|
Post by fireball on Feb 1, 2016 6:46:40 GMT 8
Search for MIA it appears:
|
|
|
Post by fireball on Jan 27, 2016 4:59:47 GMT 8
About 4 or so years ago I did have a look at the boats in the company of one of the police from the (marine) detachment who have a station on the creek (almost next to the boats). At that time they were up for sale, but that's about as much as I remember - my guide didn't know their history & while he said they were under the police care this may or may not be true. Clearly though they never sold as while beautiful they look past economic re-use.
|
|
|
Post by fireball on Nov 1, 2015 5:12:29 GMT 8
Karl, it goes without saying but I will say it anyway, but your knowledge, field experience and willingness to share your explorations are fantastic, so thanks!
Just a comment on the previous post on the more recent radio station (MBC), I actually differ and think that such areas are of interest and value as they show (and this may be more important as the years pass) that the Americans and events on the island did not end with the end of the war and there was / is more than the well known US Bases. While the dates of construction put it past the end of the Cold War (and the handover of the U.S. Bases) it would be interesting to know what connection, if any, those two events may have had on its inception and departure.
|
|
|
Post by fireball on Jun 11, 2015 17:19:26 GMT 8
A question for you Karl as a man who must know Corregidor as well or, as I think likely, better than any other man who is not a scrapper:
Do you think there are some undiscovered structures still to be found ?
Certainly on both Fort Wint and Frank there are distinctive structures (by this i mean actual constructions rather than small indents or blocks of concrete) which exist but are not on any plans or maps and are not widely known about. Corregidor has received far more scrutiny than these two forts but then Corregidor through its size (and importance) has the ability to hide far more.
Just wondering ...
|
|
|
Post by fireball on Jun 11, 2015 5:11:15 GMT 8
Unlike most (everyone else) on this forum I don't really know much about the history of the war as any research I do is focused on locating or identifying things of interest be they aircraft, tunnels or bunkers so BEARING THIS IN MIND...
There is no excuse for the loss of the aircraft at Clark and I would call it sheer incompetence. Of course acknowledging that incompetence or allocating blame during that stage of fighting for survival would have been , for want of a better phrase, just plain stupid. No doubt there were many factors at play but one of the things that I have noticed with the military is that they love to exercise or play war games and while this may hone technical skills and identify logistical and support bottlenecks it also has a tendency to create tunnel vision amongst officers (NCOs are normally far more realistic) - what I mean by this is that they become fixed on the type and nature of an attack or battle (ie the one they always have in the exercise) and fail to account for different scenarios. But worst, even if the actual attack does mirror the exercise scenario there is an initial lag or disbelief as 'the exercise is over so it can't be happening' so the first action on hearing (say) of enemy action might be to check if there is an exercise / assume it's our own forces. Once the reality of war has hit home this mindset will be gone.
With Formosa, with so few aircraft they needed to be used in the most effective way and to me that would mean using them within the PI to attack an invading force. What might have been destroyed at Formosa could easily be replaced but what an invading force at the moment of landing or in establishing a beachhead looses can make the difference between success and defeat. So, given this and the likely losses in a Formosa attack I would say not risking aircraft on Formosa was the right decision. As for Quezon and the rights / role of the Philippine nation I don't think that they would have counted for anything if the American command decided on such an attack and equally if the General on the ground wanted such an attack peacetime protocols from Washington (only attack if already invaded PI) would have had zero influence.
|
|
|
Post by fireball on Jun 3, 2015 14:08:17 GMT 8
My advice with maps is first coordinates / LatLong given are not always correct - indeed features may not even be correct or are even wrongly identified. Also, if you can't find the map you are really after look at sheets from the same series so you can see any information on the Grid & Projection used. It is also worth looking at later maps as quite often they are the same but with just a few additions. Another useful source are specialist maps, especially from mineral studies and topographic maps accompanying geological reports - I have not seen this Map but gives you an idea of how they might be useful: catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1928308?lookfor=title:Bataan%20%23[format:Map]&offset=2&max=3I forgot to reply to this before, PNG is Papua New Guinea and at the moment I'm in the capital, Port Moresby, sitting in my budget hotel room (a mere $300 per night) - well actually the balcony of my room - and looking across the bay towards the outer reef and as I look from left to right I can identify within a 10 minute boat trip the site of three shallow water ww2 aircraft wrecks and one land wreckage. I also have internet that kinda works hence the bevy of postings !
