FOR FONTESSA!

Discussions on all aspects of the Japanese Empire, from the capture of Taiwan until the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3274
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by fontessa » 17 Apr 2021 21:03

Hello ijnfleetadmiral ,
ijnfleetadmiral wrote:
17 Apr 2021 20:58
Can't recall where I got it, so I'll go with your info.
Understood, thanks.

fontessa

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3274
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by fontessa » 25 Apr 2021 10:33

Hello Ian,
IANHULKMCLEOD wrote:
09 Apr 2021 19:21
Hello Fontessa
I haven`t received your PM?
Sorry I seem to have failed to send you a PM.
IANHULKMCLEOD wrote:
28 Mar 2021 19:29
Hello Fontessa
Material reading room is correct I remember now but don`t have the kanji/ paperwork any more unfortunately!
The only thing a recall was the number 140 and kanji symbol looked like an E after the figure though on reflection could have meant complement for the Kuretake as casualties and survivors were unknown?

Unfortunately I have no idea about "kanji symbol looked like an E ". I called the Material reading room about the number of Kuretake KIA, but the adviser could not find any related material. The results might have been different if we had a little more specific information about the material.

Kuretake departed Takao someday in late December. Unfortunately, only in December 1944, there is no IJN records for convoys loss left. Some sites say that Kuretake's conboy was MATA 38. It is clearly incorrect, because MATA meant Manila → Takao Convoys.
According to Razorback action report, the situation of Kuretake sank on December 30th was as follows:
- 12:30: Razorback found the convoy of four merchant ships including one 8,000 ton tanker with two escorts
- 12:45 Razorback fired 6 torpedoes from front tubes against a tanker and a destroyer
- 12:58 Razorback fired 4 torpedoes from rear tubes against Kuretake, the torpedos blew her bow and she stopped
- 13:45 Razorback fired 2 torpedoes from front tubes and these caused Kuretake to sink

Razorback reported there was air cover by a JAKE.
According to 953nd Naval Air Group War Diary:
- Dcember 30th: Night direct escort to* MATA 38 with one JAKE
- December 31st: Rescue of Kuretake survivors with one PETE and thee JAKE
* Clearly MATA 38 was incorrect. I think this is the cause of the mistakes of some sites.
In any case, the number of rescued survivors by seaplanes would have been small.

fontessa

Berend
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 21 Dec 2015 15:41
Location: The Netherlands

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by Berend » 25 Apr 2021 11:28

Fleet Radio Unit Melbourne (FRUMEL) intercepted the following:

27 December 1944:
Destroyer KURETAKE left San Fernando at 1215 on 27th December, course north, speed 14 knots, to join MATA-38 convoy.

Convoy departure apparently was delayed.

Regards,

Berend.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3274
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by fontessa » 25 Apr 2021 14:58

Hello Berend,
Berend wrote:
25 Apr 2021 11:28
Fleet Radio Unit Melbourne (FRUMEL) intercepted the following:
27 December 1944:
Destroyer KURETAKE left San Fernando at 1215 on 27th December, course north, speed 14 knots, to join MATA-38 convoy.
Convoy departure apparently was delayed.
Thanks for the info.

According to 駒宮真七郎 戦時輸送船団史 Wartime Convoy History written by Komamiya Shinshichiro, the below is the outline of MATA-38:
Transporters: 室蘭丸 Muroran Maru, 帝海丸 Teikai Maru, 和浦丸 Waura Maru, 日晶丸 Nissho Maru
Escorts: 21st Sub-chaser and five Ships name unknown
Departed San Fernando at 8:00 / 30 December 1944
Muroran Mau was attacked by 26 US airplanes and sank at 13:10 / 30 December 1944
Teikai Maru was attacked by 26 US airplanes at 13:10 / 30 December 1944 and grounded at 14:30
I added Muroran Maru sank point (N17.11- E120.24) to the chart I have uploaded to show Kuretake sank point (N21.00 - E121.24).
Their sinking points were hundreds of kilometers apart on the same day.
This would not be possible if Kuretake accompanied MATA-38.
I guess that Kuretake returned to Talkao prior to MOTA-38 and was sunk during another escort mission to the Philippines.
fontessa wrote:
25 Apr 2021 10:33
According to Razorback action report, the situation of Kuretake sank on December 30th was as follows:
- 12:30: Razorback found the convoy of four merchant ships including one 8,000 ton tanker with two escorts
- 12:45: Razorback fired 6 torpedoes from front tubes against a tanker and a destroyer
- 12:58: Razorback fired 4 torpedoes from rear tubes against Kuretake, the torpedos blew her bow and she stopped
- 13:45: Razorback fired 2 torpedoes from front tubes and these caused Kuretake to sink
Does anyone know what time US Pacific Fleet vessels used in places with time differences? Hawaii time?
IJN ships used Tokyo time even in places with time differences.


