Talk:VFA-103

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

[edit] NAS Oceana

Ideally we'd link to a page on NAS Oceana, or at least say where it roughly is. Frankly I've been through their website [1] and I've still no idea where it is. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 16:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lineage

There might be some value in discussing formal lineage issues; as a technical matter, VFA-103 does not share a common unit lineage with VF-84 or VF-17, though it adopted the "Jolly Rogers" traditions and insignia upon the disestablishment of VF-84. See [2] for the Naval Historical Center's view. On the other hand, this technicality may matter less if we're more concerned with tracking the history of the Jolly Rogers on USN aircraft rather than the formal unit history. -- Robin Lee.

There is an article on the Jolly Roger which has this lineage. See below for my suggestion on splitting this page into three parts, one for each unit. Kablammo 14:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWII

VF-17 was actually disestablished April 10, 1944, not October, as originally stated. After its disestablishment the VF17 veterans formed the nucleii of newly established squadrons. VF-84, established in 1944, viewed itself as the successor to VF-17, due to overlap in command, personnel, aircraft, and traditions. It contained not only VF17 ace and XO Roger Hedrick as its CO, but also several other VF17 veterans. It also went aboard the USS Bunker Hill, VF-17's first home. And when VF-84 was reformed in the 1950s, it was natural for it to assume the "Jolly Rogers" name. In combat both VF-17 and VF-84 used the Corsair exclusively.

A new VF-17 was formed in 1944. It kept the Jolly Rogers name and insignia. It had different personnel than the first "edition" of VF-17. Its flew the Hellcat, off the Hornet (CV-12), and had a very successful tour of duty in the final drive on the Iwo Jima and the Home Islands in 1945.

I have not rewritten the article yet as I propose to make two entirely new articles; one on VF-17 and one on VF-84. The present VFA-103 article will then deal solely with VF103, with links to the other two squadron's articles.

The VF84 article would also deal with the 1944-45 squadron. It would incorporate the present article's contents on the postwar squadron. I will contribute the World War II sections.

There needs to be an edit and more information on the first postwar decade as right now it seems jumbled and confused. Kablammo 17:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should all be on one page, If you want making sections for the previous units with the name. PPGMD 20:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I will do the histories and see how they look. The first VF-17 had two very intense tours of duty in late 1943 and early 1944, and the second edition of the squadron was carrier-based in the final drive on Japan in 1945. The article on VF-17 therefore could be as long as the present part devoted to VFA-103. VF-84 had a WWII history similar to that of the second VF-17. So I think length is a concern. Kablammo 23:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, VF-84 was pulled from the Pacific after a Kamakaze struck VF-84's ready room abaord USS Bunker Hill, killing several original members of VF-17.

Length isn't that big of a deal anymore as long as the sections are split up, and the entire article is on topic IMO. PPGMD 19:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The question is: What's the topic? This page is for VFA-103. VFA-103 is now the Jolly Rogers, but VFA-103 definitely is not VF-17 nor is it VF-84. That is made clear by the Navy's own treatment of these squadrons as well as the view of historians. VF-17 and the first VF-84 had stellar records in World War II and they deserve their own pages. In no way would that detract from VFA-103, but subsuming VF-17 and the first VF-84 under an article entitled VFA-103 could be seen as not giving the earlier squadrons the recognition they deserve. There are veterans of both iterations of VF-17 and of the 1944-45 VF-84 alive today, and their squadrons should be recognized under their own unit numbers. Kablammo 19:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this page should be about the VFA-103, and VF-17 and VF-84 should have their own articles - cross-linking to indicate the passing of the "Jolly Rogers" designation. Especially since the Jolly Rogers patch image is for the VF-84! -- Medains 07:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about the "Jolly Rogers" name history, this page is fine. If you are talking about VF-103/VFA-103, Then VF-17 pt.1, VF-17/5B/61, and VF-84 needs thier own pages along with a page explaining the passing of the bones and trditions of the Jolly Rogers.