islandee

LburtonL:

That's a challenging bike ride, push bike I assume. I apologize, but I'm not qualified to answer your question: I don't know anything about the demands of such a feat; I don't trust short term weather forecasting (including those about air pollution levels); I'm not familiar with  road conditions between Phitsanulok and Chiang Mai (107 north from Chiang Mai is pretty good except for congestion in the Mae Rim bottleneck). 

30 Apr 2017

Again, Chiang Mai had a light, steady rain through much of last night and this morn; but unlike yesterday, Doi Suthep is now visible, albeit, through a haze.

wolfmuc: Our neighbors, China, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia: there, as here, I'm confident that commercial interests --- as well as longstanding tradition --- will prevail and the fires will continue unimpeded throughout the region; in fact, I see no reason why they won't increase.

Where does the smoke go? Looking back at Pinotubo: the sun turned green where I was. There was a measurable drop in temperature worldwide. That was 26 years ago and the sun has returned to its normal color; temperatures are on the rise. The atmosphere seems to have cleared. I assumed that the sometimes slow circulation amongst the various atmospheric layers eventually brought down those particles, initially driven into the greatest heights of the atmosphere, so that they could be brought down to earth by rain. I had thought that the same mechanism would apply to clearing the much lower intensity pollution from local fires.

But your comment 'not everything will be washed out by the rain' deserves some research. I was surprised to find this: Science Daily, 14 Mar 2000: 'Air Pollution Can Prevent Rainfall':

. . . [The author] presents satellite images and measurements of "pollution tracks" downstream from major urban areas and air pollution sources such as power plants, lead smelters, and oil refineries. The tracks consist of polluted clouds that have shut off virtually all precipitation because they contain abnormally small water droplets.

The article seems to leave the polluted clouds in limbo: there is no ending to the story. 

In any case, your point seems well taken.

I don't know the range of particle sizes generated by rice field burning, so the Science Daily article may not apply. However, on the assumption that it does apply: such burning has been going on for years, at least from the 1890s per McCarthy's observations, and probably much farther back ---possibly before written records began in this area; I do find an article that implies a start date for major field burning in Burma: 'Origins of the Burma Rice Boom, 1850-1880'. But I'm not aware of any source that can identify a weather pattern change occurring more than a hundred years ago. More recently, perhaps Cyclone Nargis' 2008 interruption to Myanmar burning rice fields might show something; but the burning would have been ongoing during the months immediately preceding the cyclone strike in May. I believe that there was also a major interruption to Burma's rice field burning during the Japanese occupation of the colony and the immediate aftermath, 1941-1946(?).

Looks like a topic ripe for research.
 

Jandtaa: Can you update your link for "Jandtaa's farming docs - My personal on-line library of PDF's" in your opening post: it is now dead.

Thank you, Kalbo123: per your note, I visited K-Photo this afternoon. Personnel there were extremely helpful. It doesn't do repairs, but it does coordinate same. Unfortunately for me, it turns out that ESRI, Garmin's representative in Thailand, stopped repairing the nuvi 1250, my old unit, two years ago (I used it for seven years). So I bought a Garmin nuvi 57LM from K-Photo. The salesman proved knowledgeable, quickly setting it up, taking me up on the roof car park to demo it, and downloading a user manual. I should have upgraded long ago: the nuvi 57LM is more expensive than the old 1250, but it responds to / processes satellite info much more quickly than the 1250, and map updates are available quarterly for free via the Internet.

A post on rideasia.net of 17 Feb 2016 under the title, 'Eagle GPS, Chiang Mai, Thailand', advises 'The new owner of Eagle GPS in Chiang Mai is off to Africa to work and is looking to sell/ transfer the business. If you can't find Sam at the Pantip Plaza shop, this is why.'

Is there any other source in Chiang Mai for Garmin GPS units? I'd like to see and hold what I may buy, rather than buy blind through the Internet.

And if a 'yes' to the above, is there any servicing available in Chiang Mai for Garmin GPS units?

I offer my experience today at Chiang Mai Immigration on getting a retirement extension.

0250: The time that No. 1 man said he had arrived. He said he was alone for about an hour before anyone else showed up.

0400: Second person appeared.

0430: Third one showed.

0445: Fourth (me) I arrived. These counts were for farangs wanting retirement extensions; there were 12 people in total waiting for all Immigration services.

