The Flying Tigers' raid on Chiang Mai

[jonwilly]

"I will look forward to reading it, as I am sure will others who share my interest in the history of Thailand during WWII."

This year I went down to Pratchup Kiri Khan for my March get away.

This where jap landed in Dec 41 and had a 36 hr fight with Thai Airforce and local Police troops before Bangkok imposed peace.

Airforce base is open to all and there are four old aircraft on display at a Memorial site to the Battle.

One, is one of the Fighters a Curtiss Hawk III in poor condition. Memory says two other Hawks where shot down taking off and at least one did straff the jap invaders.

On the subject of Straffing please read this write up on Roy Hudson and you will understand why he and 'Tex' had such a pleasant reunion with a bottle of Scotch.

http://www.michiganwarstudiesreview.com/2010/20100706.asp

john

[lexilis]

Many thanks to CMHomeboy78 (the OP) and to islandee for sharing their knowledge with us about these fascinating events. Such knowledge is the result of years of study and I (and I'm sure others here as well) appreciate it. Great thread for TV! Far above the inane catfights that infect so much of TV.

[CMHomeboy78]

Many thanks to CMHomeboy78 (the OP) and to islandee for sharing their knowledge with us about these fascinating events. Such knowledge is the result of years of study and I (and I'm sure others here as well) appreciate it. Great thread for TV! Far above the inane catfights that infect so much of TV.

Thanks for that word of encouragement.

As a distinguished historian, islandee deserves it more than I do. His name is known to many here in Chiang Mai, and elsewhere.

I'm a graphic artist, not a writer, but I do have a long-standing interest in Lanna T'ai history. WWII events in and near Chiang Mai are something that I've only recently given serious attention to... consequently I occasionally lose my footing on a slippery slope.

[islandee]

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.

[Beetlejuice]

It always amazes me when I read about all the terrible things that happened during WW2. It almost seems like science fiction and unbelievable at a time when the world went insane.

I consider myself lucky not to have lived through a war and pray and hope that none of my children or grandchildren will never see a war. In my lifetime I have met countless Japanese and German people and find it difficult to comprehend that 70 years ago we would have legally tried to kill each other probably on sight without even knowing these people.

Back in the late 1960s in London I worked for a tinned food processing factory. It was one of my first jobs after leaving school. There was a guy named Raymond (Ray) in his 40s. When any pieces food dropped on the floor he would pick up the scraps with his hand and eat them. When I asked what was wrong with that guy? I was told just ignore him he`s a nut-case and many of my work colleges would make fun of him, including me at first I`m terribly ashamed to say. Later I discovered that Raymond had spent 2 years in a prison camp as a Japanese POW, he was tortured and starved and had to scavenge for food anyway he could After the war Raymond suffered from extreme trauma those terrible memories forever in this mind. But there was little counselling available for the war survivors in those days and many were misunderstood and written off. I never forgot that guy and why I believe war should never be glorified, because no one could ever know what it was like unless they lived through it, that pertains to all sides.

[islandee]

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".)

[CMHomeboy78]

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".)

First, let me thank you for your excellent contributions to this thread. Your knowledge of the subject surpasses mine by a country mile.

There is one point however, that I would like to take issue with. It is the question of whether or not the raid on Chiang Mai airfield was a surprise to the Japanese at the time. You put forward the opinion that it wasn't, based on your research, and I quote: "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]."

The expert testimony of Major General Charles R. Bond contradicts your informant. Furthermore, of the other eight pilots who survived the mission, not one - as far as I know - challenged Bond's claim that the raid was a total surprise to the Japanese.

Why would Bond, or any of the other pilots claim the element of surprise when it would redound more to their valor and glory [if not their cunning] had they flown into a prepared and battle-ready Japanese force? ...There was no motive to lie, and it is hardly conceivable that they could have been mistaken, given that they were the ones being shot at - or not.

Perhaps you have other evidence to support your theory that is more convincing than the sole testimony of "a friend of a friend". If so, it would be a welcome addition to this interesting controversy.

I've lived among Thais for most of my adult life, and I consider that I understand them... insofar as these enigmatic people can be understood at all. This sounds like the story of an old Thai vet reliving his war experiences - possibly after a few glasses of lao-khao - to a learned stranger who will not only listen, but write it down and put it in a nahng-seu bpra-waht-saht.

