USS Chester (CA-27) - SOC Seagull losses - October 1942

[Leendert]

The USS Chester (CA-27) got a torpedo hit on 20 Oct 1942.
War Diary for that month says twice that SOC-1, No. 9861 was jettisoned by catapulting the plane overboard.
Just after midnight SOC-2, No. 0399, was also jettisoned after breaking up the plane (SOC was knocked off the catapult car by the torpedo hit and leaked gasoline).

Somehow AAIR, Joe Baugher et al have No. 9881 instead of No. 9861.
Date of 16 Dec 1942 written there likely to reflect administrative write-offs.

Websites give No. 9861 as being lost on 8 Feb 1943 in SW Pacific, no further details.

Question remains: was #9861 lost on the USS Chester or #9881 on 20 Oct 1942? Possible mix-up here.

Thanks for info.

Regards,
Leendert

[Stig Jarlevik]

George (I am ahead of schedule here )

When you answer this, can you also advise how readable the documents you have for USN accidents
actually are?

If they are as bad as many of the British AM 78 cards we may have a possible solution as to why 9861
has been read as 9881....

Cheers
Stig

[twocee]

Let me begin by saying that I have not studied the SOC in any detail and have no definitive answer to the question posed here.

Two SOCs, 0399 and 9861, were assigned to Chester in June and August 1942respectively, presumably when she was still on the West Coast. These are the two aircraft mentioned in the WD as having been jettisoned following the October torpedo hit. However, the two aircraft lost, as reported by Commander Aircraft Pacific Fleet, were 0399 and 9881.

Quite possibly the second of these was the result of a transcription error by someone in the reporting chain and 9861 was the true BuNo; what then of 9881? This aircraft was transferred to Alameda, probably for overhaul, in July 1942 and is then shown as being assigned to USS St Louis in October. After that, nothing. I have been unable to find any clues as to her subsequent history or fate.

Stig, you asked about the legibility of the accident reports. This varies from very good to unreadable, both as regards particular aircraft types and time periods. However, in the present case there are no accident reports---nor would one expect any---as the losses were as a result of combat, not accident.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Originally Posted by twocee

Stig, you asked about the legibility of the accident reports. This varies from very good to unreadable, both as regards particular aircraft types and time periods. However, in the present case there are no accident reports---nor would one expect any---as the losses were as a result of combat, not accident.

Thanks George
I was afraid you were going to say that. Handwritten I suppose....
I was not aware the USN made a difference between combat losses and accidents.
To me it is the loss itself that is important and it is easy enough so separate them when you make
your statistics, daily, weekly or monthly.

From what you say, it seems to me that 9881 was not involved but the two dumped SOCs were 0399
and 9861

Cheers
Stig

[Leendert]

Apparently a transcription error indeed.
The SOC planes on USS St. Louis in her War Diary of Feb 1943 given as 9-CS-17 and 9-CS-18 instead of BuNo, so no direct reference to perhaps #9881. No loss mentioned either, at least on 8 Feb.
However, on 1 Feb 43 the WD says that 9-CS-18 collided with the radar antenna of destroyer USS Lansdowne (DD-486), but after circling that ship twice for inspection, no damages were observed to pontoon.

9-CS-18 likely #9942, lost on 29 May 1943 with Lt Roberts and radioman Hardin, returned 30 May 1943.

Regards,
Leendert