When I arrived at Promenada around 0430, there were barricades at all vehicle entrances to the parking areas. I circled the whole block once looking for an open entrance and found none ('twould have been crazy to back up on Rte 3029); so I stopped where I had started, at the entrance on the Middle Ring Road (Rte 3029), moved the barricades, drove in (and did not replace the barricades), found the underbuilding parking roped off, so parked outside beside the entrance to that sheltered car park. The other people present at that hour I learned had come on motorbikes which allowed them the freedom to simply go around the barricades. Those using red pickup taxi service didn't start arriving till around 0545 --- they said the trucks simply weren't available any earlier.

At Promenada, the lights didn't go on until they weren't needed: simply put, it was DARK. NO security was ever evident. There was an unsecured power extension cord across one walkway and one water hose --- good tripping points in the dark. The Immigration Office appears, at least this morn, to have been in the lee of the building, so mosquitoes were bad. We had already sorted out which of us were going for retirement extensions and in what order, so it was possible to leave the immediate area and go to the middle of the concourse where there was a breeze to flush away the mosquitoes.

0545: The 16th person arrived for a retirement extension.

At this point, there was no organization amongst those waiting; but there were enough people to make it worth while to form lines. There were four signs on stands for various categories of immigration service turned to the wall. We turned them around. Took chairs and seated ourselves in proper order in front of the sign titled 'retirement / medical case', to wait (with four youthful placeholders then making their purpose known by filling in, I think, positions 7 through 10, to make the 20 in the quota). Others wanting other categories of immigration services followed our example, so much as was allowed by the categories on the three additional signs. With regard to 'medical cases' in our line, I saw none.

0600: A coffee bar opened adjacent to the waiting area outside Immigration. An iced latte was B65.

0700: The Tom-Tom coffee-restaurant on the next level up supposedly opened for Immigration customers, offering a 10% discount (that showed on an advertising sign adjacent to the waiting area). The coffee at the bar was sufficient for me. But all one had to do to claim the 10% discount upstairs was to flash a passport: that, of course, works fine until you've left your passport for processing and want a 10% discount breakfast after.

0800: The photo / copy shop to the west side of Immigration appeared to open.

0815?: Immigration staff came out to issue numbers. 20 were issued for retirement extensions. Those with numbers 11 through 20 were told that they would be processed after lunch. There were probably another 15 behind them who were told to stand by, that perhaps more help would be coming from the old office and they could be processed too. That didn't occur and they were eventually told to come back tomorrow.

There was a desk outside where one could get one's paperwork pre-checked. That included gluing in the mandatory photo.

0830: The office opened on time, except that retirement extension customer No. 1 didn't get called till about 0900.

As I mentioned above, the sign behind which we had queued in the early morn read 'retirement / medical case': two categories on one sign. There were two desks inside, side-by-side, one labeled 'retirement' and the other 'medical case'. At those desks, the retirement extension processing day started with an Immigration Officer at each, but one almost immediately disappeared with a pile of paper for 15-20 minutes. The person who was being processed had not been in our queue: it turned out that there may or may not be an on-line reservation system in place now --- however there had been one in place back whenever, for making reservations for today, 16 October, and those with reservations got first access. The queue customers started processing around 0900 --- when the second Immigration Officer had returned. The on-line types got processed at the 'retirement' desk, while we queue-types got processed at the 'medical case' desk. So two officers were processing retirement extensions, and each should have been able to handle a quota of 20, for a total of 40 processed by the office each day (regardless of however many less than 20 might have received on-line reservations). Assuming rumors are true that the on-line reservation system has now been stopped, and when the backlog of reservations has been worked through, then the first 40 to appear in person on any morn should expect to be processed that day.

0945: I, No. 4, was called. Paperpushing was swift, very swift, done in 10 minutes. Under such circumstances, I wasn't concerned that the officer was distant: he was efficient and I hadn't come for exchanging niceties anyway. I had included a copy of my driver's license as proof of residence: that obviously wasn't required for it was immediately handed back to me. Another five minutes for a checker, who seemed to also be the office computer guru, and his time was divided between checking my paperwork and getting a reluctant printer to perform. A sign near the Immigration entrance advised that 20-30 minutes should be allowed for processing each retirement extension request. So, assuming about 20 minutes per request, that works out to three an hour, or ten (or 11) in the morn and the same in the PM, which meets the quota of 20 per day stated in various locations.

1000: I was done, except that I had to come back at 1300 to pick up my processed passport (the staff member with signature authority started the day at the old office). So, note that the sign over the entrance reading 'One stop service' is wrong, at least at present. It also occurred to me after leaving that I had been issued no receipt for my passport, paperwork, and B1900 (when I got back and checked with others, the story was the same); but passport and receipt were properly provided in the afternoon.

