RAF Abbreviation Reference

[CZ_RAF]

Would British Military Representative sound reasonable for the BMR?

Pavel

[David Duxbury]

It might sound reasonable Pavel, but it may not be right! In fact if it were such a gentleman, it is more than likely to have included his particular Service, although this my not be the case in this instance. If not certain, just give your opinion (and state this fact). It could also be a Corps, or a Regiment of the (British) Army - I take it that this was just a mention in a document, and not a man in a photograph?
David D

[CZ_RAF]

Thank you for your remark David. Well it seems to be a little bit strange to me but I am not able to found any other better explanation for the BMR in the RAF related abbreviations...
Yes is it just an AM letter about establishing 302 Polish and 310 Czech Squadrons.

Pavel

[David Duxbury]

Just had another thought Pavel, if this person was British Army, would he not appear in one of the wartime Army lists of officers (if he is indeed an army officer?) Or could he have been a civilian? Of course, new abbreviations were being dreamed up all the time in wartime, for the usual reason that they wished to cut down on the lengths of explanatory titles, although they almost certainly would have caused a lot of confusion until the abbreviation was widely recognized throughout all the relevant armed services. Then again, almost certainly this kind of thing persists today, and probably always will! My advice would be that, unless you get any other clues on the true interpretation of this little-known abbreviation, it would be best to restrict any interpretation as such within brackets, followed by a BIG question mark! I would imagine that thousands of the old wartime military abbreviations are being misinterpreted every day of the week, all around the world, and probably same for other large militaries of that era. I have seem a lot of interpretations accepted on various web-sites which I would classify as highly doubtful, and often completely wrong; although it may be an accepted interpretation, it is still the wrong one because, within the context, it just does not any make sense. Usually officers (or NCOs, or civilians) of a particular service (or Govt Department, or nationality), can be attached to any other service, or Govt for specific purposes, which would be clearly understood at the time, sometimes for a short but specified time, or particular operation, and many of these would have this attachment accompanied by an abbreviation, which may have been rather non-specific, or for more general purposes (such as your interpretation). They could even have had an abbreviation accepted in two languages, and worn appropriate name and title badges. A bit long and rambling, but this is a rather tricky area I think.
David D