wedge caps have a distinguished history in the Canadian Army ~ see here.







 ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ... etc


----------



## Loachman

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We should call it 1st Aviation Regiment and throw their wedgie hats into the furnace.... ^-^



Infanteer for CDS, King, and Emperor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dimsum

That reminds me; at my new unit the RAAF Air Defence Guards are allowed to wear their berets, while the Australian Army (they have some engineers here I think?) were prohibited b/c of danger of skin cancer or something ridiculous that I heard 3rd-hand through my new co-workers.  

Maybe I should start wearing my RCAF beret just to poke the bear ('roo?)  Or my fur hat?  Choices, choices....   :blotto:


----------



## Privateer

> Actually wedge caps have a distinguished history in the Canadian Army ~ see here. ... ... ... etc




OMG, they look awful!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Actually light infantry and rifle regiments wore _glengarrys_ as far back as about 1880 ...






... and they still wear a variant of them as ceremonial dress today.


----------



## Danjanou

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That reminds me; at my new unit the RAAF Air Defence Guards are allowed to wear their berets, while the Australian Army (they have some engineers here I think?) were prohibited b/c of danger of skin cancer or something ridiculous that I heard 3rd-hand through my new co-workers.
> 
> Maybe I should start wearing my RCAF beret just to poke the bear ('roo?)  Or my fur hat?  Choices, choices....   :blotto:



definately Yukon Hat and we want pics >


----------



## SeaKingTacco

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually light infantry and rifle regiments wore _glengarrys_ as far back as about 1880 ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and they still wear a variant of them as ceremonial dress today.



Is that your recruit ID picture, Edward?  >


----------



## dimsum

Danjanou said:
			
		

> definately Yukon Hat and we want pics >



You make it sound like I wouldn't do it at a drop of a (Yukon) hat.  

I'm here all week.  Try the veal.   :bowing:


----------



## FSTO

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We should call it 1st Aviation Regiment and throw their wedgie hats into the furnace.... ^-^



Help us the get our Naval Aviation back and we can't be beat!































And yes I fully support the Army owning completely the aircraft, Chinooks and Griffons, that support them. Same as the RCN should own the Sea Kings and eventually the Cyclones.

Flame away light blue mutha's  :evil: :evilrifle:


----------



## Zoomie

FSTO said:
			
		

> Flame away light blue mutha's


Take them...  It'll be the same people that drive and maintain them though.


----------



## HeavyHooker

Be careful what you wish for!  The Aussie CH 47's have difficulty getting and keeping their hours since it all comes out of the same pot of money from the Army brass.  As being a separate unit but under operational control of the Army, we get the best of both worlds.  The Army cannot easily touch our budget (to do "actual" Army trg, which would definitely be priority over aircrew trg/cross country trips/airshows/etc) but they still maintain control over us as an attachment when it counts - exercise and deployments.

HH


----------



## Strike

HeavyHooker said:
			
		

> Be careful what you wish for!  The Aussie CH 47's have difficulty getting and keeping their hours since it all comes out of the same pot of money from the Army brass.  As being a separate unit but under operational control of the Army, we get the best of both worlds.  The Army cannot easily touch our budget (to do "actual" Army trg, which would definitely be priority over aircrew trg/cross country trips/airshows/etc) but they still maintain control over us as an attachment when it counts - exercise and deployments.
> 
> HH



HH -- Just to let you know, the BIG airshows are on a separate budget through CanadaCom for Op CONNECTION.

Just throwing that in there so people don't think the RCAF is throwing all their money towards dog and pony shows.


----------



## wannabe SF member

Privateer said:
			
		

> OMG, they look awful!



Nonsense, they look positively spiffing!

Mind you, it' probably the RMC cadet in me trying to rationalize our sticking to the wedge.


----------



## OldSolduer

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We should call it 1st Aviation Regiment and throw their wedgie hats into the furnace.... ^-^


1st Canadian Heavy Aviation Regiment.


I could care less what they wear on their heads.....as long as those babies fly and deliver.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Inky said:
			
		

> Nonsense, they look positively spiffing!
> 
> Mind you, it' probably the RMC cadet in me trying to rationalize our sticking to the wedge.




They didn't look bad:







   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





I see a lot less _spiffy_ berets being worn these days.


