Banzai!: General discussion of the Kamikaze and Ramming

[stona]

Don't be too illusioned about controls "locking up," a low time pilot can be taught to stay out of Vne and maintain control of his aircraft, this is not that hard and can easily be demonstrated during initial training.

This is pure conjecture but would an inexperienced,relatively untrained,kamikaze pilot ever have flown in a situation in which the "normal" controls became ineffective?
If the first time he ever found that he could not manoeuvre using,for example,his ailerons was his last dive onto a US warship I very much doubt that he would be able to make adjustments in other ways. This would explain the warning in the "Kamikaze manual" about diving too fast.
Cheers
Steve

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This is pure conjecture but would an inexperienced,relatively untrained,kamikaze pilot ever have flown in a situation in which the "normal" controls became ineffective?

I am a flight instructor and although it's no longer required in the private pilot's practical test standards I spin my students. I do this so they understand the spin/ stall relationship at slow speeds, but so they also can feel what the controls feel like when the aircraft loads up and starts taking on g forces. This is also shown during "upset maneuver recovery," again at a primary stage of flying before solo.

If the first time he ever found that he could not manoeuvre using,for example,his ailerons was his last dive onto a US warship I very much doubt that he would be able to make adjustments in other ways. This would explain the warning in the "Kamikaze manual" about diving too fast.
Cheers
Steve

Wrong - it is easily taught the relationship between the controls and using trim to keep loads off the stick during flight. At 15 or 20 hours I could see a Kamikaze student perfectly capable of understanding this and I think the end results history has shown us speaks for itself!

 

[tyrodtom]

I think more need to read that Hyperwar article, it quotes the Kamakaze training manual, which several times points out the need to ensure high momentum on impact.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think more need to read that Hyperwar article, it quotes the Kamakaze training manual, which several times points out the need to ensure high momentum on impact.

It also points out some of the information will vary with aircraft. In the end the aircraft flight manual should be the document followed to complete the mission.

Going full circle here - getting a 15 hour pilot trained to fly a Zero into a ship at close to Vne is and was very do-able.

 

[VBF-13]

Do know what Vne is? If you exceed Vne you can and will start bending the aircraft and eventually it will come apart!!! The Zero, like many other aircraft can have it's Vne speed exceeded in a terminal dive. As stated, the Zero's AILERONS become stiff and unresponsive at high speed but one can still control flight with elevator trim and rudder. Again if the aircraft is allowed to come apart BEFORE reaching the target, the whole mission is a failure - that simple!

True enough.

Don't be too illusioned about controls "locking up," a low time pilot can be taught to stay out of Vne and maintain control of his aircraft, this is not that hard and can easily be demonstrated during initial training.

I had a blind spot, there, too. Good.

An aggressive flight training syllabus with the right student can have one soloing in about 7 hours. If you blow off the normal pattern work and concentrate on take offs and landings, the transition to a higher performing aircraft is very doable, especially if the initial training is done in a higher performing training aircraft to begin with.

Another one of my blind spots bites the dust. This is becoming a habit.

I am a flight instructor and although it's no longer required in the private pilot's practical test standards I spin my students. I do this so they understand the spin/ stall relationship at slow speeds, but so they also can feel what the controls feel like when the aircraft loads up and starts taking on g forces. This is also shown during "upset maneuver recovery," again at a primary stage of flying before solo.

Wrong - it is easily taught the relationship between the controls and using trim to keep loads off the stick during flight. At 15 or 20 hours I could see a Kamikaze student perfectly capable of understanding this and I think the end results history has shown us speaks for itself!

It also points out some of the information will vary with aircraft. In the end the aircraft flight manual should be the document followed to complete the mission.

Going full circle here - getting a 15 hour pilot trained to fly a Zero into a ship at close to Vne is and was very do-able.

Taking these last two together, I can say those pilots had the basic skills. This is what would occur to me, though. When the moment of truth is still at a distance, that's one thing. When it arrives, that's another thing. And this is the ultimate moment of truth. And, they're flying into the sights and sounds of enemy guns.

Call it speculation, but do some of those young boys freeze-up, lost their heads? This isn't a video game. They know they're not going to walk away from this one. Do they all of the sudden "snap" and forget all that good training? It happens to even the best-trained of pilots, and they're not even flying suicide missions.

I'm saying, skill-set conceded, now let's factor in the psychological/emotional factor. That makes me still think those reports I've heard over the years of some of those aircraft cracking up or those young pilots otherwise simply blowing their targets is plausible.

