Banzai!: General discussion of the Kamikaze and Ramming

[CobberKane]

Why, please explain. What speed has a free falling bomb?
cimmex

Good question! Obviously the answer depends on the bomb and the hieght it is dropped from. The British Grand slam was carefully engineered and streamlined and went supersonic before impact. I guess a 500lb pound bomb dropped from, say, 3000ft from a dive bomber would not be going that fast but I don't doubt it would be going a damm sight faster than a diving aircraft. Remember, aircraft are designed to generate lift and lift means drag, which in turn means that past a certain point the wings come off, which would kind of spoil the kamikaze pilots aim. Also, a bomb laden plane is a pretty big unit and the energy of the imact is going to be spread over a much larger area. A bomb does not produce lift and is structually much stronger - and much smaller. It stands to reason it's going to have much more penetrative power. Think if it as like being poked with a finger or poked with a needle - only one of them is going to make a hole in you.
Again, I'm open to more knowlegable contradiction, but my understanding is that all the kamikazes did to the British carriers was scorch the paintwork.

Anyone out there got any info on bomb velocities at time of impact? And how fast would a Kamikaze aicraft have been travelling? Not more that 200-300mph max, I'd think.

 

[stona]

understanding is that all the kamikazes did to the British carriers was scorch the paintwork.

A little more than that but they were much better equipped to absorb with Kamikaze attacks.

HMS Formidable is a good example. She was hit on the flight deck,by a Kamikaze on May 4th 1945. This caused no more than a large dent in the armoured deck but unfortunately a splinter passed down through the hangar deck and started a fire in a fuel tank. The fire was brought under control,the deck was repaired with concrete and steel plate and less than six hours after sustaining the hit Formidable was landing aircraft.

Steve

 

[hurricane55]

the us used war weary b 17s and 24s as radio controlled "guided bombs". these were called APHRODITE by the usaac and the navy had a different code name for it but i cant remember it right now. a crew would take then off and then bail out shortly after. the drone would be controled by another heavy remotely. they tried to used them as bunker busters at sub pens in the frisian islands and other heavily fortifided places...they generally werent too successful. and yes...this was the mission joe kenedy was on when he died. he was piloting the drone on which prematurely denotated for some reason.

WW II ACE STORIES

I believe the navy's code name was Anvil. You can read more about it in the description.

 

[yulzari]

I saw a TV movie in which the oldest Kennedy brother was the B24 pilot who got killed testing the flying bomb setup. Any truth to this, or is it hype?

Indeed this is quite correct. It was just outside my father's village of Blythburgh and odd bits can still be occasionally found scattered around a wide area.

 

[stona]

I was reading up on the Mistel attacks on the Oder and Elbe bridges and in a communique of 6 March 1945 from Generaloberst von Greim to his staff in Luftflotte 6 found a reference to

"Trials and missions by all other Luftwaffe technical means now under development such as "Wasserballon",the spraying of phosphorous or burning oil etc."

Now the Mistel attacks the bridges and elsewhere against shipping and possibly even bomber formations are well known but does anyone know if the Luftwaffe actually used "Wasserballon".

Cheers

Steve

 

[tyrodtom]

Good question! Obviously the answer depends on the bomb and the hieght it is dropped from. The British Grand slam was carefully engineered and streamlined and went supersonic before impact. I guess a 500lb pound bomb dropped from, say, 3000ft from a dive bomber would not be going that fast but I don't doubt it would be going a damm sight faster than a diving aircraft. Remember, aircraft are designed to generate lift and lift means drag, which in turn means that past a certain point the wings come off, which would kind of spoil the kamikaze pilots aim. Also, a bomb laden plane is a pretty big unit and the energy of the imact is going to be spread over a much larger area. A bomb does not produce lift and is structually much stronger - and much smaller. It stands to reason it's going to have much more penetrative power. Think if it as like being poked with a finger or poked with a needle - only one of them is going to make a hole in you.
Again, I'm open to more knowlegable contradiction, but my understanding is that all the kamikazes did to the British carriers was scorch the paintwork.

Anyone out there got any info on bomb velocities at time of impact? And how fast would a Kamikaze aicraft have been travelling? Not more that 200-300mph max, I'd think.