----------



## Infanteer

Actually, they don't look bad - certainly better than some chef boyardee berets I see out there.

Having been to Kingston and seen the RMC Cadets out in their Full Dress (or whatever it is called), those kids look sharper than us in DEUs.


----------



## Privateer

They don't look too bad in black and white, but in colour...!


----------



## Journeyman

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Having been to Kingston and seen the *RMC Cadets out in their Full Dress*  (or whatever it is called), those kids look sharper than us in DEUs.


I'll say!   :nod:






     ;D


----------



## Strike

Hey, at least they're not dressed like the flying monkeys in The Wizard of Oz like a certain American military academy.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Privateer said:
			
		

> They don't look too bad in black and white, but in colour...!




I'll admit that, _circa_ 1944, a few were a wee tiny bit ... how shall we say this? ... garish:






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







But we are not exactly subdued in 2011, are we?


----------



## Loachman

HeavyHooker said:
			
		

> Be careful what you wish for!  The Aussie CH 47's have difficulty getting and keeping their hours since it all comes out of the same pot of money from the Army brass.  As being a separate unit but under operational control of the Army, we get the best of both worlds.  The Army cannot easily touch our budget (to do "actual" Army trg, which would definitely be priority over aircrew trg/cross country trips/airshows/etc) but they still maintain control over us as an attachment when it counts - exercise and deployments.



Look, also, at the US Army Aviation Branch and its status within the US Army as a whole. And some of us would prefer to be doing "actual" Army training, ie supporting ground units, than cross-country trips and airshows as that is our reason for being. Regardless of the service-of-ownership, anybody's budget could be slashed by higher HQ or the government-of-the-day.

If our Tac Hel officers moved up the Canadian Army chain-of-command, occupying their share of the positions currently held by ground-bound guys only, we would have considerably more influence there.

A Canadian Army Aviation Corps officer could be Commander Canadian Army just as easily as any other Army officer.


----------



## dogger1936

I am beyond glad to hear this news. I'm uncertain if I voiced this story here or not; so I'll write a bit of it again.

Seeing 6 chinooks coming across the red desert in formation then dropping into a VERY VERY hot LZ was one of the most touching things I've ever seen. Skids down scraping across the LZ as troops ran aboard; bullets and RPG still flying. It was a hell of a day for us after losing men and a non stop firefight after the incident. Watching the light guys extracted by these brave men and women in flight was amazing.

Flying out on a freedom flight on a Canadian Chinook at the completion of my tour was a awesome way to watch my FOB disappear below.


----------



## Journeyman

Loachman said:
			
		

> A Canadian Army Aviation Corps officer could be Commander Canadian Army just as easily as any other Army officer.


May as well; we let a Loggie have a go at it.   >


----------



## Edward Campbell

Journeyman said:
			
		

> May as well; we let a Loggie have a go at it.   >




Not to mention Signals and Engineer officers:

Lieutenant-General S.F. Clark (late RCCS) 1958-1961
Lieutenant-General G. Walsh (late RCE)    1961-1964


----------



## Journeyman

They were at least Combat Support officers (and before my time  )


----------



## Edward Campbell

Journeyman said:
			
		

> They were at least Combat Support officers (and before my time  )




Actually, before your time, there were no such fancy-dancy designations; corps, and the officers and soldiers in them, were either arms (RCAC, RCA, RCE, RCCS, RCIC) or services (all the rest).


----------



## Journeyman

RCE and RCCS were _arms_? Scandalous (especially the Jimmies!)


----------



## Old Sweat

The RCE and RCCS were considered both arms and services, as they had roles that fell into each function.

And to make the Technoviking happy, the RCAC, RCA and RCIC were arms, but the RCAC and RCIC were also combat arms.


----------



## dapaterson

Loachman said:
			
		

> A Canadian Army Aviation Corps officer could be Commander Canadian Army just as easily as any other Army officer.



As opposed to now, where they top out as Chief of Staff, Land Operations.


----------



## HeavyHooker

> And some of us would prefer to be doing "actual" Army training, ie supporting ground units, than cross-country trips and airshows as that is our reason for being



Agreed.  As an ex-combat arms soldier I fully agree that the Tac Hel community does not do enough "actual Army" training as you've termed it.  Every time we go to the range, I have to show pilots how their 9mm pieces all fit together!  Most of the ACs we had over seas acquired all of their knowledge of infantry patrols from reading "Bravo 2-0" when they were in BOTC.