|
|
|
Post by fireball on Jun 3, 2015 10:19:46 GMT 8
Re. B24: www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-24/42-40352.htmlThere was not much left aside from two bombs, the one propellor part and some bits of wings and / or fuselage. I was told that a landslide about 10 years ago had covered the really big bits which seemed reasonable as most of the body parts were stretched along a stream BUT the wreckage was also straddling the boundary with the neighboring village and there was a fair bit of angry shouting from the 'other side' and it was (a) clear from my guides that we couldn't stay more than a few minutes and (b) from the talking or discussions they had amongst themselves it seemed likely to me that in fact more of the wreckage did still exist but it was in the other village land. Tribal fighting is common and so discretion and retreat seemed the best option. Of course I'm only assuming it was the Pacific Wrecks B24 (so could have been a different type of aircraft) but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Re. maps: Karl I thought you had downloaded some US Army maps at one time ? Certainly I have some (although not with me at the moment) but they might be these 1956 ones also available on mapstor.com/map-sets/country-maps/philippines.html
|
|
|
Post by fireball on Jun 3, 2015 6:55:58 GMT 8
It is, resting on a bomb, from a US B24 (42-40352) that crashed in Eastern Highlands, PNG.
|
|
|
Post by fireball on May 23, 2015 6:56:52 GMT 8
Hi Beirutvet
Thanks for the update - yes, Philippines added since my post which is great for all of us!
I found them (luckily as they had only just been put online a day or two before) as part of my route preparation for some multiday walks I take through PNG (that's why good quality maps excited me so much). One of them is a planned re-tracing of the original Bulldog end of the WW2 route from the Papuan coast / lowlands to Wau - due to river changes part of this route ivo Bulldog is no longer used by trekers but as it includes a section (maybe) of rail line i'm interested to try follow it.
Fireball
|
|
|
Post by fireball on May 16, 2015 8:44:24 GMT 8
One of the most useful bits of kit for exploring, locating and re-locating sites and individual fortifications is the GPS. I have been a user of the Garmin GPSMAP 6x models and now have the 64s - on the plus side it can get reception where no other GPS can and on the minus (if it's like the previous 60 & 62 models when it says waterproof what it means is that it will suck water in with sponge like ease and, once inside the unit, the water will become trapped AKA ...) not waterproof! and , very worryingly, sometimes it freezes at start-up and will only re-start after connection to Garmin Basecamp which requires a computer. A huge warning that if planning multiday trips / or where navigation is essential to have a map & back-up plan! This unreliability, along with the lousy screen of the Garmin, led me to look at using my mobile as an alternative and/or back-up GPS.
What I selected (for an iPhone / iPad ) was GPS KIT which set me back a princely $10 which allows for single user but multi machine (?) use. It's big plus factor Is that it allows you to store and so use offline google earth (& other maps) and then use the GPS without need for any phone reception to plot and record your track. I have found it very reliable - well that's really a function of the phone GPS - and now unless GPS is critical or I will be in very difficult signal conditions I only bring the iPhone. There are other programs out there but for anyone looking the key thing is the ability to download maps / google earth and store before use in the field. Oh, and it's not just in the field as I used it with great effect to find my way around various Japanese cities. It also allows you to geotag photos and export your track to Google Earth, and of course as a mobile phone it's always with you. So, I have to say to any iPhone user just get it !
Another alternative is to go for the GPS watches and the new (very expensive) Garmin Epix could - if it's GPS reception matches it price - be the one to go for as it actually has a color screen able to display maps. For exploration on Corregidor maybe overkill but for longer trips or extremely rough terrain every gram in weight saved brings it's reward with increased speed and ease of movement.
|
|