A A6M2 had a never exceed speed of 410 mph, the later A6M5 had a never exceed speed of close to 450 mph. And any Zero could do well over 200 mph, at sea level, even with the 550lb bomb hung under it.

If you watched war time films of the actual attacks, most attacked from a dive, and i'm sure most of those pilots weren't too concerned with that never exceed speed in their final dive.

 

[kettbo]

but my understanding is that all the kamikazes did to the British carriers was scorch the paintwork.

probably a good candidate for the "WW2 Myth" thread

oh yes, some heavy damage but not apparent right off

Short term, there are advantages to the British Armored Deck, but only if your carrier is being bombed or hit with Kamakizes. Lots of compromises to the ship design to achieve this DEFENSIVE capability such as less offensive power due to smaller air group thus fewer fighters. As an aircraft carrier's goal is to bring air power into an area, seems to me that arriving with 2/3 the planes a USN Carrier carries could be a disadvantage. An advantage, again, once a hit is received of the small RN Air Group is that there less things that can burn are on the ship; fewer planes, less ordnance, and less aviation fuel. Then consider what the RN could have done with more strike capability; Taranto, Matapan, and elsewhere.
Armored Deck does not defend against enemy torpedo planes, however, extra fighters DO.
Lots to think about when designing a warship especially the conflicting requirements of an aircraft carrier.

I have these article in my favorites, shall present it to you for your due consideration. Discusses the LONG TERM outlook for the armored deck carriers, structural deformities rendered nearly all of them UNFIT for postwar service.. Hmmmm, not the case for the USN Carriers. Then there is that lower hanger deck height to consider with the armored deck and the arrival of the larger Jet-powered planes post war. Lots of info and thoughts in these articles very good read too. The 2nd article discusses the Armored Box.

2 articles here

Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile?


edit
another article and stats here

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-042.htm

 

[RCAFson]

probably a good candidate for the "WW2 Myth" thread

Short term, there are advantages to the British Armored Deck, but only if your carrier is being bombed or hit with Kamakizes. Lots of compromises to the ship design to achieve this DEFENSIVE capability such as less offensive power due to smaller air group thus fewer fighters. As an aircraft carrier's goal is to bring air power into an area, seems to me that arriving with 2/3 the planes a USN Carrier carries could be a disadvantage. An advantage, again, once a hit is received of the small RN Air Group is that there less things that can burn are on the ship; fewer planes, less ordnance, and less aviation fuel. Then consider what the RN could have done with more strike capability; Taranto, Matapan, and elsewhere.
Armored Deck does not defend against enemy torpedo planes, however, extra fighters DO.
Lots to think about when designing a warship especially the conflicting requirements of an aircraft carrier.

I have these article in my favorites, shall present it to you for your due consideration. Discusses the LONG TERM outlook for the armored deck carriers, structural deformities rendered nearly all of them UNFIT for postwar service.. Hmmmm, not the case for the USN Carriers. Then there is that lower hanger deck height to consider with the armored deck and the arrival of the larger Jet-powered planes post war. Lots of info and thoughts in these articles very good read too. The 2nd article discusses the Armored Box.



Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile?

Some other articles worth reading:
Armoured flight deck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and an excerpt from the USS Franklin's damage report:

