Talk:486th Fighter Squadron

21st Fighter Squadron

There are occasional statements to the effect that the 486th was activated as the "21st Fighter Squadron". This is contradicted by Maurer's lineage of the squadron in Combat Squadrons of the United States Air Force. There are also entries in this work for the 21st Pursuit Squadron, which was "active" in the Philippines, and for the 21st Fighter Squadron, which was not activated until late 1944. Watkins, in the Volume of his series on unit markings and insignia during World War II, discusses that original members of the squadron continued to wear the emblem approved for the 21st Pursuit Squadron and includes a photograph to support this. So what's the basis for this? I have an opinion on this, but I see no way to support it without going to primary sources. That is:

The Adjutant General Letter directing the activation of the 352d Fighter Group and its components directed that the 21st Pursuit Squadron be redesignated the 21st Fighter Squadron and activated as a component of the 352d Group under the mistaken assumption that the 21st Squadron was no longer active. At a later point in time, the authority for issuing these directives realized that the Air Corps units that had surrendered in the Philippines were not inactive, but were being maintained on the rolls as active units (whose personnel were al in Japanese POW camps). As a result, the directives "reactivating" the 21st Squadron were revoked, and the 486th Fighter Squadron was retroactively constituted and activated as a component of the 352d Group.

It would be nice to find a secondary reliable source to support this. However, there is indirect support (any direct support would be appreciated):

Maurer's earlier work "Combat Units of the United States Air Force in World War II" in its entry for components of the 352d Group includes "486th (formerly 21st)".

That same entry includes "487th (formerly 34th)". The 34th Pursuit Squadron was also a squadron that had surrendered in the Philippines, but was kept on the rolls as active.

The emblem used in Watkin's photos was that of the 21st Pursuit Squadron, which was active elsewhere, not of a new 21st Fighter Squadron.

The 487th and 488th Squadrons were activated in October 1942. Other squadrons with similar numbers were not activated (or redesignated) until 1943. Numbers for fighter squadrons activated the same day as these two squadrons had only reached the 350s. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the primary source in question for the revoking of the directive "reactivating" the 21st Pursuit Squadron? Can you provide a document number, title, and date? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the first thing to do in this case is to make sure I have my understanding of the facts right. I have rewritten the page provisionally to see if that sequence of events is correct. May need to be reverted or taken down at some point. Can you tell me whether the sequence of events I have laid out is correct? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) I've rewritten the formation and training section. See what you think. The cadre part was incorrect. The Indian Head insigne of the 21st Pursuit was apparently provided to the cadre of the "21st Fighter" for continued use. I think there may be an article on the 352d in an old AAHS Journal. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks good but I would not hide away "under U.S. Army lineage rules" in a footnote. The squadrons were clearly interrelated in physical form and what they were being referred to as, day-to-day; the complete separation of the two histories was literally an afterthought. So I would make it clearer in the text (not the lineage) that December 1942 - May 1943, there were two 21st Squadrons on the rolls; the date of the change to 486th; and if you can, more bib details of this AAHS Journal article. Is there an index? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)