> Look, also, at the US Army Aviation Branch and its status within the US Army as a whole



Again, fully in agreement with adapting several aspects of the American System.  As a FE, their system (that we have been operating under thus far) is far superior to what we are adapting but that is another thread and it is not going to change.  Also, the Flying WO system makes sense and should also be adapted here.  It won't be but there you go.  As far as a pilots status within the US Army as a whole, ask some of their senior guys (CW5 or Sr Officer level) if they have anything close to the say that their Combat Arms equals do.  I can not see our Cbt Arms types being any different.  Within the RCAF, pilots have a lot of say but within the Canadian Army?

I do prefer my Green DEUs and Army Mess kit however...   ;D


----------



## Jungle

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And to make the Technoviking happy, the RCAC, RCA and RCIC were arms, _but the RCAC and RCIC were also combat arms_.



It makes sense, as the RCA needs to move forward for showers and laundry...  ;D


----------



## Loachman

HeavyHooker said:
			
		

> Agreed.  As an ex-combat arms soldier I fully agree that the Tac Hel community does not do enough "actual Army" training as you've termed it.  Every time we go to the range, I have to show pilots how their 9mm pieces all fit together!  Most of the ACs we had over seas acquired all of their knowledge of infantry patrols from reading "Bravo 2-0" when they were in BOTC.



Just to clarify, "actual Army" training (which you used first, by the way) means, to me, not just the basic skills that you mention, but airmobile operations, recce/surveillance, close combat attack etcetera - employment of hels and crews in their primary jobs. I would rather see fewer hours flown on individual helicopters, either basic crew proficiency or move-X-platoon-from-GR-A-to-GR-B-in-four-lifts, and more time and effort spent planning multi-helicopter tactical missions in support of an all-arms ground force within a fully-developed scenario. It might take a week to organize and plan and only see an hour or two flown per machine on the last day, but those hours would be quality time.



			
				HeavyHooker said:
			
		

> As far as a pilots status within the US Army as a whole, ask some of their senior guys (CW5 or Sr Officer level) if they have anything close to the say that their Combat Arms equals do.  I can not see our Cbt Arms types being any different.  Within the RCAF, pilots have a lot of say but within the Canadian Army?



The US Army Warrant Officer Pilot concept does not really match anything in Canadian or Commonwealth practice and history. US Army Warrant Officers have some of the privileges of Officers (membership in Officers' Clubs for one), but are not entitled to a salute and do not occupy command positions. They form the bulk of the drivers' positions, which leaves Officers to fill command positions. The Commonwealth equivalent to US Army WO pilots are NCO Pilots. Officers are then no longer high-priced drivers, but Flight, Squadron, Regimental (British) or Platoon, Company, Battalion, (Aviation) Brigade (US), and higher commanders and Staff Officers at all levels in their respective Armies, on par with all other Officers.

So, yes, Canadian Army Aviation Corps Officers could have just as much "say" in the Canadian Army as a whole as their counterparts do elsewhere.


----------



## Good2Golf

One of the advantages of standing 450 Squadron up is that its Colours are conveniently safeguarded in the 1 CAD HQ lobby, ready for Comd 1 CAD to hand them to a trusted keeper for the transit to Petawawa.

Concur with others that the historical linkages between the heavy (for the day) Army aviation of 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon's Voyageurs within the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps (as well as their service in the post-unification CF's 450 Heavy Transport Helicopter Squadron) with the Chinooks that followed in Air Command's 450 Transport Helicopter Squadron in 1975 onwards are as important, if not even more so, as a unit having battle honours that in very little, if any manner relate to the unit's current (to be) _raison d'être_.

As a historical note, the 4XX blocking of Squadron numbers originated from the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP).  While Canada was allocated 400-449 and Australia with 450-499, by 1968 the BCATP ceased to exist and there was no implied requirement to adhere to any previous conventions.  The situation was quite simply that all the other 4XX`s were taken at the time - recall even 447 Sqn was a BOMARC Squadron in Quebec, not yet the re-numbered 450 (Det) Namao.  The 450 Squadron "conflict" _per se _ between RAAF and CF squadrons was not even known until years after 450 Squadron's activation.