As a result of study of damage sustained by various British carriers prior to our entry into the war, two important departures from traditional U.S. Navy carrier design were incorporated in the CVB Class, then still under development. HMS ILLUSTRIOUS in an action off Malta on 1 January 1941 was hit by several bombs, three of which detonated in the hangar space. Large fires swept fore and aft among parked planes thereby demonstrating the desirability of attempting to confine the limits of such explosions and fires by structural sectionalization of the hangar space. On the CVB Class the hangar was therefore divided into five compartments separated by 40 and 50-pound STS division bulkheads extending from the hangar deck to the flight deck, each fitted with a large door suitable for handling aircraft. It is hoped that this sectionalization, in conjunction with sprinkler and fog foam systems, will effectively prevent fires from spreading throughout the hangar spaces, as occurred on FRANKLIN on 30 October and 19 March. The damage experiences of several British carriers, which unlike our own were fitted with armoured flight decks, demonstrated the effectiveness of such armour in shielding hangar spaces from GP bombs and vital spaces below the hangar deck from SAP bombs. Accordingly, the CVB Class was designed with an armoured flight deck consisting of 3-1/2-inch STS from frames 46 to 175 with a hangar deck consisting of two courses of 40-pound STS between frames 36 and 192. Although none of the CVB Class carriers were completed in time to take part in war operations, the effectiveness of armoured flight decks against Kamikaze attacks was demonstrated by various carriers attached to the British Pacific Fleet. Reference (k) reports two such interesting cases. The VICTORIOUS was struck by three Kamikaze aircraft, two of which ricocheted off the armoured flight deck and over the side, causing no important damage. The third carried a bomb which detonated at frame 30 starboard at the butt of the 3-inch flight deck armour with 1-1/2-inch "D" quality (equivalent to HTS) steel. It does not appear that the Kamikaze actually struck the ship. The bomb detonation, however, depressed the 3-inch deck slightly but did not tear it open. On the other hand, the 1-1/2-inch "D" quality deck plating was ripped open over a total area of about 25 square feet. Two days were required for temporary repairs, at the conclusion of which the ship was fully operational. HMS FORMIDABLE was hit by two bombs, the first of which struck and detonated on the flight deck 9 feet to port of the center-line at frame 79, directly over a deep bent and at a juncture of three armoured plates. The armoured deck was depressed over an area 24 feet long and 20 feet wide. Maximum depression was 15 inches. Adjacent bents spaced 12 feet forward and aft of the point of impact were slightly depressed. A hole 2 square feet in area was blown in the 3-inch deck. Three fragments penetrated downward through the ship into the center boiler room. The damage in this boiler room, which was not described, temporarily reduced speed to 18 knots. The second bomb struck and detonated on the centreline of the flight deck at frame 94. The 3-inch deck and deep bent directly below the point of impact were depressed about 4-1/2 inches and one rivet was knocked out. However, the ship was fully operational within about 5 hours, including flight operations.
Researcher@Large - War Damage Report #56 - CV-13 Franklin

The main armor carried on Enterprise is the heavy armored flight deck. This was to prove a significant factor in the catastrophic fire and explosions that occurred on Enterprise's flight deck in 1969. The US Navy learned its lesson the hard way during World War II when all its carriers had only armored hangar decks. All attack carriers built since the Midway class have had armored flight decks.
Cracknell, W.H, Cmdr USN, Warship Profile 15, USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) Nuclear Attack Carrier, p56

Eadon, Stuart, editor, Kamikaze, The Story of the British Pacific Fleet, Worcester 1991, ISBN 1-872017-23-1, p.338-339: In nine kamikaze strikes "...The Fleet Air Arm suffered...44 personnel killed...By contrast Bunker Hill lost 387 dead in the Kamikaze attack on 11th of May 1945."

US carriers also suffered considerably heavier casualties from kamikaze strikes; for instance, 389 men were killed in one attack on USS Bunker Hill, greater than the combined number of fatal casualties suffered on all six RN armoured carriers from all forms of attack during the entire war. Eight kamikaze hits on five RN carriers resulted in only twenty fatal casualties while a combined total of 15 bomb hits, most of 500 kg weight or greater, and one torpedo hit on 4 carriers caused 193 fatal casualties earlier in the war – striking proof of the protective value of the armoured flight deck
Kamikaze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USS Franklin suffered over 1200 casualties from two 550lb bomb hits, bombs that would have been rejected by an armoured flight deck. Franklin was also dead in the water for over 12 hours after the attack.

The first sentence of the first quote makes it pretty clear that the USN would have adopted armoured flight decks if they had been able to study the beneficial effects of armoured flight decks prior to the Essex class having finished their design stage.

The Essex class displaced 27500 tons (38000 tons full load) and typically carried 90-110 aircraft. The RN's Implacable class displaced 23500 tons (33000 tons full load) and carried 70-80 aircraft. The difference in aircraft carried per ton is pretty minor.

USN Armoured carrier designs that were looked at as alternatives to Essex always featured shorter but fatter hulls, that had the side effect of providing superior torpedo protection.

Illustrious did not use a US style deck park during the Taranto attack, but she could have nearly doubled her strike numbers if she had done so, and this had nothing to do with her armoured flight deck.

AFAIK, the UK was bankrupt after WW2 and many ships, including carriers were scrapped because of lack of money, where the US was flush with cash and could afford to even repair Franklin, although she never saw service again.