KuretakeSank_New.jpg

fontessa
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Berend
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 21 Dec 2015 15:41
Location: The Netherlands

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by Berend » 09 May 2021 14:43

Hello Fontessa,

I am aware there is a discrepancy between the sinking location of Kuretake and convoy MATA-38's location. I've contacted Peter Cundall, one of the authors of the Kuretake trom puiblished on the Nihon Kaigun site and asked his opinion about this. This is his reply:


"It seems likeliest that Kuretake initially escorted Enoura Maru and Brazil Maru that were carrying POWs – 1070 on Enoura Maru and 236 on Brazil Maru. Both departed [North] San Fernando 27 December with unknown escort (presumed Kuretake and smaller ships) for Takao (arrived safely 31 Dec). Enoura Maru as a 2A type engines aft 3 island profile could easily have been mistaken for the tanker USS Razorback reported, but there were only two ships in the convoy plus escorts. It seems probable that Kuretake received orders to protect the larger and more important MATA-38 convoy and detached and was shortly after attacked and sunk by USS Razorback before joining MATA-38.

CH-18 is in a similar category to the above and is also shown as a [prospective?] escort of MATA-38.

In other words the Frumel message of Kuretake departing San Fernando 1215 27 Dec is likely correct – but the reference to MATA-38 is either incorrect or the convoy was composed of two parts perhaps MATA-38A consisting of Enoura and Brazil Marus and MATA-38B composed of the 4 ships listed by Komamiya. Since no convoy number is given for Enoura Maru and Brazil Maru and at this time it was highly unusual for ships to sail without a convoy number I very much favour this theory. But I have found NO documentary evidence to support it. Because it is speculation it does not appear in our TROMs.

Fontessa’s transliteration of names is correct except for Kazuura Maru (not Waura Maru) – built 1938, 6804 gross tons."


I hope this sheds some more light on the matter and of course without new information emerging we'll never know exactly what happened at the time.

Regards,

Berend.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3274
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by fontessa » 09 May 2021 20:11

Hello Berend,

Very thanks to have contacted to Peter Cundall.
His explanation is very interesting.
Berend wrote:
09 May 2021 14:43
It seems likeliest that Kuretake initially escorted Enoura Maru and Brazil Maru that were carrying POWs – 1070 on Enoura Maru and 236 on Brazil Maru. Both departed [North] San Fernando 27 December with unknown escort (presumed
Kuretake and smaller ships) for Takao (arrived safely 31 Dec).

the convoy was composed of two parts perhaps MATA-38A consisting of Enoura and Brazil Marus and MATA-38B composed of the 4 ships listed by Komamiya.
I would like to agree with the above.
However, Razorback says she has found a convoy of four merchant ships, including one 8,000-ton tank truck with two escorts, which is inconsistent.

There was MATA-38 mentioned in 953rd Naval Air Group Wartime Diary. It also mentioned Pete reported by USS Razorback.
I initially thought MATA-38 was a clerical error. However, the 953rd was the air-unit organized for convoy escorts, and reconsidered that they should have shared enough information about convoy.

Page11 of 953rd Naval Air Group Wartime Diary says as the below;
https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/aj/met ... 3120418600

December 30th
零観1機鳶峯鼻南5浬敵所在潜水船ノ夜間制圧 零水3機マタ三八船団直衛
1 Pete submarine suppression in night at 5 nautical miles from South of Eluanbi
3 Jake MATA-38 direct escort
<Remark>
護衛船呉竹被雷沈没
Escort Kuretake sunk with torpedo attack
零水1機不時着行方不明
1 Jake emergency water landing and missing
December 31th
零観1機零水3機呉竹救難及対潜掃蕩
1 Pete and 3 Jake rescue Kuretake and anti submarine sweep
零水2機サマ一四船団直衛異常ナシ
2 Jake SAMA-14 direct escort and no problem
<Remark>
零水1機不時着行方不明
1 Jake emergency water landing and missing