1300: Passport was ready. I don't know when those with numbers 11 through 20 who were to be processed after lunch received their passports.

Retrospective: Last year, I appeared at the old Immigration Office at 0545 to be No. 33 in that day's queue. The daily cutoff then for retirement extension 'walk-ins' was 35; and there was an additional input from on-line registration, whatever that might be --- possibly up to 10, but usually less because that process covered all categories of visa processing. Now, at Promenada, it's just 20 for 'walk-ins', plus, again, an unknown number who have reserved from on-line. I guess it's reasonable to assume that the second desk can process the same number of 20, so capacity is now 40 per day (but it must be assumed that the second desk is not being fully utilized since on-line reservations would still have been limited to 10, for all categories). And that combined capacity would appear to approximately match the number being processed last year at this time; ie, 35 plus, say, an average of five from on-line each day. So, not much has changed, but the location. The PA system is relatively intelligible --- better than before, though there are no numbers displayed overhead. Lighting is good. The place is clean and reasonably neat. I don't recall seeing any standup writing tables for filling out forms. Forms are available inside.

The one complaint I heard was from two separate people who had to go back to the old office for additional documentation which was not yet being processed at the Promenada location. And with that cleared up, they could again have the privilege of queuing up at four or five on another morning for Immigration services. No doubt there were other complaints that I didn't hear.

BTW, my thanks to ThaiVisa contributors for keeping Immigration requirements current.

In reading this over, I see that I'm not unhappy with the results of Immigration having moved its services to Promenada; however in actual fact, I should be complaining bitterly about a very basic item that hasn't been at all affected by the move: the need to queue up at such an early hour in order to ensure the processing of routine governmental requirements in a timely manner. It is absurd. I was aghast when it was first deemed necessary however many years ago, but I concede that I've been worn down since. But, with a fresh look just now, I see it as still absurd, and insulting.

. . . The historian Daniel Ford is usually reliable, but this seemed like hearsay, I went with the US Embassy version and my own feeling that the name originated in China... it sounds like a typical Chinese art motif, such as "Tigers and Dragons - prancing and soaring", or some mythological martial arts related theme.

But who knows? It could have been some "well-paid suit" that named them.

Can you comment?

We are both in search of truth. In that effort, each of us applies the mechanisms, processes which have served him ably to this point in time. And in these two instances, we have come up with different versions of truth. Both seem well supported. You believe you have used good sources. I believe I have used good sources. But neither of us is an expert on the subject of the Flying Tigers.

Your concern about evidence that you consider to be hearsay is valid. However, I don't have access to all the information that Dan Ford and Bob Bergin do, and I feel comfortable with their judgments, their summaries. I'm putting myself in their hands. I'm conceding my sovereignty to them over matters involving the Flying Tigers. I'm willing to delegate responsibility to them for those matters about which I don't have hard evidence --- which is almost everything about the Flying Tigers. If you feel concern about any of the material I have ascribed to them, at least in the case of Dan, you can query him on his Warbird's Forum message board. I've queried him myself on some items and found him to be a very approachable personality. As a result, I feel he's worthy of my confidence. Bob: I can't help you with his contact info --- I've never tried communicating with him. I've just read some of his books and articles and found those dealing with the Flying Tigers to be generally coincident with Dan's work.

We agree to disagree. Let us move on.

. . . the question of whether or not the raid on Chiang Mai airfield was a surprise to the Japanese at the time. . . .

Reasonable question. The passage of time, I would guess, is the source of the contradiction: time does both embellish and dim memories, collapsing events, etc.

You quote Charlie Bond who was speaking at the Chiang Mai Foreign Cemetery . . . in 2003: ". . . Now it was clear we had caught them flat-footed without any warning . . . ." He was speaking 62 years after the event.

You and I unfortunately don't have copies of the documents that Dan Ford and Bob Bergin do, but I think we can assume that those documents were written up shortly after the attack and we have to rely on Ford's and Bergin's summations. They've both got top notch reputations.

Ford, Dan, Flying Tigers (Washington: Smithsonian, 1991, 2007)

Jack Newkirk and the other three Panda Bears . . . flew on instruments until they reached Chiang Mai about 7 am . . . Newkirk tarried long enough to strafe the Chiang Mai railroad station --- an astonishing breach of discipline, like poking a stick into a hornet's nest before your friends come along. . . .

Bergin, Bob, "Flying Tiger, Burning Bright", in Aviation History, July 2008, pp 24-31.

pp 29-30: . . . Charlie Bond, flying on Neale's wing, was the only one who had flown over the area before. . . . As the Flying Tigers started strafing, they could see props turning. . . .