 

[stona]

Even I,who knows bugger all about ships,found those articles interesting. Thanks both for the postings.
Steve

 

[JoeB]

Good question! Obviously the answer depends on the bomb and the hieght it is dropped from. The British Grand slam was carefully engineered and streamlined and went supersonic before impact. I guess a 500lb pound bomb dropped from, say, 3000ft from a dive bomber would not be going that fast but I don't doubt it would be going a damm sight faster than a diving aircraft.

Anyone out there got any info on bomb velocities at time of impact? And how fast would a Kamikaze aicraft have been travelling? Not more that 200-300mph max, I'd think.

You can roughly calculate this in a spreadsheet pretty easily with a few inputs. Assume a divebomber has vertical component of velocity 250mph (367fps). Assume the bomb's terminal velocity is 650mph=953fps (might be higher as in example you gave, but not neccessarily for a smaller stubbier bomb, anyway choose any reasonable value you want). In a vacuum the acceleration is 32 fps/s, at terminal it's zero where the air resistance and bomb weight cancel out. Assume the resistance varies as the square of the speed. In the first one second, first row of the spreadsheet, calculation the starting resistance as (367/953)^2 as % of the bomb's weight=14.8%, therefore starting accelaration is 85.2% of 32 or 27.26fps^2 and roughly take that as constant over the 1 sec interval. The bomb speeds up to 393fps in that first second, and don't take that as constant but average it with the starting speed to get 380, travels 380 ft in that first second. Now for the 2nd 1 sec interval recalc the resistance and acceleration starting with 393, and repeat the process for each row of the spreadsheet.

After 5 secs the bomb is going 337mph and has travelled 2100ft, a plausible release altitude for a dive bomber. And with no air resistance it would only be going 359mph and travelled 2200', so the air resistance doesn't even make much difference in this case. But a bomb dropped from low altitude even in a moderate speed dive still won't be going any faster than a fast diving plane with the bomb attached.

I think your 250-300mph though would probably be closer to an average kamikaze a/c speed at impact than the max dive speed of a Zero. But it would vary tremendously. Some 'special attack' a/c were Type 4 Fighters ('Frank'), a few were slow biplanes. And the approach angles varied a lot, but as a rule AFAIK a long steep high speed dive was not a common tactic; a lot of the a/c came in shallow, or entered the terminal dive from fairly low altitude.

These two links give a list of 'special attacks' by IJA and IJN respectively. It's in Japanese but the following quick key should make it mainly readable without knowing Japanese (set view>encoding to 'Japanese autoselect', if your browser doesn't automatically):
—¤ŒR"ÁU
_•—"ÁU'à
First column is date, two digit year of the Showa reign, month, day, 19=1944, 20=1945
The second column is the attacking unit
The third column gives number and type of a/c. The initial number if Arabic is self explanatory, ie 97 or 99 otherwise Chinese numerals零, 一, 二, 三, 四, 百 are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 100, sometimes followed by 式= type, but in any case that number is the year type
Then followed by the kind of plane, examples:
重 heavy (bomber)
双軽 twin light (as in Type 99 Twin Light, 'Lily')
戦 fighter
襲 assault
艦爆 carrier bomber
So on the Army page 四式戦 Type 4 Fighter (Frank), 一式戦 Type 1 Fighter (Oscar), and 99 襲 Type 99 Assault (Sonia) are common, though there are many other types.
On the Navy page older a/c have year types but later ones names, eg.
彗星 Susei (aka Judy)
銀河 Ginga (aka Frances)

Anyway you can copy>past>google those a/c types and a page will generally come up with the English name(s).
After the type is the Arabic number of machines(機) in the attack
So for example among navy attacks, third row, first of the 8 attacks:
19.10.25 「敷 島 隊」 零戦６ 機
Oct 25 1944, Shikishima Unit, 6 Type Zero Fighters; the rows under that date and columns further to the right give the units and a/c composition of the other 7 'special attacks' that day.