953rdA.G. WarDiary.jpg

More;
fontessa wrote:
25 Apr 2021 10:33
According to Razorback action report, the situation of Kuretake sank on December 30th was as follows:
- 12:30: Razorback found the convoy of four merchant ships including one 8,000 ton tanker with two escorts
- 12:45: Razorback fired 6 torpedoes from front tubes against a tanker and a destroyer
- 12:58: Razorback fired 4 torpedoes from rear tubes against Kuretake, the torpedos blew her bow and she stopped
- 13:45: Razorback fired 2 torpedoes from front tubes and these caused Kuretake to sink
I think the above times were Hawaii time. (IJN ships used Tokyo time even in places with time differences.) If so, the sinking time of Kuretake mentioned above was 13:45 Hawaii time and 20:45 Japan time, which is consistent with the Wartime Diary "1 Pete submarine suppression in night".

Berend, very thanks again.
I am very happy if you tell about 953rd Naval Air Group Wartime Diary for reference to Peter Cundallni.

fontessa
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Berend
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 21 Dec 2015 15:41
Location: The Netherlands

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by Berend » 10 May 2021 17:37

Hello Fontessa,

thank you for your reply and for pointing out the 953rd Naval Air Group Wartime diary records. Peter had reviewed the 953rd AG records but hadn’t picked up on the Kuretake discrepancy.

Here is his reply to your comments:

“Firstly I would not pay too much attention to submarine claims on convoy size as submarines were apt to get this wrong based on confusing hydrophone noise, brief and limited periscope glimpses etc. It could be also that Enoura Maru and Brazil Maru were escorted by 2 ex mercantile Navy auxiliaries amongst the escorts (such as Netlayers or similar) that would have a merchant ship appearance. So reporting 2 merchant ships as 4 ships is not so extraordinary to me. But there is one problem with my MATA 38A theory- there is already a MATA-38A.

MATA convoy numbering for December 1944 is a mess. Here is what the records (mostly JACAR sourced and/or Komamiya) show:

MATA-36 Dep Manila 1350 4/12/44 for Takao where arrived 15/12/44: Nissho Maru No.16 escorted by netlayers Kishin Maru, Choki Maru, Kiri Maru No.1 Go

MATA-37 (Also called Oryoku Maru convoy)- Sailed 0440 14/12/44 likely consisting of Arimasan Maru, Teihoku Maru (ex Persee) Nissho Maru and Oryoku Maru for Moji via Takao. Escorts Momo, CH-60. Arimasan, Teihoku, Nissho Marus arrived Takao 19/12/44. Momo sunk by USS Hawkbill en route. Because of air attacks Oryoku Maru sheltered at Olongapo. The ship is claimed to have shot down 13 US planes over 3 days before being bombed and sunk 15/12/44. Since the ship was carrying 286 Allied POWs there is a lot of literature about this.
Note: I have 4 merchant ships in this convoy but they could have sailed in two sections. It is also just possible there were other vessels.

Unknown number Enoura Maru and Brazil Maru with unknown escort. Departed San Fernando 27/12/44 arrived Takao 31/12/44.

MATA-38A departed Manila 2400 29/12/44 consisting of Hishigata and Meiryu Marus escorted by Ikuna, Kanju and Shonan Maru No.11. Also possibly CD-66 although a convoy map in Ikuna’s JACAR log omits this ship. This same log (C08030596500 p8-10) states convoy number as TAMA-38A (sic) but the source was not used by Komamiya as he did not list the escorts. Arrived North San Fernando 1600 31/12/44. Sunk by Air attack there 2/1/45 along with CD-138 with CD-66 heavily damaged. (CD-138 was projected to join convoy but never did). So this convoy never got further north than San Fernando. The source of this convoy info (except escorts) is Komamiya Vol 2.

MATA-38- departed San Fernando 30/12/44 at 0800 consisting of Muroran, Teikai, Kazuura and Nissho Marus with Kuretake, CH-18, CH-21 and three others assigned to escort. Attacked from 1310 30/12/44 with Muroran and Teikai Marus sunk and other two damaged.

(MATA-40 sailed North San Fernando at 0345 1/1/45 for Moji consisting of Shinshu, Kibitsu and Hyuga Marus escorted by Nomi, Kanju, Ikuna, Miyake)

All dates European style.