While many of those who have served with 450 Squadron in the past may acknowledge some of the logic presented by others as to why another Squadron number might have been selected, it is reassuring to know that the service of RCAF CH147Fs within 450 Tactical helicopter Squadron will retain the spirit of joint service between aviators, the Army and the CF.

*By Air to Battle*

Regards
G2G


----------



## MJP

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> One of the advantages of standing 450 Squadron up is that its Colours are conveniently safeguarded in the 1 CAD HQ lobby, ready for Comd 1 CAD to hand them to a trusted keeper for the transit to Petawawa.
> 
> C
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Slight tangent

Thank goodness that it can be moved out of there.  There is a great deal of RCAF heritage hiding in that lobby that belongs in proper museum that all can have access too.


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ..... it is reassuring to know that the service of RCAF CH147Fs within 450 Tactical helicopter Squadron will retain the spirit of joint service between aviators, the Army and the CF.


Wow. It's like you read that off of a teleprompter, as part of a campaign/marketting spiel.  

You don't have any particular interest in the squadron, do you?

op:


----------



## Strike

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Wow. It's like you read that off of a teleprompter, as part of a campaign/marketting spiel.
> 
> You don't have any particular interest in the squadron, do you?
> 
> op:



:ditto:

Inquiring minds want to know!


----------



## Good2Golf




----------



## dapaterson

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4205

KINGSTON, Ont. - The reactivation of 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron, which is to be the home of the Canadian Forces’ Chinook Medium-to-Heavy Lift Helicopter, was formalized on May 2, 2012, by an official Canadian Forces order. 

As confirmed on May 2, 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron, under the command of 1 Wing and based in Petawawa, Ontario, will be home to 15 F-Model Chinooks - more modern and capable versions of the D-Model Chinooks recently flown in Afghanistan. 450 Squadron was also the designation of the original RCAF unit which operated Chinook helicopters until the early 1990s, at which time these aircraft were phased out. 

“Whether protecting the lives of our soldiers deployed overseas or responding to disasters like floods or ice storms or forest fires here at home, the powerful Chinook will help enable the Canadian Forces to carry out the challenging missions we ask of them,” said the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence. “The Canada First Defence Strategy is concretely increasing the Canadian Forces’ deployability, mobility and flexibility.” 

"Delivering on these helicopters is our commitment to putting the safety of our women and men in uniform first." stated Cheryl Gallant, Member of Parliament for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. "The presence of the 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron also means a tremendous economic boost to the Upper Ottawa Valley." 

With a heavy lift capability to carry up to 40 personnel or 11 363 kilograms of cargo, the F-Model Chinook helicopters and crews of 450 Squadron will increase the operational capability of 1 Wing Kingston, enabling it to respond to the needs of Canadians at home and abroad. The new F-Model Chinook will be able to deploy independently, including to the High Arctic, in part because of its larger fuel tanks. 

“I am also very pleased to name Lieutenant-Colonel Duart Townsend as the first Commanding Officer of the reborn 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron,” said Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force. “I know that LCol Townsend will lead this historic unit with the pride and professionalism that he has clearly shown throughout his extensive experience as a tactical helicopter pilot and staff officer. In fact, he was the very last Chinook pilot to be trained as part of the Canadian Forces’ original 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron before it was disbanded in 1996.” 

The first aircraft is expected to be delivered to Petawawa in June 2013, and 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron is expected to employ approximately 400 military personnel by 2016. The numerical designation of 450 was originally given to 450 Squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force during the Second World War, which flew under that number honourably from 1941 until 1945. Despite the fact that the Canadian numbers were from 400 to 449, an administrative error caused the number to be re-designated to a Canadian Heavy Transport Squadron. Despite the strange circumstances, the RAAF and CF later met and were united by friendship, experience and the commonalities of military service. 

An appropriate formal ceremony will be held in the future to celebrate the official reactivation of 450 Tactical Helicopter Squadron.


----------



## The Bread Guy

..... here's a downloadable copy of the statement if the link above doesn't work.

Good luck with the new squadron, folks!


----------



## OldSolduer

My favorite things to fly in are the Chinook and the Herc. 