I'll give the critics this much, for sure. We'll never know for sure. Maybe that's just where we have to leave it.

 

[tyrodtom]

When you watch the movies made of the attacks, you'll see several aircraft coming down in pieces, and some that impact the water far away from any possible target.

But there's no way we'll ever know what brought on the structual failure, flight stress alone, or AA damage, or both?

And the ones that miss, dead or badly wounded pilots, or just out of control ?

 

[VBF-13]

When you watch the movies made of the attacks, you'll see several aircraft coming down in pieces, and some that impact the water far away from any possible target.

But there's no way we'll ever know what brought on the structual failure, flight stress alone, or AA damage, or both?

And the ones that miss, dead or badly wounded pilots, or just out of control ?

Yes. I think we took this one as far as we can go.

I'm still wondering how many kamikaze pilots there were. If there's a creditable source on that, I mean...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Taking these last two together, I can say those pilots had the basic skills. This is what would occur to me, though. When the moment of truth is still at a distance, that's one thing. When it arrives, that's another thing. And this is the ultimate moment of truth. And, they're flying into the sights and sounds of enemy guns.

Call it speculation, but do some of those young boys freeze-up, lost their heads? This isn't a video game. They know they're not going to walk away from this one. Do they all of the sudden "snap" and forget all that good training? It happens to even the best-trained of pilots, and they're not even flying suicide missions.

I'm saying, skill-set conceded, now let's factor in the psychological/emotional factor. That makes me still think those reports I've heard over the years of some of those aircraft cracking up or those young pilots otherwise simply blowing their targets is plausible.

I'll give the critics this much, for sure. We'll never know for sure. Maybe that's just where we have to leave it.

Agree with everything you say - we can discuss all day what is actually do-able and it's a whole different story in combat. One also has to consider what is happening to pilot and aircraft during the attack (damage to aircraft, pilot being wounded and killed, etc.) and final result will vary with pilot - to - pilot, training and mindset to complete this mission

When you watch the movies made of the attacks, you'll see several aircraft coming down in pieces, and some that impact the water far away from any possible target.

But there's no way we'll ever know what brought on the structual failure, flight stress alone, or AA damage, or both?

And the ones that miss, dead or badly wounded pilots, or just out of control ?

Just as mentioned above - we don't know if those aircraft broke apart by flack, a dying pilot's death grip causing structural damage or a combination of both. I think the point here is history shows us that Japan did manage to take minimally trained pilots and have them fly into heavily defended military targets. Amazingly we saw another aspect of this occur during 911 against civilian targets (not to go off subject).

 

[CobberKane]

Do know what Vne is? If you exceed Vne you can and will start bending the aircraft and eventually it will come apart!!! The Zero, like many other aircraft can have it's Vne speed exceeded in a terminal dive. As stated, the Zero's AILERONS become stiff and unresponsive at high speed but one can still control flight with elevator trim and rudder. Again if the aircraft is allowed to come apart BEFORE reaching the target, the whole mission is a failure - that simple!

Again, I'll refer back to the Kamikaze training manual: "Beware of over-speeding and a too-steep angle of dive that will MAKE THE CONTROLS HARDER TO RESPOND TO YOUR TOUCH". (my capitals, sorry to shout!)

My point here is that the manual explicitly identifies loss lack of responsiveness from the control surfaces as the primary limiting factor on airspeed while conducting the attack. It does not say "Beware of over-speeding and a too-steep angle of dive that will cause the aircraft to come apart in the air". Nor does it say "Any speed up to the aircraft's Vne is fine; you'll lose some Aileron response but the elevators and rudder will givbe you enough control to do the job"

Of course any aircraft can come apart if the speed is too great. So would a brick. My point is that the manual clearly identifies deteriorating effectiveness of the control surfaces as the limiting factor, not Vne.

 

[tyrodtom]

The manual was meant for use by ALL Kamikaze, not just those flying the Zero.
The Zero's ailerons did become stiff at high speeds, but the elevators were so effective that they built stretch into the control cables to keep the pilot from overcontrolling at high speeds.
How did the Ki-43 handle at high speed? The Judy? Or any of the many other aircraft ,even a few trainer biplanes, handle during a high speed dive. Not all would experience controls getting very difficult during dives. Not all would have the same handling characteristics.
It was just a generic manual, with general guidelines only.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Again, I'll refer back to the Kamikaze training manual: "Beware of over-speeding and a too-steep angle of dive that will MAKE THE CONTROLS HARDER TO RESPOND TO YOUR TOUCH". (my capitals, sorry to shout!)