Since there is no MATA-39 shown it is possible to speculate in an informed way on the following :

MATA-36 as shown (1 ship + escorts)
MATA-37 as shown (4 ships + escorts)
MATA-38A – likely Enoura Maru and Brazil Maru with Kuretake and 3 other escorts. Based on JACAR 953rd War Diary this can be the only convoy in the Olunapi (Eluanpi) area. Oluanpi is the southernmost tip of Taiwan.
MATA 38B likely as shown 4 ships (Muroran, Teikai, Kazuura and Nissho Marus) with escorts intended to include Kuretake that had likely been detached from what I am terming MATA-38A.
MATA-39 likely two ships Hishigata and Meiryu Maru with escorts as shown.
MATA 40 as shown (4 ships + escorts)

At the time of these convoys- which were in essence evacuation convoys of non-essential personnel there would have been considerable confusion and it be no surprise that convoy identification was a problem.

The original source by Komamiya for the name MATA-38A (referring to the 2400 29/12/44 ex Manila convoy) is unknown. Over the years I have identified many of the primary sources in JACAR used by Komamiya but not this one. The accuracy of Komamiya can on occasions be a little suspect as indeed can JACAR occasionally.”

Looking forward to your opinion.

Berend.
Last edited by Berend on 11 May 2021 04:48, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3274
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by fontessa » 11 May 2021 03:34

Hello Berend,

I got good information in POW 研究会 POW Research Network Japan Web Page.

http://www.powresearch.jp/en/archive/ship/ouryoku.html (English Version)
About 03:00 on the morning of 27 December, the POWs were instructed by Akatsuki Butai to hurriedly embark on Enoura Maru, in lieu of Brazil Maru, and begin boarding at 04:00. They followed the instruction, and began embarking immediately. However, at 06:30, when about 700 POWs had completed boarding, by order of a high-ranking officer of Akatsuki Butai, in order to expedite the boarding of the POWs, about 600 POWs still not yet boarded should be split into two groups of about 300 each, so that 1,040 men should be on Enoura Maru and 240 on Brazil Maru, respectively. As soon as the boarding of the POWs was completed, the two tankers, which had been eagerly waiting for the completion of boarding of the POWs, immediately got underway to evade possible air raids. The three ships were escorted by the destroyer Kuretake and three sub-chasers, and steamed to the north. They evaded the attacks of US submarines, and arrived at the anchorage off Takao on the evening of 31st. Kuretake was sunk by the USS Razorback. During the voyage, 20 POWs died aboard Enoura Maru, and 5 aboard Brazil Maru, respectively.

I asked the following questions. I don't know if it will be answered, but I will upload them when I got the answers.
Q1: Do you know the convoy Number, for example, MATA-〇〇?
Q2: Do you know the names of two tankers?
Q3: Do you know the names of three sub-chasers?
Q4: Can you tell me your source if you don't mind?

fontessa

Berend
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 21 Dec 2015 15:41
Location: The Netherlands

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by Berend » 12 May 2021 05:10

Hello Fontessa,

thank you for sharing this information.

The number of ships that departed is not clear. The author seems to think the 2 tankers are the Enoura and Brazil Maru. If not there were 4 ships but the author then continues mentioning 3 ships were being escorted.

I hope your questions will be answered.

Regards,

Berend.

Berend
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 21 Dec 2015 15:41
Location: The Netherlands

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by Berend » 12 May 2021 16:58

Hi Fontessa,

this is reply from Peter

“This is very helpful information and I will be very interested to see the POW Research Network’s reply. It is a little unclear from the account whether there were two ships (Brazil Maru and Enoura Maru) which they mistakenly call tankers, three ships (which the account says further down) or 4 ships (Enoura Maru, Brazil Maru and two tankers as is implied but not stated but would be consistent with USS Razorback account that I was rather dismissive of in earlier correspondence) in the convoy.

I am certainly open to the possibility there was more than Enoura Maru and Brazil Maru in the convoy. I am sceptical about the claim of tankers because all tankers had been diverted away from PI from Oct 1944 on account of air attacks and at this time sailed via St Jacques.