Buses with rotors and wings. Love em. ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

Fingers crossed, its listed as a posting preference for me. Loved the Chinook rides in Kandahar, too bad it wasn't Canadian ones then.


----------



## Strike

Congrats to the new CO.  Easily the person most deserving of the role!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> My favorite things to fly in are the Chinook and the Herc.
> 
> Buses with rotors and wings. Love em. ;D



Parachuting is safer! Statistics don't lie.

However, I do agree that the shortest distance between two points is: a helicopter.  :nod:

Are there any Chinooks available out west? (apart from the well known weather phenomenon after which the aircraft is named, that is...)


----------



## aesop081

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> the well known weather phenomenon after which the aircraft is named, that is...)



It is named after Pacific North-west Native Americans, in keeping with US policy of naming their army helos after native american tribes (with one exception), contained in Army Regulation 70-28.

We just conveniently plagiarized  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It is named after Pacific North-west Native Americans, in keeping with US policy of naming their army helos after native american tribes (with one exception), contained in Army Regulation 70-28.
> 
> We just conveniently plagiarized  ;D



Ah, of course. A US Marine once told me it was named after alot of hot air, like the DoD produces on a regular basis....  ;D


----------



## PMedMoe

Strike said:
			
		

> Congrats to the new CO.  Easily the person most deserving of the role!



 :nod:


----------



## beenthere

I feel that it's appropriate to reincarnate 450 Sqn. Apart from the unfortunate number that was chosen for the squadron back in nineteen seventy something when the thoroughly incompetent people in charge of selecting a squadron number to replace the somewhat bewildering title of 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon picked an already used number. 450 Sqn had been an Australian Sqn during WW2 so they had to have been working late into the night sifting through history in order to pick a squadron number that not only had nothing to do with Canada but was at the same time hijacked from our friends in Australia who are noted for their not very understanding way of accepting thoroughly incompetent people.

All of that fits in perfectly with the half asked way that 1 THP and  later 450 Sqn operated in the no mans land that existed between the army and air force during the years that they served. Typically the unit was not very well accepted by the army as it had some rather peculiar ways that set it apart from a typical ground pounding unit.
 Little things like taking the weather into consideration when planing a support mission. The GPs considered that operating under the cover of any sort of meteorological events such as blizzards or huge thunderstorms would give them the perfect cover that was needed to operate without being detected. I will not even begin to put together a commentary on the downside of this sort of use of the forces of nature to turn the tide in favor of our troops.
The air force of that era was pretty much a fighting force that preferred to operate from well established bases with lots of infrastructure and no shortness of comfort features. They pretty much believed that if anyone wanted to live under canvas and eat questionable food such as canned chili con carnie and sleep in fields with sheep the they were quite welcome to do so but please leave us out of the game.
I am only vaguely aware of the navy's view of all of this as they for the greater part were either being tossed about on the great brine or trying to find  safety in that great port on the Rideau.
I spent many years with 1 THP and 450 Sqn and apart from a few bouts of absolute terror I thoroughly enjoyed my years in no mans land.
One of the greatest benefits of being there was that no one else knew or much cared what we were doing so we were not much bothered by anyone.


----------



## VanIsleGirl

why is there no reference that I have been abl to find of 450SQN W stationed in Edmonton in the late 60ès and early 70èsÉ Or even of 1 AFMS sqn.  Both of these sqnès are important to the history of 450 HT sqn station in CFB Edmonton! 
As an ex-member of this Sqn I am a little frustrated/miffed of no reference. As well is there no 450 SQN Association, I see there is for other SQN.


----------



## Good2Golf

Combining the official 'short' history of 450 Sqn on DND's Directorate of History and Heritage with some information available at several websites, including this site by JF Chalifoux, trace 450 Squadron (Det) Namao's period of service from 20 May 1970 until 1 Jan 1979, when 450 (Det) became 447 THS.  I understand that a 450 Sqn Association has informally existed, but may be being formalized in the near future, given the unit's reactivation in 2012.  There is a 450 (T) Hel Sqn Facebook Page started before the squadron was reactivated, that serves as a focal point for past and present members of the unit to stay in touch.


Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Wedges are not that bad and many a Aviator still manged to get laid wearing one


----------