I'm sure we can agree that the only way to make any sense of what happened in the past is to evaluate all the conflicting versions of events and decide what is the most probable; thereby learning from history instead of being forced to repeat it.

Good luck with your ongoing projects.

[eyecatcher]

"I will look forward to reading it, as I am sure will others who share my interest in the history of Thailand during WWII."

This year I went down to Pratchup Kiri Khan for my March get away.

This where jap landed in Dec 41 and had a 36 hr fight with Thai Airforce and local Police troops before Bangkok imposed peace.

Airforce base is open to all and there are four old aircraft on display at a Memorial site to the Battle.

One, is one of the Fighters a Curtiss Hawk III in poor condition. Memory says two other Hawks where shot down taking off and at least one did straff the jap invaders.

On the subject of Straffing please read this write up on Roy Hudson and you will understand why he and 'Tex' had such a pleasant reunion with a bottle of Scotch.

http://www.michiganwarstudiesreview.com/2010/20100706.asp

john

I was in PKK this last August. I am not an aicraft boffin but are these the planes that were involved?

[jonwilly]

The Bi Plane is the Curtiss Hawk.

The mono plane is a post war Texan trainer.

john

[Johpa]

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? The locals referred to it as a Dakota, which I believe became the generic word for any prop plane amongst the Seri Thai folks in Phrae. Somewhere I have a photo of the plane taken by a Peace Corp volunteer take back in the early 1960s. I have not found a later photo of the plane.

Until several years ago this particular plane was one of the few tail numbers whose fate was unknown and the only Thai Spitfire whose fate was a mystery. How it ended up in the back of local high school in Phrae is also a mystery as the few other Thai Spitfires are on prominent display at the front of regional technical colleges and at Don Muang as "gifts" of His Majesty.

[MESmith]

"In a speech at the Chiang Mai Foreign Cemetery during the AVG Memorial dedication in 2003, Bond remembered that pre-dawn morning in March when smoke haze covered the valley"

Is this the first cr@ppy air observation by a westerner?

Thanks CMHB78 for this thread. Very interesting,

[hml367]

Anyone interested in a History Channel documentary on YouTube, Wings Over China - The Story of the Flying Tigers

[CMHomeboy78]

"In a speech at the Chiang Mai Foreign Cemetery during the AVG Memorial dedication in 2003, Bond remembered that pre-dawn morning in March when smoke haze covered the valley"

Is this the first cr@ppy air observation by a westerner?

Thanks CMHB78 for this thread. Very interesting,

1. I doubt it.

2. You're quite welcome.

[hml367]

"I will look forward to reading it, as I am sure will others who share my interest in the history of Thailand during WWII."

This year I went down to Pratchup Kiri Khan for my March get away.

This where jap landed in Dec 41 and had a 36 hr fight with Thai Airforce and local Police troops before Bangkok imposed peace.

Airforce base is open to all and there are four old aircraft on display at a Memorial site to the Battle.

One, is one of the Fighters a Curtiss Hawk III in poor condition. Memory says two other Hawks where shot down taking off and at least one did straff the jap invaders.

On the subject of Straffing please read this write up on Roy Hudson and you will understand why he and 'Tex' had such a pleasant reunion with a bottle of Scotch.

http://www.michiganwarstudiesreview.com/2010/20100706.asp

john

I was in PKK this last August. I am not an aicraft boffin but are these the planes that were involved?

20140809_084503.jpg20140809_084516.jpg20140809_084920.jpg

A comparison of a couple of the aircraft involved:

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/70395-the-real-history-of-duel-between-flying-tigers-and-hayabusas-avg-vs-64th-sentai/

[islandee]

. . . 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.

[islandee]

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.

[islandee]

. . . 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.

[CMHomeboy78]

. . . 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.

There is no contradiction. Charles Bond's 2003 statement at the dedication of the AVG Memorial at the Chiang Mai Foreign Cemetery was unequivocal.

We can agree to disagree .

[islandee]

We agree to disagree. Let us move on.

[CMHomeboy78]

We agree to disagree. Let us move on.

My belief that the Chiang Mai airfield raid caught the Japanese by surprise is based on attack leader Charles Bond's credible testimony, and the probability - almost certainty - that forewarned Japanese gunners would have annihilated the low-flying raiders.