Joe

 

[RCAFson]

2 articles here

Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile?


edit
another article and stats here

Kamikaze Damage to US and British Carriers

The first article, above, states:

We also have to be very careful when looking at apparent ship histories in the 1945 - 1955 period. There is a lot of statistical deceit used here (Eric Grove in "Vanguard to Trident" makes an eye-opening read). Ships that were apparently in good condition and in service were actually laid up or otherwise non-operational. Illustrious is a good example. Her Ship's Cover is quite clear that she had never recovered from the damage she'd taken in WW2 and was limited to around 22 knots for all practical purposes. That's why she was used for experimental purposes - she wasn't much use for anything else. Indomitable is another example of statistical deceit. After her 1950 gasoline explosion (shortly after she finished her refit), she was completely useless and had to be towed to Spithead for the Coronation Review. As soon as that was over, she went to the breakers...

Starting with the Forrestal class, the size of the carriers meant that stress requirements forced the abandonment of the external hangar and hangar deck as strength deck concepts. A shallow hull of that size is a design impracticality. In the Forrestal and after, the flight deck is the strength deck, protection considerations had no influence whatsoever on the flight deck design. In fact, these carriers do not have armored flight decks. By the way, there is a construction trick that allows the Forrestal and later carriers to have their flight decks as strength decks and deck edge lifts without compromising hull strength. That trick is still highly classified.

This is complete balderdash! It states that Illustrious was limited to 22 knots, post war while Indomitable had to be towed to Spithead.

USS Forrestal and all US CVs from Midway onward have armoured flight decks! This article is a complete fraud and the authors obviously don't know what the heck they are talking about!!!
Illustrious:

After the war, she was given the role of a training and trials ship, and she continued to be plagued by vibration problems which were partially cured by new propeller designs. In 1946, she had a new five-bladed propeller fitted to the centre shaft.[4] She was refitted and modernised from January to August 1948, and made 29 knots (54 km/h; 33 mph) on trials with 110,600 shp at 227.5 rpm. In 1950, on full power trials, she made 29.2 knots (54.1 km/h; 33.6 mph) with 111,480 shp at 225.1 rpm.[4] She was decommissioned at the end of 1954, sold on 3 November 1956, and finally, after a successful career, scrapped at Faslane.
HMS Illustrious (87) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indomitable:

The Indomitable returned to the UK in November 1945. The following year she carried the Great Britain national rugby league team to Australia on their first post-war tour, earning the team the nickname, 'The Indomitables'. In 1947, she was placed in reserve, and then given a refit that took three years, from 1947 to 1950. Late in her refit her boilers were discovered to have only 10 years of life, and the engine spaces had to be torn apart and rebuilt to replace the boilers. Upon the completion of her refit she returned to operational duty with the Home Fleet in far cooler climates than her wartime operations. On 3 February 1953, she was badly damaged by an internal fire and explosion; the damage was later covered in concrete, and was never repaired. She sailed to Elizabeth II's Coronation Review, then did deck landings in the channel, with experimental landing lights replacing the batman. She returned to the reserve fleet. In October 1953 she was placed in unmaintained reserve. She was sold for scrap in 1955.
HMS Indomitable (92) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forrestal:

Survivability Enhancements Based on World War II Experience
Several survivability features recommended by the Navy's World War Two
damage reports were incorporated in Forrestal. Forrestal was built with an armored
flight deck, constructed of thick, high-strength steel. World War Two experiences
showed that this would decrease the amount of structural damage sustained in interior
compartments from explosions or fires on the flight deck.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA429103&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

It is pretty incredible that the article Were Armored Flight Decks on British Carriers Worthwhile?remains on the web, as parts of it seem to be completely fictional!

 

[oldcrowcv63]

apropos the topic thread: Found this on Miss Hannah's Wikipedia page following a hot link from the Eric Brown's page:

During the winter of 1943-44 she was assigned to the development of suicide aircraft and, under the command of SS-Obersturmbannführer Otto Skorzeny, was the first founding member of the SS-Selbstopferkommando Leonidas (Leonidas Squadron). This project, in which the pilots flew manned bombs and died during the mission, similarly to the later use of Tokkōtai ("Kamikaze") by the Japanese, was proposed by Hitler on 28 February 1944. It is probable that the idea originated with Reitsch during her testing of the Messerschmitt Me 163 in 1942:[citation needed] she was the first to volunteer for the newly formed unit. The programme met with considerable resistance from the Luftwaffe high command and was never activated: even Hitler was initially reluctant to accept its use. The unit was disbanded one year later.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

USS Forrestal and all US CVs from Midway onward have armoured flight decks! This article is a complete fraud and the authors obviously don't know what the heck they are talking about!!!!