There is a mystery surrounding TAMA-36 that departed Takao 0500 14 December and supposedly arrived San Fernando 23 December (or 25th December). The convoy carried the 10th Army (Kurogane) Division and moved slowly down the coast of W Luzon to avoid attack. Even so Kenzui Maru 乾瑞丸 in the convoy was torpedoed and sunk on 22 December 9 miles N of N San Fernando. Komamiya shows the other three ships in the convoy as Yuzan Maru 裕山丸 (19, 6039 but with wrong kanji prefix), Hokko Maru 北江丸(40, 5385) and Fukuju Maru 福寿丸 (19, 5293). None of these three ships appear likely, the latter two had already seen sunk! Enoshima Maru 江ノ島丸 (43, 6933 2A) was in the convoy likely with Juichisei Maru 十一星丸 (known in Allied records as Hoshi Maru No.11 (43, 1945 1D) but the ships diverted to Aparri with Kanju as escort. After unloading 3500 troops and foodstuffs (From Enoshima Maru- Juichisei Maru’s cargo unknown but likely barges or armoured vehicles given ship was a 1D type) they departed 26th December and arrived back at Takao 29th December.

In terms of the remaining identities in the 27-31 December return convoy (that I have provisionally labelled MATA-38A) it seems now there were likely 3 ships being Brazil Maru 伯剌西爾丸 , Enoura Maru 江ノ浦丸and Daii Maru 大威丸(44, 6886 2A). Daii Maru was known to be at Takao 3 January 1945. It seems very likely that this ship sailed with Brazil Maru and Enoura Maru.

So in summary TAMA-36 consisted of 6 not 4 ships, of which two (Enoshima Maru and Juichisei/Hoshi Maru No.11) went to Aparri and 4 (Kenzui- sunk, Enoura, Brazil and Daii Marus) to San Fernando.

With regards to escorts in the 27-31 December [MATA-38A?] convoy the account says Kuretake and 3 subchasers. It is known via Tokusetsu Kansen the small auxiliary submarine chaser Ayugawa Maru鮎川丸arrived Takao from the Philippines on 31 December so this may well have been an escort. The others were probably large IJN subchasers. The likeliest would be CH-17, CH-37, CH-38, CHa-176, CHa-177 and CHa-191. CH-18 was sunk with 30 December MATA-38 convoy and CH-21 is linked with this ship and arrived Takao 2 January 1945 implying it wasn’t with the Brazil Maru convoy.

After Kuretake was sunk a number of auxiliary submarine chasers are shown as being ordered to search for survivors. These included Ayugawa Maru, CHa-151, CHa-163, CHa-176, CHa-177, Yoko Maru, Kiyo Maru and Kochi Maru. Apart from Ayugawa Maru already noted, some of these may have also been associated with the latter stages of the convoy.

I would be interested to know if you have records for the 10th Army (Kurogane) Division that could confirm Brazil, Enoura and Daii Marus being in TAMA-36 as well as arrival and departure dates etc.”

Regards,

Berend.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3274
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by fontessa » 14 May 2021 06:35

Hello Berend,
Berend wrote:
12 May 2021 16:58
this is reply from Peter

There is a mystery surrounding TAMA-36 that departed Takao 0500 14 December and supposedly arrived San Fernando 23 December (or 25th December). The convoy carried the 10th Army (Kurogane) Division and moved slowly down the coast of W Luzon to avoid attack. Even so Kenzui Maru 乾瑞丸 in the convoy was torpedoed and sunk on 22 December 9 miles N of N San Fernando. Komamiya shows the other three ships in the convoy as Yuzan Maru 裕山丸 (19, 6039 but with wrong kanji prefix), Hokko Maru 北江丸(40, 5385) and Fukuju Maru 福寿丸 (19, 5293). None of these three ships appear likely, the latter two had already seen sunk! Enoshima Maru 江ノ島丸 (43, 6933 2A) was in the convoy likely with Juichisei Maru 十一星丸 (known in Allied records as Hoshi Maru No.11 (43, 1945 1D) but the ships diverted to Aparri with Kanju as escort. After unloading 3500 troops and foodstuffs (From Enoshima Maru- Juichisei Maru’s cargo unknown but likely barges or armoured vehicles given ship was a 1D type) they departed 26th December and arrived back at Takao 29th December.

In terms of the remaining identities in the 27-31 December return convoy (that I have provisionally labelled MATA-38A) it seems now there were likely 3 ships being Brazil Maru 伯剌西爾丸 , Enoura Maru 江ノ浦丸and Daii Maru 大威丸(44, 6886 2A). Daii Maru was known to be at Takao 3 January 1945. It seems very likely that this ship sailed with Brazil Maru and Enoura Maru.

So in summary TAMA-36 consisted of 6 not 4 ships, of which two (Enoshima Maru and Juichisei/Hoshi Maru No.11) went to Aparri and 4 (Kenzui- sunk, Enoura, Brazil and Daii Marus) to San Fernando.

