siznaudin Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Bit more peripheral stuff re A24-101 here... http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/OG3093 http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/OG3097
siznaudin Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 From my post 22/12/2011 ... History (Movements, Casualties, Etc) 10/7/45 ... assessment of damage; hull 40% - aircraft beyond repair and salvage, work being carried out by 9 RSU. Sayonara, -101 :(
willedoo Posted January 11, 2012 Author Posted January 11, 2012 From my post 22/12/2011 ... History (Movements, Casualties, Etc)10/7/45 ... assessment of damage; hull 40% - aircraft beyond repair and salvage, work being carried out by 9 RSU. Sayonara, -101 :( Looks like it. Still think it's a good bet it was the one in the front view photo which AWM said was damaged bringing in blood supplies. The photo with the Japanese tank seems to be the same plane judging by the lack of engines. There was another one damaged on 1/7/45 a few miles offshore, they tried to tow it to the beach but lost it on a reef. General Morshead was aboard that one. It landed hard in a heavy sea & split along the hull apparently. I noticed in the damage reports, one of the Cats was mistakenly written up with the wrong number. Someone had corrected it in pencil at the top of the first page, but the rest of the report still had the wrong number all the way through. Maybe 101's is lost in there somewhere. Cheers, Willie.
siznaudin Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Yeah ... I managed to get hold of a copy of "RAAF Flying Boats at War" by Joe Leach. From it, there would seem to be three Catalinas lost in landing or taking off at Balikpapan. Chapter 17 - "The Invasion of Balikpapan" he refers to "...another 113 ASR aircraft, A24-101, together with a borrowed American Catalina, arrived with medical supplies and blood..." (this follows his account of General Morshead and the a/c in which he was transported being lost after "being put down") ... "The RAAF liasion officer on the command ship, with concern for aircrew, advised the staff officers that in the prevailing sea conditions, the aircrafy could not be guaranteed to put down safely. Asked if there was a reasonable chance of landing and the medical supplies salvaged and got to the beach, the reply was 'yes, but very risky' Without hesitation the General said 'very well, tell them to go in' Both landed sucessfully, but after unloading, broke up while attempting to take off."
willedoo Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 That sounds good, Geoff, I'll try & track down a copy of the book. Found the ASR records in the archives: http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/scripts/Imagine.asp?B=1359910 113 ASR starts on page 347, can't find any mention of 101 as yet. Here's the entry on A24-98 that was carrying General Morshead and RAAF Commander, Air Vice Marshal Bostock (page 401): [ATTACH=full]955[/ATTACH] Also tracked down the RSU records http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/scripts/Imagine.asp?B=1359931 9 RSU starts on page 154. Their records are generally good, but in this case they only mention a detachment sent to Balikpapan & no details of the work carried out. I suppose with a large scale invasion going on, the book work would have suffered a bit. Another thing I noticed in the records is that 42 Squadron had roughly twice the a/c as 113 ASR, but almost four times the personnel. The penny dropped though after a while, that the logistics of mining operations would have required many more storemen, mechanics, fitters, armourers etc; almost everything would multiply to be able to operate with all the ordnance. The ASR Flights would be just basically operating like a bare transport. The ASR Flights seemed to borrow a/c from other units quite regularly when they were under strength due to maintenance or repair. They also appear to have had a higher damage rate, probably due to the higher number of water landings they did & a lot of nosewheel problems. It's a bit of an eye opener reading the ASR records, they were certainly in the thick of it being down on the ground & water in enemy territory & often coming under fire. Seems like the more dangerous job of the two. Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]18090[/ATTACH]
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now