You believe otherwise, and I respect your right to do so.

Another interesting question is the origin of the name "Flying Tigers." In my original post I stated: "Officially designated as the American Volunteer Group [AVG], they were soon given the nom de guerre "Flying Tigers" by the Nationalist Chinese led by Chiang Kai Shek, under whom they served; and who were fighting the Japanese in an uneasy alliance with Mao Tse Tung's Red Army."

My source for crediting the Nationalist Chinese was an official communique from the US Embassy, Thailand, relating the history of the AVG. The relevant quote is: "They fought with such determination and skill that the Chinese newspapers started calling them 'Flying Tigers." That was my source of information about the origin of the name.

You challenged this with a counter-version from Daniel Ford. Your response to me was: "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 pg. 107]."

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?

[northernjohn]

It always amazes me when I read about all the terrible things that happened during WW2. It almost seems like science fiction and unbelievable at a time when the world went insane.

I consider myself lucky not to have lived through a war and pray and hope that none of my children or grandchildren will never see a war. In my lifetime I have met countless Japanese and German people and find it difficult to comprehend that 70 years ago we would have legally tried to kill each other probably on sight without even knowing these people.

Back in the late 1960s in London I worked for a tinned food processing factory. It was one of my first jobs after leaving school. There was a guy named Raymond (Ray) in his 40s. When any pieces food dropped on the floor he would pick up the scraps with his hand and eat them. When I asked what was wrong with that guy? I was told just ignore him he`s a nut-case and many of my work colleges would make fun of him, including me at first I`m terribly ashamed to say. Later I discovered that Raymond had spent 2 years in a prison camp as a Japanese POW, he was tortured and starved and had to scavenge for food anyway he could After the war Raymond suffered from extreme trauma those terrible memories forever in this mind. But there was little counselling available for the war survivors in those days and many were misunderstood and written off. I never forgot that guy and why I believe war should never be glorified, because no one could ever know what it was like unless they lived through it, that pertains to all sides.

In the early 50s I attended a private school and we had a janitor who was always shaking . He had been in the Baton Death March.

a few years ago we went to see the bridge over the river Kwah it was not a big thing but we visited the grave yards that are kept up by the Australian Government in beautiful condition and it gave us a sense of what had happened. It was very peaceful every grave had a headstone with the name rank and country.

There is a set of very sturdy stairs and ramps built down to hells fire pass. Just the trip up and down gave us an idea of what the prisoners must have gone through. It is a trip well worth the experience. In one of the cemeteries there is a small description of what went on and it says it was the Koreans who were the guards and when the rail road was done the prisoners were turned over to the Japanese and their conditions got better.

[islandee]

. . . 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.

Edited December 7, 2014 by islandee

[CMHomeboy78]

. . . 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.

Thanks for the response.

I'll try to get an answer on the Warbird's Forum.

[Rhys]

On 12/6/2014 at 5:33 PM, Johpa said:

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? The locals referred to it as a Dakota, which I believe became the generic word for any prop plane amongst the Seri Thai folks in Phrae. Somewhere I have a photo of the plane taken by a Peace Corp volunteer take back in the early 1960s. I have not found a later photo of the plane.

Until several years ago this particular plane was one of the few tail numbers whose fate was unknown and the only Thai Spitfire whose fate was a mystery. How it ended up in the back of local high school in Phrae is also a mystery as the few other Thai Spitfires are on prominent display at the front of regional technical colleges and at Don Muang as "gifts" of His Majesty.

...funny those Peace Corps Volunteers have a way of uncovering....

[onekoolguy]

My Dad was there! He served with the Flying Tigers in WWII. When I was a kid he told me a few stories about it. Showed me the pictures and what he had brought back. Including a footlocker full of Chinese money. Wish I had listened more! Too late now. The history channel has a good movie about them. Until a couple of weeks ago when I saw the film I really had no idea what they had done!

100 planes. The Chinese airforce was destroyed and the USA gave the Chinese these P40's but they had no pilots left!

The Americans pilots volunteered to fly the planes to the huge detriment of the Japanese who thought they had eliminated all Chinese opposition. The unit later became part of the Army Airforce.

[CMBob]

An old topic but for those who haven't seen it, here are some photos of the memorial to the Flying Tigers at the Chiangmai Foreign Cemetery: