Rubbery figures
Plushy - James,
The dates given and sometimes the places, can vary from the AWM books. Usually the place of loading matches the place of issue, but not in all cases. Some vehicles shown as 'M' for example, were actually driven to Sydney and loaded there, (so should be an 'S' in the books). Same with the dates, which can vary up to a couple of days from the listed date of sailing in the ships log, so are more likely to be the issue date, ie the date sent for loading, than the actual date of sailing, but there are many where the dates in the AWM books match the sailing date, too.
Bottom line: don't take the dates as gospel, but being approximately right - certainly the entries are correct in terms of ship name and hence voyage number, but are 'a-round-about' in terms of dates.
Another classic example is the WW1 troop embarkation rolls: in some instances, troops from different units are listed as embarking on the same day but in different ports, others are listed in a certain port, but the unit war diary shows the ship loading them in a different port. In one instance, the ship reported as the transport wasn't even in Australian waters when it was supposedly loading troops! It transhipped the troops from the actual transport in Ceylon (Sri Lanka).
Same with the unloading: just because Haifa was the last port of call does not mean the carriers and other vehicles aboard Talabot were offloaded there. From other data I have, it appears the AIF ME Base was normally supplied through the Port of Suez, so would seem a more likely off-loading point, but you may have unearthed some piece of information that indicates otherwise for the [I]Talabot[I] shipment?
Mike
|