I would be interested to know if you have records for the 10th Army (Kurogane) Division that could confirm Brazil, Enoura and Daii Marus being in TAMA-36 as well as arrival and departure dates etc.”
兵団文字符 Unit Code Letter of 10th Division was “Tetsu”, not “Kurigane”. These are different readings of the same kanji 鐵or 鉄 (Iron)

TAMA-35
日晶丸 Nissho Maru, 鴨緑丸 Oroku Maru, 有馬山丸 Arimasa Maru, 和浦丸 Waura Maru
鐵兵団第一梯団 10th Division First Echelon / 旭兵団第二梯団 23rd Division Second Echelon
10th Division First Echelon;
- 10th Division Headquarters
- 39th Infantry Regiment 2nd and 3rd Battalions
- 10th Field Artillery Regiment
- 10th Reconnaissance Regiment
- 10th Engineer Unit
- 10th Division Communications Unit
- 10th Division Gus Cntrol Unit
- 10th Division 1st Field Hospital
23rd Division Second Echelon
- 71 Infantry Regiment and others
viewtopic.php?f=65&t=167954&p=1518728&h ... a#p1518709
TAMA-36
江島丸 Ejima Maru, 大威丸 Daii Maru, 乾瑞丸 Kenzui Maru
10th Division Second Echelon;
- 10th Infantry Regiment
- 39th Infantry Regiment 1st Battalion
- 63rd Infantry Regiment
- 10th Transport Regiment
- 10th Division Ordnance Duty Unit
- 10th Division 2nd Field Hospital
- 10th Division 4th Field Hospital
- 10th Division Veterinary Hospital
- 10th Division Water Supply and Purification Department

According to 第十師団兵器勤務隊 10th Division Ordnance Duty Unit War Diary;
The unit main body of the unit boarded 江島丸 Ejima Maru
The remain of the unit boarded 大威丸 Daii Maru
They were called the 第二梯団 Second Echelon .
https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/aj/met ... L_TYPE=pdf Page28


第10師団兵器勤務隊.jpg

There is the recollection sayng transporterps were 江ノ島丸, 大威丸 and 乾瑞丸.
https://www.heiwakinen.go.jp/wp-content ... _393_1.pdf page6
Senshi Sosho also says transporterps were 江ノ島丸, 大威丸 and 乾瑞丸.
Around this time, the divisions sent to the Philippines had no choice but to shrink in order to respond to the tightness of transporters. In the case of the 10th Division, the number of companies per battalion was reduced from the usual 4 to 3. As a result, the infantry regiment had about 2,300 personnel, so it may have been possible to carry the rest of the division with three transporters.

Which is correct, 江ノ島丸 or 江島丸?
I checked 江ノ島丸.
http://www.tokusetsukansen.jpn.org/J/index.html
Departed サブタン Sabtang Island (Bashi Channel) on December 14th / Arrived at 高雄 Takao on December 29th
According to it she was not a member of TAMA-36.

江ノ島丸.jpg

Berend wrote:
12 May 2021 16:58
this is reply from Peter

With regards to escorts in the 27-31 December [MATA-38A?] convoy the account says Kuretake and 3 subchasers. It is known via Tokusetsu Kansen the small auxiliary submarine chaser Ayugawa Maru 鮎川丸arrived Takao from the Philippines on 31 December so this may well have been an escort. The others were probably large IJN subchasers. The likeliest would be CH-17, CH-37, CH-38, CHa-176, CHa-177 and CHa-191. CH-18 was sunk with 30 December MATA-38 convoy and CH-21 is linked with this ship and arrived Takao 2 January 1945 implying it wasn’t with the Brazil Maru convoy.

After Kuretake was sunk a number of auxiliary submarine chasers are shown as being ordered to search for survivors. These included Ayugawa Maru, CHa-151, CHa-163, CHa-176, CHa-177, Yoko Maru, Kiyo Maru and Kochi Maru. Apart from Ayugawa Maru already noted, some of these may have also been associated with the latter stages of the convoy.
fontessa wrote:
27 Mar 2021 23:14
Kuretake sank on 30 December 1944.
The following orders were issued on the same day.
(1) The following ships (stationed at Takao) will be dispatched as soon as they are ready, and the submarine sweeping and rescue of Kuretake survivors will be carried out at 21 ° 00'N and 121 ° 22'E.”
41st Minesweeper (Command Ship)
4 Numbered (151st, 163rd, 176th and 177th) Auxiliary Sub-chasers
4 Unnumbered Auxiliary Sub-chasers (Yoko Maru, Ayukawa Maru, Kiyo Maru and Kochi Maru)
We are looking at the same page?
They were also ordered;
Return as appropriate if hostility is obtained by January 2nd 16:00
Numbered (151st, 163rd, 176th and 177th) Auxiliary Sub-chasers, 高知丸 Kochi Maru
Temporary stayed at Port-entrance Lighthouse 202 degrees 550m at January 3rd 2:00
陽光丸 Yoko Maru, 鮎川丸 Ayukawa Maru and 紀洋丸 Kiyo Maru
No data left.

