Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum (
-   Japanese and Allied Air Forces in the Far East (
-   -   Mosquito HR573 45 Sqn (

AndyMa 16th October 2020 18:19

Mosquito HR573 45 Sqn
Most sources I can find indicate that Mosquito HR573 was lost in Apr45.
For example,
(which BTW seems to be a copy of the info in the Air Britain serials books)
says "Lost 4.4.45 NFD"

However, Jeff Jefford's opus "The Flying Camels" notes this aircraft, coded OB-K, as being involved in the sqn's last operational mission of World War II, on 12 May 45 (Fig 11.3, page 301). In the list of serials at the end of the book (page 506) it says the aircraft served with the sqn "until 20 Jul 45 at least"

Can anyone please clarify the situation?

Alex Smart 21st October 2020 01:54

Re: Mosquito HR573 45 Sqn
HR574 was lost on the 14-4-45.
Is it not possible that at some point the paperwork was wrong ?
And that the record became an extra loss as 4-4-45 - HR573 ?
1945 45 Sqn "Mosquito losses"
3-1-45 - HR515
12-1-45 - HR492
15-1-45 - HR402
17-2-45 - HR390
28-2-45 - HR457
26-3-45 - HR527
14-4-45 - HR574
13-6-45 - HR372
17-6-45 - HR309
12-10-45 - RF697

AndyMa 21st October 2020 13:42

Re: Mosquito HR573 45 Sqn
Thanks for the suggestion, which I guess is possible.
HR574 is also a slight enigma. In "Flying Camels", it is reported as arriving 17/1/45, but anotated "not accepted by squadron".
In the main text, there is no reference at all to a loss on 14/4/45 either - all others you mention are covered with crew details etc.

Stig Jarlevik 21st October 2020 17:44

Re: Mosquito HR573 45 Sqn

Out of curiosity where is it stated that HR574 was lost on the 14th and not on the 4th?


Alex Smart 21st October 2020 18:30

Re: Mosquito HR573 45 Sqn

The ORB gives -
Pilot F/Lt. Scott J/5832 was last seen still in chute Barnes hanging from a tree, he had been wounded in an arm prior to bailing and was reported as dead by natives later. The surviving man was F/O Fisher.
A/c in Sqn letter was "K". .

Stig Jarlevik 21st October 2020 20:54

Re: Mosquito HR573 45 Sqn
Thanks Alex

Anyone who has read the actual record card?


AndyMa 22nd October 2020 12:12

Re: Mosquito HR573 45 Sqn
Interesting that the link shows Flt Lt Scott as being from 47 Sqn.

Alex Smart 22nd October 2020 21:23

Re: Mosquito HR573 45 Sqn
Hi Andy,

Well spotted. I didn't notice that the heading shows 45 Sqn but the table beneath has 47 Sqn details .
The National Archive links only shows up the 47 Sqn orb ?


Alex Smart 23rd October 2020 02:28

Re: Mosquito HR573 45 Sqn
Hi Andy,
Take a look here -

Hope this explains the 45/47 error.


Stig Jarlevik 23rd October 2020 10:04

Re: Mosquito HR573 45 Sqn

Sorry about my mistake.
I never really caught on we suddenly started to discuss HR574 instead of the interesting HR573

If one search for it at the RAF Command site, nothing turns up.
So my question should really have been has anyone seen the record card for HR573!

With regard to HR574, on April 14th, both 45 and 47 Sq shared the same base, Kumbhirgram. They operated the same type of aircraft, Mosquito Mk VI.
So I don't understand what Jagan means by claiming that 45 Sq was the only one, quote "45 Sqn (only one in SEAC operating mosquitos in that range)" unquote. In what way did 45 Sq Mosquitos differ from those used by 47 Sq?
To me, with two units using the same base and sharing the same type of aircraft, there is nothing strange if you also "loan" both aircraft and personal on certain missions. So what proof is there that Scott/Fisher was not on loan from 47 Sq when shot down? Reading Shores Air War for Burma, he lists both of them as 47 Sq personal and even claiming the two aircraft which took part was from 47 Sq! Perhaps it was the other way around? 47 Sq borrows a Mosquito from 45 Sq while the crew actually was from 47 Sq?

What does each ORB state? What does each crew member's file state?

I don't know, but in my mind it takes a bit more research to get to the bottom of the 45/47 Sq controversy in this particular case.
If what is listed in "" is all there is, it certainly does not solve the problem either.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 19:03.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018,