Newkirk's P-40s had reached the eastern side of Chiang Mai at 0710. Bond noted that Newkirk's flight arrived at Chiang Mai "a few minutes ahead of us," then added, "For some reason or other, while flying down to attack Lampang, they decided to strafe the Chiang Mai railroad depot." That alerted the Japanese at the airfield, who were already manning anti-aircraft guns and trying to get their fighters in the air when Neale's flight arrived. . . .

I think that's a realistic solution to the contradiction you point out.

Just out of curiosity, do any of you historical airbuffs have any information on the missing Spitfire that was on static display behind the high school in Phrae?

Long after the war, the RTAF donated an old Allied aircraft for display at Yupparaj Prep School, near the southeast corner of the school property at the intersection of Ratwithi and Ratchaphakinai. The display, probably similar in appearance to those of aircraft around the Chiang Mai Airport today, was vandalized and pieces scavenged to the point that the aircraft eventually disappeared. My wife remembered it being whole in 1980 when she arrived here. Two retired faculty members recalled that, piece by piece, it seemed to evaporate. It was long gone by 2002 when I settled in here. Thais don't tend to revere history; that plane represented cash: salvageable material. That might explain the disappearance of the plane at Phrae.

If you can find that picture, it would certainly be of interest.

. . . I'm curious as to your follow up information as those [pdf] pages you mention have most points cited with references to their original documents. . . .

Notes on pp 192-193 in the section, 'Damage in Lampang due to the War', in the pdf file about Government Policy and the Chinese

This part-section has the appearance of a first draft that somehow missed subsequent proofing. It is unfortunate, for its confusion casts a cloud over the credibility of the rest of the chapter, and the document of which the chapter is a part. To review:

Directly before pp 192-193, the section presents a list of five items of damage to Thai property caused by Japanese ground troops. With that as a precedent, the article continues:

Destruction of property was not only the fault of the army on the ground; the Japanese air force also caused significant damage in Lampang in several attacks.

One might reasonably expect to continue reading of more damage to Thai property, but this caused by the Japanese air force (the IJAAF) --- though one might wonder how the damage came about (perhaps a crash in a residential area, perhaps stray rounds from a dogfight hitting ground, perhaps a bomb accidentally falling off an aircraft?). However, this turns out not to be the case:

On November 20, 1943, at 1700 hrs, 5 four-engine enemy planes attacked the Lampang airport with 50 bombs. . . . [fn 343]

From the perspective of Thailand in 1943, the enemy included the US and its USAAF. On that date, Edward Young, in his Aerial Nationalism (p 201), confirms:

Because its bases were closer to northern Thailand, the American 14th Air Force in China was heavily involved . . . B-24s from the 308th Bomb Group made their first raid on November 20, 1943, hitting the [airfield] at . . . Lampang.

The USAAF Chrono, for reasons unknown, mentions 14AF activity that day only over Nampang Island, southwest of Hong Kong, and "weather prevents completion of several other scheduled missions".

A potential conflict avoided: The 14AF was noted for flying B‑25s, not the B‑24s reported; the latter were typically flown by the 10AF, out of India. However, a Tony Strotman webpage (and Strotman is reliable), 308th Bombardment Group, confirms that the 308th, assigned to the 14AF, did indeed fly B‑24s (an exception to prove a rule?).

For reference, Lampang airport location: ~N18°16.38 E99°30.25.

The pdf text continues:

. . . on December 31, 1943, 25 dive bombers of the 14th air squadron generated damaged the railway and Kao-jao market area.[fn 344] The bunker at Na Kaum was also bombed resulting in 16 deaths.[fn 345]

The source of this damage is not described as "enemy", but rather the "14th air squadron". There was a 14th Sentai with Ki-21 heavy bombers, at one time located at Nakhon Sawan (Shores, vol 2, 268, 269): a sentai was the equivalent of an IJAAF group or wing, with two to four squadrons. But, from discussion about the first entry above, it's pretty obvious that the 14AF, not the 14th Sentai, was involved. Both Young (p 201) and the USAAF Chrono confirm an attack on the railyard at Lampang with 25 bombers, B‑24s. And, to state the obvious, Japan would certainly not bomb Lampang, a major city of its ally, Thailand.

So the commentary has a semantics problem: the so-called "14th air squadron" was the US Fourteenth Air Force (14AF), which was composed of wings, combined wings, groups --- squadrons were farther down the hierarchy.

Another problem: B-24s were not dive bombers.

The Kao-Jao market at N18°17.012 E99°27.997 (Kao Jao Morning Market) could be considered to be adjoining the Lampang railyard [~N18°16.75 E99°28.43], so it was probably "collateral damage". A bunker at Na Kaum: Ban Na Kaum Tai at N18°16.00 E99°28.00 (Ban Na Kaum Tai), which is about 1.5 km SSW of the railyard; another possible case of "collateral damage".

The pdf text continues:

On January 3, 1944, 28 Japanese dive bombers of the 14th air squadron, attacked the railway station and nearby areas resulting in damage.[fn 346] Wang River Bridge (Black Bridge) was damaged but still could be used, but Bor Heaw station was destroyed. [fn 347]

This sentence compounds a nonsense issue. We are presented with "Japanese dive bombers of the 14th air squadron". Young and the USAAF Chrono both confirm that the USAAF 14AF, not the Japanese 14th Sentai, attacked the railyard at Lampang with 28 bombers, B-24s. The 14th Sentai Ki-21s, were classified as "heavy bombers" (it's not clear to me that such would have been used as "dive bombers" --- did USAAF B-29s, also classified as heavy bombers, dive bomb targets? I don't think so). Again, the Japanese would have had no reason to attack the rail station of its ally, Thailand.

Young adds the detail that two P‑38s flew escort; incidentally, such escorts, depending on armament, could carry bombs and could act as "dive bombers", and were often allowed to attack "targets of opportunity" after seeing their charges safely winging back to base after completing a bombing mission.

The Wang River Bridge, aka "Black Bridge", N18°17.06 E99°27.85, might, by virtue of its color, have been referring to the very utilitarian, very industrial, railroad truss bridge over Lampang's Wang River, just west of the railyard. It would have been stained black by the soot from wood-burning locomotives. This is the first that I recall the Wang River railroad bridge being described as having been damaged. I've viewed it, photographed it, but not walked it looking for evidence of damage: I guess I must. I know Aujan Sak, the referenced source: he's still alive and functioning as an academic in Lampang; I can try to contact him, but he is very hard to get hold of, something like Roy, I fear.

The Bor Heaw (aka, Bau Haeo) rail station, N18°18.12 E99°25.85, was about 4km west along the track from the Lampang railyard. BR Whyte's The Railway Atlas of Thailand, Laos and Cambodia lists the station; but it's not called out on Google Earth, nor is a structure apparent. It may today be no more than a small, open walled shelter. I guess that's another site I should check.

The pdf text continues:

As a result of continued bombing by the enemy alliance in late 1943 and early 1944, Chalor Charuchinda, the governor of Lampang decided, with Payap army approval, to move the City Hall Offices, and the Provincial Capital and District Offices to Ban Mor, Muang District, Lampang for safety.[fn 348]

Much the same happened in Chiang Mai, with admin offices being relocated well north of the moated city.

None of the events and dates which follow, all in the last months of the war, appear either in the USAAF Chrono or Young's Aerial Nationalism.

While the war still continued, towards the end of hostilities there were no bombings raids in Lampang except in strategic areas such as the Lampang Airport. For instance, on May 27, 1945 at 12.25 pm, 8 twin engine and 4 single engine planes bombed the Lampang airport and the nearby area with 4 bombs. The weaving school was damaged in this raid.

The attackers can be assumed to have been elements of the 14AF. I have no idea what the "weaving school" was.

The continuing text is of more interest to me because two targets are described which were satellite airstrips built during the war to expand the Lampang Airfield Group. Aircraft were never recorded as having been seen on either of these two fields; hence their priorities as Allied targets should have been low (in contrast was the third satellite airfield in the group, at Ko Kha, about 11km SW of Lampang: it existed before the war, it had been an RTAF unit headquarters at the start of the war (to be then moved to Lampang), and aircraft were occasionally observed there; but the Ko Kha airstrip was never bombed).

[May 27, 1945 (continued)] The planes then destroyed the Hang Chat Airport and on June 22, 1945, at 11.15 am, 12 P-38 and P-51 Mustang attacked the Nong Pom airport, Ban Dong Sub-District, Lampang province.

Hang Chat was about 14km WNW of Lampang Airfield while the Ban Dong Sub-District contained the Mae Mo airstrip, about 28km NE of the Lampang field (note that the Mae Mo airstrips were north of the current Mae Mo lignite mine and power generation plant).

Early this year, I interviewed an elderly lady near Hang Chat who had helped build that airstrip (two airstrips actually, roughly parallel); she never mentioned that the area had been bombed. So on my way to Lampang, I need to stop in on her to ask specifically about bombing.

The Mae Mo airstrip was definitely bombed: two craters still exist out in the rice paddies. The only problem with that event was when: I already had a date I was comfortable with: 19 June 1944. Now I should query USAAF unit historians to see if anyone has any record that can confirm the bombing of Hang Chat, or for that matter, Mae Mo.

The pdf text ends with:

The next day [23 Jun 1945] 15 P-38 again bombed the Lampang Airport.[fn 349]

No comment.

Conclusions. There are facts to be gleaned from pp 192-193, but they are extremely well camouflaged with confusion and contradiction. And, to be fair, some of those facts, once clarified, are new to me and sound plausible --- which indicates I need to take action.

And CMHomeBoy78: you mentioned slippery slopes. This is certainly one.

Many thanks to CMHomeboy78 (the OP) and to islandee for sharing . . . .

Following CMHomeboy78's example, I too thank the message board for the compliments (now the problem is to live up to them).

To CMHomeboy78: the details can be killing; but better to try than not --- and don't stop. I was most unpleasantly, but justifiably, roasted in print some years ago for a monumental lapse (which I won't share (still licking that wound)). That led me to the format you see on my website where I might be accused of over-referencing sources; that is as much for my own use as for others. If I'm accused of errors, at least I can trace them (to find sometimes that I'm the source because brain was not engaged at a crucial moment in logic, or because of simple transcription errors, etc; the most frustrating are those I make in identifying sources, which render them useless (which is the usual reason for the occasional comment in my webpage Notes columns: "reference required".)

Some more info here - Aces High

The credit for that article is bobbled: the author was Jack Eisner, at that time, a lecturer at CMU. He has since retired. Dan Ford introduced me to Jack in 2008 with an email and I have profited greatly from the subsequent association. Google | "jack eisner" "flying tigers" | to access some of Jack's other writings about the Flying Tigers.

Japanese war dead in Thailand. See my writeup on the war memorial at Ban Kat. By Japanese veterans' count, the total for India, Burma, and Thailand is said to be around 190,000. What the distribution might be amongst the three, I'm not sure right now. Their travails are the basis for the "Trails of Bones", "Skeleton Roads", and the like (titles translated), stories by various Japanese; and, in the West, eg, Fergal Keane's Road of Bones. The one individual in the Japanese command responsible for that carnage was Lt Gen Renya Mutaguchi. And he skated.

That pdf on Lampang is fascinating. I wish we had something like that for Chiang Mai.

The attack on the Chiang Mai rail station.

From a Wisarut Bholsithi post on 2bangkok blog: WWII bombardment of Thai railways: post 57, 30-10-08, 02:40 PM:

21 Dec 1943: 29-14th AF B-24 bombers bombed Chiang Mai station at 1500 - nearly wiping out station yard. Station building and cargo depots were damaged beyond repair - 300 people were killed.

From the USAAF Chrono:

29 B-24's pound the railroad yards at Chiang Mai; the warehouse area along the W side of the yards suffers very heavy damage.

From Edward Young, Aerial Nationalism, p 201:

"On 21 December, twenty-nine B-24s flew an unescorted daylight raid to the marshaling yards at Chiang Mai. Neither the Japanese nor the Thais appeared to have any warning of the attack, as there was no antiaircraft fire and no interceptions."

From Boonserm Satrabhaya, Chiang Mai and its Aerial History (translated):

At 1500 hrs on 21 December 1943, nine Liberators of the American Air Force from Kunming, China bombed the railway, buildings, warehouses, a huge rice barn, houses, and Japanese weapon stores in Chiang Mai. 300 people, Japanese soldiers and railway employees died and others were injured. Thai and Japanese anti-aircraft defenses were not effective because of their high altitude. This was the most serious bombing of Chiang Mai. The nine aircraft continued south after the attack

The bomb that exploded farthest from the target --- this in the days long before laser-guided armament --- fell on the grounds of a rice mill on the east side of Tung Hotel Road, opposite the Water Works I office, well north of the rail station. The crater was visible as late as 2009 when I went there with Boonserm Satrabhaya, a local photographer and historian emeritus. I think the crater has since fallen victim to local development.

There is an unfortunate irony to the attack on the Chiang Mai rail station. It probably resulted from a misinterpretation by Allied Intel, based on an Imperial Japanese Army failed attempt to construct a road from Chiang Mai to Toungoo in Burma; this to support its attempt to invade India via Imphal and Kohima. It's a torturous, detailed, convoluted scenario to retrace, involving IJA troops heading not towards Burma, but rather to Lampang; It's easier to explain in my recounting here: Misinterpretation.