My point here is that the manual explicitly identifies loss lack of responsiveness from the control surfaces as the primary limiting factor on airspeed while conducting the attack. It does not say "Beware of over-speeding and a too-steep angle of dive that will cause the aircraft to come apart in the air". Nor does it say "Any speed up to the aircraft's Vne is fine; you'll lose some Aileron response but the elevators and rudder will givbe you enough control to do the job"

Of course any aircraft can come apart if the speed is too great. So would a brick. My point is that the manual clearly identifies deteriorating effectiveness of the control surfaces as the limiting factor, not Vne.

See above post

It was just a generic manual, with general guidelines only.

The flight manual, pilot's notes, POH, -1, what ever you want to call it in any language ALWAYS TAKES PRESIDENCE OVER ANY TACTICS OR OPERATIONS MANUAL!!!!

 

[RCAFson]

I found this at Scribd.

Reilly, Kamikaze Attacks of World War II

 

[VBF-13]

Now that's interesting, RCF. Look at those starting angles. Even the steeper "diving attack" starting angle, 32-35 degrees, was just better than half that in the SBDs. Even fighters that weren't as equipped for dive-bombing as such started at much steeper angles than 32-35 degrees when they were called upon to dive-bomb.

But, this wasn't dive-bombing, was it? It was collision-bombing. And, those instructions laid out that difference well.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Good info and interesting what the speeds show, nothing close to Vne but a lot of that will go out the window as the pilot will more than likely figure out desent and dive angles based on an artificial horizon, point the sitck down and aim.

 

[CobberKane]

Thanks RCF, nice research.
Way back in this thread I think I guestimated the imact speed of an aircraft like the Zero at 200-300 mph (320-480kph) - my reading of this chart is that a fighter should be travelling at 450kph (270 mph) at time of impact, so I wasn't too far off. FlyboyJ, I'm sure you're right that in the heat of battle many pilots would have forgotten this advice, and the advice of the previously quoted manual, and just nailed the throttle. Some few of them may have even hit the target. But this stuff about zeros (which along with the Ki 43 were pobably about the least 'dive-able' fighters the japanese had) preferentially going into ships at 415mph (650k!) plus just doesn't wash. Maybe the odd lucky (if that's the word) kamikaze pilot might have fluked it but the stated best option was to limit speed and retain controlability. The manual states it. RCF's chart gives the recommended speed. The text states that the japanese gave great consideration as to how these attacks should be executed. Kamikaze fighters = 270 mph at impact.

 

[stona]

Thanks for that,very interesting. It's always good to have some solid evidence.
Cheers
Steve

 

[tyrodtom]

The manual was probably meant for the newbies, they probably got that manual out after the experienced flyers were gone so it was geared to the inexperienced pilot.
One expression I can remember from a instructor is " you're behind the airplane", in other words you're putting in a correction too late, it a common problem with new flyers, and the faster the aircraft, the greater the problem can be.
IMO they were limiting airspeed because of the pilots, not the aircraft.

Though in a Ki-43's case that might be a valid reason. I've seen a interview on U-Tube with a ex Ki-43 pilot, he said it shook at high speed in level flight, so i'd guess it was not a good diver. The IJA used a lot of Ki-43 for Kamikaze.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

One expression I can remember from a instructor is " you're behind the airplane", in other words you're putting in a correction too late, it a common problem with new flyers, and the faster the aircraft, the greater the problem can be.

Not only correction but configuration of the aircraft - for example being at a certain airspeed when entering the pattern so you can get the gear and/or flaps down, remaining in cruise when you're almost on top of your destination, etc.

 

[VBF-13]

FlyboyJ, I'm sure you're right that in the heat of battle many pilots would have forgotten this advice, and the advice of the previously quoted manual, and just nailed the throttle. Some few of them may have even hit the target.

It's just figuring in the impact of the "human element" at that moment of truth for especially those younger, less-experienced pilots.

The manual was probably meant for the newbies, they probably got that manual out after the experienced flyers were gone so it was geared to the inexperienced pilot.

I think so. Those starting angles, even for the "dive attack," are more swoop than dive. Yet you see the film on these Kamikaze attacks and many of those pilots are coming in at truer dive angles. That would suggest these shallower starting angles were intended for the less-experienced pilots who probably couldn't handle the aircraft at those steeper dive angles.

 

[steve51]

VBF-13,
According to the book, " Kamikazes, Corsairs, and Picket Ships" , at Okinawa the Japanese flew 2750 kamikaze sorties and over 3700 conventional sorties.