100% correct. I knew people who served on the Forrestal (one during the fire) and it was a known fact the flight deck was armored. There were even jokes about this after the fire.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It would have been very difficult to find a decent amount of German pilots with the sole purpose of doing suicide missions. It is just not in the German culture.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

100% correct. I knew people who served on the Forrestal (one during the fire) and it was a known fact the flight deck was armored. There were even jokes about this after the fire.

My class officer had half his face scarred by the Forrestal fire. He was a RIO about to climb into an F-4 fairly aft in the pack near the rounddown. According to him, a nearby member of the deck crew, a Chief Petty Office saw him garbed in his survival gear including his inflatable life vest and tackled him taking them both over the side into the water. They were picked up out of the water by the plane guard. He claimed the CPO's rapid thinking and action saved both their lives.

 

[CobberKane]

A A6M2 had a never exceed speed of 410 mph, the later A6M5 had a never exceed speed of close to 450 mph. And any Zero could do well over 200 mph, at sea level, even with the 550lb bomb hung under it.

If you watched war time films of the actual attacks, most attacked from a dive, and i'm sure most of those pilots weren't too concerned with that never exceed speed in their final dive.

I suspect these dive figures apply to the Zero operating at its ideal altitude, as is often the case with figures cited for maximum speed. If any Zero, with its light weight and low wing-loading, got close to these velocities at sea level about the only thing the pilot could be confident of hitting would be the Pacific Ocean in general. Likewise, all the footage I have seen of Kamikaze attacks involved the aircraft approaching at a shallow angle and none of them appeared to be travelling at anything like 400 mph plus.
A bomb hits at higher speed and penetrates further before exploding. A Kamikaze has one advantage only – it's guidance system

 

[tyrodtom]

No aircraft ( except maybe a Swordfish) has to be in a vertical dive to exceed it's never exceed speed, without dive brakes speed is going to build up quick even in a 30 degree dive.

It's pretty hard to judge speed from a film taken from a distance, especially over water there's nothing to judge it by. Plus a lot of that combat film is shown in slow motion.

Even though they were mostly inexperienced pilots, they'd have to realize the faster they went, the faster they got thru the flak, the less time they were exposed to the danger of AA fire. Their only defense was speed .

There is a picture of a Judy coming in with it's dive brakes out, but it's hard to tell the degree of the dive from the picture.

If they could have co-ordinated multiple attacks from different angles at the same time, they probably would have made more strikes. But the intercepting fighters usually has the surviving Kamakazi in such chaos, they had no chance to co-ordinate.

 

[VBF-13]

A A6M2 had a never exceed speed of 410 mph, the later A6M5 had a never exceed speed of close to 450 mph. And any Zero could do well over 200 mph, at sea level, even with the 550lb bomb hung under it.

If you watched war time films of the actual attacks, most attacked from a dive, and i'm sure most of those pilots weren't too concerned with that never exceed speed in their final dive.

They come in too hot in those Zeroes and they risk tearing off the wings and going spinning into the ocean. Another reason they want to keep their dive-speeds under control is they want to hit their targets. I've heard of both fates, the aircraft coming apart from the stress of the dives, and just plum missing their targets. I think the good success rate the kamikazes enjoyed had more to do with the vast numbers that were launched than anything else. I wonder if any empirical data survived on those numbers. I know how many got through, but not how many tried.

 

[kettbo]

More on the RN and USN Carriers....lots more

Critique of Slade and Worth's articles:Were Armored Flight.. in Aircraft Carriers Forum

 

[tyrodtom]

They come in too hot in those Zeroes and they risk tearing off the wings and going spinning into the ocean. Another reason they want to keep their dive-speeds under control is they want to hit their targets. I've heard of both fates, the aircraft coming apart from the stress of the dives, and just plum missing their targets. I think the good success rate the kamikazes enjoyed had more to do with the vast numbers that were launched than anything else. I wonder if any empirical data survived on those numbers. I know how many got through, but not how many tried.

With about every gun in the fleet putting rounds in the air, how could anybody venture a guess that a diving fighter had structural failure?