Several years ago, wandering around the area across the road from the Gymkhana Club, in the wat next to Dang's Bakery (and I'm surprised to see that my trusty Nancy Chandlers' map doesn't name it), my wife (my trustworthy translator) and I met an ancient fellow who remembered the attack, but with nothing new to add; except that some years later, and not so long ago, an unexploded bomb, a legacy of the attack on the rail station, had been unearthed. Dealing properly with that resulted in a temporary evacuation of a fair portion of the town. It was removed, uneventfully. I've yet to research that. That might be something that Roy could shed some light on.

I have more, but this is what comes to mind. As I implied in my previous comment, I will eventually present all this on my website Japan in Northwest Thailand during WWII --- as time allows.

You have taken on the worthy task of presenting a condensed history of the Flying Tigers' attack on Chiang Mai. The problem with a condensation, of course, is what detail to keep, what to compress, and what simply to discard.

I also am working on a history of WWII here in northwest Thailand, but it's not to be condensed (and it's slow going). In that process, I have come to have the greatest of confidence in Dan Ford's presentation in his book, Flying Tigers, which you note; and I reference him below when applicable.

You note that the name "Flying Tigers" was given by the Nationalist Chinese. Ford closes a review of the name's source with "Over the years, journalists and historians have tried to find a source for the name in China, but its derivation is less exotic: the Tigers were christened by a well-paid suit in Washington". He was referring to the so-called "Washington Squadron", the backoffice support in Washington DC (Ford: p 107).

You write: ". . . Flying out of Kunming . . . they overnighted and refueled at Namsang in Burma . . . A final refueling stop was made at a jungle airstrip near the Thai border". It was a bit more complicated than that. After departing Kunming, they touched down at Loiwing where a CAMCO factory was located; unfortunately services there were a bit helter-skelter and the fighters were delayed 24 hours, to finally take off for Namsang where they also overnighted (Ford, pp 241-243).

There were actually two separate squadrons in the attack on Chiang Mai and, in the early morning departure from Namsang, the first group in the air, led by Jack Newkirk, didn't wait for the second group, but headed straight for Chiang Mai. Having left Namsang first, Newkirk's group arrived in Chiang Mai first and unaccountably strafed the rail station. Unaccountably because the group's target was Lampang, not Chiang Mai. Plus the strafing of the rail station alerted the airfield that enemy fighters were in the area. The arrival just a few minutes later of the second group of Flying Tigers, whose designated target was in fact the Chiang Mai airstrip, had therefore been deprived of the "element of surprise" (see Ford, p 243).

So while you accurately quote Bond "it was clear we had caught them flat-footed without any warning", that wasn't actually the case. I've talked with a friend of a friend who participated in the defense of the airstrip that morning: that friend of a friend, a member of the Royal Thai Army, was in charge of an antiaircraft battery at midfield and he was in position when Bond, et al, attacked, and he claims to have put a round into one of the strafing aircraft (but not McGarry's, of course, which was at altitude, flying cover).

I'm not sure what I-97 refers to with regard to IJAAF aircraft at the field: yes, the 64th Sentai was there, led by the legendary Kato, about whom movies were later made. The unit was flying Ki-43s, or Hayabusas; aka, the "Army Zero". Only three were write-offs as a result of the attack; those plus one "werewolf" Hurricane which had been captured in the Dutch East Indies (Ford, p 246).

Regarding how Newkirk's squadron "broke formation to follow the railway line [south]", he didn't break formation: he never joined with the other squadron in its attack on the airfield --- which was not his assignment; but he did head south, after strafing the rail station, following the railroad track towards his assigned target (Ford, p 243).

To this point in your presentation, I have only specifically researched in detail one subject you mention, the location of Loiwing --- a complicated and misunderstood topic. See discussion on Dan Ford's website, Loiwing and on my site, Locating Loiwing.

Not so long ago, I accidentally dropped a can from a height of about 18 inches onto a tile floor and it ruptured:

Not explosively, but still dangerously so when one considers the slip factor of liquid, particularly sugar-dosed liquid, on shiny glazed tile. The whole can unloaded on the floor.

Followup 1: Milady, in helping clean up the mess in the kitchen found that there was liquid in the cardboard flat of Schweppes. Five of the cans were leaking, as evident from their substantially different weight. Quarantining them overnight discovered that the bottom roll connecting the wall with the base of each can was leaking. The metal was apparently so thin that it had ruptured, hence the leaking.