fontessa
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3274
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by fontessa » 15 May 2021 10:39

Hello Berend,
fontessa wrote:
14 May 2021 06:35
Senshi Sosho also says transporterps were 江ノ島丸, 大威丸 and 乾瑞丸.
Senshi Sosho description;

鐵師団輸送.jpg

fontessa
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3274
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by fontessa » 18 May 2021 01:09

Hello Ian,
ijnfleetadmiral wrote:
27 Mar 2021 02:23
IANHULKMCLEOD wrote:
26 Mar 2021 20:07
What have you for the Kuwa and Ume?
UME
Laid Down: 25 January 1944 at Fujinagata Shipbuilding, Osaka, Japan
Launched: 24 April 1944
Commissioned: 28 June 1944
Fate: Sunk by aerial attack 31 January 1945 20 miles S of Formosa; 77 dead, 36 wounded.

Commanding Officers
(CEO) - LCDR ONISHI Yoshiharu (61) - 6 June 1944 - 28 June 1944
LCDR ONISHI Yoshiharu (61) - 28 June 1944 - 31 January 1945
Torpedo Officers
(EO) - LT MATSUO Keiji (67) - 8 June 1944 - 28 June 1944
LT MATSUO Keiji (67) - 28 June 1944 - 31 January 1945
Gunnery Officers
(EO) - LT YAMAZAKI Yoshinori (70) - 8 June 1944 - 28 June 1944
LT / LCDR* YAMAZAKI Yoshinori (70) - 28 June 1944 - 31 January 1945 (KIA)
Navigators
(EO) - LTJG NAKAJIMA Susumu (Res.) - 8 June 1944 - 28 June 1944
LTJG / LT* NAKAJIMA Susumu (Res.) - 28 June 1944 - 31 January 1945
Chief Engineers
(EO) - LTJG NAKAMURA Shinkichi (Spec. Duty) – 3 May 1944 - 28 June 1944
LTJG NAKAMURA Shinkichi (Spec. Duty) - 28 June 1944 - 31 January 1945
Surgeons
(EO) - (S) ENS OKOSHIRO Hirotake (??) - 8 June 1944 - 28 June 1944
(S) ENS OKOSHIRO Hirotake (??) - 28 June 1944 - 15 July 1944
??? - 15 July 1944 - 31 January 1945
Paymasters
(EO) - (P) LTJG KAJIMA Kenjiro (??) - 3 June 1944 - 28 June 1944
(P) LTJG KAJIMA Kenjiro (??) - 28 June 1944 - 15 July 1944
??? - 15 July 1944 - 31 January 1945
43rd Destroyer Division
Flag ship was UME.
Commanding Officers Boarded UME
CAPT / CAPT YOSHIDA Masayoshi 吉田正義 (50): 9 January 1945 - 31 January 1945 (Survived) (11 C13072102900)
Crew for Medical Offiser Duty / Attached to 43rd Destroyer Division Boarded UME
ENS / ENS / LTJG* HIROTAKE Okiaki 宏丈起朗 (???): 15 July 1944 - 31 January 1945 (KIA) (6 C13072099900)
Crew for Supply Offiser Duty / Attached to 43rd Destroyer Division Boarded UME
LTJG / LTJG KAJIMA Kenjiro 梶間健次郎 (Pay???): 15 July 1944 - 31 January 1945 (Survived)
UME
Commanding Officers
(CEO) LCDR / LCDR ONISHI Kaiji 大西快治 (61): 8 June 1944 - 28 June 1944 (18 C13072099500 / 23 C13072099900)
LCDR / LCDR ONISHI Kaiji 大西快治 (61): 28 June 1944 - 31 January 1945 (Survived) (23 C13072099900)
Gunnery Officers
(EO) LT / LT YAMAZAKI Yoshinori 山崎義憲 (70): 8 June 1944 - 28 June 1944 (18 C13072099500 / 23 C1307209990)
LT / LT / LCDR* YAMAZAKI Yoshinori 山崎義憲 (70): 28 June 1944 - 31 January 1945 (KIA) (23 C1307209990)
Torpedo Officers
(EO) LT / LT MATSUO Keiji 松尾敬次 (67): 8 June 1944 - 28 June 1944 (18 C13072099500 / 23 C13072099900)
LT / LT MATSUO Keiji 松尾敬次 (67): 28 June 1944 - 31 January 1945 (Survived) (23 C13072099900)
Navigation Officer
(EO) LTJG (Res.) / LTJG (Res.) NAKAJIMA Susumu 中島晋: 8 June 1944 - 28 June 1944 (18 C13072099500 / 23 C13072099900)
LTJG (Res.) / LTJG (Res.) NAKAJIMA Susumu 中島晋: 28 June 1944 - 31 January 1945 (Survived) (23 C13072099900)
Engineer Officers
(EO) LTJG (Eng.S.D.) / LTJG (Eng.S.D.) NAKAMURA Shinkichi 中村普吉: 3 May 1944 - 28 June 1944
LTJG (Eng.S.D.) / LTJG (Eng.S.D.) NAKAMURA Shinkichi 中村普吉: 28 June 1944 - 31 January 1945 (Survived) (19 C12070754400)
Crew for Medical Offiser Duty
ENS / ENS / LTJG* HIROTAKE Okiaki 宏丈起朗 (???): 28 June 1944 - 15 July 1944 (Attached to 43rd Destroyer Division)
Crew for Supply Offiser Duty
(EO) LTJG / LTJG KAJIMA Kenjiro 梶間健次郎 (Pay???): 3 June 1944 ‐28 June 1944 (23 C13072099900)
LTJG / LTJG KAJIMA Kenjiro 梶間健次郎 (Pay???): 28 June 1944 - 15 July 1944 (Attached to 43rd Destroyer Division) (23 C13072099900)

UME, KAEDE, SHIOKAZE departed Takao at 9 AM. CAPT YOSHIDA Masayoshi, 43rd Destroyer Division boarded UME commanded them. The purpose was transport the reinforcement for Aparri defense to Aparri. Unfortunately they were contacted by a B-24 at 20 nautical miles south of 鵝鑾鼻 Garambi at 3 PM. After that they received air raids by 12 B-25s escorted by P-38s and 4 P-47s. UME was hit by rockets and strafed, and was blown off the stern by the detonation of depth charges she carried. She sank at latitude 20 ° 30'N and longitude 120 ° 50'E. According to 31st Squadron War Diary, 77 killed and 36 injured.
https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/aj/met ... 8030074800 page60
被害 Damage
梅 Ume
戦死77名 77 killed
重軽傷36名 36 injured

梅.jpg

fontessa
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1134
Joined: 18 Apr 2009 00:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by Rob Stuart » 18 May 2021 11:12

At http://www.combinedfleet.com/HiryuKodo_040542_2.jpg there is an annotated copy of a page from Hiryu's 5 April 1942 kodo. (It is from Jon Parshall's "Another Trip To The Drive-thru".) An annotated portion of the text claims that 8 Swordfish were shot down. In the block of text below that, all I can read are the figures 19 and 2. Can anyone say what this text means? Could it be 19 enemy fighters shot down and 2 damaged, or 19 fighters shot down and 2 probably shot down, or something else entirely?

Apologies if I should have posted this in some other thread.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 3274
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: FOR FONTESSA!

Post by fontessa » 18 May 2021 12:27

Hello Rob,
Rob Stuart wrote:
18 May 2021 11:12
At http://www.combinedfleet.com/HiryuKodo_040542_2.jpg there is an annotated copy of a page from Hiryu's 5 April 1942 kodo. (It is from Jon Parshall's "Another Trip To The Drive-thru".) An annotated portion of the text claims that 8 Swordfish were shot down. In the block of text below that, all I can read are the figures 19 and 2. Can anyone say what this text means? Could it be 19 enemy fighters shot down and 2 damaged, or 19 fighters shot down and 2 probably shot down, or something else entirely?
Others are OK.
飛竜戦闘機隊_コロンボ.jpg

fontessa
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Return to “Japan at War 1895-1945”