Will try to answer the questions from several of your recent posts all below.
>>>>> I was implying now that her position is known, how she got there is less important. I think you’re saying the drift pattern coupled with her time afloat would enable you to pinpoint the point of interception/massacre site more closely, right?<<<<<<
More so how the mention of sighting a 'peak' got into Edwards book, as her wreck is way to far away to even see the very top, let alone to distinguish a 'peak' on Bawean. But your right, 'solving' that - if there is anything to solve, or did Edwards just use a bit of 'journalistic license' so to speak - may also help with where the interception area was.
>>>>>So, to restate: as of February 27 through March 1, 1942, what other type of IJN warship had comparative freedom of movement, likely in a reconnaissance or mop-up role unsupported by other warships? The Dutch engineer officer claims the culprit was a DD and I must concur. Comment? <<<<<<<
I certainly wouldn’t argue against it, I just stated that we thought it may not have been a DD at all. And I still think it wasn't Harukaze, as she was way over at Sunda Strait just the night before.
From her TROM
1 March: Battle of Sunda Strait
Contributed torpedoes to spreads that helped sink HMAS PERTH and USS HOUSTON (CA-30). Minor damage: to bridge, engine room and rudder: three dead and 15 injured.
>>>>>>>Then the IJN assigned Fumizuki, Minazuki, Nagatsuki, and Satsuki to DesDiv 22, DesRon 5, in the Western Java invasion force. Kevin, I’m curious: Did you investigate any of these four lesser class DDs as the possible massacre culprit? >>>>>>
Good question. I will have to use the “I can't recall offhand" defense, but maybe not. I do think may have been looking at the 'A team' DD's (because of the Harukaze 'link'). Let me try and check.
>>>>>So, Kevin, back to you: Did your candidates examined include (i) any of the older destroyers, such as the four Mutsuki class DDs in DesDiv 22, and (ii) minesweeper W-5, seemingly unaccounted for during the battle of Sunda Strait? <<<<<<
Repeat above answer.
>>>>>The reason of these massacres are indeed beyond our (western) thinking, but I suppose they may have been a normal part of oriental warrior codes of honour. Imagine the IJN ship commander receiving orders to find that tanker spotted by the planes and bring it in for later use by the IJN. A fine and highly useful prize in a war were every drop of oil counts! But he failed didnt he? And the culprits for his failing were at his mercy. In the face of his crew captain Moerman had outsmarted him by stopping the engines and thus by seemingly cooperating, but in the same time opening the valves. IJN CO loses face, now he must avenge.<<<<<
That certainly is a good reason for the 'cause' of the massacre.
Now I am not familiar at all re WWII 'hand held' Jap weapons. But re the word 'tommy gun', couldn’t it be used by Meijer just as a generic term to mean any rapid firing hand hell weapon? After all, if one was being fired at your not sticking around to take names and addresses, so could it just be a generic term for a rapid firing weapon that an Allied 'lay' person would call a 'tommy gun'? If so what is the smallest rapid firing weapon in SNLF or IJN hands at the time? Or as Nuyt has said, maybe it was a real (captured) tommy gun, but did the Japs really need to use captured weapons at that stage in the war?
Hope I got all your questions!