I had bought the flat of 24 cans at Rimping (and, yes, the cardboard bottom was soggy). I returned the five cans back to them. They were already well aware that a problem existed from other customers' complaints and replaced my five deficient cans without question. They said the problem (as least to that time) was limited to Schweppes Tonic Water cans.

Followup 2: an indentation in that exploded can's top rolled joint indicated that the can had landed on that "rim". Being inquisitive and possessed of unlimited funds, I went outside and dropped another can from about 18 inches onto its rim on my front tile stoop. The results were not identical, but pointed towards a weakness apparently common to all:

This closeup up will clarify:

Even though the can had landed on its top, the same bottom roll in the can, which had been at fault in the five cans I had returned before, had opened up and liquid sprayed out.

Followup 3: The very next flat I bought also had leaking cans, and Rimping replaced them without question.

For the record, identification printed on the bottom of all the ruptured cans:

I know of no adequate substitute for Schweppes available here. The sweet soft drinks don't work. And I don't want a gin screwdriver. I have tried my gin with soda water and found it wanting; so as long as Rimping will replace the leaking tonic water cans, I'll put up with the inconvenience. I hope that Rimping is not footing the bill for Thainamthip's mistake.

Here are illustrations of the dropped cans I mentioned above:

The ruptured can resulting from an accidental drop:

And a closeup of the leak in the intentionally dropped can:

This leak was probably typical of all the five "light weight" cans in my 24 can cardboard flat. And to clarify, I did not drop any of those five cans.

I accidentally dropped a can of Schweppes' Tonic Water from a height of about 18 inches onto a tile floor and it ruptured. Not explosively, but still dangerously so when one considers the slip factor of liquid on shiny glazed tile. The whole can unloaded on the floor.

Followup 1: Milady, in helping clean up the mess found that there was liquid in the cardboard flat of cans. Five of the cans were leaking, as evident from their substantially different weight. Quarantining them overnight found that on some of them, the bottom roll connecting the wall with the base of the cans was apparently so thin that it was leaking; on others, the rim on the very bottom of the can had cracked and was leaking.

I took the five cans back to the retailer who responded that they were already aware that a problem existed from other customers' complaints and replaced my five deficient cans without question. They said the problem (as least to that time) was limited to Schweppes Tonic Water cans.

Followup 2: on the ruptured can, an indentation in the can's top rolled joint indicated that the can had landed on that "rim". Being inquisitive and possessed of unlimited funds, I went outside and dropped another can from about 18 inches onto its rim on my front tile stoop. The results were not identical, but pointed towards a weakness likely common to all --- the same bottom roll in the can had opened up and liquid was spraying out.

ID on the bottom of the can: 310115 4110E5011548. The first six numbers would appear to be a date, presumably for expiry: 31 Jan 2015. I assume that shelf life is one year, so that the canning date was 31 Jan 2014.

Regardless of date of manufacture, that this problem still exists almost six months after this thread was started doesn't speak very well for the canner (though I see that the post didn't get any support at the time).

Milady, a Thai and a Bhuddist, in her last days of battling cancer early this year, tried to donate her body to CMU and was refused: seems bodies riddled with cancer are not considered good teaching aids.

I have a Yank friend, been here on a retirement visa for several years.

In late May, he left Thailand using a single exit/re-entry visa to visit South Island in New Zealand for two weeks. Shortly after arriving, he started having back trouble --- attributed later to airline seating quality (or the lack thereof) --- which resulted in his being immobilized. Long term. He gets the impression that doctors will give him "walking papers" early in September.

Before that time, however, his Thai retirement visa will expire (as will his exit/re-entry visa which is keyed to the retirement visa expiry date).

Is there possibly a standard procedure anyone is aware of, which he could invoke before he returns to Thailand, so that he can avoid having to start from scratch in applying for a new retirement visa? Naturally I'm thinking of some sort of appeal to the Thai embassy in Auckland which could verify his enforced immobility and thereafter issue some sort of extension because of emergency, unusual circumstances, "act of God", whatever?

And, if not, what would be the least burdensome path for him to follow to get a new retirement visa? And would that start with a choice of a particular visa type?

I'm asking for him because the guy's flat on his back, 700 km from Auckland in a South Island version of "Outback", communications, including phone, to wherever he is, are at best spotty, he doesn't pretend to be computer competent, and he's having to work through an intermediary who's more unfamiliar than I have become regarding Thai visa requirements.

I thank you.

After reading of this latest death in the LOS, and thinking back just a few days to lancashirelad's observation,

I wonder: how many foreign tourists get killed annually in Australia? In the UK? In the US?